HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/1989 Ut)
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: July 13, 1989
1. Attached is a memorandum from Dave Hutton regarding stop
signs at 4th and Holmes
2 . Attached is a copy of a letter Doug Wise sent to Gerald
Schesso regarding his inquiry about extending his variance.
3. Attached are the Program Costs by Department as of July 11,
1989.
4. Attached is the Revenue and Expenditure Report as of June
30, 1989.
5. Attached is the Building Activity Report for June.
6. Attached is the billing summary from Krass and Monroe for
April, May and June, 1989.
7. Attached is the July 19, 1989 agenda for the Energy and
Transportation Committee.
8. Attached are the June 21, 1989 minutes of the Energy and
Transportation Committee.
9. Attached are the June 5, 1989 minutes of the Public
Utilities Commission.
10. The Shakopee Jaycees have made application for a pull-tab
license at Arnie's Bar from the Charitable Gambling Control
Board. They meet the requirements of the City Code. They
are not renewing their application at Inside Track at
Shenandoah.
11. Attached is a memorandum from Barry Stock regarding an
update on the MEBCO project.
DRK/jms
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer<Z
SUBJECT: Stop Signs at 4th Avenue A Holmes Street
DATE: July 13 , 1989
INFORMATIONAL ITEM:
Several weeks ago staff had completed a warrant study for
installing a 4-way stop sign at the intersection of 4th Avenue
and Holmes Street. At the conclusion of the study, staff had
recommended to City Council that the 4-way stop sign was
justified and Council directed staff to install the stop signs.
After that action was taken by Council , the County Highway
Engineer informed staff that since 4th Avenue is a County State
Aid Highway, the County has jurisdiction on all traffic control
for the intersecting streets. Therefore, the City is not the
proper authority to install stop signs at this intersection.
Staff questioned the County ' s authority in this matter and
requested that the City Attorney look into it and offer an
opinion. The City Attorney has informed staff that the County
Highway Engineer is correct. On County State Aid Highways, the
County has jurisdiction for the traffic control on all
intersecting streets. Therefore, the City will not be installing
the stop signs as was originally recommended.
Staff has sent an official request to the County asking them to
do a study on this intersection to determine if a 4-way stop sign
is warranted and if so, to install the stop signs. Once the
study is completed and the County has responded to staff, staff
will inform Council of any action being proposed.
DH/pmp
SIGNS
CITY OF SHAKOPEE •
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 5WM1378 (612)"5.36W w
July 12, 1989
Mr. Gerald Schesso
1199 Quincy
Shakopee, Mn 55379
RE: Expiration of Variance Resolution No. CC-496
Dear Mr. Schesso:
This letter is in response to your inquiry about the procedure
for extending City Council Variance Resolution No. CC-496. As
you are aware, City Council Variance No. 496 will expire on July
31, 1989.
I have consulted with the City Attorney and he concurs with my
opinion that because there is no provision for renewal of the
variance, you would have to start the process over again with a
application for a new variance. _ -
I have enclosed an application form for the request of a
variance. The next Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting will
be held on August 3, 1989. The deadline for submission of
applications for the August 3, 1989 meeting is July 17, 1989.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact
me.
ncerely,
Douglas K. wise
City Planner
DKW:trw
CC: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUN?YEMPLOYER
E
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553791376 (612) 4453650 9
July 10, 1989 ,
Mr. Gerald Schesso
1199 Quincy
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Expiration of Variance Resolution No. CC-496
Dear Mr. Schesso:
At their June 4, 1987 meeting, the Shakopee Board of Adjustment
and Appeals approved a motion to:
(1) Affirm the decision of City staff that the structure in the
rear yard is an accessory building and that construction of
the structure does require a building permit and must comply
with all City Codes requirements applied to accessory
buildings. And;
(2) Overrided the decision of City staff that the construction
of a large boat in the rear yard is not allowed by permitted
use, conditional use or permitted accessory use in the R-2
zone.
At their July 9, 1987 meeting, the Shakopee Board of Adjustment
and Appeals passed a Resolution denying the following variances:
(1) A variance to allow an accessory building to exceed the
height of the principle dwelling by 10 feet.
(2) A variance to allow an accessory building to exceed 10% of
the lot area by 720 square feet.
(3) A variance allowing an accessory building to be located
nearer the street than the principle dwelling by 10 feet.
At the City Council meeting held August 4, 1987, your request for
an appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision to deny
the variances was approved (enclosed) . The expiration date of
this Variance will be July 31, 1989.
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
You are hereby advised that the accessory building must be
removed by the expiration date of the variance. If the accessory
building is not removed by this deadline you may be cited for
violating the zoning ordinance.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Douglas K. Wise
City Planner
DKW:trw
CC: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
VARIANCE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. CC- 496
WHEREAS, Gerald Schesso having first
filed an application to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals dated
June 25, 1987 , for a variance from the strict
application of the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance,
Section , to-wit :
for the following variances: to exceed the height of the principal dwlg
to exceed 10% of the lot area by 720 sq. ft. & allow accessory : and OVE
WHEREAS, theproperty upon which the request is being made is
described as : 1199 Quincy Street
and
WHEREAS, said proposed variance request was Denied
by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals at their meeting o July 1987
and this decision has been appealed to the City Council ; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council on August 4, 1987 held
a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Board o
Adjustment and Appeals .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and recommenda-
tions of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and upon considering the
suggestions made by the applicant and suggestions and objections raised
by the affected property owners , within a radius of 350 feet thereof,
in public hearings duly held by the Shakopee Board of Adjustment and
Appeals and the Shakopee City Council that the aforementioned variance
be and is hereby: Approved as follows :
The Expiration Date of this Variance will be July 31, 1989.
BF. IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Shakopee City Code 11.04 ,
Subd. 5 B-5 , if an approved variance is not utilized within one year
from date herein approved or by August 4 1988 it shall become
null and void.
Adopted inre ular session of the City
Council of the City
o Shakopee, Minnesota a this 4thday f
August 19 87 f
ATTEST: Ta4z -
ayor t e City opee
C t C er t Approved as to form
this 4i day of
1917.
City Attorney
1/84
building to be located nearer the streetthan the principal dwelling by
10 feet.
0
V 0 N W N Y 2 A
C
Z
QT r T T m M T Y T D O O
3 ti D K D ti K ti K H O 9
C r z A DA
�+ 0 0 0 T p r 0 O 0 N
ti ti O 3 ti 3 0
S D C D D A D D p TO J
I z r r x r i O zm �
O y C tit
T T y 2
G f ti O A V
A a
1
9 O
; A C
Z
Z O
mmmmm mY✓YYYrY ®mmYYYYYY womwYY
JJ WNNNNUNN mOWWWWWW OmmmNN mY
pNY WY OWNYmmONaWNY WNYVNOWNY WNYmN✓ OY
900 9O 09D039D0 aoormo OOD 3
rpm AT -IT N Cr+DOT OmYfm tiD0 D
D02 02 SANONKOZ <CTOm2 SW3 <
$Tm ym M.Mo OT m2✓TOT TrM p
2 A AOwm OCA 002-19 ATS
➢ 0D zo. r2D OYYyYD
SSf Cr 923 P 1 rDYOf 9 y N 9
0m H DTT T rZz K
03 r <r2 z; AN 0y3 A O O
0AD OT ti O➢ y O D D 0 O
002 20 y 2 DO
;m➢ N> D D00 D 2 D -
3TT O AZ3 T z 0 3
3~2 s i 3>-2i a
O G ti T y V
z
n y O
0
00
a
3
W
aos
p
. . . . m o aY aW N AW W pz r
NYm mmPOW NpVmOa NOOWaWW✓N ON W 0r <y
VNO 000 00N0.0.Jo.... 00000NNNOW WUUNONY YpY y �N
m m
A NK
G S
DO
0 Sm
OT 09
N N r ON 9D
YAN O YY JY 0 W m W YOY r TA
F0W YJmOmwNO..ao
wW00 N 0NY00 N mWNNmmN 0AN 0 my
0W NNOWWVNNmOPaa 00✓aNmYm m✓bWONN mWN DAO 3
wNN NmNJmJm NNPmJYOmV mNbWmAW Waa N T
NJ 2
WNO 000 NNWOJOVONOWYm N.NWWNVJYJ ONVmWJp NON N ~
Y WYY N ✓ Y 00
Nqm Nm o Om V pN
W NwW WY NOmW a PO N m NS
O mAA FO 00 jNm NJ O mW V J tim
W OmY m Om Om O m m NA
OOA a0U wO 00000mom WWO moo 000000w .000.- NON
OOY W.w .00000A00WVPW U00000000N 0000099 wow
W m0.
YMN NWW m00wa0Ya�J O NYWO aw wNNbO. ®AWN OO
YOA waA WWIJWVaWmNpwA mggYPNwWw m-.WwWN O NK
ONY Om✓ NwOJJ ONNAmV�-ObW wNwWwWm JpW yD
mNY WVW ONWOVOYONp401NN OJNWWNVJYN ONabmNm a0A
D<
✓ 9ti
Y OAN N Y =o N O
U4WNl 000 m NAWwNWY O YNN VN W wY N A 9
OJ I..NNWw J WWaWwJ a Om 0 O O a
OW NON N O..=0 N W. OW N wJ O
O N 9 m
00 000 009 N 0090909 000 O 00
000 000 0000000000000 0000000000 0000000 000 O
WY0 b OWWaaWw ti p � NP W A
NN NWYPPJ✓ Np mw 0 Y
0.. J0m ✓OOOOO.o...AN m000Y✓NmOm VOOOOY6 mOm y
W F O
W N m Z A
C_
iO T O 9 O O O
m w m O m O o 0
y 9 A r 9 < m a
9 H m 1 H ti ti
m n n m
n
0 0 0 Ao
ti 0 O O 3 0
tit
m 2 m
o a
0
9
r i c
; O z
0 y O
WWW mm0000W------ WWWW 0001111 00000/1111
W0000wgUYYYYYYYYY bbmmmm 0bbbmJJJJV
WNY Y YmWNYmYYOmVOypWNY 6018601 wWNYm0mV0y
690 O 0>0010b04,Q Wmro 0=00
Crm 2 ZYONA00C2Dm D11 tip 000
MD2 2 O mYGOA➢2C<GVZ . 061 2;o302
Sm
;nnm Y2 AmmAm OW mm no O
O A m M Air 20 12y0A mD A 0
z➢ D mOWr -M ti AS mr9
2mr r y 9y02 1 tir1 r NIICD 92Nr ➢ 9
p� ti D TTPSOM NA r Dm2➢ 2 A
C OD2Y3N➢ 3 mm r �A02 0 O
mD D V m'oo ti S 2m O m O
2�2 2 N 200
y ➢ D O ymm y O D O D
0 0 m3\ O Z O motio r ;
t� 3 3 iv z 3
mz i
mz z
z z
Z D O A
W o r O
O
9
m a
;
00 n
APw VJ W WWVV W PPNJNgJ N N P NY OO NO
WPN WW WpPYYO 0605601 ANJPO NY yWWYO OWWy C2 X10
mOp 000N0V 0 YPAW UANO AD LN
YY VYY OWYVN JJ U gOmJ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4666 . . . . . yr ti
NOy NN yWPOUN000000UWOOWY OOYUOOyO POJOOOOOUYq Oy
m T
0
yC
G 2
aO
(> Am
u NY so oT
YUYO
016 VAPPYJ P W Wq q YpN
JN 00 NWPOyNV 0Pw00Am 010 1915-
12
gWyVOw rO my
AUJ 001105 O mJWFYYW AONYO 1015-0 OWYP DO ;
060 WPwgmYU A 5WH OYHVV AWpOO. PYSN AW m
OOq NN W55Jp1000VON0wUgOm 001000 0006101 Q y
1m0 00 150-065 001 OW1 WP.W6 VPWNAOJI 1gWWW000POy
WW yP 00
NN N WOy O PP OVWq OH
1P5q A b 16Ww y2
W OO q 1111 Os= U 0200 O 0111 U
6 YO 0 PNOH W9
OOW W0000006NOWOOOw00W w000WOA1 10000022200
100 2w 0000000550POOOP-1W 000010/8 10000005NW0
NY
65 N O
ij% WW Vp2W1W p NOgON 00
NWP6yNVJ1,-Y0P-1P0y NWPy 500810-- OO
b01JbU11JJbmWY1WN OON106Wy W61220WVVgH y-1
NAmWmY5AA50WVWVN2p 01/11061 WA0061-0 NN SID
Nr
OOW 101060100--6501 N010yW 00-g5N1
yww mm mNy2NWyNyVPWYW2HH0 WP25y0Y5 NgmWgOOPgWy
a�
1qN 9-1
5YPN 2 YN ypWW 0 Y0 OY TO
VWW NOWWI
ONOV5Ws0 g5nu5 No VO00OONP5OO0 OONW002U5 O�n WAAJ
0008 0P 00 009
p O9 9DO
m
�. . . . . . . . . . ions . . . . . 6666 . . . . 0666 . . . . . . .
000 00 000000000000000000 00000000 000OOOOOOOO z
000 00 000000000000000000 0000000O o000000000o O
H qY
UPN- 06101 YPW y5 0W 0
N
m-H mm g0000006m6POOHPmNU -0006-05 WOOOOOWOOYJ Z
ti
2 mOmpppppppr p nppWNppmmrpppmppp0ppppppppppppmppp
w N
6
Z 00000000000 O OOOODODODO000000000000000000000000 -
NON o 0 0o e0o 0
U 6 NOW^'� ti N Or Wyr W
Q O @ NW a m
d O N mr 'nW N
p6 m -i N
YQ
ti<ddmmNnNm O NOW^Nm-ry9mdWm-(7 mWNtim~NNmNmWNOr 'nOmNON
¢NNONWOWNOm O OWNOWOmVtiNmNtiOmQ
JN
FN NmNnN n-.WeNN NW1.O WmOOm�Omti ti -10 tl^'�tl mNmNWmNrO®
00 m00 'nm C.ymNm WOmY
rU WNN 'nmNti~W -� N ~O Nm mmtiN W ^'I N.y
om000000000 0 oo00000oom00000m0000000000000000mo
0N099000000 Q. oo0000oo o000oo
.+O0000moo0000000000a
mN a W N
xN m m
mCOCmmNrNm O mNpmmmtlmmrNOmm�IN ONtiNNbNmmryOr 'nOmNpN
f N ObN<NW<mNOm O OOWnNNNrm W"'�mmNW m 'nmVWNOWOmCtiNmN�lpm<
F 06 NbNmNn "IWONr rOmOOmtiN m 'n."i.y@b 'nmmrymNWONrOm
FW UJ Nm•/O mOOW mOWn tiW O 'nm Nm
6'W J mVN .ymNti W ti N ~O ~m�1N ^'�Nti
n0 Wp
wY U
O¢
S J
>N
m W
NO N m00000N0 0. O NOONNNbNNm 99 000.
N> Qm HNONO mWN00 �ytimmm�IN00NNm m 'nNNmm 'nm mtiNyONNN OWW
Of 2J N pm 'n�1r NW m "i m �r� Om 'n WyW
¢ W
6
O r rZi ~ Or W O 6Wd J Q
m U N U ¢Za£mw r F
d0 f O KI Q0 FZ W UWFQ Of O
NN p p >O O W W� UN F
M> F 6 Wm O F mUr¢ N f
U m 6 \ NLLOZW3jbW Z WNY
WJ0£N NZ
Q 06 M NNW 6 p 7>WY`fFpM Q 006
m FN fOf d'N O� 2NW O¢7W mx d'J¢O FU$
x„gip L'M 6UW QZF 26OJWN p6pHNJWW
JY} pOC ZZON£MJ 6F JO JT N�+WOT
0J<¢,U
WUmH6 < �NYQ02JWmWOW64 6
d pLL7Q6 ZZW 2J]M3¢22mZ�6 N6
'ZY mm 6d'21-�WUJ FQUd'O ¢ 1'OO S d'NQN6T77
rcw zcNmcmrO¢JrJ ma¢yz
mNJ}WW O}nn nnW>UHYWdU/�W OW 2NJKMKx
j'J JFUS pf N6>1-N6h2NOJ26N6W3KJW 6'W F 'n20 2
621UK0 mUpf 6U£NUO�"�NLL0167ti Op FY�Y}tiONmUO
ONbnmm99= NmONOrm W "INNWmmr•aNWONmOtlrONONWtiNmm
mmmmmWWWWW 000000000titititi00tiNNNmbmmmmnrnnWWmWW
mmmmmWWWWW OOCOOd<¢OOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWWWWW
O
J
6
2r O
\ wZ 2
OW a a
O £ O O W
06' f f
6 2
� a r
a w d i o
p p D o w
0 m a
Z mrWOMmrvNN0vNti00000ti OtiNrm^'�^'�000000 nOmw
d 6 N 0 rNOtiNrNmmdm .O .ylewimmry •0 WmmNM
O bmdaN e0rtiry ^'�N N NN mNNti
Z m O 0000000000000000000 H.0000000000 .000 00000
. 00009900009 0000 00000
O rMNrOWNmWbbdM ' m0000.0 O b'N bmmm0
p 6 O NmOrmMtimrMmd� NaMO O �mmmm
a s e Nemrowrvoowomrm -. -. mono d mo ammo
a MM-.o rvmm..wmry m M mm m..r ' rM �Nwmv
0n
Ta
N mOomworwWmmemti mOvmMMmrvNtlm 91 mM wd
m owm einmmrowmrvbrvrvmrn-� ..a mwaero mope
JN
61 ONmtlrNe00NnN0 rvmNO +rti0d000N -10e .-WN l
m rn-�OdaNdMwNmrrM ^'�MrvNmM w ra MtimN'1
00
00 1mr00NWtitiOrrvraMrmwd OdmmNN-�v MNrW dtiOr ^'�O
F'U m +�r-. yam MM m a r-IM O rytinm
ry.y .a ~W N Nti
M OooO m.O Mr N00000000N WOOOOOOOOOOOm 0drr W.Orvc
MOOrNmMNw0000000000 0000000000000 -9rm 0r..q
¢0 M �mmeNrNr tl O O mtiOO 0d
WF r -.anti a N N
2W O mMtirO O tin mW r
HO M rWN '1 mv -1 m O NtiNO m0
F N O m=mome0w0Nmo=0 0 c"wom�mmY" vw nOmd m0_Imm
£ OQ rvb0 mm0m00MwNmrrm wNmO +nryemNON O mr bNmm�"1
HW UJ N OmrOr raMrmwM m awm...vMmra m0 w0
¢W m0 mamwti -COMM-�N ti r-�M m 0
Q6 00
60 WO
04 U
O¢
S >
>0 ¢
fp W
W N
m0 MOOOOOnOmww 0 +000rvba rdmmOOWOw mOmO MmmmO
r Jw
mT Q¢ WNOtim .yNrOmmr OMmr rMMy00ytl�NOmM rw NWddm
O}
00 wv�mm vrvm�Orrm rmOr M m ti dm�1 m 00 vOMrM
Um OO r m0 aw MN ti0 OtiN~ O O NN mmNM
U 02 d ti m ti Y .�
£
Q W
¢ a
p
O TUY' W WYNNU U�"�
z az¢ � p z wcW¢w z zz z\
£ p6 t-2 WWi-1 p060006 p Ua¢
Q 6 pQJ WM JW¢1� Qh66d6d Q ¢ !-pp
2m2£J 6 Q¢fF0U ZZWWWWW ZNW ZJJ
n J�-ZaQOti £ 206 zoz
aaaaa ¢ JrOiN
J OW OZN WO �6 Jin J02 Q
¢aUnf U- 62 Q Q0W 6£ZHr
WWONWJ72Z302WW 22222 WUZ WYY J_J_
Z¢WJ¢4
fNp023 S Z¢NNNNN 22. 2¢¢
w 0}wr+¢H2QOwr Q¢Q¢Q¢ oQ QQ�}
p�3Wbb06bOb030 p6£££££ pU£ 066¢¢
NamrmWOtiNMdtintiNMw .ydr wdm
NNryNNNNMMMMMmmwwww vvOVOwwwwW NNNrvry
veavaaavavavewWwwm eevaavamwmmm mmo mmmmm
0
z z
£
J
Q }
\ ¢ W
O
2z O
w2 ¢ LL
pW a a a a
0
o £ a } 0 p }
ci o } o o z o
W ¢ W £ m
6 O 6 6 m
O O O M 0 M 0 v3+ 0 n
J
¢ Y N d NO
p v O 0
2 nOmrvmma00000N aOP 00
N w
O nPOONWmw n ww Ww
NNaPmW m N as mb a
O d 00000000000000 0000 00 00 O
Z 00000000000000 0000 00 00 O
Q 6 NtlmOmNwN w NnP� 00 N
Q O a00NOOmN m Nwmm NN a
6 NPP N -IN N awnb Pm
Yd N NN ti N
YQ a
tiOnPamNaOmOPNP nNOP 00 NN
JN
m
0<N ~titimalPPaPN n-aN tiama mm NN
0 ..v mmm�w-.nmWPN va a
tl N
titi mm O
POnW�100000000m m.Om n NN w
0000000w NOON 00 NN m
wr in mmtl+m mo om av vv
'1N W ON O ti aN a0 m
YO - mN w 00 NN
OU
+atiNNOmmWNO --
Mo. 00 00 m
Y N OOwmmNNaOWOPNO NNOO 00 00
' W N6' OyNWNNmOOtlONNn W n O
£ O< "� rvNNnwWawNn�ltl Oa N m
YW UJ tiymnOnP�lnWWya OP y
WmN n.........
66 NO m m
60 Wp O
pQ
2 7
fN K {
J 0 W I
PO W ommNWaON0001wW ONON 00 00
Y JN
. .
NY ¢d' POtiNmm �.nWa c;_ N
OY 00 nwmtimPN
9.1:v c;_
aN m N
Uw 00
U N2 ~ ~a a
8 d N2NZ
YZOz. < O
d Yzovo< 3 Y£ Y
wHU�O£Y\ zw 2
¢Sf 2Fd20 Fm f
£
OQ££ QalO<X< O< 0
6 Y ¢6 6
£ £wY<
Z. z p
x cpis
QJOJW£�6 JN2 U
mWmwmO <dw < O
N C d' ti 6
203¢mm2�2 Z£Q Y Q
F06666d'NO OJ6 O 7
wntlPO-=99mm ..mm
mmemmmmmtlwww. nmm ..
mmmPPmPn w
0
z
z
LL o
w �
Q U
\ W
W J J
ZY o <
\ pw < < U 6 Y 6 O
me � � 0oexep
6 Y W Y m Y J Y 7
< C < 6 LL
p p d O W 6 W 2
a
p n P
WWWWWWWWWW WWYYYYe.WY........... WWW T
NN����NNNN WWWWWWWWWW YY Y YY NNO DC 0
JPWNYOmm�O a pF.OJNAWNYO • YOO.mVmNPWNNPWNYOwO� • NN OO m
A9ND9mmYD< w pDOZy9V2ry r �O„NNTNE3909QmmrQti p('1 ti Tm C rQi
Tr➢yr2220D 2 OOOJOOppti p $-�rTTTrCOYYTr�D ADD ➢ O�T ZO
➢ryDpp03r ti DmCmDrr30D Q NOy<AmErOC«O02mD m>mm m
00.001Y ti
DtiTTD N. r T yAZYtiYr�mDti m m O➢TOmr23rr>pACrOrr \ S
N N SA2T A
2 � ONQOTTY< p m<1rT ya ➢ 0
21"'r Tm Q
TATm2AT<y9 O D ?, Tmp T SQmO PmN22DtiPM TTDT p T oz 9
OT DAmtiD G ptiAS£tiNDOA N OTC OO 90ppmti QrAAmD OG OZ
NOa00Y2AY T TQO<Ati0<D $ZN09DE3D rTpTMDDOC tiYt �T N
TOOtiJCT ZCDA Z m V3X-. tiZ P N mmr➢Nr99T DZQno., DN 2
TZQ OT-1 m tiOT3Yti ti mT c.,2 tiY TT r3NTQON9 X9� 9D ➢
CN99 A% FNT ➢N 9 CN9oz9. 9AArYmT$STy D tir 0
NG3>mmyoG 2 P T N TOZTA TI-�Qf NmNN 3 MO O
ATDTTTQm -1 0 a$D O A x X QTN NNTa C QT 9
aA z D O m 10N N � � 39 �titiT22 NmTTN yA $C m
tip GOT r G A O r T9Mm Ny2Nm m2 MA Z T
0N2 T V -I �I T-1A 1 mT yY T O
2 N Tol�TN 0 D N m y 3y.3i N yNf Ny
O Nm C m O J Q
$ ti N
c a w
y 0
m N O
m
y
1
A
m
z
c
mQ
c
A
A P
N U m A
W P WY 0 Ym NVNV N A
m
N Y~Yo P o
NVYN0m0NNW Pm N JNOv0JNP u1WAY
O Jw A0
<0 mN Om
00O"000O0"000 ' 0000 OOOOOOOONJpO 1C.
O0OONO "00000000
T
W 0000000000NOOOOON000 W 00U >3 a
O C
a m
y
I D A
A T
D_ 9
O O
T A
ti
9
O
ti
N N YW y
0 0 N0 NNO O VNO ti
0PN0N0 NO ONwrO YNN NUO PNOO N NWA
WOON000 00 m 0 NmN000 V N. OUN000 U000 0 00. A
0000000 QO A O OH= O 00 0000000 O 0000 OOm
0000000 0o O o 000000 0 00 0000000 0 0000 0 000 <
0000 . . . . . . . 0 . 000 . . . . . . . . . . m
nOQQOO0000 o OOOOOOQOOQ 0 00000a 00000000000000 0 OOO z
0000000000 O 0000000000 0 00000000000000000000 0 000 m
N a
PYYY mN.y 0 WNm WJNVNN O A
YOY.WUY Om O O W .-WmJY. Pr�O NN.mWO w D
A YOmVYw O. . . . .
NYWYNOOA O O O m NW000p0VNJ N PNJYYO A yQ Q
00Ym JO NOWO O 0000000000 OOOOOONNJONO00POmwNO 000 C T
OONYNONOmO O 0000000000 0 OO OOOOOOOPNOOOOOJ 000 N POw r0
0
D �
ti O
N0 Y YV �
N JNN T
YPYONYO 1"` JNOYm Y Y.O NANNN 0Y < w
WYwPPOWNmO
OOWN0m0OVmmNNwOONNOO w YCo..
OP VWONWWNmW 0 ✓ 000 Om NYYO
NU0 00 O -0
28 19
YN NmOO.Y DA
mOm
OOmWNOJ000 0 0000000000 000000NNWwJ00000Y ;"a wow z
OONwMO.ONO O OOOOOOOOOO 000000O000NOOOOOW000 00N m m
YwNY Y O .-w VPWmaN VawJ m W s
W 0 9
YmWNmO N w w P Om 000W0Y0 . NOP. w 0 % y Y
WW WWWWm W®.WWWWNNNNWNWWWW T Y
mm NNUU DC O
YO W NNUNppaAWWWWNNNNNN 02
. oo orNu.N..00 . o sWNOWNYomWNr.vgaWYo 00 m
0
NOmy$ Oa OA x Ymmm Mf/£�OmDN0 0Ty3 Ty C w
D CD y N22r1 D 1ti0T N�+M D-I T Cy2AAy0p2 Z- ti
2 02 0 0titimm <A<C0$ Nmm20m2m0r£ \ <
y y m mA A -1 ti O ➢Oq ZyO9 O
T 0T Y Tm m A rm -. oyOH90Z mp O
m Om rm N 1 1N TNN Q920 ,O- W£jm oz T
T y tiN 2 2ti 0~ 2 Z T <90OMZ0Q0 Z,MIOME68 AT m
2 A O 00 -� 0 0 =0 1OA Trm. A. Oy ODwSD vD ➢
O m c C2 < Nr tir JC
-I CH y yN 9 mN yTyO mN S 81
0 >DOop0 O
9
O .9
-➢N� OZ A m O
O DOZC rO3ZyO2
Cm m O O
my0o C
mm
mr
ti 22 < m UN
< CN y
N
m
y
ti
<
m
z
c
mo
c
A
0 WpONN 'A
AW m WW U OOgNW Am N
YO OW W YOaONWY m p D2
m a JN O O WOpgA q O O <
Hti
O 00 ON000 ooawQQOOONONWOOW0m C m
O O 00 O 00000 V V m pOOWO0U0000NO00NOU D
O C
z m
ti
<x A
D
A m
D 9
Z
0 O
m
y
9
n
ti
a
N
VP O W q N
w Am NouY
WO O U 0 0 0 O NN000 ..No O A
m mo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0g0omo00 0000 0 m
a ao 0 0
0. 0 0 0 0 000ooaoo 0000 o <
.A . . . 060 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m
0 0 00 O 000oO O O 0 00000000000000000o 2
0 0 00 0 00000 O o 0 000000000000000ooO m
<
N D
O O W
O O y a m NaUNN mN W 9
ANO P P ANOW JONNOWmW YaWY D
q mAWNNY WA ➢ti y
O O OYJW vgmWNWgA NOO 0
ti0 O
0
N O 00 No00 WO o00WWm 00000 q W O NOgaoNo0oo"00PWw c T
D
i r0
s w
W
ti O
O N
a N m N m
W sam Wo 10 m
NO O U m ANOq WANAmgm�N UqY D
N N NO NOO O aO JJUmmO Nqa NmOmJWa
a a0 a WNO O OYVWOWWYJNJWNOYVOO
D
O 00 N000 0NmA0000000AVOmgNO Z
O 00 N m000o a A O NOmNOON0000Y00gamN 0 D
W W O A gNmN A UN m
A W W O 0Y
o.- o n
a ab s ass AapapaaasasaaaaAoaaaA FFYF.P.s.A..'.�.a- .� .- '
O J yFy PAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN r. DC O
Fm Ow OHOOOwVmyWNNrrrpWWNr� N�yaaaaWrO C12 m
• N • O • tlti • OrUr000000rObwONNONyO • OWNti00N0 OO O
O m 1 ti 9 O OOC N mo3009C� 1111II-I.O.M2 C$S9V9".0. C O
O D A 9 D ti➢C C CI"COT 1299T09T9Tp COO GC T 2pTTTTTD<D y0
2 m X D � S9A V yA9TZZ�yrrDly OOD C1'nti99 A T9DZZZA1m1 ti
N T 2 3 TMO T OAOymtirCYGm-� Im1w10mv 0 mm.
