Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/1989 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: May 11, 1989 1. Attached is a memorandum from Dave Hutton regarding the Upper Valley Drainage Project DNR permit status update. 2 . Attached is a memorandum from LeRoy Houser to the Board of Review regarding assessment procedures. 3. Attached is a copy of a letter from Becky Kelso to LeRoy Houser addressing some of his concerns regarding assessment procedures. Becky is still working on some of the other concerns LeRoy mentioned in his memorandum. 4. Attached is a copy of a letter I sent to members of the Planning Commission regarding quorum requirements. 5. Attached is a copy of a letter Judy sent to all people who were on the May 9th Board of Review agenda and were not present. 6. Attached is the Building Activity Report for April, 1989. 7. Attached is the Revenue and Expenditure Report as of April 30, 1989. 8. Attached is the Ehlers and Associates, Inc. bi-monthly newsletter. 9. Attached are the April 12, 1989 minutes of the Community Development Commission. 10. Attached are the April 12 , 1989 minutes of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 11. Attached are the April 3 , 1989 minutes of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 12 . Attached are the April 19, 1969 minutes of the Energy and Transportation Committee. 13 . Attached are the April 24, 1989 minutes of the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. 14. Attached is the May 17, 1989 agenda for the Energy and Transportation Committee. DRK/jms MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator trator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engines KDW-- SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Project DNR Permit Status Update DATE: May 10, 1989 INFORMATIONAL ITEM TO COUNCIL: Staff has received the DNR permit to discharge the Upper Valley Drainage Project into the Millpond trout stream. Attached for Council review is a copy of the permit. Since this permit was issued, additional information has been obtained which indicates that the long berm running along Memorial Park that DNR wants the City to build may not be able to be built due to poor soils. The DNR has been informed of this information and will be considering amending their permit to eliminate the construction of this berm or to make some other modifications . The permit stands as issued , but DNR is requesting that this berm not be constructed until they have determined exactly what it is they wish to do in this area. As another informational item, the DNR has requested that the City drain these ponds so that they can further inspect the soils in this area and make additional tests to determine if there are other alternatives to constructing this berm. Staff will be requesting permission to bid this project in the near future. We are still waiting for Mn/DOT to sign off on the agreement whereby they will be paying 15% of the project, which they have indicated may be resolved in the near future. Mn/DOT has requested that we hold off in bidding this project until they finalize the agreement. DH/pmp INFORM STAT OF ItIDEPARTMENT EOF NATURAL RESOURCES ENO ) METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO. PHONENO. 296-7523 May 1, 1989 Mr. David Hutton, City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: PERMIT #88-6396 Dear Mr. Hutton: Attached is Permit #88-6396 authorizing the construction of a stormwater outfall and requiring a stream separation project at Shakopee Hill Pond. Please review carefully the requirements of the permit, including its general and special provisions. You will note in Special Provision #20 that the Department has revised the City's plan to construct a dike through Pond 3, as we have agreed. Since we did not have a detail showing the new alignment of the dike, we have taken the liberty of preparing a generalized sketch of the new alignment and including it with the permit. The dimensions of the dike are the same, except for the length. In addition, we believe the City should not be held responsible for future maintenance of the entire project. Therefore, we are requiring our Section of Fisheries to take responsibility for any future maintenance of the long berm through Pond 3 and any water level control structures which are built (by Fisheries) at the outlet to the trout stream. The City will still be responsible for the berms and culverts in Ponds 1 and 2 and the primary stormwater outlet structures leading to the Minnesota River. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. David Hutton Page Two Minnesota Statutes provide for an administrative hearing if you are aggrieved by the action taken on this permit. Be advised that to take advantage of this review process, you must file a hearing request and any required bond within 30 days. If you have any questions regarding this process or about the terms and conditions of your permit, contact Area Hydrologist Mike Mueller at 296-7523. Sincerely, Rens!°��Gv Assistant Director cc: DSCOE MPCA, Water Quality P. Willenbring, OSM Lover Minnesota River WSD Scott SWCD J. Parker, AMM B. Gilbertson, AFM J. Fax, St. Paul Waters Mill Pond file E. Anderson, MNDOT H5 MM279:kap NA-02733-Di P.A. mpm.a6 I4u7�atwa�A PROTECTED WATERS ' Depanrxa �nt ni Rso eurces 88-6396 PERMIT pvxuon of Wavers Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, and on the basis of statements and information c.ntainec in :^e permit application, letters, taus and plans submitted by the applicant and others supporting data, all :� +nicn are made a part hereof by reference. PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant named below to change the course, current, or cross section of the followino: Protected Yater County Shakopee Mill Pond (70-253P) Scott Name of Applicant 1elePnone Mu bar (include Area Lode) City of Shakopee. c/o: David Hutton I 61 - Address (No. C Street, RFD, Box Me.. City, State, Zip Cade) 129 E. First Ave., Shakopee. MN 55379 Authorized to: construct earthen and rock dikes, culverts, riprap, water level control structure and outlet channel at Shakopee Mill Pond; all as shown on Sheets 5A through 5D for City project #1987-5 except as modified herein. The dike length shall be as stated in Special Provision #20. Purpose of Permit: I Expiration Gate of Permit City stormwater outlet; trout stream separation N vet Property Described as Memorial Park, Sections 5, 6; County 31, 32; To 115; 116 North, Range 22 West Scott As Indicated: (B) As Indicated: (11) Does Not Apply Does Not A 1 This permit is granted subject to the following GENERAL and SPECIAL PROVISIONS: - GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This permit is permissive only and shall not release the permittee from any liability or obiioati:o icopsed by Minnesota Statutes, Federal Law or local ordinances relating thereto and shall retain in force subject cp al: conditions and limitations now or hereafter imposed by law. 2. Th.s permit isnotassignable except with the written consent of the Commissioner of Natural Resources. 3. The Regional Hydrologist shall be. notified at least five days in advance of the commencement of the work authori:tz hereunder and shall be notified of its completion within five days thereafter. The notice of permit iss,e: by the Commissioner shall be kept securely posted in a conspicuous place at the site of aPtrations. 4. No chance shall be Sade, without written permission previously obtained from the Commissioner of Natural Rasecrces. in the dimensions, capacity or location of any items of work authorized hereunder. 5. Tse permittee shall grant access to the site at all reasonable times during and after construction to authorize: representatives of the Commissioner of Natural Resources for inspection of the ...k authorized hereunder. B. This Permit may be terminated by the Commissioner of Natural Resources at any time he deems it necessary zt^ the conservation of water resources of thestate, or in the interest of public health and welfare, or fir viclatccn of any of the provisions of this permit, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions. _ 7. Construction work authorized under this permit shall be completed as or before data specified above. Lien .%i tel statin the reason therefere, an extension of tine ray be request to the Commissioner by :he Fermla ee, 9 B. The excavation of soil authorized herein shall not be construed :o include :he removal of ^-_ac!! -1::u 'as indicated above) unless the area from which such organic matter is removed, is impervic=z. :r Es Be,:it the application of bentonite after excavation. 1. In all cases'.here the doing by the 111-ht-1 of anything authorized by ibis permit sr.all inv:!ve t . taan t, using, or damaging of any property rights or interests of any other person or persons, or o' any oub'.`t1Y o -.^ lands or improvements there.. or interests therein, the permittee. before proceeding therewith, shall ! c'' the written consent of all Persons, agencies, or authori:its concerned. and sna11 acevire all vre:--ty, r:gr:s and ir,tarests necessary :herefore. 1 0. This Pe^mit is oerm4.ssive only. No liability shall oe imposed upon or incurred by the State cf Minnesota or any of its officers, agents or employees, officially or personally, on account of the granting hereof or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the permittee or any of its agents, employees, or contractors relating to any matter hereunder. This permit shall not be construed as estopping or limiting any legal claims or right of action of any person other than ,the state against the permittee, its agents, employees, or contractors, for any damage or injury resulting from any such act or omission, or as estopoing or limiting any legal claim or right of action of the state against the permittee, its agents, employees, or contractors for violation of or failure to comply with the permit or applicable provisions of law. :1. No materia'_ excavated by authority of this permit nor material from any other source, except as specified herein, shall be placed on any portion of the bed of said waters which lies below (as indicated above). :2. Any extension of the surface of said waters resulting from work authorized by this permit shall become protected waters and left open and uncostructed for use by the public. 13. This permit does not obviate any requirement for federal assent from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1135 U.S. Post Office and Custom Mouse, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 14. The permittee shall comply with all rules, regulations, requirements, or standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other applicable federal, state, or local agencies. 15. Permittee shall ensure that the contractor has received and thoroughly understands all conditions of this permit. 16. No blasting is allowed north of the Chicago and Northwestern railroad track in Sections 5 and 6. 17.-"The spring discharge at the headwaters of Pond 1 (south of T.H. 101) will be mitigated if impacted or reduced due to construction activity. -18. The normal (runout) elevation of Pond 3 will be raised one foot from the current proposal to elevation 701.0. 19. The outlet control structure (Sheet 5C, STA 0+50) will be modified to allow temporary drawdown capability to elevation 698. 20. Instead of constructing a berm measuring approximately 450' in length, running due north from the 36" R.C. Arch (Sheet 5B), the City shall construct a berm of the same dimensions and top elevation, for a distance of approximately 1320' , running parallel to the south perimeter of Pond 3, maintaining a spacing of about 5' - 10' between the rock bluff on the south side of Pond 3 and the toe of the berm and concluding the berm at the embankment on the north side of Pond 3. (See attached sketch) . 21. The total loss of water surface area from the current Ponds 1, 2, and 3 to the post construction condition shall not exceed one acre. If it does, commensurate excavation will be made for any loss over one acre. 22. City is authorized to drain Ponds 1, 2, and 3 immediately, and to maintain in a drained condition until all dikes are completed and stabilized. The Metro Region Fisheries office will be responsible for future work in providing an outlet and control structure for the trout stream which results from this project. The City shall complete the dike work within two years of the effective date of this permit. 23. Future maintenance of the stormwater culverts, the dikes in what are now Ponds 1 and 2, end all control structures for the stormwater pond shall be the responsibility of the City. Future maintenance of the 1320' dike and outlet structure for the trout stream shall be the responsibility of DNR-Fisheries Section - Metro Region. cc: USCOE, MPCA-Water Quality, P. Willenbring/OSM, Lower Minnesota River WSD, Scott SWCD, J. Parker/AWM, B. Gilbertson/AFM, J. Pax/St. Paul Waters, Mill Pond file Authorized ' atu 2Z Z. Title Date Kent Lokke oe Assistant Director N - R N N - — O 1J1I1� ; O 2 u - 3 i a & J 4> B z ts tA S 1 � _ N J x a a N - Nn y ,gyp I w \ l_1 7 _ q w - mo - - c 6 3 D •1 0 ' Lr' r A � r z I ^ o Q,D Z K- � © u •iO Yo e n a i MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Review FROM: LeRoy Houser RE: Assessment Procedures DATE: May 9, 1989 I believe there has been a misinterpretation and application of MSA 273.01 and 273. 08. The statute in itself is rather nebulous and is a little difficult for the average person to understand. In researching the possible problems for gross inequities in real estate taxes payable and assessment procedures, I am of the opinion at least 758 of the problem lies with Statutes 273.01 and 273.08, specifically the quartile assessment requirement. 273.01 states, "All real property subject to taxation shall be listed and at least one fourth of the parcels listed shall be appraised each year with reference to their value on January 2nd proceeding the assessment so that each parcel shall be reappraised at maximum intervals of four years. " 273.08 states, "The Assessor shall actually view, and determine the market value of each property listed for taxation, including the value of all improvements and structures thereon, at maximum intervals of four years, and shall enter the value opposite each description." It is misunderstood by most Scott County taxing district ( and applied) that the Assessor should only value 1/4 of the taxing district every four years. The key words in this Statute are maximum intervals, which means that the properties have to be valued at least every four years. As most Assessors presently apply the Statute, they assess only one quarter of the taxing district each year. That could, and most often does, result in that quartile being assessed at that magical number of 908 of market value. This results in one quarter at 808, one quarter at 708 and one quarter at 608 of market value. The net result is tax inequity in all four quartiles. Worse yet, if everything was equal in relation to real estate sales, 758 of the real estate sales could take place in the 3/4 quartile that did not qualify for reassessment. These sales would be fed to the E.A.R.C. study to determine our sales ratio. The aggregate ratio that would result would be 758. This would trigger the mechanism for a mandated valuation increase like we received this year. Consequently, the result could be 1008 of market value in one quartile, 908, 808 and 708 in the other three quartiles, still resulting in tax inequities. I believe this also contributes to the "roller coaster" effect. I have contacted a number of Legislators on this matter and they assure me next year that they will provide a clarification of these two sections or change the law to require Assessors to value all properties uniformly irrespective of their quartile. I would strongly suggest the Council pass a Resolution in support of this and send it to the Chairman of the Tax Study Commission. I would also suggest you request the sales located in the three quartile that were not reassessed that occurred in the last two years be removed from the E.A.R.C. study that determines our sales ratio. The defect in the application of 273.01 and 273.08 does significantly add to the roller coaster effect of taxes and results in gross inequity. Rep. Becky Kelso Minnesota 415 State Office Building House of St. Paul, MN 55155 "" (612) 296-1072 #a.21i�- Representatives May 9, 1989 LeRoy Houser 2021 S. Marschall Road Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear LeRoy: Thank you for the letter regarding current state law as it applies to local assessment procedures. I have been looking into this very matter (even before your letter) in response to concerns expressed by the Jackson Township Board. I have met with Mike Wandmacher of the Department of Revenue to discuss the problem in general and the options you proposed. Mr. Wandmacher informed me that the second alternative you described, which requires the assessor "to blanket the 3/4 quartile with a percentage increase" , is in fact the way the law is currently written. It is unquestionably the intent of the legislature that local assessors should interpret the law in this manner. Orders by the State Board of Equalization for mandated valuation increases, like we received this year, is not the way the system is supposed to work and obviously has a very undesirable effect on the community. Mr. Wandmacher said he would handle the issue of misinterpretation of statute by notifying the Scott County assessors of the intent of Minnesota Statutes 273.01 and 273.08 regarding the quartile assessment process. I would certainly agree that option 11, dealing with every other year assessments would be the best choice. However, I am fearful that the additional staffing requirements would be unacceptable at this time for cost reasons. Our researcher indicated that you had some questions regarding the way school districts levy referendum dollars. At the present time it is the school district's discretion as to whether they have the ability to levy dollars or mills, now tax capacity. Many districts (particularly in rural areas with rapidly declining agricultural values) have chosen to levy dollars so that the district can be assured they will have a stable and predictable source of funding. LeRoy Houser May 9, 1989 Page Two Some districts have chosen to levy mills, knowing that values are likely to increase and that the referendum will produce more income. It is always a school district 's option to chose to levy less than the ballot question states, they cannot levy more. Four or five years ago when I was serving on the Shakopee School Board, we chose not to fully levy the allowable amount because increased values had produced a small windfall so we decided to return that to the taxpayer. I would be willing to pursue legislation that would mandate referendums be for fixed dollar amounts only. I believe it would be in line with "truth in taxation" measures that currently are in statute. Unfortunately, it is too late for any new bills this session, however, I can look into it for next year if you are interested. Again, thank you for writing. Si a ly, Becky Kelso State Repr sentative BKdp 1001/2802 PLANNING COMMISSION: Rockne Foudray Allen Czaja Forbord Stafford Kahleck X - Present O - Absent * 1st April meeting was postponed due to a lack of a quorum. NERREN TOTAL Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. * Apr. May ABSENT X O X X O X 2 X X X O X X 1 X O X O X O 3 X X X O X O 2 X X X X X X 0 X X X X O O 2 NA NA X X X X 0 * 1st April meeting was postponed due to a lack of a quorum. NERREN CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SNAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)4453650 May 11, 1989 Terrence Hennen 1116 Jackson Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Hennen: You returned the bottom portion of the Notice Of Value Increase on your property to the Scott County Assessor indicating that you wished to appear before the Shakopee Board of Review. On May 9, 1989 the City Council convened as the Board of Review. They tabled discussion on your property because you were not present. The Shakopee City Council will reconvene as the Board of Review in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 129 East 1st Avenue, on Tuesday, May 16, 1989, at 8:00 P.M., or shortly thereafter. If you wish to discuss your 1989 Estimated Market Value with the Board of Review, you may do so at this time. If you concur with the 1989 Estimated Market Value placed on your property, you need not attend. JSC/tiv sincerely, Cox 4Y1CT Cox Clerk The Heart of Progress Valley AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMGLOYEN IRV, Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date....... 4,312 Cora Hullander Bldg. Dept. Sec. CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT PERMITS ISSUED April, 1989 Yr. to Date Previous Year Number Number Valuation Number Valuation No. Ytd. Single Fain-Sewered 12 24 1,691,550 8 17 1,242,900 Single Fam-Septic 2 3 332,000 2 4 374,800 Multiple Dwellings - - - 2 2 216,800 (# Units)(YTD Units) (-) (-) - (4) (4) - Dwelling Additions 12 21 125,390 11 11 89,868 Other - 1 98,000 - 1 2,500 Comm New Bldgs - - - - - 2 5 518,000 Bldg. Addns - - Industrial-Sewered - - - - - Ind-Sewered Addns - - - - -_ Industrial -Septic - - - Ind -Septic Addns - - - - - Accessory/Garages 5 7 42,225 2 3 41,200 Signs & Fences 5 16 18,364 9 15 27,260 Fireplaces/Wood Stove 1 2 4,400 - 5 17,500 Grading/Foundation 1 3 1,349,395 - - Remodeling (Res) 2 8 57,990 - 6 20,650 Remodeling (Inst) Remodeling (Comm/Ind) - 8 - 15 - 1,300,400 1 8 122,000 TOTAL TAXABLE 48 100 5,019,714 40 85 2,673,478 TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - GRAND TOTAL 48 100 5,019,714 40 85 2,673,478 No. Ytd. No Ytd. Variances - 2 1 3 5 8 Conditional Use 2 7 1 Rezoning - - _ 1 Moving - 1 Electric 17 70 23 33 85 84 Plbg & Htg 40 91 Razing Permits _ 2 Residential - - Commercial - - Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date....... 4,312 Cora Hullander Bldg. Dept. Sec. CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN APRIL, 1989 8127 Novak -Fleck 1121 Minn'�ggsota Court House $ 66,900 8128 Void 8129 Steve Wermerskirchen 1756 Montecito Drive Addn. $ 9,000 8130 Novak -Fleck 1100 Minnesota St eet House $ 45,000 cYz3a 2-/ 63.�•c,._,,..e 8131 Novak -Fleck 1106 Minnesota Street House $ 65,800 --?4 Q3 8132 Novak -Fleck 1108 Minnes to t7freet House $ 59,000 /o d3 _d__ 8133 LeRoy Weiers 2160 Hillside Drive Addn. $ 1,250 8134 Attracta Sign 8050 E. Hwy 101 Sign $ 700 8135 Jeffrey Luka 820 E. 3rd Ave. Garage $ 8,925 8136 New Century Const. 1433 Wood Duck Trail House $ 62,000 8137 Daniel Lang 312 E. 4th Ave. Garage $ 6,800 8138 Chateau Brick 2514 Hauer Trail Frplc $ 3,700 8139 Canterbury Downs 1100 Canterbury Rd. Alt. $ 12,000 8140 Mark Menke 1068 Tyler St. Deck $ 1,000 8141 Keith Ruff 1200 Minnesota Addn. $ 840 8142 Novak -Fleck 1130 Minnesota House $ 66,900 8143 MN Valley Fence 1077 Swift St. Fence $ 690 8144 Valley Sign 441 W. 1st Ave. Sign $ 384 8145 Valley Fair One Valley Fair Dr. Alt. $ 210,000 8146 Valley Fair One Valley Fair Dr. Alt. $ 2,200 8147 Larry Link 1406 W. 3rd Alt. $ 6,000 8148 Roncor Const. 3374 Marschall Rd. House $ 119,000 8149 Rodney Robinson 914 W. 5th Ave. Alt. $ 1,200 8150 Robyn Lee 1097 Van Buren Fence $ 400 8151 E2 Const. MN Valley Mall Alt. $ 3,900 8152 8153 8154 8155 8156 8157 8158 8159 8160 8161 8162 8163 8164 8165 8166 8167 8168 8169 8170 8171 8172 8173 8174 8175 Sather Co. Link Bldg. Michael Schmid Logeais Homes Monnens Bros. Monnens Bros. B & D Dev. D. L. Vierling Mark Mueller Mark Mueller Michael Menke Joe Young Monty Raben Ostman const. Brian Brom T & R Home Bldrs Gary McKiver Don MCKush Robert Heyda Novak -Fleck Laurent Bldrs. Amcon Const. Gardner Brothers Gardner Brothers 1137 Jackson 1570 E. Hwy 101 2200 Foothill Tr. 712 11th Avg. 1755 Montecito Dr. 721 W. 7th Ave. 2544 Onyx rive 1217 Su lower Cjrcle 1278 Maxine cle 1278 Maxine Circle 1088 Harrison St. 1273 E. Shakopee Ave. 2063 Heritage Dr. 1221 E. 4th Ave. 833 Market 40I�ur by.Ave. G sy� 1045 Eas view 3691 Marschall Rd. 1016 Minnesota St. 1102 Minnesota St. 2693 Co. Rd. 79 690 Industrial Circle 1881 Heri age Driv 2004 Murphy Ade. p Addn. $ 13,000 Alt. $ 3,500 Addn. $ 2,500 House $ 69,400 Addn. $ 5,100 Garage $ 6,500 House $ 90,000 House $ 130,000 Fill $ 200 Addn. $ 2,100 Alt. $ 5,000 Fence $ 150 Addn. $ 1,100 Alt. $ 3,000 Garage $ 4,000 House $ 62,300 Addn. $ 3,400 Addn. $ 750 Addn. $ 750 House $ 51,000 Stg. $ 8,000 Alt. $ 7,000 House $ 54,900 House $ 61,400 r- LF oe mNaYNNOuu-ou -ae f - np a Dk� 4 m D�iCmF rW ;Smrf A.im C~ „zzi - �z T Off>�r 4Z 99gWUm�s> ; iz HIAiir.n MH o n' dmA_q IJIM;y 22' em1 ^mi Wmm y T nI YRyf y1® p^. p P y o ni eeeo-eeooae o eaaaeaeooe I SHOP a eeeeaaueooeeeo i np a Dk� 4 C~ T iz A y Uy y 4Na Wc� ' Atolls it 1 1 WAIT A oeeeeoeeoeeeo a eoeeeeoeee e e eooaeeooeeooee a eoo a p Y p Y aYWWO�eA Aye ryeJleYWery m o m Wp M0NJe0e0 ego eeooYe 0 ery Peoaoeee W eoeeaeo�WNoeeoone p +04 CO o U_ eu_ - a 4n nu-pu+uo�g �neneo: w mw.uuiau xeie i A cum ero eve gnNo�enmere m-naeOoe. "ua'mnN- ueeguo - p WW'otlJeeee - I F' Smnn+'+mn m L v tl u n ==�OeN ee�veo oem:'n a ee eo I � "ee"�nenee iOeN e. n < e tlNunuaeNNl��IN~er eM d i � F< - NItlIPUN _ 1- tl tl ea e tl ' I f V I I I I I _< n - i n I tl - - •' is N 77N ry �YrrI _: . " YiL' i C CT�• iaT I -_ - "1- • Y • NN' . YO�J�NY.i1 ... _ . e • - . ..................- ooe nw. e'uom_e v�'c tic'm me o'mi:iaa'a mo'�,�wn'Am omcocc ""` yo z ? � 9 _ '\ N$'%$ - '<m`f�r�"<oa'ra az�mww'rys e- m 'o i m sLH n o --- n m m r iin m ryDzm iq im- -Fon Tna30^'mmm mawm`wD onu am a m % aco w AOmnma ram m nnr wn � a\ .tea < m oc rm --'I�Tm An Orf -If F L-m nN ~w ' 'c^ a =^AD amm o ZZL I S • \M: w _ _a a s an r tl<, n ^> o m i I I 1 y =pap ..p aY I AO jYYUP' •OYM1N iM <mmlue N0eIw11NaJ CY n. o o e ewo O meas ........... see Ym r3 �. I Y Ynl m Y I I Y YI n Im m uu' Na u uwY n Z, _ :mJneO-Yiv =`u e'uweee A _ - _ PnunNiuw=umnu:�-w - _ _ •Yii•Y�euu--u Yamm a ' .e e o e o 0 e0e eJJ oen Ye_YJmw A nUea'Y1me P• YmMw Y' - 0h-Pe A I N m m o e - n m Y mn YuuYuno P_-. u u nreJ -YNPa - Y Ya i � w a . I I I i j I I e II I I II NI FCMAILEDY r IN THE UNITED SfATFB BUSINESS REPLY MAIL ��' FTHSf Ci.p.� PERMIT NO.11505 MINNEAPOWS MN = POSTAGE W U aE PAID 6Y ADDRESSEE - EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES,INC. 2950 Norwest Center mmmmmmmm 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402-4100 EhlePs and Associates,Inc. LEA pEgS IN PUBLIC FINANCE OPEN HOUSE 2950 Norwest Center I/We will be attending your open house on June 7, 1989 person(s) will attend &&nave M—cipalTy/Company k Ehlers and at lEA0Efl5 IN PUBLICFINANCE NEWSLETTER 1 I Il... OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS AND WAUKESHA VOLUME 34 NUMBERS MAY,1989 FILE Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates,Inc. Please distribute to governing body members YOU AND YOUR ASSOCIATES ARE R4VrrED Join us at our Open House for refreshments and entertainment to celebrate the move to our new offices: Wednesday,June 7,4:00-6:30 p.m. 2950 Norwest Center,90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis,Minnesota We're proud of our new home in the Norwest Center, Minneapolis' newest and most beautiful building. Enclosed is a postage-paid return card for your response. We're looking forward to seeing all of you! TAXILXEMrr INT EST RATM REMAIN IINCHANGPD The Bond Buyer Index (BBI) of 20-year tax-exempt bond yields was 7.56% on April 13, unchanged from 7.55% at the end of February. The Fed has been moving to tighten interest rates, especially short-teml rates, to right inflation. One-year U.S.Treasury bills yielded 9.58% vs. 9.3% on long-term Treasuries and 10.25% on corporate bonds. Some say that an inverted yield curve, higher short-term than long-term rates, often precedes a recession. L MGHERT TAXES. AND LOWIRI INFLATION Increasing interest rates is inappropriate to combat inflation since it imposes higher costs on borrowers, and puts no money in the Treasury to reduce the deficit, the root cause of inflation. Candidates for office said "no new taxes" but didn't mention higher inflation rates (worst tax of all) or higher interest rates,each can be as expensive as a tax increase. If we cannot contain the deficit by cutting spending, we might look at raising income taxes. It has the virtue of putting money in the Treasury, which an interest rate increase does not do, but results in higher production costs which might well cause some domestic industries to become less competitive. If raising income taxes won't work, we might look at a national sales tax which would raise prices, hot would not raise production costs and would put money in the Treasury. