Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/1989 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: April 28, 1989 1. Attached is registration information for the upcoming League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference, June 6-9 in Minneapolis. The Mini-Conference is held on June Sth. There is an early registration discount if postmarked by May 15th. Please let Jeanette know by May loth if you are interested in attending. 2. The Baseball/Softball Shakopee Youth organization has applied for renewal of their gambling license (pull-tabs) at Cheers 2 Ya. They do meet the requirements of the City Code. 3. Attached is the calendar for the month of May. 4. Attached is a memo and brochure from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalites entitled "Property Tax Impact Made Understandable". 5. Attached is a letter and brochure from the Regional Transit Board regarding Light Rail Transit. 6. Attached is an invitation from Minnesota Good Roads, Inc. to a presentation/luncheon by the Mn/DOT District 5 staff on its 20-year plan. 7. Attached is a memorandum from Dave Hutton regarding the Upper Valley Drainge Project. S. Attached is the May Business Update from City Hall. 9. Attached are the agendas for the May 4, 1989 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 10. Attached are the minutes of the April 20, 1989 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 11. Attached are the minutes of the March 15, 1989 meeting of the Energy and Transportation Committee. DRK/jms 183 University Ave.East St.Paul,MN 55101-2526 League of Minnesota Cities (612)227.5600(FAX:221.0986) April 13, 1989 To: Mayor ,. Managers, Clerks From: Jam cheibel, President, League of Minnesota Cities President, St. Paul City Council Subj : ^The 1990's and Beyond: The Future of Minnesota Cities- On behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities, I invite you and your city's officials to attend the League's 1989 Annual Conference. The conference is June 6-9 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Minneapolis. The League's Conference Planning Committee has put together another outstanding program this year, with sessions for everyone. From financial help for small cities to solid waste management--from what cities need to know about Section 89 to truth in taxation, the conference was planned with city officials in mind. Three noted futurists will open the conference and provide insight into what lies ahead for cities--Earl Joseph, Arthur Harkins, and Li Broberg. William Freund, Chief Economist Emeritus, New York Stock Exchange, our Wednesday general session speaker, will address the state of the economy and how it will affect our cities. Terry Goddard, Mayor of Phoenix and President of the National League of Cities will address the Mayors/Mini Conference Luncheon on issues facing our cities today. Bruce Laingen, who was held hostage when he was charge d' affaires of the Embassy in Tehran, will present the finale general session. Laingen, executive director of the National Commission on Public Service, will discuss the need of attracting and maintaining high caliber people to public service. The City of Minneapolis is going all out to make certain you and your family enjoy your time in their city. City Night promises fun for all with entertainment by the Renaissance Festival players. Take a tour of the Metrodome or a riverboat tour. Jog with the Council or visit the Sculpture Gardens and Walker Art Center. And there's much more. You'll find detailed descriptions of all sessions and activities in the April and May issues of Minnesota Cities and in the enclosed materials. We sincerely hope you will SIGN UP NOW. Program Schedule All conference events are in the Minneapolis Hyatt Regency Hotel unless indicated. Tuesday, June 6 LMC Board of Directors Meeting Break 1:30-4:00 p.m. 10:15- 10:30 a.m. LMC Conference Planning Committee Nominating Committee Meeting 10:30 a.m. -3:00 p.m. 4:00.5:00 p.m. Concurrent Sessions I (Choose one) Special Kickoff 10:30- 11:45 a.m. 6:30. 10:30 p.m. LEADERSHIP FOR THE FUTURE A Hot Time Downtown Tonight" The City of Minneapolis is making arrangements at Roles/COmmtn)ication—CounCll, Commissions, various restaurants and dubs for a special discounted dimer Staff and entertainment package for conference attendees. (See (Sponsored by Minnesota Women m City Government) Family and Special Activities Program for details.) (Sponsored session will provide an overview and case studies from small, medium, and large cities. • Purpose of communications Wednesday, June 7 • Role of various parties • Types of communications • Appropriate use of communication type in each Exhibits Open relationship 8:00 a.m. -5:30 p.m. • Public communication • Long-term effects of good communication Welcome/Opening Session MANAGING THE EMPLOYEE OF THE FUTURE Comp Worth—How to Maintain Job Evaluation 9:00- 10:15 a.m. and Job Salary Programs "Discovering the Fuhrre of Minnesota cities" A panel of three futurists kook ahead to the next decade. • Overview of pay equity law • Earl Joseph, President, Anticipatory Sciences • Update on the 1989 session (current legal guidelines) Incorporated •Aggregate information on 1) process Minnesota cities • Arthur Harkins, Director, Graduate Concentration in have used. 2) impact of pay equity on municipal finances, Anticipatory Anthropology and Education, University of and 3) law's success in achieving pay equity for femwle- Minnesota dominated jobs • Li Rank Broberg, President, Greenfield Associates; • Case studies from small, medium, and large cities will Director, Office of Emerging Issues, U.S. West/North- address success in implementing pay plan, the next step western Beg in the process and how compensation fits in 9 April 1989 CHALLENGE FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW CHALLENGES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW Truth m Taxation Compensating Communities for Hosting Regional • Methods for complying with the law Facilities • How to complete the budget earlier and project expenses • Overview of the problem for the coming year • Compensation altematives/possible tradeoffs • How to plan ahead for future years in figuring personnel • Case studies featuring different types of facilities such as costs (salary negotiations, union contracts, benefits) parks, incinerators, mass burning sites, and correctional • How to prepare for emergencies and necessary expendi- facilities tures occurring between the completion date of proposed budget and the final levy certification date LMC LEGISLATIVE TRACK • Legislative changes in the 1989 session General Legislation Policy Committee • Impact on cities—cost • How counties are going to calculate and comply Content depends on the outcome of the 1989 session. LMC LEGISLATIVE TRACK Development Policy Committee Break Content depends on the outcome of the 1989 session. 3:30-3:40 p.m. Exhibitors' Lunch Concurrent Sessions III 11:45 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (Choose one) 3:40-4:40 p.m. General Session LEADERSHIP FOR THE FUTURE 1:15-2:15 p.m. City Management: Past, Present, and Future A national news correspondent will be the general session speaker. See detailed information in the May issue of (Sponsored by Minnesota City Management Association) Minnesota Cities. • Past: brief background of city management profession; and description of"old line" city manager • Present: role of city manager and relationship with city Concurrent Sessions II council (Choose one) • Future: managing challenges; changing resources and (Ch(Ch o 3:3o e) technology;and changing relationships with other govem- ment units LEADERSHIP FOR THE FUTURE MANAGING THE EMPLOYEE OF THE FUTURE Ethics in City Government Employee Benefits—Case Studies • What's currently in place: adopting a code;issues (includ- ing controversies) to work through; review of a city- • plans adopted code • Cafeteria plans •The new model—MAUMA/MAMA Ethics Project: why • Retirees they undertook the project; process involved; and out- CHALLENGES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW come—publication outlining a model municipal code of ethics Tax Increment Financing: Uses and Abuses • 1989 legislation • Accomplishments to date through tax increment financing MANAGING THE EMPLOYEE OF THE FUTURE • Problems encountered m the past—various perspectives • Legislative and practical actions addressing these Overview of Employee Benefit Trends concerns • Commonalities in health benefits • Other types of benefits • Regulations • Costs 10 Minnesota Cities 1 LMC LEGISLATIVE TRACK CHALLENGES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW Election Policy Committee Solid Waste Management Content depends on the outcome of the 1989 session. • Overview of issues • Governor's task force findings • Legislative results "Wine Down" • Elements of effective programs • Examples of successful city programs Reception in exhibit area 4:40 p.m.-5:30 p.m. LMC LEGISLATIVE TRACK Revenue Sources Policy Committee City Night Renaissance Festival Content depends on the outcome of the 1989 session. Nicollet Island 6:30 p.m. Break 10:30- 10:45 a.m. Thursday, June 8 Concurrent Sessions V (Choose one) Exhibits open 10:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. 8:00 a.m. -4:00 p.m. LEADERSHIP FOR THE FUTURE (Coffee available in exhibit area) Collaborative Planning and Partnerships • Role, definition, purpose Concurrent Sessions IV • Elements of collaborative effort, i.e. need and timing, leadership, empowerment, etc. (Choose one) • Examples of efforts 9:00- 10:30 a.m. • Benefits LEADERSHIP FOR THE FUTURE MANAGING THE EMPLOYEE OF THE FUTURE Strategic or Long-Range Planning Changing Values and Employee Motivation • Case studies illustrating short-term and long-term • Different forces for workers of different ages strategies • How to counter employee dissatisfaction • Pitfalls and ways to avoid them • Informal feedback to build satisfaction • Results: what really happens once the plan is • Performance planting implemented • Employee recognition programs • Quality circles MANAGING THE EMPLOYEE OF THE FUTURE Sexual and Racial Harassment MANAGING THE EMPLOYEE OF THE FUTURE • What constitutes harassment—pervasiveness: legal prec- What Cities Need to Know About Section 89 edents and city liability • Purpose and intent of the law • Preventing harassment—internal methods to eliminate or • Guidelines decrease harassment guidelines; corrective action • Summary of requirements • Benefit plans that must comply • Where cities are now •What cities need to know in the future April 1989 11 CHALLENGES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW LMC LEGISLATIVE TRACK Providing Police Protection for Small Cities Land Use, Energy, Environment, and • Options to consider: city helping another city; county Transportation Policy Committee providing services and sheriff; consortium; and Police Content depends on the outcome of the 1989 session. Officers Standards and Training(POST) Board • Key factors to consider before choosing: how much protection is necessary; budget constraints; liabilities: League Annual Meeting supervision; and licensing gil 3:45-5:00 p.m. Mayors' Association/Mini-Conference Luncheon LMC Reception and Banquet 12:30-2:00 p.m. 6:30- 10:00 p.m. Terry Goddard, President, National League of Cities; Mayor, Phoenix, Arizona Friday, June 9 Concurrent Sessions VI (Choose one) 2:15-3:30 p.m. Beverage and rolls LEADERSHIP FOR THE FUTURE 8:30. 9:15 a.m. Taking Leadership to Avoid Liability (LMCM • News from LMCIT Finale General Session • Recent and perspective changes in rates, services, cov- erages, and dividends 9:30- 11:00 a.m. • Parks and playgrounds loss control methods—how. to "Meeting the Challenge of Public Servke,' inspect, what to look for, records to keep, preventative Bruce Laingen, Executive Director, National Commis- measures sion on Public Service ■ MANAGING THE EMPLOYEE OF THE FUTURE Employee Discipline and Termination • Legal considerations • Alternatives to dismissal • Employee rights • Procedural aspects ' Relationship with union/business agents i CHALLENGES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW Financial Health for Small Cities • A look at the future economy • Survival issues: dealing with a lower tax base; competing with larger cities; and lowering costs for service • Expanding sources of revenue; tax receipts, user fees, grants, interest and investment income; and improving management of financial resources 12 Minnesota Cities i Family and special activities program Tuesday, June 6 - Welcome to Minneapolis Family and special activities programs registration form "A Hot Time Downtown Tonight" Reservations for Sculpture Garden/Walker Art Center, 6:30.10:30 p.m. June 7 Minneapolis has become known nationally for its cultural Number and entertainment events. hi addition to professional sports Reservations for Metrodome Tour,June 7 and theater, it is also home to comedy dubs, cabarets, and Number other night spots. For opening night, the city has made special arrange- 2 pro ments with a number of dubs so that everyone can have a —C 3 pm "Hot Time Downtown Tonight." —@ 4 pm The Fine Line Music Club is booking a special band for Reservations for "Shopping"Tour,June 8 the evening and an entertainment package featuring the Number— clubs and restaurants of Riverplace is in the planning stages. Admission fees have been waived for conference attendees. Reservations for Convention Center Tour,June 8 We'll add additional dubs and restaurants before June, and Number send specific information to all who register for the —(at 1 pm conference. —� 2 pm Throughout the conference,anyone who wishes can drop —® 3 pm by either Joke Box Saturday Night or the Pacific Club (m 4 pm the renovated Lumber Exchange) without admission charge—just show your conference badge. Reservations for Anson Northrup Riverboat Tour, June 9 Wednesday, June 7 - Host City Night Number _ —@ $7.50/ adults -- "An Evening on Nicollet Island" $6.50/seniors =- 6:30.9:30 p.m. —Cst $5.00/children For this evening, city officials will be transported back in Total enclosed time to the 1500s, courtesy of the Renaissance Festival. Name(s): Present will be many of the acts, musicians, jugglers, "village" players and 'royalty" from the Renaissance Address: Festival which over 250,000 people enjoy annually in City: Shakopee. The evening will include the acts from the festival, interact with the players, and the foods of the Daytime telephone#: a.c. festival. The site will be the restored pavilion on lower Nicollet Phone(612) 348-6534 for more information. Please Island.This site is a part of the Central Rivertront Regional send reservation form and payment to: Park in the heart of the city. In addition to the Renaissance William Barnhart Festival, people wig be able to stroll across a restored 325M City Hall century-old bridge to the shops and entertainment of 350 South 5th Street Riverplace and St. Anthony Main. Minneapolis, MN 55415 Deadline is May 5, 1989. Make checks payable to: City of Minneapolis. April 1989 13 Wednesday, June 7 and Thursday, Thursday, June 8 June 8 "Shopping" Tour of Downtown Minneapolis Jogging with the Council 9:00-12:00 noon 7:00-7:45 a.m. Downtown Minneapolis is fifth in the nation in terns of Minneapolis is famous for its park system. The Hyatt retail sales for a downtown. The Nicollet Mal] is the main Regency Hotel is located in Loring Park with connections shopping street in downtown and is the home of Dayton's, to the Guthrie/Walker area and the chain of lakes. the Conservatory, and City Center with Carson Pirie Scott Each morning at 7:00 a.m., a member of the Minneapolis and numerous other shops. In August, Saks Fifth Avenue City Council (Steve Cramer and Joan Niemiec) will lead a with 60 shops and a Gavildae Common will open. group of joggers. There will be a short course and a long The downtown council will host this "tour.' It will begin course in the yet mapened Gavidae Common; proceed through City Center, Dayton's, and the Conservatory; and end up Wednesday, June 7 at the lust opened Ralph Lauren Polo Shop. Those who Yr wish can then tow the Timberwolves arena (just three blocks away) which is under construction. Sculpture Gardens/Walker Art Center Although there is no fee, pre-registration is requested- 9:00-12:00 noon The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board opened the Thursday, June 8 Sculpture Gardens in the fall of 1988 and they have become a leading tourist attraction. The gardens are located across Minneapolis Convention Center the roadway from Loring Park in the same area as the Walker Art Center and the Guthrie Theater. 1:004:00 p.m. The park board will host a reception in the Sulptwe The Minneapolis Convention Center is the largest single Gardens after which tours of the Walker Art Center will be public works building in Mumesota history. It is also a available. project which will be of benefit to the entire state. Phase I Transportation will be available from the hotel, but for will open only days before the LMC Conference. those walking a "guide" will lead the walk through Loring This tow, about 45 minutes in length, will go through Park and over the Irene Hixon Whitney Pedestrian Bridge both the open phase I and phases H and III which are under (distance about six city blocks). construction. The center is within walking distance of the Fees have been waived at the Walker Art Center, but hotel(less than two blocks). pre-registration is needed for tows. Although there is no fee, pre-registration is required. Wednesday, June 7 Friday, June 9 Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome Anson Northrop Riverboat Tour 2:00.4:00 p.m. 9:30-12:00 noon The Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome is the home of The Central Riverfront is the birthplace of Minneapolis. the Minnesota Twins, and the Minnesota Vikings, the A new excursion boat, the Anson Northrup, makes it University of Minnesota Golden Gophers football team and possible to view this area on a 90-minute narrated ride. was the site of the 1987 World Series. This tow in addition The ride leaves from Boom Island and goes under the new to the areas which are normally accessible, will include the Hennepin Avenue Bridge, past the Mill District, through playing field, the press box, a private box, and the Gophers the St. Anthony Lock, under the James J. Hill Stone Arch football locker room. Bridge, and down the lower gorge to the Ford Dam. Transportation will be available from the hotel. The tow Transportation will be available. is one how in length. Although the Metrodome has waived Cost:Adults$7.50, Seniors$6.50, Children$5.00. fees, pre-registration is necessary for specific time slots. NOTE: The tow involves climbing stairs for which there is no alternative. I' i 14 Minnesota Cities 1 183 University Ave.East St.Paul,MN 55101.2526 League of Minnesota Cities (612)227.5800(FAX:221.0986) April 20, 1989 TO: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks o)i FROM: Donald A. Slater, Executive Directo RE: LMC Constitutional Amendment to be Considered at the 1989 LMC Annual Conference Below please find a constitutional amendment proposed and approved by the LMC board of directors for consideration by the membership at the League's annual meeting, Thursday, June 8, 3 :45 - 5: 00 pm, at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Minneapolis. The board of directors proposes to the general membership that the League of Minnesota Cities constitution, Article IV, Section 4 , be amended to read as follows (new language is underlined) : Article IV, Section 4. The board of directors shall meet at such times as may be determined by it, or by the president, or by any three members, but shall assemble to meet at least four times annually. Meetings shall be in person with the exception that non-assembled meetings by telephone conference call or other media shall be authorized if the president and executive director agree in advance that a non-assembled board meeting is desirable. Notice of the board meeting shall be provided in the manner established by board resolution. A quorum of the board of directors is eight members and action by the board of directors shall require the favorable vote of a majority, but not less than five members. The board shall be responsible for the general management of the affairs of the League, subject to provisions of the constitution. It shall establish the positions and fix the rate of pay for employees of the League. It shall adopt a budget for League operations for each fiscal year, which fiscal year shall be the year ending August 31. It shall determine the various committees to be appointed. The board of directors shall have the power to purchase, own, mortgage, or convey such real estate and other property Mayors, Manager, and Clerks Page 2 April 20, 1969 in the name of the League, in the name of a non-profit corporation governed by the members of the League board of directors, or in the name of any member when authorized by that member, as may be necessary for the purposes of the League. This grant of authority shall include power to purchase or sell on a contract for deed or conditional sales contract or otherwise. The board of directors may authorize officers, agents, or employees or any of them to enter into any contract or execute and deliver any instruments or obligations in the name of and on behalf of the League. The passage of this constitutional amendment would provide greater flexibility for the board to handle last-minute, urgent matters. There has been instances were a board decision is needed immediately and the decision had to be delayed until the board could be convened at the League offices. i League of Minnesota Cities CONSTITUTION As amended, June 1988 League of:Minnesota Cities ARTICLE I NAME AND PURPOSE Section 3.Any municipality which shall have failed to Section 1. This organization shall be known as the pay its dues by the first of January following the due League of Minnesota Cities and its purposes shall be: date, shall be stricken from the membership roll. Fust-To be an effective vehicle for the development Section 4. Any member in good standing in and expression of enlightened policies and positions withdraw fiom the League at any time upon officialy concerning the structure and powers of local govern- written notice, and shall receive a pro rata refund of its meut and other issues of universal or specific municipal annual dues payment. interest at the local, state, and national level. Section 5.If, at any regular or special meeting,three- Second - To develop and provide either alone or in fourths of the members of the League vote in favor of concert with other governments, organizations, or dissolution of the League of Minnesota Cities, the groupps, programs of technical assistance and training League shall be dissolved within 90 days of the date ap- whmh will make available to municipalities and their proving such action. employees advanced systems, concepts, and techniques applicable to various aspects of municipal operations. Section 6.Immediately after a vote favoring dissolu- tion the board of directors shall proceed to settle any Third - To foster and promote the dissemination of financial obligations pending against the League and to information concerning problems and issues affecting dispose of all property held by the League. Any funds local government to special interest groups and to the remaining after all claims have been settled and all public at large. property disposed of shall be returned to each par- ticipating member in proportion to the annual dues fee Fourth-To encourage the improvement of all phases which the member paid. of municipal government by stimulating and fostering pertinent research projects by collecting, developing, ARTICLE III FEES AND DUES and providing information and advice and by holding conventions and conferences for the exploration of Section 1.Any municipality in Minnesota desiring to problems of municipal interest. become a member of this League may do so upon sig- nifying a desire to do so and paying of the annual dues, Fifth - To foster harmonious and cooperative and Un assessment. relationships with local,state,and federal organizations and agencies in exploring common problems and Section 2. The dues for each municipality shall be developing mutually acceptable solutions to them. based upon population as given b the latest federal decennial or special census. This fee shall be payable ARTICLE If MEMBERSHIP annually in advance on the first day of September. Section 1.Any municipality in the state of Minnesota Section 3. The annual dues for each member shall be eligible to membership in the League. municipality shall be set by the League Board of Direc- Wherever the word municipality is used in this constitu- tors not to exceed the amounts established in the line, it shall mean 'city or urban town.' schedule or schedules set out as appendices to this con- stitution, which shall be adopted or amended in the Section 2.When a municipality becomes a member of same manner as otherarts of this constitution. If no this League, any official or officials of such new dues schedule is adopted for a given year,the dues municipality by the normal appointment procedure of schedule in effect for the most recent prior year shall such municipality may became a delegate or delegates remain in effect. to any official meeting of this League;provided that the mayor of such municipality shall be ex officio a delegate The total dues for each member as thus calculated to the conventions oftheLeague. shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. - 1 - League of Minnesota Cities Constitution Section 4. A special assessment may be levied upon mine the various committees to be appointed. The the members for League purposes upon recommenda- board of directors shall have the power to purchase, tion of the board of directors and approved by the mem- own, mortgage, or convey such real estate and other bership in the manner indicated in Article V. property in the name of the League, in the name of a non-profit corporation governed by the members of the ARTICLE IV OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES League board of directors,or in the name of any mem- ber when authorized by that member,as may be neces- Section 1. The officers of the League shall be an sary for the purposes of the League. This grant of au. elected president,an elected vice president,the immed- thority shall include power to purchase or sell on a iate past president ex officio, the president of the As- contract for deed or conditional sales contract or other- sociation of Metropolitan Municipalities ex officio, the wise. The board of directors may authorize officers, president or a vice president of the National League of agents, or employees or any of them to enter into any rues if a Minnesota city official ex officio,and twelve contract or execute and deliver any instruments or elected directors. The officers acting as a group shall obligations in the name of and on behalf of the League. constitute the board of directors. Section 5. The president shall be chair of the board Section 2.The president and vice president shall each of directors. The president shall preside at the annual be elected annually for one-year terms. Twelve direc- business meeting and all other meetings of the League, tors shall be elected for three-year overlapping terms. but may designate others to preside instead. The presi- In 1974 four of these shall be elected for three-year dent shall appoint all committees established by the terms, four for two-year terms and four for one-year board of directors or by the constitution and shall ap- terms; thereafter four shall be elected annually for point representatives of the League to such non-League three-year terms. Elections shall be held at the official bodies as may be appropriate. business meeting at the annual convention. Officers shall hold office for their designated terms, and until Section 6. In the absence of the president the vice their elected or appointed successors have signified president shall act as president. their acceptance. The newly elected officers shall take office immediately after the close of the annual conven- Section 7. The executive director shall be the chief tion. The immediate past president shall serve as a administrative officer of the league, subject to the member of the board of directors ex officio for one general supervision of the board of directors. The ex. year, so long as he or she holds municipal office, and ecutive director shall be appointed by the board of the president of the Association of Metropolitan directors for an indefinite period and may be removed Municipalities shall serve ex officio. by the board of directors. The executive director shall appoint the League employees and shall administer the Section 3. To be eligible to be elected and to serve, League office and the League services. The executive or continue to serve, as an elected officer of the director shall.prepare an annual budget of revenues and League, a person shall be an officer of a member expenditures for the consideration of the board of municipality. Any member of the board of directors directors and shall limit expenditures to the total budget who is absent for three consecutive regular meetings or approved by the board of directors. The executive who is absent for any four regular meetings during any director shall submit to the board of directors and to consecutive 12-month period commencing July 1, shall the membership an annual report of League affairs, be deemed to have resigned from the board, and the services, and finances which shall be published in the vacancy shall be filled as provided in this section. Any League's official publication. The executive director vacancy in an elective office shall be declared by resolu- shall have charge of the League records, accounts, and tion of the board of directors and be filled for the property.The executive director shall cause an official remainder of the term by the board of directors subject record of all meetings of the League to be made. The to the approval of the membership at the next annual exective director shall act as treasurer and handle all meeting,except that a vacancy in the office of president League funds. The director and employees designated shall be filled by the succession of the vice president. by the director shall post a corporate surety bond at A vacancy in the office of director occurring at the an- League expense. The accounts and finances of the nual convention shall be filled by election at the conven- League shall be post-audited each year by a public ac. tion for the remainder of the term countant selected by the board of directors. Section 4. The board of directors shall meet at such Section 8.The board of directors may,on application, times as may be determined by it, or by the president, recognize as affiliates of the League organizations or by any three members, but shall meet at least four whose membership consists predominantly of Minne- times annually. A quorum of the board of directors is seta municipal officials or empployees.The general pur. eight members and action by the board of directors pose of such affiliations shall be to encourage the max. shall require the favorable vote of a majority but not imum cooperation among the various municipal less than five members.The board of directors shall be functions, among administrative departments and respoasible for the general management of the affairs councils, and among the municipalities of the state of the League,subject to the provisions of the constitu- through the League.The board of directors may require tion. It shall establish the positions and fix the rate of for affiliate recognition such conditions as to activities, Fay for employees of the League.It shall adopt a budget membership, and finances as it deems appropriate; in or League operations for each fiscal year, which fiscal no event, however, shall recognized affiliates advocate year shall be the year ending August 31. It shall deter- legislative proposals in conflict with League legislative - 2- League of Minnesota Cities Constitution l policies without adhering to the procedure set forth in more delegates present,submit the question under con- Article VI, Section 7. sideration to a vote by municipality, in which case each m Section 9.A special committee shall be appointed by ember municipality represented shall have one vote. theppresident every three years to study League dues Section 2.In lieu of approval at a business meeting or and Leaguc services,commencing with the ap intment legislative conference an official commitment may be of such a committee in the fall of 1983. Add tionally, made by mail ballot on any subject of legislation when special committees may be authorized by the board of authorized by the board of directors. No commitments direclors for the purpose of studying municipal shall be made by mail ballot unless ballots are cast on problems, conducting schools, making legislative the question by at least 20 percent of the member recommendations,or other appropriate League service. municipalities through their legislative bodies and at The chair of each such committee appointed by the least two-thirds of the municipalities voting approve the president shall, on the completion of the committee's commitment.At least ten days shall elapse between the work, make a report to the board of directors, cunven- mailing of the blank ballots and the counting of the lion,or legislative conference in such form as the execu. marked ballots. live director may request. Section 3. Subjects of legislation shall be initiated ARTICLE V MEETINGS either by a League committee, by the council of any member municipality, or by the delegates at the annual Section 1.The League shall hold a general,statewide business meeting or a legislative conference. Each sub- convention each year, a legislative conference at least ject not initiated by a League committee shall, unless biennially,and such other meetings as may be called by approved for consideration by a two-thirds favorable the board of directors. Such meetings may be for vote of the delegates present and voting,be referred to educational or legislative purposes,may be statewide or a study committee, whose recommendation shall be regional meetings,tand may be for special classes of of- considered by the legislative committees before ficers or employees or for municipal officers generally. reference to the delegates for final action or before a Section 2.An annual convention of the Leagguue shall mail ballot is taken. be held on the dates and at a place fixed by the board Section 4. A legislative committee shall be created of directors.The official business meeting shall be heldprior each session of the legislature to consist of the during the convention at such time as the board of chairs to of any special committees studying legislative directors shall fix and announce in advance with the matters and the members of the board of directors. program A nominating committee,and such other com- mittees as the board of directors may authorize shall be Section S. A regular legislative conference shall be appointed by the president at or before the beginning held before or during each session of the state legisla. of the convention and make reports to the business ses- lure, for the purpose of approving an official League sion. At the business session delegates from at least program on matters of legislation. Special legislative twenty member municipalities shall be considered a conferences may be authorized by the board of direc. quorum Each represented municipality shall be entitled tors when necessary. to one vole (which shall be the majority expression of delegates from that municipality).Action on legislative Section 6.The board of directors may,by a two-thirds matters and on amending the constitution shall conform vote of all its members,make a commitment on my bill to the voting requirements set forth in Articles VI and then pending when the bill is, in the judgment of the VII respectively; the conference may adopt further committee, of sufficient general municipal importance rules governing itsproceedings: Otherwise,parliamen- and urgency to require such action. A commitment tary procedure shall be according to Robert's Rules of adopted under this section shall be presented to the Order. legislature as a League board commitment and not an ARTICLE VI LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE official commitment of the League. Section 7.Subdivision 1.Affiliate organizations may Section 1. Except as otherwise provided in this ar- adopt legislative policies and commitments in accor- ticle, no official commitment shall be made by the dance with their organization's by-laws. Such policies League on any proposed state or federal legislative mat- or commitments shall be submitted to the League ex- ter unless itisapproved bythe legislative committee and ecutive director as soon as is practical after being is further approved by a two-thirds favorable vote of the adopted and if possible prior to the League legislative delegates present and voting at the annual business conference so that the membershipmay consider meeting or at the regular or a special legislative con- League legislative policy in light of afiliate positions. ference to which all the member municipalities are in- Such policies and commitments as an in the judgment vited;but no proposal shall be made part of the League of the executive director in conflict with adopted or legislative program under this section or Section 2 if the pending League policy shall be submitted by the execu- municipalities voting against it include all the cities of live director to the board of directors for review and any one class and if such proposal is by its terms ap- comment.It the League board of directors determines plicable to such class of municipalities.The vote on any that the policy or commitment is in conflict with an legislative matter shall be by acclamation; but at any adoppted League polity or pending policy,the submitting time before the result of the vote is announced, the affiliate organization shall be so notified in writing presider may, and shall, if requested to do so by ten or within 10 days and said affiliate shall not advocate such -3 - League of Minnesota Cities Constitution policy to the legislature except in accordance with Sub- Metropolitan Municipalities shall be considered as an division 2. affiliate organization for purposes of adopting legisla- tive policy. Solid.2.An affiliate organization upon notification from the League that a legislative policy or commitment Section 3.The bylaws establishing the Association of is in conflict with an adopted or pending League policy Metropolitan Municipalities and amendments thereto may proceed to advocate such policy or commitment shall be submitted to the board of directors of the only under the following conditions: League of Minnesota Cities for a determination of con- sistency with this constitution. The board of directors (1) The policy or commitment in conflict is resub- shall consider them forthwith,and if it rinds the bylaws witted for a vote at an annual,regular,or special mem- and amendments consistent with this constitution, it bership meeting of the affiliate and it is approved by a shall approve them two-thirds vote of the delegates present and voting or by mailed ballot, provided that the policy or commit. Section 4. Establishment of the Association of meat had been mailed out to members at least seven Metropolitan Municipalities does not prevent the fur- days prior to the meeting if the ballot is taken at a nishing of service by the League of Minnesota Cities meeting and provided that at least 40Percent of the af- staff to metropolitan area members in the same manner filiate members are participating; and and to the same extent as to members in other parts of the state, but any special service to the Association by (2) Provided that the League executive director shall the League of Minnesota Cities staff shall be financed also be provided with seven days written notice that by the Association. such meeting or mailed ballot is to be held and for what purpose and that the affiliate members shall be in- Section S. The Association of Metropolitan formed in the notice that the League board of directors Municipalities may be dissolve Q by the procedure had declared such policy in conflict and specified in its bylaws.Upon dissolution of the Associa- tion this article shall have no force or effect. (3)A policy or commitment adopted pursuant to this section shall be presented to the legislature as an af- APPENDIX A- filiate policy or commitment which differs from a Dues Schedule Maximum for 1988-89 League policy. (based on maximum five percent Increase) ARTICLE VII AMENDMENTS 249 or less..........._._.......................................................194 250-4,999........................66 plus 51.24 cents per capita Section 1.This constitution may be amended after the 5,000-9,999........................536 plus 41.85 cents per capita first day of the annual meeting by a two-thirds vote of 10,000-19,999..................1157 plus 35.64 cents per capita all municipalities voting, provided that the proposed 20,000-49,999.................3955 plus 21.65 cents per capita amendments shall have been prepared in writing on or 50,000-299,999................11711 plus 614 cents per capita before the first day of the meeting and distributed to 300,000 and over..........19740 plus 3,47 cents per capita the delegates. An amendment in writing, offered from the floor without prior notice to the delegates shall be APPENDIX B- permissable if it is an amendment to a proposed amend- Dues Schedule Maximum for 1989.90 merit is on the same subject as the amendment it is (based on maximum six percent Increase) proposed to amend, is germane to the amendment it is proposed to amend,and is approved by a two-thirds vote 249 or less........