\ <
y y y D -1 912 N Tm2 yNA1TVD 90ADr O 5=5185 91� O
2 1 T 2 D DD r2DPm 1DN1201 y0 " 2 rTS000 1 TO O
m D T T r ry T r12 `+22 = 8-.p oc w D 02 222 T;T yT T
Z A 2 $ 1 T N
>,E...0 TOOP2 OMMDDGIm y I" <yPyyy yTy 02
Z m y 1 T 9T ZCCI ym T 2r01M 3 m MT y
(j 9 900 P yyWm Py NN Z�+Z51D y 015mT STT A 2
< y ti OCr OTTyy C YD21Dy1 T 20-+ -. CC vD D
A T <N W C a 90 010 T 9 15mOA0 1rr 1r• S
D Yp mmm T yo P Cy PSAA G 9TMmD m11 O
y �y mmw G D 9W my Tm A~1D m o0 �+D 911 YC T
1 221 9 10 1 TA T SY22 T
C1
T C 1ti� m m 2 yT yG 9 Oy y U.9 mm O
A 8 22 A GC
y y Oy y yl- ZT 1m A 0 DD
0 y O 0y Z 0
0
1 TT
y
D
9
9
O
D
1
O
Yo
G
A m
W x
O
N yJ W yWW NNAr ym WNN m 9
yO ..OW.OW
p p yNOytlbm yN WmWJb D2
T
01 2
O O O O O N ODU F pOOUOOyWaVUmVOn-w UJJmO Y OOWmOmOWWW C O
0 0 0 O 0 OON OOANOWwUNtlrOWOtlOWONwV O OOYaOWUNVU �5 „
O 1
2 C
1 A
<x m
D
D A
Z
0 m
O
0 A
D
W A
O A m a P NyWONrr mOJJWWO N w� VI- Oay 9
O WW W m . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 �m WyOtlNAN AO
O 0 O w 00 W OaymtlAtlWONOWVOWJJAy J r,+mObba= 9
0 0 0 00 0 0JNW0amW1-NOOVONWUOW W mJNOJWO.0 A
0 0 0 0 00 0 0 oyyyoaWOyy00000 oo0o P owooaJmoa D
O 0 o 0 0 0 000 O 000000000000000000000 0 0000000000 1
0 o m o o a 000 0 0000Q0000000. 00.00.0 O o0000ooao0 c
Y<
m
N W O D
m P r y p..Jm Nr A m Wy WUaNW
N O P WmWmWP NwOWbm mN WwOrY 9
N V a �O OyNVtlympW-yNNWmyW V JrWO m�bmN ➢
bOWWVywNNmN m VmOm mOV D1 0 0
N N W OP WaWWAOyAOyyOVNwJ a Wr 0 O
p O w O
0 0 0 OmN O OAaOrrwmWW0rOrwOmWyNA C
0NUmpm00w o OA
0 0 0 T
rO
W
D �
1 O
a .Jb. rWmJ.-.-.- umamNNy m n-m amuNm m
mOVAtiWwNrWr WVmw O�-w amNyWOrNa Gm O
y W F a0 W mmOUwUWOmm rrN Or-mmw O mm.OrmwJU D
J O Wy J aWPJWmNI-'-Ww0yy0NW0 m mmy00NOmW A
P OA mmNwUWmyywPtiAywNVON JNmm00y.mN S
V o O OJ. J .WawmmOmmWNmAmy�-mWW J OorWaOy Y
r O O O o O ONN O .mmOtlb O "OowWyOWWrOr m DO
m
o c m .. . am.W.ommo`m m vin Pm PON�`u mom Nm�mw
w m m 0 O a 66 W O OwNyNyOtlyti N1-NAmWmym W Uro ANrbO y F
ac
az
• no m
0
n c n
o zo
z
O
i mo O
02
Z N
C O 2
2 < 9D D
O rr A
O
y QT 9
o zc m
z m
a o
r
D
T
O
s
ti
O
Zn
C
A m
O
m m
A O D2
o n z
O O C O
w O D
2 C
Y A
t <S m
D
D A
Z
O m
m T
O
(J A
ti y
D
O
P O
O
D
O O
O O
O
2<
O D
A D
Pu ar N
n
�0 0
c T
m n
ro
r o
<m �
n
a
o z
m Q
N m
�- m n
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
PERMITS ISSUED
June, 1989
Yr. to Date Previous Year
Number Number Valuation Number Valuation
No. Ytd.
Single Fam-Sewered 9 42 2,936,950 12 36 2,486,050
Single Fam-Septic - 3 332,000 1 7 764,800
Multiple Dwellings - 2 222,000 - - 216,800
(# Units) (YTD Units) (6) (6) - (-) (4) -
Dwelling Additions 15 44 213,991 9 37 189, 603
Other 2 7 163, 590 1 2 27,500
Comm New Bldgs 1 3 812,700 1 1 90,000
Bldg. Addns - - - - 7 563,000
Industrial-Sewered - - - - 1 915,000
Ind-Sewered Addns 1 1 5,760 - - -
Industrial-Septic - - - - - -
Ind-Septic Addns - - - - - -
Accessory/Garages 4 17 101,565 2 9 91, 686
Signs & Fences 14 43 46,031 5 26 38,274
Fireplaces/Wood Stove 1 3 5,400 - 5 17, 500
Grading/Foundation 3 10 1,406,720 - 1 500
Remodeling (Res) 4 14 76,790 4 14 53,600
Remodeling (Inst) - - - - - -
Remodeling (Comm/Ind) 2 24 1,595, 669 5 15 204, 000
TOTAL TAXABLE 56 213 7,919,166 40 165 5,658,313
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - - - -
GRAND TOTAL 56 213 7,919, 166 40 165 5, 658, 313
No. Ytd. No. Ytd.
Variances - 2 - 5
Conditional Use 1 10 1 10
Rezoning - - - 1
Moving -
1 - 1
Electric 28 147 37 139
Plbg & Htg 44 183 38 150
Razing Permits
Residential - - - 2
Commercial - - -
Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction
permitted to date. . . . . . .4, 330
Cora Hullander
Bldg. Dept. Sec.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN JUNE, 1989
8235 MN Valley Fence 1177 Jackson St. Fence $ 975
8236 Novak-Fleck 1147 Minngsotta St. House $ 54, 500
8237 Donald Plekkenpol 706 E. 44tthFc Addn. $ 800
8238 Allen-Lee Homes 2520 Emera�d,lLane House $ 75, 000
8239 Void
8240 David McGovern 205 S. Naumkeag Fence $ 400
8241 Gary Osterkamp 506 W. 3rd Garage $ 9,240
8242 Howard Larson 8785 Boiling Sp. Lane Stg. $ 6, 000
8243 Brad Anderson 210 W. 8th Garage $ 5,000
8244 Holiday 444 E. 1st Ave. Sign $ 100
8245 G.F. Juergens 1200 East 3rd Ave. Comm. $ 325,000
8246 David MCRenne 8221 Horizon Dr. Fence $ 890
8247 G. Hanninen Const. 219 W. 7th Addn. $ 9,500
8248 S 6 D Carpentry 2300 Onyx Dr. Alt. $ 4,000
8249 Novak-Fleck 1170 MiinneSota2y Stt..� House $ 53,000
8250 Alex Schmidt 1077 Ramsey
St%... Fence $ 150
8251 Nancy Koch 528 W. 5th Addn. $ 1,400
8252 Fremont 4400 Valley Ind. Blvd. Addn. $ 5,760
8253 Larry Lacy 2140 Heritage Dr. Addn. $ 880
8254 Schmidt Const. 2380 Horizon Circle Addn. $ 2, 000
8255 Bob Jasper 1077 Merritt St. Alt. $ 5, 600
8256 J.V.R. Quality Homes 2009 MurS)iy Ave. House $ 75,000
8257 Gardner Brothers 1905 Heritage House $ 63,400
-Z 40A
8258 Rick Halver 212 E. 1st ve. Sign $ 100
8259 Patrick Monnens 317 W. 7th Ave. Fence $ 300
8260 Sign Service Co. 129 S. Holmes Sign $ 4, 000
8261 Norman Bittner oy11290 mera Lane House $ 71, 200
8262 Walker Roofing "4 O0Va ley Ind.�Blvd. Alt. $ 59, 844
8263 Terry Lusignan 834 S. Scott St. Fence $ 100
8264 Joe Young 1273 Shakopee Ave. Fence $ 275
8265 Randy Groff 2073 Vierling Dr. Addn. $ 1,000
8266 Philip Hvidsten 638 E. 3rd Ave. Frplc $ 1,000
8267 Gale Fink 2330 Berg Drive Fence $ 150
8268 Michael Boeckman 1869 Norton Dr. Fill $ 100
8269 Ronald Jacobson 1065 Merritt St. Alt. $ 2, 000
8270 Tom Wall 1164 Merritt Court Addn. $ 2, 416
8271 Mike Pumper 1175 Shumway St. Slab $ 400
8272 G & T Trucking Scott Cty Lumber Fence $ 500
8273 Lawrence Signs 1116 MN Valley Mall Sign $ 2, 200
8274 Philip Hvidsten 628 E. 3rd Ave. Slab $ 500
8275 Marshall Foster 1249 Polk St. Addn. $ 225
8276 Terry Nemitz 2500 Emerald Lane Addn. $ 600
8277 Dale Peters 824 W. 4th Pool $ 6, 300
8278 Patio Enclosures 1077 Prairie St. Addn. $ 12, 800
8279 Sheila Mitchell 1185 Merritt Court Fence $ 157
8280 Ashland Chemical 4401 Valley Ind. Blvd. Alt. $ 12, 500
8281 Michael Menke z .9j Her. }tagey,Drv; a House $ 62,000
8282 B & D Development ���OJnVG_ yx Drat (-`3�.-KJ House $ 70,000
8283 Novak-Fleck - �d�nn to S, t.- House $ 45,000
8284 C & H Const. 2155 Hills a r. -„-J Alt. $ 1,200
8285 George Mankowski 972 Spencer Addn. $ 600
8286 Gerald Kopet 661 S. Monroe Addn. $ 4,000
8287 William Harrison 936 E. 3rd Ave. Addn. $ 800
8288 Stonebrooke 2693 Co. Rd. 79 Temp. $ 500
Bldg.
8289 G.M. McInerney 3751 Co. Rd. 79 Stg. $ 5, 400
8290 LeRoy Zarnke 2169 Onyx Drive Addn. $ 840
8291 David Schmieg 1049 Monroe St. Addn. $ 13, 000
KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED
327 South Marscnali Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 04-28-89
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A n^ Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
18-i1373002-1 General
$636.44 $1 ,001 .75 $636.44 $1 ,001 . 75
18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist
$34.00 $17.45 $34.00 $17.45
18-11373157-1 Racetrack Tax Increment District
$0.00 $1 .65 $0.00 $1 .65
18-11373177-1 Mining CUP
$0.00 $51 .00 $0.00 $51 .00
1S-11373210-1 Storm Drainage Easements.
Bill Project.
$246.00 $117.00 $246.00 $117.00
18-11373217-1 Vierling Drive West Condemnation
$0.00 $21 . 10 $0.00 $21 . 10
18-11373220-1 By Pass Ordinance (445-3650) $0.0U
$!70.00 s0.06 $170.00
19-13137311-1 Prosecutions $2,372 20
s2,924.00 $2,372.20 s2,924 .00
PLEASE INCLUDE ACCOu;vT NLMSEA FOR -ROPER CRED17
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER APn:L FOLu'u.NC 116-NITn
You o,__ iNu
PAGE 2
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 04-28-B9
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y .
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
18-13732100-1 Outlet Permit Problem
$357.00 $17.00 $357.00 $17.00
18-51373213-1 General Matters
$557.00 $148.25 $557.00 $148.25
----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $4,924.44 $3,747.40 $4,924.44 $3,747.40
��Li:il7•':'1
CITY 0=
KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED .-- J-
327 South Marschali Road
Shakopee, MN 55379 RECENED
JUN 1 21989
OITy OF SHAKOPEE
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 05-31''89
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
18-11373002-1 General
$1 ,001 .75 5141 .60 $1 ,001 .75 $141 .60
.18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist
- $17.45 $0.00 s17.45 $0.00
:'18_1 137:315ii = "y �-_-Racetrack Tax Increment District
- d $1 .65 $0.00 $1 .65 $0.00
18-11373177-1 - Mining CUP
$51 .00 $0.00 $51 .00 50. 00
18-11373210-1 Storm Drainage Easements.
Bill Project.
$117.00 $223.20 $117.00 $223.20
18-11373217-1 Vierling Drive West Condemnation
$21 . 10 $89.95 $21 . 10 $89.95
18-11373220-1 By Pass Ordinance (445-3650)
$0.00 $102.00 $0.00 $102.00
19-13137311-1 Prosecutions
$2,372.20 53,896.67 $2,372.20 s3,896.67
PLEASE INCLUDE ACCOUNT Nui` 6ER FOR FROFER CREDIT
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER MAY Jlb_ T CREDITED THE FOLLO-i NI :GIVi»
IF you HAVF A BIL�INB uu_� . ii,iv CONTACT +'ii1Cc u" CR��(4 A . 6i�-v-5-=� �i% .
PAGE 2
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 05-31-89
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
18-13732108-1 Upper Valley Drainage Project Scott
40.00 4107.00 $0.00 $107.00
18-137321OC-1 Outlet Permit Problem
$17.00 - $13.00 $17.00 $13.00
I8-51373213-1 General Matters
$148.25 $34.00 $148.25 434.00
----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $3,747.40 44,607.42 $3,747.40 $4,607.42
KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED
327 South Marschall Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 06-30-89
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
18-11373002-1 General
$141 .60 $397 .00 $141 .60 $397.00
18-11373177-1 Mining CUP
50.00 $17.00 50.00 $17.00
18-11373210-1 Storm Drainage Easements.
Bill Project.
$223.20 $105.95 $223.20 $105.95
18-11373217-1 Vierling Drive West Condemnation
$89.95 $17.00 $89.95 $17 .00
18-11373220-1 By Pass Ordinance ( 445-3650)
$102.00 50.00 $102.00 $0.00
18-11373222-1 5th Street Condemnation
50.00 $249.00 $0.00 $249.00
19-13137311-1 Prosecutions
53,896.67 $3,043. 15 $3,896.67 53,043. 15
18-137321OA-1 Scherber Storm Drainage Easements
Bill Project
$0.00 $34.30 $0.00 $34.30
PLEASE INCLUDE ACCOUNT NUMBER. FOR PROPER CREDIT
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER JUNE 30TH CREDITED THE FOLLOWING MONTH
IF YOU HAVE A BILLING OUESTION CONTACT VINCn O' BRIEN AT 612-445-50E0 .
PAGE 2
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 06-30-89
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
18-13732108-1 Upper Valley Drainage Project Scott
$107.00 $13.00 $107.00 $13.00
18-137321OC-1 Outlet Permit Problem
$13.00 $0.00 $13.00 $0.00
18-51373213-1 General Matters
$34.00 $0.00 $34.00 $0.00
----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $4,607.42 $3,876.40 $4,607.42 $3,876.40
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Energy and Transportation Committee
Shakopee, Minnesota
July 19, 1989
Chrm. Ziegler Presiding:
1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2. Approval of Minutes - June 21, 1989
3 . Public Hearing: Refuse Collection/Recycling Ordinance
Amendments
4. Transit Policy 422 - Dial-A-Ride Service to S.W.M.T.C.
Service Area
5. Informational Items
a. Recycling Program Reports
b. Dial-A-Ride Monthly Report
C. Dial-A-Ride Saturday Service Report
d. Van Pool Monthly Report
e. Business Update from City Hall
f. Highway Project Updates
9.
6. Other Business
a. Next Meeting-Wed. , August 16, 1989 - 7:00 PM
b.
7. Adjournment
Barry A. Stock
Administrative Assistant
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
g
Energy and Transportation Committee
Regular Session Shakopee, MN June 21, 1989
Vice Chair Prudoehl called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with
Comm. Otto, Drees, Amundson, Roman, Prudoehl, and Spiotta
present. Chairman Ziegler was absent. Also present was Barry A.
Stock, Administrative Assistant.
Drees/Amundson moved to approve the minutes of the May 17, 1989
meeting minutes as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock stated that in March the City of Shakopee implemented a
volume based refuse program. The new program also offered
Shakopee residents the capability to dispose of recyclables in
conjunction with regular refuse collection and yard waste. He
noted that the current refuse collection ordinance allows
Shakopee's residents to either select the City's contracted
refuse hauler or the private hauler of their choice.
Since the implementation of the new program several residents
have opted to drop the City's contracted service and go with
private collectors. Mr. Stock estimated that approximately two
dozen households have dropped the City's service.
Mr. Stock went on to note that in most cases, when cities provide
contracted refuse collection, collection service is provided for
single family dwelling units up to and including 4-plexes.
Communities usually decide to opt for contracted collection for
the following reasons:
1. It insures that all refuse is disposed of in a sanitary and
safe manner to protect the health, safety and welfare of
their residents.
2. A closed system limits the number of trucks that are
traveling on the city streets and/or alleys and thereby
increases the life expectancy of the streets.
3. A closed system helps to insure that the lowest long term
possible rates for collection and disposal are available.
4. A closed system reduces administrative staff time involved
with answering consumer complaints in regard to refuse.
5. A closed system insures the city that the contractor is
performing the duties and responsibilities as set forth in
the city's ordinance.
Mr. Stock noted that under the City's current ordinance, the
rational for having a contracted hauler provide service in
Shakopee is being defeated. Mr. Stock stated that in the long
run, Shakopee residents rates will be impacted by the loss of
customers. Additionally, Mr. Stock noted that he is aware of
several households in the City that have no regular trash
collection. He noted that he has received several complaints
from commercial establishments whose trash receptacles are being
filled by illegal dumping. Mr. Stock also noted that several
residents have experienced persons dumping their trash at their
place of residence.
Mr. Stock stated that in order to resolve the problems with
illegal dumping and to protect the health, safety and welfare of
all Shakopee residents, he is proposing a major amendment to the
current ordinance. The new ordinance addresses the type of
refuse containers to be utilized, the collection point and the
provision of recycling and yard waste collection services by the
City's contractor. The program also would make it mandatory for
all Shakopee residents residing in single family units up to
including 4-plexes within the refuse collection service area to
contract with the City's refuse hauler. Finally, the new
ordinance sets forth a penalty provision for persons who engage
in scavenging.
Mr. Stock stated that he would like the Energy and Transportation
Committee to discuss in detail the proposed ordinance amendments
and it's potential ramifications.
Commissioner Roman questioned whether or not current residents
who go with a private hauler would be grandfathered. She stated
that in her opinion it would not be wise to grandfather
households for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Stock stated
that in order to provide for a smooth transition and enactment of
this ordinance he recommended some type of grandfather provision.
He suggested that perhaps the period could be tied to the
ownership of the property. Commissioner Otto stated that he felt
that everybody should be included in the City's program
immediately. He stated that persons who feel aggrieved by this
policy can appear at the public hearing to state their case.
Commissioner Spiotta questioned what the private haulers would
say about the proposed program. Commissioner Drees stated that
the discussion of this policy will certainly invite controversy.
Commissioner Amundson questioned when the current refuse contract
expires. Mr. Stock stated that it expires in January of 1992.
Commissioner Spiotta questioned whether or not we were prepared
to state that the private haulers are not meeting the health,
safety and welfare expectations of the City. Mr. Stock stated
that he feels the current private haulers are doing an adequate
job. However, he stated that we are experiencing illegal dumping
at this time and it is beginning to become a problem.
Commissioner Spiotta questioned whether or not we have
experienced illegal dumping in the past. Mr. Stock stated that
in the past the City had unlimited refuse collection. If illegal
dumping was going on, it was never reported because the City's
refuse hauler took all refuse that was on the curb.
Vice Chair Prudoehl questioned how the Committee felt about not
grandfathering persons who are currently contracting with private
haulers. Commissioner Amundson suggested that the duration of
the grandfather provision coincide with the expiration of the
City's refuse contract. It was the consensus of the Committee
that this was a logical time frame for the grandfather period.
At that time, all private haulers would be given the opportunity
to rebid on the City's refuse collection contract. Commissioner
Amundson stated that by moving to a closed refuse collection
system, it will put the City of Shakopee in a better bargaining
position when they solicit bids in 1991.
Mr. Stock stated that the Committee should consider developing a
list outlining their rationale for moving to a closed refuse
collection program. The following items were suggested by the
Committee to be included on the list:
1. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of Shakopee
residents.
2. To increase the life expectancy of the City's
infrastructure.
3. A closed system provides for the disposal of waste in a
uniform and safe manner.
4. The closed system would ensure the use of uniform refuse
containers which is aesthetically more pleasing.
5. A closed refuse program insures collection at all
households.
6. The use of a closed system streamlines the complaint
process.
7. A closed system is easier to monitor for City staff.
8. Dealing with a closed system makes it easier for the City to
enforce State mandates.
9. The provision of a closed system insures the lowest long
term refuse collection rates for Shakopee residents.
10. A closed system will reduce the potential for illegal
dumping.
Comm. Drees questioned whether or not the City's recycling credit
would go to all residents or those who are just receiving City
refuse collection service. Mr. Stock stated that the credit
would go to all customers who are being billed for refuse
collection service. Comm. Drees suggested utilizing a bar code
system to keep track of those households who are actually
recycling. Mr. Stock stated that this is something that should
be considered in the near future. Mr. Stock stated that he did
not think it was fair for persons who are not recycling to
receive the credit. He noted that St. Louis Park is currently
operating under the bar code system. Mr. Stock stated that the
City would have to establish a policy on how often you would have
to recycle to be eligible for the credit.
Discussion ensued on the rationale for moving to a closed refuse
collection program. Spiotta/Roman moved to approve the draft
recycling ordinance amendments as submitted by staff and directed
the appropriate City officials to set a public hearing for 7:00
p.m. on July 19, 1989 in the City Council Chambers. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock then gave a brief recycling program update. He noted
that to date the City has received over $2700 in revenues from
the recyclables collected.
Mr. Stock then reviewed the Dial-A-Ride and Van Pool monthly
reports. He noted that at our next meeting he would request a
representative from Morley Bus Company to be present to give the
Committee update on the program operations.
Mr. Stock then reviewed the Business Update from City Hall. He
noted that the City Cleanup Day was a success. He also noted
that the cost for the program was $8000. Mr. Stock also noted
that the City Council has narrowed the City Administrator
candidates down to 3 and that he expected them to select a
candidate in July.
Mr. Stock then gave a brief review and update on the 3 major
highway projects in Shakopee. Comm. Amundson questioned whether
or not the 1993 completion date for the downtown mini bypass was
correct. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that the memo was in
error. He stated that the proposed completion date is 1992.
Comm. Amundson stated that she thought the project was expected
to be completed in 1991. Mr. Stock stated that several things
have caused the project to be delayed including the historical
review process. Discussion ensued on whether or not there would
be the need for the project if it could not be completed in a
more timely manner. Mr. Stock stated that he felt there was the
need for an additional improved river crossing. He stated that
it is difficult to argue that an additional river crossing is not
needed. If Shakopee has the opportunity to get a four lane river
crossing in addition to the Highway 18 project, why would we not
proceed with it? The Committee concurred with Mr. Stock's
analysis.
Several of the Committee members stated that while the Downtown
minibypass may not be the best plan, it is better than no river
crossing at all.
Mr. Stock reminded the Commission of the City Board and
Commission picnic scheduled for July 10, 1989.
Drees/Amundson moved to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
MINUTES
OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
The Shakope Public Utilities Commission convened In
regular session on June 5, 1989 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities
meeting room.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kirchmeier, Cook and
Kephart. Also Manager Van Hout, Liaison Wampach and Secretary
Menden.
Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart that the minutes
of the May 1, 1989 regular meeting be approved as kept . Motion
carried. =
BILLS READ:
City of Shakopee 20,032.00
ABM Equipment and Supply, Inc. 275.28
A B K Construction 27,550.00
Armstrong Lock and Safe Inc. 46.70
Auto Central Supply 70.29
Bentz Construction, Inc. 210.00
Border States Electric Supply 8,448.91
Business Outfitters Inc. 11.70
C.H. Carpenter Lumber 35.00
Champion Auto Stores 16.68
City of Shakopee - 650.89
City of Shakopee 3,392.36
Clay's Printing 197.80
Cy's Amoco and Tire Center -47.64
Dicke Conoco 6.50
The Dickson Company -4B9.87-
EPL, Inc. - - 1,040.00
Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. 1,'777:94 -
General OfficeProducts Co. 34.495
.General Tire Service291.52 _
Glenwood Inglewood - - - 9.27
Goodin Company "103.30 -
- Gopher State One Call, Inc. - - < `-422.50
Graybar Electric Company, Inc. "1b,193.39
HDR Engineering, Inc. 9,829.58
Hance Cable Testing -- 235.10
Harmons Hardware - -. 3.79
Allan R. Hastings - 65.00 -
Jerry's Lawn Service - 809.52
. Ken 's Steel Door Repair Service - =419.70 _ --
q`
Krasa and Monroe Chartered Law Office -244.50
Leef Bros. , #no. -.22.50
Locators andl Suppli192,08
- Malkerson Mo�Cora; I nb. ``29.00
Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association -.330.00
Minnesota Safety Council 75.00
Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories, Inc. 36.00
Motor Parts Service of Shakopee .52.62
Northern Sanitary Supply Co. - 239.55 .
Northern States Power Co. _ 321,691.57 -
- Northern Stakes Power Co. . -332.32
O'Connor and Hannan 451.84
Office Products of Minnesota, Inc. 85.00 -
Otter Tail Power Company 109,49
Pitney Bowes, Inc. 436.50 -
Precision Laboratories, Inc. - -381.30
E.H. Renner 56,818.93
Reynolds Welding Supply Co. - 6.60
Schoell and Madson, Inc. 16,595.43
Scott Real Estate 255.25
Shakopee Ford, Inc. -240.72
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 164.43
Shakopee Services, Inc. 33.00
Simon-Midwest, Inc. 299.80
Southwest Suburban Publishing - 381.60
Star Tribune 60.00
Starks Cleaning Services, Inc. 102.00
Total Tool $75.62
Truck Utilities Manufacturing Co. 161 .15
Lou Van Hout 40.78
-Water Products Company 591.02
Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. 15,592.80
Yarusso's Hardware Company 41.37
Word Perfect Corporation 41.00
Motion by Kephart,. seconded by Cook that the bills be allowed
and ordered paid. Motion carried.
Mark Nelson from H.D.R. was present to update the Commission
on the second source to the existing feeder on Valley Park Drive.
H .D.R. is engineering the project. He informed the Commission that
bids are due ;on Thursday June 29, 1989. Completion date is
expected to be around November 30.
Art Young, SPUC Senior Water Systems Operator, was present at -
the meeting. - - -
Ken Adolf, Schoell and Madson was present to update the
Commission on the progress of well i8. They are test pumping
at the present time. The electrical .hookups to Pumphouse 02
will be done in the near future. -
Ss..
The report from the Minnesota Department of Health was
tabled until the next meeting .
Liaison Wampach gave the liaison report. Various concerns
on the Atwood project were relayed to the Commission and Manager
Van Hout.
The Third Avenue reconstruction project was discussed at
length.
Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook to advise the City
Engineer's Office of the service line problems in conjunction with
the Atwood, Apgar and Shumway at. reconstruction and let
them progress as they see fit. Motion carried.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Cook that the Shakopee
Public Utilities advise the City engineer of the Commission's
decision to install watermain on Fuller St. between 3rd
and 4th Avenue as long as the street is open; following the same
policies and cost sharing as in the past; specifically installation
costs and materials only. All other costs to be incurred by the
City. Commissioner Kephart voted no. Motion carried.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the Shakopee
Public Utilities request a meeting with the City Engineer, City
Administrator, a member of Council, a member of the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission, the Manager of the Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission and the Senior Water Systems Operator as soon as
possible to discuss developing a policy to deal with water
services in conjunction with City reconstruction and to discuss
problems encountered during past City projects. Motion carried.
Secretary Menden reported to the Commission on the status of
Canterbury Inn bill for both former owners and present owners. A
close watch is being kept on the account.
The figures on the final rate settlement were presented to the
Commission. The refund recognized by the Shakopee Public Utilities
is being passed on to our customers in the form of a lower power
adjustment for the next three months.
Manager Van Hout advised the Commission of a change order
received from the City Engineer labeled Change Order #3
in the amount of 989,915.00, in conjunction with the downtown
streetscape project. No action was taken at this time.