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FINANCING ItEQIlIRCS FINANCIAL CONSULTA[V7'A�T1SI'ANCE After a long hiatus we are financing much more school construction. Some districts' enrollments are growing, others are upgrading old plants for health and safety reasons. while others, faced with open enrollment, feel they must improve. These are stressful times for school boards. administrators, parents, students and taxpayers but financial consultants can provide the information and service to help work things out. Financing, getting money on good terms, can be a great worry and help should be provided by an independent fina»eial consultant. Ehlers and Associates have the experience, insights and the computer capability to provide quick accurate answers and provide assistance to relieve local voters' concems. Reducing a multi-million dollar capital improvement or a levy referendum to smaller costs per student day or per calendar clay for taxpayers often puts a better face on the problem. We do a superior job developing L. a variety of finance plans to find the best solution for each project and each community. Your financial consultant ought not be just a seller of bonds. 2950 Norwest Center•90 South Seventh Street•Minneapolis,MN 55402-4100.612-339-8291•FAX 612-339-0854 CAPITAL APPREMUON BQMS HAYEADVANTAGES BUT ARE MORE Cty.C1'Ly "'� Capital appreciation bonds (CABs) ate bonds sold at deep discounts and on which interest compounds semi-annually to maturity at which time they pay face value, or if called before maturity, at their accreted values. Investors lock in a stated yield to maturity or to the optional call date, not only on the original amount borrowed, but also on the accrued interest without having to collect and reinvest earnings. CABs are especially favored by parents seeking to put away tax-exempt income for college tuition. But demand for CABs is one which can come and go and one never knows, when bonds are authorized, whether the market will be there. By using CABs the issuer evades having to pay or acme interest on new debt until an old issue matures. Also, it is said, this avoids the problem of having to increase the bond issue to cover interest accruing before revenues become available. However, the issuer must consider the cost. Not only must the borrower pay interest at stated rates on the initial principal, it must pay compound interest on interest at those rates. By postponing interest, the issuer, pushes off debt service payments which results in a more costly financial solution. 1t also may make a future bond issue (10 to 20 years down the road) less attractive or financially not feasible. CABs should be evaluated along with conventional Financing. Their advantages may resolve short-term economic political problems and not be the best long-tens solution. STEPPED FINANCING ACCOMPLSHPS CAME]FINANCIAL P AMMKI OBJECTIVE AS CABS Use of CABs to establish equal .ffiLnund payments points up the value of constant tax r3tg, stepped financing which Ehlers and Associates pioneered. It is especially valuable for growing communities wishing to avoid increasing taxes with each issue. A community is not limited to conventional, equal aminal debt service payments. Contact Ehlers and Associates for assistance in developing debt retirement programs that Fit each community's needs and resources by structuring a constant tax rate, anticipating future financings. 1 BLACK BOX FINANCING Trude papers are replete with stories of bond issues allegedly sold to finance phantom projects. The proceeds, instead of being used to Finance actual projects, went into guaranteed investment contracts (GICs) at yields offsetting interest on the bonds while the underwriters and bond attorneys took their fees and ran. Similiar local plans have offered to finance "wish list", but unauthorized, projects to "hedge" against higher future interest rates "just in case". They were to be "AAA" rated bonds, secured by GICs. However,if the proceeds were ever used for actual projects the GICs would have had to be broken, and the basis for the "AAA" rating would disappear. Participants were even assured that they did not have to borrow front the pool if they could get lower interest rates elsewhere. But the IRS was not a party to these "black box" transactions, and it is doubtful if participants could double Finance tax-exempt. If something looks too good to be true,it probably is. Aside from soaking up financing for good projects, black box finattcing casts a shadow over au tax-exempt financing. Ovemse of tax-exempt bonds is the root cause of the legal and legislative loss of tax exemption. When we find out how far we can go with in exemption,we have gone too far. Be sure to come to our Open House and send at the reply card. Very truly yours, Elders and Associates,Inc. Robert L. Elden - SUbD4ARY OF AREA BOND SALES enna Net Buger MoStdaujil, QpSB ]rale Bf BondS (®y_n_( ly}y r(j2 9dfg 109gy E.U. fack �kw Lane 01 G.O. Sear lyrovaxent Bonds $ nodi 1990-Z"al 7.25% 7.S MR Rairbe,k 03/06/89 G.O. Saxer impr-max.1 Bonds 320N 1989-2Wa 7.37% 7.56% 0 LeClair 03/06/89 6.0. Corporate Purpose Bonds 2601 1998-199a 6.9d% 7.56% MR 0enixan Ca. 5/0 03/13/89 G.O. School Bonds 11500. 1992-2"2 1.08% I.S. A Mount Veman Cam. S. 03/20/89 G.O. S[Mol ..ad, 1.050. 1991-2"6 7.An 7.52Y 0 Slash Ste,City 03/20/B9 G.O. Sliming Pool Bonds 820M 19" 1999 7.15% 7.4i A Mask. ltam 03/27/89 G.O. Corporate Purpose Bonds Scl. 1990_1999 LISA "n M Indianola 03128/89 Capital loan Note, 1.10" 1950-2"4 7.39% ].]2i A M 1.5.0. .19] 02/06/89 6.0. Ida Antic. Casts. 01 Intlebt. 2.090" 1990 A.IA% 1.29% IN Vest St. Paul X55]] "/06/89 G.O. School Building Bends 2.95" 1931110" 7". 1.29% Baa Vlllm Rix- lakefbld 02/06/09 G.O. Grant Anticipation Bonds 030N 1"1 6.59% 7.29% MR I.S.D. MI 02/01/89 G.O. SCM1eol Building Bonds 4.WIT 1992_2010 ]AS% 7.29% Aaa/AAA MITI, Leke Special School Oist. M .2/01/09 G.O. Tax Antic. Certs. of Indebt. 4,22" 1990 &Ift 7.21 MR South St. Paul I.S.D. M77 Buffalo 02/07 MR G.O. lax Antic. Certs. of Indebt 2.305. 1950 6.75% 7.29L MR 1.3.0. NN] Millway 02/08/09 N.D. Tax Antic. Certs. of Indebt. 2.920. 1990 6.811A 7.2% 0 I.S.O. R87 02/09/09 G.O. Tax Antic. Certs. of (Mart. 4.800M 1950 6.811 7.29E MR No...pi. Tech. Incl. Chaska 02/13/.9 G.O. Is, Inv[!nt Needs 9,200M 1992401)1 6.98Y 7.30% AMBAC Oilworth 02/13/09 G.O. foul plant Certs. Af I.A.Ot 60M 1990-1990 6.BOi 7.3BS MR I.S.O. YIM Clare City "/13/89 G.O. To,Antic Certs. of Intlebt. 430" 1998 7.01% 1.38% MR l.S.O. .11 Milk- 02/13/89 6.0. Aid Antic. Certs. of (Mart 1,105. 1909 7.ISIS 7.38% MR 1.5.0. .12 Mlla[e 02/13/09 G.O. Va.Anti. Calls. of Indebt. Dan. 19" 7.01E 1.30% NI I.5.0. /129 Montevideo Ot il,go G.O. IS.Antic. Certs. nI Indebt "OM 1990 7.05% 7.38% MR I.S.O. May Ortonville 02/13/89 G.O. Tax Antic Carts. of Indebt. 475. I9" 7.01E ].30% in St. out 02/13/89 G.O. Capitol IR r4Vement Bonds 11.15" 1990-1999 6.931 7.3Bi A.. 51. Paul 02/13/89 G.O. Narver/Shepard Road Bonds 5,500. 1990-1999 6.93% 7.30 Aa/Ma St Paul 02/13/89 G.O. Cao Conservatory Bonds 5,00011 1990-1999 6.931 7.3BF Aa/411 St Paul OVlTM9 G.o. Capital bprorawent 2.26" 1931-1982 6.7% 7.3Bt Aa/AM Refunding Bonds St. pawl 02/13/89 6.0. Street le9rovaent Special 2.00014 1991-2010 7.1% 7.3BX as/AM Assessment.BMs I.S.O. 1120 SIR River 02/14/89 G.O. rax Antic Certs, of Indebt 3,0"M 1990 730% 1.38% W I.S.O. 1152 .... 02/14/89 G.O. Tax Antic Certs. of Indebt 2.350M 19" R.". 7.3BY No 1.5.0. "AT 0.atonna 82/14/B9 6.0. Can Antic. Certs. of Intlebt 1.500. 1990 1.0. 7.30% MR I.S... ASIA Pine City 02/14/89 G.O. Tex Antic. Certs. of Indebt. 895I, 1990 7.16% 7.38% hat Poll,-Rapids "/14/" R.N. Serer Buyers. Refunding Bonds I,df5M 1990-2012 7.33% 7.38% Baal Mite Bear Lake 02/14/" B.S. Oe-leaent Bonds I.Q. 19913010 1.IBIS 1.30Y Mil= 02/16/89 G.O. Nater A Siler Bolls 1BBM 1992-1993 1.25% 7.38% M .intM1rnP "/16/89 G.O. Wife,6 Saxer Refunding Bond38% Ms 4]BM 19"3012 7.36% 1. MitlJi 02/21/89 G.O. 1-T*,-"t Bonds 390. 1991-2007 ].13% 7.54% A 1.5.0. 1162 Bagley 02/21/09 6.0. 1-Mndt ti[. Certs. of IebMon. 1990 7.35% 7.54IS NI LS.O. #299 Celetlwia 02/21/89 G.O. Tera AnlJo Carla. of Ind.Al. 520. 1990 7.29% 7.S4% MR LS.O. "31 forest Lake 02/21/89 G.A. If..tic Casts. of Inaeht 3,130M 1990 7.1. 1.Sat NI 1.5.0. 018 Grand Rapids "/21/B9 G.O. Tax Antic Certs, of Indebt. 2,70. 1990 1.26% 1.TAIL M L5.0. /" Nes Vlw "/21/89 G.O. U.Anti[. Carts. of Indebt 1.01" 1990 ].1]% 7.Sat NI I.S.D. 161 Ni Mena 02/21/89 6.0. IS.Antic Certs. of Indabl. 2,725x 19" 7.1. ].54% At WrsNll County 02/21/" G.O. Refunding Bonds I1" 1990-1999 1.In ].SAF NR Pe9wt Lakes 0222/" G.O. Sexer Revenue Refunding Bonds 28" 19"3011 I.M. 7.54: Mt Res rville "122/39 G.O. lamveant Bonds 3,"" 1998-good 7.37% 1.541 As' Royalton "123/89 G.O. ReluMing BOM: 135. 1990-20" ].30% 7.54% MR L S.C. .201 Cla leant 0224/" G.O. lax Anti[. Cerb. or Indebt 17SM 1990 7.40% 7.54X MR Cook 0227/" G.O. Re fosling...IS PSM 1990-"15 1.SBF 7.55% MR I SA. 056 I.Hlaolt "2]/" G.O. ITS Antic. Casts. of Indebt 2,00" 19" 7.2AY 7.5% MR IMAS LaPorte @/21/89 6.0. School Building Bonds 1,04" 1992-2011 7.49% 7.55% Baa L5.0. 065 Litchfield 02/27/09 6.0. Ida Antic Carts. of Intlebt. 1135" 19" 1.401 7.55Y NR (bunds Vi" "/21/.9 Taxable G.O. I. Incrw.nt Bonds 1,16" 1992-2"5 10.01 1.55% A 1.5... 051 P.1-.1 D"2B/09 6.0. la,Mt lc Certs. 0f I".At 1,57W 1990 1.24% 1.51% don Dakota County 02/20/09 G.O. Capital lynrae"I .OMs 3],"011 1991-2010 1.361 7.55% AI/M- Ely 02RB/89 6.0. Refuntli ng Serer Bmitls 44 AM 1990-1993 7.77% 7.55% MR Ely ORTITA B9 GA. tAn Mti[ipatian prtifi[ates 515. 1990 7.41 1.55% N0. Pine City "/01/89 GA. iax IT -, BOMB 2]" 1992-1999 1.12: ].55Y 1.5.0. "'a "/"/B9 G.O. las MUo I-IS. 0f fMebt .2. 1990 7.bi 7.51 NR Rover-L-Bville L S.D. 4141 Payasville "/B6/B9 6.0. )as Antic. Calls. of Indebt 3bN 19" l.3SF 7.562 Be Montax des "/06/89 G.O. Saain9 v0o1 BBntls 93" 1990./999 7.005 1.56E A Ax M) "/07/09 G.B. Refunding BOM: 16" 19"-2"5 L54i 7.S.. Etlen press.. 03/01/09 G.O. E9ui-,1 Cert. of Indebt 1,20" 1991-1"1 6.941 IJSY A Eden P,a tri, 03/Ol/D" G.O. Re li[ Building Ref. Bonds 2,"" 1990-2"2 ].0]% 1.56% A Eden Prairie 03/"/89 G.B. Recreational facility 2.]]" 1990.2002 1.071 1.56% A Refundin0 floods Banti Net On" Nyni 4ipgljjy at. erce of Bends P Y1 1185,11 tv Rite hided 531=3 N'nnesota mot. 'Aa AH ¢ I. 03/131M Lease Revenue Bonds 350" 1990-1999 ].d0% L524 No LS.O. F193 US.... 03/1189 G.O. ]aa Anti[. Crtts. of Indebt 56BM 1990 ].20% 1.58 Ad I.S.O. RI]] Minden 03/13/89 G.O. I.. An it. Cells. BI Indebt. I101M 1990 1.29E 7.52E M SL (loud 03/13/89 laaaAT. G.O. ]an Inveaent Bontls 1,3BON 19923009 10.032 7.522 A .H Labe 83/19/89 G.O. Road Bonds 200" 1990-1995 7.03s 7.52% An Ras,(aunty 03/14/89 G.O. bet...Aed Bonds 1.035" 1990-I99a 6.95% 7.52E Aga/Me Rassey County 03/19/89 6.0. Call,., ITmvandmt Bontls 5.000N 19903009 1.32% 7.52% au/401 aasey County B3/14. G.O. Capital IynvwuM1 Bonds 9,40M 1990-2004 7.21E 7.52Z Asa/Nu Rene] (aunty 03/14/89 G.O. Capital ITmverMnt Bonds 10.I00M 1990-2009 7.322 7.4% Aaa/Me .,lot County 03/1489 G.O. (nun ty Jall Building Bonds 5,000N 1992-2010 7.2BF 7.521 A SeWatone 03/1589 G.O. Saner Bonds 2.250" 1991 7.142 7.5M NR Cdlu 03/2089 G.O. ...its 1.760" 19923001 7.08% I.SM NI/M Eli- 03/2089 G.O. Recreational facility Bonds 2.IDDN 1.23009 1.28 7.52E Ail/M Edina 03/20/89 G.G. Taxable )aa Invent Bonds 5.300N 19953009 10.271 7.5R MI/M Edife 03/20/69 G.O. 1. In[ruen[ ...it, 8.4?" 19953009 1.3E 7.521 MI/M [.S.D. 8637 RedNotl falls 03/20/89 G.O. ScAul Building Bonds 4,BCM 19903013 7.52E L5E Baal I" Prairie 03/20/89 G.O. Great Anticipation Bonds 1.235. 1991 7.26 7.521 Mi Riu 03/20/09 6.0. ,.wading hip-me.nt Bands IIS. 19903000 7.612 7.5E M Crptal 03/20/89 G.D. COeabunity Cents, Bonds 2.00DN 199230115 1.2E 7.5E AT Ba"leon County 03/21/89 G.O. Capital lyreseaenl Bands 3,ZOM 1991-2010 7.4E 1.5E A- Rosuount 03/21/69 G.O. Byte,Race-Bonds 1.320. 19913005 7.31% 7.58 A DuluM 03,189 G.O. 7u Anti,. Certs. of Indebt 7.SON 1909 7.805 7.521 M 15.0. X695 CFish.l. 03/27/89 G.O. )aa Anti[. Certs. of Indebt 440M 1990 7.35Z ].]E M I.5.0. .WOB St. Peter 03/27/09 G.O. School Building only 3,665" 1992-2010 7.41% 1.1E MIA Eden Late 03/20/89 G.O. Bonds 55M 1991-2005 7.531 7.72E M Neronia 03/28/89 G.O. lxxpm. I Banda 5154 1990-1999 7.232 7J2% Baal [anis 0328/89 losable B.G. M1v Inc mon-t Bonds 17. 1989-2001 10.4. 7.1E Baal if.-.1. 03/28/89 6.0. Is. incrsen,I BBntic I,OIq 1990-1999 1.26 ].IE Baal aaplelnn 0329/89 G.O. Gran[ anti[Ipation ponds 2.D2M 1991 7.d. 1.7E M .15GROlin Omand Sanitary .2101/89 Mater Syslaa B Senac Syspn LSM 1991-2011 ].9 B% 7 2M M Of s trict W. 1 %Itgige Rer. Refunding Bonds To 02/01/09 Revenue ,eluding...If I4M 1990-200] 7.91% 7.291 M $.Idiots Gmre 028189 to, Syntax NaIt,,. Revenue 214 1991-2017 7.831 7.291 M Refunding Bolls Soldiers Grave 02/02/89 Seer Sysleso Mrtga, Revenue 26M 19913010 ].]6 7.29X M Reltoulf,Bads Holes Camera 02/1./89 G.O. Corporate Purpose Bontls 7354 194-2002 6.96% 1.38, N$luukee 02/14/89 SM1ort ler.Proxiss.,Notes 1.,.. 1990 ].BOD ].Mis NIG 1 SBP 1. Mnnankee D2"..9 sMFt rel.Imaxi-, Nates IO.DDDx IgM LSD, 7.31FD TO I SBP I. M$Ignkee 02/1489 Short ler. Pmol--, Mates 10.00. 19M LMA 1. % NIG I BP 1. Wil-kin, 11/1489 SAort ler. Pr.alasory Ib tea BOOM 199p ].502 ).385 NIG 1 P I. UA.of Ma /89 s[ nln 02/15G.O. Bonds 43,73M19M-2009 7.3E 7.361 /M I-u... Diof A-o :ield 02/22/89 G.O. PrProof s.Ory Motes 3,00M 1991-1999 7.341 1.56 M ... al. d4 Dane County 03/0289 G.O. Prcomsop Nolet 3,7001 1991-1990 6.92% 7.55% pee Beme.01 03/06/89 Satyr Systes brtgage Revenue Bonds 1. IgM-2010 7.98% 1.561 M Greenfield 83/0]89 6.0. Proni-fary Notes ATM 1991_1999 7.031 7.5fiZ A Greenfield .3/07/89 6.0. ITr-axonal Bads 2.09. 1991-2000 7.05% 7.56% A lacrosse M/0]/B9 G.O. Prceisaory .1O 2.SOOM 194-194 AAM ].56% Aa Nauw toss 03/01/89 G.O. Prv.I slap Notes 2.300" IgM-194 6.911% L56Y Mpst Allis 03/O]/B9 G.O. prenyl slap Nates 5,620N 194-1999 7.06 ].561 114 er Da.Oaifletl SID M/M/B9 G.D, lryroraaenI Bonds A,150M 1991-2003 ].IE 7.562 AI Caiiril le 5/0 03/09/89 G.O. 5[Aoo1 Bonds 1,60M 1991-2008 1.5.% 1.56% AMAC Ne. Lisbon 58 03/13/89 G.O. BwMs 700H 1991-2008 1.56E 7.521 M Maunab ee Com. 5/D 0]/1]89 6.0. SCM1ooI Ouildi ng IT r. BOntls 1.500M 1991-200A ].IBL ].SE A Milton 03/1489 G.A. Seye race Bonds 7ooM 1990-2004 ].2F1 7.5E A Blair M/15/B9 Mnal[ipal Nursing Iles¢lbrtgage 1,IB. 1991-2007 0.23% 7.5E M Revenue Banda Milwaukee Caunty 03/16/89 6.0. Corporate purpose Bends 28,950" 1990-2004 7.20% ].SE Aa/M- Grants., 031E1B9 Senor $,,I-Hort-any Rev. Bends SAM Ip10.2M9 7.682 ].SE M .no. Ci11.10aflal. 03/21/89 G.O. School Building BmNs 900" 1991-200: 7.51% ].521 M Join 58/R CUBer1aM 03/23/89 Nuntripal Gall Course .,I,, 605M 1991-2809 B.28L ].SE M Revenue Bonds Glendale 03f17/89 G.O. Pruiss.ry nates 1.300" 1990-1999 7.1E 7.1E An Myth Dakota Carri ngtnn 02/13/:9 G.O. Refunding Iryro,-11 Bonds - g0. 1991_1996 6.501 ].30% M � P.S.D. XI Jw.slan 02/14/09 6.0. Sa M1ool Building Tend Bonds ]5. 1990_199] 6.93% ].MIC NR P.S.B. X37 MaM1peloe 02/21/09 G.O. School Bu lldi,Bonds 300. IM9-2.3 7.I. ].56 NR Mirh"mn Marquette Board of 03/28/89 Electric Utility Systea,Rev. Notes .,78M 1990 1.181 7.7E AMAC LI9At B Paver q Minutes of the Community Development Commission City Council Chambers Shakopee, MN April 12, 1989 Chairman Joos called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. with the following members present; Commissioners Jane DuBois, Terry Joos and Jon Albinson. Commissioners Furrie and Miller were absent. Also present was Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant, Councilmember Zak and Christen Converse, Chamber of Commerce Director. Albinson/DuBois moved to approve the minutes of the March 15, 1989 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Dave Hutton, City Engineer stated that the design engineer for the downtown bridge and mini by-pass project has requested that the City of Shakopee consider which type of BEBO design and mini park they would like to see built in conjunction with the Downtown mini by-pass bridge project. Mr. Hutton noted that because of the elevation of the pedestrian underpass versus the elevation of the street, handicapped accessibility is dictating what kind of design can be utilized for the pedestrian walkway. He noted that the elevation of the BEBO was approximately 18' lower than the elevation of First Avenue, hence the difficulty in designing the handicap walkway. Mr. Hutton then reviewed the two options which were submitted by the design engineer for consideration. Option #1 was a curvilinear walkway. Option #1 required a retaining wall near the BEBO entrance. Mr. Hutton noted that MnDOT's costs for Option #1 were approximately $100, 000. An additional $36,000 would have to be provided by the City of Shakopee assuming all the streetscape elements were included as proposed by the design engineer. Mr. Hutton noted that the City of Shakopee would not have to install the streetscape elements if they did not think it was appropriate. In fact, Mr. Hutton stated that he felt it was more appropriate to pursue landscaping of this area at a later date when First Avenue was reconstructed. Mr. Hutton then reviewed Option #2. He explained that Option #2 did not necessitate a retaining wall at the BEBO entry point and therefore, MnDOT's cost for the project would be approximately $80, 000, as compared to the $100,000 in Option #1. Mr. Hutton did note that Option #2, as proposed, included more streetscape elements then Option #1 and therefore, the City's cost was higher. (Approximately $41,000) Mr. Stock stated that this issue was presented to the Downtown Committee earlier in the day and they favored option #1. They did, however, state that Option #1 may be difficult to traverse for a person in a wheelchair. They felt that the walkway as 1 proposed in Option #2 was too close to the mini by-pass. Mr. Hutton then gave a brief review of how the trail system will tie into the BEBO. He also discussed the removal of the existing bridge and decking. Mr. Hutton noted that the bridge was one of three in Minnesota and was on the historical register. He stated that MnDOT fully intends to remove the decking but not in conjunction with this project. Following the completion of the Downtown mini by-pass and bridge project, he expected MnDOT to pursue demolition of the bridge decking. He did, however, state that this would be at least a three year process. It was the consensus of the Commission that they favored Option #2 . Mr. Stock stated that he felt the Downtown Committee would also favor Option #2 if there were a few more curves added to the plan. The Community Development Commission did not oppose having additional curving placed into the design. It was the consensus of the Committee that more curves should be added to the design. Commissioner Albinson questioned whether or not there was a difference in the cost of the pavers versus concrete or bituminous walkway. Mr. Hutton stated there was no recognizable cost difference in a project of this size. He did note however that the life expectancy of pavers was less than sidewalk or bituminous. Commissioner Albinson questioned whether or not an overhead walkway had been considered by staff. Mr. Hutton stated that an overhead walkway could be constructed but that it would be financially and functionally impractical. Due to the great elevation, he noted that the pedestrian walkway would have to have been 40' above the ground and access would have had to been provided via a circular ramp system. An overhead ramp would have been aesthetically incompatible with the downtown area and practically impossible for a person in a wheelchair to transcend. Mr. Hutton stated that he met with a senior citizens group a few weeks ago and they were concerned about public safety in the area of the BEBO. Mr. Hutton noted that since this BEBO was going to be lighted in the interior and it was in such close proximity to the downtown area he doubted whether or not there would be much of a crime problem in this area. He noted, that if residents felt uncomfortable using the BEBO, there would be an at grade signalized crossing at Fuller Street. Albinson/DuBois moved to recommend to City Council that Option 42 for the BEBO design and pedestrian walkway be approved with the addition of more curvature in design. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that in the past the Community Development Commission has discussed the need to improve Shakopee's image. 2 9 The Committee has also discussed the establishment of a comprehensive marketing program. Mr. Stock stated that he would like the Committee to discuss how and what activities they would like to see included in the marketing plan. Commissioner Albinson stated that with the recent actions of Council in regard to the Mebco project he did not think it would be cost effective for the City to begin a marketing campaign at this time. Discussion ensued on the City of Shakopee's position in regard to Mebco and the downtown mini by-pass project. Chairman Joos suggested that it might appropriate for the City to redirect their marketing and focus on improving the community's morale. He also suggested that perhaps the Industrial Development Incentive Program could be repackaged to make it more palatable for Council. Councilmember Zak stated that he felt the Industrial Incentive Policy was already very conservative and that to water it down any further would not attract any industrial prospects. Councilmember Zak also stated that in the recent home preview section that appeared in the Sunday paper, one could easily see that Shakopee is not an attractive community for development. He noted that only one home was listed in the preview for sale in Shakopee. Councilmember Zak went on to state that Shakopee's image has suffered greatly in the last three months. Commissioner Albinson noted that the City's name did not even appear on the home preview map. After a lengthy discussion, Albinson/DuBois moved to table action on the establishment of a comprehensive community marketing program. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock then gave a brief update on the status of the Mebco project. He noted that at the last Council meeting, reconsideration of the project was tabled due to Councilmember Wampach's absence. Mr. Stock stated that he hoped Council would reconsider their action on the setting of a public hearing for the project at their April 18, 1989 meeting. Mr. Stock then handed out a tax increment question and answer sheet for the Commission's review. Mr. Stock also passed out a fact sheet on the Mebco project. Commissioner DuBois questioned how many homes it would take to generate the equivalent amount of taxes that will be generated by the Mebco project. Mr. Stock stated that the taxes paid by Mebco would equate to approximately 41 homes paying a $1500 annual tax bill after credits. Councilmember Zak stated that he was considering a plan which would retire the senior high rise project. He hoped that if this could be done it would free up some bonding in the eyes of those opposed the project. He felt this was a good compromise and he hoped that it would pave the way for the Mebco project. Commissioner Albinson stated that, in 1989, the only industrial prospect which we can hope to attract to Shakopee is the Mebco 3 project. Once this project is approved or denied he doubted whether or not any developer would look at Shakopee this year due to the adverse political climate and negative attitude towards new industrial prospects. Mr. Stock stated that earlier in the day the Chamber of Commerce unanimously took a position in favor of requesting Council to reconsider the setting of a public hearing on this project. Commissioner Albinson then gave a brief report on the transportation coalition. Mr. Stock then shared with the Committee the Shakopee business directory. At a previous meeting, the Commission discussed breaking up the business directory into groups and actually going out and surveying the businesses to see what problems they are experiencing and how their business is going. Discussion ensued on how to most effectively reach the businesses. Commissioner DuBois suggested that we try to meet with the businesses in groups rather then on a one-on-one basis. Mr. Stock suggested that the Committee split into three groups of two and that each month each group be assigned with 10 persons to contact. Mr. Stock suggested that the groups could meet with the businesses for a breakfast or a luncheon meeting and discuss community issues. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that it may be possible for the City to pick up the cost of the luncheon meetings. It was the consensus of the Commission that this would be the most effective way to reach a number of the businesses. The Commission requested Mr. Stock to break down the list into groups of ten businesses. Christen Converse stated that she would share the Chamber Business Directory with City staff. She felt that the majority of the Chamber businesses would welcome this type of meeting. Mr. Stock then reminded the Committee of the Shakopee Showcase scheduled for Monday April 17, 1989. Mr. Stock stated that the City has received Mr. Koopman's resignation from the Commission. Mr. Stock questioned if the Committee had any one in mind to fill his vacancy. Councilmember Zak suggested that perhaps John Schmitt or Mrs. John Schmitt might be interested in the Commission's activities. Councilmember Zak also suggested Randy Kubes from Realty World. Commissioner DuBois stated that she also had a real estate co- worker who would be a fine prospect for the Committee but that she hesitated suggesting another realtor to serve on the Committee based on Council's past actions in regard to committee appointments and realtors. Mr. Stock suggested that if they had any one in mind to please give him a call. Commissioner DuBois stated that she felt that a number of the properties assessed values in Shakopee were inaccurate. She questioned whether or not the City of Shakopee would ever 4 consider taking back the assessing function from the County. Councilmember Zak stated that several months ago this issue was discussed and no action was taken. Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or not staff could research the possibility of transferring assessing back to the City. It was the consensus of the Committee that there was no harm in investigating the potential for the transfer of assessing back into the City. The Committee felt that it was within their realm of responsibility to consider investigating that issue. DuBois/Albinson moved to adjourn the meeting 7:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary 5 /0 Minutes of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Council Chambers Shakopee, MN April 12, 1989 Chairman Keen called the meeting to order at 7:50 A.M. with the following persons present: Gary Laurent, Melanie Kahleck, Ruben Ruehle, Terry Forbord, Bill Wermerskirchen and Mary Keen. Also present were Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant and Councilmember Zak. Absent was Commissioner Stillman. Commissioner Keen questioned if there were any other additions to the agenda. Commissioner Forbord requested an update on the MWCC candidate selection process. Mr. Stock stated that there were also two memos on the table from Councilmember Zak. Both of these items would be placed under Other Business. Forbord/Laurent moved to approve the agenda as amended. Laurent/Wermerskirchen moved to approve the minutes of the February 15, 1989 meeting as kept. Motion carried with Commissioner Forbord abstaining. Mr. Stock stated that approximately one month ago he received several complaints from downtown business owners regarding the unavailability of short term parking within the Second Avenue parking lot. Mr. Stock then gave some historical background on the posted parking hours in the Second Avenue lot. He also noted that since he has received the complaint, he has requested the Shakopee Police Chief to direct Shakopee officers to pick-up enforcement within the downtown area of the parking restrictions. Mr. Stock noted that within the past two weeks he has driven by the Second Avenue lot on numerous occasions and has not noticed a problem. Commissioner Ruehle stated that approximately two weeks ago the bank sent a notice to their employees advising them to not park in the two hour stalls within the Second Avenue lot. He felt that this act alone may have relieved the parking problem. Commissioner Wermerskirchen stated that there was also a problem with persons violating the on street parking restrictions. He felt that to strictly enforce the parking restrictions with police officers may have an adverse affect on the shoppers. Commissioner Ruehle concurred with Mr. Wermerskirchen. Commissioner Forbord suggested that ever since he has been on the Downtown Committee there has been a problem with parking in the downtown area. He felt that the best way to handle the problem was simply to talk with your fellow business persons and remind them that the on street parking is for patrons and that their employees should utilize the other parking lots within the downtown area that are not frequently traveled. Commissioner Laurent suggested that a letter be sent to the downtown property owners thanking them for following the parking restrictions and also reminding them that the lots that are located within a close. 