_.._.......... ...............................................206 oft the delegates in attendance and voting. 250.4,999................_..........70 plus 54.31 cents per capita 5,000-9,999..........._...........568 plus 44.36 cents per capita ARTICLE Vlll THE ASSOCIATION OF 10,00049,999..................1227 plus 37.78 cents per capita METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES 20,000-49,999.................4193 plus 22.95 cents per capita 50,000-299,999................12413 plus 6.51 cents per capita Section 1. The Association of Metropolitan 300,000 and over...........20924 plus 3.68 cents per capita Municipalities to include members of the League of Minnesota Cities situated in counties within the juris. APPENDIX C - diction of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Dues Schedule Maximum for 1990.91 area may be established within the League in actor- (based on maximum seven percent increase) dance with this article. 249 or leas......_..........._....................................................220 Section 2.The bylaws establishing the Association of 250-4,999..........................75 plus 5812 cents per capita Metropolitan Municipalities shall include provisions of 5,000.9,999...........__.....607 plus 47.47 cents per capita membership,dues and finances,board of Sirectors and 10,00049,999.............1312 plus 40.42 cents per capita officers, meetings, committees, and such other matters 20,000-49,999.................4486 plus 2456 cents per capita as are deemed appropriate, including the adoption of 50,000-299,999................13282 plus 6.97 cents per capita legislative commitments applying specifically to the 300,000 and over....._....22389 plus 3.94 cents per capita Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Association of -4 - n1� 3c omo � mnd � opm�g3m'm' ogRo ' 'n pm NN � S �$ nmmq zmm pia° �� z «m ami Q�3 � mg ° 3sn am �q �m�3o ngQ3 mm ° ffi�g aQ^ 3 .'-. � nS omni �:$ R< o' 3b m ,3 =S o �m � Rgg mn- g $ mo2 3 S ° °&ms mO�m i� am �nm �_s3 � mog zR u3 oC O N m $ soma mk 0 O> iA �Rn6 �' xD 'Kgm � m 'R" c soma - $ o �poy ' 3 ° 04 °g- � ?$ m o Dmgmo �mfop 0-91 &6 ZZ.m °m S2 o$ �o pfi 3� 3n� � 3na-m osgggggaN Os90 m� o'$ S og � °o c n njs 3 .. ��Nyl o° S 1 � amng3Sd°. 4� m4. m , So. 3 z- mmD m� og n ` � mn „ a L7 op� fa3 i�i3 «$n zm= m ° gam £ =° 'Zai �C « R ° , Ypg w , 3mmRo m g SPR.os o$� gg.48Qy a Ro gng moan va m 11mq m -m iSo �g � im 3R N i:u� Co.,-; i£ gg A� y °I 11 SSR =Jo0 3 N $ +� 4 m 3Q'Q �-s�ao yy. ms 3 Rm $0; 8° -DO sa z ni °d3 n pp0. �3 D 30 i •m• oA �33m A « � 0 rO 2n9 F3 n$ A u' g0d3 ° ' mtg QtSm az S m3 21 mC _ �3m� gnO.�.O G' 9 A 95 In ° R ; 3mQ y fsm Rg a -Y S MIS x 2 z El " m m J oai 3m $° 0 mz� R2 ' = ° m,s� m� ma � mR m N w a seyn+MlmwS,ml s NMO1NMOa OIWtlNAa v Sol Sd31S °M' S3[iD3iv llS Vo0°L 7 'NOIwN m MN Wf V b AUSNN3d Ioct 3NOI M UM 40 3o0Yi1 1YNO VN Z - O oa 3Q ®® 3a A ti a Ac law N(m O D z IZ7 mo oma ��j�°f o � 00 D (D CL oU 3< tl ®®EES EM g3 CCDv0 0 CL mo 8N m2o u H mR �'3mn3 ° : �T ¢ � amm � g a ° i� mm_g» 4m8 3AB 3 `s 0m7m3 ££$f 3kg- � £ RQ ¢ „mad ° D = z> 3o ° ma gi Siz 4gg3'37SDm pz Z D� � i M 05vg � £ 3sz F $� Zv En -D1 nm 3m mmM = ,n, a Z --1m 3 � £ N ggm ¢ . o D z m � oo-o-�� z N_. so3 ° _ IQ O D v q q$K; g3 m zµx N m go ^ s mom = d�� ¢ 3s O Z N g�g`' m a�og �m'3�L3a3 D a Smm6 ��5 my 4 � ' n Qm <nn EORw NC ° RnD s° E X00° ngm .6- S= mE Tm p s3 £ m3 3"J& SmF s n,Z33s rnm J n ° R n 3 J s D D a' 8 -v m D n i g m 3 -g-,- . 9 a ; m--i o ? ° v2 ¢ 3o qs� ° : §pa 3zH .5JS Wprpc 35 =J¢ im 3 � M mJ N(n Ogga�E . 02 ¢ ¢ JJCJ m J64° _ nn£ £d m °o - < 3BEu ° n£ m ° N o'Jm O 0R ° ° =^ S m'oa ° 3� 5 n mA 8z ¢m p - ¢ a3N jno ap= =31.o 3vm oz g o - 5 ££ sR -n�nna 3s Hog H Sml°vR=�' O rn� d 'mom v ” s m� m ; u¢� 3 3 ;5 9 - 6ma RDimcnm EmQ¢ n'm O R 55. = O 303 610 aT: }f50O3O asn -g �n^ o= a 0 &' g -U . $ mS a-$� � m63 m �33Y3nNn m ° msmas mac =¢ �Sp '< m AJ _ n - m mua3gw sRR � a3Jm ¢ ?r-ES Q3mn -o:° 5° 3- 3 � ia3R $38 c ao nyi omo m� �o gmg ,' 3QQ33nOk 5- 30164 3o J� g° 3° 3 �d 3m v° m'm _cod dJ36 Js: mn =<ompm~ o3 °g$iib ¢': 00 � mRs v9;r�.v° mgn J3 2,mmmZln� n8fi2°mv z3� Egg-. o � 3 $ qgg} g3 =a m^ °gym ° Jmg ` ,m„ m � 2� 3_N» A¢ vn� > > 33 Rmax ,n, m u®EfB= m °a ¢3p mzo J3 � Pmnu2 m �m�Q3� 'S 'p_° ^EOqq E ZH a' m4'm'' m$ v m,° 2 mmm R's' � .u. ° fl�CZi 3.. m0 g° � m 'n3�i mmo � $�°---�a 33c- � ' 2 ¢ 9 3mmmm� ...2 J 3 J :J Z= m u m a m ¢ . a n,Q C'-C$ gmZ-3E'o o nn Biu EmRp�n <m" o$ uv n NO [)Sy't3JJC llm �a l m 3I I z�ji 3n° _ m _ $fro mem `q O i oxo 333?` $ m-13R-S z a � "3gyrfr3 Kg<� 3 Sem3'-u 8 .mg3on°e sm � o> z QB la R'o' {»{ 3'$oCF � z mlag "=' a mo`C�°y' u' ° n6 TO mDz 0 Z n 6 _. May 1989 UPCOMING MEETINGS SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SRT 1 2 3 4 5 6 4:30pm 7:00pm City 7:30pm Public Council Planning Utilities Commission 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6:00pm City 7:45am Council Downtown 7:00pm Committee Board of 5:30pm CDC Review 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mother's Day 7:00pm 7:00pm City 7:00pm Community Council Energy & Recreation Transp. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Memorial Day - City Hall Closed Rpril June S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 y a9 ociation of M etropolitan M unicipalities TO: AMM City Managers FROM: Vern Peterson, Executive Director Roger Peterson, Director of Legislative Affairs Melanie Ault, Legislative Coordinator DATE: April 18, 1989 SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX IMPACT BROCHURE Enclosed are the brochures produced by the ad hoc Property Tax Impact Committee, co-chaired by Larry Bakken and Jim Prosser. The brochure was designed to be a set of responses to some questions residents commonly ask about their property taxes. The brochures contain the same information as the article which we mailed out last week. You may want to use the brochures with your Board of Review, mail them to community organizations or display them at City Hall. If you choose to use either the article or the brochures, we are interested in any response you get. If you would like additional brochures, please ask. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 S 1 l• O O O O O O O O O O O D O Q m 1 C C X X N S Z ¢ Z MM" N M N M N M N N N O O O O O El 'o Fay � Ll v `A R 6 a y x K OC (Dv C r.%.ia) o .a 000 0 Ni 1 } C oxr bEE - AWN - REGIORALTRUMB01RD Mears Pork Centre 230 East 51h Sheet St..Paul.Minnesota 55101 612/292 olNl ' - April 20, 1989 To: City Managers,City Administrators or City Clerks Light Rail Transit(LRT) has generated a good deal of discussion over the last several years in the Twin Cities area. Legislators, local government officials, neighborhood groups and citizen organizations have all been involved with examining the possibility of the development of a light rail system in major transportation corridors in the Seven-County Metropolitan Area. The Regional Transit Board (RTB) recently completed a public opinion research poll that showed support for LRT among our citizens, but also indicated that many people are not very familiar with what LRT is all about. The RTB has begun an LRT public information program based on the poll results to heighten people's knowledge and understanding of LRT. Enclosed you will find eight copies of a general brochure on LRT that the RTB produced with advice and assistance from county regional rail authorities and others. We request that you please give one brochure to each member of your city council and other city staff members. Additional copies of this brochure are available. Please contact the RTB at 292-8789. 1 feel confident that this brochure and several other public information projects on LRT will help our citizens better understand LRT and its potential use as a public service device. Sincerely, eA Elliott Perovich Chairman EP:MK All. An Equal Opportunity Employer °• a � � �. � � Y � ` �.,,�� is� ..._..._ ... \\ \\\\ o ; 0 aly � w n w mx oc85 ,°� ° mNy _. g o as , Z -- s I a c " � w n'o 'v a n a s o a S £ � o c x Vic : ��11 ti w y ^3 ® 0 o ? a o = . N = n n o o m m a o � I9• .w n — nrt e � w� ". � wC3w3 nNN3 � 3 'Z w .Onmr A Z 0 ; p, o w ° � roNyro° : m T ° moo^^ ^ fPw^ yaw H W O m y w n a D C � wy ^�, 1, = n 0;0 o E m -ai m n �' w'• ;� r a o � GE �OGFrvw o 0o � .. n ' .. oFeoo. l 3 )4 0 C �o A a � aBww n y 0 n — n 04 N O W w rq Tm,n_ yRQ ?� � ov3Mwwo 5oaon'wwmo C��7 w ^ro oS £ o Cn y °a w o : H H ° w � wwy � � n aPL ° oa � drD O ❑ .. n w n W a4 3 -C'. a o m E w ❑ 3 E � � o^ � G7 a 3 '� m m Rw o ° N S ro � !r B p' O o S 7 O w a m �j w JJJ e ' "� I a Svv pnw corm m rt ^ o o a m mp, g °G ,^ � ` aa~a 'm' c °, a 0: ww ' monaoA 9 r H mm ' o 3 y n m ^ o m a o 00 o o p s 0 R pSp00. w W Ow 7 + ntla4 °- R`< 0 Pao m ° So 02E ? $ 3 A 0 9 y Am - 10 ry p� 04 ? p ^- m w rn C 0. = o w m rt � 7p ry _ oao° vo '30 as w a °, m .p. 9 �- `7° � 3rn 0' . - 6 , y � .0a-. cr QR o ? ^ m '<1pSxo' rt � $ — iz RawSmo ° = � Em " Rw G1 n < m0 0o G0. � 0 3 mo £ Fr ^ �iO � aE o ° oo O w o V 7 n ? tPe £ a m S C A 0 �' o b n o 0. ,S ° T °. r° a' ^ y w `°" w � o0m pop m ^ 0 cm I� I � a ` y x o � � Sn naao � oas -, c "3 0 - �'° a � E' ; O ti m - : Xamm O0m ° ^ ° :1 b 3 60 � '. ' o. a �wta3amowp ^ Q 63m � �',OO_ cCdAaS '� n � � S m o rr11 H � o k n � r1 a a°a W 2 ozS� a e2 lozooco > z3 a °c ❑ oCa N Lg0 1ZZa pill Sn In n @ ao N , �' AmL �+ 'ao w � 3 'tla 30 11I NUNiJSSU�e. S n IJNp i w r '� � ti NUI 0— y of app m O lA ° oil 9' z r I cq wzZ� �� � Ne c � � S gym L H o� omaQ+ 9o2 o ; �w v r � I l {, r s MINNESOTA GOOD ROADS, INC. 3402 UNIVERSITY AVE S.E., MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55414 Z (672) 379-7227 THE CITIZENS'VOICE FOR GOOD ROADS OFFICERS GRED J.CORRIGAN ROBERT ni MCFARUN April 18, 1989 E.eewl.e G—JI, en-$I.Law:van Rav."Wed nOJ E-do—GreeeJior E'a P�a.ma", sn RAYLAPPEGAAPO ROBERT M.JOHNSON APPE Vice PrBsiOan, SamaBee S, Pa., GARY SA SAUEfl Vire Presien. i Maple P JUOW do—INTO TO: Mn/DOT District 5 Anoka PAULAILEY civic and business leaders T,eLesa,a, Mlnnaepolls BOARD OF DIRECTORS POYASPHAUG $t Ones Palk JOHN M.BAILEY,JR. PETERMBECKMAN Minnesota Good Roads is sponsoring a 5. Pew In CHARD' BRAUN Do ALD A.EAN public meeting on THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1989 at $LNo' FRED OERESCHUK JOHNK oliary The Hopkins House, 1501 Highway 7, Hopkins . ""'Y Santa, BOB EGA, WRL�AM E� SNOLTZ.JR. At 10 : 30 AM there will be a presentation A.."". LHTON E.S.FIELD st DAM Pon' by the Mn/DOT District //5 (Golden Valley) staff Nm IM PeM1 DAVE GRAVDAHL SoneDOPPOTNvcAGTTE of its 20-year plan. ,AN GUSTAFSON $L Paal H.B.IBam HAYDEN.IF A Dutch Treat luncheon ($10. 00, payable PlyMenh BOB HILLIKER St Paul BOBJENSEN at the door) will follow the presentation, at Pa,m nRY, GREGJOHNSON 5L Paul BOB KING 12 : 15 PM. Brooklyn Par, WILLIAM KONIAR$KI Belle Plaine WESLANE Please notify Minnesota Good Roads M an..I,s REA,LANGSETH Do o'no JAMES P.LORNEY (379-7227) if you will be able to join us on KII G EOPGEW.MATTSON 'nal" CHARLES Mo`a RossAN May 4th for this overview of transportation MICHAEL S.McGRAY C_. JOEelfi MEL$ In your area. JOHN MILNE $t Paul RILIN NELSON Nwla,a Yours ce I KENNETH PAULSON Al Paul JERPy PETERMEIER MEE PE PALMER PETERSON Minneepolls E.J.REMEP Eden Pralne red Corrig WIMIJa RICE Executive Director DON PICKERN A.Men"'' ROMANO Mla GARY EC.. N Red!Lekn1.11. POBEPTJ $CHMITZ SE Jordan M L Savage CHARLES J.SWANSON JANE TSC TSCHIDA LL l CARL Nae W w Ulm Mn/DOT Districts have not developed 20-year plans in the past, so this effort represents a major departure in the planning process. The presentation includes: Overview of planning and programming process How the 20-year plan was developed A look at some of the assumed trends occurring in the District Specific goals developed by the District itself: Preservation - Management - Expansion of the existing system A look at 20-year funding allocations, various funding distributions Facts about District N5 versus other Districts in the state y Basically, what did the plan accomplish, what will it accomplish and where do we go from here? District 5 staff will answer questions from the audience. NkN MINNESOTA GOOD ROADS, INC. 3101 UNNERSfiYAVE.S.E MINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA 66414 25 � ux,25 © d David Hutton, City Eegineet City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Ave, Shakopee, M 55379 THE CITIZENS'VOICE FOR 6000 ROADS P ¢ ei111 7 MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator fffdmministrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Project DATE: April 27 , 1989 INFORMATIONAL ITEM FOR COUNCIL: Staff has appeared before the County Board to discuss the proposed pedestrian underpass on C. R . 17 . This underpass was proposed as part of the trail system along the Upper Valley Drainage Project. Staff, along with our consultant, felt that an underpass would be safer for trail users rather than crossing a busy County Highway at grade without the benefit of a traffic signal and crosswalk. The County Engineer and County Attorney indicted that they would issue a permit to the City for this underpass if the City of Shakopee assumed all liability for it. The City Attorney recommended against taking on additional liability. Staff requested that the County Board reviewed the issue and withdraw their liability requirement. The County Board denied this request as recommended by their legal staff. The City Attorney is still recommending that the City not take on this liability issue. Therefore, there will not be a pedestrian underpass associated with this trail. DH/pmp UNDERPASS TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, MN May 4, 1989 Chairman Forbord Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of the April 20, 1989 Meeting Minutes 4. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an amendment to the PUD, Preliminary and Final Plat for Stonebrooke. The amendment includes changes to Londonderry Cove and the emergency access connecting Lakeview Drive & C.R. #79. Applicant: Laurent Builders Action: Recommendation to City Council 5. 7,40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider approval of a preliminary and final plat for Canterbury Park 3rd Addition. The plat consists of two lots on 5.6 acres located at C.R. 83 and 12th Avenue. Applicant: Scottland Inc. Action: Recommendation to City Council 6. 7, 50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the keeping of horses upon the property at 1976 County Road 89. Applicant: Robert Swiggum Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #562 7. 8,00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a day care facility at 1142 Canterbury Road. Applicant: Dorothy Loonan Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #563 S. 8:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a hot mix asphalt plant and structures in excess of 45' in height to be located upon the J.L. Shiely property at 6898 East Highway 101. Applicant: Hardrives, Inc. Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #561 9 . Roehnen's P.U.D. for mini storage buildings - Continued Action: Recommendation to City Council 10. Discussion: a. Planning Commission Procedures & Education b. Code Requirements re: Allowing Metal Buildings 11. Other Business a. b. 12 . 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 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, MN May 4 , 1989 Chairman Forbord Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of April 20, 1989 Meeting Minutes 4. Other Business a. b. 5. Adjourn Douglas K. Wise City Planner NOTE TO THE B.O.A.A. MEMBERS: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting. 2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN APRIL 20, 1989 Chrmn. Forbord called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. , with Comm. Allen, Foudray, Czaja & Kahleck present. Absent: Comm. Stafford and Rockne. Also present: Doug Wise, City Planner, Dave Hutton, City Engineer, and Julie Kellerman, Planning Intern. Czaja/Allen moved to approve the agenda as presented. Kahleck/Allen moved to amend the agenda to add an item under "Other Business" - A Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Minnesota River Valley Redevelopment Project No. 1. Motion carried. Allen/Kahleck moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried with Comm. Foudray voting no. Kahleck/Forbord moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 9, 1989 . Motion carried with Comm. Allen, Czaja & Foudray abstaining due to their absence. Czaja/Forbord moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 20, 1989 . Motion carried with Comm. Allen, Foudray and Kahleck abstaining due to their absence. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont. ) - KOEHNEN PUD: Czaja/Allen moved to continue the public hearing to consider a Planned Unit Development for four mini-storage buildings. Motion carried. City Planner stated Lester Koehnen, applicant, is proposing to construct four mini-storage buildings on the same site as the existing Shakopee Towing building and impound lot along County Road 16. Discussion was held on the non-compliance of Conditional Use Permit No. 471, per Condition No. 1, "enclosing the area with a solid fence 8 feet in height" . The fence as exists is not 100 percent opaque and the trees are not a major coniferous tree, as specified as a condition of approval. Further discussion was held on the number of mini storage buildings being proposed. The original application was for four buildings but the landscape design as being presented illustrates five mini-storage buildings. Les Koehnen was present for discussion. He stated the fifth storage unit could be done at a future date and would not have to be approved at present. Chrmn. Forbord stated the City Atty. had issued an opinion whereby the PUD request may be denied on the basis of non-compliance to the existing Conditional Use Permit on screening requirements. Chrmn. Forbord asked for comments from the audience. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1989 MEETING MINUTES PAGE -2- Kevin O'Brien, Greystone Construction Company, representative for Mr. Koehnen was present for discussion. The Planning Commission explained the PUD guidelines to Mr. O'Brien. There were no further comments from the audience. Foudray/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Foudray moved to table action to the May 1989 meeting in order for City Staff to meet with the applicant to determine the necessary criteria for this PUD. Motion died for lack of second. Further discussion was held on the information required for a PUD. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the applicant was not fully aware of the PUD requirements and ramifications. Foudray/Kahleck moved to table action to the May 1989 Planning Commission meeting to enable staff to meet with the applicant to discuss the following concerns of the Planning Commission: 1. Screening - Existing fence does not have to be taken down but the southerly and westerly portion should be brought up to 100 percent compliance; suggested - berming, shrubbery (SE corner) . 2. Redesign buildings with doors facing a different direction. 3. Property line should be fenced on the east side to prevent intrusion to the neighboring property. 4. The 22 feet between the proposed buildings should be checked for adequate turnaround space. 5. No exterior storage should be allowed outside the impound lot area. 6. Lighting should be subdued and indirect, rather than a flood light. 7. Paving the access & parking area should be a consideration. 8. Building construction material should be evaluated per code; suggested was block building material. 9. No hazardous materials to be stored in these buildings. 10. Criteria of the original Conditional Use Permit should be enforced. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $559 : Allen/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit for assembly and outdoor storage of transportation equipment and fencing in excess of 6 feet high upon the property located at 8970 13th Avenue East and for the vacation of drainage easement on Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich lst Addition. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1989 MEETING MINUTES PAGE -3- City Planner stated approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the vacation of the drainage easement. Chrmn. Forbord asked for comments from the audience. Alfred Roberg handed a petition to the Planning Commission requesting Maras Street be dedicated to the City. He requested a building moratorium be placed in this area until a decision is reached on the road dedication. He stated the area residents do not wish to form an association to approve the roadway. There were no additional comments from the audience. Allen/Foudray moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Marlowe "Chris" Anderson, applicant, was present for discussion. Czaja/Kahleck offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 559, and moved for its approval based on the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a petition to the City Council for improvements to Maras Street and waive his rights of appeal. 2. The on-site sewer system must be kept clear of drainage easements and traffic areas. 3. Approval of this permit is contingent on the City vacating the existing drainage easement on this property and receiving a new easement in conformance with the drainage plan. The grading of the site shall conform to the grading and drainage plan submitted with the application. 4 . The ramp and trash enclosure shown on the site plan must be relocated to an area outside the drainage easement. 5. The applicant may construct an 8 foot screening fence. The applicant shall amke every attempt to construct a fence 100% opaque and all outside storage must be contained within this fence. 6. The business shall not advertise or conduct retail sales from this property. 7. Coniferous trees at least 3 feet in height shall be planted along the fence between each major deciduous tree. Motion carried. Foudray/Czaja moved that the vacation of the drainage easement on Lot 1, Block 2 , Valley Rich 1st Addition does not conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and recommends to the City Council that the vacation of the drainage easement should be approved subject to granting of a new drainage easement in conformance with the drainage plan and that the 20 foot perimeter drainage and utility easement be retained by the City, unless determined otherwise by the City Engineer. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1989 MEETING MINUTES PAGE -4- Czaja/Allen moved for a recess at 9:40 P.M. Motion carried. Czaja/Allen moved to reconvene at 9:50 P.M. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HORSES Allen/Czaja moved to acknowledge that the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the keeping of horses on Lots 5 & 6, Kubes 2nd Addition was withdrawn. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11.60, SUBD. 12 Czaja/Kahleck moved to open the public hearing to consider amending Section 11.60, Subd. 12 of the Shakopee City Code, entitled Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control and Section 12.20 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Motion carried. City Engineer briefly explained the proposed ordinance. Chrmn. Forbord suggested that this ordinance also include a Performance Bond and to be sure that all single family residential subdivisions are included. City Engineer stated that the ordinance could be revised to include language requiring a Performance Bond and to include residential subdivisions. Chrmn. Forbord asked for comments from the audience. Joel Cooper, Pioneer Engineering, stated he had reviewed the proposed ordinance but questions the silk fencing as a dust control measure. He suggested it be deleted since the designated 30 foot spacing of the fence would be impractical. He further suggested a means of dust control would be to seed and mulch right away after the grading. There were no further comments from the audience. City Engineer presented his revisions to the proposed ordinance: - Exposed Slopes. No. 1. No exposed slope should be steeper in grade than three (3) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical. - Dust Control Measures. No. 2. Barriers such as snow fences, commercial wind fences and similar materials should be used to control air currents and blowing soil. He further suggested that the City refer to the handbook on erosion and sediment control which was newly adopted by the County. Martha Skulski questioned where the manual had been attained. She further questioned which municipalities were using this booklet. Foudray/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1989 MEETING MINUTES PAGE -5- Foudray/Allen moved to recommend to the City Council the amending of City Code Section 11.60, Subd. 12 and Section 12 .20, requirements for soil erosion, as recommended by staff. Motion carried. The Planning Commission further recommended that staff should prepare a reference to the erosion control handbook entitled, "Minnesota Construction Site and Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook" in the ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MEADOWS ADDITION. Allen/Foudray moved to open the public hearing to consider approval of the proposed amendment to the preliminary plan of Meadows 1st Addition. Motion carried. City Planner stated the amendment would eliminate two street crossings over the Upper Valley Drainageway. Rubin Patriks questioned if the preliminary plat was locked in as presented, relative to Prairie Street. Wilfred Moholko (1077 Prairie) questioned when the plat had been approved and the proposed front yards that will be facing his property on 11th Avenue. Sue McPherson questioned if the developer was requesting variances for multiple dwellings in this subdivision. Wade Satema questioned the trail along County Road 79 and stated he had not been advised during purchasing negotiations of any trail system along County Road 79. There were no further comments from the audience. The developer was present for discussion. He explained the cost factor of the two additional crossings and the reasons for elimination of the crossings and the necessary need for the amendment to the plat. Czaja/Foudray moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Allen/Czaja moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the amended preliminary plat for the Meadows subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat must show all drainage and utility easements around lot lines. A 5 foot easement is required along side lot lines and 10 foot easements along the front and rear property lines. An easement totaling 20 feet in width shall be provided for any sewer, water or drainage improvement construction along a side lot line or crossing a lot. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1969 MEETING MINUTES PAGE -6- 2. Prior to approval of the final plat, final construction plans for all public improvements must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 3. The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the preliminary plat showing the proposed trail along County Road 79 and the Upper Valley Drainageway. 4 . The final plat must contain street names. 5. The final plat must show the proposed Upper Valley Drainageway and ponding areas as an Outlot. The Outlot shall be deeded to the City for drainage and park purposes. In areas where the drainageway to be dedicated to the City does not equal 120 feet in width, easements along adjacent lots must be provided to provide a total of 120 feet of width or an alternative design must be approved by the City Engineer. 6. A plan for construction and maintenance of the open space and ponding areas must be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. 7. Land dedication for park purposes is required. The upper Valley Drainageway and the additional 20 feet of right of way for County Road 79 shall count towards park dedication requirements. a. The watermain along County Road 79 must be extended to the Southwest corner of the plat. 9. Street grades shall not exceed 7 percent. 10. Execution of a Developers Agreement for construction of required improvements: a. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirement of the SPUC Manager. b. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. d. Local streets and street signs within the plat shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. e. The developer agrees to reimburse the City for costs on Vierling Drive equivalent to the cost of a 36 foot residential street. Cost sharing to be determined by the City Engineer. f. Existing assessments shall be reapportioned according to City policy. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1989 MEETING MINUTES PAGE -7- g. A sidewalk along Vierling Drive will be required and must comply with the design criteria and standards of the City of Shakopee. 11. Approval of a title opinion by the City Attorney. 12 . The developer shall provide a recordable agreement stating that not more than 10 percent of the plat within the R-2 zone will be developed into twin homes. 13. Access permits must be obtained from the County Engineer for access to County Road 79. 14. The developer will be responsible for grading of the plat as shown in the preliminary drainage plan. 15. No direct access from individual lots to Vierling Drive and County Road 79 will be allowed. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF VALLEY PARK 8TH ADDITION. Foudray/Kahleck moved to open the public hearing to consider approval of the preliminary and final plat for Valley Park 8th Addition. Motion carried. Chrmn. Forbord asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Foudray/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Foudray/Kahleck moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the Preliminary and Final Plat for Valley Park 8th 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. The plat shall be renamed Valley Park 7th Addition. 4. Prior to site grading, or issuance of a Building Permit, a grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. Said plan must include stormwater runoff calculations, any proposed on- site drainage facilities, culvert locations and sizes of driveways and an erosion control plan. 5. Outlots A and B shall be deemed unbuildable as a part of this plat. Motion carried, with Comm. Czaja abstaining due to not being present for the entire discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1989 MEETING MINUTES PAGE -8- AMEND14ENT TO SECTIONS 11.24 THROUGH 11. 36 - DAY CARE FACILITIES Chrmn. Forbord stated that the City has no zoning authority for Day Care Centers. These are mandated by the State. He further stated he believes this to be totally unfair. Kahleck/Foudray moved to recommend to the City Council amendment of the Zoning Code to include provisions for day care facilities as drafted by staff. Motion carried. VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT - CLAY'S 1ST ADDITION Allen/Czaja moved to recommend to the City Council that the vacation of the drainage easement does not conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and should be approved by the City Council subject to the granting of a temporary 100 foot drainage easement to the City. Motion carried. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE B-2 DISTRICT City Planner stated Clete Link has approached the Planning Staff regarding the setback requirements in the B-2 district. Mr. Link owns property located on the West side of County Road 17 and the South side of 4th Avenue in the B-2 District. He would like to construct a building with a number of individual units to sell. Mr. Link would like to divide the property into separate parcels with party wall and zero side yard setback. The problem in this is the width of the individual parcels. Mr. Link also has a veterinary clinic that is interested in locating on the property. City Code does not allow for veterinary clinics in the B-2 Zoning District. Mr. Link would like the Planning Commission to change the Code to allow veterinary clinics for small animals in the B- 2 zoning district. City Planner further stated that he could not see a conflict with these zoning requests. Clete Link was present for discussion and questioned the difficulty in combining a B-1 and B-2 zones. He further stated the proposed development would be a strip mall to be developed as buyers are found, each buying a parcel in succession. There would be no lot skipping. Foudray/Allen moved to set a public hearing on the proposed changes for the June 8, 1989 meeting for the purpose of proposed amendment to veterinary uses in the B-2 zone and zero lot lines. Motion carried. PERFORMANCE BONDS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES City Planner stated the issue of Performance Bonds had been brought to his attention by Chairman Forbord. Chrmn. Forbord suggested additional security be required for improvements contained in conditions of approval. The Performance Bond is to be used where the applicant has not performed in a timely manner. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1989 MEETING MINUTES PAGE -9- Be suggested adopting a policy of placing on conditional use permits a condition requiring additional security to insure completion of landscaping and screening items. Allen/Rahleck moved to direct staff to research the utilization of Performance Bonds for Conditional Use Permits and Variances and come back to the Planning Commission at the June meeting with their findings. Motion carried. MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - PROJECT NO. 1 Foudray/Allen moved that the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Minnesota River Valley Redevelopment Project No. 1 proposed by the City BRA is determined to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried. Comm. Allen questioned the size of the vacuums at the Canterbury Car Wash and the placement of these machines along side of the building and if these were noted on the plan. Chrmn. Forbord suggested the Commission members visit other Planning Commission meetings to see new ideas and ways of conducting meetings. Foudray/Allen moved to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Jane VanMaldeghem Recording Secretary V 1305'727ESS UPDATE L'1dOM CITY gnr.r. Vol. 3 No. 5 Dear Chamber Member: May 1, 1989 ADMILIISPRATIOM The Acting City Administrator is working with representatives from Scott County, Dependent School District No. 720, and Jackson and Iarvsville Townships in an attempt to determine the causes responsible for the dramatic increase in Property taxes for 1989. It is anticipated that recommendations for a course of action will be submitted to the various elected policy groups in May. Once a study has been completed it is likely that additional public meetings will be held. The City Council will be holding a public hearing on Tuesday, May 9th at 6_00 P.m. on the question of whether tax increment assistance should be provided to MEBCO, a growing industrial firm which is giving serious consideration to locating in Shakopee. The hearing will be held in the Council Qnambers at City Hall. BUIIDING The City's Housing Maintenance Inspection Program is now well underway. Several problems have been uncovered relating to faulty furnace operations. Thee number of problems is higher than originally anticipated. Also it was found that the condition of many rental housing units in the older areas of town are worse than anticipated. As this program progresses the overall quality of the rental housing stock in the City of Shakopee will be increased. CITY CLEM on April 18th Council fixed the meeting place for the 1989 Board of Review at the Scott County Courthouse in Room 319. The Board of Review will meet on May 9th at 7:00 p.m. On April 18th Council accepted the resignation of Donald Rcopnann from the coa¢manity Development Commission, with regrets. Anyone interested in filling the vacancy should call City Hall for an application. On April 18th Council amended the slow removal ordinance by extending the amount of time for removal of snow from public sidewalks after a snow fall to 24 hours for camreroial property and 36 hours for all property other than commercial. CONIM Y RECREATION (SCR) The City of Shakopee and Shakopee Schools regularly are recipents of benevolent contributions from community organizations. A case in point is the Shakopee Jaycees who currently are erecting small billboards on the outfield fences of the softball fields in Tahpah Park. Revenue from this project will be used to help finance father improvements in this park. The Shakopee Jaycees have served as the major partner with the City in the development of this park. Any business wishing to have their message on one of these panels should contact Duane wermerskirchen at 496-2000 or dean Struck at 445-5275. ENdrNEERdM DE1AI3h2?r The Federal Highway Administration has issued a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) on the T.H. 169 Bridge and Downtown Minibypaca Project. MrVmT can now proceed full steam ahead with the rightbf-,ay acquisition process. Me current schedule consists of bidding the ennbankment project for the north side of the river in November, 1990. The design for the 3rd Avenue FEoonstru tion Project is near completion. Bids for this project should be solicited sometime in may PERSCNNE:L The City of Shakopee has had its Affirmative Action Plan approved by the t'omfai.sioner of Hunan Riots and has received a Certificate of Coppliance which extends for two years beginning Mardi 14, 1989. Semi-annual reports are to be submitted every six months. Establishing an Affirmative Action for the city opens opportunities to female, disabled and minority workers so they on participate and contribute at all levels of govetrnmnt service. Community Clean-Up Day Saturday, May 20th On Saturday,May 20th,between the hours of 8:00 a.m:4:30 P.M.the City of Shakopee will provide a way for you to dispose of trash, litter, furniture, appliances and tires at a discounted rate. The disposal site will be located behind the Shakopee Municipal services building. (See map back page). This year tipping fees will be imposed to help defray our handling & disposal costs. Here are a few simple rules that will be observed at the disposal site. 1. City of Shakopee Residents/Business only. W.'s will be checked to ensure Shakopee Residency. 