A memo was also received on the cost of the pole move from
1988.
Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart that the 1988 audit
from Jaspers, Streefland and Co. is approved. Motion carried.
A memo from Manager Van Hout to the Commission regarding
the easement and agreement for the new Well k8 site was
i
acknowledged. The letter of understanding has been signed by the
School District however compensation is still to be worked out
between the two Boards.
Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart to offer Resolution
{349 A Resolution Setting Water Connection Charges. Ayes:
Commissioners Kephart, Cook and Kirchmeier. Mayes: none.
Motion carried. Resolution passed.
Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook to offer Resolution
•350 A Resolution Adjusting the Fees Under the Trunk Water
Policy Resolution . Ayes : Commissioners Kirchmeier, Cook and
Kephart. Nayes: none. Motion carried. Resolution passed.
Manager Van Hout presented to the Commission a communication
from Northern States Power Co. regarding possibilities of
curtailable load savings which could be passed on to our customers
if their effort and interest is there. N.S.P. is to following up
on this with more details in the near future. The Commission
authorized a 90% pass thru of savings, with 10% retained for
administration .
Sheldon Moe has been hired as a Lineman 2nd Class.
The Heritage plat was presented by Manager Van Hout.
There were no lost time accidents for the month of May, 1989.
The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission will be held on June 29th, 1989 in the Utilities meeting
room at 4:30 P.M.
Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook that the meeting be
adjourned. Motion carried .
Barbara Menden, Commission Secretary
Memo To: Shakopee City Council
From: Barry A. Stock, Admin. Asst.
RE: Mebco Project Update
Date: July 14, 1989
INTRODUCTION
Following is a brief update on the status of the Mebco project.
The project is proceeding as originally proposed.
1. Industrial Development Revenue Bonds - Process Completed
2. Final Closing on Property - July 28, 1989
3. Tax Increment Financing Developers Agreement - August 1,
1989 H.R.A. Agenda
4. Ground Breaking - August 15, 1989 _
Project Completion - March 15, 1990
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 18, 1989
Acting Mayor Steve Clay presiding
1j 'Aoii Lail at 5:sU 'P.-A. for a joint meeting witn the Snaxopee
Public Utilities Commission
2] Brief report on the past years activities of SPDC
3] Street and watermain reconstruction policy
4] Electric service area
5] SPUC disbursements
6] Other business
7] Recess for an executive session to discuss right-of-way
acquisition/litigation
8] Re-convene at 7:00 P.M. for regular meeting
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
3
MEMO TO: Lou VanHout, SPUC
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Third Avenue Reconstruction Project
D►TE: June 18 , 1989
I would just like to summarize the meeting on June 15 , 1989
between SPUC and the City regarding the 3rd Avenue project.
As I understand it, the following decisions were arrived at for
this project.
1 . SPDC would pay for all watermain items in the project (pipe,
valves , hydrants , etc . ) including materials and
installation. The City would pay for street rehabilitation.
2 . Service connections that are deficient and need to be
replaced will be assessed back to the individual property
owners. Service connections that are not deficient but need
replacing for other reasons ( i.e. watermain being lowered )
will be paid for by SPUC . SPUC will consider allowing
connectors in unusual circumstances.
3 . Engineering will add watermain on Fuller Street (3rd to 4th)
to the project. Also, watermain will be stubbed out beyond
the project limits on Apgar and Shumway Streets for future
watermain. SPUC to pay for all costs associated with the
watermain.
4 . No work would be done on Atwood Street as part of this
project.
There was no discussion on inspection or contract administration
relating to this project.
I believe the above accurately describes what was agreed upon
during this meeting. If you have any corrections, please notify
me at your earliest convenience.
DH/pmp
S0: Dennis A. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: SPUC Disbursements
DATE: July 15, 1989
Introduction
Attached is an opinion from Assistant City Attorney Phillip Kress
regarding SPUC disbursement procedures. This is a follow up from the Council
meeting in January where SPUC disbursement procedures and Treasurer duties were
discussed. The Shakopee Utility Commission discussed the opinion at their June
meeting.
Ise Ufs'e
Penns R Konno V R A (l (1 Ijammn a Glob
Dennis 1.Monroe 1\\ Ll.�,l\J.l\J James BCmtt
BarryK Meyer & C.ulhvn Gl.itende
Jay D Olr
71emr R.Midton MONRE Patricia V kee
chSllre Mot k Carlson.C.P.A.
J..Nauless�
Diane M.Carlson .ce,ueaewmwsrn,wm
.xo�mnw 1.reiuv.r
Robert J.Walter �.m.muea lnsows.ww
April 24, 1989
^„3
Ci' -
Mr. Gregg Voxland 7. :-yfi
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
EE: SPUC Disbursements - Minnesota Statutes 412.141
File No. 1-1373-2
Dear Gregg:
You have asked me to review my November 11 memorandum to you relative to
disbursements made by the Public Utilities Commission and to take into
consideration Minnesota Statutes 412.141. I have also considered Minnesota
Statutes 412.271, and 412.371.
Minnesota Statutes 412.141 defines the statutory duties of a city treasurer
(see attachment) . According to this law, the treasurer is responsible for the
receipt and disbursement of all monies belonging to the city. For every
transaction and disbursement of money involving the city, the treasurer must
promptly, enter into a book a shoving of the source, purpose and date of the
transaction. That statute, I think, must be read in conjunction with Minnesota
Statute 412.371 which authorizes a separate account for each utility. The
secretary of the Utilities Commission may draw an order upon the treasurer for
the proper amount allowed by the Commission which order should be counter signed
by the president of the Commission. In attempting to determine what the proper
procedures in these matters should be, I have not just consulted the statutory
language involved (there is no case Lav to review) but have spoken with the
City's Auditor, lames Streefland, of the CPA firm of Jaspers 6 Streefland, end
have spoken to attorney Tom Gilbertson of the State Auditor's Office. Both Mr.
Streefland and Mr. Gilbertson have informed me they believe the procedures I
described as being utilized by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission are
basically in conformance with state law and with the method used by other public
utilities commissions throughout the State of Minnesota.
As I understand the procedure, the Public Utilities Commission authorizes
payments as appropriate, drafts checks on the separate account the commission
has which is authorized by law, and submits those checks signed by the president
and secretary of the commission to your office for your signature. Those signed
checks constitute the order the statute requires.
Replym: Marschall Read Business Center.327 btarschall Read P.O.Box 216. Shakopee.%knaesom 53379 Telephnnec 16121 445508(1 F.%\(612)445-7640
Southpoint Center.Suite 1100.KiO%lest 82nd Street. B100m InSton.Ntnnesma 35431 TelephoneI61^_18855099 E1\161__^I 985-5969
Page -2-
April 24, 1989
I am going to make two suggestions for slight modifications in the present
procedure utilized by the commission. The first is that when the commission
gives your office a list which accompanies the checks submitted, they include
in that list the purpose or "object- of the check. I understand that the source
of the funds deposited by SPUC will be submitted to you together with the bank's
slip showing the deposit of those funds. Thus, you will have complied with the
statutory requirement to keep an account of monies received by source.
Secondly, after the cancelled checks are received by the Utilities
Commission and used to balance their checkbook, those cancelled checks are to
be retained as treasurer's vouchers. The statuLa daea not indicate that they
must literally be retained in physical proximity to you, but could be retained
under your direction wherever you see fit, so long as you have ultimate control
over those cancelled checks and the ability to produce them to the City Council
I am aware the City Council does not generally ask to see the checks
themselves but relies on the auditor's report done annually, but technically the
statute does require the cancelled checks to be retained.
It appears to me that it would be an unnecessary duplication of time and
effort to have you literally keep a second set of books for the Utilities
Commission. You will have the written list of all payments made which will
include the date and purpose of the payment, and my discussions with Mr.
Streefland and Mr. Gilbertson indicate this procedure complies with state lav
and generally accepted accounting practices.
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Very truly yours.
Ss -
-
S ME CHARTERED
illi
Attorney at Lav
PRK:mlw
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Lou Van Hout, Mgr.
Mr. James Streefland
To: Judy Cox
From: Lou Van Rout
Re: Information for joint Council/SPUC meeting 7/18/89
Date: 7/18/89
Enclosed are the following:
a) a memo dated 6/18/89 containing the recommendations from the
"Preliminary" meetings of 6/15, and 7/7/89 .
b) a memo dated 6/14/89 containing a more detailed record of the
discussion at those meetings .
c) A confidential memo from the Utilities Commission to the
Council dated 7/14/89.
d) A resolution draft.
To: FILE
From: LOU
Re: Recommendations out of Meetings held 6/15/89, and 7/7/89
(detailed discussion notes are in 7/14/89 memo)
Date of memo: 6/18/89
Present: Councilpersons Gloria Vierling and Steve Clay,
Utilities Commission President Barry Kirchmeier,
City Administrator Dennis Kraft, City Engineer Dave Hutton,
Engineering Coordinator Ray Ruuska (6/15/89 only) , Utilities
Manager Lou Van Hout, Water Supervisor Art Young.
agenda
item 1 : Convene. -
agenda
Item 2: Reconstruction Pro)ects :
2)A: City/SPUC on replacement of watermain and funding said
replacement:
Recommendation of the group:
a) payment for relocation is based on principle
of "causation" : whichever agency requires a
move or reconstruction, that agency pays.
b) the use of connectors on service lines is to
be resolved by SPUC .
c) Staff is to work on a list of criteria for
determining deficient facilities .
d) SPUC is to ultimately make the determination
of whether or not to replace its own system.
item 2)B: Problems i .e. : Atwood Street, Pole relocations downtown .
Atwood street : Pro?ect discussed .
Pole relocations:
Recommendation of the group:
a) For future applications the policy is to be a 50/50
split of all costs to relocate poles where such
relocation is requested by the city. Poles moved
solely at SPUC's discretion will continue to be at
SPUC cost.
b) For downtown project, the second phase will be
handled the same way as in the first phase with the
cost to relocate poles repaid to SPUC,
agenda
item 3. Contract Administration
3)A: Inspection:
Recommendation of the group:
a) to state that SPUC has the final and total say on
watermain, and that the city and its staff agree.
b) SPUC inspector should issue a stop-work order on a
city contract without going through the city's
project coordinator, and the city would not overrule
that order.
c) the use of three part memo's to document
instructions to contractors, to be sent to the
city's project coordinator, and to be kept in the
SPUC file.
d) a regular breakfast meeting between Dave and Lou
during construction season was suggested.
agenda
item 3)B: Design:
General discussion .
agenda
item 4. Private Subdivision Work.
General discussion.
agenda
item S. Agreements
S)A: Oversizing:
The group agreed that the city would not enter any
agreements with a developer on behalf of SPUC. The
developer can deal directly with SPUC.
5)B: Developers Agreements:
These will not involve SPUC.
agenda
item 6 . Downtown Underground conduits:
Having the conduit and underground work by the city, and
the electrical equipment by SPUC. The city and SPUC will
have shared in the costs for electric undergrounding.
To: FILE
From: LOU
Re: Summary of Preliminary Meetings held 6/15/89, and 7/7/89
Date of memo: 6/14/89
6/15/89 meeting: Present: Councilperaons Gloria Vierling and Steve
Clay, Utilities Commission President Barry Kirchmeier, City
Administrator Dennis Kraft, City Engineer Dave Hutton, Enoineering
Coordinator Ray Ruuska (6/15/89 only) , Utilities Manager Lou Van
Hout, Water Supervisor Art Young.
Item 1 : Convene at 2:00 PM, 6/15/89.
item 2 : Reconstruction Projects :
2)A: City/SPDC on replacement of watermain and funding said
replacement.
All agree on the need for policy agreements to be put in
writing avoid future confusion.
Third Ave project used for discussion example.
Policy Recommendation of the group:
a) -Policy recommendation is payment for relocation is
based on principle of "causation" : whichever agency
requires a move or reconstruction, that agency pays
for it.
b) -the use of connectors on service lines is to be
resolved by SPUC .
c) -Staff is to work on a list of criteria for
determining deficient facilities .
d) -SPUC is to ultimately make the determinination of
whether or not to replace its own system.
To elaborate on the above policy:
When watermain is judged by SPUC to be not deficient,
the costs of any watermain work are paid by the aoency
causing the work. If a non deficient watermain is in
the way of sewer construction,or a road surface is
lowered to leave inadequate cover over a watermain, it
is the responsibility of the sewer or road project to
pay for the relocation of the watermain.
The same locic applies for all public facilities : if
street or sewer is damaged as a part of watermain work
hP+nQ done by SPUC at its own initiative, that repair or
replacement of the street, sewer, or other facility is
SPUC responsibility.
Dave and Lou are to draft a list of factors to be
considered in determining deficiency of a watermain.
Lou will review the list Dave will send of the city's
latest street repaving plan.
The use of connectors on service lines was discussed.
Barry Kirchmeier commented that we will consider these
only in exceptional occasions such as to avoid cutting
into a new street such as on Atwood, or to avoid digging
up and replacing a long existing service line which would
otherwise not have been disturbed. The matter will be
considered at the August Utilities Commission meeting.
item 2)B: Problems i.e. : Atwood Street, Pole relocations downtown.
Atwood street between First and Second and Second and
Third Avenues was discussed to avoid the repetition of
the misunderstandings that occurred on that project.
Pole relocations downtown were discussed.
Policy Recommendation:
For future applications the policy is to be:
A 50/50 split of all costs to relocate poles where
such relocation is required due to interference from
new facilities. (This policy is from the shared
benefit to both Citv and SPUC, and the approximate
equal public base to fund the costs)
Poles moved solely at SPUC's discretion have always
been, and will continue to be at SPUC cost.
the same way as in the first phase with the cost to
relocate poles repaid to SPUC.
In discussion of the need for cooperation between
Engineering Dept. and SPUC staff, several examples of
minor problems were mentioned as being too small to be
worth very much time in resolving. Barry Kirchmeier
Barry Kirchmeier recalled a discussion at a meeting
similar to this one that was held a few years past, of
allowing an amount such as $5,000 per year as a cap for
disposing of miscellaneous small, minor items without
havine major discussion. Gloria Vierling also recalled
that discussion .
item 3. Contract Administration
3)A: Inspection
Dave Hutton expressed the view that having SPUC inspect
the water on the same job where the city inspector is
inspecting the rest of the work is a potential for
conflict, and suggested letting the city do all the
inspections.
Lou said that it is not reasonable to have an inspector
on a job who does not answer to, and is not responsible
to, the owner of the completed project. SPUC will bear
the responsibility of decisions made by its own
inspector, but does not want to have to pay for the
decisions made by others who are not under its direction.
Dave said he is not opposed to leaving things as they are
now, but wants all to know that SPUC is responsible for
the work their inspector accepts. Barry Kirchmeier
responded that we have always known that and acted so.
All agreed that some type of administrative statement
would be worthwhile, stating that SPUC has the final and
total say on watermain, and that the city and its staff
agree with this .
A discussion followed of some examples of past conflicts
resulting from misunderstanding of exactly how the
administration was being handled. Lou felt that SPUC
could only advise a city contractor and city staff that
we would not accept or use a watermain if the SPUC
inspector was not satisfied with its installation.
Dave stated that his opinion was that SPUC inspector
could, and should, issue a stop-wort order on a city
contract without going through the city's project
coordinator, and the city would not overrule that order.
It was agreed by the group to accept this as the
procedure to follow.
Discussion of change order procedures . Dave is advising
contractors that change orders or requests for additional
payment must be received within a certain amount of time
or not be considered.
It was agreed by the group that the use of three Part
memo's to document instructions to contractors, to be
sent to the city's project coordinator, and to be kept
in the SPUC file. This will show city and SPUC staff's
intent for the .record.
Vierling suggested a 1S minute or a breakfast meeting be
routinely held between Dave and Lou every week or two
during construction season. Clav and Kirchmeier agreed.
item 3)B: Design:
General discussion only.
item 4. Private Subdivision Work.
Dave advised that engineers for private developers
complain of time to get approvals through the city. All
agree to watch out for time delays, but the claim of
taking 6 to 9 months to get through the approval process
can't be attributed to the time laa on water system
approval .
Going back to the location of water shut-offs, Dave feels
that easements along front lot lines are not needed if
water shut-offs are located at the property line. Lou
agreed there is no need of such an easement for
watersystem use.
The agreement of the group was to leave the Shutoff's at
the property line.
item S. Agreements
5)A: Oversizing:
Dave advised that he would not recommend the city enter
any agreements with a developer on behalf of SPDC. The
developer can deal directly with SPUC. Lou advised that
this was the way SPUC had always preferred it to be.
5)8 : Developers Agreements :
These will not involve SPUC .
item 6. Downtown Underground conduits:
Lou reviewed the circumstances of the downtown conduit
installation and related the discussions that had taken
place over the past few years of the concept of cost
sharing with the city paying the costs for the conduits,
vaults, and underground work to provide the ability to
SPUC to underground its electrical system as much as
possible in the downtown area. SPUC was to pay the costs
to furnish and install the electrical equipment including
cable, transformers, switches, etc. The changes needed
to underground customer owned wiring was to be paid by
assessment or other city funding.
The concept was that SPUC would be getting the benefit
of new equipment and so it should pay for that part; but
the fact that the lines were underground instead of
overhead was a benefit primarily to the aesthetics and
not to the electrical system, so those costs should be
paid by others as an area improvement project.
Dave advised that a change order had been written to put
in larger conduits for SPUC use.
Barry Kirchmeier stated that SPUC had always understood
the idea of SPUC's cost being for the electrical portion,
and had made allowance for it in the SPUC five year plan.
Gloria Vierling said that it looked like having the
conduit and underground work by the city and the
electrical equipment by SPUC meant that city and SPUC
would have shared in the costs once the underground
system was fully constructed and it sounded logical.
Additional item: Customer notification of sewer meter problems.
Discussion of notification of customers as soon as
possible of sewer meter malfunctions.
Whenever a problem is noted with a sewage meter, the
customer will be advised as well as city hall .
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Shakopee
From : Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
Re: July 14, 1989
Date: Acquisition of Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative
Customers located within the City of Shakopee
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
As you know, it has been for the past decade the policy of
the City of Shakopee that all of the residents and citizens of
the City should be served by the City's electric utility .
There are several reasons for this policy. First of all,
approximately 400 families within the City of Shakopee presently
being served by Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative are paying
approximately 40% more in electrical rates than the remainder of
Shakopee's residents. The reason they pay more is simply the
artificial boundaries which have been drawn giving Minnesota
Valley Electric Cooperative a portion of the service area within
the city limits . This inequity in rates has never been
acceptable and constitutes one of the prime reasons for the
City's policy.
Another reason for this policy is that the electrical
customers within the City of Shakopee who purchase their
electricity from the City"s utility make a financial contribution
to the city government. It has been the long-held belief of
successive city councils and utility commissions that all of the
residents of the City ought to be contributing financially
through the profits made by their purchase of electrical power
from the City.
The Public Utilities Commission has for some extended period
of time been endeavorina to create sufficient reserves to allow
us to proceed with the acquisition of the Minnesota Valley
Electric Cooperative customers within the City in fulfillment of
the policy set forth above. We believe those reserves are now
sufficient to allow us to do so. As we discussed at the joint
meeting between the Utilities Commission and City Council earlier
this year, we have been waiting for a court resolution of the
formula the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission utilizes in
compensating a cooperative for the loss of customers to a
municipally owned utility commission. A few months ago that
decision was issued and the formula and mechanism for such an
acquisition now appears to be as firm as it is going to get.
i
As important as it is to fulfill this policy and create some
equity for all of the electrical users located within our city
limits, it is equally important to look at the long term future
of our electric utility. We know that there has been
considerable growth in electrical users in the area now served by
Minnesota Valley within the city limits of Shakopee. As a matter
of fact the growth of Minnesota Valley's customers within the
City has been increasing at twice the rate of Minnesota Valley's
growth elsewhere. While growth patterns increase and decrease
based on considerations of the economy and the availability of
other public utilities such as city sewer and water, there can be
little doubt that over the long term, the eastern portion of the
City will continue its growth.
It is therefore apparent that the longer we wait to make
this acquisition the more the acquisition will cost us. It is
the desire of the Utilities Commission to proceed with this
acquisition as expeditiously as possible. The time to proceed
with this acquisition and fulfill the long term policy of the
City of Shakopee is now.
We would appreciate the City's early consideration and
passage of the attached resolution.
RESOLUTION NO .
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF THAT PORTION OF
THE ELECTRIC SERVICE AREA OF MINNESOTA
VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
WHEREAS, it has been the policy of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee for the past decade to have all electrical users
within the city limits of Shakopee served by the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota law has authorized the acquisition by
municipalities of the electric service area operated by electric
cooperatives and located within that municipality's corporate
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee has
determined that in order to further the City's goals to
(a) provide electric utility services to all of the
residents of Shakopee,
(b) lower the electric rates of those Shakopee
residents presently served by Minnesota Valley Electric
Cooperative and ultimately provide uniform electric
rates throughout the City of Shakopee,
(c) attract new residents to the City in those areas
presently served by Minnesota Valley Electric
Cooperative by reason of such lower rates,
(d) to provide a broader economic base to absorb the
fixed overhead and administrative costs of the City
electric utility system, and
(e) share among all Shakopee residents the right and
obligation to contribute to the financial stability and
welfare of the City's municipal government and
municipal utilities throuah enhanced revenues resulting
from the sale of electric energy and the consequent
increased ability of the utilities to support City
functions,
the acquisition of the service area of the Minnesota Valley
Electric Cooperative located within the City of Shakopee is
necessary for the furtherance of these and other public
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has
recommended said acquisition to the City Council of the City of
Shakopee;
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the City Council of the City
of Shakopee as follows:
1 . That the acquisition of the service area currently
operated by the Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative and located
within the municipal boundaries of the City of Shakopee is hereby
in all respects approved.
2. That the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission and
appropriate staff and consultants be and hereby are directed to
proceed with a filing of the appropriate petition before the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to effectuate and finalize
such acquisition.
Adopted at the regular session of the
City Council of the City of Shakopee on the day
of April. 1989.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
by:
Its Mayor
ATTESTED TO BY:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Kress and Monroe
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 18, 1989
Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding
1] Re-convene at 7:00 P.M.
21 Recess for H.R.A. Meeting
31 Re-convene
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
51 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an
asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
so requests, in which event the item will be removed from
the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence
on the agenda. )
7] Resolutions of Appreciation to Resigning Employees:
a] Res. No. 3087, Appreciation to Coralee Hullander
b] Res. No. 3088, Appreciation to Earl Fleck - on table
c] Res. No. 3089, Appreciation to Tom Brownell - on table
81 Communications:
*a] Greg Johnson, Hygenic Service Systems, Inc. re:
appearing on Council agenda
b] Eugene Pearson re: new sidewalk
c] Gayden Carruth, Shakopee Public Schools re: joint
property tax analysis study
d] William Laing, Marquette Bank Shakopee re: Damile Inc.
Beer License - tabled 7/18/89
9] 7:00 P.M. Continuation of Public Hearings on the proposed
special assessments for the Downtown Streetscape Phase
I, Parts 1 and 2, Project No. 1987-2 - Resolution No.
3071
10] Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission:
a] Planning Commission Education and Procedures
b] Amendments to the City Code Providing Exclusion for Lot
Width and Area Requirements for Buildings Constructed
with Party Walls
TENTATIVE AGENDA
July 18, 1989
Page -2-
11] Reports From Staff:
a] Roadway Improvements in Killarney Hills - Res. No. 3059
*b] Danny's Construction Zoning Violations
c] Purchase of Signs to Notify the Public of City Dog
Walking Regulations
*d] Community Development Director Vacancy
e] City Administrator Contract/Benefits
f] Delinquent Report and Payments on the Local Lodging Tax
g] 12th Avenue Right-of-Way
h] Approve Bills in Amount of $644,901.67
*i] Application for Temporary 3.2 Beer License by Jaycees
*j] Application for Temporary 3.2 Beer License by St. Mark's
*k] Application for Liquor Licenses by Corp-Tool, Inc.
1] Police Chief Hiring Process
12] Resolutions and Ordinances:
a] Res. No. 3086, Approving Plans & Specs and Ordering Ad
for Bids for Lions Park Pond, 1989-11
b] Res. No. 3081, Setting Proposed Maximum 1989 Tax Levy,
Collectible in 1990
c] Res. No. 3082, Consenting To The Levy of A Special Tax
by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
d] Res. No. 3083, Directing the County Auditor Not to Levy
A Tax for Debt Service for Selected Bond Issues
*e] Res. No. 3084, A Res. of Special Commendation to Jim
Karkanen
*f] Res. No. 3085, A Res. of Special Commendation to John
DuBois
131 Other Business:
a]
b]
c]
141 Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
TENTATIVE AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Special Session July 18, 1989
Chairman Gary Scott presiding
1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2. Accept the Special Meeting Call
3 . Shakopee Valley Motel Tax Increment Financing Project
4. Other Business
a.
b.
5. Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
Executive Director
4#3
MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Shakopee Valley Motel Tax Increment Financing Project
DATE: July 12, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
Mr. Wallace Bakken has formally requested to appear before the
Shakopee City Council/HRA to discuss reviving a portion of the
old tax increment agreement between the BRA and Shakopee Valley
Square Properties in an effort to secure $100,000 in financing
from the bonds that were sold in conjunction with the originally
proposed project. (See attachment #1) The BRA should discuss
whether they are interested in pursuing negotiations with Mr.
Bakken on this matter.
BACKGROUND-
In 1986 the Shakopee HRA entered into a developers agreement with
Shakopee Square Properties for various improvements to the
Shakopee Valley Motel. The originally approved agreement
included a motel expansion in the amount of $1.2 million, a
restaurant to be constructed with a minimum value of $440, 000 and
a camp and recreation facility to be constructed with a value of
$500,000 or more. According to the developers agreements once
all of these improvements were made the BRA would then give
$330,000 to Mr. Bakken to assist in the development of the
property. The HRA sold $500,000 in tax increment bonds in 1986
to finance this project.
In September of 1987 the Shakopee BRA gave concept approval to
convey $100,000 to Mr. Wallace Bakken for the Shakopee Valley
Square Project. The $100, 000 conveyance was for work that would
be completed in conjunction with the Jellystone Park Campground.
The County Assessor at that time estimated that the Jellystone
Park Campground would have a market value of $855,600. If the
Jellystone Park Campground were completed as of January 2, 1988
there would have been a maximum potential total captured tax
increment of $23,830.00 for the next year and somewhat similar
amounts in each subsequent year.
On October 14, 1987 the Shakopee BRA moved to approve the amended
developers agreement between Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and the Shakopee Valley Square Properties. The amended
development agreement provided for the disbursement of $100,000
to Mr. Bakken providing that he complete the Jellystone Park
Campground by January 2, 1988 and providing the campground would
have a minimum market value of $855,600.
On November 15, 1988 the Shakopee BRA approved Resolution No. 88-
7 terminating the amended and restated contract for private
development by and between the HRA and Shakopee Valley Square
Properties, and terminating the assessment agreement and
assessors certification by and between the BRA and Shakopee
Valley Square Properties after having found the developer in
default of the Developers Agreement.
On November 15, 1988 several Commissioners indicated to Mr.
Bakken that they would be interested in taking another look at
his project when Mr. Bakken had his financing in order.
If the Shakopee BRA wishes to offer assistance to Mr. Bakken for
the campground improvements that have been completed at this
time, staff would recommend that the appropriate City officials
be directed to meet with our Bond Counsel to determine the
legality of this issue. Staff would also like to point out that
approximately $300,000 of the bonds that were originally sold for
Mr. Bakken's project have been consumed by the MEBCO Project.
City Council should discuss this issue in detail and direct staff
accordingly.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Direct staff to work with Mr. Bakken and the City's Bond
Counsel and Financial Advisor to determine if assistance can
be given to Mr. Bakken for improvements that have been made
in conjunction with the campground.
2. Deny Mr. Bakken's request for $100, 000 of tax increment
money.
3 . Table action on this issue pending further information from
staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Direct staff to work with Mr. Bakken and the City's Bond Counsel
and Financial Advisor to determine if assistance can be given to
Mr. Bakken for improvements that have been made in conjunction
with the campground.
Attachment #1
Jellystone Camp Resort
1251 1st Ave E.
Shakopee, MN 55379
July 28, 1989
Dennis Kraft
Acting City Administrator
City Offices
129 First Avenue East
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr . Kraft:
I have continued to work within my tax increment district to
meet the requirements of the City of Shakopee and the ARA for
funding . I plan to make substantial improvements which were part
of our original tax increment financing agreement.
I have secured financing through Investors Savings Bank and
anticipate closing July 5, 1989.
In light of this financing agreement I wish to begin
negotiations with the City and/or NRA to revive a portion of the
old agreement or reach a new agreement to secure funds from bonds
already sold. The old agreement was for$100,000.00 of tax
increment money.
Please place this matter on the City Council's agenda for
July 11, 1989. I will appear and answer any questions you have
regarding this proposal.
Sincerely,
Wallace Bakken
RESOLUTION NO. 3087 • a
A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CORALEE HOLLANDER
WHEREAS, Coralee Hullander has served the City of Shakopee
as Building Department Secretary for nearly eight years beginning
August 24, 1981; and
WHEREAS, during her employment, Coralee has taken her
responsibilities seriously and performed them in a professional
manner at all times; and
WHEREAS, Coralee has represented the City of Shakopee well
by serving the general public in a most cheerful and
conscientious manner; and
WHEREAS, Coralee has always been willing and ready to assist
her fellow employees when they asked for her help.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Shakopee City
Council does hereby extend a token of thanks and appreciation to
Coralee Hullander for her dedication and hard work during her
employment with the City of Shakopee and wishes her well in her
future endeavors.