1 proximity to the business establishments be saved for patrons. Forbord/Kahleck moved to send a letter to the downtown business owners thanking them for their patience in dealing with the downtown parking problem and their observance to the parking restrictions. Additionally, staff should begin to assemble information on parking ramps. Motion carried unanimously. It was also the consensus of the Committee that all of their names should be listed on the letter as signatures. Mr. Stock then stated that the project design engineer for the mini by-pass has requested staff to review with the appropriate City officials the downtown BEBO design and pedestrian walkway. Mr. Stock reviewed two concept plans. The first plan provided for a meandering pedestrian walkway. The second alternative involved a linear pedestrian walkway with sharp turns. Mr.Stock then reviewed the cost differences between the two plans. He noted that concept #1 was more expensive for Mn DOT due to a retaining wall that was needed near the alley. Under concept #2 the alley would not be needed and thus cost savings would be incurred by MnDOT. The City's portion of the costs would simply involve funding for any streetscape amenities that the City wished to include in the project. Mr. Stock noted that these elements did not have to be decided on at this time and the BEBO and pedestrian walkway could be installed without the amenities. He suggested that perhaps the appropriate time to pursue the installation of the amenities would be when First Avenue was reconstructed. Commissioner Laurent questioned what the slope was from the alley down to the walkway under concept #1. Mr. Stock stated that he did not know. Commissioner Wermerskirchen stated that he favored concept #1 because the pedestrian walkway took pedestrians further away from the mini by-pass. Whereas in alternative #2, the majority of the pedestrian walkway traffic was immediately adjacent to the by-pass. Commissioner Kahleck stated that she agreed with Mr. Wermerskirchen and felt that the curvilinear trail would be more appealing to the pedestrian. Commissioner Forbord stated that he felt the curvilinear trail (concept #1) would be very difficult for a handicapped person in a wheelchair to traverse. He questioned whether or not staff had received any comments from the elderly or the handicapped on this plan. Mr. Stock stated that City Engineer Dave Hutton had reviewed both plans with the senior citizens and they did not make any comments either way on that issue. Mr. Stock agreed that perhaps it would be a wise idea for us to solicit comments from a wheel chaired handicapped individual or the handicapped federation to get some input on the designs. Commissioner Forbord also stated that when the mini by-pass was first discussed, there was talk about having a BEBO on both the East and West end of the by-pass. He questioned why the BEBO on the East end had been eliminated. Mr. Stock stated that he was not aware of any plans to construct two BEBO's. Discussion ensued on whether or not two BEBO's were needed in the downtown area. 2 Commissioner Forbord stated that a BEBO on the East side would not have to include a handicapped pedestrian ramp. He felt that stairs would be more then adequate. Wermerskirchen/Ruehle moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the appropriate City officials be directed to investigate whether or not a BEBO could be installed at the East end of the by-pass. Motion carried unanimously. Forbord/Wermerskirchen moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that option #1 be considered by City Council as the favored design for the BEBO and pedestrian ramp. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock then reported that the current bridge in Downtown Shakopee is only one of three in the State of that type of design. He noted that the Historical Society has now listed it on the register. This presents a problem in that MnDOT had planned to take off the decking of the bridge and turn it into a pedestrian bridge. Now that the bridge has been placed on the historical register, it is a lengthy process to remove it. Mr. Stock stated that MnDOT fully intends on removing the decking of the bridge but that they do not want to pursue it in conjunction with the completion of the mini by-pass and new bridge. A staircase will be constructed from the top of the bridge to Levee Drive to provide access across the river. A bike ramp will also run parallel to the mini by-pass and end at Fuller Street. This will provide an at grade access to the bridge for pedestrians. Mr. Stock noted that at our last meeting Commissioner Forbord requested that the issue of vacation of City property in the Downtown area be placed on the meeting's agenda. Mr. Stock stated that the City of Shakopee has been operating under the presumption that if a street or alley does not serve a public purpose it will be vacated upon request. The City does not have any criteria to determine what is meant by serving the public purpose. Commissioner Forbord believes that specific criteria should be developed that can be utilized by the City Council and Planning Commission to determine if there is a need to maintain a street or alley for a public purpose. Commissioner Forbord stated that he felt careful consideration should be given by City Council when a street is vacated. He felt in a downtown area where there is likely to be redevelopment, one should not hap-hazardly vacate streets or alleys. Once a street has been vacated it is gone. He suggested that staff call other cities who have gone through downtown redevelopment to see if they have established any vacation policies. Commissioner Laurent suggested that the policy could utilize criteria such as whether or not the property is being used in it's highest and best use. If the property is being utilized to it's highest and best use, it may be more appropriate 3 to grant a vacation. However, in an area where potential redevelopment activities exist within the next ten years or so, it may not be wise to consider vacation. Mr. Stock stated that he will follow up on this issue and investigate what other communities have done. Mr. Stock stated that staff is currently in the process of completing the downtown property inventory and that he expected to have something for the Committee's review at their next meeting. Mr. Stock then reported on the status of the railroad depot. He noted that he has finally tracked down the ownership of the property and building. Commissioner Wermerskirchen questioned whether or not the City would be interested in acquiring the property. Mr. Stock stated that it would be advantageous for the City to acquire the property and demolish or relocate the actual depot so that Second Avenue can be extended to the West in a straight fashion. However, based on the asking price for the land and building by the two owners at this time, staff felt that City Council would not be interested. Commissioner Wermerskirchen suggested that the City simply make an offer to the railroad for the building and property. Mr. Stock stated that at this time, he felt it would not be prudent for the City to pursue this issue. He stated that he did not expect that the railroad would be doing anything with the depot and/or the property. He can continue to monitor the property and if and when the railroad is interested in realistically talking about a sale, we can follow-up at that time. Mr. Stock stated that the downtown plantings in Phase I Part I of the downtown area will be planted by the Cub Scouts on May 20th. Phase I Part II is still under contract. Mr. Stock then noted that the Shakopee Showcase would be held on Monday, April 17, 1989 at Canterbury Downs between the hours of 6PM and 8:30 PM. He encouraged all the Committee members to attend. Mr. Stock stated that Harry Koehler is no longer with First National Bank and he has requested bank officials to recommend a new individual for appointment to the committee. Mr. Stock stated that he also has spoken with Mark Anderson of Business Outfitters regarding potential appointment to the Committee. Councilmember Zak stated that he has prepared a memo for City Council's consideration on the vacation of Levee Drive. He noted that if the street were vacated approximately 60 parking stalls could possibly be created. This would tie in nicely with the BEBO and DNR trail. He noted that he would also like to see the boat ramp improved in Downtown Shakopee. The Committee felt that Mr. Zak's idea deserved further consideration and investigation. 4 / a Councilmember Zak also shared with the Committee an excerpt of the recent Home Preview that appeared in the Sunday paper. He noted that only one home was listed in Shakopee for sale and that the other communities all around Shakopee had quite a bit of residential development going on. Commissioner Forbord noted that the City of Shakopee's name was not even listed on the map. Councilmember Zak stated that this is a good representation of what developers think of Shakopee. The community obviously has a negative image and something must be done to turn it around. He recognized that traffic and the river were barriers that may be part of the problem. However, he could not understand how Shakopee could be turning down qualified industrial prospects that meet the City's industrial development incentive policy or how the City could even be thinking about delaying the downtown mini by-pass. The Commission concurred with Mr. Zak's comments and thanked him for his progressive stance that he has taken on both the Downtown Redevelopment, mini by-pass and Community Development issues. Ruehle/Forbord moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 A.M. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary 5 MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on April 3, 1989 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cook, Kephart and Kirchmeier. Also Manager Van Hout and Secretary Menden. Liaison Wampach was absent. Gloria Vierling was present to act as Liaison. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the minutes of the February 2, 1989 regular meeting, the February 23, 1989 special meeting, the March 6, 1989 regular meeting and the March 13, 1989 special meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 ABM Equipment and Supply 224.00 B 6 B Transformer, Inc. 507.50 Battery and Tire Warehouse, Inc. 88.09 Business Outfitters, Inc. 773.74 Capitol city Welding Supply, Inc. 18.00 City of Shakopee 603.76 City of Shakopee 87.22 City of Shakopee 24,031.00 Davies Water Equipment Co. 1,351.59 Ditch Witch of Minnesota. Inc. 6.25 Drammen 011 Company 558.67 Schoell and Madson, Inc. 35.00 Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. 50.00 Feeler's Inc. 32.19 Ray Friedges 124.93 General Office Products Co. 202.47 Graybar Electric Co. , Inc. 3,819.20 Glenwood Inglewood 9.25 Gopher State One-Call, Inc. 62.50 HDR Engineering, Inc. 1,170.29 Kress and Monroe Chartered Law Offices 12.47 Lathrop Paint and Supply Co. 34.78 Leaf Bros. , Inc. 21.50 Maintenance Engineering LTD 226.02 li Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association 270.00 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 307. 14 Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories, Inc. 32.00 Nor-Tel Phone Center 218.85 Motor Parts Service Co. , Inc. 51 .40 Northern States Power Co. 968 .37 Northern States Power Co. 278,481.51 Northern States Power Co. 332.32 O'Connor and Hannan 570.46 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 117.66 Rockwell Internatinal 952 .66 Ring Fire Extinguisher 216.50 Terry Roquette 31. 92 Shakopee Services, Inc. 33.00 Shakopee Ford 314.56 Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. 463. 92 Spuhl Anderson/First National Bank of Chaska 337.57 Starks Cleaning Services, Inc. 68.00 Truck Utilities Mfg. Co. 19.04 United Compucred Collections, Inc. 225.00 Valley Industrial Propane 22.55 Woodhill Business Products 1, 188. 04 Yellow Freight System, Inc. 89.95 Yarusso's Hardware Co. 70. 59 Wesco 576.00 Great American Insurance Co. 5, 015 .90 Lou Van Hout 167.37 Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the bills be allowed and ordered paid . Motion carried. A pay request for partial completion of work done on Well i8 to E.H. Renner, Inc. in the amount of $20,771.20 was aknowledged. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier to accept the billing from E.H. Renner in the amount $20,771 . 20 . Motion carried. A communication from Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant regarding the refuse recycling notices distributed by Waste Management, Inc. was acknowledged. A discussion followed as to problems that have arisen with the new refuse pickup requirements. Commissioner Kirchmeier questioned as to whether the citizens of Shakopee, for convenience sake, could obtain vouchers required for extra service pickup at the Shakopee Public Utilities Office. Secretary Menden addressed this question. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission voluntarily sell vouchers for the extra service refuse pickup. Motion carried. Gloria Vierling, acting as Liaison gave her report. Mr. Rod Krass, Assistant City Attorney arrived. A discussion was held on our large customers billing/payment cycle change. A chart of the larger customers of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission typical bills and kilowatt consumptions was presented. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier to offer Resolution $347 A Resolution Amending Resolution #242, and Resolution #329, By the Addition of Terms of Payment and Rates Applicable to Large Customers. Ayes: Commissioners Kephart, Kirchmeier, and Cook. Mayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. A discussion on the service area acquisition was held. Manager Van Hout informed the Commission of the progress to this point. Mr. Krass advised the Commission as to what direction could be taken at this time. An Engineering proposal for a water control system study was presented by Manager Van Hout. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart to table at the present time the study for the central water control system. The Commission would like to look into the study again in August, 1989. Motion carried. Secretary Menden presented various reports generated and their authors with their distribution path. The Commission informed the Secretary the reports they received were sufficient. The audit will be presented at the May meeting by Mr. Jim Stefland and Mr. Jerome Jaspers of Jaspers. Strefland and Co. Manager Van Hout informed the Commission that the sults on the tank accident have been closed. A wrapup on the sales tax issue was given by Secretary Menden. The lawn maintenance contract from Mr. Ted Neiman was presented to the Commission. The Manager was authorized to sign the contract. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier to offer Resolution #346 A Resolution Regulating Salaries. Ayes: Commissioners Cook, Kephart and Kirchmeier. Nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. The gavel will be passed to Commissioner Kirchmeier at the May meeting. Beginning in 1990 the change will occur at the April meeting. The Meadows 2nd Addition was the only new plat for March, 1989. There were two fire calls for a total of 1 hour and 10 minutes man hours. There were no lost time accidents in March, 1989. The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be held on May 1, 1989 in the Utilities meeting room. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. i Barbara Menden, m. Secretary / � Energy and Transportation Committee Regular Session Shakopee, MN April 19, 1989 Chrmn. Ziegler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Comm. Otto, Drees, Amundson, Roman, Spiotta, and Ziegler present. Comm. Moline and Prudoehl were absent. Also present was Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant. Roman\Amundson moved to approve the minutes of the March 19, 1989 meeting minutes as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock informed the Committee that Comm. Moline has submitted his resignation from the Energy and Transportation Committee effective immediately. Mr. Moline has advised the City that he will be moving out of the area and therefore will be forced to relinquish his seat on the Commission. Mr. Stock reported that traditionally the Shakopee senior citizens have received a discount on both their utility and refuse collection bills. When we implemented our new volume based refuse collection program, staff discovered that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPDC) policy on senior citizen discounts was somewhat restrictive. Mr. Stock noted that SPUC's current policy does not provide for the discount if a person over 65 is working. Additionally, Shakopee residents must complete a form and have it notarized before they may be eligible for the discount. Mr. Stock stated that SPUC does not have a problem with the City of Shakopee adopting their own policy on discounts relating to refuse collection. He stated that he has prepared a simplified policy which he would like the Energy and Transportation Committee and City Council to consider. The essence of the proposed policy simply would require a Shakopee resident to fill out a form identifying their name, address, social security number, birth date, and utility account number. The form would be completed by the senior citizen and submitted to SPUC staff with proof of age shown at the time of application submittance. Either a Driver's License or Minnesota I.D. card would be acceptable proof of age. Mr. Stock noted that the Committee should clarify at what age they want Shakopee residents to be eligible for the discount. The Social Security Administration recognizes age 65 as the retirement age in which full retirement benefits are paid. However, retirement at an earlier age of 62 is permitted with partial benefits paid. Comm. Drees questioned why senior citizens should be eligible for the discount. He stated that many senior citizens are more able to pay than younger couples and families. He suggested that perhaps there could be some income eligibility requirements tied to the discount policy. Chrmn. Ziegler stated that requesting senior citizens to provide income information would make the application process more cumbersome. Comm. Spiotta stated that she felt that the reason senior citizens were getting a discount on their refuse collection bills was due to the fact that they generate less garbage to dispose of. She stated that perhaps it was not fair for senior citizens to receive a discount on their utility bill because they are billed for how much energy they actually use. She did however stated that she did see a distinct difference in the electric billing system versus refuse collection. Since we have a volume based refuse collection program and senior citizens dispose of less garbage, she could justify giving them a 158 discount on their bill. It was the consensus of the Committee that it was less costly for the City to provide refuse collection services to senior citizens and therefore they should receive a 158 discount. After a lengthy discussion, the Commission members also concurred that at age 62, most senior citizens have a smaller quantity of refuse to dispose of and that age 62 should be the age in which Shakopee residents would be eligible for the refuse collection. Spiotta\Roman moved to recommend to City Council that the City of Shakopee adopt a senior citizen discount policy for refuse collection in which Shakopee residents age 62 or older would be eligible for a 158 monthly discountunt on their refuse\recycling bill and inform SPDC of the senior discount policy. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock reported that the new Dial-A-Ride operator has taken over operation of the service and things are running fairly smoothly. Mr. Stock then updated the Commission on some of the problems that were encountered during the transition period such as the hiring of existing drivers. Mr. Stock noted that the van pool community awareness survey was distributed door to door in Shakopee last week and that very few responses have been received at this time. He expected to have a final report for the Commission at their next meeting. Mr. Stock noted that the City of Shakopee will again be providing a Spring Clean up Dump Day. In the past the City has provided Shakopee residents with a free drop off site for the disposal of refuse. With the increase in refuse collection costs, the City has been forced to reevaluate the program. Comm. Amundson stated that she thought last year's literature indicated that 1988 would be the last year of the program. Mr. Stock stated that last year's information did indicate that it would be the last year of the program but City Council decided to include $14,000 in this year's budget for the program one more time. Mr. Stock noted that the annual Dump Day cost the average home owner over $3.00 on their property tax statement. Mr. Stock also noted that last year's clean up program was unmanageable in terms of who was disposing of litter and rubbish. He noted that this year the City of Shakopee will be charging a gate fee to enter the dump site. The dump site will also be enclosed in a fenced off area. In addition to the gate fee there will also be additional charges for tires, furniture, brush, and appliances. It was the r .7-/ consensus of the Committee that the charges proposed for tipping were very reasonable when one considers what it costs to dispose of the waste at the landfill. Mr. Stock noted that he was somewhat concerned that some residents will dispose of their refuse in ditches and in the rural areas rather than at the landfill or in the City's dump site. Mr. Stock then gave a brief update on the City's refuse collection and leaf collection programs. He noted that in general, most Shakopee residents are in favor of the program. He stated that approximately 20 people have discontinued service with the City's program and have switched to a private provider. He noted that in his opinion the private operators were low balling their rates just to attract customers. He expected that within the next 6 months they would have to increase their rates by 25% in order to cover their landfill costs. Comm. Drees questioned whether or not Shakopee residents who drop our program and want to reconnect at a later date have to pay a reconnect fee. Mr. stock stated that at the present time there is no reconnect fee. He stated that he would like to investigate whether or not a policy on reconnects should be established. it was the consensus of the Committee to investigate whether or not a reconnect policy should be established for Shakopee residents who drop our program and want to reconnect at a later date. Amundson\Roman moved to adjourn the meeting at 8: 10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. /3 MINUTES OF THE HOUSING ADVISORY & APPEALS BOARD REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 24, 1989 Newton Parker, Housing Inspector, called the meeting to order at 7: 00 p.m. with Board members, Jim Link, Randy Laurent, Gene Juergens, Bob Turek, Dale Dahlke in attendance, and Leroy Houser, Building Official also attending. The agenda was approved unanimously. Laurent/Turek moved that Jim Link be appointed Board Chairman. Roll Call: Ayes: Laurent, Juergens, Turek, Dahlke Noes: Link Motion carried. Dahlke/Turek moved the Gene Juergens be appointed Vice-Chairman. Roll Call: Ayes: Link, Laurent, Turek, Dahlke Noes: Juergens Motion carried. Laurent/Turek moved that Dale Dahlke be appointed Second Vice- Chairman. Roll Call: Ayes: Link, Laurent, Juergens, Turek Noes: Dahlke Motion carried. Mr. Parker gave a brief presentation to inform the Board on their duties. The main point Mr. Parker talked about was the responsibility of the Board to rule on the side of safety. He explained the buildings must meet the codes enforced at the time of construction (or last remodeling) and that they must provide a reasonably safe living environment for their occupants. If a past code is now considered hazardous, then the building must be corrected to a reasonably safe condition concerning that item. Reasonably safe, however, may mean something less than the present code. Mr. Parker then asked for questions from the Board members. Mr. Link asked about field inspections. Mr. Parker replied that under certain circumstances field inspection would be made. It is a case by case determination. Mr. Turek requested more lead time if an on-site inspection were needed. Mr. Parker responded that more advance notice will be provided in the future. This meeting was put together under short notice because of the hearing. A two week minimum advance notice will be given. He also suggested that a meeting be held regularly at two month intervals. Housing Advisory & Appeals Board April 24, 1989 / J Page -2- Mr. Laurent asked about Board member liability. Mr. Parker responded that a good faith effort on the Board's part would shift all liability to the City. Mr. Houser, Building Official, added that the City is fully responsible for Board action. He further stated that the options considered are usually limited. Mr. Parker closed by saying Board members should feel free to call about cases to be heard, for more information, and for explanations of items not familiar to their expertise. Mr. Parker presented the Board with rules outline for discussion. Juergens/ Dahlke moved that the meeting be conducted following Roberts Rules of Order, newly revised, and, that the hearings be conducted following staff outline (items 1-10) found in memo dated 4-24-89. Roll Call: Ayes: Link, Laurent, Juergens, Turek, Dahlke Noes: None Motion carried unanimously. APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING - DAVID CHASE Laurent/Turek moved to open the Appeals Hearing on Mr. David Chase. Roll Call: Ayes: Link, Laurent, Juergens, Turek, Dahlke Noes: None Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Parker presented the case as outlined in the brief included in the Board packet. Staff recommended the vent be brought up to the State Code. Mr. Houser presented some alternatives without recommendation, (though he emphasized that a permanent vent is best) for the Boards consideration: 1. Install loop vent that loops under floor to main vent. 2. Require maintained program on existing atmosphere vent. 3. Install standard code approved vent. Chairman Link asked for Board's comments. Hearing none he asked for appellants remarks. Mr. David Chase presented his case asking for approval to use the existing atmospheric vents. He would welcome a semi-annual plumber check of the valves if allowed. His main concern is ripping through existing structure, some of which is brick. Housing Advisory & Appeals Board /— April 24, 1989 Page -3- Mr. Juergens ensued discussion on the possibility of using a loop vent. Mr. Houser suggested three options: 1. Regular venting. 