2. No liquids or paints. 3. No logs or stumps. Brush O.K. (cut in 6' lengths and less than 3" In diameter). 4. No contractor building ` Please material debris. i o Recycle 5. No vehicles larger than a � �.. Ale If pick-up truck. 1989 Tipping Fees $1 gate fee per trip, plus additional charges for the following items: -81 per tire - no more - than four tires allowed per e trip. _ -82 per large furniture item, (couch, mattress, dresser,etc.) -$3 per pick-up load or trailer load of brush. -83 per major appliance L ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Regular Session Shakopee, MN March 15, 1989 Chairman Ziegler called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Commissioners Prudoehl, Ziegler, Otto, Drees, Amundson, and Roman present. Commissioner Moline and Spiotta were absent. Also present were Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant, and Mike Burkopec, Waste Management Inc. Roman/Drees moved to approve the minutes of the February 15, 1989 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock noted that Section 3.15 of the Shakopee City Code addresses refuse collection. In light of our new refuse/recycling program it would be appropriate for the City of Shakopee to consider amending the refuse collection ordinance section of the City Code to accurately define the City of Shakopee's responsibilities in terms of refuse collection and subsequent penalty provisions for not complying with said ordinance. Mr. Stock stated that he is recommending that the City Code be amended in the following areas. 1. Amending Subdivision 3.a. Defining the type of refuse collection container and recycling container utilized in our program. 2. Adding a provision providing for the collection of recyclables in Shakopee. 3 . Add a provision specifying the collection of yard wastes in the City of Shakopee. 4. Adding a provision clarifying what illegal dumping is and making it a misdemeanor. 5. Adding a provision which defines scavenging and making it a misdemeanor. Mr. Stock stated that the amendments proposed by staff have not been put into final form. This will be the responsibility of the City Attorney. Mr. Stock questioned if any of the Committee members had any other areas that they would like to see included in the ordinance amendment. Chairman Ziegler questioned if the extra service coupon should be addressed in the ordinance amendment. Mr. Stock stated that since the cost of the coupon was based on the current landfill rates it may not be appropriate to have this addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Stock stated that he expects landfill rates to fluctuate greatly in the next year. 1 He noted that the extra service coupon could be handled as an administrative policy and would also be addressed on the City's fee schedule. Mr. Burkopec requested if the Committee would consider making it mandatory for residents living within the refuse collection service area to utilize the City's refuse contractor for the disposal of refuse. Mr. Burkopec explained that at the present time, Shakopee residents have the option of going with the City's contractor or private haulers. Mr. Burkopec noted that the more households he can pick-up from, the lower the overall rate will be for the community. He also noted that it would be very difficult for the City to determine how much recyclables are being collected in Shakopee if a number of haulers are picking up refuse and recyclables in the community. Mr. Stock stated that Shakopee residents are not mandated to go with our contractor. He noted that at the present time private refuse haulers are providing unlimited pick-up for a rate $2. 00 higher then our contractors. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that the private refuse haulers were offering a lower rate to lure customers away from Waste Management and that their rates would likely increase significantly in the future. Mr. Burkopec stated that he was not aware of any City that had contracted refuse collection which allowed other private haulers to pick-up in the contracted service area. Commissioner Prudoehl questioned how many residents were currently using private haulers in Shakopee. Mr. Burkopec stated that he did not have an exact number but he felt that over 97% of the residents were using the City's contracted service. Mr. Burkopec stated that with the confusion that the new service is adding, the percentage of residents not using the contracted service may grow. Commissioner Amundson questioned what the feed back has been from Shakopee residents regarding the new program. Mr. Stock stated that he has received numerous calls for residents questioning different aspects of the program. However, only a few of the residents were opposed to the program. Discussion ensued on the numerous questions Shakopee residents are asking about the program. Mr. Stock questioned how receptive City Council would be to mandated participation in the City's refuse collection program. Commissioner Prudoehl stated that with such a small percentage of the residents not using the City's services she felt that it was not that important at this time to make it a mandated program. She felt that by bringing this issue to the Council table, more residents might become aware of the fact that they do not have to use our refuse hauler and this would have more of an adverse effect on the number of residents using our program as compared to maintaining the status quo. 2 it Mr. Burkopec stated that in his point of view he would not be opposed to maintaining the status quo. However, he did want to bring this issue before the Energy and Transportation Committee for their discussion. He noted that it may be a potential problem in the future that will have to be addressed. Chairman Ziegler suggested that we monitor the situation for six months and after the six month period evaluate whether or not mandated participation in the program is viable. Roman/Prudoehl moved to request the appropriate City officials to begin preparing the necessary amendments to the refuse/recycling collection ordinance and submit the amendments to City Council for approval. Additionally, that the mandated participation in the City's contracted program be reassessed in six months. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that with Spring rapidly approaching the Energy and Transportation Committee should discuss how Shakopee residents will dispose of yard waste. The City's current refuse contract does provide for the collection of yard waste. All yard waste that does not fit into the 65 gallon refuse cart will dispose of a rate of $1.10 per 30 gallon container. Mr. Stock noted that staff has been working on a plan which would have provided free disposal of yard waste at a compost site. Staff was prepared to recommend that Shakopee residents be responsible for disposing of their own yard waste. This would have required Shakopee residents to transport their yard waste to the compost site. While this would have made it difficult for some people to dispose of their waste, it would not have placed any additional cost burden on the homeowner since there would have been no charge for the drop off of leaves and grass clippings. Mr. Stock noted that Scott County has currently negotiated an agreement with the landfill operator which would limit the drop off of leaves and grass clippings to those persons who have a refuse license with Scott County. This new agreement limits the alternatives available for Shakopee residents to dispose of their yard waste. To make things more difficult, Mr. Stock noted that the State Legislature has mandated that effective on January 1, 1990 yard waste will be prohibited from disposal on landfills. The State mandate will preclude residents from disposing of their yard waste in conjunction with their refuse. Therefore, the City must work with Waste Management to develop a yard waste collection program. Mr. Stock stated that he has negotiated a program with Waste Management that would provide for the collection of yard waste on a weekly basis. The community would be split into two zones. Zone 1 would have Monday pick-up of yard waste and Zone 2 would have Friday pick-up. The cost for the homeowner to participate in the program would be handled through the extra service coupon. 3 Waste Management has agreed to provide for the collection of yard waste and grass clippings at a cost of $.33 per bag. Therefore our extra service coupon would be worth 3 thirty gallon bags of yard waste. Mr. Stock noted that staff is proposing that the program for the collection of yard waste begin on April 15th and run through October 31st. He noted that in order for the program to be implemented an amendment to the contract would necessary. Mr. Stock addressed several other alternatives that were evaluated by staff. These alternatives included the City collection of yard waste or the possibility of contracting with a private provider for yard waste collection. Since we do not have time to secure bids from other providers for the collection of yard waste and it is not cost effective for our Street Department to collect yard waste Mr. Stock stated that he is recommending that we proceed in amending the refuse/recycling contract to include yard waste collection. Commissioner Roman questioned if there was any way that the City could have their own compost site. Mr. Stock stated that he has tried to identify a site for composting for a number of years and has been unsuccessful. Mr. Stock noted the difficulties that come into play in managing a compost site. He noted that the site would have to be staffed to insure that no refuse was disposed of at the site. He also noted that the compost had to be watered and turned on a regular basis with heavy equipment. Mr. Burkopec suggested another alternative for the Committee's consideration. He stated that he could provide roll-off containers on specified weekends during the summer months for the disposal of yard waste. He felt that this would be a cheaper alternative for residents. Mr. Stock questioned how we would pay for this type of program. Mr. Burkopec stated that it could be paid for out of revenues derived from the sale of recyclables. Mr. Stock questioned how many people would actually debag their leaves. He also noted that he felt that once people knew where the drop off site was they would drop off leaves there on a regular basis regardless of whether or not there were containers there. Again, Mr. Stock stated that this type of site would have to be policed around the clock. Mr. Burkopec stated that the site could simply be provided on a single Saturday as compared to a weekend. Commissioner Ziegler suggested that we could try this program and if it was abused we could eliminate it. Mr. Stock noted another problem with this program was that it was not convenient for all Shakopee residents. He questioned how a senior citizen with no pickup would dispose of 20 bags of leaves. He noted that the program utilizing the extra service coupon was more expensive but that it was more convenient for the average resident. Discussion 4 I � ensued on the drop off alternative. Commissioner Amundson questioned how other communities were dealing with the yard waste problem. Mr. Stock noted that several communities do have compost sites, but the majority of the communities have not addressed this issue. He stated that Shakopee would be a leader if we implemented a yard waste collection program. Mr. Burkopec noted that yard waste will not be incinerated in the refuse plants that are being proposed. Communities will have to address how to dispose of compost. He noted that the Metropolitan Council classifies compost as a recyclable. Therefore, it must be separated from the waste stream. Mr. Stock stated that the City will partake in an extensive marketing campaign to try to convince Shakopee residents to dispose of their compost in their backyard. This would be an alternative to the extra service coupon yard waste collection program. Commissioner Amundson suggested that we go ahead with the program as proposed by staff. Commissioner Drees suggested that it be done this year on a trail basis and that it should be reevaluated at the end of the year to determine what approach should be taken next year. Prudoehl/Roman moved to approve refuse/recycling contract amendment #2 providing the collection of yard waste on a weekly basis. Additionally that the program be conducted this year on a trail basis and reevaluated in the Fall of 1989. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that in an effort to improve the van pool ridership and increase the awareness of the van pool program staff was proposing that the Energy and Transportation Committee sponsor a van pool free ride week. Mr. Stock stated that he hoped that this type of advertising would bring attention to the van pool program and possibly attract new riders who may be hesitant to utilize the service. Discussion ensued on the status of the van pool ridership in terms of numbers. Commissioner Amundson questioned how we would advertise this free ride offer. Mr. Stock stated that we would utilize the newspaper. Prudoehl/Amundson moved to sponsor a free ride week on the van pool during the month of April with the offer limited to the first eight callers for the 8:00 - 4 :30 work shift and the first three callers for the 8:00 - 5: 00 work shift. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that the Shakopee Showcase has annually been held on the third Monday in April for the past 15 years. This year, the City of Shakopee will be combining their annual open 5 house with the Showcase. The event will be held at Canterbury Downs on Monday April 17 between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. Mr. Stock noted that it just so happens that year's Showcase will also be the first day of operation for our new Dial-A-Ride provider. Mr. Stock stated that he is recommending that we utilize our Dial-A-Ride program to transport Shakopee residents to the Showcase on the evening of the event. Mr. Stock stated that he is also recommending that several of the Committee members volunteer to be at the Showcase to staff our booth. Prudoehl/Roman moved to endorse the use of the Shakopee Dial-A- Ride vehicles to provide service to the Shakopee Showcase on a demand response basis on the evening of April 17, 1989. Motion carried unanimously. All of the Committee members present at the meeting stated that they would be available to staff the booth at the Showcase. Mr. Stock noted that in February the Shakopee City Council endorsed funding the Shakopee Cub Scouts in a Spring Clean-Up activity. With Spring rapidly approaching he felt it would be appropriate for the Energy and Transportation Committee to discuss possible clean-up projects. Mr. Stock noted that he has spoken with Mr. Jerry Blomquist, Shakopee Cub Scout Master regarding their participation in a Spring Clean-Up activity. Mr. Blomquist has stated that the Cub Scouts are very flexible in doing whatever the City thinks is necessary. Mr. Stock stated that he was opposed to a river clean-up due to the age of the Cub Scouts and the potential danger involved. He noted that he is recommending that the Cub Scouts participate in a Spring Clean-Up which would involve the collection of litter following the City's annual dump day and also that they be responsible for picking up liter in several parks. It was the consensus of the Committee that the river clean-up was too dangerous for this age group. Drees/Amundson moved to endorse the Cub Scouts in a Spring Clean- Up activity which would include the pick-up of litter around the dump day site and in several community parks. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock then reviewed the transit monthly reports with the Committee. Mr. Stock then noted that the van pool community awareness survey would be distributed some time in March. - 6 Roman/Drees moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:32 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary 7 TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 2, 1989 Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding 1] Roll call at 7:00 P.M. 2] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 3] 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. ) 71 Communications: *a] Mr. Silverthorne re: retaining wall North of Taco John's *b] Mr. Moline re: resignation from Energy & Transportation Committee C] Robert Vierling re: various requests d] Clete Link re: request for staff time 8] Public Hearings: a] 7:30 P.M. - Vacation of easements in Valley Rich 1st Addition b] 7:40 P.M. - Vacation of easement in Clay's 1st Addition 91 Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission: a] Preliminary and Final Plat of Valley Park 8th Addition located South of Valley Industrial Blvd. So. and West of Valley Park Drive - Res. No. 3045 b] Amendment to the Preliminary Plat of Meadows Addition located South of 11th Avenue and East of Spencer St. c] Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on Day Care Facilities - Ord. No. 264 d] Erosion Control Ordinance ti TENTATIVE AGENDA May 2, 1989 Page -2- 10] Reports From Staff: a] Canterbury Park 1st Addition, located South of Valley Industrial Blvd. No. and West of Valley Park Drive (Lot 2, Block 3, Valley Park 1st Add-n. ) *b] Refuse Collection Senior Citizen Discount Policy c] Petition to Vacate Park Designation in Timber Trails *d] Tractor Bid Award e] Request for Waiver of Pay Scale for Part-Time Park Maintenance Worker f] Interfund Transfers g] Payment of Bills in Amount of $286,633.53 h] Animal Control Ordinance Complaint i] Audit of Murphy's Landing *j] Gate Construction Request by Murphy's Landing k] Engineering Technician Position 1] Upper Valley Drainage Project - Permit Status m] Lewis and Sommerville Streets - 900 Block n] Marschall Road Sidewalk Alternatives - South of CR-16 o] Request For Proposals (RFP) for Local Property Tax Analysis p] Springsted Letter 11] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 3020, Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specs for Marschall Road Sidewalk - 4th Avenue to CR-16 (1989-6) b] Res. No. 3046, Ordering Preparation of Report on Improvements to Roadways in Killarney Hills Addition c] Res. No. 3047, Receiving A Report and Calling A Hearing on Improvements to Roadways in Killarney Hills Addition 12] Other Business: *a] Approval of the Minutes of April 18, 1989 b] C] 13] Adjourn to Tuesday, May 9, 1989 at 6:00 p.m. Dennis R. Kraft Acting City Administrator REMINDER: After the May 9th, 6:00 P.M. , public hearing on MEBCO Tax Increment Financing, Council will convene the Board of Review at 7:00 P.M. and immediately adjourn to Room 319 at the Scott County Courthouse. TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Session May 2, 1989 Chairman Gary Scott presiding 1. Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M. 2 . Approve the Minutes of April 4, 1989 Meeting 3. MEBCO Tax Increment Financing Project - Resolution No. 89-2 4 . Other Business a. b. 5. Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Regular Session Shakopee, MN April 4, 1989 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. with Comm. Vierling, Clay and Zak present. Also present were Mayor Lebens; Dennis Kraft, Executive Director; David Hutton, City Engineer; Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant; Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Vierling/Zak moved to approve the minutes of March 21, 1989. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved 'to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Dennis Kraft Executive Director Carol Schultz Recording Secretary � 3 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, HRA Executive Director FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: MEBCO Tax Increment Project DATE: April 27, 1989 INTRODUCTION: A City Council Public Hearing has been scheduled for 6: 00 P.M. on May 9, 1989 to hear comments from the following matters: A. The amendment of the redevelopment plan relating to the authorities MN River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project 41, B. The establishment of Tax Increment District #7, and C. The adoption of a tax increment financing plan for the proposed tax increment financing district. Prior to the public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority to take action on Resolution #89-2 , A Resolution Amending the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan relating to the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project #1 and establishing Tax Increment District #7 located within redevelopment project #1 and approving and adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto (See attachment #1) . The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District #7 is shown in Attachment #2 . BACKGROUND: On March 21, 1989 the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved Resolution No. 89-1 requesting Council action on the following: 1. Approval of modifications to the redevelopment plan for Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project #l. 2 . Approval of the establishment of a new tax increment financing district in project area #1 to be designated as Tax Increment Financing District #7 . 3. The adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. Resolution 89-1 also referred the modified redevelopment plan to the Shakopee City Planning Commission for review and comment as to whether the proposed modification was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. On March 21, 1989 the Shakopee City Council denied the requests of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority. On April 4, 1989 the Shakopee City Council reconsidered their action and formally approved Resolution #3030 as amended calling for a public hearing on the adoption of a modification to the redevelopment plan for the project, the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District #7 in the project area and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. On April 20, 1989 the Shakopee Planning Commission moved to inform the Shakopee City Council and Shakopee HRA that the findings of the Planning Commission revealed that the MEBCO Tax Increment Project is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY: The MEBCO Tax Increment Project will provide three years of tax increment financing assistance to the developer which is consistent with the City's Industrial Development Incentive Policy. Fiscal disparities will be paid for out of the project. Additionally, the City of Shakopee will abide by the conditions set forth in the joint powers agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee School District for the distribution of tax proceeds. Both the Scott County Board and School District have been sent copies of the redevelopment plan as it relates to the MEBCO project for their comments. Each body has stated in the past that they support the MEBCO Tax Increment Project. Based on the information presented herein, it would now be appropriate for the HRA to approve Resolution No. 89-2 . Staff would like to point out that this project will not proceed unless City Council subsequently passes a similar motion following the public hearing on May 9, 1989. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. 89-2 Approving Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for MN River Valley Redevelopment Project No. 1, Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 Located within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Approving and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan related thereto. 2 . Do not approve Resolution No. 89-2 . 3 . Table action pending further information from staff. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to adopt Resolution No. 89-2 Approving Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for MN River Valley Redevelopment Project No. 1, Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 Located within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Approving and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan related thereto. MEBCO Attachment #1 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE COUNTY OF SCOTT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-2 A RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 7 LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the "City") , as follows: Section 1. Recitals 1.01. It has been proposed that the Authority amend the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") relating to Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project") established pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 to 462 .716, inclusive, as amended, amend the Redevelopment Plan, to establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (the "Financing District") in the Project Area, and adopt the Tax Increment financing Plan relating thereto pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78, inclusive, as amended. 1.02. This Authority has investigated the facts and has caused to be prepared with respect thereto, an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project. This Authority has also caused to be prepared, and has investigated the facts with respect to the establishment of proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 as stated in the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. 1.03. The Authority has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the amendment of the Redevelopment Plan and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 and the adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto; has requested the written opinion of the City's Planning Commission relating to the proposed amendment of the Redevelopment Plan and adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating to Tax Increment Financing District No. 7; and has requested that the City Council (the "Council") of the City hold a public hearing relating to the above-stated matters. 1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interest of the Authority and the City at this time to approve the amendment of the Redevelopment Plan establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 and approving and adopting the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. Section 1. Approval of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7. Subject to the finding, determination, and approval of the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District no. 7 by the Council, proposed Tax increment Financing District No. 7 within the Redevelopment Project No. 1 is hereby approved by the Commissioners of the Authority. The property included in said Tax Increment Financing District shall be the property described in the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, as approved in Section 4 hereof. Section 2. Approval of Redevelopment Flan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. The proposed amendment of the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project, and the adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (collectively referred to as the "Plans-') , presented to the Authority on this date, are hereby approved and adopted by the Authority. Section 3 . Filing of Plans. The Authority shall cause the Plans, as finally approved and adopted, to be filed with the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. Section 4. Certification of Assessed Value. Upon approval of the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 and the adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto by the Council, the Authority shall request the County Auditor of Scott County (the "County Auditor") to certify the original assessed value of the real property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 7, as described in the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. Dated: May 2, 1989 Chairman ATTEST: Executive Director Attachment #2 SECTION VIII TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 7 (MEBCO INDUSTRIES, INC.) Subsection 8.1. Statement of Obiectives. See Section I, Subsection 1.4 of the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan. Subsection 8.2. Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan See Section I, Subsection 1.2 through 1.4 of the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan. Tax Increment District No. 7 is an approximately five acre site located east of County Road 83 and west of Valley Park Drive, on Valley Industrial Boulevard South. Subsection 8.3. Parcels to be Included in Tax Increment District No 7 A map showing the boundaries of Tax Increment District No. 7 is attached to this Financing Plan as Exhibit VIII- A, and the parcels constituting said District are legally described in the attached Exhibit VIII-B. Subsection 8.4. Parcels in Acquisition The Authority may acquire and reconvey any or all of the parcels of property located within Tax Increment District No. 7 and in particular the Authority intends to acquire the real property described in Exhibit VIII-B. Subsection 8.5. Requirement for Agreements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 5, no more than 25 percent by acreage of the property to be acquired by the Authority in the District shall be owned by the Authority as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178 without the Authority having, prior to acquisition of in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the Authority should the redevelopment not be completed. As of the date of adoption of Tax Increment Financing Plan No. 7, the Authority has not entered into any Development Agreements. Prior to the expenditure of Tax Increment funds, the Authority expects to enter into a development agreement with Mebco Industries, Inc. for the development of land in Tax Increment District No. 7. Subsection 8.6. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, the Authority may, upon entering into a redevelopment agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 5, enter into an 8 - 1 agreement in recordable form with the redeveloper of property within Tax Increment District No. 7 which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the Tax Increment-District. The Assessment Agreement shall be presented to the City Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the Assessment Agreement appears in the judgment of the Assessor, to be a reasonable estimate,the Assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. The Authority does not anticipate entering into an Assessment Agreement. Subsection 8.7. Specific Development Expected to Occur Within Tax Increment District No 7• Need for Tax Increment Financing. It is expected that the property within Tax Increment District No. 7 will be developed with an approximately 60,200 square foot hair comb manufacturing and distribution facility. The proposed development, in the opinion of the Authority, could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future, and thus the use of tax increment financing to assist the proposed development is necessary. The price of the parcel on which the facility is to be located is greater than that of similar land available in other local jurisdictions. This finding is based upon a comparison of similar land made by the Authority. Subsection B.S. Estimated Public Costs. The estimated principal amount of Public Costs to be financed from Tax Increments from Tax Increment District No. 7 is $202,000. The Public Costs are generally described as follows: Land Write Down $156,475 Authority Administration (10%) 18,354 Capitalized Interest (5-1-89 to 2-1-91) 24,141 Allowance For Discount Bidding 3.030 Total $202,000 The Public Costs set forth above are estimates and the amounts allocated to pay any item may be reallocated among any of the other items set forth above. 8- 2 Subsection 8.9. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 of the Tax Increment Financing Act, general obligation tax increment bonds in an amountnot exceeding$202,000 are to be issued to amortize the eligible costs identified in Subsection 8.8. The debt service cash flows are shown in Exhibit VIII-C. Subsection 8.10. Sources of Revenue. The revenues to be used to pay the Public Costs in the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment District No. 7 are tax increments. A schedule of projected tax increment revenue is shown in Exhibit VIII-D. Subsection 8.11. Original Tax Capacity Value Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 275.08, the Original Tax Capacity Value of all taxable property in Tax Increment District No. 7 as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1988 with respect to the tax capacity value of such property as of January 2, 1988, for taxes payable in 1989, is estimated to be $2,744. The County Auditor will add to the Original Assessed Value for the preceding year multiplied by the average percentage increase in the assessed value of all property included in the District during the five years prior to certification. The estimated market value of the property within Tax Increment District No. 7 has been constant at 852,267 since 1983. During this time, there has been no change in the property tax classification of property. Therefore, the average percent increase in assessed value during the five years prior to certification of Tax Increment District No. 7 is zero. _ Subsection 6.12. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Value and Computation of Tax Increment. Each year the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total tax capacity value of taxable property in Tax Increment District No. 7 to calculate the Tax Increments payable to the City. In any year in which there is an increase in total tax capacity value in Tax Increment District No. 7 above the Original Tax Capacity Value, Tax Increments will be payable to the City. In any year in which the total tax capacity value in Tax Increment District No. 7 declines below the Original Tax Capacity Value, no tax capacity value will be captured from Tax Increment District No. 7 and no Tax Increments will be payable therefrom. 8 -3 The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the Original Tax Capacity Values were certified, the amount the Original Tax Capacity Values have increased or decreased as a result of: 1. changes in tax exempt status of property; 2. reductions or enlargements of the geographic boundaries of Tax Increment District No. 7; and 3. changes due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. Upon completion of the development expected to occur in Tax Increment District No. 7, the City estimates the tax capacity value of taxable property in Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 will be approximately $64,966, based on an estimated market value upon completion of $1,245,000. The Captured Tax Capacity Value upon completion of development is expected to be approximately $61,966. The Tax Increments will be captured for up to 8 years from the date of the receipt or ten years from approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, whichever is less. The City determines that 100.00% of the available increase in tax capacity value of Tax Increment District No. 7 shall be used in accordance with this Tax Increment Financing Plan No. 7. However, the City retains to option, at any time during the life of the District, to retain - some portion less than 100% of the annual tax increment, and pass on the remaining portion to other taxing jurisdictions in accordance with the Tax Increment Act. Subsection 8.13. Fiscal Disparities Contribution. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177(3)(b), the City elects that the fiscal disparities contribution associated with the private development which occurs within Tax Increment District No. 7 will be borne by Tax Increment District No. 7. Subsection 8.14. Original Gross Tax Capacity Rate. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 275.08, at the time of certification of the original tax capacity for Tax Increment Distrito No. 7, the County Auditor will certify the Original Gross Tax Capacity Rate that applies to Tax Increment District No. 7. The Original Gross Tax Capacity Rate is the sum of all the gross tax 8 - 4 capacity rates that apply to the properties in Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 for taxes payable in 1989, which is the year in which the initial certification of the Original Tax Capacity Value was requested. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3(b)(2), Rhe County Auditor shall exclude the retained captured tax capacity of the authority from the taxable value of the local taxing district in determining local taxing district gross tax capacity rates. The gross tax capacity rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured tax capacity of the Authority as well as the taxable value of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district grass tax capacity rates or (B) the original gross tax capacity rate to the retained captured tax capacity of the Authority is the tax increment of the Authority." Therefore, the maximum tax capacity rate to be applied to Tax Increment District No. 7 for its duration, as estimated by the Scott County Auditor for 1988/89, is 125.366%. Taxing Jurisdiction 1988/89 Tax Capacity Rate City of Shakopee 15.008% Scott County 36.093 Independent School District 720 69.953 Special Districts 4.312 Total Tax Capacity Rate 125.366% Subsection 8.15. Duration of Tax Increment District No 7 The Tax Increment Financing Act allows economic development districts to remain in existence eight years from the date of the receipt, or ten years from approval of the tax increment financing plan, whichever is less. Therefore, Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 may remain in effect until eight years from the receipt of the first tax increments, or until such earlier date as all Public Costs have been paid in actor=ante with this Tax Increment Plan No. 7. Subsection 8.16. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subdivision (6) of the Tax Increment Act, Exhibit VIII-E shows the estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 on taxing jurisdictions other than the City. There will be no adverse impact on the other taxing jurisdictions during the terms of Tax Increment District No. 7 since the development would not have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment District No. 7 and the provision of public assistance. A positive impact on 8 - 5 other taxing jurisdictions will occur when Tax Increment District No. 7 is decertified and the development in Tax Increment District No. 7 becomes part of the tax base of all affected taxing jurisdictions. Subsection 8.17. Modification to Tax Increment District No. 7 and/or Tax Increment Financing Plan. As of May 2, 1989 no modifications to Tax Increment District No. 7 or the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore were made, said date being the date of original adoption thereof. 