Adopted in Adjourned Regular Session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 18th day of July,
1989 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1989.
City Attorney
RESOLUTION # 3088
A Resolution of Appreciation to Earl Fleck For Outstanding Service and
Leadership to the City of Shakopee
On July 14, 1976 Earl Fleck became a police officer of the City of
Shakopee and was especially charged with certain responsibilities as a
liaison officer between the police and the law enforcement officials of the
County and of the school systems; and
From the outset he diligently fulfilled all the responsibilities and
duties as expected of him and over and above his duties he enlarged the scope
of his employment in dealing with troubled people with complex issues
especially in the field of sex and domestic abuse.
During all of his employment with the City, which unfortunately will be
terminated with his resignation effective July 31, 1989, Mr. Fleck has gained
experience and has become a nationally recognized authority in his field of
expertise.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the Shakopee City Council, on:, behalf of all
the citizens and residents of the City of Shakopee and on its behalf, hereby
publicly expresses the deep gratitude and appreciation of all to Earl Fleck for
his years of dedicated service; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That this resolution of appreciation be spread upon
and become part of the permanent minutes of the Shakopee City Council, and that
a signed copy hereof be presented to Earl Fleck as a small but visible token
of the City's deep gratitude and appreciation for his years of dedicated service
well-done. - w.
Passed in session 'of the Shakopee City Council held this _ day
of July, 1989.
ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Prepared and approved as Co farm
this 18th da of July, 1989
City Clerk
CIFY Attorney
RESOLUTION # 3089
A Resolution of Appreciation to Thomas G. Brownell For Outstanding and Dedicated
Service as Shakopee's Chief Law Enforcement Officer
Thomas G. Brownell was named Shakopee's Chief of Police effective June 4,
1979 and has served the City and its residents well and with distinction and
will continue to do so until his resignation becomes effective on July 21, 1989.
Chief Brownell was in Shakopee when Canterbury Downs opened and was
actively engaged in integrating the track with the City's Police Department as
well as with the County's law enforcement agency and was also very active in
helping to build Canterbury's in-house security staff and has been a long-time
member of the Minnesota Chief of Police Association and in 1986 he served as its
president.
Always vigilant in building up and supporting training and standards for
police officers, he has served with distinction for the past five years as a
member of the Police Officers Standard and Training Board and during the last
four years served a Vice-Chairman.
The countless hours of service so generously and ably rendered and his
inestimable value, not only to the City of Shakopee but also to the State of
Minnesota and its inhabitants, and his dedication has constantly demonstrated
his ability as an outstanding leader in law enforcement officials.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL on behalf of all
the citizens and residents of Shakopee and on their own behalf that they do hereby
express the gratitude and appreciation to Thomas G. Brownell for his years of
meritorious and dedicated service and leadership; and /
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That this resolution of appreciation be spread upon
and become a part of. the minutes of the Shakopee City Council and that a signed
copy hereof be presented to Chief Thomas G. Brownell as a tangible expression
of the City's deep and lasting gratitude .
Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council held this
day of July, 1989.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form
this 18th day of July, 1989
City Attorney
l'Willp m CONSEN g0.,
Hss Hygenic Service Systems, Inc.
July 7, 1989
Mr. Dennis Kraft
Shakopee City Hall
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Kraft,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I have elected
not to appear on the City Council agenda at the July 18, 1989
meeting. My site selection process has identified other sites
that at this time are more suitable to my needs.
I appreciate your efforts on my behalf to arrange this appearance
and would hope that should future circumstance warrant the con-
tinuation of our discussions that that opportunity would be
available.
Thank you again for your time and effort.
Sincerely,
HYG�ENIC SE CE SYSTEMS, INC.
U/
Greg Johnson, President
GJ:bkk
Recommended Action: j
Move to acknowledge receipt of a letter dated July 7, 1989 from
Hygenic Service Systems, Inc. regarding the decision not to appear on the
City Council agenda on July 18, 1989.
P.O. Box 4128 . 850 N. Hamline . SC Paul, MN 55104 . 1612) 641-1480
t\
Pearson Florists, Inc.
JJ - GREENHOUSE DIVISION RETAIL STORES
6380 W.190th St. 112 Sommere a St. 112 W.Main
Jordan,Minneaota 55352 Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 New Prague,Minnesota 56071
612.492-2113 612.45-4344 612-7584656
'RECEIVED
Shakopee City Council July 10,19$9
129 East 1st Ave. JUL ! = 1989
Shakopee,Minn. 55379 ryry }+
Re: Streetscape Assessment �i Y C, JfijfN
AO EEE _ - --
Dear Council members: -
I wish to have a credit for my nearly new sidewalk which
was redone with the Streetscape project.
I would suggest a fifteen-year credit against a twenty-year
life of a sidewalk.
cerely,
Eug a V. earso�
Pre ident
EVP:ld
8b
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City EngineeeDiti-le/
SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Assessment - Gene Pearson
DATE: July 13 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Staff has received correspondence from Mr . Eugene Pearson of
Pearson ' s Florist, Inc . regarding his request to adjust the
proposed assessment for his property at 112 Sommerville Street.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a letter from Mr . Pearson requesting that his
assessment for the Downtown Project be adjusted for the
relatively new sidewalk abutting his property that was replaced
as part of the Downtown Project.
Apparently , the sidewalk abutting Mr . Pearson ' s property on
Sommerville Street had been newly constructed within the last 5
years. This fact is provided by Mr. Pearson and at this point in
time there is no way City staff can verify that fact. The
existing sidewalk was removed and replaced as part of the
Downtown Project.
On past projects, I believe the City Council has issued credits
for property owners when they have had new sidewalk or new curb &
gutter replaced as part of street reconstruction.
The cost to remove and replace the sidewalk along Mr. Pearson' s
property was $1 , 420 .00 for a 5 foot wide sidewalk along his
entire 142 foot frontage (he has already received the credit for
oversizing the sidewalk) . Of this $1 ,420 .00 , only 25% was
assessed as part of the reconstruction. Therefore, Mr. Pearson' s
assessment for the new sidewalk was $355.00 .
According to the City of Shakopee Design Standards, sidewalk has
a normal design life of 20 years. Mr. Pearson is requesting a 15
year credit since the sidewalk was only 5 years old at the time
of replacement or a 75% credit. The credit he is requesting
would be 75% of $355 .00 or $266 .00 .
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Give Mr . Pearson a $266 .00 credit for the relatively new
sidewalk that was replaced as part of the Downtown
Streetscape Project.
2. Direct staff to calculate some other credit.
3 . Do not give any credits.
ri
i
RECONNENDATION:
Council must decide whether or not the request should be
approved. Staff has no way of verifying whether or not the
sidewalk was only 5 years old at the time of replacing. Council
has issued similar credits on past projects.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Determine what, if any credit should be given to Mr. Pearson for
replacing his sidewalk as part of the Downtown Streetscape
Project and direct staff to revise his total assessment
accordingly.
DH/pmp
PEARSON
Shakopee Public Schools
Independent School District No. 720
District Office
Joan Lynch,Chair 505 S. Holmes Street
Suzanne van trout,vice Chair Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
James Sorensen.Clens (612)445-4884
Janet Wendt.Treasurer
Jane Carlson.Director
James O'Brien.Director Gayden F.Carruth,Ph.D..Superintendent of Schools
Steven Johnson,Director Virgil s.Mears,Assistant Superintendent of Schools
July 12, 1989
Mr. Dennis Kraft
Acting City Administrator
129 1st Avenue East
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Kraft:
On July 10, the Shakopee Board of Education voted to not participate in
the Joint Property Tax Analysis Study because severe financial constraints
preclude our being able to pay for our share.
i
Needless to say, the Board is very committed to the study concept. Probably
never more than now is this study needed by our respective governing bodies.
If you are aware of other possibilities for completing our joint study,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Our interest in conducting the
study will remain very high.
Sincerely,
7!�O� J
Gayden F. Carruth
Superintendent of Schools
GFC:cb
A Tobacco-Free School District An Equal opportunity Employer
V � g �
129 South Holmes
Shakopee,MN 55379
1612)"5-6300
July 14, 1989
Judy Cox
JUL )
City of Shakopee 1939
129 East 1st
Avenue CfTYQr
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Damile, Inc.
d/b/a The Shenandoah Ballroom
Dear Ms. Cox:
I am writing to advise the City of Shakopee that the Marquette
Bank (formerly First National Bank of Shakopee) acquired
Shenandoah Ballroom property through foreclosure on April 20,
1989. Attached is a copy of the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale,
recorded in Scott County on April 20, 1989.
Gene Mielke and John Lenberg have made arrangements with our bank
to operate the ballroom until a buyer can be located. If a sale
is not consummated by October 15, 1989, it is the bank' s
intention to pay all delinquent taxes and the second half tax
obligation.
It is our understanding that this application meets the city code
requirements; therefore, we respectfully request that you approve
the license application for Damile, Inc.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincer
Wi >. A- L g
President
WAL/sr
JASPERS, MORIARTY AND WALDURG, P.A. r i
ATTORNEYSANDGOUNSEUDRSATIAW
Zoe SCOTT STREET
SHAKOPEE.MINNESOTA 55379
JASPERS
(612)445-2817
DENNIS ENIS
MORARIY HEllEPWINEOFFICE
STEPHEN W.-AURG (
LEE RNAN NEWPRAGDEOFFIGE
USA&HINIRER
(el E)vaaroA�A
DAVID G.DROWN April 27, 1989
First National Bank of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: FIRST NATIONAL BANK -vs- DAMILE, INC.
Gentlemen:
Please find enclosed our bill for services rendered regarding the
above matter. I have also enclosed a copy of the recorded Sheriff's
Certificate of Sale.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
JASPERS,
Le< �pM¢,ORR,IIARTY AND WALBURG, P.A.
ckerman
Attorney at Law
LV: jt
Enc .
� r<
and did strike all and sell the same te_ Tile First National..Bank.of Shakopee__.. ............—
. ........... ..................... ..............
for the sum.. af..$49.2.:zaa..55....
said purehaser being the highest- bidder and said setin, being lite highest and best bidoffered
therefor; and that said sale._._was in all respects openly, honestly, fairly, and lawfully conducted,
and the time allowed by law for redemption by the mortgagor..__, , .—-lts.......................... pepsoaal
iepresentatives or assigns is _six.j.6.). - - months from the date of said sale.
]U 4reySlitrIOnP NbCVCQf, I have hereunto set my hand this- 20th day
of Apri-l- ......... 19... ......
In Presence of WILLIAM J. NEVIN
9s CLniff of /�°Ott --co".ty, Minn.
Depuil,
btate of fflinneg;ota'
County of. . Scott On this ._.20th day of April
19._89., before vic personally appeared.,.....
to me
known to be the.... Deputy_.._....._....Sheriff of said County, and the person fleseribed in and aho earutd
the forrgaing instrurnent, and acknowledged that he e,,-,.ted the sav,, as A free act and dyed a. such
—Deputy— Sheriff. - /
222/w - -
Nottiry Public, of 5-1
t.
Aly routmisxirr, rpi,es
6tate of fffinn"Ota'
County ..........................
being first duly swan, on outh, says: that he knows the facts relating to the military service status of
--1 - - ................ ....... .............I I . - 1.
who was the Owner of the mortgaged premises described in the foregoing Sheriff's .1fortgaffe foreclosure
sale thereof; that said_.......---..............
ww, in the military or naval service of the United States at the time
of said sale, or daring the three,inuaths,preceding such sale, as appears from lite following facts,....._..._.
Subscribed and Swam to Before Ate this -
day of 19,
Notary Public, County, Atin".
Aly '.ami.i.sioa "pires,
9
z
0 GO
E, 0
0 r:i
F 'z W Eli
OG
0 0 2 N
44
0 W
14 U) 0
g-
1 did' ul "'d lloliw specified, to-a-it: otXh. ,Iobby.of tht-ScQtt County
Jail.Building, located at-the corner of-5th.and-Rolmes Streets...
in the 'City of Shakopee County of Scott . State of
jfi..esol., on the 20th day of April
' 19..&9., al.....10.-DO.
o ehxA
, A.X., offer for dr and .11 at Public ourtiol, to the highest and best bidder . , the tract Of
land lying and being in the County of Scott State of Afinnesota,
desvribed .s follows, to-wit:
The North 340.34 feet of the West 639.85 feet of the East 705.85 feet of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE} of SWC) of Section 5, Township
115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota.
Now known as: Lot i, Block 1, Prahmcoll First Addition.
Nie Transfer entered
1;21222�day of 4&1, 1971,
Auditor
ditar'
By
--26L
�Puty
011, Ill. AFFIDAVIT OF VACANCY
6tate of Ainnegota, j
County of
duly salorn, a,, walk says; that Ott the. ..._._._.day of. _.. _. ...._. 19......_,
A, resat upon. the hunt and premiers deslribed in the printed uutire of uun'tgage foreclosure sale hereto
attached for the purpose of screin;s said notice on the, persons in pasvrasinn thereof; and that on said date,
and for.__ ._._.._.._ _. _._..._ .prior thereto, alt said land
wax and had Leen wholly varrn]t unit unoccupied.
S'ubsersbed and sRH,.... to before ate this .....__day of..._ ly.... ..
.Tutu y Public, _ .. _. _. _rounty, Minn.
.Ily ro,ua i.ssior erpires' 19 _..
1%. AFFIDAVIT OF COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
6tate of f$finnegota,
ss.
County of- Scott _ _ _.__ ,Lee Vickerman
Mail duly soar.., wr ,,ah xays; that he is __. the attorney.... foreclosing the 7nortgage
described in the printed ratite of wortgage foreclosure sale hereto attached; that the following is a
detailed bill of the rash <uul di..brusernnds of said forrrlosarr. and that the sante have been absolutely
and unconditio..../ly laud or i...urrcd therois,
.4ttoruejs fees for forceb,.viag salt mortgage
Trintcr'x fee for pa blishing rroliec of sal'! - - - - - - $p._...... 188.70_.
d'olary fees far ___.. affldaarts y..
...._...._...._.....__.......
Reordina power of attorney to foreclose
Fees for serving notice of sale our occupants - - - - - - $__.._..._60.80....
.Shwdff's fee for ]nakin.g foreclosure sale - - - - - - - sP_.._.__. .1.5.00......
Nees for_. ....___... . _.......__.. . . .,jw reeordntg t',rlulirulc - - It .. ..10.00_..
Total rusts sad Disburser......is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,8.._..3,639..50.....
Subscribed and sworn to before uw this
day of _... 19ba/
4Leickers '^ � --�Julle F.TMIs
Nat ry Public, ... County, ,Ilinn. NatMY6cautlk_Mlnnsso4
Jfy cominissuon expires . .. , 19. 4.vr>t MY Courlm Fla a1Q
P 4YI
V. SHERIFF'S CERTIFICATE. OF SALE
6tate of Ainnegota, 1
u.
County of_.___Scott...__... __... .. _.
1, _.._William_J.. Nevin _. _. _._:Sheriff of the County of SCOrt____.
State of dlinnesota, do hrrrby certify; that pursuant to the printed .Votiee of Mortgage Foreclosure awls
hereto attached and the Imneer of sale contained in that certain nmrtgagc therein described, to-wit: that
certain ntartgage,dated the 16th, day of.. April_._.. - . ._, 19_.8..7 eseeutsd by
__John A. Lenberg..and Eugene-D,,,, Mielke_ on behalf ofDamile,._Inc.s,,,, ,
as rnortgagur to . .. The Firsr NatiPna1,_Bank of,_$hakopee ____,.
...............
.. _....
as mortgagee _,
filed for record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said Scour _. . ..__...
County, Minnesota,on the.. 16th _. . .._ .day of .._April ........... . 19_07.,_, and recorded
.as /Jacumenl No. _232938.__. . _... _.......__.... .. ...
Under lLwer at sone in 0969 eaidom Norm No. 67-M ha.,,.sw Uaa„o„ aseo
1. NOTICE OF SALE Il. AFFIDAVIT OF PU ✓ 'CATION n
6tate of ;ffiinnegota,
�.a.
NrORE LOSURE SALE County of. SCOTT.
I'ORGCLOSURC SAL[
Notion is Ilercby Given,"Ihat default
has recumd in the conditions of that STAN-ROLFSRDD - - - -- ..being duty sworn,on oath says:
eama, mongago dald the 16th day of Thu(henow is.anddurm aa/(`{t�n/i��•//tfpy{{Q�,,/t�.rr' t¢paka higgge editor and ublisher
April, 1997, ezamld by John A. Ica- ifth,,nesequipe,krownanylfARt1f 61.` �f 1..4 CAT sN CM J....... _..p.. ,and
berg ad Iaigane U. Miclkc on behalf of has fall knowledge of the facts hereinafter satd
Wrote, Ine. as malgabor to first Na-
timed Bank M ShakopW as mortgagee, (1) TlatsaidneruspupeaispatitdintheEnCllsh lmrguageinnewsp=p16�� ,malandin
filed for monad in the o01ee of the CUunty t»loon and sheet/arm e..ioalent in printed apace a at least 13N.L4 are inches;
Recorder,in and fa[be(:manly of Scall. (2) Tunis.alarwspaPer,i/o weekly.be dvaributedat leustinceeoch wrekf.,W weeks
-a bye.....if daily..1lema(an•dayacath week;but inanyweek in which.legal
and Slate of Mammia,en the I611h day holiday is included.not more than f...costes of a daily paper are necessary;
of April, 1'917, at 12:30 o'clock Y.M., (3/ That said newspaper has 25 percent. i/published more often than weekly,or 50
and recorded as Daounnent No. 232938 percent,if a weekly.of its nems columns driawd to news of local interest to the
the migool principal amount accused by 'air aniq who 1,it purpnts( —.wand itmay contain ge...adnrws.tvnnnumt,
said mortgage being S450 )DU.W; (bat and n isrellmry. but out wh.Uy duplic.le any usher publication,or be made up
an nelion or proceedings him Ioneen iRcli- tvelY o/puents,plate matter,and odtwrtsements;
Imdattaw to mower[be hi se curd !4/ ThatsuiJ newspaperiscirculatedin and rear the municipality which itpurp.a.to
sena, has of least 500 copies regularly delioenrd to payum subscribers, has an
by said moagage, or any pan thereof, aacaagcof at least 75%ofts wealcireolaumn curren NYpuider nomare than three
]fiat at[ pre-foreclmum notice rcquile- months in arrears,and has entry as seenudMass matter in its local pasaf rs.
meals and madilions have been coon. 85; The,said newspaper has its knoten office of issue in the County of
Mid with; SCOTT ._.._ _ __.___ _. m which lies, in whole or in part, the
tied there is dm and claimed Io be , nwnpatly wh;ch she newspaµv pail..., to serve:
duo upon said mongage,including imcr- 151 That said are simper a ropy of each issue immediately with the Slate Nis-
hmenl S,am•ly;
ea mdse here.f,lh....of$481.922.29 (Ota) Be mad,, available at single or subscription ptcos to any Person. corp moan,
DOI3ARS,am that pormanl loth.power partnership or other unincorporated assucialwn reyuestng the newspaper and
of sale therein untanned.said mortgage making the applicable Payment.
will M foredead and the Iran of Ind (7) 7) said newspaper has coonplied with all the faregoing rondaiww of this mil,
lying and being in [be County of Scott, division for at least one year last past
State of Minnesota, described as fol- (8l Thot said newspaper has filed wah the Secr,,ary of Slate of Minnesota prior to
lows, Io-wit: January/,afraid Yraq an af(idmnt in(hr(nn pn•srri6n.l by the Secrearyaf5(ate
"the Nath 34RM fact of the West and agreed by the publisher or managing of/icer and soman to before a Notary
639.85 feel of Ih.6ua 705.85 Rel of Ile public staling that the newspaper is a legal nrmspaper.
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest That the printed Notice of Mortgage Furechemae Sale hereto attached as a part
Qttmer(NEI/4 of SW 1/4)of Suaion 5, /..•nafuaa cul from the columnsojimidnewspaper;uaspublished therein in the English
'Pownship 115,Range 22,Seat[County, Language an,each creek finetght....esaueweeks;that it was first sopublishedon the
Mi...sca. .. 2nd ._ . day./..MARCH _. _.. ._.. , 1589-.and thereafter
Now known as: Lot 1, Block 1, - - -
emlunedlRnlAddition. on ..THUR.SDAYS. . _ o/each week to and including the. 6th ... . day
will be add by [he sheriff of said
.my at public auction an me 20th day o/ APRIL ,. /�9 d that the following is a cap,,of the I..,
of April. 1989,to 10:00 o'clo:*A.M.,in am alphabet which is arkno..ledg, ay the size and kind of type used in ihep'i ted
,be lobby of the Scold County Jail Bldg., mbiwaims,of said malice.
located at the comer of 5th & Holmes able *kIMwzyzShale in the Gtr er Shakopee in saidcounty ad slate, to pay the debt then _secured by sad .,engage and maes, if any on smut pemiw ad the tuts and .Subsrabed•mrd sworn r a rhif J71
nameng dxncattorney's feo, essaama Jim-
name;
e
sucho ed coat egos. axes, if any andU,ILJ
such .,her nae and disbursements by al- Nut”, P.61" f '� .County. ALunewm
loved by law. 'IIu:time allowed by law
for redemption by the mortgagor, its My Ciwasaroa Estema. . F%1 I . 19.
pusoml rcpirsenativu or assigns issix
_-- -
(6) months from the date of slid sola _.-.
Dowd from
74, 1989 IAUOiE.,.::,.....:.NN }
JASPERS, MORIARTY & r narunrwxc.o'n:m air.
WALBURG, P.A iJ SrpTTGOU«NN
BY: Ise Vlckerman wmaxtasaossv,ats a�am
Attorney fa Mongagm ,I;IDAVIT OF SERVICE ON OCCUPANT
206 Scott Street
Shakopee,MN SS379
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF sola,
SIIAKOPEE �si,
Mong.jam
(published in the Shakopee Valleyy Ncea
]hursdays,March 2,9,16,23,30,April
6, 198% N.6385)
_._. ._. ._ ]wing duly swam,
on oath saps; that a. the __. _._.. __AAAA__.day of _AAAA. AAAA .. .__, 19 AAAA,
fie moan/ upon It,, haul and Premises desertbeil in the printed notiec of jurcclostu'c sale hcrcta attached for
the purpose of seretn? .said nfatire apnn all pm,-sans in pow.usiort theecof; that on said date, and for
_ AAAA loaar thereto .
and o.ur .lhm•ue in possession of.!it land; and that on said day hp su crrl.send notice ort..._. . ..... .
said person . . _ . .._ _.. .......
by handing to gyral leaving with
.... .... ... ..... ._ _._.. . AAAA___.. __.__.._._ _
a true and corrm t coley thereof.
&nbsmnbrd and sumrn 1. before rte this.. ..._.. . __.. day of_.. _. __... .._., 1..9
Notary Public, ...__ _-__ _. . _._AAAA AAAA. ..Cuwrety, Afton.
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrati a s'stant and
Dave Hutton, City Engine
RE: Continued Downtown Assessme lc Hearing
DATE: July 11, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
On June 13, 1989 the City Council held an assessment hearing for
the Downtown Streetscape Project #1987-2. Following staff's
presentation and comments from the audience, City Council decided
to continue the public hearing to July 18, 1989. The primary
purpose for continuing the public hearing was to allow affected
property owners within the project area to be informed of a
proposed change in the assessment policy relating to the
deferment of residential assessments.
BACKGROUND:
On June 13, 1989 the City Engineer gave a thorough presentation
on how the assessments for the downtown project were determined.
At that time, staff also responded to questions raised by
property owners from the project area. After much discussion, it
was suggested by City Council to reevaluate a previously set
policy which would have deferred residential property without
interest until such time that the property was converted to a
commercial use.
Shown in attachment #1 are the assessment policies that were
presented and subsequently adopted by City Council at the June
15, 1987 Council meeting. At that time, it was the intent of
City Council to defer the street rehabilitation assessments on
single family and two family residential properties within the
assessment district with no interest until the property was
converted to a commercial use. Rather than leaving this
deferment period open forever, staff added the ten year term
prior to the June 13, 1989 public hearing.
At subsequent meetings following the establishment of the
original assessment policies, City Council elected to grant a
credit to residential properties for the additional costs
associated with wider streets. All properties in the project
area were granted credits associated with the following items.
1. Credit associated with oversized sidewalk.
2. Credit associated with additional curb and gutter due to the
nodes.
At the time City Council selected to grant the aforementioned
credits, they should have discussed eliminating the deferment
policy. However, this was an over site that was made by staff
and City Council. Staff contends that it is not unreasonable to
either have the deferment policy or the credit policy but to have
both is counter productive to the City.
In response to the over site and unfair assessment advantage for
residential properties that has developed, staff has prepared
several alternatives for City Council to consider. At this time,
there are 18 residential properties in the downtown area that
were proposed to have their assessments deferred.
Staff has outlined a list of alternatives available for Council's
consideration:
1. Eliminate the deferment policy and maintain the additional
credits policy.
2. Maintain the deferment policy for a 10 year period (or a
lesser period) with the property owners paying interest on
the assessments during the deferment period and eliminate
the additional assessment credits that were granted to the
residential property owners.
3. Maintain the deferment policy for a 10 year period (or a
lesser period) with no interest paid by the property owners
during the deferment period and eliminate the assessment
credits that were granted to residential property owners.
4. Maintain the status quo.
The dollar amount attributable to the additional credit for
street oversizing for a typical 601x142' residential lot equates
to approximately $160.00. The annual interest that would be
payable by a residential property should Council continue to
maintain the deferment policy with the residential owners
responsible for the payment of the annual interest charge would
be approximately $263.00.
Since the residential property owners in the assessment area have
been told since the beginning of the project that residential
properties assessments would be deferred, staff is recommending
that the deferment policy be maintained for a ten year period or
until the property is converted to a commercial use whichever
comes first with interest accruing during the deferment period
and that the residential assessment credits be eliminated. The
adoption of such a policy would eliminate all cost differences
between the residential parcel as compared to a commercial parcel
with the exception of the ten year period deferment period.
Shown in attachment #2 is Resolution #3071 adopting the
assessments associated with the Downtown Streetscape Project #87-
2. Attachment #2 also includes the assessment role as presented
at the June 13, 1989 hearing. The resolution includes the credit
for residential properties for wider streets and the ten year
deferment provision. If City Council wishes to deviate from this
course of action it would be appropriate direct staff to modify
the resolution accordingly and submit it back to city Council for
final approval at the August 1, 1989 meeting.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Eliminate the deferment policy and maintain the credit
policy.
2. Maintain the deferment policy for a 10 year period (or a
lesser period) or until the property is converted to a
commercial use with the property owners paying interest on
the assessments during the deferment period and eliminate
the additional assessment credits that were granted to the
residential property owners.
3. Maintain the deferment policy for a 10 year period (or a
lesser period) with no interest paid by the property owners
during the deferment period and eliminate the assessment
credits that were granted to residential property owners.
4. Maintain the status quo.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #2.
ACTION REODESTED:
Direct staff to amend Resolution #3071 maintaining the deferment
policy for a 10 year period or until the property is converted to
a commercial use with the property owners paying interest on the
assessments during the deferment period and eliminating the
additional assessment credits that were granted to the
residential property owners and resubmit the amended resolution
to City Council for final approval at the August 1, 1989 meeting.
March 5, 1987 ATTACHMENT 1 /
Proposed
Assessment Policies
Downtown Streetscape Project
1. The assessment district should include all parcels bounded
by Atwood (both sides of the street) on the West, the North
side of Third Avenue on the South, Sommerville on the East
including the West side of Spencer abutting First Ave. on
the East and the alley alignment between First Avenue and
Levee Drive on the North. In addition, it includes parcels
on the West side of Atwood that have front footage on said
street.
2. The assessment policy shall use the shortest distance along
a street as the front footage.
3 . Each parcel shall receive a separate assessment.
4. City use and other parcels owned by non-profit entities
will be considered as commercial for assessment purposes
(consistent with other city assessment practices) •
5. Street Rehabilitation assessments on single family and two
family residential properties within the assessment district
shall be deferred with no interest until property is
converted to commercial use. These assessments shall be
paid for initially from tax-increment proceeds or other
funds until the conversion use occurs.
6. Any city parking lot shall not be assessed but the cost for
those areas shall be paid for from tax-increment proceeds.
7. The 70% FF/30% square foot formula shall be utilized for
assessment purposes.
8. 25% of street rehabilitation project cost will be assessable
to the property owners.
9. The entire streetscape portion of the project cost shall be
paid for from tax-increment proceeds.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 3071
A Resolution Adopting Assessments
Downtown Streetscape Phase I, Parts 1 and 2
Project No. 1987-2
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and
passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of:
Downtown Streetscape Project Phase I, Parts 1 and 2
Includes the following streets:
2nd Avenue, from Sommerville to Atwood
Atwood Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
Fuller Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
Holmes Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
Lewis Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
Sommerville Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
By street lighting, sidewalk, curb and gutter , pavement,
sanitary sewers, watermain, storm sewers , and miscellaneous
streetscape items and appurtenances within those project
limits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That such proposed assessment together with any
amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein
included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed
improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it.
2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first
installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in
January , 1990 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 7 .75
percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added
the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this
resolution until December 31 , 1990 , and to each subsequent
installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on
all unpaid installments .