2. Loop vent. 3 . Inspection maintenance program. Mr. Turek commented that if allowed the atmospheric vents must be replaced by code approved venting if and when the building were sold. [Staff Note: Rental property is inspected periodically and therefore would not necessarily be inspected at time of sale. An inspection would be made at sale if 3/4 of the inspection period had passed, if there were any complaints against the property, if the type of occupancy was changing, or if the property file stipulated an inspection at sale due to special circumstances such as the proposed maintenance agreement] Discussion ensued on termination of maintenance agreement if building were to be sold. chairman Link and Mr. Turek expressed concern about dragging out or postponing an inevitable permanent correction. Mr. Chase was very interested in the loop vent idea and stated that he would look into the possibility with his plumbers. Mr. Turek stated that codes should be followed as closely as possible for consistency and to enhance the reputation of housing in Shakopee. He also stated he is in agreement with the loop vent if workable. Mr. Laurent asked about mechanics of the maintenance option. Mr. Houser said Mr. Parker would draw up specifics on administering a maintenance program. Mr. Parker would allow a limited maintenance program (up to 3 years) where upon permanent venting must be in place. Chairman Link favored an immediate permanent solution. [Staff Note: The maintenance program would consist of a deposit of $250.00 and a requirement for the owner to submit proof (invoices, report or other) that valves were inspected by licensed persons. If proof is not obtained on time then the City would have their own plumber inspect the vents, and the maintenance program would terminate as of that date, and permanent venting within 10 days would be ordered. Costs for any City inspections would be charged against the deposit] Housing Advisory 6 Appeals Board J April 24, 1989 Page -4- Turek/Juergens moved to: 1) allow Mr. Chase the option of using a loop vent if cost is under $750. 00, and if over that amount, he may still do the loop vent; or, he may choose to go on a semi- yearly maintenance program, as directed by staff, for a term of two years from today - where upon an approved permanent venting system must be in place; 2) Mr. Chase has 30 days from today to report to the Building Department with his decision and he must submit at that time his plans for permanent venting, if that option is chosen. Roll Call: Ayes: Link. Laurent, Juergens, Turek, Dahlke Noes: None Motion carried unanimously. Turek/Laurent moved to close the hearing. Roll Call: Ayes: Link, Laurent, Juergens, Turek, Dahlke Noes: None Motion carried unanimously. Hearing Evaluation: Mechanics of the hearing was discussed. Dahlke/Juergens moved to adjourn to Monday, June 26, 1989 at 7: 00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Newton Parker Recording Secretary TENTATIVE AGENDA Energy and Transportation Committee Shakopee, Minnesota May 17, 1989 Chrm. Ziegler Presiding: 1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M. 2. Approval of Minutes - April 19, 1989 3 . Re-evaluation of curbside leaf collection vs. alley pick-up 4 . Recycling Program Report 5. Dial-A-Ride Program - Transition Report - Verbal 6. Informational Items a. Dial-A-Ride Monthly Report b. Dial-A-Ride Saturday Service Report C. Van Pool Monthly Report d. Business Update from City Hall e. Vanpool Community Awareness Survey Results 7. Other Business a. Next Meeting-Wed. , June 21, 1989 - 7: 00 PM b. 8. Adjournment Barry A. Stock Administrative Assistant CITY OF SHAKOPEE TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 16, 1989 Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding 1] Roll Call at 8:00 P.M. after the polls close for the School Board Election 2] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 31 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 4] 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. ) *5] Approval of Minutes of May 2, 1989 61 Communications: a] Ronald Savino re: Septic system at 519 Gorman Street 71 Continuation of Board of Review: a] Leroy Menke, 2153 Heritage Drive; Parcel #27-133025-0 tabled 5/9 b] Terrence Hennen, 1116 Jackson St; Parcel #27-040010-0 tabled 5/9 C) Terence Klinger, 136 E. 6th Ave. ; Parcel #27-001620-0 tabled 5/9 d] James Rein, 1005 Sibley St. ; Parcel 427-034008-0 tabled 5/9 e] Joseph M. Sand, Jr. , 1257 Marschall Road; Parcel #27-907 008-0 - tabled 5/9 f] John & Melba Nelson, 1307 E. Shakopee Ave. ; Parcel #27- 006-12-0 - tabled 5/9 g] Francis Vohnoutka, 1431 E. 10th Ave. ; Parcel #27- 027003-0 h] Don Link, 436 West 6th Ave. ; Parcel #27-001664-0 i] J ] k] Continue Board of Review to . OR Close Board of Review as of May 30, 1989 1] Move that the findings of the Board of Review be approved and sent to the County Auditor for certification, as of May 30, 1989 TENTATIVE AGENDA May 16, 1989 Page -2- 8] Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission: a] Amendment to the Final PUD and Preliminary and Final Plat for Stonebrooke b] Preliminary Plat for Canterbury 3rd Addition c] Preliminary and Final PUD Approval for Shakopee Storage d] Amendments to the Zoning code for Day Care Facilities - ordinance No. 264 9] Reports from Staff: a] Application for Off Sale 3.2 Beer Licenses - Gateway Foods of Minneapolis, Inc. b] Citizens for Fair Taxation c] Vacate Park Designation in Timber Trails d] Waterslid Painting e] Riverside Park Fence Quote f] Full Time M.I.S. Coordinator Position g] Request for Leave of Absence without Pay h] Approval of the Bills in the Amount of $588, 225.92 i] 5th Avenue Project No. 1989-4 *j ] Urban Corp work-Study Agreement k] Boards and Commissions Annual Picnic 11 Reconsideration of Resolution No. 3051 - MEBCO Project m] Wilfred Mahowald-s Concerns relating to 11th Avenue *n] Nomination and Appointment to the Community Development Commission *o] Nomination and Appointment to the Downtown Committee 10] Resolutions and Ordinances: a] Res. No. 3052 - Reaffirming Vacation of Minnesota and Market Str ets North of Bluff Avenue b] Res. No. 3052 - Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessments for Downtown Streetscape Improvements 1987-2 c] Res. No. 3054 - Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report for Alley in Block 102 Shakopee City Plat 11] Other Business: 12] Adjourn to . . . Dennis R. Kraft Acting City Administrator PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN MAY 2, 1959 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Vierling, Wampach, Clay and Scott present. Also present were Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator; David Hutton, City Engineer; Douglas Wise, City Planner; Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Cncl. Zak arrived at 7: 06 p.m. Clay/Vierling moved to recess for a HRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to reconvene. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by councilmembers. There was some discussion on the pavement surface at the intersection of 101/169 and if MN/DOT intended to do anything about it. The City Engineer said that at this time they do not and suggested that Mn/DOT be contacted to see if they would allow the City to make some repairs. Wampach/Vierling moved that the City of Shakopee Contact Mn/DOT to see if the City can improve the 101/169 intersection and if the City would be liable for any accident due to the City's resurfacing. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Zak moved that the City Building Inspector look into whether or not there is a need to establish a policy on the construction of tree houses within the City. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address anything not on the agenda. Wilfred Mahowald, 1077 Prairie Street, had a question as to whether or not there will be an 11th Street. He was told back in 1975 when his house was being built that there would not be an 11th Street. He said that it cost him $5,000 to move his garage and that now 11th Avenue is being put in. He feels that he should receive some compensation. Scott/Zak directed staff to check the minutes and research what occurred in 1975 when Mr. Wilfred Mahowald moved his garage and when he was told that 11th Avenue was not going through, and to look into what can be done to solve this situation, and bring it back to the next regular meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to approve consent business. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Proceedings of the May 2, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Vierling/Zak moved to accept the recommendations of Mr. Reg G. Silverthorne, P.E. , Van Sickle, Allen & Associates, Inc. regarding monitoring the timber retaining wall North of Taco John's, 815 West First Avenue. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Zak moved to accept the resignation from James C. Moline from the Energy and Transportation Committee, with regrets. (Approved under consent business) . Scott/Zak moved that a letter be prepared for Dennis Kraft's signature to address any future letters from Mr. Robert Vierling be directed to staff level not the Council level. Motion carried unanimously. Cletus Link, Chairman, Citizens for Fair Taxation, said that they are looking into all areas of local Government not just schools. They are requesting City staff to work with them and the City's bonding people to finalize their research on tax increment financing. They need information from the City before they can issue a report to the citizens of Shakopee. He said the County as well as the school district has given them staff time. Cncl. Scott said he feels it is for the benefit of the City that staff time be allowed. Mr. John DuBois, Shakopee, said they just want to finish the project they started on tax increment financing and he feels it might save the City money in the end. Clay/Vierling moved to have Dennis Kraft meet with the Citizens for Fair Taxation group to quantify specific areas and time area needs and come back to the Council with the actual cost dollarwise and time frames. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis Kraft reviewed the Request for Proposals for an Analysis of Local Property Tax Situations and Practices. He said he has met with representatives from townships along with the Administrator and Superintendent of Schools. Total estimated cost is $20, 000, and the City share would be 1/3 of actual cost. The areas addressed would look at property tax, cost and revenue, and the roll of property taxes in the various jurisdictions with other similar jurisdictions within the area so we can determine how we relate in expenditure of tax monies. Terry Forbord, 2103 Bridge Crossing, addressed the spirit of cooperation within the area and other governmental agencies. He said he feels an independent consultant would be very beneficial to the City. Vierling/Wampach moved to accept the RFP for an analysis of the property tax situation and practices for the jurisdictions of Scott County, the City of Shakopee, Independent School District No. 720, Jackson township and Louisville Township, and to so Proceedings of the May 2, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -3- inform the other jurisdictions of the action of the City Council, and share one-third of the cost. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Vierling, Clay, Wampach, and Zak Noes: Cncl. Scott and Mayor Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Clay moved to open the public hearing on Vacation of easements in Valley Rich 1st Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk reviewed the request for vacation of the 20 foot easement lying along the southern part of Lot 1, block 2, Valley Rich 1st Addition as well as the large drainage easement within the lot. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address this issue. There was no response. Wampach/Clay moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to approve Resolution No. 3048, A Resolution Vacating an Easement in Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Rich 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Clay moved to open the public hearing on the Vacation of an easement in Clay's 1st Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk reviewed the application from Mr. Cecil Clay for the vacation of a drainage easement lying within the northerly 160 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Clay's 1st Addition. The City engineer said Mr. Clay has agreed to provide the City with a 100 foot temporary easement in order to get positive drainage to the drainageway. It will expire at the conclusion of the project. The City would like to retain the 10 foot easement around the lot. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address this issue. There was no response. Wampach/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to approve Resolution No. 3044, A Resolution Vacating a Drainage Easement within Clay's 1st Addition, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Wampach moved for a 10 minute break. Motion carried unanimously. Zak/Wampach moved to reconvene at 8:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Proceedings of the May 2, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Clay/Vierling moved to approve Resolution No. 3045, A Resolution Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Valley Park 8th Addition and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Zak moved to approve the amended Preliminary Plat for the Meadows Addition located South of 11th Avenue and East of Spencer Street subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission (contained in their minutes of April 20, 1989) . Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner addressed the issue of daycare facilities. He said the present city ordinance does not address this issue. He said the State has certain laws that daycare facilities have to abide by as far as licensing is concerned. The City Code, however, does not address where daycare facilities are a permitted or a conditional use. Vierling/Zak moved to table the issue on daycare facilities and directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer reviewed the Erosion control ordinance. He said he added a section on performance bond requirements for construction and erosion control devices. He is also recommending that once rough grading is done all the areas be seeded and mulched within 30 days. Clay/Wampach moved to direct the City Attorney to make the appropriate revisions to the City Code in order to adopt the Proposed Erosion Control Ordinance and to make any necessary revisions to the associated City Code Chapters. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner reviewed Resolution No. 2440, adopted October 1, 1985, approving the final plat for Canterbury Park let Addition. As of this time the final plat has not been filed with the County. Scottland has indicated they wish to proceed with filing the final plat at this time. Wampach/Zak moved to allow the developer to proceed with filing the plat of Canterbury Park 1st Addition, if filed within 180 days. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to adopt a refuse collection senior citizen discount policy providing for a 158 base rate deduction for Shakopee residents age 62 and over. (Motion approved under consent business) . Dennis Kraft reviewed the Filing of a Deed and Authorization of vacation of Certain Property in Timber Trails Addition. He said the City agreed to lease a 66 foot wide strip of park land which Proceedings of the May 2, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -5- is located between Lakeview Drive and Lake O'Dowd Park to Stonebrooke Development for the construction of a golf tee. The Shakopee Investment Company, underlying fee owner, has agreed to sign a Quit Claim Deed for the interest they hold in this parcel ' of land but would like to retain a 10 foot strip on the eastern portion of the lot for the use of property owners in Timber Trails Addition to get to the lake. Gary Laurent, Stonebrooke, said that it is the understanding of the neighborhood that it was the intention to have a private lake access only for residents of Timber Trails not the general public. He said the golf tee was constructed before the City realized that it did not own the park property. Scott/Wampach moved to table discussion on park property in Timber Trails and directed staff to research this matter further and come back with an updated proposal for Council discussion. Motion carried unanimously. Tim Johnson, said he was the inspector for this development and it was always his understanding that this park was to provide an access to the lake and was always described as such. Vierling/Zak moved to authorize the Public Works Department to purchase a Ford Model 3910 tractor from Carlson Ford Tractor Co. , of Rosemount, for the submitted price of $15,894.00 as specified. (Approved under consent business) . Discussion ensued on the possibility of the Council waiving the maximum pay scale of $6.00 to $7.00 per hour for Mr. Joe Dellwo who has worked for the City for the past eight years as a part- time summer worker. Cncl. Vierling asked about the possibility of moving him into a different category to justify the pay raise. Cncl. Scott said he felt it was a matter of precedence and it should stay at $6.00 for part time work pay. Cncl. Zak said he felt it would be an injustice to the City to lose someone with eight years experience with the City. Clay/Wampach moved to sustain the top of the part-time maintenance worker at an amount of $6.00 per hour. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Scott, Wampach, Clay and Mayor Lebens Noes: Cncl. Zak and Vierling Motion carried. Vierling/Zak moved to approve of the transfer: From Cable Fund To General Fund $ 10,203.71 From TIF Trust To 1987A TIF Debt Service 291,840.28 From TIF Trust To 1987B TIF Debt Service 55,713.57 From TIF Trust To 1986B TIF Debt Service 140,720.68 From TIF Trust To 1986A TIF Debt Service 17,642.50 From 1986B Capital To 1986B Improvement Debt Projects Fund Service 11,491.34 Proceedings of the May 2, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -6- From Storm Drainage To Downtown Capital Capital Projects Fund Projects Fund 160, 000.00 From General Fund To Transit Fund 6,400. 00 (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the bills in the amount of $286, 633. 53 . Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Discussion ensued on various complaints received regarding enforcement of the Animal Control ordinance. The City code now requires the owner to remove the feces left by their dog. The consensus was to let the police handle this matter as they have in the past and put an ad in the paper advising what residents can do when they see violations occur. Dennis Kraft said Murphy's Landing would like an annual audit to be conducted for the next five years. The last audit ended September 1988. They would like the next audit to end in the period of February 1990 and subsequent audits on an annual basis from March to February covering a years worth of activity. Marge Henderson said that during the past year they have cut back to one and one half maintenance people and in March they hired a full time maintenance engineer which reflects the increase in the budget from 8 to 9$. Cncl. Zak asked when the inventory would be completed and what the dollar value is. Marge Henderson said their first pay plan has been adopted and a computer operator is on board and they have also tripled the gate receipts in the last few years. The computer was paid for by the county grant. Clay/Vierling moved to allow the Board of Directors of Murphy's Landing to conduct their next audit in February, 1990, and subsequent annual audits in February for the remaining life of the contract. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to allow Murphy's Landing to construct a 25 foot access gate to the west parking lot at Murphy's Landing. (Motion Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Wampach moved to hire Ms. Molly McCarthy to the Engineering Tech II position at a monthly wage of $1, 607 effective June 19, 1989. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Wampach moved for a 5 minute break. Motion carried unanimously. Proceedings of the May 2, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Clay/Vierling moved to reconvene at 11:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer said that the DNR has notified the City that they will issue a permit for the construction of the Upper Valley Drainage Project which discharges into the Millpond. They have stipulated seven conditions listed in their memo to the City Engineer dated April 19, 1989. He said that condition number 5 is for the construction of a 1300 foot long berm running along the entire length of Memorial Park which deviates from the proposed berm of 500 feet running straight north to the Minnesota River. This represents an increased cost of $60,000. He said that money can be solicited from various agencies to help fund this additional cost. Vierling/Zak moved to concur with staff that the City of Shakopee should obtain the permit from the Department of Natural Resources for the construction of the Upper Valley Drainage Project with the conditions listed in their memo dated April 19, 1989 to the City Engineer (DOC No CC-167) . Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Vierling moved to direct staff to include Lewis Street and Sommerville street in the 5 year Capital Improvements Program and to bring these projects back to City Council in the fall of 1989 for consideration during the 1990 construction season. Motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer said he explored alternative routes for the sidewalk on CR-17 near the Shakopee Avenue intersection. He reviewed the alternatives that he came up with and believes that none of them are viable. There was no action taken regarding the construction of a sidewalk from CR-16 to 10th Avenue along the East side of Marschall Road. The Finance Director reviewed the letter from Springsted regarding the subject of funding for the three projects (balance of Upper Valley Drainage, 169 bridge and MEBCO) . Springsted is suggesting that current T.I.F. fund balances not to be used. The Springsted Letter addresses two issues: 1. If the MEBCO project proceeds, the City should use existing Motel bond proceeds and not issue new bonds. 2. Funding of the 169 bridge and balance of Phase 2 of the Upper Valley Drainage project and possible changes in the legislature regarding T.I.F. Discussion ensued on whether or not to issue new T.I.F. bonds at this time. Mayor Lebens said that the use of GO bonds should be looked into for the 169 bridge. She also had a concern on what the assessments will be for the 1st and 2nd phases of the Downtown project. Proceedings of the May 2, 1989 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Vierling/Clay moved to have staff proceed with issuing T.I.F. bonds as soon as possible for the Upper Valley Drainage Project and the 169 bridge, in order to avoid legislative restrictions on T.I.F. funds. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Vierling, Zak, Wampach, Clay Noes: Cncl. Scott and Mayor Lebens Motion carried. The City Attorney said the Canterbury Hotel has been taken over by the banks and they would like the liquor licenses transferred. He informed them to work out an acceptable agreement with the present licensee to allow them to run the bars for a few weeks only; and that he wanted the agreement by this evening. It has not yet been delivered. Discussion ensued on whether or not to allow more time for them to get the letter to us. The consensus was to give them until Tuesday, May 9, 1989. Clay/Vierling moved to offer Resolution No. 3020, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Marschall Road (C.R. 17) Sidewalk between 4th Avenue and C.R. 16, Project No. 1989-6, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to offer Resolution No. 3046, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on an Improvement to Roadways Within Killarney Hills Addition, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to offer Resolution No. 3047, A Resolution receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on Improvements to Roadways within Killarney Hills, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to approve the minutes of April 18, 1989. (Motion approved under consent business) . Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize the Personnel Coordinator to mail a letter to the 45 applicants who do not meet minimum requirements for the City Administrator's position. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Zak moved to adjourn to Tuesday, May 9, 1989, at 6: 00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:57 P.M. Judith S. Cox City Clerk CaVpl`L� zk. Schultz Recording Secretary 6� P R O P E R T Y S E R V I C E S May 5, 1989 Mr. Dennis Kraft City Administrator 129 East Ist Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Kraft: My name is Ronald Savino and I would like the opportunity to address the Shakopee City Council concerning a property that I manange located at 519 Gorman Avenue. It has come to my attention that the septic system at this property is not functioning properly, and I am considering upgrading it to eliminate any potential problems that may arise. This will be a temporary arrangement, as eventually we expect to develop this property. Until then I am asking that we be allowed to repair, or if necessary, install a new septic system for the house located on this property. Once we have firm plans for further development, we will be prepared to make the investment to hook up to the city sewer system. If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to call me. Sincerleee cactb�u' i1'�c"c� Ronald Savino Property Manager 245 Eat(SUIT Street. Sulle ]Oe SL Paul AIA 1510119& Teles(6121291-7383 Telex 916563 3600 01T LTBC Fac(612)292-0851 SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR COURT HOUSE 112 428 SOUTH HOLMES IN SHAKOPEE. MN 55379-1381 (612) 496-8115 M E M O R A N D U M Date : May 9, 1989 To: 1989 Shakopee Board of Review Fran: Robert N. Schmitt , Scott County Assessor's Office Property Owner : Leroy Menke Property Address: 2153 Heritage Drive Parcel q: 27 133 025 0 1 . Type & Description Of Property: 1 story home built in 1987-88. 1296 sq.ft. with an attached 20 x 28 garage. The basement is 50% finished except for the floor covering. There are 1 Full and a 3/4 bath in the home. 2. Deck or Patio: 3. Garace Description : 20 x 28 attached 4. Other: 5. Total Structural Value : $65,100 6. Lot Size : 80 x 130 7. Lot Value : $18, 600 (reduction was made to allow for amount to put sod in. This was not present as of 1/2/89) . 8. Total Estimated Market Value of Property: $83,700 9. Other Information on Assessment : Only one other rambler has sold in this addition . It was also built by Mr. Menke. It sold in Nov. , 1988 for $88,500. It had 1404 sq. ft. with a 22 x 26 gar- age. No other extras were present. The lot was 80 x 130. s+t pr ar m a. 553' g SCOTT COLNTY ASSESSOR 7� COURT HOUSE 112 428 SOUTH HOLMES Id SHAKOPEE. MN 55379-1381 (612) 496-8115 M E M O R A N D U M Date : May 9, 1989 To: 1989 Shakopee Board of Review ` From: Robert N. Schmitt . Scott County Assessor's Office Property Owner: Terrence Hennen Property Address: 1116 Jackson St. Parcel #: 27 040 010 0 1 . Type & Description Of Property: Rambler built in 1977 with 1288 sq. ft. 1 3/4 baths, Central Air, 2. Deck or Patio: 3. Garace Description : 20 x 24 attached. A 14 x 24 garage was moved on to property for the 1989 assessment. 4. Other: 5. Total Structural Value: $61,000 6. Lot Size: 80 x 135 7. Lot Value : $20,800 8. Total Estimated Market Value of Property: $81,800 9. Other Information on Assessment : The only increase given this parcel for the 1989 assessment was for the detached garage. The value placed on the building was $2300, based on an effective age of 25 years and a depreciation of 15%. Sales of similar properties: 1. 1136 Van Buren 2/87 $79,000. 1 Story, 1064 s.f. , 20 x 24 garage, 200 s.f. fin. bsm't. ,Central Air, 12 x 12 deck, 75 x 135 Lot, Age-1977. 2. 1193 Harrison 1/87 $79,750. 1 Story, 1064 s.f. , 22 x 24 garage, 500 s.f. fin. bsm't. ,Central Air, 80 x 135 Lot, Age-1974. 3. 1147 Harrison 6/85 $84,000. 