8 - 6 _ _Exhibit VIII-A District s7 2 i; a RR M1 I;- j ' Q / /fes __ -�•- � a�'I o°,$' : �; AlWig i or !1 74 n f „� f .,p, Vin" i pAfbf Exhibit VIII-B Legal Description for Mebco Tax Increment District: Lot 1, Block 1, Valley Park 8th Addition except that portion beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 1 Block 1 extending Southerly along the Easterly property line of Lot 1 Block 1 135 feet, thence Westerly 40 feet, thence Southerly 280 feet, thence Easterly 40 feet to a point 183 feet North of the Southeast corner of Lot 1 Block 1 thence Southerly along the Easterly property line of Lot 1 Block 1 183 feet to a point at the Southeast corner of Lot 1 Block 1. EXHIBIT VIII-C G ^ me0l� emNN r L j • O V n V ^ C L A C O O m b b b b b b b N VIIli PPIli PPP m a Z c e G L C A 1 6N G aa�-. OOmbbmVlN^m N 6m b �P bbP Oi"•^O O m m m N N ^O O ^ r p V 1'-• N 1(f Yf N V1 N Vf N � rbim mmmmmm m p N d J a d V a,a�"� 00^NNNPOOr N L bI[l ee mn n � erimrtm ri enn "' � mmmmmmmm � y C N � V O o'^.� o0000000 V r L A = L u � .nOb 1OmP q �O n CPNNNNPOO^ Y'f "" AgNb �^ ^I�I�rNeee ^ PmP T 6d �-- rbbbbemm O � L c .+ mmmmmmmm P L= N C p- P T b L r j �+ PPamb e�lfP� t(f G Lv mt��mPemO ^•+ � .. J d= Om mfVOPl�beN O d Jy V A r..nrrr V t urd E E e mo c �a �+ Xaa aaXMMaa Ka4K cru cL ds 1� OO6f00IC9 bob CrG A �.a Z OOb�� mmPP OObbbbbbbb U O n •• V O O O..m... OONm••• N Nmb� O y m I b e A a CCS C O ^NeN �P^ N ulmb EN NNNNNNNm p m. � COV N mb b1� NG m - d P d 'L d d = G A L d EO tr o ^Nmel(Ib� mP O O. V O u P P P P P P P P P P y Y C qfv _ L E MfN G •• .L A G L^ ✓� G } L J J A A T d J L J P = P P P P P P P P J VIII - C - 3 EXHIBIT VIII-D _ t2 Nm ^0 - _ m C b m z _ E O 9 ➢ � � � C _ L g G 2 p n O P ➢ 4 O W Q _ C O - m U - 2 -, m LL s •, ° - r o a ezz Z. - � m .- d `a A = m - VIII - D - 4 EXHIBIT ». ; i die i - ; 2 2 - - : � . - ! ! «: _ ! ■ ! ■ - � }; \ � / � \ � Ic |\ _� ) � � - Mm � _ ! • ! , __ . . : _ - - / h ! « . e CONSENT V�VAN SICKLE, ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4969 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422 • 6121541-9800 April 21, 1989 Mr. Leroy Rouser Building Official City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Timber Retaining Wall Taco Johns 815 1st Avenue West VAA Comm. 89 .050 Dear Leroy: This letter is to confirm our conversation of April 19th, 1989 regarding the existing timber retaining wall at the rear of the above premises. It is not possible for me to verify the adequacy of the existing wall without knowledge of the various items of construction, such as, tieback lengths, spiking of the ties in the wall and tiebacks, soil information and details of wall base. The wall does appear to be in fairly good condition although there may be some small amounts of movement in a couple of locations, where the wall shows signs of slight bulging. This misalignment could possibly have been built into the wall during construction, particularly as the timbers are somewhat rough in finish and accurate lines may have been difficult to achieve. I believe it would be prudent to periodically observe the condition of the wall and paving in the parking lot above, to verify that movements are not a continuing problem. As we discussed, it would also be advisable to cap the 2 '-0" or so of dirt between the top of the wall and the concrete curb, to eliminate the possibility of water run-off saturating the fill behind the wall. This type of timber wall can be somewhat susceptible to sudden increases in pressure from flash storms where water cannot escape quickly enough through the wall face. As we observed, it can also wash out the granular fill behind the wall. Consulting Engineers Civil Structural Mr. Leroy Houser April 21, 1989 Page 2 of 2 If these measures are taken I am sure the wall will not be a concern for any sudden failure. However, in a few cases, high timber tie walls do seem to maintain a tendency to movement over a long period of time, presumably due to inadequate placement of the tiebacks. Because of this, I recommend at least a once a year observation and report on the wall, to document its condition. If no movements are observed in the first three or four years it should be safe to assume the wall is structurally sound. If you have any further questions on this subject please do not hesitate to call. SincerelMEN VAN SICS_SO�CI�ATES, INC. Reg G. Silverthorne, P.E. Vice President RGS:br v421hou r Action Recommended Accept the recommendations of Mr. Reg G. Silverthorne, P.E. , Van Sickle, Allen & Associates, Inc. regarding monitoring the timber retaining wall North of Taco John's, 815 West First Avenue. CONSENT April 19, 1939 To: Shakopee Energy and Transportation Committee Please accept my resignation from the Shakopee Energy and Transportation Committee effective immediately. Due to circumstances we will be moving out of the Shakopee area. Thank you for the very brief time 1 have been a member of this committee. S' rly, aures C. Moline Action Requested: Accept resignation from James C. Moline from the Energy and Transportation Committee, with regrets. CONSENT 7b April 19, 1939 To: Shakopee Energy and Transportation Camiittee Please accept my resignation from the Shakopee Energy and Transportation C�ittee effective im diately. Due to circimistances we will be moving out of the Shakopee area. Thank you for the very brief time I have been a member of this committee Sirly, aures C. Moline RECEIVFO APR 1 91989 ,17 Action Requested: Accept resignation from James C. Moline from the Energy and Transportation Committee, with regrets. 7G MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Letters from Robert Vierling DATE: April 29, 1989 Introduction The attached letters from Robert Vierling raise several questions and request information and compensation from the City of Shakopee. This memo outlines responses to Mr. Vierling's statements. Backaround The property owned by Mr. Robert Vierling located at 221 East Fourth Avenue has been the subject of periodic attention by City Code Enforcement Officials because of the condition of the property. The code enforcement activities have resulted in the City initiating periodic legal action against Mr. vierling. Also Mr. Vierling has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a concealed weapons permit from the City of Shakopee and the Police Chief has refused to issue such a permit. In letter No. 1 attached Mr. Vierling has submitted a request for reimbursement from the City of Shakopee in the amount of $3,001.75. $50.88 is for the rental of a sickle bar and labor used for cutting grass and weeds on Mr. Vierling's property and the remainder is for attorney's costs that Mr. Vierling alleges to have incurred in defending himself against charges filed by the City. There is no statutory authority for the rebate of attorney's fees for defendants in criminal prosecution trials. It would be quite unusual for the City of Shakopee to provide attorney's fees for defendants in criminal cases. Therefore it is recommended that Mr. Vierling be informed that there will not be a payment for legal fees he incurred in defending himself against City charges. I am not aware of any City agreement to cut Mr. Vierling's grass. For that reason I would recommend that the $50.88 bill for sickle bar rental not be paid. In response to letter No. 2 from Mr. Vierling the Building Official is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the building code. Letters written by the Building Official doing that might be viewed as harrassment by the recipient of the letter, however it is merely the Building Official's job to enforce the code. If other codes are violated the Building Official will continue to do his job. IC-- In response to the assertion that the "esteemed" City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney do not do any court work the response is that this is not true, they do court work. There will be no response relative to attorneys hired in order to enforce City laws. I believe the record speaks for itself. In response to Mr. Vierling's request to obtain a list of everyone who has been issued a concealed weapons permit the answer is that it would be a violation of State Law for the Police Chief to release this information. The Data Privacy Act does not allow the release of this type of information as requested by Mr. Vierling in his letter. Mr. Vierling has also requested a total summary of Chief Brownell 's employment record. Mr. Vierling requested this information previously and he was provided with a copy of Chief Brownell's resume which was submitted when he applied to the City of Shakopee for employment. The information he received does not contain Chief Brownell 's employment status only up to 1968. The information went to January, 1979 and Chief Brownell has been employed by the City of Shakopee since that time so in reality there is a considerable amount of information which was previously provided to Mr. Vierling which relates to the employment status of the Police Chief. If Mr. Vierling wants specific information from the Police Department and if that information can legally be released proper procedure to follow would be for him to fill out a Shakopee Police Department Information Disclosure Request which conforms to the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. If the City Council is in agreement with the aforementioned statements it is suggested that a letter be prepared for the Mayor's signature which responds to Mr. Vierling's questions, comments and assertions and that that be sent to Mr. Vierling along with a copy of the Shakopee Police Department Information Disclosure Request form. Alternatives 1. Authorize the preparation of a letter for the Mayor's signature to be sent to Mr. Vierling. 2. Receive and file the correspondance from Mr. Vierling. Recommendation It is recommended that Alternative No. 1 be approved by the City Council. Action Requested Move to direct the preparation of a letter for the Mayor's signature to be sent to Mr. Vierling responding to his comments and requests dated April 24, 1989. DRK/jms 1 APR z 1 � Mr. Robert F. Vierling / /1 221 E. Fourth Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 City of Shakopee 4/24/89 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Bill owed by the City of Shakopee Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed you will find bills in the following amounts for two court cases that the City of Shakopee lost in their past prosecution. The first court case was dismissed, costing me Attorney's fees and personal ex- pense of $2,201.75. (Dec. 15, 1986) . The second case brought by the City, which the City again lost (and was told it could not be appealed) accrued expenses of $600.00. (Dec. 13, 1988) . There is enclosed, and adiitional $50.88 bill for the rental of a sickle bar and labor, due to the failure of the City of Shakopee to live up to its agree ment of the year before. (Oct. 10, 1988) . State statutes provide that when plaintiff or defendant loses a case, they are liable for the entire amount of expenses incurred by the other party involved. I will expect the City of Shakopee to reimburse me for the entire amount of $3,001.75. Bills and statement enclosed. Sincerely yours t '�. Vierlirg P.S. In no wag is this above billing connected to the upcoming court cases that will be filed against the City of Shakopee. TERMS: CASH IN ADVANCE ESTABLISHED OPEN ACCOUNTS ARE DUE STORE HOURS T n L AND PAYABLE NET 10TH OF MONTH. PAST TO /L, DUE ACCOUNTS BEAR LATE PAYMENT Mon. - Fri. 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. PENALTIES AT 1%%PER MONTH. Saturday 8:00 a.m. • 5:00 p.m. Sunday ose a.m. • 2:00 p.m. Cl Holidays Closed ��� RENTAL . . --------------------------------------------- ------- -------------- - ------- -._ VIERL.I:NG ROBERT F PILL. 0. 00163*36 11HECK. 01.11 221 E. 4TH AVE PHONE: 445-6456 10/08/88 1.0:01 am SHAKOREET MN 55379 LICENSE: V 645 745 261 420 P0: JOB: _-------.-------------------------_._--._____-__--__---_----_-----_-`_ ITEM DESCRIPTION Ory BASIS CHARGE 07-38502 SICKLEBAR MOWER 1 24.00/ 2HOUR 24.00 A TIME OUT: 10/08/88 9:59 am E TIME IN : 10/06/88 11:59 am G "C $ ---------1-- ---------------- --------------_-_-----_ DWG: -1 .44 t RECEIVED' 26.88 M/C EST. RENT: 24.00 EST. TAX: 1 .44 11 TOTAL DUE: 26.88 I VP DAMAGES Aro LOSSWAMER:DTWr bPre 10 muM aea.wa-A ML.nma..p PTo clmeaer.antro THIS AGflEEMENT1q/08/88 1.1. :59 Pwa.B IUNn 1IK Ie.awwa.wrPaapleFN 11 mealMeaMroIlwllre wHllelllMc..mesa na CMg9 RNe0 E.Io.. TE M IATES: THE DAMAGE WAIVER IS Dip OF TNS RE NTAL AMOUNT.TNEFT IS CUSTOMERS RESPONSIBILITY.(PLEASE INTTIA, j IF OECUNED \Il OaTp W-.B eNMIe ,a CARR..allla 4--11 raW R.mel.s Lmf P.We. nKm,a aeFw�NA M TqM RanW wm ro aIY wwllaM TMM. SIGNATURE 1 HAVE READ ANDI AGREE TO THE CONTMCT TERMS ON THE BECK OFTHISCONTRACT.THOSE TERMS CONSIST OF OUR ENTIRE AGREEMENT.NOONE HAS MATE ANY pML OR OTHER"MEN REPRESENTANONS OR PROMISES NOT INCLUDED IN THIS CONTRACT.I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS CONTRACT. CUSTOMER COPY L..W Or,ICO MOSS & BARNETT I A P^o,a .Ama.mw 1200 Pn2s6u6P Cw cwA n� 200 SO Sl n Smart 1u ^..mmm • ..newrc vm. aer4Wm uAo 1�.^aun� Mwx6Aro13s, MOvx65arA 55602 uo evm�i . i n T� 16121 347-0300 ewa v.x v."�m�i.un .^vum+.un mea l..m Tlu 612 nw..wu"M^"� ..u. X3396666 mv...wan a n.a a w^ou w.mr mm^m WAS .mrtI.o^.tml mmr m I.u�vaomn til.a �I�.��I lfu�snl .mumu�r mouy c.u�... wmew.uum��m-�w� pa r..row .ut o.xmum. A .Iaorils rnn'.mt'e ctu xvm �m.NSi.vpV.xon^ mn YW w�wm ^WMY 11�uW o.^m 1.pp.p01 1.1.16V-Ou��T^fin 4^9 twmOLT�Yv cwmae.vanR v.m e.a.m^ August 18, 1987 Mr. Robert F. Vierling 221 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 - Re: Zoning Violation Matter Dear Bob: Please find enclosed herewith the bill for legal services rendered in connection with the zoning/housing charges filed against you. The bill reflects all time spent in defending you up through the end of July and the remaining balance for the few phone calls in August and the court appearance in October should be fairly minimal. Thank you and best regards. Very truly yours, Peter J. Timmons PJT/srt Enclosure IN ACCOUNT WITH MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 1200 Pillsbury Center • 200 Swot Sigh Street •Minneapolis, Minnesota 55102 (512)U7-0300 Federal ID# 41-0943845 August 13, 1987 PAP/ PJT Robert F. Vierling 221 East 4th Avenue Client: 11881 Shakopee 55379 Invoice # 53401 REMITTANCE ENCLOSED For Legal Services Rendered in Connection With: Matter: 3 Zoning Violation 05/05/87 Meeting with client regarding facts and defenses at trial . 05/13/87 Review and analysis of complaint. 05/20/87 Review police reports and documents. 06/02/87 Telephone conference with client regarding trial questions. 06/29/87 Numerous telephone conferences with client, prosecutor and city employees regarding settlement and permits; begin trial preparation. 06/29/87 Research regarding case law supporting defenses raised on behalf of client. 06/30/87 Finish trial preparation; assist client with building and variance applications; conference with prosecutor; obtain cont. for dismissal . 07/02/87 Summary letter to client and obtain variance and ordinance. 07/21/87 Telephone conference with client regarding status and letter to client. Total For Services $974.50 Disbursements 05/13/87 Cash Disbursements: Susan L. Estill ; 5.00 Photocopies. 07/16/87 Cash Disbursements: City of Shakopee; zoning 10.00 ordinance 07/21/87 Cash Disbursements: Peter Timmons; 49 miles. 12.25 Disbursements Total $27.25 Total This Matter $1 ,001 .75 MOSS & BARNETT 1200 Pillsbury center• 200 South Si.th Street • Minneapolis.Minnesota 55402 (012)347-0300 IN ACCOUNT WITH MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 1200 Pillsbury Center • 200 South Sixth Street • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 p (612)347-0300 l/ Client: 11881 Robert F. Vierling August 13, 1987 Page: 2 REMITTANCE ENCLOSED '** CLIENT TOTALS Amount Due This Invoice 1 ,001 .75 Less Retainer Received -500.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $501 .75 MOSS & BARNETT 1200 Pillsbury Center • 200 South Sixth Street • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 347-0300 RECEIVED ci APR 2 41989 „1 i Mr. Robert F. Vierling CI FY OF SHAKOPEE 221 E. Fourth Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 City of Shakopee 4/24/89 129 E. 1st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mayor and Council Members: First of all, do not have Hauser write me any harrassing letters this Spring regarding roofing/painting of my premesis. The work will continue where it left off last Fall. If you will remember, Hauser sent me a letter after I'd already begun repairs, when he could see that materials were already on site; I want no more harrass- ments of this nature this year. I was informed by Hauser last year that he would compel the Apartments across the alley from me to have covered trash containers; he supposedly wrote them a letter, but still nothing has been done, and again, I'm picking up their trash from my yard. I want to know why our "esteemed" City Attorney roller, and our Assistant City Attorney Kress, do not do any court work? Why is it that we hire from Krass's firm low quality Attorney's to prosecute our own townspeople? What was the cost to the taxpayers for hiring Susan Estil for my first case which was dis missed for lack of evidence; and what was the cost for Muir, who lost still mother one for the same cause? I would appreciate the figures on these two cases. Lastly, from alleged Chief Brownell, I still wish to know everyone to wham he has issued a license for carrying a concealed weapon from the City of Shakopee. Also, again, I regaest his resume, the total summary of his employment record up-to-date. My last request only answered his employment status up to 1968. I would appreciate prompt responses to the above questions. Sincerely yours, A.REQUESTER COMPLETE 0hren, 1-5) SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE DP REWEST INFORMATION DISCLOSURE REQUEST Minnesota Governmental Data Practices Act L REOUESTER NAME Haft Rql,MI RMMMR NOTE A RMANN FNSAII—Orion.Dene m IMI.MUNS.After you Nw the,rev n 2 ADDRESS III remove, 1M EM.uH M.W He.11,1.GM rytl ml be new,koe]to yw her NY IMAM theeeml"Ien A a"ae w.1.I.Dev no a a.111hrel N.on YoV h"M"cal:tee. 3.PHONE IR named, a. YOU may be NOWIld to PAY the"IU.I c"u of meulno.Nmlymo anolor w Pfl no the cool"of Inhon anon Ienueetm l DESCRIPTION OF THE INFORMATION REQUESTED X5 REOO STER SIGNATURE B. DEPARTMENTIDIVISION COMPLETE (Administration,Investigation,Juvenile, Patrol) S.DEPARTMENTIDIVISION NAME T.REWEST HANDLED BY S.REQUEST TYPE 9.gEOUEBTEO BY: ❑In-person ❑Mall ❑Phone []Sub].of the data ❑Not the sub).of the data 10.THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IS CLASSIFIED: il.REQUEST 13PUBLIC ❑ NON-PUBLIC ❑Approved ❑ Denied ❑Approved in pan(explain in 13) ❑ PRIVATE ❑ PROTECTED NON PUBLIC 12.AUTHOgRED5I0HATOHE ❑ CONFIDENTIAL X 13.REMARKSICOMMENIS(Illp"eMNII N PAIM" dm as Ndoryet""MIM IepWBMCIN YYIIq/11ywmeew.Alto erMx"OIirwY m, kLCtlmm"le syplOgierof. C.DEPARTMENTIDIVISION COMPLETE WHEN FEES ARE ASSESSED(A race/pled copy of this harm fa to be provided to the requester each time money is received). 1A' 0FEES:FLAT RATE x ta ❑ FEES:SPECIAL RATE7compleM.Mnom ~ft F"TMTEw (NO.OF PAGES) STANDARD FEE SCHEDULE ie u»S, I have TIED Ived from the above named,the amount Indicated opposite my signature In payment for providing the Information requested. ts. I RECEIVED BY TODAY'S DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE E 17A.AMOUNT TO BE PREPAID RECEIVED BY TODAY'S DATE ISP%w NL Mel 11 eve j3a10/ E I 1711,BALANCE WE I gELEIVED BY TODAY'S DATE IUNP wmPNMon of[atom, E D.REQUESTER PLEASE NOTE ITEMS CHECKED 1.O Make checklmoney order payable to: 2 ❑ If mailed,return entire form and any fees to: Distribution:White-Requester Canary-Data Subject Pink-Department OR2 719$9 CITY OF SHAKOPEE April 27, 1989 City of Shakopee 129 East First Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Judy: As per our telephone conversation of April 27th, the Concerned Citizens For Fair Taxation request to be placed on the May 2nd agenda of the Shakopee City Council Meeting. The purpose of the request is an informal discussion to request some staff time to help our committee do some research. j Sincerely, Cletus J. Link Chairman, Citizens For Fair Taxation 28 April 1989 TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council Shakopee , Minnesota FROM: Concerned Citizens For Fair Taxation Committee SUBJECT: Request for Research Assistance to finalize research project on Tax Increment Finance and its Administration 1 . INTRODUCTION• As a result of the 1989 tax statements, and the major increase in taxes in this community, caused the formation of this Committee. The committee is in the process of reviewing all government practices on the local level . The use of Tax Increment Financing has been and continues to be a controversial area of great concern . Our Committee has spent many hours first obtaining an understanding of TIF, and the use of it in the city of Shakopee . It has been our policy to work in a quiet manner , and not to make public comments on anything until we have all the answers to our questions. We are now to the point in our research on TIF where we require the assistance of Your staff , bond people , and some legal assistance . This might involve some minor cost to the city for these people to assist us, and we are asking the city to cooperate in this final stage of the research . If this request is approved, we will submit a detailed document outlining specific areas for city staff and external research . 2. PURPOSES FOR REQUESTED RESEARCH ASSISTANCE: As with any program that is put into place , they require a review from time to time for their benefits, and how they are administrated. TIF was started around 1979 in Shakopee , and it appears to this committee that there are some policy changes that need to be reviewed regarding it , and to bring it in line with 1989 and the cities present status versus what it was in 1979. We want to work with the city reviewing and evaluating past and present policies regarding TIF, and to work out a logical and reasonable direction for 1989 and beyond that will have a direct and positive impact to the citizens of the community and their taxes. 3. AREAS OF IMMEDIATE INTEREST: A. The impact of decertification of Tax Increment Finance Districts through the retirement of their debt or the placing of excess increments into an escrow account dedicated to payment of bonds, there-by allowing decertification. B. The impact of changing to option 'B' on those districts that are now funding their fiscal disparities contribution by "spreading" the payment to the rest of the city rather than paying out of the captured funds. I �C. The impact of changing the 'pooling' of captured increments policy versus the re-payment of debt , and when this change of policy could occur . D. The impact that the immediate decertification of the 29% of the cities assessed market value that is now in TIF districts would have on local taxes. E. The impact the decertification of these districts would have by allowing new users of TIF to cane into the community and not having so much of our assessed market value locked into a couple of long term districts for the purpose of pooling captured increments. 4. REQUESTS: It is the intent of Tax Increment Legislation that the captured excess increments that are in excess of the cost authorized by the TIF plan be used or set aside for the purpose of retiring a TIF district early. Therefore , it should be the city's 'new' goal to ascertain which can and should be retired at this time and get them back on the tax roles. We are asking that research be conducted that would inform us on which of the following Tax Increment Districts can be retired immediately with existing captured funds. K-MART DISTRIBUTION CENTER (pre-1979, refunded 1984) SENIOR HIGH RISE (1979) DOWNTOWN (redevelopment 1982) RACETRACK ( 1984) FAMILY CHOW MEIN (1984) SHAKOPEE VALLEY MOTEL QUESTIONS: Legal restrictions if any on this action? Penalties that the city might incur? Advantages/Disadvantages for early retirement? Cost to retire each of the above? What would the impact of this be in revenue for the city, county and school district? What impact would this have on the tax payer? 2 For those districts where the city chose the option of 'spreading' the fiscal disparities payment to the city as a whole versus paying this out of the district, we ask these questions: If the option is reversed, what legal or financial costs would this cause the city? What is the present option costing the taxpayers? Why was the present option chosen? What effect would the citizens see on their tax bill if this was reversed? What action(s) must the city take to reverse this option , and its impact? In 1984 the K-Mart TIF District was refunded to -buy down- the interest on the district , saving about $l70,000 .00 . But also it changed the way the excess captured increments could be used. The original bonds had a covenant that restricted the excess increments to the retirement of debt service . By refunding, the covenants were lifted allowing for the 'pooling' of these excess increments. Along with this, just by the mere fact that Canterbury Inn built with-in the district boundaries of the K-Mart district , the city is capturing about $408,000.00 from it . At the present time some of the excess increments are dedicated to the payment of public improvements within the project area, and some have been used to complete other improvements. QUESTIONS: Can a district boundaries be changed to release Canterbury Inn since it was not in the original plan , and the captured funds are being 'pooled' for projects? What improvements are now in the planning stage? Can they be delayed? Are any of the projects of the nature that should be decided by referendum? With early decertification , what impact would the citizens see on their tax bills? When would this impact be seen? What is the cost to retire the district , and what funds, and from where do you have available? When can this be done and on what schedule? 3 � 6�-' The city of Shakopee is riaht near the top of the list of communities when it comes to the amount of assessed market value in TIF. Along with that, Shakopee is at the top in taxes when compared to other communities. While it is not the only reason for our problems, TIF is a major contributing factor . We commend the city for its new policy on future Tax Increment Finance Districts where it limits the duration to 3 years. We feel this is a major step to insure proper use of TIF funds. We further feel that the city should research the placing of a cap on the amount of assessed market value that they will have in TIF at any one time . We are looking forward to working very close with the city on this project , and appreciate its cooperation . 4 6 a-,.; MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk _V E RE: Application fVacation of or )Casements in Valley Rich 1st Addition DATE: April 27, 1989 INTRODUCTION: On April 4, 1989, Council set a public hearing for May 2nd to consider the petition for the vacation of easements lying within Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich 1st Addition. BACKGROUND: There is a drainage easement within Lot 1, Block 2, which encompasses approximately 2/3rds of the lot, making the lot unbuildable. In addition there is a 20 foot utility and drainage easement which runs along the lot lines of three of the sides of the lot. Mr. Bruce Olson, President, Valley-Rich Co. , Inc. (property owner) would like the existing easements reduced so that the lot would be buildable. He is agreeable to the City retaining easements necessary for the City's utility and drainage needs. (Mr. Olson is selling the property to Chris Anderson who has been granted a conditional use permit from the City for the assembly and outdoor storage of transportation equipment, which is contingent upon this vacation. ) The drainage easement being considered for vacation is shown on Attachment "A". Mr. Olson has signed an easement agreement to the City encompassing the area shown on Attachment "B" . Attachment "C" shows the 20 foot utility and drainage easement lying along the lot lines of said lot. Mr. Olson is asking that this utility and drainage easement be reduced to 10 feet, except where it abuts the easement he is conveying to the City. (The current subdivision ordinance requires the dedication of only a 10 foot utility and drainage easement abutting the perimeter of the lot lines. ) The notice of the public hearing has been published and posted according to law. The applicant has also received notice of the date and time of the public hearing. The vacation request has been reviewed and okayed by the Chief of Police, Public Works Superintendent, Utilities Manager, and Minnegasco. The City Engineer recommends, however, that the 20 foot utility and drainage easement not be reduced to 10' because it may be needed when Maras Street is upgraded to City standards. The Planning Commission has reviewed the vacation request and has found that the vacation of the drainage easement does not conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. They also went on record stating that the 20 foot perimeter drainage and utility easement should be retained by the City unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. The purpose of the public hearing is to determine whether or not the easements serve a public purpose. ALTERNATIVES: 11 Vacate drainage easement only 2] Vacate drainage easement as well as reducing the 20' perimeter drainage and utility easement to 10' 3] Deny request for vacation 4] Table for additional information RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 to vacate the drainage easement, only. The attached resolution of vacation has been prepared for Council's consideration. It only addresses the vacation of the drainage easement. If Council desires it amended to reduce the 20' utility and drainage easement to 10' in some areas, the resolution should be tabled and rewritten for the next Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 3048, A Resolution Vacating Easements in Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich 1st Addition, and move its adoption. MEMO TO: Judy Cox, City Clerk FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Vacation of Drainage Easement; Lot 1, Block 2 , Valley Rich 1st Addition DATE: April 25, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion finding that the vacation of the drainage easement on Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich let Addition does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is required by State Statutes to review all vacation petitions to determine whether the proposed vacation is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Planning commission reviewed the vacation request by Mr. Chris Anderson for Lot 1, Block 2 , Valley Rich 1st Addition. The Commission also, at the same meeting, reviewed a Conditional Use Permit application by Mr. Anderson for the assembly and outdoor storage of transportation equipment and fencing in excess of six feet on the property. Mr. Anderson proposes to construct his business at this location. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit containing a condition that the Permit is contingent upon the vacation of the drainage easement. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: After approving the Conditional Use Permit for Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich 1st Addition, the Planning Commission passed a motion finding that the vacation of the drainage easement does not conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the vacation of the drainage easement should be approved subject to the granting of a new drainage easement in conformance with the drainage plan submitted by Mr. Anderson. The Planning Commission also included in it's motion that the 20 foot perimeter drainage and utility easement should be retained by the City unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. VALLEY RICH ISS AOOIIION e ,j " I � +Vow'' �M�`�• I I \ e/ �°; BBy SSOpo �BSy zp: I I �a a I rUl _—. ia .E+ E 11! A ml OapMPGE' ,w,qA, Lr l a aI_ dl I I � .Q I I ; Izeo az 660o zsoaz NII ATTACMMMNT "C'- REDUCE C"REDUCE EASEMENTS ALONG PERIMETER OF fel LOT LINES TO 10 FEET, EXCEPT ABUTTING EASEHENT TO BE CONVEYED TO CITY ti MO SCALE v�o R) ed Dr°/�nrd'r �cc L __' s :G I d 3 i m p P 0 p a, ,h V C p The np.+n Fne of M/e - p N seuN, 3e,4er a/GeY/ N The ne•-fh lane d +he .apuM m hc! f Ce+ West SG7. 6¢ ?r HansenThorP P-Ilinon (llcnn InC. nr-.acHME'r ^e^ p/ PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT ti T SSS MC SCALE %o X� ed i 2O'c li OZ La i a 0 D $ �n to v g s m sk p • � Co1f /SQ.T/ \� C Tri roan /.nc eF MK p y leul'h 30 feCY OF Lef/ N Tre Huth /%n< ai• Mc murk M kcf a° Ler L✓cSt 567. 6¢ 11 Hansen Tharp 1 M.'r e.. nl—. Inn ?/T•=rT.r/r/E1'.�T f; ATTACHMENT "A" EASEMENT TO BE VACATED ti T ss. NO OC/.L! 4� a , N r, N p9'♦/'Jf'E d A V u � �IZ)L � j O S a � L \\ V e a � e f i 4 � a < ra _ sr a, z_ TTL narrn /:na N me aa,.M Alger « br/ J WGS•t SG7•toT Z � Hansen Thorp -' -� Pellinen Olson Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 3048 A RESOLUTION VACATING AN EASEMENT IN LOT 1, BLOCK 2, VALLEY RICH 1ST ADDITION, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the drainage easement in Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich 1st 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 7:30 p.m. on May 2, 1989; 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; and WHEREAS, the Council has been fully advised in all things. 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 drainage easement. 2. That all that part of the drainage easement lying within Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, be the same hereby is vacated. 3. That the 20 foot perimeter utility and drainage easement shall not be vacated. 4. 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. ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1989. City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 3048 A RESOLUTION VACATING AN EASEMENT IN LOT 1, BLOCK 2, VALLEY RICH 1ST ADDITION, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the drainage easement in Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich 1st Addition no longer serves any public interest or use; and WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that part of the utility and drainage easement lying along the southerly 20.00 feet of said lot no longer serves any public interest or use; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said vacations was held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Shakopee at 7:30 p.m. on May 2, 1989; 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; and WHEREAS, the Council has been fully advised in all things. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That it finds and determines that the vacations hereinafter described are in the public interest and serve no further public need, as easements. 2. That all that part of the drainage easement lying within Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and the same hereby is vacated. 3 . That part of the utility and drainage easement lying along the southerly 20.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and the same hereby is vacated. 4 . 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. ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1989. City Attorney i 1j Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson Inc. 0 Consulfing Engineers 8 Land Surveyors EXHIBIT "A" May 1, 1989 Description of Drainage Easement to be vacated. The drainage easement over, under and upon Lot 1, Block 2, VALLEY RICH IST ADDITION according to the recorded plat, situated in Scott County, as dedicated and delineated on said plat, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the north line of the south 20.00 feet of the said Lot 1 and the west line of the east 20.00 feet of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of West along said north line a distance of 210.82 feet to the east line of the west 20.00 feet of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 18 minutes 40 seconds West along said east line a distance of 120.00 feet; thence North 42 degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of 141.32 feet; thence North 0 degrees 18 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 75.