3 . The owner of any property so assessed may , at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor ,
may pay the whole of the assessment on such property , with
interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer,
except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment
is paid within thirty ( 30 ) days from the adoption of this
� I
resolution ; he may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the
installment and interest in process of collection on the current
tax list, and he may pay the remaining principal balance of the
assessment to the City Treasurer.
4 . The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to
this assessment in his office and shall certify annually to the
County Auditor on or before October 10th of each year the total
amount of installments and interest which are to become due in
the following year on the assessment on each parcel of land
included in the assessment roll.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1 . That such proposed assessments together with any
amendments for all those properties currently in use as
residential properties, shall be deferred without interest until
such time as those properties are converted to commercial uses.
The said deferred residential properties are marked "deferred" on
the aforementioned proposed assessment , a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. The deferred assessments will be subject to the same
conditions and interest rate as listed above in this resolution
except that the first installment is payable on the first Monday
in January of the year following the date the deferred
assessments cease.
3 . The assessment will be deferred a maximum of 10 years
or until the properties are converted to commercial use ,
whichever comes first.
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
T
ASSESSMENT TABLE
Page 1
I PID ! PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT
i
127-001130-0 ,American Oil Co. IN 100 ' of Lots 1 $3 ,298 .00 I
1 15001 W. 80th St./Suite 881 16&7 , Blk. 20 1 1
I IMpls. , MN 55437-5435 1 1 1
I i I I i
127-001135-0 ! Richard Stoks 1P.0. 1-3 ,Blk. 211 $4,471 .00 1
I !P .O. Box 65 !Lying N' rly of 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 !Ln Beg 110 .17 1 1
I I IS of NW Cor 1 1 1
I I 1SE to Pt 138.851 !
I I IS of NE Cor 3 1 1
I i
I i I i
127-001140-0 !Gary & Randolph Laurent !Lot 6 , Blk. 21 1 $1 ,939.00 1
1 1128 S. Fuller I I I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I !
127-001141-0 !Michael & Patricia Kikos !Lot 7 , Blk. 21 1 $1 ,784.00 i
1 1214 W. 1st Ave. i I I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 !
I I
127-001142-0 !Leo McGovern & Wife !E 3/4 of Lot 8 1 $1 ,338 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1218 W. 1st St. lBlk. 21 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
! !
127-001143-0 !Total Minnesota, Inc. !Lot 9 ,10 & W1/41 $4,362.00 1
I 1P.O. Box 500 !of 8 , Blk. 21 1 I
I !Denver, CO 80201 ! !
I ! !
127-001151-0 !Ann Golla IN 20 ' of E1/2 1 $989 .00 1
1 1640 McDevitt St. !of S 1/2 of Lot! I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 16 , Blk. 22 1 1
127-001152-0 !Steven & Brenda Olson IS 1/2 of Lots 1 $2 ,150 .00 1
1 17347 Coleen Circle 16&7 EX N 20 ' of ! I
I !Eden Prairie, MN 55346 IE 1/2 of S 1/2 1 1
I I !of Lot6 , Blk-22 ; I
I I I I !
127-001153-0 !Daniel Colich IN 1/2 of 6&7 Ex ! $1 ,061 .00 1
1 1124 W. 1st Ave. IN 27 .41of E 89 ' 1 I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 lBlk. 22 1 1
127-001154-0 !Arlo Lee IN 27 .4 ' of E89' ! $743 .00 I
1 16512 Creek Drive !of N 1/2 of Lot!
I !Edina , MN 55435 16&7, Blk. 22 1
I
127-001155-0 !Daniel Colich !Lot 8 , Blk. 22 1 $1 ,939 .00 !
1 1124 W. 1st Ave. I I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1
ASSESSMENT TABLE `
PAGE 2
1 ! ! ! !
PID i PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
!l27 1 i i 1
-001156-0 !Charles & Lola Hensing !Lot 9 Ex W 36 ' ; $1 ,949.00
1117 S. Fuller !of S 75 ' ,B1k.221 !
!Shakopee, MN 55379 i !
i i i i i
127-001157-0 !Charles & Lola Mensing !W 36 ' of S 75 ' 1 $1 ,774.00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1117 S. Fuller :of 9 & all of 1 i
1 !Shakopee, MN 55379 110 , Blk. 22 !
i i i i i
127-001164-0 !VFW Post 4046 Shakopee !S 10' of N 80 ' ! $612.00 1
! 1132 E. First 1& W 36 ' of N7011 !
! !Shakopee, MN 553T9 !of Lot 6 ,B1k.231 !
127-001165-0 !Bruce Bermel !S 39' of 6 & S ! $1 ,592.00 1
! 16320 Pheasant Court 123 ' of N 103 ' ! !
! !Edina, MN 55435 !of 6 & E 15' ! 1
i ! !of S 62' of 7, 1
! ! lBlk. 23 ! !
127-001166-0 !Joseph Topic Jr. !E 24' of N 70 ' ! $967 .00 1
1 !P.O. Box 317 !of 6 , Blk. 23 ! i
! !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001167-0 !VFW Post 4046 Shakopee !E 1/2 of Ex E ! $907 .00 1
1132 E. First 115' of S 62' !
1 !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of 7 , Blk. 23 1 !
127-001168-1 !Earl & Virginia Dressen 1W 1/2 of 7 , ! $969 .00 !
! 11529 W. 6th lBlk. 23 ! !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! ! !
127-001169-0 !Arnold Theis 1E 26 ' of 8 , ! $840 .00 !
! 1122 E. 1st lBlk. 23 ! !
!Shakopee, MN 55379 ! ! 1
! !
! i !
127-001170-0 ! Joseph & Monica Sullivan !W 1/2 & W4 ' of ! $1 ,260.00 !
! 15133 Dugan Plaza 1E1/2 of 8 & E !
!Edina , MN 55435 14-5/6 ' of 9 ! !
1 1 iBlk. 23 ! !
i
127-001171-0 !Bruce Garness & Wife !W 24' of E 28- ! $808.00 1
1 11197 VanBuren St. 15/6 ' of 9 , !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 IBlk. 23 ! 1
127-001172-0 Male Huber/King Sol.Lodge !W 31-1/6' of 9 1 $1 ,002 .00 1
!
11165 Jefferson lBlk. 23 ! 1
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! ! 1
! ! 1 1
ASSESSMENT TABLE T
: PAGE 3 1
I PID ! PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
i i ! !
127-0011T3-0 !Kevin & Vonda Hogan !W 38 1/210£ 10 1 $2 ,553 .00 1
i 13005 135th St. !Blk. 23 1
!Burnsville, MN 55337 ! :
127-001174-1 (Rueben Ruehle & Wife 1E 21 .5 of LOt10 ! $695.00 1
1 1108 E. First !Blk. 23 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I I i I I
127-001182-0 !Eugene Pearson !Lot 6 , Blk. 24 1 $1 ,939 .00 1
I !RR 1 Box 251 1 1 1
I !Jordan, MN 55352 1 1 1
I I I I
127-001183-0 !Steven & Warren Clay IE 27 ' & S 41 ' 1 $881 .00 1
1 1232 E 1st Avenue !of E 30 ' of 7 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN IBlk. 24 1 1
I I 1 I I
127-001184-0 !Motor Parts of Shakopee !W 1/2 & N 101 ' ! $1 ,064.00 1
1 1230 E. First Ave. !of W 3 ' of E ! I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 130 ' of 7 ,B1k.241 i
I
127-001185-0 !Shakopee Bowl, Inc. !Lot 8 , Blk. 24 1 $1 ,939 .00 1
1 1222 E. First Ave.
I !Shakopee, MN 55379
i
127-001186-0 !Richard Halver !Lot 9 , Blk. 24 1 $1 ,939 .00 1
1 1460 Great Plains Blvd. I I I
I (Chaska, Mn 55318 1 1 1
127-001188-0 !Terrence Hannan & Wife IN 26 ' of 10 1 $355.00 1
1 11116 Jackson St. 1Blk. 24 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
127-001189-0 !Wallace Perry IS 21 ' of N 47 ' 1 $287 .00 1
1 : 834 S. Lewis !of 10 , Blk. 24 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
' ' I I I
127-001190-0 !Roman Kopp Jr. :N 35.45 ' of ! $1 765.00 !
1 1202 N. Water Street IS 95 ' of 10 1 1
I !Northfield, MN 55057 IBlk. , 24 1 1
I I I I I
127-001191-0 !Wallace Kopisca IS 59 .55 ' of 1 $1 ,413 .00 I
1 113415 Marystown Rd. 110 , Blk. 24 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
! ! 1
127-001195-0 !Donald Sprague !Lot 6 , Blk. 25 1 $1 ,939.00 I
1 1338 E. 1st Avenue I I I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1
ASSESSMENT TABLE T
I : I PAGE 4 !
I PID : PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
! i i i
127-001196-0 !Donald Sprague !Lot 7, Blk. 25 : $1 ,939 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1338 E. 1st Avenue : 1
!Shakopee, MN 55379
i !
:2T-001197-0 IJoelle Sawvel !Lot 8 , Blk. 25 1 $1 ,784.00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1320 E. First Avenue
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001198-0 !Norman & Karoline Monroe !Lot 9 , Blk. 25 1 $1 ,939.00 1
: 1312 E. First Ave.
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001199-0 !David & Catherine Eckart ILot 10 , Blk. 251 $1 ,939.00 1
1 1300 E. First Avenue
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001128-0 :Hastings & D Railway !Lots 1-3 Ex N 1 $4,798.00 1
: 547 W Jackson Blvd.P.O.Box 62051P/0 2 & 3
: Chicago, IL 60680 :Blk. 20 1 !
127-001129-0 !Edward & Jeanette Gilles IP/O 2-5 Com NW 1 $4,580 .00 1
! 1126 S. Atwood lCor of Lot 1 E 1
!Shakopee, MN 55379 ion N line of !
! ! 11&2 85 to POB 1
1S 37 ' E 15' ! 1
! : :207 .13 ' N 80 ' 1
1 ! :W 216 .95 ,B1k.20 :
127-001129-1 :Cy' s Standard Service :S 42' of Lots 1 $2,166 .00 1
1312 W. First :6&7 , Blk. 20 : i
:Shakopee, HN 55379 I 1
! !
127-001134-0 !City of Shakopee !Part of Lots 1 $1 ,746 .00 1
1129 E. First Ave. 11-3 , Blk. 21 :
1 !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! i
127-001144-0 !Art Berens & Sons, Inc. :Lots 1 ,2 ,3 1 $9 ,498 .00 1
1123 W. 2nd :Blk. 22
:Shakopee, MN 55379
i
127-001145-0 !Art Berens & Sons, Inc. :5 102 ' of 4 : $2 ,299.00 :
1123 W. 2nd lBlk. 22 i i
!Shakopee, MN 55379 ! 1 ,
: i : :
127-001146-0 !Eugene Brown :N 32' of S 62' 1 $1 ,785 .00 1
11661 W 6th Ave. :of 5 , Blk. 22 1 !
:Shakopee, MN 55379 :
i
i
i
ASSESSMENT TABLE
PAGE 5 ;
I PID PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT
127-001147-0 !Joseph Topic Jr & Rita IS 1/2 of N 40 ' $1 ,330 .00 1 1
1405 E. 11th !of 4&5,Blk. 22 1 i
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001148-0 ;Stalar IN 20' of Lots 1 $1 ,338.00 1
1 1% Davies, Stanley 14&5 , Blk. 22 1 1
1 1927 S. Lewis I I I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
127-001149-0 !Mertz-Horeish, Inc. IS 30' of 5 1 $1 ,329.00 1
1140 S. Holmes !Blk. 22
:Shakopee, MN 55379
! ! I
127-001150-0 !William Daniels IN 40 ' of S 10211 $2,276 .00 1
I 14539 Heritage Hills CR !of 5 , Blk. 22 1
I !Bloomington, MN 55437 1 1
I I , i
127-001158-0 !First National Bank Shakopee !Lots 1 ,2,3 & 1 $10 ,021 .00 1
1 1129 S. Holmes !W 1/2 of S 1021 : 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of 4 , Blk. 23 1 1
I I
12T-001159-0 !William Wermerskirchen ILot 4&5 , Ex N 1 $4,528.00 1
1 1138 S Lewis 1401 , Blk. 23 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1
12T-001162-0 !Betti Lu Prow IN 40 ' of 4 & 1 $1 ,655.00 1
1 1126 S. Lewis IS 22 ' of N 40 '
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of 5 , Blk. 23 I I
I I I
127-001163-0 !Frances Topic IN 18' of 5 1 $1 ,217 .00 1
I 1407 E 11th :Blk. 23 1
I :Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I I I i i
127-001179-0 !Eugene & Esther Brown !Lot 3 ,4 & E 1 ' 1 $8 ,473 .00 1
1 11661 W. 6th Ave. !of 2 , Blk. 24 1 1
I !Shakopee , MN 55379 1 1 1
I I I
1 1
127-001180-0 !Darrel & Joyce Yohnke !Lot 5 Ex N : $1 ,996 .00 !
I 1148 Sommerville ! 64 1/2 , Blk. 24: 1
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I I I
127-001181 -0 !Audrey McGovern IN 11 1/2 ' of S ! $1 ,665.00 :
1 1125 W. 10th 179 ' & N 63' 1 i
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of 5 , Blk. 24 1 1
I I I I I
127-001192-0 !Bart Partners !Lots 1 ,2 ,3 1 $9 ,488 .00 I
1 14804 W. 60th St. IBlk. 25 1 I
I !Edina, MN 55424 1 1 '
ASSESSMENT TABLE T
PAGE 6 !
! PID i PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
i : ! i i
127-001226-0 !Ronald Scherer & Alice !Lot 10 Ex S 1 $2 ,719 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 11037 Bluff Avenue 124.51 , Blk. 28 1 !
:Shakopee, MN 555379 ! !
i i ! i i
2T-001227-0 !Douglas Culhane !S 24.5 ' of 10 1 $943 .00 1
! 12124 Bridge Spur Crossing 1Blk. 28 i
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001233-0 1NW Bell Telephone Co./Tax Mgr. 1S 12' of Lot 6 1 $671 .00 1
1100 S 19th St. , 51050 1& S 12' of E ! !
!Omaha, NE 68102 148' of 7 ,B1k.291 !
127-001234-0 INN Bell Telephone Co./Tax Mgr. 1N 130 ' of Lot6 1 $6 ,489 .00 1
1 : 100 S 19th St. , $1050 !& N 130 ' of E
!Omaha, NE 68102 148' of 7 ,B1k.291 i
127-001235-0 !NW Bell Telephone Co./Tax Mgr. 1W 12' of Lot 7 1 $5 ,522 .00 1
1100 S 19th St. , 51050 !Lot 8 & E 1/3 1 i
: 10maha, NE 68102 !of 9 Ex RR ! i
: 1Blk. 29 i
127-001236-0 !Joseph Topic Jr. 1W 2/3 of Lot 9 1 $6 ,169 .00 1
!P.O. Box 317 !Ex RR & all of 1 !
: !Shakopee, MN 55379 110 , Blk. 29 i
127-001248-0 !Carol Eastman !S 50 1/2' of 1 $3 ,303 .00 1
17133 Valley View Rd. !Lots 6 & P/0 !
!Edina, MN 55435 !Alley abutting 1
! ! !said lots 7 1 i
! 1Blk. 31
127-001249-0 !Veronica Case 1N 91 1/2 ' of 6 1 $3 ,888.00 1
! (DEFERRED ) 1210 S. Holmes - !Lot 7 Ex RR ! !
!Shakopee, MN 55379 1Blk. 31 i !
! i
! ! !
127-001250-0 !Carol Eastman !Lot 8 & P/0 1 $3,562.00 1
! 1T133 Valley View Rd. !Alley abutting 1 !
!Edina, MN 55435 !the E 20 ' of 8 ! !
i 1Blk. 31 i I
127-001251-0 !Marjorie Henderson !Lot 9 , Blk-31 1 $3,662.00 !
1905 S. Holmes
1 !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001252-0 !Marjorie Henderson !Lot 10 , Blk. 311 $3 ,662.00 1
I 1905 S. Holmes ! !
!Shakopee, MN 55379
ASSESSMENT TABLE
I I I PAGE 7 1
! PID I PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION ! ASSESSMENT 1
i i i i i
127-001256-0 ! Jerome Wampach !Lots 4 ,5 ,6 ! $3 ,416 .00 1
i 1524 Holmes St IBlk. 32 i !
i !Shakopee, MN 555379 ! i !
! ! ! ! !
127-001257-0 ( Jerome Wampach (Lot T, blk. 32 1 $3 ,416 .00 !
! 1524 Holmes St ! i !
i !Shakopee, MN 555379 ! i !
127-001258-0 !Thomas Gestach !Lot 8 & E 38' 1 $5,578 .00 1
i 1135 Crosstown Blvd. i12 !of 9 , Blk. 32 1 !
! !Chaska, Mn 55318
127-001259-0 !Jerome Wampach !W 22 ' of 9 & E 1 $2 ,106 .00 1
! 1524 Holmes St 115' of 10 ,
! !Shakopee, MN 555379 IBlk. 32
127-001260-0 !Daniel Lebens 1W 45 ' of 10 1 $2,964.00 1
! 1207 1/2 S. Atwood 1Blk. 32 i !
! iShakopee, MN 55379
127-001264-0 !Thomas & Lucille Novitzki IN 62' of Lot 1 $3 ,397 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1208 Atwood 16&7 & W 42' of 1 !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of S 80 ' of 7 1 !
! i IBlk. 33 1 !
127-001265-0 !Dennis Schmitt & Wife !S 80 ' of Lot 6 1 $4,061 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1535 E 8th Ave !& E 18' of S8011 !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of 7, Blk. 33 1 1
! ! ! ! !
127-001218-0 !Frederick Houle & Wife IS 90-3/10 ' of ! $1 ,869 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1231 S Sommerville !Lots 1 & 2 EXRRI
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 IBlk. 28 !
i
127-001219-0 !Charles Borchard IN 51-7/10 ' of 1 $1 ,512.00
! (DEFERRED) 1225 S. Sommerville 11&2, Blk. 28 !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001228-0 !City of Shakopee !Lot 1 & 2 ! $3 ,804.00 1
! 1129 E. First Ave. 1Blk. 29 ! 1
!Shakopee, MN 55379 !
! ! ! ! !
127-001238-0 !Mona Strunk !Lots 1&2 lying 1 $1 ,401 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1103 E. 3rd 1s' erly ofn'erly! !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 1511 , EX S 50 ' 1
!of E 50' of 2 1
! ! lBlk. 30 !
! ! ! !
1
ASSESSMENT TABLE
i i i PAGE 8 :
i i i i i
I PID I PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION ; ASSESSMENT 1
:_i 1_1_1
:27-001238-1 :David & Karen Moonen !N' erly 51 ' of 1 $1 ,336 .00 1
1236 S Lewis Box 300 :Lots 1&2 & S
!Shakopee, MN 55379 11/2 of vacated
!alley on nlerly !
Iside lots ! :
IBlk. 30 I l
127-001239-0 :James & Berit Gerhardson IS 50 ' of E 50' : $761 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 17724 Hampshire Ave N !of 2 , Blk. 30 1
!Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 1 ! !
127-001240-0 !Calvin & Rosemary Brown !Lot 3 , Blk. 30 1 $1 ,846 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1956 S. Holmes
!Shakopee, MN 55379 ! !
127-001241-0 :Shakopee Investment One !Lot 4 & N 81 ' 1 $2,744.00 ;
! 18520 W. 135th St. !of 5 , Blk. 30 ; !
l :Apple Valley, MN 55124 ! ! !
i
127-001242-0 !Hoffman Family Partnership IS 60 ' of 5 1 $1 ,529.00 1
11503 E. 4th Ave. !Blk. 30
! !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001245-0 !Scott & Debra Ryan :Lot 1 , Blk. 31 1 $1 ,690 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1135 W. 3rd Ave. ! ! !
I !Shakopee, MN 55379
! : !
127-001246-0 !Ervin Monnens & Wife !Lot 2 , Blk. 31 1 $1 ,690 .00
! (DEFERRED) 1129 W. 3rd
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! !
:27-001247-0 !First Nat. Bank - Shakopee !Lots 3-5 &S' rlyl $5 ,151 .00 ;
1129 S. Holmes 11/2 of adjacent ! !
:Shakopee, MN 55379 !vacated alley 1 !
1Blk. 31 : 1
127-001253-0 !Donald Yahnke !Lot 1 , Blk: 32 ! $1 ,690 .00 :
! (DEFERRED) 1239 W. 3rd Ave.
!Shakopee, MN 55379
,
127-001254-0 !Susan Niewind !Lot 2 , Blk. 32 1 $1 ,690 .00
! (DEFERRED) 1229 W. 3rd Ave.
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001255-0 !Diane Heinz :Lot 3 , Blk. 32 1 $1 ,690 .00
! (DEFERRED) 1219 W. 3rd Ave. ! ! !
: !Shakopee, MN 55379
!
1
ASSESSMENT TABLE
PAGE 9 ;
i PID ! PROPERTY OWNER ! DESCRIPTION i ASSESSMENT !
i
� 1 i
l27-001256-0 I:Jerome Wampaoh !Lots 4,5 ,6 ! $2 ,395 .00 !
! 1524 Holmes St. lBlk. 32
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! + 1
i i I !
127-001263-0 !John Ries Jr. ILot 5 Ex W 2 1 $2,364.00 1
1220 W. 3rd Ave. !of S 73' , 1 1
!Shakopee, MN 55379 1Blk. 33
1
1 ! ! 1 $234,002.00 i
/ 04,,
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Planning Commission Education and Procedures
DATE: July 13, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
At their meeting on May 25, 1989 the Planning Commission
discussed several items relating to the procedures and education
of the Planning Commission. Two items have been forwarded to the
City Council for review. The first item is a recommendation from
the Planning Commission that the City contract with the
Government Training Service for an in-house planning institute to
be conducted for Planning Commission members, Council members and
staff involved in planning decisions. The second item relates to
the Commission's procedure with regard to taking testimony at
public hearings, the Commission is recommending that people sign
a card if they wish to speak at a Planning Commission hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Each winter the Government Training Service (GTS) holds a series
of Annual Planning Institutes. The day long sessions are
designed both to provide basic information on planning issues for
new planning commission and council members, as well as to
provide a review ofinformation for experienced commission and -
council members. In the past, the City staff has encouraged
Planning Commission members to attend these sessions. However,
attendance from Planning Commission members has been very light.
The Planning Commission Chairman is concerned about the fact that
more Planning Commission members have not been able to take
advantage of educational opportunities. The staff checked with
the Government Training Service and found that they offer the
sessions on an in-house basis to communities. The day long
session can be scheduled for a Saturday or a afternoon-evening of
a weekday. The sessions would be attended by all Planning
Commission members, City Council members, and staff involved with
planning issues. The cost for an in-house session would be
approximately $800.00.
The Planning Commission at their meeting on May 25, 1989,
discussed the advantage of having a session where all Commission
members as well as other City officials involved in making
planning decisions could attend a session together and receive
the same training. Another advantage to an in-house session is
that the session can be structured to address specific issues and
needs of the City. After discussing this item, the Planning
Commission decided unanimously that it would be worth while for
the City to explore contracting with the Government Training
Service for a in-house session. This session could be scheduled
for some time during the Fall of 1989.
The second item discussed by the Planning Commission relates to
the procedure used in taking testimony at public hearings. The
Chairman of the Commission suggested that an information sheet
could be drafted and a sign up card used for people wishing to
speak at public hearings. An example, from the City of Plymouth,
is attached. The advantage of such a procedure - would be that
people attending public hearings would be supplied with more
information about the hearing procedure and the City would have a
card containing the correct spelling of the name and address of
the party wishing to speak. Another advantage would be that the
hearings would be better organized and more structured. A
disadvantage would be that the procedure may intimidate some
people from speaking at hearings. After discussing this item, a
majority of the Commission members felt that it would be worth
while to try the procedure. The Commission felt that if problems
developed, the procedure could be discontinued.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At their meeting on May 25, 1989, the Planning Commission
recommended the following two actions be pursued:
1. That the City contract with the Government Training Service
for the conducting of an in-house planning institute to be
attended by all Planning Commission members, City Council
members and City staff involved with planning issues.
2 . That the Commission provide information sheets and
registration cards for people wishing to speak at public
hearings.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. The City Council can offer and pass a motion concurring with
both items recommended by the Planning Commission and direct
City staff to proceed with implementation of these items.
2. The City Council can offer and pass a motion concurring with
one of the two items recommended by the Planning Commission
and direct City staff to proceed with implementation of the
item.
3 . The City Council could offer and pass a motion indicating
that they do not concur with either recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and pass a motion as outlined in either alternative #1, #2
or #3.
AGENDA CARD 17
(please print)
Date
Name of Speaker
Address
Agenda Item(List number and letter)
PGI 7/72
AGENDA FOR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS I Q�
1. Purpose of Meeting:
To provide the public an opportunitytohear a presentation on proposed development. The
citizens have had an opportunity to review the proposed development in the City Center, as
well as at this meeting, and will have an opportunity to address the Planning Commission
concerning questions regarding this development. -
This will be the only scheduled public hearing, unless continued or rescheduled by the
Commission, or unless additional hearings are required by law. All meetings of the
Planning Commission and City Council are public meetings, and citizens are welcome.
2. The Meeting was Carefully and Thoroughly Announced as Follows:
a) Notice was published in the Plymouth POST, the official City newspaper, as required by
law.
b) Written Notice was mailed to each property owner (within 100 feet of the subject
property in the case of preliminary plats, and within 500 feet in the case of
Conditional Use Permits, Rezoning, Reguiding, and Planned Unit Developments) as shown
by the records of the Hennepin County Auditor.
3. Review of Proposed Development: -
Chairperson
Community Development Representative
Petitioner, or Petitioner's Representative
4. The Procedure for Speaking at the Hearing is as Follows:
a) Write your name, address, and the agenda number on a "blue" card which is available at
the entrance. -.
b) Please give the "blue" card to the Chairperson.
c) When your name is called, come to the podium.
d) Please speak clearly so that all may benefit from your remarks.
e) No one may speak a second time, until all others who wish to speak have done so.
Please give your name and address each time you speak.
5. Order of Hearings:
As indicated on the meeting agenda, unless the Commission directs otherwise.
OVER PLEASE
HOWTO(agendainfo)i
PUBLIC HEARING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
The City Ordinance provides for special development procedure involving large
residential and non-residential properties: it is called Planned Unit Development
(PUD). The Ordinance sets forth three distinct phases for the review of Planned Unit
Development: The concept plan phase; the preliminary plat/plan, rezoning, Conditional
Use Permit phase; and, the final plat/plan phase.
Each phase is subject to review by both the Planning Commission and City Council.
Thus, for any given Planned Unit Development proposal, there are at least six public
meetings held where the proposal is discussed.
In the total process, the City Ordinance provides for two public hearings. The first
hearing is at the Concept Plan Stage, and is known as a Public Informational Hearing.
This is the opportunity for the developer to inform the City of his intentions, and
for the City to inform the applicant as to the general acceptability of the proposal,
before extensive planning costs are expended by the applicant. It is the opportunity
for the neighboring property owners to generally respond to the applicant's proposal,
and to state general concerns as to the design and nature of the project.
The second hearing is a formal public hearing, and is held at the second stage
involving the Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit, and any rezoning of the land
which may be involved. This is the opportunity for the Planning Commission to review
the matter in more detail, and to consider comments by the neighboring property owners
as to the actual plans which have evolved from the concept stage.
These are the only formal public hearing opportunities required by law for Planned
Unit Development proposals.
Citizens wishing to follow the progress of a Planned Unit Development from Planning
Commission consideration, to deliberation by the City Council, should verify with
City staff when the item is scheduled for City Council meetings, or for Planning
Commission meetings which are not public hearings.
11/80/rev/5/84
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Amendments to City Code Providing Exclusion for Lot
Width and Area Requirements for Buildings Constructed
with Party Walls
DATE: July 12, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
At their meeting on July 6, 1989, the Planning Commission passed
a motion recommending to the City Council that City Code Section
11.03, Subd. 3 be amended to allow lots to be excluded from width
and area requirements if party walls are utilized and the
property receives approval of a planned unit development. The
provision would not change the current procedure for approving
lot splits for twin homes.
BACKGROUND:
At the April 20, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Clete Link
appeared before the Commission to discuss a possible development
he is considering building in the B-2 Zoning District along
Marschall Road. He indicated the proposed development idea
would necessitate changes to the City's Zoning Code. Mr. Link is
proposing to construct a strip type commercial center with the
units and the property located in front and in back of the units
being sold individually to different owners.
After discussing Mr. Link's proposal, the Planning Commission
directed staff to do further research on the proposed code
amendments and set a public hearing for their June 8, 1989
meeting. At their meeting on June 8, 1989, the Planning
Commission opened a public hearing on a proposed change to the
zoning code allowing for lots to be excluded from width and area
requirements if party walls are utilized. After discussion the
Planning Commission again continued the public hearing until the
their meeting on July 6, 1989.
In researching the proposed code amendment, staff found that a
similar provision is currently included in the zoning code which
allows buildings to be excluded from the side yard setback
requirements if party walls are utilized. The staff also
discussed the proposed change with staff from the City of
Burnsville. The City of Burnsville has had several projects
similar to what Mr. Link is proposing and currently allows them
with approval of a planned unit development (PUD) . Burnsville
indicated that this procedure works very well for them.