1 Story, 1387 s.f. , 22 x 22 garage, 700 s.f. fin. bsm't. ,l 3/4 baths, Central Air, 75 x 135 Lot, Age-1971 SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR ,G COURT HOUSE 112 428 SOUTH HOLMES IN SHAKOPEE. MN 55379-1381 (612) 496-8115 M E M O R A N D U M Date: May 9, 1989 To: 1989 Shakopee Board of Review From: Robert N. Schmitt. Scott County Assessor's Office Property Owner : Terence Klinger. Property Address: 136 E. 6th Ave. Parcel #: 27 001 620 0 1 . Type & Description Of Property: 2'1, story home which was built in 1912. It originally was used as the St. Mary's School convent. It has 1457 sq. ft. on the main floor, 1 3/4 baths, 1 fireplace. 2. Deck or Patio: 3. Garaoe Description: 24 x 24 detached garage built in 1988. 4. Other : The home appears to be in very good condition in a very desirable neighborhood. 5. Total Structural Value : 72,000 6. Lot Size : 60 x 142 7. Lot Value: 815,800 8. Total Estimated Market Value of Property: $87,800 9. Other Information on Assessment : The market value was increased for the 1989 assessment due to the construction of a detached garage. The value for the garage was placed at $5800. Homes similar to the subject which have sold in Shakopee in the past: 1. 134 E. 4th 2'.r Story, 1119 sq. ft. , No garage, 2/86 $92,900 2. 314 Scott St. 214 Story, 1879 sq. ft. , No garage, 2/87 $80,000 (Bought at below market according to both buyer and realtor) . SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR COURT HOUSE 112 428 SOUTH HOLMES ^ � ^ id SHAKOPEE. MN 55379-1381 (612) 496-8115 M E M O R A N D U M Date: May 9, 1989 To: 1989 Shakopee Board of Review From: Robert N. Schmitt. Scott County Assessor's Office Property Owner: James Rein Property Address: 1005 Sibley St. Parcel K: 27 034 008 0 1 . Type & Description Of Property: Split-Entry home built in 1977 with 1033 sq. ft. The home has 2 bedrooms, 1 3/4 baths, a finished basement of 900 sq. ft., 1 fireplace, central-air condition- ing, an 8 x 10 deck. 2. Deck or Patio: 8 x 10 3. Garaoe Description: An attached garage of 20 x 24 and a detached garage of 26 x 28 which was built in 1988. 4. Other: 5. Total Structural Value: $66,500 6. Lot Size: 85 x 137.5 7. Lot Value : $21,800 8. Total Estimated Market Value of Property: $88,300 9. Other Information on Assessment: I have had only one other sale of a split-entry home in this neighborhood. It sold in April, 1987 for $84,900. Location is 1077 Sibley St. It is a 1977 split- entry with 1007 sq. ft. , the garage is 22 x 25 attached, 730 sq. ft. finished basement, 1 3/4 baths, central-air, 10 x 12 deck. Lot is 84.9 x 137.5 SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR /� COURT HOUSE 112 428 SOUTH HOL.MES Im SHAKOPEE. MN 55379-1381 (612) 496-8115 M E M O R A N D U M Date: May 9, 1989 To: 1989 Shakopee Board of Review From: Robert N. Schmitt . Scott County Assessor's Office Property Owner: Joseph M. Sand, Jr. Property Address: 1257 Marschall Road Parcel #: 27 907 008 0 1 . Type & Description Of Property: Steel Building built in 1974 with remodeling and finishing work done over the years since. The building has approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of office/classroom area and 17,200 sq. ft. of storage/warehouse. Occupants of the building include Associated Mechanical, Food Shelf, Scott County Co-op. 2. Deck or Patio: 3. Garaoe Description : 4. Other: 5. Total Structural Value : $376,800 6. Lot Size : 2.35 Acres 7. Lot Value : $32,700 S. Total Estimated Market Value of Property: $409,500 9. Other Information on Assessment : Mr. Sand will be sending me income information on the property in the next week in order for our office to use an income approach on the parcel. He wishes his name to be entered into the record to protect his right to appeal to the County Board of Review if an agreement is not reached. with our office. SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR COURT HOUSE 112 428 SOUTH HOLMES SHAKOPEE. MN 55379-1381 (612) 496-8115 M E M O R A N D U M Date: May 9, 1989 To: 1989 Shakopee Board of Review Frac: Robert N. Schmitt. Scott County Assessor's Office Property Owner. John S Melba Nelson Property Address: 1307 E. Shakopee Ave. Parcel 8: 27 006 012 0 1 . Type & Description Of Property: This is a 10 unit apartment building constructed in 1967 - 68. The building is 2 story + garden level and has 3432 sq. ft. on each floor. 2. Deck or Patio: 3. Garace Description: None 4. Other: 5. Total Structural Value : $197,000 S. Lot Size: 20,216 sq. ft. 7. Lot Value: $52,200 S. Total Estimated Market Value of . Property;$249,200 9. Other Information on Assessment: Mr. Nelson's building is assessed in the same manner as all apartment buildings in the Shakopee, Prior Lake, Savage area. We use the income from rents received, subtract for vacancy and use a Gross Rent Multiplier to arrive at an estimated market value for the property. Based on a survey published in the October 17, 1988 Real Estate Journal, the vacancy rate for 1 bedroom apartments in Shakopee was 1.04% as of 8/88. I believe Mr. Nelson's building is 100% occupied as of the assessment date (1/2/89). See Letter From Mr. Nelson. HOME i�i1DY.2: II Ia 2. l.:mir 31'D-11r- - SHRKoP�, rn a. 55 3'19 May 4, 1989 Parcel 27-006012-0. Est.DIkt.Value Taxes Payable 1988 Estimated Market Value $234,000.00 $9,495.00 Payable 1989 Estimated Market Value 224,100.00 $11,518.64 Payable 1990 Assessor's Market Value 249,200.00 OWNER'S ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE FOR TAX REASON - $150.000.00. Building Description: Built in 1967: 23 Yrs. Old No Garages Parking Lot: In need of repair. Appliances: 23 Years old - All need replacing. Carpet: 23 Years old - All need replacing. Showers: None Furnace: Needs replacing - 23 yrs. old. Water Heater: Needs replacing - 23 yrs. old. Air Conditioners: Needs replacing - 23 yrs, old. Yard: Bad condition £rom'88 drought. Roof: Very bad condition. Taxes/Building Condition: Taxes too high to make any repairs. Market Condition: 27$ Vacancy Rate in Shakopee. (Information: Minnesota Multiple Houseing Assn. ) Taxes to Market Condition: Too high to be competitive with any other surrounding community. 2 eturn on Investment Taxes/Return on Investment/ Rental in Shakopee has the poorest return on investment of anything we own. Taxes in Scott County and Shakopee are depriving me from making any profit on this property and it will constantly deteriorate until this changes. Owner/manager rental property in Shakopee will deteriorate and will look like your downtown area, if this is not changed. Owner Estimated Value on this property --- $150,000.00. Taxes, as compared to other rental property in Shakopee, is discriminatory high. Reason for not appearing at meeting on 5-9-89• We have had an out of state business commitment on this date scheduled for over a year, or we surely would have attended this meeting. This property is being filed for abatement for 1989, 1988, and 1987. Taxes now per unit (1989) $1,151.86 Agreeable for 1990: $ 450.00 (per unit) Thank You, (y/" III / O l."� 021(l o R. Nelson 2 Limestone Drive Shakopee, Minn. 55379 445-2077 P.S. --- Rental property valuesin Shakopee are DECREASING, not increasing. Reason: Scott County Taxing Policy. DON D. MARTIN + SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR COURT HOUSE 112 SHAKOPEE, MN. 553731381 (612}4457750, Ext.n5 Deputy. LEROY ARNOLDI MEMORANDUM: DATE: ,May 16, 1989 TO: 1989 SHAKOPEE BOARD OF REVIEW FROM: ROBERT N. SCHMITT, PROPERTY APPRAISER PROPERTY OWNER: Francis L. Vohnoutka PROPERTY LOCATION: 1431 E. 10th Ave. PARCEL NUMBER: 27 027 003 0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A 1 Story duplex of 2100 sq, ft. built in 1968. Each unit has 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, kitchen, and living room. The owner`s unit has a finished basement of roughly 870 sq. ft. There is 1 fireplace in the owner's unit. DECK OR PATIO: GARAGE DESCRIPTION: A detached garage which is used by the owner only. Built in 1968, it has 1140 sq. ft. OTHER: TOTAL STRUCTURAL VALUE: Original = $96,400 Adjusted - $81,100 LOT SIZE: 71 x 145 i LOT VALUE: $18,900. TOTAL ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE: Original = $115,300 Adjusted - $100,000 OTHER INFORMATION: After comparing Mr. Vohnoutka's property with other duplexes which have recently sold, I have estimated Mr. Vohnoutka's value to be $112,000. After allowing for the sales ratio adjustment, a value of $100,000 has been cal- culted and agreed upon by Fran. - Mr. Vohnoutka's property suffers from lack of garage for the tenant, no central- air conditioning, and no finished basement area in one of the units. The sales comparisons had these items and therefore adjustments were estimated to bring the sale prices down to the approximate price Mr. Vohnoutka's property would bring on the market. An Equal Opportunity Employer DON D. MARTIN �p SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR COURT HOUSE 112 in SHAKOPEE, MN.55370,1381 (612 x7750, Ext.115 Deputy. LEROY ARNOLDI MEMORANDUM: DATE: May 16, 1989 TO: 1989 SHAKOPEE BOARD OF REVIEW FROM: ROBERT N. SCHMITT, PROPERTY APPRAISER - PROPERTY OWNER: Donald Link PROPERTY LOCATION: 436 W. 6th PARCEL NUMBER: 27 001 664 0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A 1 story home originally constructed in 1947. An addition of 492 sq. ft. was built in 1986. Total area of home including the addition is 1584 sq. ft. The home has a finished basement with 1092 sq. ft. of finished area, 1 3/4 baths, central-air condi- tioning. DECK OR PATIO: Concrete patio 12 x 20 GARAGE DESCRIPTION: Attached 22 x 24 Detached 24 x 40 OTHER: A 3 Season Porch built in 1986 with 242 sq. ft. TOTAL STRUCTURAL VALUE: $83,000 LOT SIZE: 120 x 142 (two lots) LOT VALUE: $25,200 TOTAL ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE: $108,200 OTHER INFORMATION: See attached comparable sales list. An Equal Opportmniuy Employer DON D. MARTIN SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR COURT HOUSE 112 SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1381 (612)-0457750, ext.115 Deputy: LEROY ARNOLDI DATE OF PID ADDRESS SIZE GAR. _BATHS AGE FIN. BSMT. ETC__ - SALE SALE PRICE 27 001 664 0 436 W. 6th 1584 1466 1 3/4 42 1092 3 Sea. SUBJECT 27 024 084 0 1126 Jefferson 1324 520 1 3/4 16 1000 8/86 $ 96,700 27 041 054 0 1052 Shattmut 1175 545 1 3/4 14 580 Deck . 1/85 $ 98,000 27 041 029 0 1077 Dakota 1397 528 1 3/4 13 580 Deck 5/87 $ 93,000 27 041 041 0 1066 Naumkeag 1370 735 1 6 0 10/85 $103,500 27 083. 034 0 1112 Pierce 1524 604 1 3/4 5 1140 7/85 $ 98,180 27 021 020 0 1008 Clay 1718 676 1 3/4 12 860 Deck 8/86 $115,900 (on 10th St.) 27 083 035 0 1120 Pierce 1432 600 1/3/4,1] 3 700 Deck 2/88 $121,000 LOT COMPARISONS 27 001 664 0 436 W. 6th 120 x 142 (Subject) 27 024 084 0 1126 Jefferson 76 x 130 27 041 054 0 1052 Shawmut 82 x 182 27 041 029 0 1077 Dakota 83 x 180 27 041 041 0 1066 Naumkeag 83 x 167 27 083 034 0 1112 Pierce 84 x 135 27 021 020 0 1008 Clay 100 x 134 27 083 035 0 1120 Pierce 84 x 120 An Equal Opportunity Employer gam MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Amendment to the Final PUD and Preliminary and Final Plat for Stonebrooke DATE: May 9, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on May 4, 1989, the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of an amendment to the final PUD and preliminary and final plat for Stonebrooke subject to conditions. BACKGROUND: In February 1987, Mr. Gary Laurent and Mr. Tom Haugen submitted a preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat for the development of approximately 200 acres located North of O'Dowd Lake, East of County Road 79 and South of County Road 87. The development contains an 18 hole golf course surrounded by 85 lots, 76 single family lots and 9 designated for twin homes. On April 21, 1987 the Shakopee City Council approved the preliminary PUD and plat for the O'Dowd Lake Estates Golf Club project now known as Stonebrooke. On July 7, 1987, the City Council approved the final PUD plan for Stonebrooke. On January 26, 1988, the City Council approved a final plat for the first phase of the project which includes 25 single family lots and 5 twin home lots. The plat also identifies lots on which the golf course project is located and areas to be developed as residential lots with future phases are shown as Outlots. The final plat has not yet been recorded with the County. The developer has submitted applications to amend the final PUD plan, preliminary and final plat as previously approved by the City. The developer is now requesting that the City amend the PUD plan and plat approval to allow the following two changes: 1. The PUD and plat as previously approved required that Lakeview Drive end in a cul-de-sac and that an emergency access be constructed between the cul-de-sac and County Road 79. In addition, the approval of the PUD and plat required that a full 60' right-of-way be dedicated for the emergency access. This provides the opportunity to the City to construct a through street at some time in the future. At the time that the plat was approved the residents of the surrounding area, in particular Timber Trails Addition, were opposed to ever having a through street to County Road 79 because of the increase traffic through Timber Trails Addition. The developer is now requesting that the City amend the PUD plan and plat approval to allow the developer to provide an easement instead of the dedicated right-of- way for the emergency roadway. The developer has requested this change because the right-of-way and required setbacks from the right-of-way create serious problems for the locating of the club house facility and parking lot. Another minor change in the final PUD plan being requested at this time is the moving of the access road approximately 40 - 50 feet to the South through the area between the proposed club house and the parking lot to fit with the design for the area. When the original final PUD plan was before the Planning Commission it was the staff's recommendation that the emergency roadway be constructed, but not necessarily that a right-of-way be dedicated for it. The Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council for approval of the final PUD also recommended construction of the roadway, but not necessarily the dedicated right-of-way. The requirement to dedicate the actual right-of-way for the area in which the emergency roadway is to be constructed was included in the final approval by the City Council. 2 . The street shown as Londonderry Cove on the final PUD plan and preliminary plat was approved in a location adjacent to the City park. Prior to submission of the final plat, the City determined that the roadway could not be located adjacent to the park due to restrictions placed on the City by the State of Minnesota in connection with a grant for the park. Due to this change, the final plat was approved with a change in the configuration of the lots and cul-de-sac street, locating the street on the interior side of the lots. At the time, the staff consulted with the City Attorney and it was his determination that the preliminary plat and PUD would not necessarily have to be amended and that the final plat could be approved with the roadway change. At this time, since the developer has requested an amendment to the PUD and plat the staff recommended to the developer that the roadway change be included with the PUD amendment and preliminary plat amendment bringing these into conformance with the final plat. The final PUD approval and plat approval also contains a condition stating that the City will lease to the developer a 66' wide park area located adjacent to the Southeast corner of the development. The 66' park area is currently undeveloped and was dedicated to the City for park purposes with the Timber Trails plat. In the approval of the PUD and plat for Stonebrooke, the City agreed to lease the park property to the developer in exchange for him improving the property and maintaining it. / 0- Since that time, the City Attorney has ruled that the City can not legally lease the park to the developer because it was dedicated to the City in the plat specifically for park purposes. Since the developer is currently working on a method of resolving this legal dilemma, the Planning Commission is recommending that an additional phrase be added to this condition of the final PUD and plat approval. The Commission is recommending that the wording "at such time when said action becomes legal, " be added to the condition. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on May 4, 1989, the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending the following two actions to the City Council: 1. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Resolution #3056 approving the amended final plan and development agreement for Stonebrooke PUD subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall be required to file and record a final plat for the planned unit development prior to issuance of any residential building permits. Said final plat must conform to the final PUD plan approved by the City. 2. Approval by the Department of Natural Resources of the following: A. The Planned Unit Development. B. The use of fertilizer, grading and landscaping within the development. C. Docking and lake access. D. Alteration of wetlands in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources letter of June 17, 1987 Condition #5. E. Ongoing testing of the lake. 3. The developer must submit a revised sewer plan which shows a primary on-site sewage treatment system location within each lot. Alternative on-site sewage treatment sites maybe located within sewer easement areas outside of the lot. 4. Septic system sites must be staked and roped off during construction periods to prevent compaction of the soil by construction equipment. 5. The homeowners association shall be responsible for the annual inspection of all on-site sewage treatment systems within the development. The association shall provide a performance bond or a letter of credit to the City which can be drawn upon to insure compliance with this requirement. Annual inspection reports for each on-site system within the development shall be provided to the City by July 1st each year. 6. The developers are hereby granted a variance from the 10 foot setback requirement for septic systems from the rear lot lines of lots adjacent to sewer easements. 7. Execution of a developers agreement for construction of required improvements. A. Installation of a water system in accordance with the requirements of the City of Shakopee. B. Installation of a street lighting system in accordance with the SPUC Manager. C. Installation of a storm sewer water system in accordance with the requirements of the City of Shakopee. D. Construction of streets and street signs in accordance with the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. E. In lieu of the park land dedication and/or fee the developer shall provide a trail connecting Timber Trails Addition and O'Dowd Park and payment in lieu of park dedication. Said trail should meet plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. Said trail should be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the golf course club house. F. The City shall have the right to hire a consultant or expert to do an in depth lot by lot study of the suitability for on-site septic systems of each lot within the development. The City may add a surcharge to the permit fee for on-site sewage treatment systems to cover the cost of such consulting services. G. The Golf course shall carry sufficient insurance to protect it from any liability resulting from the play of golf over public land and water. Said policy shall name the City as co-insured. 8. Approval of a title opinion by the City Attorney. r ai 9. The owner shall submit a revised copy of the Development Covenants to the City prior to final plat approval. The revised covenants shall contain requirement that a home owners association must be set up and the home owners association will be responsible for complying with condition #5 above set forth. 10. Lake View Drive South shall end at the established cul- de-sac; a 16 foot emergency access road built to City standards to hold emergency vehicles, shall be extended from the cul-de-sac to County Road 79; the emergency access shall be closed year round but there shall be break-away barriers at one or both ends; the developer shall maintain the 16 foot emergency access road year round (including snow removal) . The developer shall provide the City with a 30' wide permanent easement for the emergency access road. 11. The City agrees to lease to the developer part of the 66' of park land between Lakeview Drive and O'Dowd Lake in exchange the developer agrees to maintain the property at such time when said action becomes legal. 2. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Resolution #3057 approving the amended preliminary and final plat for Stonebrooke First Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Septic system sites must be staked and roped off during construction periods to prevent compaction of the soil by construction equipment. 3. The developers are hereby granted avariance from the 10' setback for septic systems from the rear lot lines of lots adjacent to sewer easements. This variance constitutes the extent of variances to be considered and/or granted with respect to residential lots. 4. The golf course shall carry sufficient insurance to protect it from any liability resulting from the play of golf over public land and water. Said policy shall name the City co-insured. 5. Execution of a developers agreement for construction of required improvements. a. Installation of water system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager, if the City decides to operate the system and if not, installation must be in accordance with the requirements of the State Health Department. b. Installation of a street lighting system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. installation of a storm water system in accordance with the requirements of the City of Shakopee. d. Construction of streets and location of street signs in accordance with the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. e. Construction of a trail connecting Timber Trails Addition to O'Dowd Park. Said trail shall meet the specifications and have plans approved by the City Engineer. The trail shall be completed prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the golf course club house. The trail shall be used as credit towards park dedication requirements plus a cash payment. The City will also be provided a permanent easement for the land on which the trail is located. f. The City shall reserve the right to hire a consultant or expert to do an in depth lot by lot study of the suitability of on-site septic systems of each lot within the development. The City may add a surcharge to the permit fee for on-site sewage treatment system inspections to cover the cost of such consulting services. 6. Separate appurtenant utility easement agreements for each lot platted shall be recorded by the developer at the time of filing the final plat. said utility easements shall conform to the approved PUD plan. 7. Lake View Drive South shall end at the established cul- de-sac; a 16' roadway built to City standards to hold emergency vehicles shall be extended from the cul-de- sac to County Road 79. Emergency access shall be closed year around, but there shall be break away barriers at one or both ends; the developer shall maintain the 16' emergency access road year around including snow removal. The developer shall provide the City with a 30' foot wide permanent easement for the emergency access road. 8. Any access to County Highways will require an entrance permit from the Scott County Highway Department. 9. All lots abutting a City street and a County Highway shall have access from the City street. 10. The City agrees to lease to the developer part of the 66' of park land between Lakeview Drive and O'Dowd Lake in exchange the developer agrees to maintain the property at such time when said action becomes legal. ALTERNATIVES• 1. The City Council may offer and approve Resolution #3056 approving the amended final plan and development agreement for Stonebrooke Planned Unit Development, and Resolution #3057 approving the amended final plat for Stonebrooke First Addition subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. The City Council can offer and approve Resolution #3056 approving the amended final plan and development agreement for Stonebrooke PUD, and Resolution #3057 approving the amended final plat for Stonebrooke First Addition subject to conditions different then recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. The City Council can offer and pass motions to not adopt Resolutions #3056 and #3057 thereby not approving the amendment to the amended final PUD for Stonebrooke and amended final plat for Stonebrooke First Addition. ACTION REOUESTED: 1. Offer and pass Resolution #3056 approving the Final Plan and Development Agreement for Stonebrooke PUD, as amended. 2 . Offer and pass Resolution #3057 approving the Preliminary and Final Plat for Stonebrooke First Addition, as amended. RESOLUTION NO. 3056 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR STONEBROOKE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, on June 18, 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee approved the Final Plan and conditions to be included in the Development Agreement for Stonebrooke Planned Unit Development and recommended its adoption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the developers of the Planned Unit Development have applied for amendments to the originally approved Final Plan and Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing, pursuant to law, on the amendment to the Plan and Development Agreement on May 4, 1989 ; and WHEREAS, all notices of the hearing were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did approve the Final Plan and conditions to be included in the Development Agreement for Stonebrooke Planned Unit Development, as amended, on May 4, 1989 and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all things. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That the Final Plan and Development Agreement for Stonebrooke Planned Unit Development, as amended, described as follows: See attached Exhibit A be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the requirements contained in the said Development Agreement. 2. That the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute said approved Plan and Development Agreement, as amended. 3. That this resolution supercedes Resolution No. 2749, A Resolution Approving the Final Plan and Development Agreement for Stonebrooke Planned Unit Development, adopted by the City Council in adjourned regular session on July 14, 1987. 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.3057 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF STONEBROOKE FIRST ADDITION AS AMENDED WHEREAS, on June 18, 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee approved the Final Plat of Stonebrooke First Addition and recommended its adoption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the developers of the Stonebrooke First Addition have applied for amendments to the originally approved Final Plat; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing, pursuant to law, on the amendment to the Final Plat on May 4, 1989; and WHEREAS, all notices of the hearing were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did approve the Final Plat for Stonebrooke First Addition, as amended, on May 4, 1989 and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all things. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the Final Plat of Stonebrooke First Addition, as amended, described as follows: See attached Exhibit A be and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the following conditions: 1. Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Septic system sites must be staked and roped off during construction periods to prevent compaction of the soil by construction equipment. 3. The developers are hereby granted a variance from the 10' setback for septic systems from the rear lot lines of lots adjacent to sewer easements. This variance constitutes the extent of variances to be considered and/or granted with respect to residential lots. 4. The golf course shall carry sufficient insurance to protect it from any liability resulting from the play of golf over public land and water. Said policy shall name the City co-insured. 