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 115.00 feet to the west line of the east 20.00 feet of said Lot 1; thence South 0 degrees 18 minutes 26 seconds East along said west line a distance of 300.00 feet to the point of beginning. (612) 829-0700 0 7565 Office Ridge Circle •Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644 Hansen Thorp '`�' Pellinen Olson Inc. , 1 _ Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors EXHIBIT "B" May 1 , 1989 Description of Utility and Drainage Easement to be Vacated That part of the utility and drainage easement over, under and upon Lot 1 , Block 2, VALLEY RICH IST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, as donated and dedicated on said plat and described as follows: That part of the northerly 5.00 feet of the southerly 20.00 feet of said Lot 1 lying easterly of the westerly 20.00 feet of said Lot 1 and lying westerly of the easterly 20.00 feet of said Lot 1. (612) 820-0700 • 7565 Office Ridge Circle • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644 EASEMENT TO BE p/ VACATED SKETCH ti SSa MO SCALE �2 Q` • N 89.41*3*,E • mfg a. O a V U o� e � 1 N CX E Gyp OyO � {✓GSf s«.rn za xcr o<' for l J'p,n.na9e r Un/•ly Eaume�t ra be V^�^/cd West 250.82 gpnses s-hn Z"� I Hansen Thorp ., l�1 Pellinen�Inc. 1 �� Co+aauw E�vMx�6 WN S++e'N� B B38r ,�)O MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Cit-y, Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk �- � RE: Vacation of 160 foot Drainage. Easement Within Lot 1, Block 1, Clay's 1st Addition DATE: April 25, 1989 INTRODUCTION: On April 4, 1989, Council set a public hearing for May 2nd to consider the vacation of a 160 foot drainage easement within Lot 1, Block 1, Clay's let Addition. BACKGROUND: The City has received a petition from Mr. Cecil Clay for the vacation of a drainage easement lying within the Northerly 160 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Clay's 1st Addition. (For historical background on the dedicated easement, see attached memo from the City Planner dated April 25, 1989. ) The notice of the vacation has been posted and published according to law. The property owner was also notified of the public hearing. Minnegasco, Inc. , the Public Work's Superintendent, the Chief of Police, and the Shakopee Public Utilities Manager have indicated that it is okay to vacate the easement. In addition the Planning Commission has found that the vacation is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan, see attached memo from the City Planner dated April 25, 1989. The City Engineer has also indicated that it is okay to vacate the easement with the condition that a 100 foot temporary easement for the Upper Valley Drainage Project be submitted to the City. This 100 foot temporary easement will permit the City to intrude upon the property to perform minor grading which will allow the property to drain into the new storm water drainage system. He would also like a ten foot permanent drainage and utility easement to be retained around the perimeter of the lot. The Utilities Manager would also like the utility easement retained along the West and North lot lines. Mr. Clay is agreeable to provide the City with the 100' temporary easement. He prefers not giving the easement document to the City until the City is ready to vacate the 160' permanent easement. He will bring the easement to the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for Council to determine whether or not the 160 foot drainage easement serves a public purpose. If it does not serve a public purpose, council may wish to vacate it. Prior to vacating the easement, the City should receive the 100' temporary easement recommended by the City Engineer. The resolution of vacation should also include the exception recommended by the Utilities Manager and the City Engineer - retaining a 10 foot utility and drainage easement around the perimeter of the lot. ALTERNATIVES: After Council holds the public hearing: 1] Vacate the easement, retaining easements 2] Vacate the easement without retaining easements 3] Do not vacate the easement RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative No. 1, vacate the 160 foot drainage easement retaining a partial easement as recommended by staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 Mr. Clay presents the 100' temporary easement to the City. 2] Offer Resolution No. 3044, A Resolution Vacating A Drainage Easement Within Clay's let Addition, and move it's adoption. mZMO TO: Judy Cox, City Clerk PROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Vacation of Drainage Easement; Clay's 1st Addition DATE: April 25, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Planning Commission passed a motion finding that the vacation of the drainage easement within Clay's 1st Addition does not conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and should be approved by the City Council subject to the granting of a temporary 100 foot drainage easement to the City. BACKGROUND: State Statutes require that the Planning Commission review vacation petitions to determine whether the proposed vacation is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the vacation request for the 160 foot drainage easement within Clay's 1st Addition. The 160 foot drainage easement along the north side of the property within Clay's 1st Addition was originally dedicated to the City because the proposed Upper Valley Drainageway was to be constructed through this area and the exact site for the drainageway had not yet been determined. The drainage easement allowed the City the flexibility to locate the drainageway on the rear portion of this property. Since approval of the plat in 1978, the design for the Upper Valley Drainageway has been completed and the drainageway will be located just to the north of Clay's 1st Addition. Because the drainageway will not cross this property, the City Engineer has determined that there is no further need for the permanent drainage easement within the plat. The Engineer recommended that the drainage easement be vacated in exchange for the granting of 100 foot temporary drainage easement allowing the City to regrade and construct the drainageway adjacent to this property. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Planning Commission passed a motion finding that the vacation of drainage easement does not conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and should be approved by the City Council subject to the granting of a temporary 100 foot drainage easement to the City. CLAY'S IST ADDITION M1a�x uM1E�ori.e eoun,:"e Scc. a��a s: Emr an.�o 160' drainage easement to be vacated. 8� 'c8 8 i 8 g8 C S8 I "eesI w ;s a 3 I —Ilf.pp—FE6T I nna... Te rla souM - . I uK 4 S SIIfE2 I I I a _ I � I I psi NC I X i MF SpIM 4F[ M SFC.]Ip 2E _ i�yC � Af M1CVM U'K Ot STC ui I 8 3Z- I t' RESOLUTION NO. 3044 A RESOLUTION VACATING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN CLAY'S 1ST ADDITION WHEREAS, There presently exists a 160' drainage easement within the plat of Clay's 1st Addition lying within Lot 1, Block 1, which was platted and dedicated to the public use; and WHEREAS, It has been made to appear to the Council that it would be to the best interest of the general public to vacate said easement; and WHEREAS, The Council has set a date for a public hearing at which time to consider said vacation and due notice of the hearing has been given as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, The Council has been fully advised in all things. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1) That it finds and determines that the vacation of the 160 foot drainage easement lying within Lot 1, Block 1, Clay's 1st Addition is in the public interest and serves no further public need as a drainage easement. 2) That the 160 foot drainage easement lying within Lot 1, Block 1, Clay's 1st Addition is hereby vacated. 3) That the City reserves, however, to the City of Shakopee its licensees and franchise holders a 10 foot wide perpetual easement on, under and over the sal *�d—ease=ent for utilities and drainage with the right to install, maintain, repair, lay and relay the utilties by the City, its licensees and franchise holders. 4) 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, 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 RESOLUTION NO. 3044 A RESOLUTION VACATING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN CLAY'S IST ADDITION WHEREAS, There presently exists a 160' drainage easement within the plat of Clay's 1st Addition lying within Lot 1, Block 1, which was platted and dedicated to the public use; and WHEREAS, It has been made to appear to the Council that it would be to the best interest of the general public to vacate said easement; and WHEREAS, The Council has set a date for a public hearing at which time to consider said vacation and due notice of the hearing has been given as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, The Council has been fully advised in all things. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1) That it finds and determines that the vacation of the 160 foot drainage easement lying within Lot 1, Block 1, Clay's 1st Addition is in the public interest and serves no further public need as a drainage easement. 2) That the 160 foot drainage easement lying within Lot 1, Block 1, Clay's 1st Addition is hereby vacated. 3) That the City reserves, however, to the City of Shakopee its licensees and franchise holders a 10 foot wide perpetual easement on, under and over the exterior 10 feet of said easement for utilities and drainage with the right to install, maintain, repair, lay and relay the utilties by the City, its licensees and franchise holders. 4) 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 inSession of the City Council, City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of , Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1989. City Attorney CXi MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Preliminary and Final Plat Valley Park 8th Addition DATE: April 25, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat for Valley Park 8th Addition subject to conditions. BACKGROUND: Scottland, Inc. has submitted an application for preliminary and final plat approval to subdivide 16.96 acres into two lots and two outlots. The lots will be 4.55 acres and 7.44 acres. The proposed subdivision is located south of Valley Industrial Boulevard South and west of Valley Park Drive. The subdivision is being platted for a new industry planning to locate in Shakopee (Mebco) . The industry will purchase Lot 1 and take an option on Lot 2 for anticipated expansion. The Property is zoned I-2. On May 4, 1982, a preliminary plat for Valley Park 7th Addition was approved by the City Council. The final plat for this subdivision was never applied for. Since there is no approved final plat for Valley Park 7th Addition, the Planning Commission is recommending that the proposed plat (Valley Park 8th Addition) be renamed Valley Park 7th Addition. The City Engineer has recommended that prior to any site grading, a drainage and grading plan be submitted to the City including storm water runoff calculations, any proposed on-site drainage facilities, culvert locations, size of driveways, and an erosion control plan. The Planning Commission recommendation includes a condition requiring this information. The proposed subdivision leaves two landlocked and odd-shaped outlots. These outlots are created by the location of the proposed railroad spurs and ideally should be incorporated into other lots. When the area to the south is platted, these outlots could be incorporated into the plat. The Planning Commission recommendation contains a condition stating that these lots are unbuildable as a part of this plat. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of the preliminary and final plat for Valley Park 8th 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. The plat shall be renamed Valley Park 7th Addition. 4. Prior to any site grading, or issuance of a building permit, a grading and drainage plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. Said plan must include storm water run-off calculations, any proposed on-site drainage facilities, culvert locations, sizes of driveways, and an erosion control plan. 5. Outlots A and B shall be deemed unbuildable as a part of this plat. ALTERNATIVES• 1. The City Council can offer and approve Resolution #3045 as drafted with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. The City Council can offer and approve Resolution #3045 after amending conditions contained within the Resolution. 3 . The City Council can offer and approve Resolution #3045 denying the preliminary and final plat. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass Resolution #3045 a Resolution Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Valley Park 8th Addition. RESOLUTION NO. 3045 A Resolution Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Valley Park 8th Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of Valley Park 8th Addition on April 20, 1989 and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, all notices of hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all things. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the Preliminary and Final Plat of Valley Park 8th Addition, described as follows: See Exhibit A Attachment be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the requirements that: 1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Payment in lieu of land dedication for park purposes is required. 3. The plat shall be renamed Valley Park 7th Addition. 4. Prior to any site grading, or issuance of a building permit, a grading and drainage plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. Said plan must include storm water run-off calculations, any proposed on-site drainage facilities, culvert locations, sizes of driveways, and an erosion control plan. 5. Outlots A and B shall be deemed unbuildable as a part of this plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk and the same hereby authorized and directed to execute said approved Plat and Developer's Agreement. 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 q Oz gat vane ad the SamharAt Quarter ISW31 06 Section 3, Towmhip 115, Range 22. Scott County, N,nnceote, tying Southuety o6 Registened Land Smvey h0. 66, EXCEPT the Ptats 06 Va.Ltey Park Fimt Addition and Valley Palk Second Addition. ' 9 EXCEPT that put Illge the 6Thatuung ducnibed upoleatheu m contained in the SWI o6 Section 3, ' Section ip 115, Range 2i, That put o6 the Southemt 2umtm u the Sou 06 t Raman 06 SeUiOn 1, TawrahiP 115, Range It and the pant a6 the Sou[lavet 2umtm ob the Soutluaeet —. Ruattee o6 Section 3, Toumehip M. Range 21, deecnibed m 6otta,vs: Conmencing at the Nutheastc%ty cannea 06 stock I, plat 06 VaUey pack FWt Addition, Scott County, Ni,u,uota, thence Southemtuty atang the Southmy tine 06 Va.Uey Indmtniat Boutevand South a distante 06 1190.15 lea to the act"t point ob beginning 06 the land to be deeetibed: thence Soutlonetm9 at night angtu to laid Somhuty Cane a distance 06 600.00 beet; thence SouthemtWy at Eight ongtu a distance o6 726.0 lea; thence Nanthcututy at Right angtu a distance od 600.00 Jett to laid Southelty Line; thence Nontluoutenty at Eight angtu a &Atdnct ob 126.0o 6eet to the point o6 begirwing. EXCEPT that Pant od the 6ottowing duelled Ponta as contained in the Soutlavut 1 06 Section3, Toanship 115, Ruge 22, Scott County, Hinnuota: That pant 06 the SWI-oeet Ruantea 0 6 Section 3 ANO that pmt 06 the Non.tIon t 2uaatel, 06 Section 10, aU in Tmaal,ip 115, Range 12, dumbed m 6oLto"l Comencing at the South One Ruantu Connu o6 said Seetian 3. the we being the North One quota Connu a6 Said Section 10; thence South e9' 10' 00" put atang the 6ection tint betwea, said Sectiom 10 and 3 a diAtanee 06 066.11 6eU to the Wut tint ab Valley Palk Otive pm the ptat 06,VdUeg Palk FiMt Addition, the point 06 begiuing 06 the treat 06 WEI to be dumbed; thence Sault, 00' 57' 28" Eut atong said Wut Linc a distance 06 99.61 feet; thence North 71' 53' 36" put a distance 06 615.05 6eU; thence Noah 6' 21' 11" Emt a dlstante ob 337.38 6eeL tCe,cncee 1104 heatoy along a tangential canoe to the night, having a nadivu o6 911.02 6eU, aut 9 6 I 3100'o0', an enc distance 06 69.31 tett to itA ieW4,tia. with the South,aty time 06 Valley 7nduetniat Soutevmd South vi said Flat o6u vaey rank FWt AddUian; theme Sautl,emtmy nLOng said Southatty tine to its inteuecti.on with said but tine 06 said VattEv Patk Onive; thence southerly at0ng said put Linc to the point o6 beginning. EXHIBIT "A" 9b MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Amendment to Preliminary Plat for Meadows Addition DATE: April 25, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Preliminary Plat for the Meadows subject to conditions. BACKGROUND: Gold Nugget Development, Inc. has submitted an application to the City for an amendment to the Preliminary Plat for the Meadows. The proposed amendment would change the configuration of 51 lots and eliminate 2 street crossings over the Upper Valley Drainageway. The Plat is located south of lith Avenue, east of County Road 79 in the R-2 zoning district. The Preliminary Plat for the Meadows was approved by the City during the spring of 1987. In November, 1987 a Final Plat (Meadows 1st Addition) was approved for the first phase which included 51 lots in the northwest corner of the property. The developer has applied for an amendment to the Preliminary Plat to reconfigure lots allowing for the elimination of 2 street crossings over the Upper Valley Drainageway. The developer in determining the cost of the crossings decided that a change in the street and lot layout was warranted. Elimination of the 2 crossings also will improve water flow in the drainageway by eliminating 2 barriers. The areas on the Preliminary Plat where changes are proposed are bordered by a heavy crosshatched line (see enclosed plan) . Elimination of one of the street crossings over the drainageway on the western end of the plat will result in an additional access off of County Road 79. The City and County Engineers have both reviewed the proposed amendment and are not opposed to the additional access onto County Road 79. The Community Services Director, in his review of the Preliminary Plat, has recommended denial because the plan does not show the proposed trail along the Upper Valley Drainageway and County Road 79. The Preliminary Plat, as prepared, does show the additional 20 feet of right-of-way along County Road 79 for the proposed trail and the location of the Upper Valley Drainageway , but does not specifically identify the trail on the drawing. The Planning Commission has included in their recommendation for approval a condition requiring the developer to supply the City with a copy of the Preliminary Plat showing the proposed trail system along County Road 79 and the Upper Valley Drainageway (Condition #3) . PLANNING CON14I8SION RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of the amended Preliminary Plat for the Meadows subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat must show all drainage and utility easements around lot lines. A 5' easement is required along side lot lines and 10' easements along the front and rear property lines. An easement totally 20' in width shall be provided for any sewer, water, or drainage improvement construction along a side lot line or crossing a lot. 2. Prior to approval of the final plat, final construction plans for all public improvements must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 3. The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the preliminary plat showing the proposed trail along County Road 79 and the Upper Valley Drainageway. 4. The final plat must contain street names. 5. The final plat must show the proposed Upper Valley Drainageway and ponding areas as an Outlot. The Outlot shall be deeded to the City for drainage and park purposes. In areas where the drainageway to be dedicated to the City does not equal 1201in width, easements along adjacent lots must be provided to provide a total of 120' of width or an alternative design must be approved by the City Engineer. 6. A plan for construction and maintenance of the open space and ponding areas must be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. 7. Land dedication for park purposes is required. The Upper Valley Drainageway and the additional 20' of right-of-way for county Road 79 shall count toward park dedication requirements. 8. The water main along County Road 79 must be extended to the southwest corner of the plat. 9. Street grades shall not exceed 7%. 10. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of required improvements: a. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. 9 � b. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPDC Manager. C. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. d. Local streets and street signs within the plat shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. e. The developer agrees to reimburse the City for costs on Vierling Drive equivalent to the cost of a 36'residential street. Cost sharing to be determined by the City Engineer. f. Existing assessments shall be reapportioned according to City policy. g. A sidewalk along vierling Drive will be required and must comply with the design criteria and standards of the City of Shakopee. 11. Approval of a title opinion by the City Attorney. 12. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement stating that not more than 10% of the plat within the R-2 zone will be developed into twin homes. 13. Access permits must be obtained from the County Engineer for access to County Road 79. 14. The developer will be responsible for grading of the plat as shown in the preliminary drainage plan. 15. No direct access from individual lots to Vierling Drive and County Road 79 will be allowed. ALTERNATIVES• 1. The City Council can offer and pass a motion approving the amended Preliminary Plat for the Meadows subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. The City Council can offer and pass a motion approving the amended preliminary plat for the Meadows subject to different conditions than recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. The City Council can offer and pass a motion to deny the amendment to the Preliminary Plat for the Meadows. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion approving the amended Preliminary Plat for the Meadows subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. ` co MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Amendments to the Zoning Code for Day-care Facilities DATE: April 25, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on April 20, 1989, the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council that the City's Zoning Ordinance be amended to include requirements for day-care facilities in the City. BACKGROUND: In the fall of 1988, an industry interested in locating in the Industrial Park inquired with the City about the possibility of locating a day-care facility in conjunction with the industry. The City staff, in reviewing the Zoning Code, not only found that the present Code does not allow day-care facilities in the Industrial District, but the Code does not address day-care facilities at all. In response to this the City staff prepared a draft of changes to the Zoning Code to address day-care facilities. These changes were then presented to the Planning Commission at their November meeting. The Planning Commission continued to discuss the proposed changes and refine them in subsequent meetings. Following the January meeting, at the direction of the Planning Commission, the City staff met with a number of day-care providers in the community to review their concerns and address those in the draft ordinance. At their March 9, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning ordinance for day-care facilities and directed staff to make some final changes. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Attached are the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the City Code for Day Care Facilities. The City Attorney has been supplied with a copy of the changes and has indicated he will make every attempt to have the ordinance drafted for the City Council meeting. This has been done because the Planning Commission currently has a conditional use permit application for a day care facility pending based on the proposed code changes. Because State Statutes require cities to zone day-care facilities licensed for 12 or fewer people as single family residences, the Planning Commission recommendation contains two classes of day- care facilities. Class I facilities are not located in a home and licensed for 13 or more children. These facilities will require a Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts of the City. THe Class II day-care facility includes all in-home day-care which can be licensed for up to 14 children and day-care facilities not located in a home licensed for up to 12 children. These facilities will be permitted uses in the Residential Districts. In Commercial Districts, in-home day-care facilities will be a permitted use when located in the home of the day-care provider (a non-conforming use) . Class II facilities not located in a home will require a Conditional Use Permit. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer and pass Ordinance #264 amending the City's Zoning Code to provide provisions for Day Care Facilities as drafted. 2. Offer and pass Ordinance 4264 amending the City's Zoning Code to provide provisions for Day Care Facilities after changing the requirements outlined in the draft ordinance. 3. Offer and pass a motion to not adopt Ordinance #264, thereby not changing the Zoning Code to include provisions for Day Care Facilities. ACTION REOUESTED: Offer and pass Ordinance #264 Amending the City's Zoning Code to provide provisions for Day Care Facilities as drafted. 1 C,- DAY-CARE FACILITY: Any state licensed facility, public or private, which provides one or more children with care or supervision on a regular basis, for periods of less than twenty- four (24) hours per day, in a place other than the person's own home. Day-care facilities include, but are not limited to: family day-care homes, group family day-care homes, day-care centers, day nurseries, nursery schools, and daytime activity centers as defined by Minn. Stat. Section 245.782, Subd. 5. Day-care facility, Class I - any facility, public or private, which provides thirteen (13) or more children with care or supervision on a regular basis and is not located in a home. Day-care facility, Class II - regularly provided care or supervision for fourteen (14) or fewer children located within the home of the Day-care provider or twelve (12) or fewer children when not located in the home of the day care provider. (Section 11.05, Subd. 10) . CLASS I DAY-CARE FACILITIES GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1) Parking. There shall be adequate off-street parking which shall consist of one (1) space per teacher or employee, plus one (1) space per twenty (20) children receiving care. (Except when located in the B-3 Zoning District) . 2) Loading. The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements. At least one (1) off-street loading space shall be provided. (Except when located in the B-3 Zoning District) . j 3) Licensing. Each facility shall obtain all applicable State, and County licenses. CLASS II DAY-CARE FACILITIES GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1) Licensing. Each facility shall obtain all applicable State and County Licenses. The following changes will be made in the various sections of the City Code: SECTION 11.24. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT (AG) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use. 9 � SECTION 11. 25. RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-1) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use. SECTION 11.26. URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-2) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use. SECTION 11.27. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use. SECTION 11.28. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-4) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use. SECTION 11.29. HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B-1) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use when located in the home of the day care provider and a Conditional Use when not located in the home. SECTION 11. 30. COMMUNITY BUSINESS (B-2) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use when located in the home of the day care provider and a Conditional Use when not located in the home. SECTION 11.31. CENTRAL BUSINESS (B-3) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use when located in the home of the day care provider and a Conditional Use when not located in the home. SECTION 11. 32. LIGHT INDUSTRY (I-1) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use when located in the home of the day care provider and a Conditional Use when not located in the home. qcl- SECTION 11.33 . HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (I-2) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use when located in the home of the day care provider and a Conditional Use when not located in the home. SECTION 11.35. SHORELINE ZONING DISTRICT. Class I day-care facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Class II day-care facilities are a permitted use. SECTION 11.36. RACE TRACE DISTRICT (RTD) . Class I day-care facilities are permitted as an accessory use with an approved PUD. Class II day-care facilities are not permitted. �a MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer_ 1/ SUBJECT: Erosion Control Ordinance DATE: April 27, 1989 INTRODUCTION: Staff has been directed by City Council to revise the current City ordinance regarding erosion control measures. BACKGROUND: In January, 1989 staff submitted a Proposed Erosion Control Ordinance to City Council for their review and comments. Council directed staff to submit the proposed revisions to the ordinance to the Planning Commission and hold a public hearing on the proposed erosion control ordinance. On April 19 , 1989 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed changes to the erosion control ordinance and solicited public comments. The Planning Commission suggested j changes to the language in the ordinance. There was only one public comment received regarding the proposed ordinance. The main changes proposed by the Planning Commission consisted of the following: 1 . The Planning Commission requested that some language be added regarding performance bonds for erosion control devices. Staff has added a section in this regard. 2. The Planning Commission also recommended that residential zoning be included in the erosion control ordinance . Residential zoning was included all along, but additional language was made in the ordinance to make this clear. City Staff recommended the following changes to the ordinance, which Planning Commission concurred with: 1 . Staff added a paragraph regarding the technical reference for the ordinance. The City will be utilizing the Minnesota Site Erosion and Sedimentation Planning Handbook to ensure that proper placement and installation of any proposed erosion control structures and the ordinance refers to this handbook as a technical reference. 2. Staff recommended that the maximum exposed slope should be no steeper than a 3 to 1 . The original ordinance indicated that the maximum slope should be no steeper than 5 to 1 . q 3. Staff also recommended that once the rough grading is done that all areas be seeded and mulched within 30 days, which Planning Commission concurred with and language was added to the ordinance to that affect. 4. Staff suggested that the silt fence requirement for dust control not include the exact spacing of fence and Planning Commission concurred. Basically those were the changes to the ordinance recommended by City staff and Planning Commission. All other language in the ordinance remains identical to what was previously submitted to the City Council. The ordinance was revised to include those changes. Staff has attached the Revised Erosion Control Ordinance to this memo for Council review. Again, staff is recommending that the Erosion Control Ordinance be added to the City Code in Chapter 12 ( which is the subdivision chapter) . Staff is also recommending that Chapter 11 (Zoning Code) , Chapter 4 (Building Regulations) , and Chapter 7 (Streets and Sidewalks) contain language referring to the Erosion Control Ordinance in Chapter 12. The Planning Commission is recommending the adoption of the Erosion Control Ordinance and the associated revisions to the City Code. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Adopt the Proposed Erosion Control Ordinance and all associated changes to the City Code. 2. Do not adopt the ordinance or the proposed changes to the City Code. 3. Make some other revisions to the Erosion Control Ordinance and require staff to bring the revised ordinance back to Council. 4. Do nothing, thereby leaving the City Code exactly as it is. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Direct the City Attorney to make the appropriate revisions to the City Code in order to adopt the Proposed Erosion Control Ordinance and to make any necessary revisions to the associated City Code Chapters. DH/pmp REVISED q f- PROPOSED ORDINANCE 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. 1 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 residential, 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 b) Any subdivisions as defined by Chapter 12 of this code which requires plat approval or a certified survey map. c) 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. d) Any other land disturbing activity for which the City Engineer determines to have the potential for substantial erosion. PROGRAM REGULATIONS: �� y The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) is designed to provide employment opportunities and vocational training to disadvantaged adults and youth. The Sumner Youth Employment and Training Program is Title II-B of the i Act. The Minnesota Youth Program (MYP) is also designed to serve this same population, however post-secondary students are given a priority status for these employment opportunities. A copy of the Job Training Partnership Act and the Minnesota Youth Program regulations are available for review at the Employment and Training Office at Scott County Human iServices. PROGRAM PURPOSE: i The objectives of the Scott County Summer Youth Employment Program are to: i 1. Provide structured and well supervised work which will improve the work habits and employability of the participants. 2. Provide opportunities for youth to explore their vocational j interest. 3. Provide vocational counseling and occupational information. 4. Provide income to needy youth. 5. Place youth, when return to school is not expected, into short term subsidized employment providing a transition to full-time unsubsidized employment. 6. Look continually for ways to improve the delivery of services to participants so as to maximize the effectiveness of SPEP. 7. Provide support for community activities and services. 8. Provide remedial education in reading and math to students who are identified as needing these services by local school districts. 9. Provide additional services for E.M.A. and L.D. students to aid their transition from school to the world of work. FUNDING: Funding for this program comes from two sources. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Program provides federal funds to serve economically disadvantaged young people. The State of Minnesota also provides funds through the Minnesota Youth Program. 1 CONSEN-11 /01 Memo To: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Interfund Transfers Date: April 26, 1989 Introduction Council approval of various interfund transfers is requested. Backeround Various interfund transfers have been made as of 12/31/88 as listed below: A.) From Cable Fund to General Fund to close the Cable Fund in accordance with the budget. Cable is now a program within the Administration Division of the General Fund Transfer equals $10,203.71. B.) From T.I.F. Trust to various T.I.F. debt service funds in accordance with debt service .levy schedule (prepared by Springsted) and modified by need where necessary. 1987A TIF $291,840.28 87B 55,713.57 86B 140,720.68 86A 17,642.50 C.) From 1986B Capital Projects Fund to 1986B Debt Service Fund to close the 1986B Capital Projects Fund , - $11,491.34 D.) From Storm Drainage Capital Project Fund to Downtown Capital Project Fund per downtown bond offering statement. Holmes Basin project funds remaining used for downtown project storm drainage work - $160,000.00 E.) From General Fund to Transit Fund to reclassify transit part of an energy grant received in 1987 - $6,400.00 Action Requested Move to approve of the transfer: From Cable Fund To General Fund $ 10,203.71 From TIF Trust To 1987A TIF Debt Service 291,840.28 From TIF Trust To 1987B TIF Debt Service 55,713.57 From TIF Trust To 1986B TIF Debt Service 140,720.68 From TIF Trust To 1986A TIF Debt Service 17,642.50 From 1986B Capital Projects Fund To 1986B Improvement Debt Service 11,491.34 From Storm Drainage Capital Projects Fund To Downtown Capital Projects Fund 160,000.00 From General Fund To Transit Fund 6,400.00 GV:mmr 0 HN a N % W KIYN NII al o • PP F O mm m i s dl., I A ,I II eIII e = N ry mRSIS 1 ro i JJ uu ww inw sa :: pro ii ww :ory Oe oe MJ .e r1eN o0 's oAom 9 M F Z Ay = p yy a HM i D 1 npan9 Z A � In O m® ro ymym 2 C p> DD SpSS�L r • p O �F w�irow¢ H • R ss O • 1l 'I y . D GGG FF D^DDS w a w > M4p Y blw A yyyY Y Z qOq m w H ZO n t aw icoir = ' to tot iii �I i Pic • •NYry� � q III u Y fit R yVJ O N p - I J • Y y • ' I ! i�4 A. III ' A yI � • YY U. - O I ti I 2 A m O m i n __..1..„, I >.i..__ "•8j.aasie;a iRaa axax�xxe::::3x x axl: 8i axa;a :^� II �N( tl Y O0 • f f ! i i i' e ` ^ Z Ij 1 � n SII al ~ Oel RN a N I tl YN tlfY Inn N NN 1'1 p O 6 6 y j p 6 y JAW Yb W 1 O J0 -J W �pai' �I JG G __-- W. aoo 0 -- m ` 11 W 00 YO tl W I V0� U �� ZO SW 6 Y IOi F i P pO�Y Sl cgs ss;. r < mm ) Nn be .616 416 qa a i W I w NN NN N N w N O o e e i u c • i P II • a �W N N • P P m r� • � i gm uu P e IF N P P 0 O 0 q Q V I ro I O y N r N xi 0o ar � a' a� r a� •� I K S O III 2 A o z x z i i y w x z a a n o 4 A '< c r r r r u u g u wsw i All J r kk Y pp N +I N I i m e • L a m Nam ( Y V U U V y Y U 1 I I u � m i e s mom ^ u YhP• 0 Y tl 1Y� 1Y x -- tl 1 N < Y 5 I I s s u rt" z yi yJ < w � mea w �e „Z u .193j� 0�0 Z O U www 'i u z i c a YY o Y�cz1 � z z z r^P r^P � III I y Y N N N NW w Oa Z I N ' a a f t _ �. .-, i•-^ e'e s a a x xya x a-;J �. 7 : . . :L : � —�=s.:J fj r j uVuui � al N WW le � < e ee l >A � A Z N PP P P NN x T, Po 4 "W p yy uM N O JY DR ouuu NUN eW - wm I eeoe6e o `af uu uwu fi '>� Y" e a )� 9 I Illi )F E H D � S 8111 Po � p OO A i 0000000 mmmmmm�n w W y I cc <n«« m n ^^ m 1 N W zz n xx mm�'mm�' ® PW mNNmNm � m 1 « N "` 661 9 = rw OW ' JYy rr r Y !Il ) I )u N ) MMMMMM N P pnmNNwN � �' < WI Z p YY Y Y 1 w Z D II�� w 1� 1 1 1e1 AN 0 A YYDDIJ 1 1 y Po V e �'luooeo o N yy uu--- n - 1uy- 11 P YY m I I F I 1 F m N W W m I . I O O V 4 U Y y Y V I O i y ' 00 Z _ F 2 b b ntl F F 2 O N o ye y 1 w 111 1 11 Ijvo O 1 J P O tl`y R yl ♦1 RR M 1 1 i � I 9 9 O W tl3y � y» J� yW r a Q b 6J N�yNtl _ 2 tl Y F'tl Z 6 y ,OFiF W i `4 T oo ys a ve i Ilj ;� l o °e i t y ei r o N � e n d _ a r v N R n t o Y t O ! ♦ l t L � O p m T W u b j 3 D 0 o i o Y N u FII s Y r w s w `m z � m ' • 2 C2 p4 O Y I J e O o V e y O Y e p ♦ 1 I •1 1 1 1 I I S! 1 ' p Y b e o M Y O Y P tl o 1 1 y W 1 1 1 lu 1 y 1 1 I p f p e N Y J W N o OW m • w I i i I n N F F F N N W Y ..e.,.....- • _ .^.ai"•C ,moi x_$—i ARE il::`. A. I ` x a ..-. 9:p e • ^^ tl �, uer - n n i y � i• i I yr - 7• i l l ll N i ni u oa n en itl' n n n t I m� g IJ 5 F O m m LF = d{ m Z i N •• Y.w ri • � �"ui�rn o L ry JJ a w . a • .Y.L J Z.0..=� n w r i L6J3 � u Y 2 Z M O J "JJJ• J � m • O j i dro °uTne r m O Y O Y N Y 00 00 Y N Z a F Y U • +w N ZJ�JO Z T tL •L l B 1 m tl Y•w Vl to, Inn o f Old eo Mm o n Yejj• Z py O Y e N N G M N tl M N N H tl ee f0 P o i lI I N a m• - I r A— —9 . 0 _ H-C ... Wim.,..:.... Y W W W W W W W WWW IW +W IW W WW O 000000000000 W N r r r r Y r r Y r r r r Y r r F F F F F F F FFF F F F F FF F FFF FFF"FFFFFF W F C N N N N N N W NNN N N N N N N W �O�O�ONNNNN NNNN w r W. . . W W r W O N . O . r . . . . r . . r V W a S0OO NO00S00 SS0 N NN 0 O SO S 000 00 0 0000Oo 0 O OY rrrY FVr n r M a O O O O O S O 00800 O S S O O0 Y W�Ir NFF'NWw�n VfNFW' O r N WW W W W W W WWW W mw W mm 0 000000000000 W N r r V r r r r Y r r r r r Y Y r r r r Y r r r r r r Y r Y F 0 K N 1- r r r H H H r Y r H H r Y H r Y r r 0 r r r r r Y r r r r 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 O 000roo 000 000 0 0 r r r r r r r rrr r r r r rr r rr rorrrrrr Yr r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 r O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n K ro a n It+f Y 30 F r �1 N b Y N r FSO O\ F W Y r W 0 O w vl "0 F N Y N F w 0 0 vl WHO VI r W N O � W w wF�1 rw F'�rilww W� r 0\ � O W b 0 HH 0 SOm " O vFi H ON -1��1� N��/I �00\0 O �y W n a' tai n a o c N w w m N w m m m w N N w N l6 .o "' H O £ 13 w n roL] b d rn 3 '9 '•1 x 3 N 3 '] 3 0 y 9 M M H `G W cHi H W G � H PH Iw-' w � [•J na N N K n 9 n a n 3 y K K N H O O Y N H N N O m m V3 'etl < m M p N N N N N N N NNN N N N N N N N N���NppOO N����NpppOO N N N N N N N N N N 0 O\ 0 F W N OrD 00 O 0 O O �O�O 1� l��lbby��b O N N N N N N N 000 0 0 0 0 H '] tD D 0 Umi 9 m m m m 9 3 N e O 13" N 0 M W W Fw' M at M m r W M C r G Y r m G G I N m N N N S N H w 0 N 0 Fw' G 'Om K c v° 'S °' m H n r W � O N F W O N O N w r W N W W N Y W W O O N O O N W w F a\ W N 0 0 r 0 m O N V N o moi ' M M Ih M N M � N M JC U h y F h U y 00 O .pi F .yi C O N m > YY 0 0 G O N E h " m Ny u C C N y > O A V U � - O O Z N N M W V U C w F a F 40-1 NO �M V� C F 0 z p 00 F W G .YmONM 1O W NOON N E W .Yi w H .0 O 30. N N N 0 O @ 6 t U m U � U N O� O S W O O O �OINN OJ N Y� bym U F G N m.1 w w C 0 0 4 O 0 p 0 0 0 O O N FN� m EQ O P W 0 0 0 0 00 O Z 1 " U O O O OO w W ONai tD N N Ol� M.-I O o S .