The proposed zoning change would allow for both commercial
structures and townhouse structures to be sold as separate units
to different individuals without having to be formally operated
as a condominium project. This will provide several advantages
to the developer in that he does not have to comply with
incorporation of a property owners association, and other legal
requirements for condominium projects.
The proposed amendment will also clarify language in the existing
code regarding approval of lot splits for twin homes. The City
staff currently approves lot splits for twin homes located on
parcels with a total of 70' in width and 11,000 sq. ft. in area.
The newly created parcels with a minimum of 35' in width and 5500
sq. ft. in area meets the requirement for each unit of a two
family dwelling, but does not meet the requirement for a detached
single family dwelling.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At their meeting on July 6, 1989, the Planning Commission passed
a motion recommending to the City Council that City Code Section
11.03, Subd. 3 be amended to add the following:
F. Lots may be excluded from the width requirements and area
requirements if party walls are utilized or buildings are
planned to be constructed as an integral structure, when a
planned unit development approval for the entire property
has been secured (except twin homes) . Separate ownership of
twinhome units requires approval of lot split (Section
12.08) provided each unit has a lot width and area equal to
at least 1/2 of the area and width required for a two family
dwelling.
The Planning Commission also recommended that a definition be
added to the City Code for twin homes. The City staff will
prepare a definition for "Twin Home" to be added to Section
11.02, the Definition Section of the Zoning Code.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. The City Council can offer and pass a motion directing the
City Attorney to draft the appropriate ordinance amending
City Code Section 11.02 and Section 11.03, Subd. 3 as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. The City Council can offer and pass a motion directing the
City Attorney to prepare the appropriate ordinance amending
City Code Section 11.02 and section 11.03, Subd. 3 with
different wording and/or requirements then recommended by
the Planning Commission.
3. The City Council can offer and pass a motion to not amend
City Code Section 11.02 and Section 11.03, Subd. 3.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and pass a motion as recommended in either alternative #1,
#2 or #3.
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
/� I
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Enginee£ \� )IV
SUBJECT: Killarney Hills Subdivision✓/
DATE: July 13 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Staff has developed several assessment options for the street
improvements in the Killarney Hills Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
On June 1 , 1988 , a public hearing was held to consider
improvements to all roads within the Killarney Hills Subdivision.
The public hearing was closed but no action was taken. Council
directed staff to explore additional improvement alternatives.
On June 20 , 1988 the Council held another public hearing to
consider the improvements and proposed alternatives. Staff had
recommended constructing a full urban street section with curb
and gutter, rather than a rural street section with ditches and
Council concurred . The majority of the discussion at this
meeting related to the proposed assessments. Council directed
staff to prepare various assessment tables based on a 25% , 50%
and 75% assessments to compare with the 1001 assessment
recommended in the feasibility report.
Staff has completed the various assessment calculations and a
complete assessment roll for each is attached. Staff would like
to briefly discuss each alternative as well as all other relevant
data.
Please refer to staff memos dated April 27 , 1989 , May 24, 1989 ,
June 15 , 1989 and the feasibility report for additional
background information.
Improved Lots Versus Unimproved Lots
At both of the public hearings there was considerable discussion
on whether these streets should be considered "existing" and
thereby subject to the reconstruction assessment policy (25% ) or
"new" streets and subject to a 100% assessment. Several property
owners feel that this should be considered a reconstruction, even
though the streets were never constructed to any standards.
Only a portion of these streets are paved. There is a definite
boundary between the paved section and the non-paved section .
The non-paved section is basically a dirt pathway and does not
even contain any gravel.
There is no way this section of the road can be considered a
reconstruction.
Therefore, in all of the assessment calculations staff has kept
the assessments for those unimproved lots at 100% and calculated
the various assessment alternatives for the improved lots only.
Attachment U1 lists those lots that are definitely on an
unimproved street as well as those lots that are on the paved
portions. Map 01 shows the limits of the pavement. Attachment
82 summarizes the proposed assessments for those lots on the
unimproved roadway at 100% assessment. These assessments will
not change for any of the alternatives.
75% Assessment
Attachment A3 summarizes the proposed assessments if 75% of the
project costs were assessed . For those lots currently on a paved
street, the assessment would decrease from the recommended rate
of $49 .24 per adjusted front foot (100% assessment) to $36 .93 per
adjusted front foot.
Of prime importance is the City portion of the total costs. With
this alternative, the City would pay a total cost of $72 ,358 .00
( including assessments for City owned property) or about 42% of
the total project.
50% Assessment
Attachment 84 summarizes the proposed assessment if 50% of the
project costs were assessed . The assessment rate would decrease
to $24 .62 per adjusted front foot while the total City cost
increases to $88 ,436 .00 or 51% of the total project costs.
25% Assessment
Attachment U5 summarizes the proposed assessments if 25% of the
project costs were assessed . The assessment rate would be
reduced to $12 .31 per adjusted front foot while the total City
costs increase to $104 ,514 .00 or 61% of the total project costs.
Credit for In-Place Pavement
Council had also directed staff to calculate the amount of
credits that could be attributable to the existing asphalt "in-
place" .
According to the soil borings obtained for the feasibility
report, there is approximately 2-3 inches of asphalt thickness in
the road and no gravel base . Using 3 inches of asphalt, the
amount of pavement currently in-place is approximately 285 tons.
`v
Using the same unit prices as estimated in the feasibility
report, this inplace asphalt is estimated to be worth around
$6500 or approximately 5 .2% of the total construction cost
estimate.
Rural Street Versus Urban Street
Staff still feels that since the construction of an urban street
is approximately the same cost as an rural street , an urban
street would be more feasible now than at a future date. But
because there are no utilities installed in these streets there
is also some merit to constructing a rural section at this time.
If this project gets ordered, staff would like to request that
both street alternatives be designed so that a more refined cost
estimate can be prepared for each once the plans are done .
Council could then decide which alternative should be
constructed . This would result in higher design costs than
normal .
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Assess all properties 100% of the total costs.
2. Assess all properties abutting a paved street 75% of the
project costs and all other properties 100% .
3 . Assess all properties abutting a paved street 50% of the
project and all other properties 100% .
4. Assess all properties abutting a paved street 25% of the
project and all other properties 100% .
5 . Assess all properties 100% of the total costs but give those
properties abutting a paved surface a 5 .21 credit for the
in-place asphalt.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City of Shakopee has specific assessment policies that have
been adoptd to ensure consistent assessments on every project .
That assessment policy states that new streets will be assessed
100% and reconstructed streets will be assessed 25% . The City
has been very consistent and uniform in applying this assessment
policy to all streets and subdivisions , including Eaglewood .
Staff does not see any valid reason for deviating from this
policy for this particular subdivision .
The primary question is whether or not the proposed streets
should be considered as new or reconstructed. Staff still feels
that since these streets were never constructed to acceptable
standards and because the pavement was constructed more as an
erosion control measure than anything else, that these streets
should be considered as new streets for the purpose of
assessments and therefore 100% assessable .
If Council decides that the existing streets are legitimate , no
matter what specifications they were built to , and that this
project is actually a reconstruction, then the 251 assessment
policy should be applied.
Staff sees no basis for using a 50% or 75% assessment since there
is no policy supporting this decision . Council had indicated
that if one of these two assessment rates were used, the outlots
could be assessed for the portion being picked up by the City ,
once the roads are extended . Due to the uncertainty of
developing these outlots , the City may never recover these
assessments from the outlot. There is also some question of the
legality of such a "future" assessment.
Staff does feel that there is some merit to giving a credit for
that existing asphalt that is in-place and in fact the City
Council has given credits on other street projects.
Staff recommends either Alternative No. 1 (100% assessment ) or
Alternative No. 5 ( 100% assessment with credits ) .
ACTION REQUESTED:
1 . Order this project by offering the attached Resolution
No . 3059 , A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the
Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Roadways Within
Killarney Hills Addition Namely (Sharon Parkway and Tyrone
Drive) , Project No. 1989-7 and move it adoption.
2 . Move to establish the assessment policies that shall be
followed for this project.
DH/pmp
HILLS
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
The following lots are on a paved surface:
LOT BLOCS ADJ. FRONT FOOT
Park 1 400 '
10 1 147 '
11 1 200 '
1 2 150 '
2 2 180 '
3 2 190 '
4 2 129'
5 2 161 '
6 2 112 '
1 3 146 '
2 3 911 '
Total 1906 '
The following lots are on the unimproved street:
LOT BLOCS ADJ. FRONT FOOT
Park 1 421 '
8 1 122'
9 1 120 '
3 3 99'
1 4 164 '
2 4 122'
3 4 169 '
4 4 211 '
5 4 M'
Total 1587'
Total of Both 3493'
MAP #1
'KILARNEY HILLS
EXISTING PAVEMENT
existing asphalts�_�=/e a?o�$ dirt
e >r �;t,1731 '�J c pathway.
4 C
tip
--
c o>: a
a i
Y
v
. . `/J o !�_'>'- � �.W .moi• - /i � � s S �,��;t�.
r o g
19
, • %`' 4?l�' y'y�`' ' AZ rYij > - O. �<V.� � ; N ` 4�/O'/i
01/
C J �`,�� f.f. � fwd .w b ! •L>. �. �
ATTACNNENT s2
Use ratios to determine the total amount that should be assessed
for the unimproved roads and what amount should be used for the
assessment alternatives (25%, 50% , and 75%)
Total Assessment
Unimproved Road Portion = 15871/3493 ' x $172,000 = $ 78 , 146 .00
Improved Road Portion = 1906 '/3493 ' x $172,000 = $ 93 .854.00
Total = $172,000 .00
Individual Lot Assessment — Unimproved Portion
Assessment = $78,146 .00/1587 ' _ $49.24 per Adj . F.F.
(Same as Feasibility Report)
LOT BLOCK ADJ. FRONT FOOT Assessment
Park (City) 1 421 ' $20 ,730 .00
8 (City) 1 122' 6 ,007 .00
9 1 120 ' 5 ,909.00
3 3 99' 4 ,875.00
1 4 164 ' 8 ,076 .00
2 4 122 ' 6 ,007.00
3 4 169 ' 8 ,322.00
4 4 211 ' 10 ,390 .00
5 4 M' 9 .810 .00
Total $78,746.00
City Total = $26,737.00
ATTACHMENT $3
TS% ASSESSMENT
Total Assessment = $93 ,854 x 75% = $70,390 .50
Assessment per Adj. F.F. _ $70,390 .50/1906 , = $36 .93/Adj. F.F.
City pays the difference $93 ,854.00
- 70 .390 .50
$23,463.50 Plus any Direct
assessments to City
property
Assessment Roll
LOT BLOCK ADJ. FRONT F007 ASSESSMENT
Park (City) 1 400 ' $14,772.00
10 1 147 ' 5 ,429.00
11 (City) 1 200 ' 7 ,386 .00
1 2 150 ' 5 ,540 .00
2 2 180 , 6 ,648.00
3 2 190 ' 7 ,017 .00
4 2 129 ' 4 ,764.00
5 2 161 , 5 ,946 .00
6 2 112 ' 4,136 .00
1 3 146 , 5 ,392.00
2 3 __91 ' 3 .361 .00
Total 1906, $70,391 .00
City Cost = $22,158.00
Total City Cost
25% Non-Assessed Portion = $23,463 .00
Assessment Improved Lot = $22 ,158 .00
Assessment-Unimproved Lot = $26 .737 .00
TOTAL = $72,358 or 42% of the total project
l/
ATTACHMENT /4
50% ASSESSMENT
Total Assessment = $93 ,854 x 503 = $46 ,927.00
Assessment per Adj. F.F. _ $46 ,927 .00/1906 ' = $24.62/Adj. F.F.
City pays the difference $93 ,854.00
- 446 .927 .00
$46 ,927.00 Plus any direct
assessments to City
property
Assessment Noll
LOT BLOCK ADJ. FRONT FOOT ASSESSMENT
Park (City) 1 400 ' $ 9,848.00
10 1 147 ' 3 ,619.00
11 (City) 1 200 ' 4,924.00
1 2 150 ' 3 ,693 .00
2 2 180 ' 4,432.00
3 2 190 ' 4 ,678.00
4 2 129' 3 ,176 .00
5 2 161 ' 3 ,964.00
6 2 112' 2 ,758 .00
1 3 146 ' 3 ,595 .00
2 3 911 ' 2,240 .00
Total 1906 ' $46,927.00
City Cost = $14,772.00
Total City Cost
503 Non-Assessed Portion = $46 ,927 .00
Assessment Improved Lot = $14 ,772 .00
Assessment-Unimproved Lot = $26 .717 .00
TOTAL = $88.436 or 513 of the total project
ATTACHMENT #5
25% ASSESSMENT
Total Assessment = $93 ,854 x 25% _ $23 ,463 .00
Assessment per Adj. F.F. _ $23 ,463 .00/1906 , _ $12.31/per Adj.F.F.
City pays the difference $93 ,854.00
- 21 ,461 .00
$70 ,391 .00 Plus any direct
Assessments to City
property
Assessment Noll
LOT BLOCK ADJ. FRONT FOOT ASSESSMENT
Park (City) 1 400 ' $ 4,924.00
10 1 147 ' 1 ,810.00
11 (City) 1 200 ' 2,462.00
1 2 150 , 1 ,847 .00
2 2 180 , 2 ,216 .00
3 2 190 , 2 ,339 .00
4 2 1291 1 ,588.00
5 2 1611 1 ,982.00
6 2 1121 1 ,379.00
1 3 1461 1 ,796 .00
2 3 211 1 .120 .00
Total 19061 $23,464.00
City Cost = $ 7,386.00
Total City Cost
75% Non-Assessed Portion = $70 ,391 .00
Assessment Improved Lot = $ 7 ,386 .00
Assessment-Unimproved Lot = $26 .737 .00
TOTAL = $104,514 or 61% of the total project
ATTACHMENT 6
TABULATION
OF
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
ADJUSTED FRONT
LOT # BLOCK i 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
.11 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
I
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
AFF METHOD = $7 ,236 .81
PER LOT = $ 9 , 049 . 95
ATTACHMENT ►7
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES
Proposed Assessment
(Cost Per Adi. F.F. Total City Coat
100% Assessment $49.23/F.F. $ 56 ,270.00 (33%)
75% Assessment $36.93/F.F. $ 72,358.00 (42%)
50% Assessment $24.62/F.F. $ 88,436 .00 (51%)
25% Assessment $12.31/F.F. $104,514.00 (61%)
0% Assessment 0 $172,000.00
ATTACHMENT f8
Method of Calculating Adjusted Front Footage
The City of Shakopee Special Assessment Policy, Section VIII - A
(2) , Page 13 states :
"For odd shaped lots such as exist on cul-de-sacs, curved
streets, etc. , and where there is more than 2 .0 feet of
difference between the front and back lot lines, the "odd
shaped lot" method of determining the adjusted front footage
shall be used . The adjusted front footage shall be computed
by dividing the area of the lot by 9 ,000 to determine the
equivalent number of front footage units in the parcel . The
area shall be computed to a maximum depth of 150 feet only.
The number of units multiplied by 60 feet will give the
adjusted front footage.
RESOLUTION NO. 3059
A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And
The Preparation of Plans And Specifications For
Roadways Within Killarney Hills Addition
Namely (Sharon Parkway and Tyrone Drive)
Project No. 1989—T
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3047 , adopted on May 2 , 1989 , fixed
a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of all
roadways within Killarney Hills Addition (Sharon Parkway and
Tyrone Drive ) by pavement, curb & gutter and storm sewer; 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 6th day of June 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 :
The construction of bituminous pavement, curb & gutter
and storm sewer on Tyrone Drive and Sharon Parkway
located in Killarney Hills Addition
2. David E. Hutton, City Engineer is hereby designated as
the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of
19 •
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Appro� d as to form this _6 day of
194--•
City A t ney
EiMSENT
IMO
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Rod Kress
RE: City of Shakopee Re: Danny's Construction Zoning Violations
11-1373-11
DATE: July 6, 1989
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
After several delays, the matter of the City's criminal complaints for
zoning violations against Danny's Construction reached the court on July 6.
Danny's Construction pleaded guilty to both violations of the ordinance
prohibiting junk cars, and the failure to screen charge. The judge fined Danny's
$200.00 on the junk cars complaint, and $700.00 on the zoning violation,
suspending $500.00 until the 6th of September to give Denny's an opportunity to
get in compliance.
In my discussions after the hearing with representatives of Denny's and
their attorney, they indicated they will be attempting to comply. I suggested
they put together a program of compliance and meet with Dennis Kraft for approval
before expending funds.
Their complaint is that they have had some contact from the State of
Minnesota and some indication that as of the summer of 1990, their property will
be acquired and any investment made in screening will be lost. I informed them
that I appreciated that problem but that we had been issuing warnings on the
zoning violation going back to the summer of 1986, and that we simply couldn't
have them continue to be in violation. Moreover, I informed them that there may
be some problems along the way which would preclude the state from making the
acquisition of Danny's next year. I informed them I had been living in Shakopee
20 years and heard about the bypass the second week I lived in town.
We have, at present, the following options and need some direction from
the city council:
Option 1: Wait until Danny's comes up with a plan which we can approve
and instigates that plan no later than September 6, 1989.
Option 2: Begin tagging Danny's with zoning violation complaints on a
weekly or even daily basis in an effort to enforce compliance.
Option 3: Commence a civil action to require Danny's to conform to the
zoning ordinance.
While we have waited a long time for compliance, I would still recommend
option No. 1. Judge Goggins made it clear to Danny's Construction that he wanted
compliance within 60 days and compliance is of course what we want. Since the
Judge has given Danny's the 60 days to comply, this Judge or another Judge might
July 6, 1989
Page 2
consider it inappropriate for us to take action either criminal or civil before
that 60-day period expires.
If Danny's does not comply by September 6, it is my recommendation that
we begin issuing tags for the zoning violation on a daily basis starting
September 7. That will force Danny's to either comply immediately or take some
legal action to bring the matter to a head in court.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the City Council authorize the city staff to negotiate
an appropriate screening system for Danny's Construction to be put in place on
or before September 6, 1989, and if no such system is in place by that date, to
direct the appropriate city staff to issue daily zoning violation criminal
complaints against Denny's beginning the 7th of September.
PRE/bmp
cc: Howard Jones
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Purchase of signs to Notify the Public of
City Dog Walking Regulations
DATE: July 13, 1989
Introduction
The attached information was received by Councilmember Wampach
relative to Mr. Thomas Gendreau selling the City cast aluminium
plaques which would inform persons walking dogs of applicable
City ordinances.
Background
Recently the City Council has had dicussions relative to dogs not
being properly looked after by their owners when the dogs were
walking on either public property or on other persons private
property. Mr. Gendreau proposes to sell the City cast aluminium
signs which would inform people walking dogs of applicable
ordinances.
Although this came to Mr. Wampach he is of the opinion that this
is a decision that is to be made by the entire City Council.
While it is certainly desirable to have local ordinances enforced
I am of the opinion that it would be unreasonable to have a sign
cast for every applicable regulation which was not being followed
by the public. This could readily lead to a form of sign blight.
Also the cost is not inexpensive and if several ordinances were
publicized in this manner the cost could become appreciable.
Alternatives
1. Write a letter to Mr. Gendreau thanking him for his offer
and informing him that the City Council does not wish to
purchase signs from him.
2. Authorize the applicable City officials to order loo signs
from Mr. Gendreau.
Recommendation
It is recommended that alternative No. 1 be followed.
Action Requested
Move to direct the City Administrator to inform Mr. Gendreau that
the City is not interested in buying 100 cast aluminium signs
informing people of the City's dog walking regulations.
SIn.�Jco pee HAJ
Mrz tip,mrF) CL,
ec-( rI .emce Ae b-i4stiwss 0a Uic Loc,-4L dey
w Al kegs, - _(.. ►G1
�
l I , C,�de2 iFl May of{ea P, su9yes(zUtit J
Hah pr,� bler, / 4bisl- -Fo2
Ita Se -j�atCarl 2ePrc� .
rftposel WouIJ ecn: Sis-fof.4 efts+
A � uMiz'uM (RytiW
e It4 )zaised Let'e�zsappizox;�-z»7CIY
oue s ixfietiA l 1'y4 ou I� e -(141 plote Su2fgce . All
cRs+ ) N oNe pIlece W-A Scr2ew Wes lacojtoci14-r(2
R11cwiN4 Me plagues to be /4tkc ed nuyi(�ete
JCS , 2ed, bk+ srecrrtc,4N Cor2ae/z-s ,
�Nd eurtizguces -t pAptks , �'LAy �(a jJs, ScGoaL�
c�rwuNd s , oN--biA'IJr� s crc wiae -re-Ajces oo- post
ANd lti F3N o [uere place deer-reel NeceSs�� to
lCee� dcy �wue2s C�nrstAti�y Aw�,Re of Itie ��ivati�ce
N6 t-+A�en. wl,e,�e �e.� srJe � k7� � l�it� �ere ceys .
tle coslcfeA & wol..ld Le sbic� As (}-o �TrI/uL
16t2 bt, C 4 5 e ofSableb /LIUgroe CtfizeNS ( o
d/1Ypl Lt 'is-me S'ez ,oti'T�ieriz cswN Pln�reak
rt-�}ReC�ltetile � (7f� 105e uk' 6eIr2Ue f �s705( dAn;j 'I
IlnA-I ,iII 1W .4.�/z-�eecjiueN UuGerda LVJiL t HSkf , tir,
Rud OI0itL'ii C�e.l InIJOIVecl k1 /4 l �+r •s
paec ( Otis -Feces te-FT bh loveol ao ys
U &e /zevepcfey crit,: dr51—r-r'b"te cf, goatoftisA
etibtt c sseRvicce- .
Il7c �411e/Iti- L'c�.l.tprre�c. � I G.�ec� �e� Ctte2 �.rc'kl�
.y, + 1 �tCE L 1IIG
VeloNG �.o ttiHNJ Cr4s -i-i s H,4dc PrI ALocf4L
FoUUd(tz
.y /N aNy des-r2Rb)e ti�wH2Can
be - yA
e ,2s t
come- , Immo/' 1"0/" 61- 10, 000 Cos rNyS . y0uitC401ce
1 Wowld i F90 && w i's 4ed, beciHe wvolued 1"3
lt,e �P+�t(icRfion, of-Aese PlIq Aes . to A,u ANd eue2y
CtiNA
, CiL tjok � tl see_ f . kie5e Cas "
a�un �u�„ (�IRtues wowlJ be 9rzcatird geme.< lov
yQr�2S, u/ less S 0lea orz vAu Behr -C3 . 1ta� CJj
R�so he Afated AruGl Lete�`. sokc4ces .SHni(jed off t,
G,� J\e l.Jle2eS![ayr GOu�/lA-Syf pelLree.� �la� ue bac�y��
ANU Le 22// s (7 /OtjQ,; (fie., sIw-�"t )) be des}it4h/,e 9s
CR St, Aud �Rs� 1C` O C.� Q,42S �.7( [�tok, nF)rn: t.02pc' IIS �
e s e � owts Ate oco &La-se_oltl ltt. r,aTea/
9ioe Ljok Sohe ideA of Itie pe5sibihte3, PA/zAya4p6,,
oa� i i ice t�uh6e2s, uG�tae,e , cR�, be 1NCa2Par2H�eo}i
6k ItU 6iZc/22 A P1911Ae/ T4e �ARye2 toe p1q,690,
A/icJ Ike 11a1Ze 2W�Q 'u < (rie 62cy1 iACC'yuyh2a✓t
tj� [I be , l3eoue (,He otil , oNCe etiaed LAyolYi
Is f4yraoueJ qJ P9`IterzAjs trade . IUoTCir� � rrofi
_Nee s _t be dome, except c2Jek tfe CPrst-res
Sok desi2 e , / leve Solve lz.+Ae� Le-ffe-A sq,,y es
StHi (ArL t, I%e p"paseol plague Le eas s� wid you
to e's/� � SeeCie r-��. --� l /�
1h4two Slyfes SLS �eSled /i2e 07( Cah9se Tot
.90LA.-t� decile we CG o to cjok like best 7-�}
LoAj y u.gR /1c• � oue /S srn75}yc, 3/W 4n pF/� C, tiA.l Lo
12d(^,,,d PoSts OIL poles •Lail�i ,H I rl tllHtrtll �fOJeltkg.,uy
3
c-
bucc, laswlec) . 81--10,jce101sr9lled �IA 0,9st�
LtRHHP2 HAL, be cZit -,e0 lc ppok ..cJ 04 � Z
tko- pl9yue t Co .,.(O-nh 1-10aQcl0sed� t 1teCWtV14tle
of SHid dle - WltSeems - b2NeceSSA12,� to2R �ooJ
close { 1 . � c �n/se i � �ill � cu+�ti�if�f5u2c:
n7iS some 12(Wuoloy � cHN be in it2'-eol RuJ
a��.pfr�ble t� �ti�Y -�u.�� e ,4p�olrcfr �o,us Need�Nf �4
ue#f atiJ exreti Scu e Geo �'/Ayc e Lite siy. o2
- />ed�llc ,;4, . !4 c)t ld 4n rasauce be useJ (?Asil,-
Slcoc,,lj Aub i 14re- oltHe lillloA)
be peedej Oft twN 2e9Soa /AJeXrA;.c(Le1(, .
�Nt�II /RL i� fHll�-C--rla t/ O�ti((,�H2ai�
cuaJet, r lzl oNfe Readced tU2
y �
nAJ3 C7kl7nyej 4n r&odar-h0AJ , jcvwld etts(/y be
t obr ,jd 14 AJ ,4s f�e IA?11es� g,tc} use�blR ny,s, '
/Z 'dew 12 Igcetyelj pl,4�41es
on rjedgl(c0 Ns, �-ro/t keu l�ir, ld/ Si Ott pts� ks o2
al"F f eue2 AS lfle Cl; ccz. uc�/�
A rz4 e ti .pheNf{vitOdUC STIe �lA�tic , 'I//
Iden-c.4L f�rcfs fluuNr�e-c) ou /i- bo.4ad zjil
6'4�-Js mud 2un,ueas, rzePre) y �orzcaslrti� n2cicfif)u
sk�5e{� �
eAC4 c4Slr, yy (--+boi 7. ad e,4 ,
/aS�L o � �asfjL�A/�s� ��ces I?ePe-W d
f �Al t� ft�N.�/ 6pT1outt_gL{,— - J �j 3{-�'n c�
Sfltil7tic1fee IJ (.� �9dr 14 /'7c.lpt-0Ns
�,�.J h 4 ,uJRc?d 12°-7 Z I 5'` ACG C -( o lja Z u" S
_aa P�ductZ 1%15wd�AJ
3YV
-- -
6-S�N� 3 z) `--
/�
±3
'Eau�r�r+e�✓f �- ldO CErst�s�t�, L,v�'�L_�`a
Each -rN,s�ed /acae�� e ack
�
--e-tI 3-Y
02 i�ra�l err/N�s a�1 i'rH �kcTwN �dP2d 6�ee�
� 2e.adY rtdre i�iza,�tic�o,� �astNys _� �
44-C 4
—
/3 0�
C
�, le
��k� joneNf, lo�i<�st�Nys PlRist41e
i /
E,4& -�Nts' i6 PIAAe- /NStAl/ed 1 , qG �04c�`
0 p I O N s
n.J FLI hlNA-(1-e c� n�1� ri.5(.�e I��H�- c�k2 Ig .q6 Qr?c4
��� rti`u,41Qd ivc �us�f}( IA-1 ( ci :a �0.`(G �,aG
� ok IustA-l( IG.9Genc�
7 �y
S gP� ,ti
4C4
1A)
G 1A) S W1 5 2Frc6 oo
slyke IAJSIAl/eJ / SDexti
A, s
St& eac4-
So e,,Rc-4
-Soeac4r
i
I
WarninDog Owners Warning
g Cit Ordinance
It Is Unlawful
For people responsible for dogs"
to allow them to run 'at large
of# their premise and without
a restraint
It IsUnIawIuI
for dogItaodIers to uot ' Ira_ve
in tIteir . possessiouequipmeut
for removing feces
It Is Unlawful
DogItandIers must immediately
remove any feces left by the
animal on public or private —
-
property and to dispose of tice "
feces in a sanitary manner
It I s U n I a w f u I
For the owners of a dog to allow
the animal to " baric or cry
frequently, or to frequent scItooI
grounds, playgrounds, playing
fields, or parks, or to cicase
vehicles, or to damage or destroy
public or private property
4, SItaItopee City Council
uo
SENT
Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
From: Marilyn Ramer, Personnel Coordinator
Re: Community Development Director Vacancy
Date: July 13, 1989
Introduction
At the July 11, 1989 Council meeting, Dennis Kraft was appointed City
Administrator. Since November, 1988 Mr. Kraft has been Acting City
Administrator, in addition to his regular duties of Director of Community
Development.
Backeround
The appointment of Dennis Kraft as City Administrator creates a vacancy
for a Community Development Director.
After a resignation has been received or a position has been vacated, the
Personnel Policy provides that the City Administrator authorize Personnel
to post all budgeted full-time permanent positions in all City work
places for five (5) working days, prior to advertising publicly. At the
end of the five day period, the department head involved will review any
City applications received and decide to (a) interview the City employee
(s) ; recommending to Council to hire if a candidate is selected; or (b)
advertise publicly. If the position is opened to the public by the
advertisement procedure, all the city employee applicants will then be
included in the group of finalists interviewed for the position. Council
formally authorizes the filling of all positions.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending Council authorize the filling of the Community
Development Director position.