5. Execution of a developers agreement for construction of required improvements. a. Installation of water system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager, if the City decides to operate the system and if not, installation must be in accordance with the requirements of the State Health Department. b. Installation of a street lighting system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Installation of a storm water system in accordance with the requirements of the City of Shakopee. d. Construction of streets and location of street signs in accordance with the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. e. Construction of a trail connecting Timber Trails Addition to O'Dowd Park. Said trail shall meet the specifications and have plans approved by the City Engineer. The trail shall be completed prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the golf course club house. The trail shall be used as credit towards park dedication requirements plus a cash payment. The City will also be provided a permanent easement for the land on which the trail is located. f. The City shall reserve the right to hire a consultant or expert to do an in depth lot by lot study of the suitability of on-site septic systems of each lot within the development. The City may add a surcharge to the permit fee for on-site sewage treatment system inspections to cover the cost of such consulting services. 6. Separate appurtenant utility easement agreements for each lot platted shall be recorded by the developer at the time of filing the final plat. Said utility easements shall conform to the approved PUD plan. 7. Lake View Drive South shall end at the established cul- de-sac; a 16' roadway built to City standards to hold emergency vehicles shall be extended from the cul-de- sac to County Road 79. Emergency access shall be closed year around, but there shall be break away barriers at one or both ends; the developer shall maintain the 16' emergency access road year around including snow removal. The developer shall provide the City with a 30' foot wide permanent easement for the emergency access road. S. Any access to County Highways will require an entrance permit from the Scott County Highway Department. 9. All lots abutting a City street and a County Highway shall have access from the City street. 10. If at such time as it becomes legal, or if the park is vacated, the City agrees to lease to the developer part of the 66' of park land between Lakeview Drive and O'Dowd Lake in exchange the developer agrees to maintain the property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution supercedes Resolution No. 2862; and that the proper City officials be and the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said approved plat and developers agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1989. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1989_ City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" Lt/ The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lots 2 and 3, all in Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County together with Government Lot 1 Section 30, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, • Minnesota, excepting therefrom the following: Land contained in the Plat of Timber Trails, Registered Land Survey Nos. 45 and 47. ALSO, That part of North Half of Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying West of the East 1309.20 feet (as measured at right angles) thereof. ALSO, The South Half of Northwest Quarter, Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota EXCEPT the Westerly 720. 15 feet lying southerly of the northerly 100 feet of said South Half of Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County; AND A Triangular parcel of the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter described as follows: Starting at the Southwest corner of Northeast Quarter, thence East 20 feet along the . South line of the Northeast Quarter; thence northwesterly to a point on the West line of the Northeast Quarter 20 feet North of the said southwest corner; thence South along the West line of Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning, all in Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. ALSO, Outlot A, Timber Trails, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota. ALSO, Tracts O, (except the 50 feet of tract 0 lying parallel to the Southern tract line between tracts O and N) P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, and DD, Registered Land Survey No. 47, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This agreement made and entered into this day of , 1989, by and between the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation organized under and pursuant to the Laws of the State of Minnesota and located in the County of Scott and State of Minnesota hereinafter called "City" and Laurent Builders, Inc. hereinafter called "Owner" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner has made application to the City Council for approval of a Planned Unit Development to be known as Stonebrooke First Addition and for the approval of a Plat of land within the corporate limits of the City of Shakopee to be known as Stonebrooke First Addition described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and made a part hereof. NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the approval by the City of the PUD and proposed plat above referred to and other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed that the approval of said proposed plat and PUD shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall be required to file and record a final plat for the planned unit development prior to issuance of any residential building permits. Said final plat must conform to the final PUD plan approved by the city. - 1 2 . Approval by the Department of Natural Resources of the following: A. The planned unit development. B. The use of fertilizer, grading and landscaping within the development. C. Docking and lake access. D. Alteration of wetlands in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources letter of June 17 , 1987 Condition #5. E. Ongoing testing of the lake. 3. The developer must submit a revised sewer plan which shows a primary on-site sewage treatment system location within each lot. Alternative on-site sewage treatment sites maybe located within sewer easement areas outside of the lot. 4. Septic system sites must be staked and roped off during construction periods to prevent compaction of the soil by construction equipment. 5. The homeowners association shall be responsible for the annual inspection of all on-site sewage treatment systems within the development. The association shall provide a performance bond or a letter of credit to the City which can be drawn upon to insure compliance with this requirement. Annual inspection reports for each on-site system within the development shall be provided to the City by July lst each year. 2 6. The developers are hereby granted a variance from the 10 foot setback requirement for septic systems from the rear lot lines adjacent to sewer easements. 7. Execution of a developers agreement for construction of required improvements. A. Installation of a water system in accordance with the requirements of the City of Shakopee. B. Installation of a street lighting system in accordance with the SPUC Manager. C. Installation of a storm sewer water system in accordance with the requirements of the City of Shakopee. D. Construction of streets and street signs in accordance with the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. E. In lieu of the park land dedication and/or fee the developer shall provide a trail connecting Timber Trails Addition and O'Dowd Park and payment in lieu of park dedication. Said trail should meet plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. Said trail should be completed prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the golf course club house. F. The City shall have the right to hire a consultant or expert to do an in depth lot by lot study of the suitability for on-site septic systems of each lot within the development. The City may add a 3 9U__ surcharge to the permit fee for on-site sewage treatment systems to cover the cost of such consulting services. G. The Golf course shall carry sufficient insurance to protect it from any liability resulting from the play of golf over public land and water. Said policy shall name the City as co-insured. S. Approval of a title opinion by the City Attorney. 9. The owner shall submit a revised copy of the Development Covenants to the City prior to final plat approval. The revised covenants shall contain requirements that a home owners association must be set up and the home owners association will be responsible for complying with conditions in #5 above setforth. 10. Lake View Drive South shall end at the established cul- de-sac; A 16 foot emergency access road built to City standards to hold emergency vehicles, shall be extended from the cul-de-sac to County Road 79 ; the emergency access shall be closed year round but there shall be break-away barriers at one or both ends; the developer shall maintain the 16 foot emergency access road year round (including snow removal) . The developer shall provide the City with a 30' wide permanent easement for the emergency access road. 11. The City agrees to lease to the developer part of the 66' of park land between Lakeview Drive and Lake O'Dowd in exchange the developer agrees to maintain the 4 property at such time when said action becomes legal. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that this agreement will bind both parties hereto and successors and assigns of said parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the owner have caused this agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHAKOPEE BY Mayor BY City Administrator IN THE PRESENCE OF BY City Clerk OWNER BY IN THE PRESENCE OF Its President BY Vice President and Secretary 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF SCOTT ) On this day of , 1989, before me a notary public within and for the County of Scott personally did appear Dolores Lebens, Dennis R. Kraft, and Judith S. Cox, to me personally known, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the Mayor, Acting City Administrator and the City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation, named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is a corporate seal of said corporation and that the instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of the municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and the said Dolores Lebens, Dennis R. Kraft, and Judith S. Cox each acknowledge said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF SCOTT ) On this day of , 1989, before me a notary public within and for Scott County, personally appeared Gary L. Laurent and Randolph R. Laurent to me personally known, who, each being duly sworn by me did say that they are respectively the president and secretary of Laurent Builders, Inc. and that the said corporation does not have a seal but was executed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and 6 the said Gary L. Laurent and Randolph R. Laurent each acknowledge that said instrument if a free act and deed of said corporation. This instrument was drafted by Julius A. Coller, II Shakopee City Attorney 211 West First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. FEE OWNER, if other than Developer CITY OF SHAKOPEE BY Elmer J. Marschall Mayor BY Kathryn M. Marschall Acting City Administrator BY Harold Marschall City Clerk DEVELOPER LAURENT BUILDERS Eugene F. Hauer BY Its Virgina T. Hauer BY Its Gary L. Laurent FEE OWNER, if other than Developer Sara L. Laurent BY Daniel John O'Connell Francis M. Menden BY Alvina S. O'Connell Bonnie J. Menden 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by Daniel John O'Connell and Alvina S. O'Connell, his wife. Notary Public, Minnesota. My Commission expires STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by Elmer J. Marschall and Kathryn M. Marschall, his wife. Notary Public, Minnesota. My Commission expires STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1989, by Harold Marschall and Marie Marschall, his wife. Notary Public, Minnesota. My Commission expires STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by Eugene F. Hauer and Virginia T. Hauer, his wife. Notary Public, Minnesota. My Commission expires STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by Gary L. Laurent and Sara L. Laurent, his wife. Notary Public, Minnesota. My Commission expires 9 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1989, by Francis J. Menden and Bonnis J. Menden, his wife. Notary Public, Minnesota. My Commission expires 10 EXHIBIT "A" The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lots 2 and 3 , all in Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County together with Government Lot 1 Section 30, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, - Minnesota, excepting therefrom the following: Land contained in the Plat of Timber Trails, Registered Land Survey Nos. 45 and 47. ALSO, That part of North Half of Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying West of the East 1309.20 feet (as measured at right angles) thereof. ALSO, The South Half of Northwest Quarter, Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota EXCEPT the Westerly 720.15 feet lying southerly of the northerly 100 feet of said South Half of Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County; AND A Triangular parcel of the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter described as follows: Starting at the Southwest corner of Northeast Quarter, thence East 20 feet along the South line of the Northeast Quarter; thence northwesterly to a point on the West line of the Northeast Quarter 20 feet North of the said Southwest corner; thence South along the West line of Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning, all in Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. ALSO, Outlot A, Timber Trails, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota. ALSO, Tracts O, (except the 50 feet of tract O lying parallel to the Southern tract line between tracts O and N) P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, and DD, Registered Land Survey No. 47, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota. 11 gb MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K.Wise, City Planner RE: Preliminary Plat for Canterbury 3rd Addition DATE: May 9, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on May 4, 1989, the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat for Canterbury 3rd Addition subject to conditions. BACKGROUND: Scottland Inc. has applied for preliminary and final plat to subdivide 5.6 acres located at the corner of County Road 83 and 12th Avenue into two lots. The proposed site contains the existing Canterbury Square shopping center and the vacant property immediately to the South and East of the shopping center. The property is zoned B-1. Scottland Inc. is requesting approval of the preliminary and final plat in order to allow conveyance of the undeveloped portion of the site to a separate corporate entity. The existing shopping center and parking lot currently occupies Lot 1 with the exception of 3' setback from the South and East lot lines for the parking lot. The existing shopping center is served by City sewer located in the Northwest corner of Lot 1. The sewer is not of sufficient depth to serve Lot 2. Extension of the sewer to serve Lot 2 would require installation of a lift station. The City staff relayed to the Planning Commission it's concerns about sewer service to Lot 2 and the adjoining area to the South and East of the proposed plat. Staff had recommended that a sewer plan for the area be completed prior to approval of any construction on Lot 2. The Planning Commission after discussion of the staff concerns regarding sewer decided that the sewer issue should be resolved prior to approval of the final plat. 12th Avenue is currently a 48' wide roadway. The existing right- of-way for this road is 60' . Consequently there is only approximately 5' of right-of-way behind the curbs one each side of the road. The City's current design standards require that 80' of right-of-way be provided for a 48' wide street. The Planning Commission is recommending that an additional 10' right- of-way be dedicated along the South property line for 12th Avenue. The existing shopping center has a driveway access to 12th Avenue which bisects Lot 2. A permanent easement for this driveway access should be provided with the plat. The County Engineer has recommended that no additional accesses to County Road 83 be allowed for this property. The City Engineer had recommended to the Planning Commission that a condition be placed on the approval requiring topographic maps showing existing drainage patterns, proposed grading plans, proposed drainage facilities, storm water detention ponds, and erosion control plans be submitted prior to development of Lot 2. Although a detailed grading plan can not be completed until it is known how Lot 2 will be developed, the Planning Commission is recommending that a preliminary drainage plan be completed prior to approval of the final plat. PLANNING COM14I8SION RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on May 4, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request from Scottland Companies for preliminary and final plat approval for Canterbury Park 3rd Addition. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat only for Canterbury Park 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Execution of a developers agreement for construction of required improvements: a. Installation of water system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. b. Installation of sewer system in accordance with the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. C. Payment in lieu of land dedication for park purposes shall be required. d. Apportionment of special assessments according to City policy. 3. The developer shall dedicate an additional 10' of right-of- way for 12th Avenue along the South property line as a part of the final plat. 4 . A driveway easement across Lot 2 for the existing driveway shall either be dedicated on the plat or recorded by separate agreement. 5. Prior to approval of the final plat, the developer shall submit a grading and drainage plan which must be approved by the City Engineer. Said grading and drainage plan must show the existing drainage patterns, proposed grading plans, proposed drainage facilities, storm water detention ponds, and erosion control plans. 6. Prior to approval of a final plat, a sewer plan for Lot 2 and the area to the South and East of the proposed subdivision must be prepared and approved by the City Engineer. 7. No additional accesses shall be allowed to C.R. 83 from this plat. ALTERNATIVES• 1. The City Council can offer and pass a motion approving the preliminary plat for Canterbury 3rd Addition subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. The City Council can offer and pass a motion approving the preliminary plat of Canterbury 3rd Addition subject to conditions different then those recommended by the Planning commission. 3. The City Council can offer and pass a motion tabling action on the preliminary plat for Canterbury 3rd Addition and direct staff and/or the developer to provide additional information to the City Council. 4. The City Council can offer and pass a motion denying approval of the preliminary plat for Canterbury 3rd Addition. ACTION REODESTED• Offer and pass a motion approving the preliminary plat for Canterbury 3rd Addition subject to conditions. MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Preliminary and Final PUD Approval for Four Mini Storage Buildings DATE: May 9, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on May 4, 1989, the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of preliminary and final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the construction of four mini storage buildings on the same site as the existing Shakopee Towing building and impound lot subject to conditions. BACKGROUND: Mr. Lester Koehnen applied for a preliminary and final PUD approval to construct four mini storage buildings on the same site as the existing Shakopee Towing building and impound lot. Approval of a PUD is required because Mr. Koehnen plans to construct more than one principal building on the same lot and the property is located in a Mandatory PUD District. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request at their March 9 and April 20, 1989 meetings and passed a motion recommending approval of the PUD at their meeting on May 4, 1989. During the review process by the Planning Commission, the applicant was directed to make revisions to the plan, primarily to show additional landscaping. The applicant also made a change to the plan adding a fifth mini storage building. Since the original application was only for four mini storage buildings, the Planning Commission's recommendation includes a condition recommending approval for only four. During the review of the request by the Planning Commission, considerable discussion took place regarding conditional use permit #471 previously issued to Mr. Koehnen for the impound lot located on the property (copy attached) . The primary concern of the Planning Commission was whether or not the existing property is in compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. The first condition of the conditional use permit requires a solid fence and coniferous trees 6' in height to be planted every 15' to screen the impound lot. The existing property had poplar trees in the location around the impound lot and the applicant since applying for the PUD has planted additional coniferous trees in between the existing poplars. The Commission also raised questions regarding whether the fence met the requirement of the conditional use permit for a solid fence. 1 The Commission felt it important to address this issue because the approval of a PUD is for the entire property and includes approval of existing improvements within the property. The Commission felt that the approved PUD should provide landscaping and screening in conformance with the existing conditional use permit for the property. Following approval of the PUD, the Planning Commission passed an additional motion indicating to the City Council that they felt the existing landscaping as now shown on the PUD plan and installed by the developer is in conformance with the intent of condition #1 of the conditional use permit and that the Council should amend the conditional use permit to reflect this. The Planning Commission also discussed in some detail proposed landscaping across the front of the property and had directed the applicant to revise the original PUD plan to include additional landscaping. The Commission has recommended approval of the PUD with the landscaping as now shown on the drawing. The Upper Valley Drainageway will be constructed immediately to the North of this property and the City will be regrading the North 100' of the property in connection with construction of the drainageway. The City Engineer has indicated that if the applicant wishes to construct any of the buildings located near the North property line prior to final construction of the drainageway he will have to submit grading plans conforming to the design of the drainageway. The Fire Chief in reviewing the proposed development recommended that a fire hydrant be placed on this property with a water flow of not less then 1500 gallons per minute. This is necessary to provide proper fire protection to the buildings located near the rear of the lot line because of their distance from the nearest fire hydrant along Eagle Creek Blvd. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on May 4, 1989, the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending approval of the preliminary and final PUD for four mini storage buildings to be located on the same property as the existing Shakopee Towing building and impound lot subject to the following conditions: 1. A fire hydrant, meeting the specifications of the Fire Chief and SPUC shall be placed on the property prior to issuance of a building permit for any of the buildings located near the rear of the property. 2 gC� 2. No additional accesses to C.R. 16 shall be permitted to this site for this proposal. 3 . Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the landscaping and screening on this property must be in compliance with the conditions contained in Conditional Use Permit #471. Screening of the North property line from the Northeast corner of the impound lot to the Northeast corner of the property must be completed in compliance with City Code requirements after construction of the Upper Valley Drainageway is completed. 4. Approval of this PUD is for four mini storage buildings only. Mini storage building #5 as shown on the plan is not approved and the applicant must receive approval for an amendment to this plan prior to constructing this building. 5. An 8 1/2 x 11 plan of the proposed buildings and an 8 1/2 x 11 copy of the site plan shall be provided to the Fire Chief for the Fire Departments use. 6. There must be at least a 5' setback from the East property line to the driveway and parking area surrounding the proposed mini storage buildings. This 5' setback area must be landscaped and a barrier of fencing, shrubbery or landscape timbers must be placed between the driveway and the East property line where it abuts the driveway of the neighboring property. 7. The timber and gravel landscape area in front of the proposed mini storage buildings should be set back at least 17' from the front property line. 8. The property owner shall provide the City with a certified check, letter of credit, or performance bond equal to 125% of the estimated cost of installing all required landscaping and screening improvements except along North property line. The City shall have the right to utilize these funds to complete any landscaping or screening improvements not in compliance with the approved plan. 9. No exterior storage shall be located outside of the fenced impound lot area. 10. No hazardous material shall be stored in any of the buildings. At their meeting on May 4, 1989, the Shakopee Planning Commission also passed a motion finding that the landscaping as shown on the PUD plan and installed by the applicant adjacent to the impound lot meets the intent of condition #1 of conditional use permit 3 #471 and that the wording of the condition on the conditional use permit should be amended to reflect this. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can offer and pass Resolution #3055 approving the final PUD and development agreement for the four mini storage buildings to be located on the same property as the Shakopee Towing building and impound lot subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning commission. 2. The City Council can offer and pass resolution #3055 approving the final PUD and development agreement for the four mini storage buildings to be located on the same property as the Shakopee Towing building and impound lot subject to different conditions then recommended by the Planning Commission. 3 . The City Council can offer and pass a motion directing staff to draft a resolution denying approval of the PUD for four mini storage buildings located on the same property as the Shakopee Towing building and impound lot. Said resolution should contain the reasons for denial. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer and pass Resolution No. 3055 approving the Final PUD and Development Agreement for Roehnen's Mini Storage subject to conditions. 2 . Offer and pass a motion amending Conditional Use Permit Resolution of the City Council No. CC-471. 