� M� o 4 y 4 OO O UW S S K My S u 4 H M H O N H N Z .O . . . .? ,y . £ O 0 O w 0 00 m MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator /O FROM: Julie Kellerman, Planning Intern RE: Animal Control Ordinance Complaint DATE: April 25, 1989 INTRODUCTION• A complaint was received on April 24, 1989 regarding the enforcement of the Animal Control Ordinance. The complainant was basically inquiring as to what the City does to enforce the removing of dog feces by the owner. - BACKGROUND: Staff contacted the City of Bloomington to see how the ordinance was handled in a city of that size. The Ordinance has been included as Attachment #1. Research was also done through the Minnesota Statutes. It was discovered that Shakopee's City Code (Attachment #2) was just as specific, if not more so, as to what is to be done by a dog owner in terms of cleaning up after it. The Police Chief has indicated that he feels there are sufficient laws on the books to deal with the offenders. The problem comes in enforcement. Basically, an officer has to see a dog "in the act" to enforce the Ordinance. The dog owner can be ticketed if the officer witnesses "the act" and the owner leaving without removing the feces. The other option that a property owner has would be to sign a complaint against the dog and it's owner. Staff feels that the City Code is fairly stringent as to what is expected of dog owners. The Code is simply hard to enforce. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Direct the appropriate City Staff to conduct further research on the issue. 2. Let the Police handle the problem as they have in the past, perhaps making their job easier by publicizing the Ordinance in the City Newsletter or Shakopee Valley News and informing property owners of their rights. 3 . Do nothing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #2. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON TEL : 512-887-9684 Npr ' 4 ,59 13 10 11L .004 F ..02 City of Bloomington DOG AND ANIMAL REGULATIONS THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS EXPLAIN IN BRIEF THE REGULATIONS, VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES PROVIDED BY THE BLOOMINGTON ANIMAL ORDINANCE. IF MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS REQUIRED, COPIES OF THE ORDINANCE MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE WLICESE IiHHRESPECTNTOC THE ENFORCCEMENTTOF THISSWEST OLD ORDINANCE,SCALLPTHEROAD. ANIMAL WARDEN ATT78811?21338. `OEXTOR973X FORMATION OR SERYL SEC. 14 78 D FINE IT IONS applicant acquires the dog, whichever 1s the later date, shall be assessed a penalty of $1.00 which Kennel - Any lot or premises or portion thereof amount shall be added to and collected with the which more than four dogs, Cats or other regular license fee. ':nasehold domestic animals over six months old are (e) Any Person who secures a dog after the ',ept or on which more than two such animals are hoarded for compensation or kept for sale. start of the license year shall be allowed thirty Picks - To secure a dog by means of a chain or days after acquiring such dog to secure a license. wrtallic cable to a fixed object, thereby confining Any dog owner upon first becoming a resident of -.e Bloomington shall be allowed thirty days from such dog to a Specified area. Restraittt - A dog is under restraint, within time within which to obtain the dog license. Any of this Division. if controlled by a dog which may be impounded for not being properly ;h. meaning --.e.sh rr by o competent person and immediately licensed within such thirty-day period may be o,tsh cc to that person's command, or within a reclaimed by the owner without paying the impounding ehicle. or within a secure fence or building within fees, but such owner shall be responsible for paying en the its, en if picketed to the keeping of such dog during its impounding. Any owners property limits, fcrordance with Section its, (r). dog owner having a valid dog licensefromanother municipality may within thirty days after becoming a . t4 79 LICENSING Bloomington resident Secure a Bloomington dog SEl- license for which the owner shall pay a fee of $1.00 (a) Except as provided in Section 14.85 of upon surrender of the valid license from the this Division, no person shall own any dog within previous licensing municipality. till, City limits unless such dog is licensed as { In the event that the metallic 1ice�s= tam herein provided. Written application for Such (f) Ithe name and address of the issued for a dog shall be lost, the owner may ootain ,:ense sna'1 state ,weer and the name, breed, color, age, and sex of a duplicate tag upon the payment of $1.00. ;he dog. As a condition for the Issuance of said ( if the do dies within the license year , cense by the License Division, the owner shall and ado is secured to replace the deg so dy;nq, ,,twit a current certification of rabies vaC t th on the license for the deceased dog may be transferred -or the dog. The license fee shall be paid at the Cee of making the application, a numbered receipt to the replacement dog upon Payment of a transfer shill be given to the applicant, and a numbered fee of $1.00. metallic tag shall be issued to the owner. (h) if there is a change of ownership of a deg (b) The yearly license fee shall be as set or kennel the new owner most within 30 days apply fort!, in Section 14.03 of this Cede for each dog for a license therefor and pay the fee presco,ted by over the age of three months. this Division as a new license. SEC. 14 Bn TAC AXn 0 LAA (r,) A kennel operator may elect to pay an annual license fee as set forth in Section 14.03 of a Upon complying with the provisions of this this Code; and in Such case, individual licenses for Divisionthere shall be issued to the owner a each dog in Such kennel need not be secured. metalli%. do9 t491 stamped with a number and the year (d) All dog It cense. and kennel licenses shall for '>�i�h the license is issued. The shape and be issued for one year beginning with the first day delis of such tag shall be changed from year to of January. Application for licenses may he made 60 year. days prior to the start of the licensing year- and Ever owner is required to kee; thereafter, durin31 o the licensing year. Aprh ,hors tag see. ^^-ly fastened to the dog's choke made after Januar' f the lic e•,s;nn year me,e t rears th re ^f collar or harness, which most be worn by y than 30 days after the dog '- all times. age, more than 30 days after the into the Crty, or more Chan 35 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON TEL : 612-887-9684 Rpr 24 .89 13 : 10 N0 .004 P .O3 to �-, ;419: R ri ATI 5 City of the sum of $10.00 together with the sum of ss.oi per day or fraction thereof for keeping of (a) Restraint The owner shall keep his dog such animal during its impoundment, providing that nude e<.ra lirt a, all times. the licensing requirements of this Division are complied with. when a dog is impounded more than (b) Feces Any person having the custody of one time within a one year period, the owner shall any dog or animal of the dog kind shall clean up and pay the sum of $20.00 in order to reclaim the dog on dispose of in a sanftary manner any feces of said the second occasion and $40.00 for each subsequent animal Trois any street, public park, school ground, time within the one year period. All moneys or other public place or from the private property collected under any of the terms of this Division of another, shall be deposited with the City. (c) Picketing. A dog shall not be picketed so SEC. 14.84, CONFINEMENT OF CERTAIN DOGS as to he within 10 feet of any lot line or public sidewalk, and in no event shall a dog be picketed in (a) Each owner shall confine within a building a front yard or so as to be within 50 feet of any or secure enclosure every fierce, dangerous or dwelling unit other than on the owner's property. vicious dog and not take such dog out of such enclosure unless such dog is securely muzzled. SEC 5.21(131. No dogs shall be allowed in any park except on a leash. (b) Every female dog in heat shall be kept confined within a building in such Manner that such SEC. 14.82 IMPOUNDHFNT female dog cannot came in contact with another dog except for breeding purposes within such building. (a) Any dog found in violation of this Division may he taken up by the animal warden and (c) When in the judgment of the animal wa,den impounded in the animal shelter and there confined a dog should be destroyed for humane reasons, ssch in a humane manner for a period of not less than dog may not be redeemed. five days, if not claimed prior thereto by its owner, it shall thereafter become the property of SEC la 89 DOG ENCLOSURES the City and may be disposed of in a humane manner or placed in the custody of some other suitable (a) Pirgose, It is the purpose of tors person. if a dog is destroyed pursuant to this Section to abate existing nuisances and to p-e.. Division, the license for such dog shall expire. nuisances created by site, odor, noise, a, sanitation due to construction and plac, . (b) Immediately upon the impounding of a dog enclosures on private property. wearing a current license, the animal warden shall make every reasonable effort to notify the owner of (b) Definition. As used in this Soi v such dog of such impoundment and of the conditions term "dog enclosure" means any enclosure const^m. •r:: whereby the owner may regain custody of the dog. for shutting in or enclosing dogs and having an xrea Any verbal notices shall immediately be confirmed in less than 2000 square feet. writing by the animal warden. (c) Screening. Dog enclosures must be (c) Notwithstanding anything contained herein screened from view of adjacent property. to the contrary, if a Critically injured dog is impounded pursuant to this Division, it may be (d) Placement. A dog enclosure shall no' be destroyed at any time by the animal warden but only placed closer than 10 feet to any tot line, except after reasonable efforts have been made to locate no dog enclosure shall be placed in a front yard, its owner. and in no event shall a dog enclosure be placed closer than 50 feet of any dwelling unit other than (d) Any animal critically injured and on the owner's property. impounded which has been destroyed pursuant to the provisions of this Division shall be maintained in (e) Saritation Reouirements No person shall refrigeration storage and retained in a frozen permit feces, urine, or food scraps to remain in an condition for a period oof less than seven days f,om enclosure for a period that is longer than the date of destruction. reasonable and consistent with health and sari-%a• -n and the prevention of odors. SEC, 1q 8a REDEMPTION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMAL" SEC 14.92. VACCINATION REOUIREMENTS Any dog impounded herermder net b,:'cg held for suspected disease may be rec'aimY 'S -.h= > (a) Every dog and cat shall be v&CC46eted within five days upon payment b; it , to the against rabies. Young dogs and cats shall be CITY OF BLOOMINGTON TEL : 612-887-9684 Hpr 24 ,89 13 : 10 No .004 P . 04 .;I tl•.•n 30 days after the, reach the age SEC. 14.121.02. OEFf ITICg5 r ..oris. (a) Non-Domesticated Animal - any wild animal, Ibl dnea-c0iated dogs and cats acquired or reptile or fowl, which is not naturally tame or moved into the City must be vaccinated within 70 gentle but is of a wild nature of disposition and days of purchase or arrival, unless under three which, because of its size, vicious nature or other months of age as specified in paragraph (a) above. characteristics would constitute a danger to human life Or property. (c) Every dog shall be vaccinated thereafter at not more than 24 month intervals with a Modified SEC 14.)21.03. PROHIBITED ANIMi live o. trimmme killed rabies vaccine or 12 month intervals with any other killed rabies vaccine. No person shall keep, maintain or harbor within Every cat shall be revaccinated thereafter at not the City of Bloomington any of the following more than 12 month intervals regardless of the type animals. of vaccine used. (a) Any animal or species prohibited by Minnesota or Federal law. SEC 14,94, VACCINATION IDENTIFICATION (b) Any non-domesticated animal or species, Including but not limited to the following: A metal or durable plastic tag, serially (1) Any skunk, whether captured the numbered, Issued by the Rabies Control Authority, wild, domestically raised, descented or not shall be securely attached to the collar or harness descented, vaccinated against rabies or not of the dog or cat. Whenever the dog or cat is vaccinated against rabies. out-of-doors, whether on or off the rwner's (2) Any large cat of the family Felidae premises, the collar or harness with the vaccination such as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, c,aars tag attached most be worn. and ocelots, except commonly accepted dips mated house cats. jEC- 14,100, REPORTS OF SITE CASFS (3) Any member of the family Cerieee, such as, wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingo; s,d _I kills It shall be the duty of every physician or any except domesticated dogs. ether person to report to the Rabies Control (4) Any crossbreed sucn as tre Puthority the Dames and addresses of persons treated crossbreeds between dogs and coyotes " D o, •m far bites inflicted by animals within the City of wolves but does not include crossbred domes, .red 8100,9to,•, together with such other information as animals. ill be helpful In rabies control and the Rabies (5) Any poisonous pit viper s. . Control Authority shall immediately inform the rattlesnake, coral snake, water moccasin •^ra haalfn officer of such report. (6) Any raccoon. (7) Any ferret. SEC, 14,109, RDNN'Nr AT IARAF (8) Any other animal which is net explicitly above, but which can be reasonabl, No person may suffer, allow, or pe mit any defined by the terms in Section 14.121.02(a? of firs animal or fowl belonging to him or in his care to be ordinance, including bears and badgers. at large within the Cit). An animal or fowl is at large when it is off the premises owned or occupied SEC. 14.too PENALTY by its owner or custodian and is unaccompanied by the owner or custodian, or iris agent. v'.olation of any provision of this Divislon shall be a misdemeanor. SEC 14,112, RECLAIMING. BY OWNER Any animal or fowl impounded under the authority of this Subdivision and not beinq held 4r suspected disease may be reclaimed by the owner within 72 hours, exclus+,e of Saturday, Sunday, holidays, upon payment by the owner to the Citi the sum of $5.00, together wiOr an additional sum as the City Council may determine for each day or portion Animal Warden 881-2333, ext. 473 thereof that an animal or tow' is •moo•mded. Licensing 8BI-9628 However, the impoundment fee for larye dnmesti- animals, including sheer and pe-e- "sl; tie I;' ...I and for cattle and horses collected under the terms be deposited with cue City � Sec,fi-m t o al -S kz K (oee CoA-c- -?, Subd. 6. Tag Required. All licensed dogs shall wear a collar and have a tag firmly affixed thereto evidencing such license and vaccination. A duplicate for a lost tag may be issued by the City upon payment of the fee of $1.00 for issuance of the duplicate. Dog tags shall not be transferable, and no refund shall be made on any dog license because of leaving the City or death of the dog. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-78 Subd. 6.5. Inoculation Against Rabies. All dogs shall be inoculated against rabies by a veterinarian duly licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Minnesota. It is the duty of the owner of the animal to keep inoculations current. The owner of any dog picked up by the Pound Master whose rabies inocu- lation is not current, shall be subject to a fine as established by the Council by resolution. The fine must be paid prior to the release of the dog. Upon payment of the fine and release of the dog, the owner shall have 15 days in which to have his dog inocu- lated. If the dog is picked up after this 15-day period and the owner cannot provide proof of inoculation against rabies, the owner shall be subject to another fine. Subd. 7. Records. The City shall keep a record of all dog licenses issued, with the name and address and phone number of the person to whom issued, and name, age and description of the dog. i Source: Ordinance No. 91, 4th Series Effective Date: 4-15-82 Subd. 8. Other Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for the owner of any dog or cat to allow such dog or cat to habitually or frequently bark or cry, to frequent school grounds, playgrounds, playing fields, parks or public beaches, to chase vehicles, to molest or annoy any person if such person is not on the property of the owner of such animal, or to damage, defile or destroy public or private property. Source: City Code 1' Effective Date: 4-1-78 It is also unlawful for any owner as herein defined having custody or control of any dog or domestic animal not to immediately remove any feces left by such animal on any public or private property and to dispose of such feces in a sanitary manner and not to have in such owner's possession a device or equipment for the picking up and removal of such animal feces. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to the paved or traveled portions of public streets or roads or to rural undeveloped areas of the City nor to guide dogs accompanying a blind person or to a dog used by police or in rescue actions. Source: Ordinance No. 131, 4th Series Effective Date: 8-25-83 -235- (1-1-84) /046 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Audit of Murphy's Landing DATE: April 20, 1989 Introduction The five year operating contract that the City of Shakopee has with the Murphy's Landing Board of Directors requires an annual audit of the Murphy's Landing operation. Background The Board of Directors of Murphy's Landing hereby requests that they be allowed to amend the schedule for the conduct of Murphy's Landing audits and to have the next audit conducted in February of 1990. This will result in the audit being consistant with the Murphy's Landing fiscal year. The level of activity during the winter months is very minimal and for a 12 month audit to be conducted in the fall of this year would not appear to be necessary. Alternatives 1. Agree to allow Murphy's Landing to conduct their next audit in February, 1990, and annually in February thereafter for the remainder of the five year contract. 2. Require Murphy's Landing to conduct an audit on the anniversary date of the last audit (Fall of 1988) . Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council pass a motion informing the Murphy's Landing Board of Directors that it is acceptable to allow the next audit of Murphy's Landing to be conducted in February of 1990, and annually thereafter in February. Action Requested Move to allow the Board of Directors of Murphy's Landing to conduct their next audit in February, 1990, and subsequent annual audits in February for the remaining life of the contract. DRK/jms HISTORIC 6 MURPHY'S LANDING vilbga of 1"04880e. 6fivnecoY Valley BeeNea4on Proleetlue. 2187 East Highway 101 Shakopee,Minnesota 55319 �✓^� (ell) 445 WW ^ / April 21, 1989 Dennis Kraft, Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Dennis: In accordance with our contractual agreement, enclosed is the approved budget for our fiscal year 1989-90, and our operating statement for March, 1989 . As soon as our computerized accounting system is in Place. we will be able to give you a much more comprehensive line item statement . Also, at our meeting on Wednesday, April 19th. the Board went on record requesting the City Council to waive the audit requirement of the contract for the six months Period ending 2-28-89 until 2-28-90. As you are aware, the audit completed by the George M. Hansen firm covered the fiscal year 3-1-87 to 2-29-88 and six months ended 8-31-88. It was the consensus of opinion of the Board that the audit ordered for the fiscal year 3-1-89 to 2-28-90 could include the six months 9-1-88 to 2-28-89. Please advise if this arrangement would be satisfactory with the City Council . Regards, 2Oiy9ie Mar ie R. Henderson, Director MRH:ab - �, }� , a :.s : 8 . . !!a ! ! ! k a . e .ag$! a C4� \� a } - � // � ! \ ! ! ! ! : ! ! #! ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! • ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! / ia- - -- - / - - --- - - - - 2 ] 2 ) ) ( ) /() ) k ( ( \§ k) ( ) ) � §� ) ; ; ; } /- \ ! • ° ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! | ! ! 5 ! ! l222 ! ° ) « ! l = = = ® • ■ = %! e „ ; ! ; n-9 - - - }! � \\\ \\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ a \\\ 9 \ \/= o� �\\- --- - \ \\� \) \) \ ) ) ) k\) \ \ ) ) =4z; \ \ � sits k H \\\\\\\ MINNESOTA VALLEY RESTORATION PROJECT, INC. !b OPERATING STATEMENT MARCH 1989 MARCH 1988 INCOME: Gate 0.00 0 . 00 Tour 50. 00 147.00 Gift Shop 0.00 0.00 General Store 0.00 0.00 Rents 3988.83 3063. 11 Donations/Grants 25000.00 75.00 Stans Foundation 0.00 20000.00 Membership 80.00 80.00 Restaurant 0.00 0.00 Washer/Dryer 70. 00 30.50 Boat 0. 00 0.00 Horse & Wagon 0.00 0 . 00 Weddings 100.00 50.00 Pop/Refreshments 0.00 0.00 Corporate Picnics 0. 00 1400 . 00 Photo Shoots 0 .00 0.00 Interest 51 . 19 0.00 Miscellaneous 0. 00 49.00 Total Income 29340.02 24894. 61 EXPENSES: Cost of Sales 0.00 21 . 14 Salaries 8598. 24 7025.50 Insurance 877.40 2422.78 Program 55 .00 360.86 Office Supplies 159.35 290.78 Advertising/Promotion 332 .43 183.25 Postage 110.00 66.00 Electric 843 .43 647. 20 Heat 982.53 1054.56 Telephone 328.81 294.03 Maintenance & Repairs 50.73 302 .31 Vehicles 103.25 138. 22 Payroll Tax 480.42 476 .47 Consulting/Legal 0.00 0.00 Interest/Loans 0. 00 0.00 Sales Tax 0 .00 0. 00 Trash Removal 0.00 62.50 Horse & Wagon 0. 00 0.00 Pop/Refreshments 0.00 0.00 Capital Expense 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous 1348.96 * 120.00 TOTAL EXPENSES 14270.55 13465.60 NET INCOME (LOSS) 15069.47 11429.01 * Shakopee Storm Drainage Assessment CHECKING ACCOUNT BALANCE 3-31-89 20601 . 19 SAVINGS ACCOUNT BALANCE 3-31-89 4526.00 CONSENT �o MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Gate Construction Request by Murphy's Landing DATE: April 27, 1989 Introduction The Murphy's Landing Board is requesting authorization to construct a gate for security purposes at the west side of the Murphy's Landing site. Backaround The staff at Murphy's landing has noticed several problems occuring in the area along the west side of Murphy's landing. These problems range from vandalism and beer parties to poaching of game in the area. It is the opinion of the Murphy's landing staff that this can be directly related to the road easement which runs through the west side of the site. The 25 foot entrance to the west parking lot is not security controlled and therefore can be used in an unrestricted manner 24 hours a day. The 14 foot main access gate does not meet the width requirements for the passage of fire trucks, according to Fire Chief Charlie Ries. Therefore, the Murphy's Landing Board is requesting that a common gate, at outlined on page two of the attachment be allowed to be constructed. This gate will allow for both some control of the unrestricted access to the property and will facilitate fire department vehicular access if necessary. Alternatives 1. Approve the construction of a 25 foot controlled entrance to the west parking lot at Murphy's Landing. 2. Do not allow such a gate to be constructed. 3. Devise some other solution to meet the needs of Murphy's Landing and control the access to the site. Staff Recommendation Alternative No. 1 is recommended. Action Requested Move to allow Murphy's Landing to construct a 25 foot access gate to the west parking lot at Murphy's Landing. DRK/jms HISTORIC C MURPHY'S LANDING A vllle8o of 1890-1880x. Mlaveeofa Valley Beeroretim i Jl 4lox. 2187 Ee Highway 101 Shakopee,Miaaeaota 55379 (612) 445 6900 V V April 24, 1989 Dennis Kraft, Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Dennis: As we have discussed, Murphy' s Landing is having a multitude of problems ranging from vandalism and beer Parties. to poaching, that are directly related to the Shakopee road easement running through the west side of the site. As you will note on page 1 of the attached map, we have a 14 foot entrance to the main village road which can be secured by a gate and padlocked. The 25 foot entrance to the West Parking Lot and road easement is not security controlled and therefore allows unrestricted use on a 24 hour basis. Also, Charlie Ries, the City's new Fire Chief has advised that our 14 foot access gate to the main village does not meet width requirements for passage of fire trucks . Therefore, we are requesting the City Council to allow us to combine access to these two roadways by a common gate, as outlined on page 2, which would solve both the on-going security problems and the Fire Department requirements. It is my understanding that you have scheduled this request for Council action on Tuesday, May 2nd. Please advise if you desire additional information. Regards, sY' f Mario a R. Henderson, Director PAGE 1 N W _ S POND GRIST MILL - ; n_ BOA MONASTERY CHURCH � , +MURPHY'S FINE FOODS V ® OFFICE L 'y. CARLSON ' PRINT WEST SHOP PARKING i II LOT Al sand ' MIL WEST � �' ` — [ Y GATE ' \ ® BROWN 13 III DEPOT 'PAGE 2 N 1J - - - - -...�� Res�r:•^^qq At 5 I S POND GRISTMILL 1 BOE \ MONASTERY r h Y CHURCH r - r , i+MURPHY'S FINE FOODS OFFICE L } i CARLSON PRINT \ WEST I i SHOP PARKING LOT � l MIL i �S /✓ew o ,n w:tl be GAT >^ ' 9 / i Hoy i .t t� O BROWN . ., Ex;st•r"1 opa 4 S lye ' II ' S� ok DEPOT .. IOK Memo To: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator From: Dave Hutton, City Engineer Re: Engineering Technician Position Date: April 27, 1989 Introduction Council authorized the advertising for applications to hire a full time Engineering Technician to replace the half-time Engineering Technician who will be transferring to full time MIS. Background Notice of vacancy was posted in the City offices and published in local and regional newspapers. Notices were also sent to area vocational/technical institutes. Forty-four applications were received and reviewed. Review criteria was based upon education, civil engineering experience and the City of Shakopee's Affirmative Action Plan. Of the applicants, six were interviewed and evaluated by Marilyn Remer, Ray Ruuska and myself collectively. Subsequently, a meeting was held with the Acting City Administrator to discuss the applicants. It was the consensus of those in the meeting that Ms. Molly McCarthy was the preferred candidate. The position being filled is an Engineering Technician II with 4 steps in service level. Ms. McCarthy meets all requirements of the Tech II position and it is recommended that she be hired at $1,607/mo. , Step I of the 1989 Pay Plan for Engineering Tech II. Ms. McCarthy will be graduating from Duluth Technical Institute on June 9, 1989 and will be starting work on June 19, 1989. She will be subject to the standard 6-month probationary period. As a result of hiring her, Mr. Steve Hurley who has been the Engineering Tech/MIS Coordinator (1/2 time for both) will be transferred to full time MIS Coordinator under the direction of the Finance Director. Recommendation Hire Ms. Molly McCarthy to the Engineering Tech II position at a monthly wage of $1,607 effective June 19, 1989. Action Reauested Move to hire Ms. Molly McCarthy to the Engineering Tech II position at a monthly wage of $1,607 effective June 19, 1989. DH:mm IUL MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City EngineerD& i SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Project DATE: April 27 , 1989 INTRODUCTION: Staff has received notice from the Department of Natural Resources indicating that they will issue a permit to Shakopee for the construction of the Upper Valley Drainage Project, which discharges into the Millpond. BACKGROUND: Attached is a letter, that staff has received from the Department of Natural Resources indicating that they will issue a permit to the City of Shakopee for the Upper Valley Drainage Project if we agree to the various conditions outlined in the letter. Most of these conditions are relatively minor items with the exception of No. 5 and No. 7. Number 5 is for the construction of a 1300 foot long berm running along the entire length of Memorial Park which deviates from our proposed berm which was 500 feet running straight north to the Minnesota River. Therefore, this condition results in an additional 800 feet of berm to be constructed. The original cost estimate for the proposed mitigation at the Millpond was $240 ,000 , which staff had previously informed Council of. With the requirement of this additional berm the '.. revised cost estimate is $300 ,000 or an increase of $60,000 over our proposed mitigation. City staff feels that this additional money can be solicited from various agencies such as the Lower Minnesota River Watershed Organization and that there will be additional funding to help pay for our mitigation. Therefore, by accepting this condition of the permit we can still pursue in getting additional funding and reduce the net impact to the City of Shakopee. The point is that in our discussion with the DNR this condition ' is a requirement for their permit and the City of Shakopee is faced with a "take it or leave it" situation. Staff does not feel that it is prudent to jeopardize a 3 million dollar drainage project and a 25 million dollar bypass project for $60 ,000 especially if we can obtain additional funding for this mitigation from other sources. Another point is that this berm will need to be constructed within 3 years after we get the permit. Therefore, there is no need to construct this berm immediately while we are pursuing funding, but we can construct the remainder of the Upper Valley Drainage area. The other condition that is somewhat major is condition No. 7 which indicates that open water will be maintained during the winter in Pond 3 • Staff has achieved in getting this condition eliminated from the permit requirement. The DNR will be issuing the permit for this project within the next 2 to 3 weeks. Staff wanted to inform Council of this fact and also to point out that the conditions of the permit will be forthcoming. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to concur with staff that the City of Shakopee should obtain this permit with the conditions listed . If Council disagrees with these conditions, they should direct staff to inform the DNR that the City of Shakopee does not desire to obtain this permit. DH/pmp DNR tSTATE OF HEDEPARTMENT GJCSOO4Q Ib OF NATURAL RESOURCES � ADiTRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PXONENO. 296-7523 FILE NO. i April 19, 1989' RECEIVED 3 of APR201989► _4 Mr. Dave Hutten C'_" OF SNAKOPE City of Shakopee •- 129 E. First Ave. moi`- !fig Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: PERMIT #88-6396, SHAKOPEE MILL POND Dear Mr. Hutten: At our meeting of April 14, 1989 the Department presented the following conditions for issuance of the above-referenced permit. It is my opinion that the permit would be issued if the City can agree to these items, which are listed below. 1) No blasting during construction, north of the railroad tracks. 2) The spring discharge at the headwaters of Pond 1 will be mitigated if impacted or reduced due to construction activity. 3) The normal pool elevation of Pond 3 will be raised 1-foot to elevation 701. 4) The outlet control structure for Pond 3 will be revised to allow drawdown capability to elevation 698. 5) A berm will be constructed for a length of approximately 1320-feet along the south perimeter of Pond 3 to provide a total separation of cold water from stormwater. 6) The total loss of water surface area from the current to the post-construction condition will not exceed one acre. If it does, commensurate excavation will be made for any amount over one acre. 7) Open water will be maintained during the winter in a portion of Pond 3. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Dave Hutten Page Two l My understanding is you will conduct additional study to determine the feasibility of meeting these conditions, especially with regard to 115. Please let me know the results of your investigation. Sincerely, �) Mike Mueller Area Hydrologist cc: Pete Willenbring, OSM Gerry Blahs, MPCA - Water Quality Bruce Gilbertson, AFM Jon Parker, AWM MM285:kap Orr 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis,MN 55413 612-331-8660 FAX 331-3806 April 21, 1989 �ryors Planners SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA UPPER VALLEY DRAINAGE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE STORM WATER & TROUT STREAM SEPARATION FROM SPRINGS N. OF R.R. TO MINNESOTA RIVER 22,000 C.Y. Excavation @ 1.40 c.y. $ 30,800 800 L.Y. Cl . III Grouted Rip Rap @ 17.00 c.y. 13,600 11,000 S.Y. Fabric @ 1.00 s.y. 11,000 1,500 L.Y. Cl . III Rip Rap @ 12.00 c.y. 18,000 4,000 C.Y. Cl . V Rip Rap @ 15.00 c.y. 60,000 4,500 S.F. Sheeting inplace @ 12.00 s.f. 54,000 138 L.F. 48" R.L. Arch (in-bridge) @ 85.00 l .f. 11,730 148 L.F. 36" R.C. Arch @ 65.00 l .f. 9,620 2 48" Arch F.E. Sections @ 1,200.00 each 2,400 2 36" Arch F.E. Sections @ 800.00 each 1,600 80 L.F. Remove inp. culvert @ 10.00 L.F. 800 3 Ac. Seeding, mulch, fertilizer, & 4" minimum topsoil @ 1,000.00 Ac. 3,000 1 Clear & Grub L.S. 2.000 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION LOST $218,550 ALTERNATE BERM PROP. BY MPCA & DNR 8' Wide Berm (Too) 21,000 C.Y. Borrow @ 1.50 c.y. $ 31,500 15,000 S.Y. Fabric @ 1.00 s.y. 15,000 2,000 C.Y. Cl . III Grouted Rip Rap @ 17.00 c.y. 34,000 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 80,500 GRAND TOTAL 299 050 Equal 0P nunny EmPl"y sOhl MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City A2900 rator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Enginee SUBJECT: Lewis and Sommerville Stree Block DATE: April 27 , 1989 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a memorandum from the street superintendent regarding the condition of Lewis and Sommerville Streets in the 900 block, between Shakopee Avenue and 10th Avenue. BACKGROUND: The street superintendent has indicated that the 900 block of Lewis and Sommerville, Streets are deteriorating to the point where maintenance is no longer feasible for these two streets. Staff has reviewed the conditions of these streets and concurs with that assessment. Lewis Street between 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue has been scheduled for reconstruction for a number of years in the Capital Improvements Plan, but to date the project has not been ordered. Sommerville Street is also in deteriorated condition between 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue. In both these streets, the block between Shakopee Avenue and 10th Avenue is extremely deteriorated and is in worse condition that the remainder of the streets. These two streets were not included in the 1989 Capital Improvement Plan. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Direct staff to do a feasibility report on these two blocks only. j 2. Direct staff to do a feasibility report on both of these streets between 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue. 3. Do not order a feasibility report on these streets this year but give these serious consideration for reconstruction in 1990 . i 4. Do nothing , and continue to attempt to maintain these streets. RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that both of these blocks are in serious need of reconstruction, but since they were not budgeted for in 1989 it would be difficult to add them at this stage. Also, by doing pY - only two blocks of street reconstruction as a project, the bid price for this project would be extremely high versus doing a larger project all at once. Staff is currently in the process of revising the 5-Year Capital Improvements Plan. This plan will be coming to City Council and the Planning Commission in the near future for review and approval. Staff feels that Lewis Street from 4th Avenue to 10th Avenue should be included in this plan and receive a high priority for construction. As a matter of fact, this street has been included in the 5-year plan for a number of years and was scheduled for reconstruction in 1989 or 1990 . In the fall of 1988 , staff took a number of projects for consideration for inclusion in the 1989 construction season and Lewis Street was one of them. City Council chose to go with a number of other projects over Lewis Street, namely the 3rd Avenue Reconstruction and the 5th Avenue Project. Sommerville Street is also going to be included in the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Staff feels that the 900 block of Sommerville between Shakopee Avenue and 10th Avenue could be included with the Lewis Street Project and constructed all at the same time, thereby lowering the bid prices. Therefore, staff recommends waiting on taking any action on these two blocks of Lewis Street and Sommerville Street until after the Capital Improvements Plan has been adopted. Staff does recommend that the City Council give extremely high consideration to reconstructing Lewis Street between 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue and also reconstructing Sommerville between 9th and 10th Avenue during the 1990 construction season. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to include Lewis St. and Sommerville St. in the 5- Year Capital Improvements Program and to bring these projects back to City Council in the fall of 1989 for consideration during the 1990 construction season. DH/pmp PLAN FROM, CITY OF SHAKOPEE TG: Dave Hutton, Engineer 129 East First Ave., Shakopee, MN Zip 55379 Phone (612) 445-36/58 NAME: Karkanen SUBJECT: Dave, DATE 4-21-89 We've been receiving numerous phone calls/complaints regarding the deteriorating condition of the street surfaces of the 900 block of Lewis and Sommerville streets. It is our suggestion that these two streets are included in our street rehabilitation program as soon as possible. If you recall, we had determined last year, that they should be done this year. The street condition has gone far beyond normal street maintenance. We will attempt to temporarily patch the streets until we can resurface them. If you have any questions, give me a call. DATE BY RETURN PART I TO SENDER WITH REPLY BY v) PMCC 847 3 IOn MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Marschall Road (C.R. 17) , Sidewalk DATE: April 27 , 1989 INTRODUCTION: Staff has been directed to explore alternative locations for the sidewalk project along Marschall Road near Shakopee Avenue. BACKGROUND: I On April 18 , 1989 the City Council discussed the proposed sidewalk project on Marschall Road from 4th Avenue to 10th Avenue . At the conclusion of the discussion, City Council ordered the plans and specifications prepared for the sidewalk j between 4th Avenue and C.R. 16. City Council also directed staff to explore alternative routes for the sidewalk from C. R . 