Action Requested
Move to declare the position of Community Development Director vacant due
to the promotion of Dennis Kraft and authorize the Personnel Coordinator
to post the vacancy and proceed with the hiring process as defined in the
Personnel Policy.
Memo To: Mayor Lebens and City Council Members
From: Marilyn M. Remer, personnel Coordinator
Re: City Administrator Contract/Benefits
Date: July 13, 1989
Introduction
The City Council appointed Dennis Kraft City Administrator at the July 11,
1989 meeting.
Background
The terms of the newly appointed City Administrator's contract and benefit
package has to be determined. Council is asked to set a date to hold a
special worksession to discuss salary, benefits and other conditions of
employment necessary to finalize the selection process.
Action Requested
Move to hold a Special Council Work Session on (date) at (time)
to discuss and negotiate salary, benefits and other contract provisions
relating to terms of employment for the newly appointed City Administrator.
/y
JULIUS A.COLLEH, 11
�ULIUS A, LE
a ATTORNEY T LAW � yBS="- 3iz-ass-izan
lase- aao11 wss. AVENUE
SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA �i5L1 %1989
E63T9
July 12, 1989 CITY OF 5'r1AKOPEE
Memo to: Honorable Mayor Dolores Lebens and
Members of the Shakopee City Council
Subject matter: Delinquent report and payments on the local lodging tax
Section 6.44 of the Shakopee City Code imposes a lodging tax and requires
that reports and payments be made within 15 days after the end of the month
in which collected. This section has been grossly dishonored and disregarded
by the effected parties. Without exception all four of the effected parties
are habitually delinquent and in a couple of instances we have had to institute
suit to compel compliance. Upon inquiry it is discovered that other cities
in the state with similar tax have had the same experience as the City of
Shakopee has had until they impose a fine for non compliance with the tax
and after they have imposed a fine they have had no problems.
It would be my suggestion that Section 6.44 of the Shakopee City Code be
amended by adding thereto a new Section 7 to provide for a fine for non
compliance with the terms of the code and it is suggested that it would
avoid the necessity of bringing action and preparing suits that the first
offense be a fine of $150.00 and each subsequent offense $300.00.
I shall await your instructions.
Respectfullymitred,
I lou
Jul s A. Collar, II
Shakopee City Attorney
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator,//
FROM: Dave Hutton, City EngineP'
SUBJECT: 12th Avenue - East of C.R. 83
DATE: July 14, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a request from the Scottland Companies regarding the
street right-of-way for 12th Avenue, East of C.R. 83 located in
the Canterbury Business Park.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20 , 1989 the City Council approved of the final plat of
Canterbury Park Third Addition. During the approval process ,
staff brought up the fact that the existing pavement width on
12th Avenue was 50 feet, but the right-of-way was only 60 feet.
This only leaves 5 feet of right-of-way behind the curb on each
side of the street.
Staff indicted that this was inadequate and not in compliance
with the City of Shakopee Design Standards. These standards
require an 80 foot right-of-way for a 50 foot wide road, which
provides 15 feet of right-of-way behind the curbs.
The additional right-of-way is necessary for snow storage ,
utilities, location of traffic signs, fire hydrants, power poles,
street trees and sidewalk if it is ever desired.
Consequently , the City Council required that the owner of
Canterbury Park Third Addition dedicate an additional 10 feet of
right-of-way as a condition of the plat approval.
The Scottland Companies feel that rather than acquire bits and
pieces of this right-of-way as portions are platted , the City
should obtain all of the necessary right-of-way now . The
Scottland Companies own all of the property on both sides of 12th
Avenue along its entire length in the Canterbury Business Park
(See attached map) .
Scottland is now proposing to dedicate to the City of Shakopee an
additional 10 feet of road and utility easement on both sides of
12th Avenue. As stated in their letter, they will dedicate this
easement without compensation if two conditions are met:
1 . That the City prepare the appropriate legal documents and
file them at our expense.
2 . That the City agree that no additional right-of-way will be
required beyond the 80 feet and if additional right-of-way
is desired , then the owners should be compensated
accordingly.
The main topic of discussion relates to an easement versus right-
of-way. When the City obtains right-of-way, we are the fee owner
of that land and building setbacks are measured from the right-
of-way. When an easement is obtained, the City has just as many
rights to that land as with right-of-way. The only difference is
that the underlying property owner owns the land and can use that
area for density credits and setbacks. The City can install all
utilities, sidewalks, signs, etc. and maintain those facilities
within an easement just as we can for right-of-way.
The City Attorney recommends that the City obtain fee title to
the land in question by obtaining the right-of-way. From an
engineering viewpoint , an easement is just as acceptable as
right-of-way, if the easement document is drafted property.
Scottland is willing to dedicate the easement , but are not
willing to dedicate the right-of-way . Some of the property they
own along 12th Avenue is relatively narrow and taking another 10
feet from this property will severely reduce the development
potential due to the required setbacks. If the City requires
right-of-way, Scottland would require compensation for same.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Accept the Scottland proposal and direct staff to acquire
the necessary easements.
2. Determine that the City should acquire additional right-of-
way and direct the appropriate City staff to commence the
acquisition process.
3 . Do nothing and continue to obtain the additional land
piecemeal through the platting process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not feel that acquiring the additional right-of-way
piecemeal fashion over a number of years by the platting process
is in the best interest of the City or fair to the property
owner . In addition . , the legality of acquiring it without
compensation in this fashion may be challengeable since we did
not request the full right-of-way at the time the original street
was platted . Therefore, Alternative No. 3 is not recommended.
Alternative No. 2 would cost the City money , which could not be
recovered through any special assessments since the street is
already constructed. The estimated cost to purchase this 20 feet
of additional right-of-way for the entire length of 12th Avenue
p
(around 4600 feet long) would be approximately $70,000 assuming a
market value of $0 .75 per square feet. Staff does not feel this
is a good use of public funds when looking at the minimal
increase in benefit to the City for right-of-way rather than an
easement.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 , to accept the proposal from
The Scottland Companies to dedicate an additional 10 feet of
easement long both sides of 12th Avenue. Scottland has also
indicated they would extend this offer for all properties they
own along Valley Park Drive and staff concurs.
ACTIO! REQUESTED:
Move to direct the City Attorney to draft the appropriate
permanent easement documents necessary to ensure the City of
Shakopee has full 80 feet of right-of-way or permanent easement
along all properties abutting 12th Avenue and Valley Park Drive
currently owned by The Scottland Companies or any of their
subsidiaries.
DH/pmp
SCOTTLAND
..FY YgIX
Y.ICCEy MOO
OO4CFyryg ill
X 2yCCFY
COTTLAND COMPANIES
tlf
CA I RBURY PARK 3RD ADD.
EXISTING SO, R,c w
-- - - - - - - -- -
EX STING R.O .W .
THE
Or,
SCOTTLAND
COMPANIES
June 26, 1989
Dennis Kraft
Acting City Administrator of Shakopee
129 First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Ten Foot Easement For The North and South
Sides Of Twelfth Avenue.
Dear Dennis:
On June 20th, the City Council for the City of Shakopee
approved the final plat of Canterbury Park Third Addition.
During that meeting, Dave Hutton, the City Engineer brought
up the subject regarding the lack of adequate road right-of-
way along the enire length of Twelfth Avenue, located in
Canterbury Business Park. In Dave's opinion, the 60 foot
right-of-way that presently exists for Twelfth Avenue is
totally inadequate and should have been originally designed
as an 80 foot right-of-way. As was the case in the approval
of the final plat for Canterbury Park Third Addition, the
City corrected this problem by taking an additional ten feet
of right-of-way on the south side of the plat of Canterbury
Park Third Addition.
In previous discussions with Dave Hutton, Dave mentioned he
has never seen a need for expanding the width of Twelfth
Avenue beyond which presently exists. From an engineering
standpoint, the City can do all of the things it would
normally do along a roadway if the area has appropriate
easements granted in place of a right-of-way. Therefore,
Dave mentioned that for engineering purposes, the enginering
department would be indifferent whether it was 80 feet of
actual right-of-way ownership or an easement area that would
give them this additional width to Twelfth Avenue. The
owners of the land fronting Twelfth Avenue, Scottland Inc.
and North American Life and Casuaulty Company, would propose
this issue be handled now rather than at some future time.
The owners would be willing to provide ten feet of easement
area to the City on the North and South sides of Twelfth
Avenue, abutting the existing right-of-way, for the
P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612)445-3242
fit
June 26, 1989
Page 2
entire length of the street, and, if appropriate, along
Valley Park Drive for any portions of land they may own, all
without compensation for same. The only items they wish
considered would be:
1) any costs incurred to establish the appropriate legal
descriptions and filing of necessary documentation be
handled at the expense of the city, and
2) an agreement be entered into that if additional right-
of-way is needed beyond the 80 feet that would be
established with this easement granting, the owners of
the affected properties would be compensated
accordingly.
We believe that the City's interests would be best served by
addressing this issue now versus at some time in the future.
It will also eliminate a degree of uncertainty for the
developer in how the City will address any additional
platting of land undertaken along Twelfth Avenue.
Please discuss these ideas with staff and if appropriate,
bring to the attention of the City Council for their
discussion and action. We would appreciate being informed
by letter of any action decided upon.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call. We
would be happy to provide staff with any additional
information that may be available to us to assist them in
their analysis of the appropriateness of these suggestions.
Respectfully,
lT•IANNN DAf�L�II INC.
onR. Albinso�
cc: Wendell Kurtz
J. Brooks Hauser
Dick Peterson
fly
m mmmm`m mmum m m mmmmom mrro rromm u 0
W WWWWWWWWW W W yWW WWWW W 2 w
O 000000000 O N 00000000 0000 000 O m '
r UUNNNNNUU � WWWWWWWW NNNN rrr e A
• mmmmmmmm0 x N x UUNUNNNN a wWwm a ppp • $ p
Z <
O < ,
O
O 000000200 0 0 00000000 .000 coo
a
NNNNNNN N NNNN 0
m mmmmmmmmm m m mmmmmmmu mmmm mmm m m
w mmmmmmmmm mwwmmm mom m
m
n
3
0
AV O C_
W p NrWNr 0.Uo NN ti
NrNWN NN mm JpJppJmp WpwV
NN OpUrJWNtltlW mm NNANVpWmp NwONW WOO NN
mm NVNVNw000m WOpOpOw00 wAWOV 11.0
WW ..Om....WN NN mw r000mOy 00 pNpmm 0N00 00
m mmmmmmmmm m m ➢aaa➢➢na naaa DDa a
9 CCCCCCCCc D mNNNNNNN CCCC
<D UWWNNNN WNU 9 ti1 33T O
00000000 0000 n
;
z zzzzzzzsi i m 00000000 999 w <
N 9 0000 000
9 WUUNN UWNU < 33333$33 TTTm D_D_D_ 2
0 WNNNUNNNN E 00000000 titi.. N O
9 000000000 S 22222222 9999 2zz <
ccCccCCCc U DDaD DDs O
9 ...T..T00000000 0
O -- tiV
T 000020202020 t'r'ee titi 0 S
NNNU 2 O
O ti H 2 -Iti tiYti-titi CCCC mm0
11.1 7C
C JH<ti<HIllti-4ti 0 9999A999 9999 DDD r
O TTTmTTTTT 9990 ZZZ Z
1 999999999 t
__ _____ rrrr JGx (J
m mUmUNUNUU 2 <<tC m
000....0
' W
ti
m
N NMwww.... N T mmmmmmmm TTW.
DZIC 22 g r a
C GDCCCCCCG C p 2 ti
909999999 C 00000000 CC09 1<1 O
9r99999V9 9 m4'IOmLJ04lO r09 T 3
D r9rrrrr rr' 9 99 AAA
muwrr�r rr ;gggg ;333 3r ...
w m
m;mmmmmmm 3 a-A--DDD 33Dm www
wDNNNNNNN N D _ ____ A➢rw H« N
3 Z ZZ r2 < O
D 2 2 ti4titititi4ti 224
1 Y -� titi DDD
«< 9
333
z
r ..000.0 00 0 0 0000002o 0000
.rrrr -rrr 7-- ,
WNUWN
o n
r
A pppp p p PPAAPPPP PARA p O
N NNNNNNNNN NNNN C
0WWWWWWWW 2
ONOD.0000 O 0000000 NOO O ti
UW....... 000 2
JNN 000 w O
rpr 000
A p PWWrrr-- pWWp 000 W
N rWrrrrJNU r N NNrwwwwm pNNp 000 2
a O
O
a .
3
m v
w n
N Ll
A
0
n n n n n n
s H y s s w
w w w .-
mm Ym m Ymmm m mm '° �
• " "� .W-.W-�" .W. 00 0 2
v'v N uNor a • m • • � m
m • r W N m • N o0 o s n
z -wi
o �
• o
O T
00 O O 000 O O O O O 00 O y m
YY Y w YYY N N N N N NN Y JC
m\ W W WPP m W \ W W mm \ 9
mm m m mmm m m m m mm m m
a
3
NN O
NN =
mM YY NO y
w YY WW NN mmV N
PWm mm 00 YON mW AP NN
VOP PNPW W mm mN JP PPJ
PmP mm mm PJmO NN OO AP PP 000 wY
T O O OOO O O •+ 4 O OO P
mm T G SSS a3 D O 9 DD A
33 m T z y C 99 O T
DD .1 m OOO \ m
2
00 m m 99v O 2 O D C CC m a
2 \ X mP O
O� S CCC A O r w m_m w m
O 333 W r Z O
PPW y a O w O JC
9AA m 00 A
w O
t m
y
m
m
9N m mm T m 9 m 99 9 w
OCC O O C
09 9 P M99 rCi C 9 O 22 O 3
� m
r 9rr 9 9 � r wy
mw m �mm ; ; m m m 44• m m
m m mW M M m < m 99 G O
a Z 2 CC A
y y y PP
y
O
a
00 O O 000 O O O O O qN N �
WN W NNN N N P y �P P O
00 O NOO O O O 00 O
N N Y J z
m N O
0
YY Y YNY N N Y P Y z
G
a o
J o
P m
3
T 9
m D
D m
m
n 0 n n n n
s N s N s s s s N
y m N m m m N
m mm Ym Ym m�u mmmm m m nom m n
W W W W 2
N N NNN NNNNNN T tl '
m Wm N W 000000 N Cl
1p a WW a p • m + YYY + APPAPP • Y a 0 a 00 • O S O
2 ti
O �
O
O 9
O OV O O 000 000000 O o 00 O D
ti W_
a
NN N NNN NNNNNN NN N S
mm
tl mm W G tltltl tltltltltltl tl m tltl tl
m
a
3
0
WA C
a
NYO WW ti
0WW mN mtl
N 01WW YmVmm VIN pp
WW WmNNmWA 00 OVIm 00
V aNN 00 mm 0Nmo .ON.NVm 00 00 000 00
A 00 4 S22 522222 DD 99
D3 C 2 TTT DDADDD O N DD YY
A 0 m O 222 < O D
CC D 222 $$33 33 O 1y m
~ co m N TTT OOOmO -I <
A a22 222222 A Y D T
N2 VINW NNV)IANN M Z 11 O 2
SS C O
00 O SS2222 Z CC O O
rr 000
000 000000 NW A
mm z mmE£EE ? �� YI O
o mmmm m W m
s y W O s
r
T y
m < E
O m
m
m �ti W 9 TTT TTmmmW 0 9 W Y m
c ma c H X00OOrrcC O zi c r
9 DD 9 GCC CC0099 2 O titi 9 T
9 GG � Z YYY YD099 T mm � 3
�� ti 999 99331r'l lr'I P N TT Y O
m P 333 33DDTT T WW T
W PP N D➢D DDI-Ir•NW m :O tiH W W
CC m ti titi~~ O DD
mm O t<
mm r 33
y -fti O
yy 2
0 00 O O 000 000000 O o Gm O
N fails N p NNN NNNNNN W W N C
� W
WW 2
O 00 O O NN0000 O O YY O ti
umi am mslai mNm mffn� 00 0
Yo�YIYY oo
Y mN Y Y NpN YNNYNY Y N 0O m Y
00 2
a o
N
O
R m
3
m 9
N- D
n m
m
s s s s s s s s s W
VI m m N N W N V) N
YWYu m m Ym o mmmmm mmm O m
® �� W W Y NNNWW WWW 2
W W W N v W00 O
0 o N N W 00000 s 2
m mm + + + + JJJ +
Z ti
O
O
0 T
O 00 O O O O O 00000 000 m y
0 WW W W 0 ® 0 W0WW0 WWP T
m
a
W c
a
0W YOP H
Yp WW NN U VAYyPY mYN W
YP OP WW 00 P0VWW0 OUW N
00 OWOr. 00 PWw PP .-00-6 yy00
00 ONW UU 00 00 JV OOOyyO 0000 V
a o0 o r m m m xsxvA 000
F GG C A O A M ynj yyyy S22
WyyyN 222 <
y sa w C y oSo W PPPNP ZZY 2
99 T O 3 3 D
~ r 00000 v
___2 tititi
O
00 AmAmAm9my DDn=zz
00 T S
000 0
o aaan s
9 o W 00000
2 SSS22 000 A
0 AAAA
r tititititi �
00000
W
A
9 y A A O ti 999 TTT
Q Aa C .9 AAAAQOQ ti
C T9 „ O OOTOO'-0
9 r tiI m999
Nr�
r y r yyyyy O
mmmmm ;;;
D W m Z P A P A9AA DDD N
z G y y G y GGGG< iia A
-1 Z C C tititi �"�
W LO 9
O y y
C
y y O
y -1 ti Z
O 00 O O O O NOO 000
O
A PP A P P P P PPA O
0 W W WWWWW C
J N W 2
00 O P O O O D0000 y
W O W 2
Pa �w o O
A YW N O Y W N YYYWW WYJ 2
G
i O
O
3
VI D
y O
D
O
O O O O O O O O O O m
s s s s s s s s
N y y y y y y y y W P
a
mm`m mmmm``m n mio m m mmuu uwumrm uu um `m n
W WWWuwWwwww m
wWWWWWWWWWw W W WWWW WWwWW W w T m
Pmpbpmpm wv "' �'
. . mmmmmmmmmmm o o �YJJJ sP H s n
2 ti
O (
0
0 00000000000 O O 0000 000000 00 O D T
JYVJVYVJVV J yN
NNNNNNNNNNN N N NNNN NNNNNN NN D
m �GbNNOmbfmOb mtmo g ip mmmm mmmmtpm ma m
m
s
m m o
vuoumNWNUNmu as y
NOOOWONOVONW PP WW N m1�V
O WOw000UOJOrW mm mWPW VmNAWpb Ow NU
O VOV00000UONN mOJ O. NN�mOVV NW
O NOUOOOOOOONN 00 �� WNWON rWmNmmN ONN NU
2 22222222222 z £ 333 333333 33 3
D 00000000000 O 3 000 �r-�r��+.+�r 22
ti A tititiySSZ O
\ £LiLEEE££LF ti 9900 zzzzzz << r
» mmmmmmmmmmm x 3 AA mmmmmm ns s <
NNNNNNNNNNN O C 0004]ON rr 2 T
ti ~~~tititi~~~~-i D T 9999 DDDD➢D O 2
( DDD➢ NNNNNN Tm 0
\ WWWWWWWWWWW m AAAA000000 (( 9 O
W DDDD_D__DD DDDD m tititiy 000000 A A
D 22 22222 n A NNNN TT O ll
x sssssssssss z mm c x
\ 33333333333 N 00 O O
9 222222222.$ Y O y JC
Z
N 2 N n T
n 0 N
N
A
N9�+9�+9.�9�n.+ Q N N CCCCCC CC 3
Z D2DZD2D2DZ2 1 C OppC ti-IH tititi titi O H
ti <H<ti<H<ti<titi S ACCC9 m T
;
A $A2A$AZA$AA A D 999r
OmOTOTOmOmm
N N N N N NN T j;3T T
-f 3 D➢DN . N
O O Gl N O 9 3 N..NNN..NN NN O
9MIM
99 A n 222 A
D 2DZD2D2DZDD O ti tititi
< ti<-I<H<ti<-1xx G
3 3 3 3 3 33 -�
ti M mtinr my 9tiJ
O
m m m m m z
Namaamuv � o a000 00000a o0 0 �
n
P PPPPPAPAHAH P P AAPP PPAPPP P O
WWWWWW U WWWWWW C
WWW- 2
NO 000000 00 ti
O 00000000000 WHHH WHW W�-�- Pw 2
O 00000000000 W N .�P NN NU O
0 00000000000
0 00000000000 > e maaa au
O 00000000000 ti N rANN NNN�mm N'- � �
O
O N
3 m
N D
N 0
D
O
n n n n n n n
m
s N s s m s s
N N N N N N
mmWYWW WWWWWYW W W W m WWW W W S m
' NNNNNN NUUUNNN P p p PPP P W m m
000000 mmmwmmar N000
N m 0
mmmmmm . n • - . 0 00 00 o . w . a F o
z
O <
o �
OOOOVO 000000 O O O O 000 O O O y N -
.\-���.\-.\- \FBF \ \ \\ \ F \ m n
NNNNNN NNNNNNN N N N NNN N
mmmmmm ®mmmmmm m m b m mmm m m m m
D
3
O
s c
z
mWrWW JNNtiw FF mmtir rY wF-
WWWNWW wpmmNwwww OOV NN wm
000000 WmNOJO mm pp 00 00 WJOJ ��
000000 mNmUmOOP NN 00 00 00 N OU NN OD
NNNNNN NNNNNNN N 3 9 9
2x222x 0000000 x z m s'nn n s n
DDDDDD CccCCCC D O AAA A H
SSFFFFti1tiH-1-'1Y S �+ 2 m FSS O F \
000000 xSUM O
9999 m
mTTTTT TT mTm 2 O O 0m0 m 1
mmTmmm ygyNNNN m N 2 m 9 \ A
tiltiti
NNNNNN A T N 9AA m D 0
TTTTTT NNNNNNN N m T N
AAAAAA CCCCCCC A r � MI MIM D 2 2 2
««« mmmmmmm m A o y?? mo N \ o
ccccccc
000000 AA AAAA A Z 3 F
mmmmmm mwmmmmm o i �
NNNNNN D_DD D_D_D_D_ D 0 222 A
ZZ c mnn N
0
O i
N
m
CCCCCC 9999999m I N 9A9 N T H A
JJNNN„ MAAA9AA O C O a V
NNNNNN ti-1--1 YO 9 T r' 9 z O D 9 2 3
NMrrNHw ~ ~ r N m O O
PPPPrPN 3 m 3 PPm 3 m
TTTTmm O O D P N ➢ A „ D
m N
NNNNNN 9999292 99G 3 A
CCCCNCN Z N 2 CC D 2 T
mmmm m ti C �I Wm ti 'y y
m
N �
NO
ti m z
000000 mmNNpoo 0 0 0 0 000 0 o n n
WW WfPJPP PppPPAP P P N N PAA N A O
YW WWWWWWW N W WWW w C
JJVJJW UUNNr N�- NU.- 2
000000 OOOOmOm O O N 000 N -1
NNrmmm VNNPWJ p p WJN N P O O
rPNr OmrNrm O
PWWrrVPr P 0 w
NNrmmm ---
O
N
9
O
3 m
m 9
N D
N N
D
m
0 o n n o n n T
s s s w s F s
N N N N N N m
em�m � m��mm�mm�mmee�mm
m � WU NV 41W WWW NN�WWWWWWWWWWWWW VfYmil S
N N NNNNN NNNUNNUNNNNUN NN
W NN NNNNN 00 O
• W a W • W NN • 00000 • m VVVVVVVVVVVVVJJJ • mm F O
2
O < ,
O �
O O O 00 00000 O 0000000000000000 00 D
JVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV y N
a
N NN NNNNNN NN F
9
m m m mm ummmm m mmmmmmbm m�ommmmmm mm m
m
a
o Ya c
z
OOYW ONV -1
PP mb 00 mN pYY NW 00 OOmUNW wpYNVWw OVU
NN ONN bOWONOmYAPmmmpYO OYN
00 pa UN 000 WWwNNO 00 Wa000NNwmWOmNPWms 000
00 WW 00 000 000000 00 mp000JNNpNNaOmYNW 000 .
W ti N Ny NNNyN N yyyNNNNNNyNNyNNN NN
D O 22 H-�JJ H 9999999999999999 22
A 2 DD DDDDD DD
< KN 33 SF 0000000000000000
00 FFFFF FF
00 <
T 99 NNNNN D
N 9 a 2 Z
TT 00000 0
0 TT O
O N rrrrr O
O N D TTTTT N NN
S D pp A_D D_D D_ m9 0_
m A Z2 22222O (l
A L)O OOOOm 00 S
G D A NN
9 o m
m
A
y y o99 mmmmm 9 ..£EOcccccccccccc cc �
m
0
0 00000 0 1TYYY..Y.............. m
9 T Tm OL)OOW
r D
O NN ;3;33 N T99R - 4Y-1
-ti1 titi O
T m ➢DDDD T N;0 --- - T I
y AA A ti TOUTTTm.TT.TTTT TT y
yyyyy G tiZ=NNNyNNNNNNNy Ny A
K 9m0
00
tir ti
Ny
O_
O O O 00 00000 O m0000000000000 00
N W as NNNNN W wmWWWwWWPPPaaaP PP O
N Y WY W ww mWW VJJJJWwWWWVV WW =
O N 00 00000 O ONY0000000000000 00 ti
OOOmwNOwwaPWWWYr bm 2
N NY OOONNNNNYNNNNYmm NY O
OYpNY OOOYwmN�-YVYYYYN�- '
NW wWYYY OOOwmmwmmaawWWYY r+
Y Y N Y NNmmm N OOONNNNNYNNYNYwm N �
O
N # O
a
a 0
a .o
3
m 9
N D
D m
O
N N J
/ m mmmm�rm m rmmmmm W m Amro n_
qm W WWWWWWWWWWWWW N WW WWWWNUU
P NmUNN NW NNNNNNNN J UN NNNN T m
p N AA WWWWWWWW O
+ P + a rrrrrrrrrrrrr a J + N + AA + WPPPWmPP ,t 2
Z S
� O
O
O O 000000000000 O O 00 0000000 y m
Y r YrYrNNNNNNNNN N N NN NNNNNNNN 0
m m mmWmm maoumummn m � mm �mmu�mme T
D
3
O
_ Z
YO ti
WW rr rJUrAOVYAWNWr NUN m YYpAAON
00 NN rpVmpNmNAAOmpp Oro NONPWNANP
JJ NNmPYOrmUVWmOm 00 mOm N WVOmmNW
WW pbOmmVmPmpWN 00 bP 000 POANJJWPp
D D CCCCCCCCCCCCC C QV mm 22220000
m 2 ➢D CSC«S<K
N mnmmm£L££EL£L rr <
x mmmmmmmm 9 A 00000000 m
O y%yymNmNUUPWP O 9T9T999T 2
0 S -ititiltititiHH U O
mU ti O mNNNNN
Ao 00 ; C xxxxxxx=
00000000000 0D Z 0
O
➢ 33333333333 3 P ti mm 0000000
S0 JCS x
C ;;;;; 3 ti z DD 00000000 T
m S 99999999 O
WZ A 00 TmTTTmmT S
` m
4 m w
y
m
A
9 titiYtiltititititi-i-+4 ON CCCCCCCC
Q 'A TTTTTmmTmmmTT O O D9C till tititititi ti
C O rrrrrrrrrrrrr N C 00000000 T
mmmmmmmmmmmmm rrrrrrrr 3
9 9_9_9_9_9_S99_99_9_9_9_ D 9 lr NMMMMMwfI
mx _ m rT ww m
r3i 0000000000000 wwwwww
A f=�lmml=�1T mmT Z W TmTTmmmm N
_ < TTmTT Z Q NNNNNNNN A
1 1 C
9 O
0 o r000000pp000a o 0 0o raoopopp �
r r NrrrrYrrYr r rr Nrrr Y
n
A AAAAAPPAP.PPA A A AAAAPAAA O
W NN WWWWWWWW C
W 2222222 N Z
O O r0 00000000 1
W pPWWWWYrr�-�-�- P WW rmPPAWYr 2
YNWNrmJNWVY O
mmonur-r
r W mN Yr-WNYmVUWNY r N NN mYNrNNmm 2
p
A
P 9
O
3
T 9
N D
N O
D
O
O O O O O lS [> m
s s s s s s s
N N N N N N N m
mmmm rm m rm m mrm m n
Wwww W W x
mmmmmmmwmwwwm m m
0 0000 0 0 0 0 0o O
V 0000 O p N N r O - ------------- x 00 a W S O
O <
O
O T
O 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOv000000000 00 O D
YVJJ JVV�VVVVV y W
a
N N S
mgggq m m m m W m mWWgWggmmmmqq mP m
m bomb W m m m b m mPbbbbbWbbbWb mm m m
m
'a
N N Q
NN
rr NNVmN rr rr r WmV
00000 Pb bP PP r WW W rrrpr wb WW
00000 00 00 pp WW NN NpbWWPpYrmmNN
00000 00 00 00 AP WOP�NmmwPO PON NN
PP 00000 rr 00 00 00 00 aA WNOWmOWmwAWVVJ 000 rr
/u[n[n4 W A O D O CCC«CC<C<C« FF E
r saga -r. a O m m asssaaaaanaaa na
D PhhP m A 0 0 9A99AAAAAAAA bP
ti Z Z m 0 CCGCCCCCCCCCC titi
2 < D r A r hhhhhPbNhhbhN mm r G
O
A Ohhh 2 OA CT 00000
000000000 D m
33 3 2
N m O 0 Z D PhhNNhhNbPbWP D➢ h O
1-1 A A m D➢ h A
ti AAAA 0 O m 0000000000000 00 ti O
2 mmmm O n a o r EEEEEEEEEE{{{ mm x
5 rrrr m
mm
.�. n 0000000000000 n
O O A OOOOOOOOOOOOO 22 x
O DDan 2 Z O <ti
O ZZZZ h h A
N 0000 O h
O
A y
1
A
h 9599 m O h OmWwwwwo hhhhh CC b
C 9A99 O T 5 C C m COrrrrrCCCCCC wN C H
0000 C O O m 5 T SC00000595555 9 m
T T P C r�0 .17000555555 rP' S 3
r hhhW 9 h h P N m r533 3 3r rr�r�r�r Y-I O
m mmmm ; m m3D�D�Dmmmmmm m
P 99AA D m m W P O bD ri<rNNPhbPbh mm h P
G<G< G < C r2ZZZZ Nh A
2 0 h Zti-i-1-Iti
ti h 5 -i
O
O
y Z
O r0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W000000000000 00 O D
Prrrrrrrrrrrr O
p ���� N A p N W AppppppPPPOpp �� O
N w W W N��NNNNNNNNNN Z
P N
O 0000 O O O O ONN0000000000 00 O H
AA .W.. 00 PWWWWrmNNPWNr O
O �owJrNr�rrr
a o .A-.W-vrW.Iw Wrm vlWi"i'npiP N r
N mrmP A r r r r O r r r NN Z
P P
� 9 O
O1 O
s b
3
h D
h G]
y m
c
n n n m
P h h m
`m n
� W S
O 00 O
Z ti
, O <
O T i
O O O Ov D
J ti y_
F \ F\ T
D
N S
m q 0 mm
m
a
3
w P yyrU O
oYwa a c
z
OVUVNaNUOAtiWUOWUONOW wOm ,QUO 1
m.....WONWmmWVmJ NNYNOYaNPNO UU mW wNJ
W gw000A0WnOWJgpJUUOYr00UNU0Y NN 00 Uy
P00000JJaOYUmOUrOOUNNOUJUOV 00 00 Uar
0 sOpp000 U1�OU0000spOOyyyw1�N00 00 00 00 Urp
< G A 33
O TTTTTTTTTmTil�Im it iITTTT i1T i1T TTm G r O ➢➢
a izzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiziaizi a m x cc <
r o00000000000pop0000ppopppoo z < mm m
y H-1 Z
J gg0W00WUUWWWwwWwNNNrrO T O
UWrWrOUpWNrOmymvgypWNOUwUpr O y TT O
➢ 2 y A
000000100000000000000000000000 z WW O
rOi O z zz 2
➢DDD➢DDDDDDDDDDDDD➢DDDDDDDD y O J[S O
r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr O JC
O 33
9O A
yy O
y
,-,C Ayy��-r�F-I�r1�mJ r,�ymmmrpOON2ti0 9 T 0 yy A
<11+ OEm mmmmmmNOmgAmWDm£DCDD2 O C 2 D➢ ~
mOVWWUDDUV2 g2N'y 2T T Y « 3
w y 03A0 D _�+
DI-r rry 1 Dm r N T
3<rOT33m 31-11-1 23m-�ATTTr£_OA T 3
21-1 ~ TY Z ODO
- = < mD
O
AAAAAA9NOOO
OOA mUWO AO C Z O 00cc= A
tiNyD 9 mml<n<<O^<1m WN O TZO9m O ~ < mm
22
.v ti-10 3CX,xx0gm rOm- -Iti ti
C m m2m33mmmz m M<11
y 202mm3Zz0 1 D➢ mm O
-1 C -1\tiZZmJ1y rry mm 2
~ 100~~ yy m m m mm
2y00~00
G TMA
00 yyOyN CmO
Y VI y ZZL
< o m 01m
y T O
Z ti
0 o m il� n
a
a o 0 0> O
wW c
m a
O -1
w 00Z
00 O
00
m 00
r N r 00 Z
O fk O
O
a 9O
m E
3
N ➢
y m
D m
O
m
y O
OJ w O O M\ N W O W O N O O O 3
r r r r W Y 74
O
F t F F FFFF F F t w w N N N N F F F F fP„ y •
ON r Fr+ Ir- Y Fr' N Fr^ O b N O Y N N N N
88 88 p0 0 0pp0 0pp a
O O r Y 0000 N S S S O S S O S Y INS H " L
S S N N SSSS N S S S S S S S S = H H r
Om� I
cwr�rw HO-W�1bN OCZZ m O O WH-w.t0 M O H �F F F 0 w Or Or y
I I I I I I I I I I I G rr r r r r r Y Y r r r r Y Y r r r Y r r
y 0 0 0 O 0000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O a
W h] �F o Yeo S
✓•KGN O 0 0 0 0 000 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O
KYKm m9 `Y .p
_ O K W >> m r a 9 9 m0 a
N
0 H rm r
L 'O 03 rd m
H H 3 K M MOV
C G d < IH-+ O N 1D 'wUn P• N
m m m M < 4 N
m l 3 O R -ir Qp� F O F OYO��N F N ��Ypp pp��
F T 0 0 0 0 OBD N S S
I O h] N �p r m O\N W O� F R
u 0 O O jF SwWSOS0 OO
-
m m
n
R R
m n
S p
N
O O O A 3 0 = 0 eA ZCZy
pm� m m pl p a K m m m m O O O i3m N
O N0\N rN r FTA O O r i+ r i+ m M r r L m . . . . 0 \
WFN O�OJ O�W NMOOJ
W m m m S S S M m W m K
�IWNN -1TFNW OiO M to Y r m m O) C UI
H H C9 [+J < H M Y K m m 3 O]
C C W S m 4 < r = �G m
t+ W N A R
m
m
a
N v NHNN N N N s
O �O '•1 O\ N F W N O
W O O D 0 Z Z K tmD H O O R O M O O m
0 r R 3 C G
d 3 C m O Y S A
I L 5? S O
K
m O m W f` Y K G I 7 K C
0 m M m S m O
N S C K m m H w M 3 $ 3 O W OV aD -
W
W N 3 H W N C cmi F�' tD N F m r S W m
❑ m K ❑ W R m m r oc 0 d
O W
W N m 5
o n Y n
b m F
m � .
N r y
QO��� F N r p�
O M O Op O OBD N S M S R
r �D S S W N N 0 W N O 0 N W S O S
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for Temporary 3.2 Beer License by
Shakopee Jaycees
DATE: July 5, 1989
Introduction and Background
The Shakopee Jaycees have made application for a temporary 3.2
beer license for August 5th and 6th at Lions Park.
The City Attorney has reviewed the application, surety bond and
certificate of insurance and they are in order.
Alternatives
1. Approve application.
2. Deny application.
Recommendation
Alternatives No. 1, approve application.
Recommended Action
Approve the application and grant a temporary On Sale 3 .2 beer
license to the Shakopee Jaycess at Lions Park for August 5 and 6,
1989.
JSC/jms
CON6EN i 119-
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for Temporary 3.2 Beer License
by Church of St. Mark
DATE: July 5, 1989
Introduction and Background
The Church of St. Mark has made application for a temporary 3.2
beer license for July 29 and 30, 1989.
The City Attorney has reviewed the application, surety bond and
insurance exemption and they are in order.
Alternatives
1. Approve application.
2. Deny application.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 1, approve application.
Recommended Action
Approve the application and grant a temporary On Sale 3.2 beer
license to the Church of St. Mark at the 3rd Avenue and Scott
Street Playground for July 29 and 30, 1989.
JSC/jms
r ONSENT Ilk
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Admij�istrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for Liquor Lic se By Corp-Tool, Inc.
DATE: July 14, 1989
IRTRODUCTION @ BACKGROUND:
On June 20, 1989, Council tabled the applications of Corp-
Tool, Inc. for On-Sale, Off-Sale, and Sunday Liquor Licenses.
The applications were tabled in order to provide the applicant
with sufficient time to bring the building up to code and to
obtain the appropriate insurance and surety bond. In order to
keep this item from dying on the table, it is necessary for
Council to remove the applications from the table, and if they
are not in order, to place them back on the table.
RECOMMENDED ACTION•
1. Remove from the table the applications for an On-Sale,
Off-Sale, and Sunday Liquor Licenses for Corp-Tool,
Inc.
2. Table the applications for an On-Sale, Off-Sale, and
Sunday Liquor Licenses for Corp-Tool, Inc.
JSC/tiv
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Police Civil Service Request for Financial Assistance
to Hire a Police Chief
DATE: July 14, 1989
Introduction
The Police Civil Service Commission is requesting financial
assistance to allow them to hire a consultant to assist in the
recruiting, screening and testing of candidates for the position
of Police Chief.
Background
The City of Shakopee has established a Police Civil Service
Commission under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
419. The Commission has responsibility to advertise for, screen,
test and evaluate candidates for the position of Police Chief and
then to recommend the three most qualified candidates to the City
Council. The City Council then selects on of these three
candidates to be the new Police Chief.
The Commission has requested that the City Council allow the
expenditure of up to $5,000 to allow them to hire a consultant
and to pay for other related expenses including testing and
honoria which are incurred in the hiring of the Police Chief.
The consultant will also assist in the drafting of job profile
and advertisements for the position.
The Police Department budget will have a sufficient balance to
cover this expenditure.
Alternatives
1. Allocate up to $5,000 as requested by the Police Civil
Service Commission.
2. Direct that the Police Civil Service Commission do more of
the work themselves and allocate $2,500 to cover
advertising, testing, honoria and psychological screening
fees.
3 . Table this item until the Chair of the Police Civil Service
Commission can discuss this matter with the City Council.
This could be done at the August 1st meeting.
t
Recommendation
Provide the requested financial assistance to the Police Civil
Service Commissiion.
Action Recuested
Move to provide up to $5,000 to the Police Civil Service
Commission and allow them to hire a consultant to assist them in
the selection of three candidates for the position of Police
Chief.
DRK/jms
I
Attached is Resolution No. 3086 which approves the plans and
specifications and orders the advertisement for bids for the
Lions Park Pond, Project No. 1989-11 .
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt Resolution No. 3086 authorizing staff to advertise for
bids for the pond in Lions Park.
2. Deny Resolution No. 3086 .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution 30 86 , A Resolution Approving Plans and
Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for the Lions
Park Pond, Project No. 1989-11 and move its adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM3086
ld
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Lions Park Pond
DATE: July 13 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Staff is requesting permission to advertise for bids for the
construction of a pond in Lions Park.
BACKGROUND:
In August , 1988 the Community Recreation Department made a
request to Council to authorize the Engineering Department to
begin design work for a pond in Lions Park. Council authorized
staff to work on the design of this project.
The pond is located in the south end of Lions Park and is part of
the overall master plan for developing this park. Eventually the
pedestrian/bicycle trails will be extended around this pond and
will include a small pedestrian foot bridge over the pond. The
pond will be located just adjacent to the Upper Valley Drainage
Project and will be utilized for storm water storage in addition
to the aesthetics.
The Lions Club has contributed funds annually towards the
construction of this pond. Originally it was hoped to construct
the pond as part of the Upper Valley Drainageway but due to the
lengthy delays of this project , the Lions Park and Community
Recreation Department has requested that the pond be constructed
this year in order to use up funds that have been allocated for
this project. Currently, the Lions Club has allocated $40 ,000
towards the construction of this pond .
The Engineering Department has utilized the City' s consultant
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. for assistance in the design of this
pond because the pond elevations needed to be coordinated with
the Upper Valley Drainageway elevations since the two systems are
interconnected. The plans and specifications for this project
have now been completed and staff is requesting permission to
advertise for bids for this project.
The project includes excavation of the pond, installing a pond
liner to prevent the water from infiltrating , seeding and
restoration . The pedestrian trail and foot bridge will be
constructed as a separate project at a later date.
RESOLUTION N0. 3086
A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications
And Ordering Advertisement For Bids
For Lions Park Pond
Project No. 1989-11
WHEREAS, on July 5 , 1988 the City Council of Shakopee
directed the City Engineer to design the Lions Park Pond , Project
No. 1989-11 ; and
WHEREAS, David Hutton, City Engineer has prepared plans and
specifications for the construction of the pond at Lions Park and
has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on
file and of record in the Office of the City Engineer, are hereby
approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in
the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertise-
ment for bids upon the making of such improvements under such
approved plans and specifications. The Advertisement for Bids
shall be published for ten days, shall specify the work to be
done, shall state that bids will be received by the City Clerk
until 10:00 A.M. , on August 11 , 1989, at which time they will be
publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the
City Clerk and Engineer, or their designated party, will then be
tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:00 P.M. , or
thereafter on August 15, 1989 , in the Council Chambers, and that
no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit , cashier ' s check , bid
bond or certified check payable to the order of the City of
Shakopee for not less than five (5% ) percent of the amount of the
Bid.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,
19_•
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 19_.
City Attorney
p
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1990 Budget Resolutions -
DATE: July 12, 1989
Introduction
Attached are Resolution Number 3082 which consents to the HRA tax Levy,
Resolution Number 3081 which sets the 1989/90 tax levy and Resolution Number
3083 which cancels certain debt service levies.
Back rg ound
Timeframes
There is a lot of uncertainty over tax levies this year due to the changes
in the 1988 tax bill and the veto of the 1989 tax bill by the Governor. The
existing law requires that Shakopee certify a proposed budget and proposed
maximum tax law to the county by August 1 (see attachment A) . The City has to
publish notice of a hearing by September 15 and certify the final levy by
October 25.
The Department of Revenue has established a schedule (Attachment B) that
has a later time frame but there is some question if the Commissioner of Revenue
has the authority to set a different schedule than existing law. Additionally,
Revenue is requiring a quarter page notice in the Star Tribune for the budget
hearing at an estimated cost of $2,000.
Attachment C is the League of Minnesota Cities advice on how to proceed
with tax levies in the present situation. This memo and proposed Council action
is based on the conservative approach of certifying maximum proposed levy by
August 1.
Expenditures
The initial budget requests from the departments for the General Fund
totaled $4,594,370 which is an increase of 7.68 over the original adopted 1989
budget of $4,268,924. There have been inflation figures reported in the news
media from a high of 78 to a low of 48.
Attachment D includes a list of expenditure items that suggested to remain
in the budget but are proposed to be funded from fund balance rather than
General Fund curent revenues. The use of fund balance is suggested because
these items do not obligate the city to annual recurring expenditures and fund
balance was up to almost 508 while the current target range is 30 to 408. Also
shown is a list of expenditure cuts that are made from the dept. requests to
arrive at the Administrators recommended budget.
The 1990 recommended budget contains no new positions or position
eliminations. However, it is based upon not filling either the new police
officer position or the new street LEO position in 1989 ($30,000 plus or minus
$5,000) Also, the accounting clerk position is budgeted to go back to full time
from three quarter time and the planning intern position is not funded.
At this point, based on the proposed levy above (less the cushion) and the
uses of fund balance and the cuts down to the administrators recommended budget,
the General Fund budget (1990 draft) still has a small $2.082 deficit.
Tax Lew
The levy for payable 1987 was reduced from payable 1986 by $83,535 in an
effort by Council to hold down the taxes.
The tax levy for payable 1988 represented a dollar increase of $332,729
over payable 1987 which was a 248 increase (actual mill rate increased 5.66 from
17.79 to 18.788) . There were three prime reasons for the increase. 1. There
was about $290,000 less to be transferred in for TIF expenses. 2. Most revenue
sources are not increasing to match the steadily increasing cost of operations.
This puts a proportionately greater burden on the tax levy because it is only a
part of the revenues but is the part that Council can increase. 3. The
lezislature had changed the yroverty tax system for 1988 and later and Council
was attemoting to capture more state aids.
The levy and levy limit for payable 1989 was about the same as the previous _
year. This was partly the result of the success of the effort of number 3 above
to gain more state aids.
The proposed levy for 1989/90 is the estimated maximum the city can levy
except that debt service levies are not included. The City levied $1,730,198
for pay 1989. The proposed estimated maximum levy for pay 1990 is $1,867,938
which is an increase of 7.86. This is arrived at as follows;
1988/89 Levy 1,730,198
add 36 allowable increase in levy base 71,065
add estimated growth increase (16) 23,688
(this is same a as last year)
add pension levy for fire relief 5,000 _
add library levy 14,299
add 18 cushion to err on the high side 23.688
Total maximum levy 1,867,938
In the past Council has cancelled all special levies in order to maximize
the general levy and minimize the total levy. There are very few special levies
left. It is proposed to cancel the special levies for debt and to use only the
special levies for Library costs and pensions.
For 1990 it is proposed to transfer funds from the General Fund into the
debt service funds in 1989 for the 1989/90 debt service levies. This
accomplishes two things. 1) . It reduces the tax burden by making the transfer
instead of levying taxes. 2) . It makes use of a part of the General Fund
balance in excess of the 30 - 408 target range and reduces the fund balance on
hand at the end of 1989. The Legislature started looking at the fund balances
cities have on hand with the possibility that they may reduce levy limits by
some factor based on the amount in fund balance. The transfers are reflected in
Resolution No. 3083.
I ,, t' C; d--
With the transfers above for debt service and the use of fund balance as
per attachment D for the budget, General Fund - fund balance will be
approximately 408 of expenditures.
Recap
At this time we are not seeking a City Council budget discussion. The
suggested list of budget cuts and the items proposed to be funded from the fund
balance are provided to the Council for general informational purposes only at
this time. Detailed budget discussions are scheduled to take place in
September. We are only requesting permission to submit the maximum levy amount
and a proposed budget amount to the Scott County Auditor by the August 1
deadline under existing law.
Action
1) . Discuss the preliminary maximum tax levy and possible amendments to
Resolution 3081 as drafted. Offer Resolution Number 3081, A Resolution Setting
Proposed Maximum 1989 Tax Levy, Collectable In 1990, and move its adoption.
2) . Offer Resolution Number 3082, A Resolution Consenting To The Levy Of A
Special Tax By The Housing And Redevelopment Authority In And For The City Of
Shakopee, and move its adoption.
3) . Offer Resolution Number 3083, A Resolution Directing The County
Auditor Not To Levy A Tax For Debt Service For Selected Bond Issues, and move
its adoption.
4) . Discuss and give staff direction for budget changes or staffing
changes in response to Attachment D. (in the context of setting the preliminary
maximum levy) . Council will hold budget hearing and making final budget
decision starting in September. -
RESOLUTION NO, 3081
A RESOLUTION SETTING PROPOSED MAXIMUM 1989 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 1990
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT,
MINNESOTA, that the following sums of money be levied as the proposed maximum
tax levy in accordance with existing law for the current year, collectible in
1990, upon the taxable property in the City of Shakopee, for the following
purposes:
GENERAL FUND LEVY $1,848,639
SPECIAL LEVIES:
Library 14,299
Public Pension Funds 5.000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,867,938
DEBT SERVICE SPECIAL LEVY
-0-
TOTAL LEVY $1.867.938
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a
certified copy to this resolution to the County Auditor of Scott County,
Minnesota.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 3083
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR NOT TO LEVY A
TAX FOR DEBT SERVICE FOR SELECTED BOND ISSUES
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has issued various bonds supported in whole or
in part by tax levies; and
WHEREAS, the tax levies for the various bond issues were set at the time of
bond sales; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee has determined to have
sufficient funds on hand to cancel certain tax levies for 1989/90.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Auditor of Scott County is
hereby directed not to levy a tax for the bond issues and amounts as shown
below:
1980A Improvement Bonds $59,986
1985A Improvement Bonds 6,053
1986A Improvement Bonds 32,104
1986B Improvement Bonds 33,188
1986A Refunding Imp. Bonds 53,854
1987A Improvement Bonds 2,155
1988A Improvement Bonds 1,954
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following irrevocable fund transfers be made
in 1989.
From the General Fund to;
1985A Improvement Fund $ 6,053
1986A Improvement Fund 32,104
1986B Improvement Fund 33,188
1986A Refunding Fund 53,854
1987A Improvement Fund 2,155
1988A Improvement Fund 1,954
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
RESOLUTION N0, 3082
A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL
TAX BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Shakopee was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 at. seq. ,
as amended, and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 1965, Section 462.545 designates all the territory
within the area of operation of the authority as taxing districts for the
purpose of levying and collecting a special benefit tax, and
WHEREAS, Section 462.545 states the governing body of the municipality must
give its consent to such a tax levy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, that the City Council consents to and joins in a special tax levy of
$30,000 by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Shakopee for taxes payable in 1990.
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
Page 37
EXISTING LAW TRUTH IN TAXATION
Requirement: Date:
Cities over 2, 500 certify proposed
budgets and proposed levies
to county auditor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By August 1
County auditors calculate
proposed levy changes.
Counties will not have the
information necessary to make
these calculations, and will
not be responding the the August 1
certifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By August 8
Cities over 2,500 certify
final proposed levies -
(Final levies may not
exceed this amount. ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By August 15
Counties mail notices to each
taxpayer with proposed taxes.
The revenue department is not
requiring notices to be mailed
to comply with truth in taxation. . . . , . . . By September 15
Newspaper advertisement of
proposed property taxes,
percent change in levy,
and date and time of
public hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By September 15
Cities over 2, 500 hold public
budget hearings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Late September to early
October, depending on
date of advertisement
All cities certify final levies
and budgets (Levies for cities
over 2 , 500 cannot exceed
August 1 proposed levy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 25
* These are requirements for county auditors. They will not have the
information that is necessary to make these calculations or prepare the
notices. Cities complying with this timeline should not expect
participation by counties.
Page 36
TENTATIVE 1989 TIMETABLE FOR TRUTH IN TAXATION
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STANDARDS
Requirement: Date:
Revenue Dept. certifies LGA
amounts to all cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 15, 1989
Revenue Dept. certifies levy
limits to cities over 2,500. . . . . . . . . . . . . August 15, 1989
Cities over 2,500 .certify proposed
budgets and proposed levies
based on existing law to
county auditor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By October 1, 1989
Cities over 2,500 hold public
budget hearings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Month of October, 1989
All cities certify final levies
and budgets, levies for cities
over 2, 500 cannot exceed
October 1 proposed levy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 9, 1989
Counties mail property tax bills. . . . . . . . . . ???
* Could be delayed or changed depending upon the special
legislative session which is likely to be held in late September.
t_
C_
Page 38
LEAGUE ADVICE FOR CITIES OVER 2 , 500 -- 1989 TRUTH IN TAXATION
The League is currently assessing how cities should best comply with
truth in taxation to protect themselves from legal challenges regarding
compliance with truth in taxation without being subject to harsh or
unproductive requirements.
Existing law governing truth in taxation stipulates that any city which
the revenue department judges to be out of compliance with the
requirements is to be penalized by being limited to the previous year's
levy. The advisory from the revenue department states that a city
complying with their revised requirements will have fulfilled "their
responsibilities in connection with truth in taxation."
However, a very conservative approach for a city over 2 , 500 which fears
this levy roll-back provision is urged to comply with the existing. law
requirements and certify an initial proposed levy by August 1, and
recertify again on August 15 . The city should use the levy limits -and
LGA amounts provided for under current law. The League has most of. the
necessary information for these calculations. Cities in the metro
area, however, will need to contact the Metropolitan Council for their
current population and household estimates.
If a city determines that it is best to comply with the August 1
initial certification, the League recommends that the levy amount be
accompanied by a letter to the county auditor which clearly states that
the amount being certified is calculated using existing law and that
this amount would be affected by any changes made by a special
legislative session.
Given the conflict between the legislature and the revenue department
concerning what constitutes substantial compliance, the League is
exploring available legal options in an attempt to have the courts
clarify the requirements of the existing law.
Attachment D
1) . Fund balance used for;
Contingency $100,000
Murphy's Landing 50,000
Paint interior fire station 3,000
Scott County Transportation Coalition 10,500
Repave Library parking lot 15,000
Furniture for Engineering 1,800
Public Works Carpet 1,400
Paint interior of PW Shop 2.500
184,200
2) . Budget Cuts
Contingency (leaves $100,000 above) 50,000
Accountant position (new) 27,200
Planning Intern (existing) 15,000
Fire Dept allocation for wage 8,690
Police Officer or Street LEO position (1989 hire) 30,000+-
Police Workers compensation premium 4,000
Police liability insurance 11,000
Street Fuel 3,000
Street Equipment maintenance 8,000
Street Professional services 6,000
Pool equipment maintenance 2,000
Forestry professional services 2,000
Street surface material 3"000
169,890
m OP nOO � .+ •• �
P .I P m mNbO � n •-1 � P � mrSlmN � � Omi n � � � n O
W
N y
m 'J N rl P .y mN � •p rl � n � m Vl J1 nP � rl rl � N � m P
P Y N nSS nN � mN � O � •pmON .p i rlm � P � rl n
N U m NP ,m rl � J1m � •-1 � mmNm � mrl � P � rl O
N
SrIS rIP NP � Pm , N � m mr1OP � rlO � rl � rl
NCI O S P N S n I m m n m Vl m m n m vt m r P tSl
v tl N N P r i m N � m
m .y m S b •O N � S .-1 � •O • vt iet S •O n � 0 1 � S � .y d
N
m .rmm m nb � rlm � S � PmOmm • mb • P � m m
b 0 m b W 1 N b p N n • P O r I m m b , P N N n
m 'J N O n N O N � b P • V 1 � m m m N m X 0 0 I r l •
P Y m .-1 S P •O •y � V f N • m � m O O O n � S m � n • ti P
ri U r-1 V' m S vi • O m , m1' , V N rl m � m eJ � S , ed N
m ,n
N O •-I ,O Wl rl P P � m V1 � P • b Vl V1 P S � N m � •-1 � m_ O
� N � m � 'I • m i m p rl
N
ni(lb nm 'Im �. P i rlb S Nm m ,0 P • P P
N P N m P S S � •O N � m �
S _O _ _
b P
P Y m m •O SSP � m b • N � n P b N S • P m � m � m m
W
y 7
U W > a m
O W L d 0 Y H d C Y Y
m d N 0 > +1 y �• '� L W 7 ?
oZo w W C uw m O � .Yi O 'rd mfi
W F F Y W o > u > > dX O m
W m Y O d 0 M a W O w Y
wo (
0o o C
0 O0 mW 0 W 41 vawa A wq .muFi
m W +1 F H 00 W a Y Y Y Y N .I an d Y H Y
U 7mUddYmu om m .+ .. Yo WY am
L v
o u oa F F F L m W F L F W m F
S O m+ S00 r MS . n . nm+ in O � r Nn • M m h
d O l O P m O O r r.A m r P r n r ry m N f S r P P r m m m
L N S S S Orn r 0 0 r M r •O O S 0 0 r N S r n r M M
P 8 N O P m m m r n O r n r V O SSP r o m r p1 r S m
P +1 P NON mP r NN • d • r�lmm rn •O r on r •p r r-1 � •D
r-1 L m n'1 r-1 n r N J' r •p r r-1 m rn S r"I r N r N r •p (v1
W N N
W r..i N r S r S • ..r .a N r M r n r
N
m O O M O O r m S r N • V P N N M r S M r n • M M
a M O S m C 0l M m r S r b b m S S r O S r S • O n
O O Yr P M Mt•1 r • n n n V1 r O N r N r P P
P 8 N r4 n N V m r n P r n r p N n n N • 1n •p r r..l • 17 N
P '1 O N m O m P r P ri r r.i r m m n N •D r tO rn r P . n m
.d L m M O n r O S r rn r O M r•t S N • •p r •p r ry P
N
P o o o o 0 r • M . N r o o m m N r O w • O r m m
d n 0 0 0 0 0 N P I •d r O O POP r O m r m r N n
L n P O M O rn r m S r T • Vl N NPN r N O r N r P m
P 8 n n N � S m r N n r m • n " r r "T .
O r M r P r O •G
w O r •p r M r-I r-I r-I rn r t+t rn r m r N V1
e d YW n M O V r P r n
N
S O n100 r inS r P r NSP •00 r .y0 r N N b
d O O
PNt nt . Pm r n r M nNPIl . •� O r N M P
.dO M r Sn r N r NIli ONIli r •DO r •p M n
P p3 •O r-1 S N N m r Q •p r
m r N V 1 P N O r P N r O n
P M M r-I Q V m P • M M r P r r-1 . . on r In m. M r
ey Y •O M O •O r m Yl r M r O V1 M �? ri r S r N r .y •p
[il r-I vI r M � S r ry r-I •-I � O r S r N r"1
N y
O O S 0 0 0 r S S r m r M O O vt O r 0 0 r 0 � N m
d m O M 0 0 0 • .-1 m r P r m P
O O pli
L S m M n . M m P n
P ti M P N n m O • S O r S r m M M n S r m u l r M r m N
m N
W N rl r M r y r N rl r f r S r ry
N N
W
a
7
G u
d m M N a M
mu d F ai m a
G 8 N w L a L y a
E u u s>i d m u m u u m O A
m m C a w O EC O u H b u
m mme w ar m C m W L T m G � m u a s
H G G N W o > > > a l 0
m m N o a a w a m O
O m O o d W m W w m a U
d m M a .y d d L m U U d N W ' d v C%t pmj N
m m N G M 00 m a L M L +
HO Fd
FO b G N Um LO dM LO
m M OG
anGGAOA' um Ft G
a aO u oO O > 'Od
G. G
W 12