16 to 10th Avenue. Specifically the Council is concerned about safety of pedestrians near the Shakopee Avenue intersection with Marschall Road and the fact that the sidewalk may need to be located fairly close to the curb along this property to avoid conflicts with the apartment building. The owner of the apartment building at this location has indicated that there is vacant City street right-of-way running behind the apartment building that can be utilized for sidewalk rather than utilizing the right-of-way of Marschall Road. Staff has researched the available right-of-way and any easements. Attached is a map showing the available right-of-way in the area. Ramsey St. north of Shakopee Ave. has been vacated but no houses have been built on the vacated right-of-way . Between Ramsey St. and Marschall Road the houses have all been built fairly close together and there is no room for a sidewalk. It is apparent that the City does not have adequate right-of-way or easements to construct this sidewalk to take a "round-about" way of getting from C.R. 16 to 10th Avenue without utilizing Marschall Road. Staff has prepared several alternative sidewalk alignments showing how the sidewalk could be routed around the apartment building at Shakopee Avenue and Marschall Road. These alternatives are illustrated in the attached drawings. None of the alternatives are recommended by staff for the following reasons : a. All of them would involve the purchase of additional right-of-way or easements by the City of Shakopee to construct the sidewalk. b. All of them would involve diverting pedestrian traffic /6 from Marschall Road round to Ramsey Street and then south until they reach Shakopee Avenue or 10th Avenue and then back toward Marschall Road. Staff does not feel that pedestrians will utilize this "round-about" alignment , but rather they would continue along Marschall Road whether or not sidewalk was installed along this route Staff concurs that there are difficulties at the intersection of Shakopee Avenue and Marschall Road in regards to designing the sidewalk safely and to avoid any conflicts with the apartment building, trees, telephone poles, etc . , but staff feels that these things should be addressed in the design phase and solutions arrived at would possibly involve retaining walls, re- landscaping , or other means that would still result in a functionally sufficient sidewalk that maximizes pedestrian safety. Routing the pedestrian traffic two blocks away to avoid this intersection is not a viable option in staff' s opinion. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Do Nothing and delay the construction of the sidewalk between C.R. 16 and 10th Avenue until a later date. - 2. Revise the project that was ordered to include preparing plans and specifications for the sidewalk from C. R . 16 to 10th Avenue and at that time any design features regarding the Shakopee Avenue intersection would be presented to Council. 3 • Direct staff to take some other appropriate action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 2, to add the portion of the project from C.R. 16 to 10th Avenue to the resolution ordering plans and specifications prepared . Once the plans and specifications are prepared, staff would then request permission to bid the project through City Council and at that time the Council could review the design at the intersection of Shakopee Avenue and Marschall Road. Staff would also like to mention that the project as ordered (between 4th Avenue and C.R. 16) is a relatively small project which would result in a higher unit price for the sidewalk. Increasing the amount of sidewalk would reduce the unit price of the project. If the project only consists of sidewalk between 4th Avenue and C.R. 16 , staff recommends that this sidewalk be added to an existing construction contract as a change order. rather than bid as a separate project. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct staff to take whatever appropriate action Council wishes. SQUARE 3RD D ADD'N EXISTING RIGHT— OF—'WAY r A HL LINKS ..: <ozel I 5561;; PA.C.T. CPLDiT RWER ROAD 186091 9�,GO EAGLE CREEK JUNCTION DJTLOT A IST ADD'N 6 � 16` ALLEY 18' ALLEY ,\ _ LLLLLLLLUUUUUUMq _ s HESSI TFD HfSSE S e SCENT " e HE GHTS 4T . 2 r - . � • 4 Fy�< ALTERNA�IVE 1' F 2Proposedl sidewalk - c9FF� per 'Feasibili'ty Report I ao ` 3 v�FL I c s s 4 I = 1 o 4 GS 2 a / 5 4 3 4 t IRST RRESB. i CHURCH 155MB,Y 4 1F GOD :HURCH y y y 9 a .C1 I ui I Is 3 y 3 5 T n v H 4 e 14 17 Q s 3 I� u ' � 2 JUNIOR NIGH rt � H 2 ourLOT a PRA! / yP e 'tPARK I Q, 5 2 1 y 4 R < N B 13 1 I I �i25 OUTLO7 5 8 I 4 l .ML _� ourLor c ' 4 J F4 ALTERNATIVES ' 2 & 2a I c� F 2 c9FF� I I eo 3 GAF/ 4'90 ` • 3 s 4 ' I O i y 2 c fi 5 L 3 4 a` I CH PRESS. CHURCH I 0 z S 45SMB,Y )F 600 I O e �HURCH G h h s 4 I u h 3 5 .a 4 8 x 3 I I, y W ~ 9 7 J h 5 2 1 J � e 7 w 7 J ' z h 4 ] 4 e 14 17 O ] 3 I� I Z JUNIOR HIGH 4 II PRAT / 2 P OUTLOT A I� QQ PARK Q• 5 �2 1 n R < N B 1 3 I I R12 OUTL07 BI MC �_ OUTLOT (; r 4 I ALTERNATIVE: ! g & 3a 2 i F� I eo 1 3 G�F� 4,PO 3 s 4 I Z I O 9 2 6 3 4 I- IRST PRESS. � CHURCH ISSMB,Y 4 O a IF 60D I h (7 9 :XURCX 4 I ' u N 3 5 SA E , 2 3 1♦ 3 7 ml R S 2k ` a > e > J I �z Q y � � Q 4 / h a *A a 4 � e 14 17 s 3 I� Ih6 7 I 2 JUNIOR HIGH I I 2 OUTLOT A PRAI iF QPp PARK P S 2 1 h I M1 e lk � N 1 3 F_ 6 - OUTLOT4 It 6 I w OUTLOT C ALTERNATIVE $ 4 & 4a 2 1 ' 3 FL 4'fl0 L 3 s 4 1 Z I I S 6 2 < L 3 4 1� IRST PRESS. c CHURCH 1 SSMB'Y Z SQ F G00 I HURCH N vi 1 k7' 5 �< t e I , i 3ti W 9 S T N J y R 5 2c ` J It 4 a T J a y y .4 e 4 f e 14 17 s 4 4 I 2 JUNIOR HIGH � a - PRQI / P 21 o OUTLOT c I� �� PARK P F 5 �2 I I y � 4 8 P C N 1 3 1 p OUTLOT g 6 1 4 i I MU OUTLOT r 4 �6 F ALTERNATIVE 5 & 5a F 2 t B� 1 3 G�FG 4'90 ` 3 s 4 IO 4 I S 2 6 3 9 t IRST PRESB. CHURCH 3 ISSMB'V >F GOD ;HURCH h u 5 r7T_ Ia L W ~ 9 $ T p v H \ J S 2 IZ ` 4 ° ° Ia IT s 3 2T JUNIOR HIGH If e 2 PRAT PARK OUTLOT A I Q 5 2 1 y 1 B P � R R45 OU7LOi 6 I ML OU LOT C � G L� OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SCOTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE 110 SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1382 (612)937-6100 JOSEPH F.RIES Administrator CLIFFORD G.McCANN Deputy Administrator BARBARA NESS Executive Asst. TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator Gayden F. Carruth, Superintendent of Schools Norbert Theis, Chairman, Jackson Township Board of Supervisors Wm. J. Dellwo, Chairman, Louisville Township Bd. of Supervisiors SUBJECT: Revised Request for Proposals for an Analysis of the Property Tax Situations and Practices for Joint Committee Jurisdictions DATE: May 2, 1989 Pursuant to our discussion at our April 26th meeting, I had our financial consultant rework the scope of work and compensation sections of the Request For Proposals to add the clarity to the document that we found necessary. I hope this meets with everyone's approval. Because of this late date, I am having the revised document conveyed to Dennis Kraft by special courier this morning in order to allow him time to reproduce and distribute same for tonight's city council meeting. I too will be presenting the revised RFP to the County Board today and will be recommending approval of the study. For the sake of expediency, I will also have a copy hand delivered to Dr. Carruth's office today and will insure that copies are mailed to Jackson and Louisville officials with dispatch. Please direct any questions on the revised document to my personal attention and advise me promptly on the position of your policy bodies to participate in the study. Thank you for the excellent cooperation you have all given this effort. j , strator unty Commissioners Cliff McCann, Deputy County Administrator JR:bn An Equal Opportuniry Emplovrr 06i01/N9 15 51 4612 223 3002 SPRISGSTBD INC 009 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS An Analysis of the Property Tax Situations and Practices For the Jurisdictions of: Scott County, Minnesota City of Shakopee Independent School District 720 Shakopee, Minnesota Jackson Township Louisville Township 05/01,39 15'51 &612'. 223 3000- SPRI%CVED INC. 2uoa.,tpy Purpose of Request The Scott County Board of Commissioners, the City of Shakopee, the Shakopee School Board, the Jackson Town Board and the Louisville Town Board (the "Joint Committee") are requesting proposals from public accounting firms to advise the Joint Committee on the following: I) Identification of the factors which comprise the total property tax situations of jurisdictions comprising the Joint Committee. ii) Examine those Identified factors and quantify their contribution to and effect on the total property tax situations of the Joint Committee jurisdictions. III) Contrast and compare the identified factors in Scott County with the effect of those factors on property taxes in similarly situated counties in the Minneapolis/Saint Paul metropolitan area (e.g., Dakota, Washington, Carver Counties). iv) Evaluate the effect of the identified factors on the Joint Committee jurisdiction's property tax rates at current levels and the rates of increase over the past three years. v) Review the operational structures of the jurisdictions comprising the Joint Committee to evaluate any cost savings through reorganization either within and/or between jurisdictions. vi) Make recommendations based on the findings of the analysis. vii) Develop a proposed plan to assist the Joint Committee in implementing some or all of the proposed recommendations. Instructions to Proposers Responding firms are requested to base their proposals on the Scope of Work contained in this Request For Proposal (RFP). All proposals must be submitted to the Joint Committee in care of: Mr. Joseph F. Ries,Administrator Scott County Courthouse Room 110 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379.1382 Eight (8) copies of the proposal must be submitted no later than 12:00 Noon, April 1989. The Joint Committee is not responsible for late delivery by commercial courier. Proposal costs are the sole responsibility of the responding firm. by mail at the address above. While telephone inquiries are allowed, only written Inquiries and responses are binding. 05/01/89 15 52 $612 223 3002 SPRIVCSTED INC X005'009 Selection Criteria The proposals will be evaluated by the Joint Committee members. The Joint Committee will review and evaluate each proposal based on the following criteria: A. Past experience with similar type of work for government agencies and/or intergovernmental or joint government agencies. B. Past experience with property tax and property tax assessment factors. C. Experience, qualifications and time commitment of personnel assigned to this project to be determined from material provided by the applicant. D. Organization of proposal and its responsiveness to the purpose and scope of services. E. Ability to work within the proposed timeframe (see attached timetable). F. Provide a minimum of four (4) references of similar types of governmental entities that your firm has performed similar studies for. G. Cost of services. Once the Joint Committee has rated each proposal and completed a rating sheet, a composite Is developed which indicates the Joint Committee's collective ranking of the highest rated proposals in a descending order. At this point, the Joint Committee may request additional submittals and will conduct Interviews with only the top ranked firms (at most the top four (4). depending upon the number of proposals received). The format, date and location of the Interviews will be determined by the Joint Committee and communicated to the top ranked firms. Proposed fee structures for the Joint Committee's project shall be submitted only by the top ranked firms at the time of their interviews. Proposed fee structures shall be submitted in an opaque envelope on which Is Indicated the name of the firm. The envelopes will be opened after the completion of all interviews and will be considered at that time by the Joint Committee. Based on the response to this RFP, any additional required submittals, the Interview and consideration of the proposed fee structures, the Joint Committee will select and/or recommend one (1) firm to provide the services required in this RFP. The Joint Committee will then endeavor to negotiate a contract with the successful firm. in the event that a mutually agreeable contract cannot be negotiated with said firm, the Joint Committee will then enter into contract negotiations with the next highest rated firm, and so on until a mutually agreeable contract can be negotiated. Scope of Work The Scope of Work involves review and analysis of local taxation components, levels, as well as providing recommendations for methods to enhance existing taxation and valuation practices. A study analyzing mill rate growth in Scott County between 1964 and 1987 has been prepared by Springsted Incorporated. This study is available for the successful firm's use in completing the Scope of Work for this project. The Scope of Work will be divided into three (3) separate independent sections. The successful firm will be awarded ail three (3) sections of the Scope of Work. 05/01/89 15.53 2612 223 3002 SPRINCSTED INC OOwOOy 16 m SECTION ONE: CONDUCT PROPERTY TAX STUDY The work performed for section one (f) of the Scope of Work should Include, at a minimum, the following tasks: A. Analyze the cost and revenue structures of the entities comprising the Joint Committee, paying particular attention to the property tax, its role in the affected jurisdictions and how those roles have changed over time. B. Compare and contrast the role of property taxes in the Joint Committee jurisdictions with similarly situated jurisdictions in the Twin City metropolitan area. C. Analyze the property tax base of each jurisdiction of the Joint Committee members. D. Analyze the property tax valuation procedures and practices of Scott County. E. Quantify and analyze the extent and effect of tax increment financing on Scott County and surrounding counties. F. Quantity and analyze the extent and effect of fiscal disparities on the Joint Committee jurisdictions as compared with other metropolitan jurisdictions. G. Review local government and school aids formulas for the Joint Committee jurisdictions as compared with other metropolitan jurisdictions. H. Review and compare property taxes on comparable properties in similar areas in Scott County and adjacent metropolitan counties. I. Conduct a "compliance audit" of procedures used to establish and administer tax Increment financing by the City of Shakopee and Scott County. It should examine the relationship and tasks at both the city and county level as they relate to the application of Fiscal Disparities law for existing tax increment financing projects in the City of Shakopee. The audit should also examine the collection and remittance procedures by Scott County for increment income as it relates to the City of Shakopee and Fiscal Disparities law. J. Report the results of the study to the Joint Committee. The final report should include statements detailing the: method of analysis used; review of the analysis; statement of findings with detailed analysis of the role of property tax, and - statement of recommendations. 05/01/89 15:54 22612 223 3002 SPkIM;STED INC �'007.iu)9 SECTION TWO: IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The work performed for section two (2) of the Scope of Work should include, at a minimum, the following tasks: A. Submit to the Joint Committee a detailed program outlining the steps necessary to implement the recommendations resulting from the completion of Section One. e. Submit to the Joint Committee a proposed timetable for implementation of the Section One recommendations. C. Submit to the Joint Committee a cost estimate detailing the monetary cast of implementing the recommendations and the monetary savings resulting from implementing the recommendations. SECTION THREE: OUTLINE OF MANAGEMENT STUDY AND REVIEW The work performed for Section Three (3) of the Scope of Work should include, at a minimum, the following tasks: A. Submit to the Joint Committee an outline for a study o1 the management functions of the 1) the Individual jurisdictions comprising the Joint Committee and If) the interrelationships between the members of the Joint Committee. The outline should include, at a minimum, the following areas: l.) Examine staffing levels at the city, county, township and school district levels. Compare and contrast with other similarly situated jurisdictions In the Twin City metropolitan area; ii.) Examine and analyze the services provided by members of the Joint Committee to their constituents; iii.) Examine and analyze any monetary or staffing and service delivery savings available due to consolidation or realignment of functions performed both internally by each jurisdiction and externally between jurisdictions; Please note that this Section is limited to the preparation and submission of an outline for a Management Study and Review. Performance of the actual study and review will occur at a later date under a separate contract. Personnel A. What individuals would be assigned to this project? Please Include brief resumes and the specific issues they have worked on in the last two years. B. What would be the availability of the assigned staff? What is the minimum notice required to assure availability of staff for meetings or other forms of consultation? C. What other individuals would be available to work on this project? Explain what benefit they would be to the Joint Committee. 05i011V9 1554 2612 223 3002 SPRINCSTED INC. 00e409 / A m f U Compensation The information In this section is to be submitted by the top ranked firms under separate cover in a sealed envelope at the time of their interview. A separate proposed fee schedule must be submitted for each Section of the Scope of Work. A single proposed fee schedule for the entire Scope of Work Is not acceptable. A. Please explain the firm's proposed fee schedule for the each section of the Scope of Work. The proposal should include hourly rates of the assigned personnel as well as an estimate of the total number of hours for each phase of work described. B. Describe any differential pricing structure that may be applicable to each section of the described Scope of Work. C. Clearly state what type of incidental expenses the Joint Committee would be responsible for. D. Describe your preferred method of compensation and include your standard contract. E. The proposed fee schedule must include a "not-to-exceed" amount for each section of the Scope of Work. Timetable A. A preliminary report will be due to the Joint Committee sixty (60) days after the Joint Committee awards the project to the successful bidder. B. A final report will be due ninety (90) days after the Joint Committee awards the project to the successful bidder. Terms and Conditions A. The Joint Committee reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to waive irregularities and technicalities and to accept the proposal deemed most advantageous to the Joint Committee. B. The Joint Committee reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to award the contract to the next qualified firm If the successful candidate does not execute a contract within thirty (30) days after the award of the proposal. C. The Joint Committee reserves the right to request clarification of information submitted and to request additional information of one or more applicants. D. Any proposal may be withdrawn up until the deadline for final submission. Any proposal not so withdrawn shelf constitute an irrevocable offer, for a period of ninety (90) days, to provide the services set forth in the attached specifications, or until one or more of the proposals have been approved by the Joint Committee. 05/01'89 15'.55 @612 223 3002 SPRINCSTED INC. X009'009 E. If, through any cause, the firm shall fall to fulfill In timely and proper manner the obligations agreed to, the Joint Committee shall have the right to terminate its contract by specifying the date of termination in a written notice to the firm at least thirty (30) working days before the termination date. In this event, the firm shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed as of the termination date. F. Any agreement or contract resulting from the acceptance of a proposal shall be on forms either supplied by or approved by the Joint Committee and shall contain, as a minimum, applicable provisions of the request for proposal. The Joint Committee reserves the right to refect any agreement that does not conform to the request for proposal and any Joint Committee requirements for agreements and contracts. G. The firm shall not assign any interest in the contract and shall not transfer any Interest In the same without prior written consent of the Joint Committee. H. No reports, information, or dates given to or prepared by the firm under contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by the firm without the prior written approval of the Joint Committee. IDo MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Analysis of Local Property Tax Situations and Practices DATE: April 28, 1989 Introduction A copy of a proposed RFP is attached herewith for City Council discussion and action. Background Approximately two months ago the City Council requested that the Scott County Board of Commissioners and Independent School District No. 720 participate with the City in a study to determine the nature of the erratic real estate tax pattern for Shakopee property owners. Subsequent to this request a joint meeting was held between members of the City Council, the County Board and the School Board. Several staff meetings were also held in conjunction with this process. An RFP was then prepared and was discussed by members of a committee comprised of the Chief Administrative Officers of the City, County and School Board along with representatives from Louisville and Jackson Townships. The attached RFP is a result of discussions held between these various groups. The RFP essentially has three different phases. These phases include: 1. The study part of the phase which would evaluate the various factors relating to property taxes in the subject jurisdictions and an analysis of these factors; and 2. A review of the operational structure of the jurisdictions represented on the joint committee and an evaluation of the cost savings which might be able to be realized through governmental reorganization; and 3. The development of a proposed plan to assist the joint committee with the recommendations which were proposed. Cost of Study After lengthly discussion of several different alternatives the committee's recommendation was that the cost of the study be split on a one-third basis between the three major governmental jurisdictions, that is the City, County and School District. It is estimated that Phase One described above of the study would have a cost of $10,000-15,000. It would be difficult to determine the cost of Phase Two and Phase Three would probably cost less than $5,000. It would be advisable to request that firms submitting proposals break out costs for each of the three phases mentioned above. If this were to happen, and if the study were to be approved, there would be an opportunity to accept or reject each of the phases. It is anticipated that the total study would require 90 days to complete and that there would be a preliminary report available 60 days after proposal initiation. The joint committee comprised of the Chief Administrative Officials from the City, County and School District along with two persons designated by the Town Board Chairs of Louisville and Jackson Townships would monitor the study. Alternatives 1. Accept the RFP as submitted and agree to its distribution to major accounting firms. 2 . Reject the idea of distributing the RFP. 3. Modify the RFP and agree to its distribution. Recommendation Alternative No. 1 or 3 above is recommended, depending upon whether City Council desires to amend the RFP. Action Recommended Move to accept (or modify and accept) the RFP for an analysis of the property tax situation and practices for the jurisdictions of Scott County, the City of Shakopee, Independent School District No. 720, Jackson Township and Louisville Township, and to so inform the other jurisdictions of the action of the City Council. DRK/jms OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR / U SCOTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE 110 SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1382 (612)937-6100 JOSEPH F.RIES Administrator CLIFFORD G.WCANN Deputy Administrator BARBARA NESS Executive Asst. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS An Analysis of the Property Tax Situations and Practices For the Jurisdictions of: Scott County, Minnesota City of Shakopee Independent School District 720 Shakopee, Minnesota Jackson Township Louisville Township An Equal Opportunity Employer PURPOSE OF REQUEST The Scott County Board of Commissioners, the City of Shakopee, the Shakopee School Board, the Jackson Town Board and the Louisville Town Board (the "Joint Committee") are requesting proposals from public accounting and financial consulting firms to advise the Joint Committee on the following: i) Identification and weightings of the factors which comprise the total property tax environment of jurisdictions comprising the Joint Committee. ii) Examine those identified factors and quantify their contribution to and effect on the existing total property tax situations of each Joint Committee jurisdiction. iii) Contrast and compare the identified factors in Scott County with the effect of those factors on property taxes in similarly situated counties in the Minneapolis/Saint Paul metropolitan area (e.g. , Dakota, Washington, Carver Counties) at current levels and the previous three years. iv) Evaluate the effect of the identified factors on the Joint Committee jurisdiction's property tax rates at current levels and the rates of increase over the past three years. V) Review the operational structures of the jurisdictions comprising the Joint Committee to evaluate any cost savings through reorganization either within and/or between jurisdictions. vi) Make recommendations based on the findings of the analysis. vii) Develop a proposed plan to assist the Joint Committee in implementing some or all of the proposed recommendations. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS Responding firms are requested to base their proposals on the Scope of Work contained in this Request For Proposal (RFP) . All proposals must be submitted to the Joint Committee in care of: Mr. Joseph F. Ries, Administrator Scott County Courthouse 110 428 South Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379-1382 Eight (8) copies of the proposal must be submitted no later than 12:00 Noon, April , 1989. The Joint Committee is not responsible for late delivery by commercial courier. Proposal costs are the sole responsibility of the responding firm. Any questions about this RFP should be directed to Mr. Joseph F. Ries at (612) 496-8105 or by mail at the address above. While telephone inquiries are allowed, only written inquiries and responses are binding. SELECTION CRITERIA The proposals will be evaluated by the Joint Committee members. The Joint Committee will review and evaluate each proposal based on the following criteria: A. Past experience with similar type of work for government agencies and/or intergovernmental or joint government agencies. B. Past experience with property tax and property tax assessment factors. C. Experience, qualifications and time commitment of personnel assigned to this project to be determined from material provided by the applicant. D. Organization of proposal and its responsiveness to the purpose and scope of services. *To be E. Ability to work within the proposed timeframe (see attached .developed by timetable). Joint Committee F. Provide a minimum of four (4) references of similar types of governmental entities for which your firm has performed similar studies. G. Cost of services. Once the Joint Committee has rated each proposal and completed a rating sheet, a composite is developed which indicates the Joint Committee's collective ranking of the highest rated proposals in a descending order. At this point, the Joint Committee may request additional submittals and will conduct interviews with only the top ranked firms (at most the top four (4) , depending upon the number of proposals received). The format, date and location of the interviews will be determined by the Joint Committee and communicated to the top ranked firms. Proposed fee structures for the Joint Committee's project shall be �� submitted only by the top ranked firms at the time of their interviews. Proposed fee structures shall be submitted in an opaque envelope on which is indicated the name of the firm. The envelopes will be opened after the completion of all interviews and will be considered at that time by the Joint Committee. Based on the response to this RFP, any additional required submittals, the interview and consideration of the proposed fee structures, the Joint Committee will select and/or recommend one (1) firm to provide the services required in this RFP. The Joint Committee will then endeavor to negotiate a contract with the successful firm. In the event that a mutually agreeable contract cannot be negotiated with said firm, the Joint Committee will then enter into contract negotiations with the next highest rated firm, and so on until a mutually agreeable contract can be negotiated. 2 SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work involves review and analysis of local taxation components, levels, as well as providing recommendations for methods to enhance existing taxation and valuation practices. A study analyzinq mill rate growth in Scott County between 1984 and 1987 has been prepared by Springsted Incorporated. This study is available for the successful firm's use in completing the Scope of Work for this project. The work performed for this project should include, at a minimum, the following tasks: A. Analyze the cost and revenue structures of the entities comprising the Joint Committee, paying particular attention to the property tax, its role in the affected jurisdictions and how those roles have changed over time. B. Compare and contrast the role of property taxes in the Joint Committee jurisdictions with similarly situated jurisdictions in the Twin City metropolitan area. C. Analyze the property tax base of each jurisdiction of the Joint Committee members. D. Analyze the property tax valuation procedures and practices of Scott County. E. Quantify and analyze the extent and effect of tax increment financing on Scott County and surrounding counties. F. Quantify and analyze the extent and effect of fiscal disparities on the Joint Committee jurisdictions as compared with other metropolitan jurisdictions. G. Review local government and school aids formulas for the Joint Committee jurisdictions as compared with other metropolitan jurisdictions. H. Review and compare property taxes on comparable properties in similar areas in Scott County and adjacent metropolitan counties. I. Conduct a "compliance audit" of procedures used to establish and administer tax increment financing by the City of Shakopee and Scott County. It should examine the relationship and tasks at both the city and county level as they relate to the application of Fiscal Disparities law for existing tax increment financing projects in the City of Shakopee. The audit should also examine the collection and remittance procedures by Scott County for increment income as it relates to the City of Shakopee and Fiscal Disparities law. -3- I6D J. Examine staffing levels at the city, county, township and school district levels. Compare and contrast with other similarly situated jurisdictions in the Twin City metropolitan area. K. Report the results of the study to the Joint Committee. The final report should include statements detailing the: - method of analysis used; - review of the analysis; - statement of findings with detailed analysis of the role of property tax, and - statement of recommendations. The statement of recommendations should include a discussion of i) any changes proposed to the cost and revenue base of the Joint Committee member jurisdiction; ii) the services provided by members of the Joint Committee to their constituents; iii) any savings available due to consolidation or realignment both internally by jurisdiction and externally among jurisdictions; iv) recommendations for implementation of proposed changes in personnel and procedures.. PERSONNEL !� A. What individuals would be assigned to this project? Please include brief resumes and the specific issues they have worked on in the last two years. B. What would be the availability of the assigned staff? What is the minimum notice required to assure availability of staff for meetings or other forms of consultation? C. What other individuals would be available to work on this project? Explain what benefit they would be to the Joint Committee. COMPENSATION The information in this section is to be submitted by the top ranked firms under separate cover in a sealed envelope at the time of their interview. A. Please explain the firm's proposed fee schedule for the work outlined. Include hourly rates of the assigned personnel as well as an estimate of the total number of hours by individual for each phase of work described. B. Describe any differential pricing structure that may be applicable to the described scope of work. -4- �6 d C. Clearly state what type of incidental expenses for which the Joint Committee would be responsible. D. Describe your preferred method of compensation and include your standard contract. E. The proposed fee schedule must include a "not-to-exceed" amount for the Work Scope. TIMETABLE A. A preliminary report will be due to the Joint Committee sixty (60) days after the Joint Committee awards the project to the successful bidder. B. A final report will be due ninety (90) days after the Joint Committee awards the project to the successful bidder. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. The Joint Committee reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to waive irregularities and technicalities and to accept the proposal deemed most advantageous to the Joint Committee. B. The Joint Committee reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to award the contract to the next qualified firm if the successful candidate does not execute a contract within thirty (30) days after the award of the proposal. C. The Joint Committee reserves the right to request clarification of information submitted and to request additional information of one or more applicants. D. Any proposal may be withdrawn up until the deadline for final submission. Any proposal not so withdrawn shall constitute an irrevocable offer, for a period of ninety (90) days, to provide the services set forth in the attached specifications, or until one or more of the proposals have been approved by the Joint Committee. E. If, through any cause, the firm shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner the obligations agreed to, the Joint Committee shall have the right to terminate its contract by specifying the date of termination in a written notice to the firm at least thirty (30) working days before the termination date. In this event, the firm shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed as of the termination date. -6- F. Any agreement or contract resulting from the acceptance of a proposal shall be on forms either supplied by or approved by the Joint Committee and shall contain, as a minimum, applicable provisions of the request for proposal. The Joint Committee reserves the right to reject any agreement that does not conform to the request for proposals and any Joint Committee requirements for agreements and contracts. G. The firm shall not assign any interest in the contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same without prior written consent of the Joint Committee. H. No reports, information or dates given to or prepared by the firm under contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by the firm without the prior written approval of the Joint Committee. 6- /6P TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Springsted Letter DATE: April 28, 1989 Introduction Please read attached Springsted letter dated 4/28/89. Back rg ound The letter addresses two concerns; 1. If the MEBCO project proceeds, the City (HRA) should use existing "Motel" bond proceeds and not issue new bonds or use TIF Trust cash. There were questions on the best options for financing MEBCO. 2. Funding of the 169 Bridge and balance of phase 1 part 2 of Upper Valley drainage (original $3 million project) . How does Council wish to Proceed on these items? Springsted is advising that the City not use cash out of the TIF Trust for these projects. Should Council proceed with funding these projects using TIF bonds supported by existing districts 1 & 4 (KMart & Track), then it appears that bonds must be issued before April 1990. However, there are concerns that the state legislature may change the rules and Council may want to consider issuing TIF bonds in the very near future. Action Requested Discuss the subject of funding for the three projects (balance of upper valley drainage, 169 bridge and MEBCO) and give staff direction. 04,28/89 13: 14 $612 223 3002 SPRINCSTED INC. /0002/005 ® SPRINGSTED /F PUBLIC `NANGE AOViSORS l!/ Apnl : ,;, tsas Mr. Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator Shakopee City Hell 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re Tax Increment Financing Dear Mr. Kraft There are two outstanding financing topics which we would like tc tring to the City's attention. The first topic relates to capital improvement projects whi-r ave been partially funded by tax increment financing (TIF) with the financing of the ha : .-a of the projects scheduled for later in 1989 or early 1990. The second topic e fnv use or the unexpended bond proceeds from the Shakopee valley Motel TIF project for the MEBCO project. We are raising these two topics at this time because of potential legislative and legal requirements affecting the use of these funds. The City has already used TIF to pay for the partial funding needs of the Upper Valley Storm Sewer project and the Hwy 169 Bridge project. This TIF lunding has come from bonds issued for which repayment is to be funded from the combined TIF revenues of the City's existing TIF Districts. The completion of the Upper Valley Storm Sewer Phase 2 project has a remaining City share of approximately $630,000, after subtracting out that portion to bo paid by MNOT The Hwy 169 Bridge project has funded approximately $200,000 of initial design costs leaving approximately $1,700,000 to be financed in the near future. We periodically submit to the City an estimate of the overall financial position of its TIF Districts. We have updated the last such estimate submitted In March to reflect these two new project completion costs We are concerned about potential legislative changes which may adversely affect your tax inurement projects. We are also concerned about potential decline in incremental income r. . , the Canterbury Downs race track Either or both of those changes could provide sus casMlow differences from our projections and with this in mind we recommend the ,at use its current fund balances to attempt to finance the two remaining projects. If the t%l does rot experience either or both of these negative changes there are sufficient call 'oatures n outsta-ding bonds which would permit the City the prepay some or the debt at various stages as funds become available. I also wist point out that the updated nformation was based upon preliminary numbers provid artier this year and may not in fad reflect the true future income stream. Again, with +. nature still in session and its tinkering with formulas for tax capacity the numbers ec "tinue to changeand most likely to a lower level. This letter Is also a fell -.: up to our letter dated April 12, 1989 regarding the MEBCO project which has requested ., InOrtmalt fina•icing As we mentioned in our previous letter the j 04/28/89 1315 6612 223 3002 SPRINCSTED INC. @1003/005 i City of Shakopee 1 b April 28, 1989 Page 2 City issued $500,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1986A, the proceeds of which were to be used for the Shakopee Valley Motel project. That Issue Is dated July 1, 1986 and none of the bond proceeds has been expended for project costs. Federal arbitrage regulations require that not less than 85% of bond proceeds be expended within three years of the receipt of money, July 1, 1989. If the bond proceeds are not expended in that timeframe, the proceeds are restricted in yield to a rate not to exceed the restricted yield on the bonds or approximately 7% Since the tax increment financing district Is within Redevelopment District Not and the MESCO tax increment district will be in the same redevelopment district, the money can be transferred from the Shakopee Valley Motel project to the MEBCO project. As long as the City has those funds available, they can be expended and it solves the problem of trying to Issue additional bonds for MEBCO and Increasing the City's bonded indebtedness. The MEBCO project would require approximately $300,000 of the bond proceeds. This would be a method of reducing the problem of expenditure of previous bond Issue proceeds. It is our understanding the City has scheduled a tax Increment hearing for the MEBCO project for May 9. That hearing will define and establish justifiable project expenditures which can then be paid from incremental income or bond proceeds within the development district. We recommend using those existing proceeds rather than attempting to issue additional bonds. I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss these projects it ...h you and your Council as you desire. Respectfully, David MacGillivray Vice President mjt Attachments a ti .- o e m �• m m a w v .. o e � m O m b O v w m m m m u m - u m m m m m m m u m .. , a O i0 W q C q - - m m - m m - m m - - m4 o c R $ m m m m m m m m m O. m N m N P = r • 0 0 0 O o m o o W u � [p c m .- m a a `. n � � _ N n n Y � — q_ z m i m •n •e p m w w � � •o an � N w iv m v � a m r fr � m u e ... .. am W 'e .Wa•. m o ... m ms v - n m 5 m d � Gq1 S00ib00 f�1 'Al 031SDNINdS 300£ £7.Z 7•I9ZI ;1 6&i8Zi60 04i2Ei85 I; V612 223 Q SPRINCSTED INC. ',j005/005 1� P 115 N a & d 0 V m b P N y f O mzz 11 1 Y _ p. x - L c � r ry v' a e 41 S r T JONbtNT MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer�ice,- SUBJECT: Marschall Road (C. R. 17) Sidewalk DATE: April 25, 1989 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3020 , which orders the plans and specifications prepared for the Marschall Road Sidewalk Project, between 4th Avenue and C.R. 16 . BACKGROUND: On April 18, 1989 the City Council discussed the above referenced project. At the conclusion of the discussion, Council ordered the project from 4th Avenue to C.R. 16 , rather than the whole project to 10th Avenue. The resolution that was attached to staff' s memo on April 18, 1989 was for ordering plans and specifications for the entire project. Attached is Resolution No. 3020 , which is an amended resolution ordering plans and specifications for sidewalk on Marschall Road from 4th Avenue to C.R. 16 for Council approval . ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 3020 . 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3020 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3020 , A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Marschall Road (C.R. 17) Sidewalk between 4th Avenue and C.R. 16 , Project No. 1989-6 and move its adoption. DH/pmp RESOLUTION NO. 3020 A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And The Preparation of Plans And Specifications For Marschall Road (C.R. 17) Sidewalk Between 4th Avenue and C.R. 16 Project No. 1989-6 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3014 , adopted on February 7 , 1989 , fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Marschall Road ( C . R . 17 ) between 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue Sidewalk; 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 21st 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 : Marschall Road (C. R. 17) between 4th Avenue and C. R. 16 by Sidewalk installation along the east side of the street. 2. is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of 19 • Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 19—. City Attorney MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer"<'D � SUBJECT: Killarney Hills Subdivision DATE: April 27 , 1989 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a memo from the Public Works Superintendent discussing the maintenance problem associated with the roadways within the Killarney Hills Subdivision, namely Tyrone Drive and Sharon Parkway. Staff is requesting that Council discuss this situation and take the appropriate action. BACKGROUND: Basically , Killarney Hills Subdivision was inherited from the Eagle Creek Township consolidation several years ago. The roadways were not constructed to appropriate construction standards, and as a matter of fact Tyrone Drive was paved simply to eliminate an erosion problem with the soils underneath. The pavement was placed directly on the subgrade without any gravel base placed underneath it. This pavement was meant to be a temporary situation to alleviate an erosion problem and in no way was intended to be constructed as a permanent street. Because of the recurring maintenance problems, the City Council of Shakopee ordered a feasibility report prepared for constructing the streets within this subdivision to City standards. The feasibility report was completed in April , 1987 and subsequently a public hearing was held. At the public hearing, it was apparent that the residents of this area did not want to pay the estimated costs for constructing these streets. The City Council chose not to order the project and also went on record indicating that the street department would only give these streets "minimal maintenance". Basically, Public Works has interpreted this minimum maintenance policy to include clearing snow and providing enough granular material so that vehicles can enter and exit the subdivision without damage to their vehicles. As indicated in Jim Karkanen' s attached memo, the minimal maintenance is now consisting of more manpower and materials than was originally anticipated. It is apparent that the amount of money the City of Shakopee is spending for minimum maintenance for these roads is now exceeding estimates and not solving the problems because every spring the material hauled from the previous year is eroding and washing away. This last spring, the Post Office informed City staff that they would not deliver mail in this area unless the streets were in better condition. Staff feels that these streets are an embarrassment to the City of Shakopee. Staff has reviewed the feasibility report prepared in 1987 and finds that it is generally acceptable and concurs with the cost estimates . Attached is a copy of the feasibility report for Council review. There are several factors that need to be considered prior to making any decisions on these streets. First , the Shakopee Bypass will be crossing C.R. 16 near this area as shown on the attached map. At the time Mn/DOT constructs the first two lanes of the bypass, no modifications are needed to the entrance street for the Killarney Hills Addition (Tyrone Drive) . But Mn/DOT has indicated that when the remaining two lanes of the bypass are constructed, some modifications will be needed to Tyrone Drive in order to avoid any conflicts with the bypass bridge over C.R. 16. At this time it is uncertain what year Mn/DOT will be constructing the remaining two lanes of the bypass. The second factor that needs to be considered is that the City of Shakopee owns a large portion of land in this subdivision as City parkland . Our share of the assessments if this project were completed has been estimated at approximately $56 ,000 .00 as shown in the feasibility report. This money was not included in the 1989 budget for street improvements and therefore bonds would have to be sold for this money and these bonds would be repaid through the general tax levy. The Finance Director has indicated that this project could be included in the 1989 bond issue. Another alternative is to assess these costs to ourselves and include the costs in the General Fund possibly spread out over 10 years. This has been done on past projects involving City owned property. ALTERNATIVES: Keeping all these factors in mind, the following alternatives are available to Council: 1 . Do Nothing, which would leave this situation as it is and require ongoing maintenance dollars being spent in keeping this road passable. 2. Hold another public hearing on the feasibility of this project and possibly order the project at the conclusion of the public hearing. The project could be ordered as part of the 1989 improvements or the actual construction could be delayed until the 1990 construction season. 3 • Do nothing to this road until after all four lanes of the Shakopee Bypass are constructed and the final alignment of Tyrone Drive has been determined. II t c/ Another option that would be available for Council is to restrict any future construction of homes in this subdivision until the streets are improved. The City has continued to allow new homes to be constructed on an inadequate street, thereby creating the need for additional maintenance on this street. If the Council is considering delaying the street improvements for any length of time, the Council may to wish to consider prohibiting any future home construction for this subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends holding another public hearing on this project to determine whether or not it should be ordered. If Council concurs, staff has attached Resolution No. 3046 , which orders a feasibility report prepared and also Resolution No. 3047 which accepts the feasibility report and sets the date of the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council can then determine if this project should go forward. As a separate recommendation, staff is recommending that a moratorium on new construction be put on this subdivision until these streets are constructed to acceptable standards. ACTION REQUESTED: 1 . Offer Resolution No . 3046 , A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on an Improvement to Roadways Within Killarney Hills Addition and move its adoption. 2. Offer Resolution No. 3047 , A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on Improvements to Roadways Within Killarney Hills and move its adoption. DH/pmp KILLARNEY i 4EMO TO: DAVE HUTTON, CITY ENGR. FROM: JIM KARKANEN, PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: TYRONE DRIVE DATE: APRIL 18 , 1989 INTRODUCTION: Because of recurring and increasing maintenance problems at Tyrone Drive, I am requesting your help to bring this problem area to the attention of the Council for possible re-construction of the entire subdivision roadways. BACKGROUND: The Killarney Hills Addition was inherited from the Eagle Creek Township consolidation some years ago. However, this sub- division was never developed with any regard to observing any construction standards. The bituminous surface was apparently simply laid on top of the sub-surface without any base material and has progressively been deteriorating each year. The degree of bituminous failure has surpassed maintenance correction, and I am requesting that this area be reviewed by your department for possible inclusion into our street surface rehabilitation program, or by paving the entire addition by Council initiative with an assessment policy which would have to be established by Council. We have been receiving increasing calls from the neighborhood about the deterioration of the bituminous surface , and the condition of Sharon Parkway which extends to the northwest . This extension of Sharon Parkway has never been developed, and remains only a pathway which has never been prepared for vehicular traffic by the developers or builders . There have been an increasing number of homes brought into this street without the builders or developers providing_ a street surface. This portion of Sharon Parkway, by Council directive , has been given "minimum maintenance" , which consists of clearing snow, and only providing - enough granular material so that the vehicles can enter and exit the area without damaging their vehicles . We hauled in about 50 yards of 1 1/2" clean rock this spring to solidify the area for travel because the residents couldn' t travel in this area, and the Post Office wouldn' t deliver mail . We are now in the process of hauling out the broken up bituminous material on Tyrone Drive, and will replace it with a Class 2 limerock material as a temporary roadway so traffic can enter the addition. If you would like to meet with me again in this area, give me a call . Thanks , Kark cc: Dennis Kraft 50130 g G �,, I iii "32:41'µ7— q ` Sd / 56: . cod w\ rr y JAS/ \S. i 83.0 r \l ?�0 �6 l %. 20 A .yq �S-p/O' daati I d00 :e o Q� /,:. cc N/IK u. stile 1117 /FJI�f1f9//e;f✓ f!S ."fr uz i �. Z- 1590 MEMO TO: John Anderson t Ken.Ashfeld FROM: Jim Karkanen - Public Works SUBJECT: Killarney Hills Maintenance DATE: Oct. 17, 1986 INTRODUCTION: A potential policy problem is emerging at the Killarney Hills Addition regarding snow removal, and grading the gravel portion of Sharon Parkwav where several homes have been buil:, or moved in the past several years. BACKGROUND: We inheirited the Killarney Hills Addition with the Eagle Creek merger in 1976, and have maintained the bituminous surface on Tyrone Drive, and the portion of Sharon Parkway that extends :50 feet to the southeast. The remainder of the addition was never developed, until several homes have been built, or moved in the past several years adjacent to Sharon Parkway, and there have not been any street improvements by the developer, or builder on this street. Jim Hauer lives on the western edge of the Killarney Addition, and has, through the years, requested the Public Works department to provide grading, gravel, and snowplowing to his residence. The trail is dedicated as street R/W, however, there has never been anv development or improvements on the street R/W, so we have refused to commit our maintenance to this area. Mr. Hauer does have a driveway access to Co. Rd. #16, north of his residence, so a emergency situation does not exist for access or egress. We have punched a trail to the houses in the winter time, to Drovide access in an emergency situation., but this dirt trail is not the best surface to plow because of She terrain. The homeowners have not been complaining, except for Mr. Hauer, who, I understand, was responsible for moving some of these homes into the area. We are reluctant to add gravel, or grade and plow the Sharon Parkway area, until we are given some policy direction from Council, because we could be setting p=edent that we would have to live with for manv years. If the City is to provide the gravel street, than we should do it before the fall freeze-uD. If the developer or builder or property owners are to provide this material, they should begin this project immediately. We have plowed and patched Tyrone Drive since the consoli dation in 1971, because it was a dedicated improved surface that was 'butt when it belonged to Eagle Creek Township. It is my opinion that this surface will need a street rehabiiition in the near future. FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN KILLARNEY HILLS ADDITION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA PREPARED BY RAY RUUSKA ENGINEERING COORDINATOR CITY OF SHAKOPEE 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 Enaineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date Registration No. 16185 APRIL 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Page No. Feasibility Report Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Proposed Improvements 1 Estimated Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Assessment Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Appendix Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 Drawings Figures 1 and 2 FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN KILLARNEY HILLS ADDITION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION City Council of the City of Shakopee ordered the preparation of a Feasibility Report by Resolution No. 2652 on December 2, 1986 for the improvement of property in the Killarney Hills Addition by street construction. BACKGROUND On November 4 , 1986 , City Council directed staff to begin proceedings for a Council initiated 429 assessment project for street improvements in the subject area. SCOPE All streets in the subject area are non-conforming to City of Shakopee street standards. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements consist of a 7 ton , 36 foot urban section with concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, and storm sewer improvements. A map of the proposed improvements is in the appendix. t ESTIMATED COSTS Cost calculated based upon the following major work items. Removal of inplace surface Excavation & construction of new aggregate base Concrete curb & gutter to control runoff Storm Sewer Paving The estimated costs of the proposed improvements are detailed in the appendix and summarized as follows : Street construction $125,053.80 10% Contingency Cost $ 8137,559.18 253 Engr. , Legal , Fiscal Cost $ 34. 389.80 PROJECT COST $1T1 ,948.98 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE The City of Shakopee has two basic street construction program policies ; 1 ) New Construction, and 2) Rehabilitation. This report recommends use of new construction assessment procedures for street improvement in the subject area . Although most of Tyrone Drive and Sharon Parkway to the east of Tyrone Drive are surfaced with bituminous , it is of varying thickness and was placed directly on existing subsoils, thus, having no salvage value. The engineering firm which set grades for the above mentioned streets has stated that the original bituminous construction in 1973 was planned to be a temporary improvement designed to mitigate erosion problems on Tyrone Drive. The recommended assessment procedure is based on the "City of Shakopee' s Policy of Reassessment, " which states, "The design and construction of public improvement projects must be a weighing process of the desired service life of any improvement to the expected cost of construction to attain that service life , standards differing from these shall , therefore, require a different service life. " In as much as the original construction was considered temporary in 1973 and is now 14 years old, its service life should now be considered expired. 2 r ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS The Killarney Hills Subdivision was platted with lots of varying sizes and with a 3 .44 acre City Park fronting on both Tyrone Drive and Sharon Parkway. These factors complicate selection of the assessment method to be used. Front foot assessments are inequitable because of odd shaped lots. Per lot assessments are inequitable because more cost is borne by lot owners due to the large City Park. The adjusted front foot method is therefore recommended as the most equitable. A tabulation of estimated assessments for each lot is in the appendix . Assessment calculations are based on Section A) 2. on page 16 of the City of Shakopee Assessment policy. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Continued maintenance of roadways in Killarney Hills will be increasingly more expensive and should not be considered a solution to deteriorating roadways. Sharon Parkway to the west of Tyrone Drive has no existing street structure at all and has homes built along its right-of-way . This report recommends construction of new streets in Killarney Hills pending appraised property benefit equal to those estimated assessments shown in the appendix. 3 P✓� i•b,ue o uro� I� d `bio 9 � '. � „� 2`. � � �1�• �, L'17tl ti 41 ha 4 -©2V � - \ �S.nWr J` ^'� '" 1 cxr ,° ` \'.- c'C6•rF � `6N,� Y�.t a a �t.rro �g;ti 1 . ? ate os ..,� ♦�� PsIr- --4 � S m i.Sj Jv� - �. i acg � <Q > 'p.r V N�•P -� -/ P nom . S C• p �� ^ r:Y � rs. u W� 4Jr,W -.11 J•U' � � � S4. � J✓ 1'i'•.O� 1p 1. :♦- ;po F9- 'h�' ` v .�+♦`J9 x'2528 �2$' 400 1p 11 411) a /a/a ry 2i i m 7ol u r ,t /� fd '. •/' '. IS? 0.:- . /,� __ v'- c8�� Q- r• BSG "� I60.0 II ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS SHADED AREAS OMITTED HHUFu5tu STREET CONSTRUCTION al A i.l?'W N33./ : Ng 2g3,9' ioQ 20. IN 0 !'5°�s, a x o r t /on ' 61 tt.2p, v, p-rl. 4 pil . f- NW NNom_ vF.. � ' ✓ P. E`' / V• P. 2 .c n/Cyy S y+. ,6�. :f'�p •��+t� zs . } 3° ' � lei.. TABULATION OF ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS ADJUSTED FRONT LOT # BLOCK # FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT (City) Park 1 821 $40,417 .83 (City) 8 1 122 $ 6,006 .06 9 1 120 $ 5,907 .60 10 1 147 $ 7,236 .81 (City) 11 1 200 $ 9,846 .00 1 2 150 $ 7,384.50 2 2 180 $ 8,861 .40 3 2 190 $ 9,353.70 4 2 129 $ 6,350.67 5 2 161 $ 7,926 .03 6 2 112 $ 5,513.76 1 3 146 $ 7, 187 .58 2 3 91 $ 4,479 .93 3 3 99 $ 4,873.77 1 4 164 $ 8.073 .72 2 4 122 $ 6 ,006 .06 3 4 169 $ 8, 319 .87 4 4 211 $10,387 .53 5 4 159 $ 7,827 .57 TOTAL 3 ,493 F.F. TOTAL COST $171 ,948.98 TOTAL CITY COST $56 ,269 .89 $171 .948.98 = $49 .23/F.F. 3 ,493 TYPICAL LOT ASSESSMENT - $7,236 .81 (AVERAGE LOT = 147 FEET) COST COMPARISON AEF METHOD = $7,236 .81 PER LOT = $ 9,049.95 5 KILLARNEY HILLS STREET CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 . Remove Pavement S.Y. 5,000 $1 .30 $ 6 ,500.00 2. Common Excavation C.Y. 3,500 $5 .50 $ 19,250.00 3. Aggregate Base C1-5 TON 4,000 $6.40 $ 25 ,600.00 4. Concrete Curb/Gutter L.F. 4 ,670 $5.50 $ 25,685.00 5 . Bituminous Year Course TON 1 , 100 $23.00 $ 25,300 .00 6. Sodding S.Y. 5,000 $ 2.00 $ 10,000 .00 7. 12" RCP L.F. 356 $27.30 $ 9,718.80 8. Catch Basins EA. 3 $1 ,000.00 $ 3,000 .00 SUBTOTAL $125 ,053.80 105 Construction Contingency $ 12.505 .18 $137 ,559 . 18 251 Engr. , Legal , 6 Fiscal Costs $ 14.189.80 STREET PROJECT COST $171 ,948.98 4 RESOLUTION NO. 3046 A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement To Roadways Within Killarney Hills Addition WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve roadways within Killarney Hills Addition by street improvements and to assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred to David Hutton, City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this _ day of 19 City Attorneyt RESOLUTION NO. 3047 A Resolution Receiving A Report And Calling A Hearing On Improvement To Roadways Within Killarney Hills Addition WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 3046 of the City Council adopted May 2 , 1989 , a report has been prepared by Ken Ashfeld dated April 13 , 1987 and reviewed by David Hutton, City Engineer on April 26 , 1989 , with reference to the improvements of the roadways within Killarney Hills Addition by street construction and this report was received by the Council on May 2 , 1989 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . The Council will consider the improvement of roadways within Killarney Hills Addition 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 $171 ,949 .00 . 2 . A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the day of , 19_, at 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 1989-7 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 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 18, 1989 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Zak, Wampach and Scott present. Also present were Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator; Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant; David Hutton, City Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney. Mayor Lebens read the City's Non-Discrimination Policy. Liaison reports were given by councilmembers. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone present who wished to address anything not on the agenda. There was no response. Vierling/Clay moved to approve the consent business. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Clay moved to approve the minutes of March 21, 1989 (Approved under consent business. ) Vierling/Clay moved to approve the minutes of April 4, 1989. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Dennis Kraft reviewed the letter from State Representative Becky Kelso regarding the spilling of sand and gravel on city streets. Cncl. Wampach said he would like to see legislation mandating the use of covers for trucking companies. Dennis Kraft said he would follow up with a letter to Becky Kelso regarding the issue of covers on sand and gravel trucks. Vierling/Clay moved to accept resignation from Donald Koopmann from the Community Development Commission with regrets. (Approved under consent business) . The City Engineer reviewed the request to solve a drainage problem in the Boiling Springs Lane area. Mr. Reed Otterblad of 9186 Boiling Springs Lane contacted the City about the drainage problem near his residence. Mr. Houser, City Building Inspector, said a building permit was issued before the township was annexed. Cncl. Vierling had a concern regarding the City's liability. The City Engineer said the cost would range from $15,000 to $20,000 for a project to improve the problem. Wampach/Zak Offered Resolution No. 3035, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Report on Drainage Improvements to Boiling Springs Lane, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the fast tracking process for the Stonebrooke Golf Club clubhouse facility, charging a fee to cover additional City staff expenses. Motion carried unanimously. Proceedings of the April 18, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Wampach and Zak Noes: Cncl. Scott and Mayor Lebens Motion carried. Barry Stock reviewed the proposed spring Clean-up day for the City of Shakopee. He said pick up will be by the public works department and for Shakopee residents only. Discussion ensued on whether or not it would be feasible to include the disposal of appliances. This disposal would include hard to dispose of items such as tires. Scott/Zak moved to direct the appropriate city officials to proceed with the single day limited collection program with the fee schedule left to the discretion of the Administrative Assistant. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 3032, A Resolution Vacating the Public alley in Block 12, According to the Plat of the Shakopee City, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved for its adoption. Discussion followed on whether or not Mr. Plaisted, owner of Taco John's, should obtain a certification by a structural engineer as to the stability of the retaining wall on his property. Mr. Houser said he could get the wall looked at. Roll Call on Resolution No. 3032. Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Zak moved that the owner of Taco John's provide the City with a waiver, in recordable form, approved by the City Attorney, releasing the City of any liability for the retaining wall North of Taco John's, should anything occur. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved for a 10 minutes recess. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to reconvene at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach moved to remove from table the letter from George Muenchow, President, Shakopee Area Chamber of Commerce regarding their concerns about the MEBCO Industries Proposal to relocate in Shakopee. Wampach/Zak moved to reconsider Resolution No. 3030, A Resolution Relating to Minnesota River Valley Redevelopment Project no. 1; Calling for a Public Hearing on the Adoption of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Project, the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 in the Project Area, and the Proceedings of the April 18, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor, and moved it's adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Joan Lynch, Shakopee School Board, said she would like to see a public hearing be held for the proposed MEBCO tax increment financing project. She said the school board will benefit from a new tax increment district. Dick Mertz, Chairman of Scott County Board said the County has no objections to a public hearing for MEBCO Industries. Wampach/Zak moved to approve Resolution No. 3030 and changed the public hearing date to May 9, 1989 at 6:00 p.m.. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to amend the date to May 9, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. Charles Ries, Shakopee Fire Department, reviewed the proposed site for a second Shakopee Fire Station at the northeast corner of CR -17 and Vierling Drive. He said it has easy access and is on three to five acres. Cncl. Wampach asked if this new station would have any effect on the rates throughout the City. Mr. Ries replied that it will have some bearing on the rate the City is at now. Wampach/Scott approved the location for a second fire station in the area of CR -17 and Vierling Drive and directed Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator to negotiate with the property owner on the purchase price and it bring back to Council. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Scott moved to direct the City Attorney to draft the appropriate ordinance establishing a sidewalk replacement/repair program using the 50/50 split for cost sharing. Motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer reviewed the design alternatives for the 5th Avenue extension project. Vierling/Wampach moved to concur with staff's recommendation and construct 5th Avenue as a 40 foot wide street on a 60 foot wide right-of-way from Main street to Market Street and a transition right-of-way going from 80 feet wide at Fillmore Street to 60 Feet wide. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the feasibility of installing a sidewalk along the east side of Marschall Road from 4th Avenue to 10th Avenue. Vierling/Clay moved that sidewalk construction be done along the East side of County Road 17 from 4th Avenue to CR -16 and the city pick up the cost of the retaining wall. Proceedings of the April 18, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Clay moved to direct the appropriate City officials to execute a contract extension agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates Inc., for the purpose of providing a comprehensive drainage study for the Deans Lake Drainage Basin at a "not to exceed" figure of $23,600 to come out of the $1.0 million already allocated for the Bypass project. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Marilyn Ramer, Personnel Coordinator, reviewed the City's current policy on health and life reimbursement in lieu of Health Maintenance Accounts. Consensus of the Council was to continue with the current policy and look into alternatives to equalize benefits among employees so that they can be available for the next labor negotiations. Gregg Voxland said that Jackson and Louisville townships have requested a meeting with a council committee to review the fire service contracts. The meeting is set for Wednesday, April 26, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall. Cncl. Vierling, Zak and Scott will be present. Discussion ensued on the insurance policies of the City that are up for renewal in June 1989. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) is a joint powers self-insurance pool and is what the City currently has. Consensus was to stay with the current insurance policy of LMCIT. Vierling/Zak moved to authorize staff to make adjustments to residential sewer bills due to fall 1988 lawn watering. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to authorize staff to enter into an employment agreement with Sharon Swenson to provide Recording Secretary services at the hourly pay rate of $7.50 effective May 4, 1989, with the hourly pay rate increasing to $8.00/hr. November 4, 1989 contingent on a satisfactory six-month job performance review. (Motion approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay moved to approve the bills in the amount of $454,681.31. Cncl. Vierling had a question on the reimbursement of $75.00 to Cncl. Scott. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Zak, Wampach, Scott and Mayor Lebens Noes: Cncl. Vierling Motion carried. Zak/Clay offered Resolution No. 3042, A Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for Design services Associated with the Eight Crossroad Bridges for State Trunk Highway 101 Shakopee Bypass, Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council and moved for its adoption. April 18, 1989 Page -6- Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 3041, A Resolution Revising the City of Shakopee's Standard Specifications and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Clay offered Resolution No. 3040, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2983, A Resolution of Affirmative Action in Employment and moved its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business). Wampach/Clay offered Ordinance No. 263, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, amending the Shakopee City Code Chapter 7 entitled "Streets and Sidewalks Generally" by Repealing Subd. 1 of Sec. 7.04 entitled "Ice and Snow on Public Sidewalks" and Replacing it with a new Subd. 1 Sec. 7.04 and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 7.99, which among other things, contain penalty provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay Offered Resolution No. 3038, A Resolution Vacating Part of an Easement, and moved its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay Offered Resolution No. 3039, A resolution Extinguishing an Easement and Authorizing Delivery of a Deed, and moved its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business). Clay/Wampach offered Resolution No. 3043, A Resolution Fixing a Meeting Place for the 1989 Board of Review, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Scott moved to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ItT J i 'Judith S. Cox � City Clerk Carol L. Schultz Recording Secretary Motion carried unanimously. /� 6 Memo To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Marilyn M. Ramer, Personnel Coordinator Re: Notification of Applicants Not Meeting Minimum Requirements Date: May 1, 1989 Introduction The City Administrator's position was vacated Nov. 4, 1988 and advertisements published locally and nationally in Nov. 1988 and second advertisements clarifying minimum qualifications in March 1989. Background Eighty-eight resumes were submitted for consideration. The screening criteria was established in a council work session with Karen Olson of Labor Relations, Inc. and Mayor Lebens, Council Members Vierling and Wampach and myself. Those Council Members wishing to participate in the screening process have done so and it's been established that there are forty-five applicants who do not meet minimum qualifications as was required. Recommendation In order that the selection process continues to proceed, it is recommended that those applicants who do not meet minimum requirements be so notified. Action Reauested Authorize the Personnel Coordinator to mail a letter to the 45 applicants who do not meet minimum requirements. / 4 CITY OF SHAKOPEE ° INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553791376 (612) 4453650 May 3, 1989 Dear Applicant: Re: City Administrator Position Thank you for submitting your resume for consideration for the City Administrator position with the City of Shakopee. The initial screening process has been completed. Although very impressive, your credentials do not meet the minimum requirements and established criteria as advertised. The Mayor and Council Members thank you for your interest in working for the City of Shakopee and wish you good luck as you pursue your career. Sincerely, Marilyn M. Remer Personnel Coordinator The Heart Of Progress Valley AN EWAL OPMRWN)TY EUKOVER MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Levee Drive DATE: May 2, 1989 FORMATIONAL ITEM TO COUNCIL Councilman Zak has requested that staff analyze his concept for turning Levee Drive into a parking lot to replace any parking stalls lost by the construction of the minibypass. Staff informed Councilman Zak that unless the full Council supported this idea, staff would not be able to deviate much time for this analysis in keeping with the "20 minute rate". A quick calculation for Levee Drive indicates that 46 diagonal parking stalls could be obtained between Fuller Street and Lewis Street. The problem is in access and traffic movements. The existing pavement on Levee Drive is only wide enough to allow one 11 foot line of traffic, once diagonal parking is implemented. To accommodate an additional lane, Levee Drive would need to be widened a minimum of 13 feet, which would be impossible due to the width of the existing bridge span and also the close proximity of the DNR trail. An alternative to widening Levee Drive would be to make it a one- way street going east, which would require providing an outlet for traffic by upgrading a gravel road through Huber Park. In my opinion, neither alternative for traffic flow is good and without doing an in-depth study, other alternatives cannot be explored. If Council desires this concept to be explored in-depth, they should direct City staff to do so. DH/pmp 1 A F o f� .NAT ton[ 41, April 27, 1989 TO: All Employees of Scottland Hotels, Inc. d/b/a Canterbury Inn As you know from the letter dated April 26, 1989 announcing the sale of the Canterbury Inn, your employment relationship with the Canterbury Inn will end as of Monday, May 1, 1989. Although the new owners intend to continue the operation, we are obligated under a federal law to notify each of you of the permanent closing of the bankruptcy trustee's Canterbury Inn. We have not given this notice before since we were in the process of attempting to obtain additional capital or business and believe that such a notification would have hindered our attempts. We expect that Tom Oehler will be able to answer your personnel questions when he meets with you later this week. Sinely, Timothy D oratzka Trustee n ankruptcy MACKALL, OUNSE & MOORE 1600 TCF Tower 121 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 cc: Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training Mr. Edward Retka 690 American Center Building 150 East Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 City of Shakopee April 26, 1989 TO: All Employees of Scottland Hotels, Inc. d/b/a Canterbury Inn As of this date the United States Bankruptcy Court has approved the sale of the real estate used in hotel operations to First Minnesota Savings Bank F.S.B. and Midwest Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis. As a result of this sale, delivery of the right, title and possession of the real estate to the buyers is expected to occur at 12:00 p.m. on Monday, May 1, 1989. Your employment relationship with the bankruptcy estate will terminate at that time. The buyers intend to operate the premises utilizing a management team provided by Regency Inns Management of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It is expected that Tom Oehler will head that management team. He will be on premises on April 27, 1989 and will meet with employees. The payroll will be provided for as due and payable on Friday, April 28, 1989. A distribution of vacation pay and any other payroll claims will be made as soon after May 1, 1989 as the Court approves such a disbursement. We ask your continued cooperation with the new management. We hope that you will offer them your support as you have offered it through performance of services for the bankruptcy estate throughout these difficult proceedings. The ability of the estate to sell the property and realize proceeds sufficient to pay your claims as well as some of the claims of other parties is due in no small part to your cooperation and effort. Thank you �j��tz G6;1 / k � Timothy D. Mora Trustee in Bankruptcy MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE 1600 TCF Tower 121 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55401