4 CITY OF SHAKOPEE AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. CC-471 WHEREAS, on October 21, 1986 the City Council did approve Conditional Use Permit No. CC-471 for Lester Koehnen for outdoor storage of transportation equipment; and WHEREAS, the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission desire to amend condition number one contained in said Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the present zoning for the parcel on which the Conditional Use Permit exists is designated as: I-1; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the conditional use is being utilized is described as: 1803 Eagle Creek Boulevard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that condition number one of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. CC-471 be and the same is hereby amended as follows: The storage area must be entirely enclosed with a fence eight feet in height and 75% opaque. The fence shall be set back ten feet from the rear and side lot lines. Within the setbacks, a major coniferous tree must be planted every fifteen feet at a minimum of six feet in height wherever existing live Poplar trees are not located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. CC-471 shall remain in force and effect. Adopted in session of the Shakopee 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 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 110. CC- 471 WH ERRS, Lester Koehnen having duly filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit aate 8-1 -86 under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, Section 11.04, Subd. 6 as follows: CUP for outdoor storage of transportation equipment fn a T-1 zoned area; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is described as: 1803 Eagle Creek Blvd. and WHEREAS. said proposed Conditional Use Permit request was Aonroved by the Shakopee Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota r at their meeting held - 4 1986 and said Conditional Use Permit decision is herewith etng appea a to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council on Oct. 211986 held a public hearing on the appeal from the decision oo he 1, Commissior NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and recommendations of the Shakopee Planning Commission and upon considering the suggestions made by the applicant and the suekestfons and objections raised by the affected property owners, within a radius of 350 feet thereof, in public hearings duly held by the Shakopee Planning Commission and the Shakopee City Council, that the aforementioned Conditional Use Permit be and is hereby approved pursuant to the following: 1. The entire storage area must be entirely enclosed with a solid fence eight feet in height. The fence shall be setback ten feet from the rear and side lot lines. within the setbacks a major coniferous tree must be planted every fifteen feet at a minimum of 6' height. 2. All storage associated with the uses within the structure must be contained within the fenced area. 3. Annual Planning Commission review. 4. The conditional use permit shall cease to be in effect on Jan. 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Shakopee City Code, Sec. 11.04, Subd. 6C-12, if an approved Conditional Use Permit is not utilized within one year from date herein approved or by Oct. 21 , 19 87 it shall become null and void. Adapted in reau ar session of the City Counci of the City of Shekopee, Minnesota held c is0 9 R6 o r, t . v - ar o c e 'Cic -o -Strd opee ATTEST: Zi— Approved s to form this 7 day of 6&A— 19P4 Cityerk 1 Ci Attorney - ---� 1/a4 � G 4. Cont. of the second year following the year in which a building permit is issued for any parcel abutting within 300 feet, which is zoned residential; or five years from the date of this resolution October 21, 1991) whichever comes second. RESOLUTION NO. 3055 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SHAKOPEE STORAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did approve the Final Plan and conditions to be included in the Development Agreement for Shakopee Storage Planned Unit Development on May 4, 1989 and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, all notices of hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all things. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Final Plan and Development Agreement for Shakopee Storage Planned Unit Development described as follows: A tract of land lying in Sections Five (5) and Eight (8) , Township One Hundred Fifteen (115) , Range Twenty- two (22) , Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: The West 449.0 feet of the South 573. 4 feet of Section 5, and the West 449.0 feet Section 8, all in Township 115, Range 22, lying Northwesterly of the centerline of County Road No. 18. be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the requirements contained in the Development Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute said approved Plan and Development Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1989. v Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1989. City Attorney PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This agreement made and entered into this day of , 1989, by and between the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation organized under and pursuant to the Laws of the State of Minnesota and located in the County of Scott and State of Minnesota hereinafter called "City" and Lester Koehnen hereinafter called "Owner" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner has made application to the City Council for approval of a Planned Unit Development to be known as Shakopee Storage. NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the approval by the City of the PUD above referred to and other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed that the approval of said proposed PUD shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. A fire hydrant, meeting the specifications of the Fire Chief and SPUC shall be placed on the property prior to issuance of a building permit for any of the buildings located near the rear of the property. 2 . No additional accesses to C.R. 16 shall be permitted to this site for this proposal. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the landscaping and screening on this property must be in compliance with the conditions contained in Conditional Use Permit #471. Screening of the North property line from the D v Northeast corner of the impound lot to the Northeast corner of the property must be completed in compliance with City Code requirements after construction of the Upper Valley Drainageway is completed. 4. Approval of this PUD is for four mini storage buildings only. Mini storage building #5 as shown on the plan is not approved and the applicant must receive approval for an amendment to this plan prior to constructing this building. 5. An S 1/2 x 11 plan of the proposed buildings and an S 1/2 x 11 copy of the site plan shall be provided to the Fire Chief for the Fire Departments use. 6. There must be at least a 5' setback from the East property line to the driveway and parking area surrounding the proposed mini storage buildings. This 5' setback area must be landscaped and a barrier of fencing, shrubbery or landscape timbers must be placed between the driveway and the East property line where it abuts the driveway of the neighboring property. 7 . The timber and gravel landscape area in front of the proposed mini storage buildings should be set back at least 17' from the front property line. B. The property owner shall provide the City with a certified check, letter of credit, or performance bond equal to 125% of the estimated cost of installing all required landscaping and screening improvements except along North property line. The City shall have the right to utilize these funds to complete any landscaping or screening improvements not in compliance with the approved plan. 9. No exterior storage shall be located outside of the fenced impound lot area. 10. No hazardous material shall be stored in any of the buildings. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that this agreement will bind both parties hereto and successors and assigns of said parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the owner have caused this agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHAKOPEE BY Mayor BY City Administrator IN THE PRESENCE OF BY City Clerk OWNER BY IN THE PRESENCE OF Lester Koehnen ? 4 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Amendments to Zoning Code for Day Care Facilities DATE: May 9, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on May 2, 1989 the City Council received a recommendation from the Planning Commission for changes to the City Zoning Ordinance regarding Day Care Facilities. At the meeting the Council discussed the proposed changes and passed a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance making the necessary changes to the Zoning Code. BACKGROUND• For background on this item please refer to the memo contained in the packet for the May 2, 1989 City Council meeting (item #9c) . ALTERNATIVES• 1. Offer and pass Ordinance #264 amending the City's Zoning Code to provide provisions for Day Care Facilities as drafted. 2. Offer and pass Ordinance #264 amending the City's Zoning Code to provide provisions for Day Care Facilities after changing the requirements outlined in the draft ordinance. 3. Offer and pass a motion to not adopt Ordinance #264, thereby not changing the Zoning Code to include provisions for Day Care Facilities. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass Ordinance #264 Amending the City's Zoning Code to provide provisions for Day Care Facilities as drafted. ORDINANCE NO. 264 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning)" by_ Enacting Provisions Providing for Day Care Facilities and by Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 11.99 Which Among other Things Contain Penalty Provisions. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 11.02 Definitions The following definitions are added to Sec 11.02 142 DAY CARE FACILITY Any state licensed facility, public or private, which provides one or more children with care or supervision on a regular basis for periods of less than 24 hours per day, in a place other than the person's own home. Day-care facilities include, but are not limited to: family day-care homes, group family day-care homes, day- care centers, day nurseries, nursery schools, and daytime activity centers as defined by Minnesota Statutes SEction 245.782, Subd. 5. A. Day-Care facility, Class I - Any facility, public or private, which provides 13 or more children with care or supervision on a regular basis and is not located in a home. B. Day-Care facility, Class II - regularly provided care or supervision for 14 or fewer children located within the home of the Day-care provider or 12 or fewer children when not located in the home of the day care provider. SECTION 11.05 Special Provisions The following special provisions are added to Sec 11.05 Subd 3 E 27 A. Parking for Class I Day-Care Facility - ~ 1. Parking - There shall be adequate off-street parking which shall consist of one space for teacher or employee plus one space for twenty children receiving care (except when located in B-3 Zoning District) . 2. Loading - The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements. At least one off- street loading space shall be provided. (Except when located in a B-3 Zoning District) . 3. Licensing - EAch facility shall obtain all applicable State and County licenses. B. Class II Day-Care Facilities General Provisions 1. Licensing - EAch facility shall obtain all applicable state and county licenses. SECTION 11.24 Agricultural Preservation District (AG) Subd 3 - Additional conditional use added. N Clas I Day-Care facilities Subd 2 - Additional permitted use added. I Class II Day-Care facility SECTION 11.25 Rural Residential ( R-1) Subd 3 Additional Conditional Use N Class I Day-Care Facility Subd 2 - Additional Permitted use G Class II Day-Care Facility SECTION 11.26 Urban Residential ( R-2) Subd 2 Additional Permitted Use G Class II Day-Care Facility Subd 3 Additional Conditional Use R Class I Day-Care Facility SECTION 11.27 Medium Density Residential (R-3) Subd 2 Additional Permitted Use F Class II Day-Care Facilities Subd 3 Additional Conditional Use N Class I Day-Care Facility -2- SECTION 11.28 Multi-Family Residential (R-4) Subd 3 Additional Conditional Use P Class I Day-Care Facility Subd 2 Additional Permitted Use G. Class II Day-Care facility SECTION 11.29 Highway Business ( B-1) Subd 3 Additional Conditional Use O Class I Day-Care facility Subd 2 Additional Permitted Use N Class II Day-Care Facilities are a permitted use when located in the _ home of the Day-Care provider and a Conditional Use when not located in the home. SECTION 11.30 Community Business (B-2) Subd 3 Additional Conditional Use M Class I Day-Care Facility H Class II - Day-Care Facilities are a permitted use when located in the home of the day care provider and a conditional Use when not located in the home. SECTION 11.31 Central Business (B-3) Subd 3 Additional Conditional Use K Class I Day-Care Facility Class II Day Care Facilities are a permitted use when located in the home of the day-care provider and a Conditional Use when not located in the home. SECTION 11.32 Light Industry (I-1) Subd 3 Additional Conditional Use Q Class I Day-Care Facility Class II Day-Care Facilities are a permitted use when located in the home of the day care provider and a Conditional Use when notlocated in the home. - 3 SECTION 11.33 Heavy Industrial ( I-2) Subd 3 Additional Conditional Use added Q Clas I Day-Care Facility Subd 2 Additional Permitted use added I Class I Day-Care facility when located in the home of the day-care provider and a conditional use when not located in the home of the day-care provider. SECTION 11.35 Shoreline Zoning District Subd 4 Additional Conditional Use added F Class I Day-Care facility Subd 3 Additional Permitted Use added F Class II Day-Care Facility SECTION 11.36 Race Track District (RTD) Subd 2 Additional accessory Use added A 15 Class I Day-Care facility with an approved PUD Class II Day-care facility not allowed. SECTION 11.99 Violations Every person violating a section, subdivision or provision hereof, when he performs an act thereby prohibited or declared unlawful or fails to do an act which such failure is thereby prohibited or declared unlawful and upon conviction thereof shall be punished for a misdemeanor but no jail sentence shall be imposed. SECTION 11.99A When in Force and Effect in This Ordinance shall be /force and effect after the adoption thereof and the attestation thereof and after one publication in the official newspaper it shall be in force and effect the day after the date of such publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1989. - 4 - Mayor of the City of Shakopee Y Y P ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 3rd day of Maya, 1989. City Attorney 900 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Cidministrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for Off-Sale 3.2 Beer Licenses DATE: May 12, 1989 INTRODUCTION: The City has received two applications for Off-Sale 3.2 Beer License from Gateway Foods of Minneapolis, Inc. Gateway Foods has recently acquired the two Brooks Superettes, one located on Marschall Road and the other located on Canterbury Road. BACKGROUND: The two applications received from Gateway Foods for two 3.2 Off-Sale Beer Licenses has been properly executed and notarized. Advertisement in the Shakopee Valley News has been published according to law. I have not yet received the Surety Bond for the two licenses. I have received the Certificates of Insurance for the liquor liability coverage, however, the cancellation clause is being corrected to conform to the City Code. If I receive the Surety Bond and the corrected Certificates of Insurance by Tuesday evening, everything will be in order and Council may act on the application. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the licenses. 2. Deny the licenses. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Alternative No. 1, Approve the licenses. (Provided the necessary documents are received by Tuesday evening) . RECOMMENDATION: 1. Move to approve the applications and grant an Off-Sale Non- Intoxicating Liquor License to Gateway Foods of Minneapolis, Inc. , dba Brooks Superette #42, 1147 Canterbury Road. 2. Approved the applications and grant an Off-Sale Non- Intoxicating Liquor License to Gateway Foods of Minneapolis, Inc. , dba Brooks Superette #28, 615 Marschall Road. JSC/tlV qb MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Request for Information and Assistance From the Concerned Citizens for Fair Taxation Committee DATE: May 12, 1989 INTRODUCTION• On May 2, 1989 a representative from the Citizens for Fair Taxation requested City Council to allocate City staff assistance to their committee in an attempt to answer some questions that they had in regard to tax increment financing. At that time, the City Council requested the Citizens for Fair Taxation Committee to draft a detailed document specifying the areas in which they were requesting staff research. BACKGROUND: On May 9, 1989 the City of Shakopee received a list of detailed questions from the Citizens for Fair Taxation Committee in regard to tax increment financing research assistance (see attachment #1) . Gregg Voxland and I have reviewed the questions submitted by the Citizens for Fair Taxation Committee. We feel that answers can be obtained to all of their questions. We have attempted to determine how much staff time would be involved in answering the questions in such a manner that they will satisfy the needs of the Citizens for Fair Taxation Committee. We have broken down staff's time commitment into three possible levels. The first level would provide a short basic answer to each of the questions as listed. Due to the complexity of some of the questions and the tax increment financing issue, we estimate that a basic answer would occupy 2-3 days of the City Finance Director's time. Additionally some of the questions requested would require legal consultation from our bond counsel. The second level of time commitment to this project would provide the Citizens for Fair Taxation with a more detailed analysis of their questions. We estimate that the time commitment to this type of analysis would take 3-6 days of staff time. Finally, the third level of research would involve an indepth analysis of the questions. In this case, staff would recommend that we solicit assistance from our financial advisors (Springsted Inc. ) to complete the analysis. Springsted has been involved with the City of Shakopee since our first tax increment project in 1979. Springsted is very familiar with the City's tax increment projects and has the data base and financial expertise to answer the questions in a detailed manner. Springsted has estimated that a report could be completed within two weeks of formal notification to proceed. T � Mr. Voxland has met with representatives from the Citizens Concerned for Fair Taxation in the past and provided them with brief answers to some of the questions listed. At this time, staff is unsure that a written generic answer provided by staff to the questions posted by the Concerned Citizens for Fair Taxation would meet their needs. While many of these questions look fairly simple on the surface, each question actually involves a myriad of issues. Staff is also unsure that the Citizens for Fair Taxation will be supportive of any answers provided by City staff. Additionally, Mr. Voxland would like to be able to provide the answers/information requested but is very pressed for time and does not feel that he has the time to adequately provide responses to the questions as posed by the Concerned Citizens for Fair Taxation. The Finance Director is currently in the process of completing the 1988 Financial Report and beginning the 1989 budgeting process. Staff is recommending that we proceed in entering into an agreement with Springsted Inc. to provide detailed answers to the questions raised by the Concerned Citizens for Fair Taxation. Staff believes that in order to put an end to all the rumors and false statements that are circulating regarding tax increment financing that this type of analysis needs to be completed by our financial advisor. Springsted can provide an accurate report that will be recognized by the Concerned Citizens for Fair Taxation as an unbiased analysis. Finally, I would like to remind Council of their commitment to the joint School District, County, City of Shakopee study that will possibly be initiated within the next month. It is likely that the cost of that study may be reduced if the contractor simply incorporates the results of the proposed Springsted Tax Increment Analysis. SUMMARY Following are the three possible levels of staff commitment for Council consideration. Note that each level has an associated cost with it. A. Level 1 - Basic generic answer - $500.00 B. Level 2 - Middle of the road analysis - $3,000.00 C. Level 3 - Indepth analysis completed by the City's financial advisors - $7,500.00 It would be appropriate at this time for Council to consider if they wish to allocate staff time and/or financial assistance to assist the Citizens Concerned for Fair Taxation. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Select Level 1 as the level of assistance to allocate to the Concerned Citizens for Fair Taxation request. 2. Select Level 2 as the level of assistance to allocate to the Concerned Citizens for Fair Taxation request. 3. Select Level 3 as the level of assistance to allocate to the Concerned Citizens for Fair Taxation request. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #3. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement with Springsted Inc. in an amount not to exceed $7,500. 00 for the completion of an indepth report answering the questions setforth by the Concerned Citizens for Fair Taxation Committee. The $7, 500.00 to come from General Fund Contingency. TO: DENNIS KRAFT - ACTING ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FROM: CITIZENS FOR FAIR TAXATION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA CLETE LINK. SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RESEARCH TAX INCREMENT ACCOUNTING DATE: MAY 9, 1989 DENNIS. THE ATTACHED QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTED TO THE RESEARCH OF TAX INCRE- MENT FINANCING IN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE. PLEASE REFER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR NEED FOR CLARIFICATION TO ME.THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. CLETE LINK CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR FAIR TAXATION A. REDUCTION OF TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS BY THE RETIREMENT OF DEBT AND RELEASE TO THE TAX ROLLS. REQUEST THAT INFORMATION/ RESEARCH BE DIRECTED TO THE FOLLOWING TAX INCREMENT QUESTIONS: A. THE RETIREMENT OF TIF DISTRICTS AND DECERTIFICATION OF: #1 - THE K-MART DISTRICT - EXPIRES IN 2005 #2 - THE SENIOR HIGH RISE - EXPIRES IN 1993 #3 - DOWNTOWN - EXPIRES IN 2000 #4 - RACETRACK - EXPIRES IN 1994 #5 - FAMILY CHOW MEIN - CLOSED OUT BUT STILL OPEN?? #b - SHAKOPEE VALLEY MOTEL - EXPIRES IN 2000 QUESTIONS: 1. ARE THERE ANY LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON THESE ACTIONS? 2. ARE THERE ANY PENALTIES FOR EARLY RETIREMENT AND/OR DE-CERTIFICATION? 3. WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES TO THE CITY FOR EARLY RETIREMENT AND/OR DE-CERTIFICATION? 4. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES (IN ADDITION TO NEW PROPERTY ON THE TAX ROLLS) TO THE CITY FOR EARLY RETIREMENT AND/OR DE-CERTIFICATION? 5. WHAT WILL IT COST TO RETIRE/DECERTIFY EACH DISTRICT AS SUGGESTED ABOVE? h. WHAT WILL IT COST TO RETIRE/DECERTIFY ALL OR COMBINATIONS OF DISTRICTS AS SUGGESTED ABOVE- 7. WHAT IS THE BREAKOUT OF TAX DISTRIBUTION FOR THE COUNTY, SCHOOL AND CITY? DOLLARS AND PERCENTAGE. S. WHAT IS THE TAX ADVANTAGE TO THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER FOR THIS NEW PROPERTY ON THE TAX ROLLS? BOTTOM LINE - TAX REDUCTION? 9. PLEASE PRESENT A SCHEDULE OF RETIREMENT BY DATE AND ANY ACTIONS NECESSARY (COUNCIL APPROVAL, BOND COUNSEL APPROVAL, OTHER JURISDICTIONAL DISTRICTS ETC. ) NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE ACTION. (IF JUSTIFIED IN RESEARCH) B. CHANGE IN METHOD OF ASSESSING AND FUNDING FISCAL DISPARITY IN RACETRACK-. DISTRICT #4, DOWNTOWN, AND ANY OTHER DISTRICTS WHERE FISCAL DISPARITY WAS ELECTED TO BE SPREAD CITY-WIDE. IN 1484, A DECISION WAS MADE BY CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE TO PAY FISCAL DISPARITY PAYMENTS FOR THE RACETRACK DISTRICT. (OPTION A) THE OTHER AVAILABLE OPTION IS TO FUND THE PAYMENT FROM THE DISTRICT ITSELF. THE CITY RETAINS THE ABILITY FOR A ONE-TIME CHANGE TO (OPTION B) WHICH WOULD "SPREAD" OUT THIS PAYMENT TO THE ENTIRE DISTRICT. QUESTIONS: 1. ARE THERE ANY LEGAL RESTRICTIONS. PENALTIES, OR COSTS FOR THIS ACTION? i. WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES TO THE CITY (IF ANY)? 3. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES TO THE CITY? 4. WHAT IS THE BREAKOUT OF TAX DISTRIBUTION FOR THE COUNTY. SCHOOL, AND CITY? DOLLARS AND PERCENTAGE. 5. WHAT IS THE TAX ADVANTAGE TO THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER FOR THIS NEW PROPERTY ON THE TAX ROLLS? BOTTOM LINE - TAX REDUCTION. b. AS PART OF THE STUDY,PLEASE PRESENT A SCHEDULE FOR THIS CHANGE REFERENCING ANY TARGET DATES AND ANY ACTIONS (COUNCIL APPROVAL, BOND COUNSEL APPROVAL, OTHER JURIS- DT_CTIONAL APPROVAL ETC. ) NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE REQUESTED ACTION. ( IF JUSTIFIED IN RESEARCH) v POOLED EXCESS FUNDS/ DISTRICT TERM EXTENSION IN 1984, A DECISION WAS MADE TO REFUND TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT #1 K-MART TO A TWENTY YEAR TERM. AT THIS TIME. ADDITIONAL PROJECTS WERE INCLUDED IN THIS DISTRICT AND HAVE BEEN SUPPLEMENTING AN ACCOUNT OF "POOLED EXCESS TIF FUNDS". HOWEVER.THIS REFUNDING- ALSO ALLOWED THE RETIREMENT OF BONDS WITH COVENANTS RESTRICTING CAPTURED INCREMENTS TO DEFT RETIREMENT, TO PONDS WITH NO COVENANTS ALLOWING THE CITY TO "POOL" CAPTURED INCREMENTS. THE AMOUNT CURRENTLY IN THIS FUND IS NOMINALLY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO INCLUDE THE UPPER VALLEY DRAINAGE, STORM SEWER, THE DOWNTOWN MINI-BYPASS, AND THE SOUTHERLY BYPASS.AFTER INSURING PROJECT COMPLETION, THESE FUNDS COULD BE DEDICATED TO PARTIAL OR COMPLETE DEBT RETIREMENT OF ANY REMAINING DISTRICTS. QUESTIONS: 1. ARE THERE ANY LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON THIS ACTION? 2. ARE THERE ANY PENALTIES FOR EARLY RETIREMENT? 3. WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES TO THE CITY FOR EARLY RETIREMENT? PLEASE OUTLINE ANY RISKS AS A RESULT OF THIS ACTION. 4. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES (IN ADDITION TO NEW PROPERTY ON THE TAX ROLLS) TO THE CITY FOR EARLY RETIREMENT? E. WHAT WILL IT COST TO RETIRE EACH DISTRICT AS SUGGESTED ABOVE? 6. WHAT WILL IT COST TO RETIRE ALL OR COMBINATIONS OF DISTRICT AS SUGGESTED ABOVE? OTHER: 7. IN 1987, THE CANTERBURY INN WAS BUILT WITHIN THE 29 ACRE K-MART DISTRICT. THE CITY CAPTURES $408.400 IN TAX INCREMENT DOLLARS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE INN IS LOCATED WITHIN THIS TAX-INCREMENT DISTRICT. CAN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE K-MART TA INCREMENT DISTRICT BE CHANGED TO REMOVE THE CANTERBURY INN FROM THE DISTRICT AND BACK ON THE TAX ROLLS?? S. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES TO THIS ACTION^ PLEASE PRESENT A LIST OF THE ACTIVITIES NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS ACTION. D. DEDICATED EARLY PAYOFF OF BOND ISSUES. RELATIVE TO STATEMENT C. ON "POOLED EXCESS TIF FUNDS" IS THE QUESTION OF DEDICATING THESE FUNDS TO AN EARLY PAVOFr OF BOND ISSUES AND/OR ESCROWING DECERTIFICATION. THE SOONER THESE TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS ARE RETIRED, THE SOONER THE PROPERTY GOES BACK. ON THE TAX ROLLS. THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTION IS PART OF THIS REQUEST: DDEDICATE AN AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL FROM "POOLED EXCESS TIF FUNDS" OR ANY OTHER DEDICATED FUNDS (I.E. CITY HALL) AND DEPOSIT IN A DEDICATED TRUST/ESCROW FUND (LESS ACCRUED INTEREST) TO PAY CFF FUTURE TIF BOND ISSUES. RELATED TO THE K-MART AND RACETRACK TIF DISTRICTS. THIS WOULD EFFECTIVELY WRITE THESE "FUTURE" FILLS OFF OF THE BOOKS. QUESTIONS: 1. ARE THERE ANY LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON THIS ACTION? WILL THIS ACTION LEGALLY SATISFY THE RETIREMENT OF THE DEBT? WHAT IS THE CITY'S LEGAL POSITION IN THIS MATTER? WHAT IS THE CITY'S LEGAL POSITION SHOULD THE RACETRACK EXPERIENCE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES^ 2. ARE THERE ANY PENALTIES FOR EARLY RETIREMENT? 3. WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES TO THE CITY FOR EARLY RETIREMENT? 4. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES (IN ADDITION TO NEW PROPERTY ON THE TAX ROLLS) TO THE TAXPAYERS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT? 5. WHAT WILL IT COST TO RETIRE THE K-MART OR RACETRACK DIST.'RICTS AS SUGGESTED ABOVE? b. WHAT WILL IT COST TO RETIRE BOTH DISTRICTS? WHAT IS THE BREAKOUT OF TAX DISTRIBUTION FOR THE COUNTY. SCHOOL AND CITY DOLLARS AND PERCENTAGE. B. WHAT IS THE TAX AZvANFCE TO THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD FOR THIS NEW PROPERTY ON TFE TAX ROLLS? BOTTOM LINE - TAX REDUCTION? ;. PLEASE PRESENT A SCHEDULE OF RETIREMENT BY DATE AND ANY ACTIONS NECESSARY (COUNCIL APPROVAL, BOND COUNSEL APPROVAL. OTHER JURISDICTIONAL DISTRICTS ETC. ) NECESSARY TO COMPLETE .,E ACTION. (I^ JUSTIFIED IN RESEARCH) OTHER: THE INCENTIVE POLICY OF THE CITY MUST BE PROACTIVE BUT MUST ALSO ADDRESS THE NEED FOR FISCAL RESTRAINT. THE FOLLOWING AREAS ARE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED: A. THAT ANY NEW INCENTIVES MUST NOT ONLY MEET THE TIGHT CRITERIA OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT POLICY BUT STRONGLY ADHERE TO THE STATED MINIMUM TERM. B: THAT ANY NEW INCENTIVES GRANTED AS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING BE SPECIFICALLY MANAGED TOWARD THE MOST RAPID RETIREMENT,DECERTIFICATION, AND REASSIGNMENT TO REGULAR TAX ROLLS. C. OUR RESEARCH INTO TIF HAS FOUND A NUMBER OF PRACTICES/ POLICIES WHICH APPEAR QUESTIONABLE (PRESUMABLY LEGAL?) . SPECIFICALLY, MONEY TRANSFERS AND BILLING (I.E.ASSESS- MENTS) . ARE THERE ANY OTHER PRACTICES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE PAST OR ARE NOW TAKING PLACE REGARDING TIF ACCOUNTING WHICH MIGHT APPEAR QUESTIONABLE TO A COMPLIANCE AUDIT BY THE STATE? (SEE FOLLOWING) IN ORDER TO CLEAR UP ANY MISINFORMATION OR WRONGLY FORMED OPINIONS, THE STATE AUDITORS OFFICE MUST BE REQUESTED TO PARTICIPATE IN A COMPLIANCE AUDIT DIRECTED TO TAX-INCREMENT ACCOUNTING IN SHAKOPEE (SINCE ITS INCEPTION IN 1979) .THIS WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS BY A STATE AGENCY AND CAN BE STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY ALL CITIZENS. ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BY THE CITY WOULD ALSO BE WELL SERVED BY THIS ACCOUNTING. 9C MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Regarding Filing of a Deed and Authorization of Vacation of a 66' Wide Parcel of Property in Timber Trails Addition DATE: May 9, 1989 INTRODUCTION: At the May 2, 1989 meeting, the City Council tabled the above mentioned item. At that meeting the City Council indicated that they wanted additional information and wanted the parties involved to get together and decide which direction they were going to take on this issue. BACKGROUND: Additional background on this subject can be found in agenda memo #10 c. dated April 28, 1989 for the Regular City Council meeting of May 2, 1989. This item relates to the vacation of a 66' wide strip of land located between Lakeview Drive and Lake O'Dowd to Stonebrooke Golf Course for the purpose of allowing the construction of a golf tee and for the provision of an access to Lake O'Dowd for residents of Timber Trails and future residents of Stonebrooke subdivision. There has been a meeting between the Timber Trails Homeowners Association and officials from Stonebrooke subdivision and golf course. They have reached agreement on a means of providing access to the lake and at the writing of this memo both parties are satisfied with the agreement that has been reached. The essence of the agreement will provide for a 10 - 15' wide access along the Eastern portion of this lot to be used by residents of both subdivisions for access to the lake. The access will be maintained by Stonebrooke at no cost to the City. It is requested that the City Council authorize the filing of a deed and authorize an action of vacation in District Court so that the City can honor it's earlier commitment to Stonebrooke. A question was asked at the City Council meeting of May 2nd relative to whether a payment should be made for park land that would no longer be available to the City. At the time the subdivision was filed 108 of the total acreage was dedicated for park purposes so no cash was contributed to the City in lieu of this dedication. The area which is proposed to be vacated represents 6.78 of the total land area which was dedicated for park purposes if the entire 66' wide strip is vacated. There are 36 lots in Stonebrooke subdivision and the current payment in lieu of dedication amount is $250 per dwelling unit. 6.78 of the payment in lieu of dedication for park purposes would be $603.00. If the City only vacates a strip of land 56' wide that would represent 5.78 of the total amount of park land dedicated. This would then have a cash equivalent of $513.00. 7 C/ No calculation has been made as to what improvement costs may be incurred by Stonebrooke when they improve the access way to the lake. If the City Council wants to receive a cash payment, in return for the removal of part of the park property dedicated when the plat was filed, an amount of $603. 00 should then be submitted to the City. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Authorize the Assistant City Attorney to file the deed to the subject property giving the City fee title and further authorize a vacation action in District Court subject to the obligation of the Stonebrooke developers to pay all costs and fees related thereto and the retention of an easement over the East 10' of the property for lake access for property owners of Timber Trails and Stonebrooke subdivisions. 2. Direct that the Stonebrooke developers pay an amount of $603.00 to the City representing payment for the amount of previously dedicated park land which will no longer be dedicated park land as a part of the Timber Trails subdivision. 3. Do not authorize the filing of the deed or the vacation action. RECOMMENDATION• Alternatives #1 and #2 above are recommended. ACTION REOUESTED: (1) Move to authorize the Assistant City Attorney to file a deed for a 66' wide lot in Timber Trails subdivision which is located between Lakeview Drive and Lake O'Dowd which is presently designated as park land on the Timber Trails plat and (2) further authorize a vacation action in District Court of the property subject to the obligation of Stonebrooke developers paying all filing and recording costs and fees related thereto and; (3) further subject to the retention of an easement over the East 10' of the property for access by property owners in Timber Trails and Stonebrooke subdivisions, and (4) require the payment of $603.00 by Stonebrooke which is to be treated as a payment in lieu of park dedication for the amount of park land which is no longer going to be available in this subdivision. 9d MEMO TO: city Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Waterslide Painting DATE: May 5, 1989 INTRODUCTION The Recreation Department has requested that I have the waterslide painted this year. BACKGROUND This request from the Recreation Department to paint the slide was made after the budget was approved. The proposal we received from Preferred Surfaces, Inc. quotes $1840.00 to paint the exterior to the slide and $890. 00 to paint the interior. I recommended painting the exterior at the slide and two interior sections located at the base of the slide. I have some concerns as to whether or not the interior paint application would hold up. It may be water born sand particles between the slide surface and slide mats will create an abrasive action that will wear through the paint quickly. I anticipate the two sections should cost about $125. 00 ALTERNATIVES 1. Paint the slide 2. Don't paint the slide. RECOMMENDATION Transfer $1, 990.00 from the general fund contingency to general fund pool equipment maintenance to paint the waterslide. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Authorize appropriate City officials to contract with Preferred Surfaces, Inc. to paint the waterslide for a cost of $1,990.00. 2. Offer Resolution No. 3049, Amending Resolution No. 2989, Adopting the 1989 Budget, and move it's adoption. LH:cah RESOLUTION 3049 A RESOLUTION AN.�..'NDING RESOLUTION 2989 ADOPTING THE 199 BUDGET WHEE7AS, the City Council hasa adopted a budget for the fiscal yea-, and WHEREAS, changing conditions and circumstances warrant amending the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLCED B? TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT: OF SHAROFrr HINNESOTA, that the appropriations are increased as follows: Fund Cates= Division Amount 01 4232 618. 61 $T,1404 q 00 and the increases are offset or funded by increases (decreases) in the following accounts: , Fund Account/Catecory Division Amount 01. 4991 911.91 1, 900 00 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day Of , 1986- yo- of the City of Shakopee A_c T. City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1966. City Attorney G' 4 P R_0 P O S A L PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: CITY OF SHAKOPEE / PUBLIC WORKS 500 Gorman Street Shakopee, MN 55379 REGARDING: CITY PARK WATER SLIDE (BRUSH & ROLL ALTERNATIVE) WORK PROPOSED Scrape, sand & prime loose paint and rust spots on the metal support posts. Remove the rubber bumper guards at the edges of the tube. Sand and clean the tube surfaces. Apply an alkyd fast dry primer on the bolts/ nuts related to the support posts & slide tubes. Protect surfaces not to be painted with poly. Brush & roll onecoatpolyurethane (@ 2-3 mils wet) on the tube su77ace. . . color to be selected. Brush one coat polyurethane on the metal support posts. . . assumbed to be white. - ' After thoroughly dry ( 16 hours ) inspect for any runs or missed areas. Touch-up as required. Remove poly & tape. ' Reattach rubber bumper strips. Full cure for use in 7 days. . ASSUMPTION: Windy or wet conditions will delay completion. PRICE: ' $1840 Paint bottom side tube & support posts. ' $ 890 Additional , if top side of tube is - done at the same time. Includes all labor & materials. Payment net 30. ACCEPTANCE: The above prices, specifications, conditions, & payment terms are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 30 days. Above read, understood and agreed to as read. �G &IZ13'40s 5/2/89 J:xeu:v 1_ Mr. Bruce Jo son Mr. Howie Heller Preferred Surfaces,. Inc. City of Shakopee/ Public Works Dept. 7104 Ohms Lane 500 Gorman Street Edina, MN 55435 Shakopee, MN 55379 831-6470 FAX 831-3167 445-2211 Cc�x n_ 7e, MEMO TO: City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Riverside Park Fence Quote DATE: May 3 , 1989 INTRODUCTION We received three bids on our 1989 budgeted fence project for Riverside Park. BACKGROUND The low bidder for the fence was Minnesota Valley Fence Co. , a local firm, with a quote of $10,870.00 which is $1,800. 00 over my original estimate. The two other bids submitted were H & L Landscape and Fencing in the amount of $11,780.29 and Dakota Fence of Minnesota in the amount of $11,454. 00. ALTERNATIVES 1. Award the project to the low bidder, Minnesota Valley Fence Co. , for the amount of $10,870. 00, and amend the budget in the amount of $1,800.00. 2. Rebid the project. RECOMMENDATION Award the bid to Minnesota Valley Fence Co. and amend the budget in the amount of $1, 800.00 to complete this project. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Award the project to Minnesota Valley Fence Co. in the amount of $10,870. 00. 2 . Offer Resolution #3050, Amending Resolution 42989, adopting the 1989 Budget, and move its adoption. LH:cah Attachments RESOLUTION 3050 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 2989ADOFIING TEE 19$9 BUDGET WHEREAS , the City Council base adopted a budget for the fiscal year, and WHEREAS, changing conditions and circumstances warrant amending the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAROFEE, MINNESOTA, that the appropriations are increased as follows: Fund Cateeory Division Amount 13 4519 $1, 800 and the increases are offset or funded by increases (decreases) in the follrwing accounts: , Fund Account/Cateecry Division Amount 13. 2600 Fund Balance $1, 800 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1986- Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1986. City Attorney 445-2645 2424`VALLEY VIEW ROAD RESIDENTIAL 8 COMMERCIAL SHAKOPEE, MINN. 55379 �j reah f�us��' � 3�G' `�C°/lCL Q/ dPIS/4Fo� p45f CSS f 3� to SCree i ,� l' `/d 9656 . H 8 R Landscape 8 Fencing 4745 Dodd Road Eagan Mn. 55352 Ph. 454-0838 RE : Quotation For Riverside Park Shakopee, MN NI1ME SNIP TO City Of Shakopee Attn : Leroy Houser 445-3650 STREET h NO. STREET 6 NO. 3,29 First Aye. East Same As QTY STA ZIP CITU STATE IP Z Shakopee MN. 55379 ORDER NO. OEPT, EVVER SALESMAN WHEN SHIP I TERMS HOWENIP DATE Tom 4-22-88 1,080 ' Take dal:n existing Chain Link FEnce and remove 1,080 ' 2W-9 No. Gauge 72- High Chain Link Fence CNele} 8 3m X 9' End Terminal Post 310 3" X 9' Corner Post 2 2 X 9' Line Post C Set 10 Ft. Apart } 1,080 ' 1 5/8" Top Railing * All Posts to be set in concrete. * All Material Shall be Galvinized. 1 12' X 6' Double Swing Gate. 1 3' Walk Thru opening Installed Price $11,780. 29 Redif9,m 5H 540 DAKOTA FENCE OF MINNESOTA, INC. April 25, 1989 City of Shakopee 129 E. 1st. Ave. Shakopee, Mn. 55378 Attn: Leroy Houser Dear Mr. Houser: The following specifications and bids are being submitted, based on your verbal request for sidelines and outfield fence for the existing ball field on Harrison St. Weight and quality of framework is important, and I have used my best judgement in providing what I feel will give you the best service. 1025 feet of 72 inch 9 gauge galvanized chain link wire. 3 inch terminal posts (.160 wall thickness) 3 inch foul line poles, extended (.160 wall thickness) 2 inch line posts (.090 wall thickness) 1 5/8 inch top rail (.085 wall thickness) 1 5/8 inch double bracing at all terminals (.085 wall thickness) 1 - 4' wide walk gate with an industrial frame 1 - 10' wide double drive gate with an industrial frame. All materials galvanized to commercial specifications. All posts set in concrete footings to a 24-30 inch depth. Total, as described: $9,704.00 Alt. #1. Remove and dispose of existing fence. Add $19750.00 Thank you for the opportunity to submit our bid. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Yours truly, Leland S. Knutson ib Office: P.O. Box 18 • 3480 Upper 149th St. W. • Rosemount, MN 55068 Warehouse: 4600 Akron Ave. • Inver Grove Heights, MN 55075 455-8534 • 423-3995 �f Memo To: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Full-time M.I.S Coordinator Position Date: May 10, 1989 Introduction The current MIS/Eng Tech III will be a full-time M.I.S. Coordinator soon. The compensation for this position needs to be addressed. Back round Council created a full-time M.I.S. position in 1986 but it has only been filed half-time since then. Council has now hired an Engineering Tech to replace the Technician that has evolved into the MIS Coordinator. The 1989 Pay Plan has a listing for HIS Coordinator as opposed to the split position of MIS/Tech III. The points (82) for the MIS Coordinator are the same as for the MIS/Tech III. To establish the appropriate points, a new TSP may be taken after a period of time. See attached. Steve Hurley has been the MIS/Tech III for 3 years. Accordingly staff recommends he be placed at the top step of the MIS Coordinator position on the 1989 Pay Plan. Alternatives 1.) Maintain current pay ($31,919/yr.) 2.) Top Step of MIS of MIS position ($34,238) 3.) Other Recommendation Alternative #2. Action Requested Move to classify Stephen Hurley as full-time MIS Coordinator at the top step (3 years) of the 1989 Pay Plan effective June 5, 1989, and that this is an exempt position as indicated on the Pay Plan. GV:mmr CITY OF SHAKOPEE 09-Hay-89 Print 16-Dec-88 Revised 1989 Pay Plan ------------------------------------------------------ Step ___________________ ------_-________________Step Step Step Step Step Step #1-Start #2-lYr #3-2Yr #4-3Yr #5-4Yr #6 (Top) SOB TITLE OVT 758 808 858 908 958 1008 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________________________________________________________________ City Admin. E 42,169 44,981 47,792 50,603 53,414 56,226 Fin. Director E 35,463 37,827 40,192 42,556 44,920 47,284 Comm. Develop. Dir E 33,440 35,669 37,898 40,127 42,357 44,586 Police Chief E 37,489 39,988 42,488 44,987 47,486 49,986 Comm. Services Dir E 29,582 35,060 37,251 39,442 41,634 43,825 City Engineer E 33,945 36,208 38,471 40,734 42,997 45,260 PW Superintendent. E 30,137 32,146 34,155 36,165 38,174 40,183 Building Official E 29,470 31,435 33,400 35,364 37,329 39,294 City Clerk E 25,825 27,546 29,268 30,990 32,711 34,433 ------------------------------------------------------ Step Step Step Step #1-Start #2-lYr #3-2Yr #4 (Top) 758 808 908 1008 ________________________ --------------- Planner II E 26,837 28,626 32,205 35,783 Dep Chief E 31,534 33,636 37,840 42,045 Admin. Asst. E 24,618 26,259 29,542 32,824 MIS Coordinator E 25.678 27.390 30.814 34.238 Program Supervisor E 24,084 25,690 28,901 32,112 Eng. Coordinator 25,169 26,847 30,203 33,559 Asst Bldg Inspect 24,181 25,793 29,017 32,242 Housing Inspector 24,181 25,793 29,017 32,242 Tech IIT/MTS Cord. 23.940 25 536 28 27 31 919 Planner I 23,383 24,941 28,059 31,177 Sr.Act.Clk/Prsnl.Cord. 23,420 24,982 28,104 31,227 Tech III 21,698 23,144 26,037 28,930 Tech II 19,285 20,571 23,142 25,714 Secretary 16,831 17,953 20,198 22,442 Acct'g Clerk 15,766 16,817 18,919 21,021 Clerk/Typist II 15,640 16,683 18,768 20,854 Clerk/Typist I 13,838 14,760 16,605 18,450 Receptionist 13,537 14,440 16,245 18,050 Custodian 13,697 14,611 16,437 18,263 9 Memo T0: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator O From: Marilyn M. Rester, Personnel Coordinator Re: Request for Leave of Absence without Pay Date: May 11, 1989 Introduction Barbara Potthier was employed June 22, 1988 as part time (30 hr/wk) Receptionist/Typist for the Public Works department. Background A request for an unpaid leave of absence for three (3) months has been received from Barb Potthier due to personal/financial reasons. See attached memo. This has been discussed with Jim Karkanen, Public Works Superintendent and he recommends approval. Due to the busyness of the summer season, it will be necessary to seek a temporary replacement. As per the Personnel Policy, no vacation or sick leave benefits shall accrue, nor shall sick leave be granted to persons on unpaid leaves exceeding five days. Group health and life insurance is available to the employee while on leave with the employee paying the actual cost of the premium. Alternatives 1.) Approve three (3) month leave of absence without pay. 2.) Do not approve three (3) month leave of absence without pay. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative 01. Action Requested Move to approve a three (3) month leave of absence without pay effective June 1, 1989 through September 5, 1989 for Barbara Potthier, Public Works Receptionist and direct staff to fill the vacancy with a temporary replacement. MEMO TO: Jim Karkanen Marilyn Remer RE: Leave Of Absence Without Pay FROM: Barb Potthier DATE: May 11, 1989 I was hired on June 20, 1988. At that time my husband was unemployed due to a Work Comp injury. Because be was not working, day care was not a problem. He is now employed and due to the cost of day care for my three children during the summer, it would be a financial hardship. Therefore I am requesting a 3 month leave of absence from June 1 to September 5, 1989. i 1'^.5 dE_ CTi •--% E CEC9SEEy'_e � . . ..-». T1/ H_ a 6� I i w Vi pp nm ee m p •I mPrm o f ode po o � I 6 va g n N I NNNNU NN YI) N1/I�NNM uN -a v� a u N �o nbNw^m mu m o 1 Z I.M. ss nnm� ae I .... n I i ai c C.C. i Iii bc�bc ccb<c ''c c' w 1�'f f I 9vfly' > is sb cc " z b ziizzz;. b -- Mm - - T T - - I I N > up M i RV M ♦pp- p < p p u _ n w b p J (0.-..�a..... J �. -.. �.. _. U �._ .aAa• A rq__ aaaa teas -� '9- - s - s- .-e .0 Am YN- tl Mp P i i IM TIT e - W _ O SZ i I i IT T T ITT 1: i bP P� - ul I YI � Y r A91 1 O 3 <III q 9 i OOYP > 9 q, loo gAPY jm ' nao vi - c li M1 e Iqq M CSq S j m A CC Ca 2 ll;r 3 * 9 I � YY yi r i~ q nl I RI u W 1.1 �iY Y j YJ p M_YrII O O q SIA l - i J q 4 M1NRp q p N p I J I Ipq I I P i rF X j ^r x q p p p I j r L _ IS % �.'�6_�SEE�1Y3CkFPi.E M19gb JC C % __ _ Y J -- �q';ass.� -k V, Fl9 xg l .mis- Sr. _. :3 Y 1 1 I I O W it I � li O t . I m __ _tet- � _ Y! e • ��'Pi e^e Y nnnn . Y I Yrs .I II I I I � m.rw. e r r �. I I, �Q Y`Noo i rs'. 31 000 ul 01 01 1 1 f - w0mwi a I, rry �Ivv i I I l 1e �ee� � � I ' e 4Lwsp iwp�ml ami -I�w.e u'ro mSLwmi N� o I Lc u.l wwl I . .el ^y�':': Tm ZZ � �11�1ii J.UYY R ; Ru WINeo�e _ - _ a om •w-w ro-ro r r e w �_... _� �^•••"•°B::aa9AC _ a R GS Y:.ai RY R_ �2_]fT. s }aa"._Be P, }. � — TT F Y♦ --:� -M tlM FFnffm O'0Y_ItlW I 3Yll i '_infar _sY <f ♦♦ _ H fw nni � e ee w Ieeeee ep IMnnnff �f tlttt n; nn nniln:n nIF'1 f ea eeee I Yo - -'. W ad do <c JJ p VY Inn - Cn W A ma WY G\ I VNmm "cuts yY tC w u Y L jw ae a OO Wy > O 00 Y yi IWY mww m WIWWWWW Will Iwm U < ss J Yaa q! M 000. I Y` Iqm Wawg pm - __ -m�am,l: ..I w NN M MN 9 e W lae n . _ 11- nn nP I I �too T PBtlP6 �_ : T.-Tr _ yyyyYY �' ' Mel VpGY 1.1Z; \ -m e u oWWboe. ytr I I el l I I I�p I gip , l J . 1 wP �^ NN p NNlel NV(P n NN � w - m i I I i ale e I m velem I I w Y4nm Yi x i. �e• wpn w �"ew �ues6:irmai "m , p""-ea aSle i Spl a om I cl<c colo tl tl.Y. tl.R tlY : ptllw m p�p a,p� i p w Da A i >1 > CC C CCnnn<bnn'i ....by * p O �< ib All 9 p• n pi p m rr wn - 0. a cFlw�l tl I = 'zYzzz I Ali fl tl . `..<«.«`.`.`.. m MMMIMM w c emneo ptl p ITTi rl vel ' w an v r .. z s�iiFz Yp AAAm 'cF it =fizz < n. mo ti Ya Imo vel m'� l y e e ..... e m--loon- a- ewi w.... Y mm-xiumN-_mm m i ...PIP s I I I i I i I I l i i I pC ••(y�PS'Ctltl n^. _ e� a"•'S_cx 5a -:zai R_x E°£sl aTi �a .: 9f ai;._ias z_ 1 u tll � I � 1 1 -1 1 , ITT I !`1 atlYtl Ytl GYYYY M d i. - I _ I I tl o . tltl Yea== d„tlM tlt<LLL tl! L W e tltl i altl Iz i2 o�0oe0000 0000�� I . 0 0000 I ;I W.W.W. oAIR 000aoaoo 2 �e <Y !.......... ! ! _ ! ” 3. tle........ .... :900000000 ny JJJ3 q77%'J»> D rtl. 1 n.Yn � m a n " M u o • - . n n I I �. N¢j GO I � S I I i i i " emevi= fao obeo � IR II{t"�1 jn i - ff�fff i�bf A 9 n '2 Iz - I T. a y>H u�oM1 CID>2 O Lc9 a S S� T Iii r z ae n ' s « ~� la i I I I N w 10 m aFo w w w Yo Y aro m rm Oro rw rm aro rw OYo r 0Y m o o z W N F W N N N W W W W W W F t F F F FFF F W F N N N W �•' y w O H N O O O N Vii N W N N W NNN N WH O O O -1 N O O N N N Y Y Y Y O Y W W 71 71 r 07 N O Y w r N N N O n S S N S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 0� S S S S 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o r 0 0 0 0 �e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y S 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 o OH 0 0 0 0 O mF w O m wNF 1;0 W W F- O W m OYo OYo m m Oro M N r m m m N M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r Y Y Y Y r r Y Y Y r Y r H Y Y Y r Y Y Y 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 00 o O o 0 0 0 000 O 00 0 0 0 0 a Y Y r Y r r Y r Y r YY r r r r Y r YrY Yo 00 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 n ro a O m w to I r �n �O F Y M m N O MW w M7 -1 W F Y G m y 0 w o N -t o -t F o �n o w w w moo rn Y o �n o �n wmrn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m V�O r N 0 h0' 0 0 W Fpm vFi 0 0 0 0 0 M m O n o a _ O m mm m m ai ai m z a� mm y mn 0 n O x :m r H m m mm m m m m m m mmm m ac m ;m m O O M O O M C (G R C N Y' H Y' Y' M N Y Y µ H • C� Iw m • 0 m m n m o' er n n 0 m ro w H Cl w m m d m tv m m m m r Y a w O P' n H y C N K O 0 a m 'd W W W Y O O H o v w 0° m n MMM OhoOBD OBD OBD �W F wF �wF C F F C F F FFF w ww w W w W Y O �O W N N m F W N Y 000 �p m Oo �1 m VI F O W m O h1 m m m r �+ M M N [9 CY N W O m m Y m m N H 3 a N Y O H m c' C H w a w m n �+ A S m H GO m H 3 O Y ,'c •G S 'C O T a a m n •e nm m m 0 z z o O H m " a 5' O 'G m 3 m O m m 3 3 r 0 � H O Y a m m �-" � N o E N r r H IV w P� a Y Y M m w o m ro a G R' x C a a m ro ro° o m m H m m N n w Y m 3 o 0 w 0 o O w b —i o -� r �n o w w w �n rn Y o .n .n m -i o oo rn 0 OOO000 N0H0 b O 0 0 0 m m m Y 0 000000001000 00 0 O rrrrrYrrrrrr rr v z FFFFFFrFrtrr FF �" '�' W W WWW W W W W r r r W W M � N NNNN NNNN�O�O�O N�1 , r rrrrrrrrw�o�o 00 � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wrFFrrw r�nrrF wr o YNNrWVIW �I VIW,IY VIN � rrrrrFrr-1rrY r,t wrFFrrwrrrrrwF YNNrw vlw-Irwyr rN mm� MoM 000000001000 00 0 Frwrwrczz rrrrrrrrrrrr rr '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 000000000000 0 0 0 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 00000 000 000000 00 a a n 3 o �h"� 000000000000 00 ON O E C C H 0 0 3 H p4 a 9 H G Y N b 3 � � O r m � mY�00\ N�IrN N WYm N r �* OOVIY 0lrmirYYN�1m OWN _ . N Y m�1 O\r W ut N O r T ut ut �4 m w K n y � 0 fA iG O N N Vito\ fD O r 3 ut N F O\mil b Y y .y N m. F�1 O 0 rl F a O omF o \ N to j r O m m O m m C [�J r n n o-f z mmmmmmm mmmm mm F VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI V1 Vi Vi V1 VI V1 2 m H � < a a^ w o r K y r m c� r m n n x a �p 3 M V Y W O �O N Y O 0 0 r o 0 MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator �� G FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engines 1-11E ✓i SUBJECT: 5th Avenue Project DATE: May 10 , 1989 INTRODUCTION: Staff is requesting Council' s permission to hire a real estate appraiser to prepare appraisals for the 5th Avenue Project. BACKGROUND: Council has previously ordered plans and specifications for the construction of 5th Avenue from Spencer Street to Market Street, the construction of Main Street from 5th Avenue to 6th Avenue and the installation of sewer and watermains in Market Street between 4th Avenue and 7th Avenue . The design of this project is currently being done by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. Inc. As indicated in the feasibility report and as discussed at the public hearing prior to ordering this project, additional right- of-way is needed to be purchased by the City of Shakopee in order to construct 5th Avenue between Fillmore Street and Market Street. Legal descriptions and drawings have been prepared of the right-of-way area needed for this project. On May 2 , 1989 the City Council discussed various right-of-way alternatives and directed staff to use a 60 foot right-of-way from Main Street to Market Street and a tapered right-of-way of 80 feet at Fillmore Streetto60 feet at Main Street for this project . The appraisals will be prepared based those right-of-way descriptions. At the public hearing to determine whether or not this project was feasible, Council directed staff to obtain benefit appraisals for all parcels that would be assessed for this project to determine if the proposed assessment would be less than the increase in property value due to the improvements. Staff has solicited quotes from three separate appraisal firms to perform this work. The scope of work includes both property acquisition appraisals and benefit appraisals. One of the firms solicited declined to submit a quotation due to existing workloads. The other two firms did submit quotations to do this work and copies of their proposals are attached for Council review. Staff would like to briefly summarize each proposal. The first appraisal was submitted by Peter Patchin & Assoc. , Inc. who has done other appraisal work for the City of Shakopee. Mr. Patchin has submitted a proposal consisting of $3 ,500 .00 to prepare the data bank for these appraisals and a flat fee of $300 .00 per parcel for each parcel appraised, irregardless of �N whether it is a benefit appraisal or a property acquisition appraisal. Since there are 23 parcels involved in this project, the total for doing appraisal work would be $10 ,400.00 . Mr. Patchin has indicated that this work could be completed in 6 to 8 weeks. The second proposal submitted was from Universal Valuation Services of Shakopee. As indicated by Mr. Richard Mark's letter, the total appraisal fee for this project would be $14,400.00. He also indicated that the time of completion for this work would be between 60 and 90 days. I don' t believe that this firm has done any recent appraisal work for the City of Shakopee, but they are a local firm. The third firm Shenehon & Assoc. , refused to submit a proposal due to current workloads. Staff is requesting that Council review these proposals and authorize staff to hire one of the firms to complete the appraisal work for the 5th Avenue Project. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Hire Peter J. Patchin & Assoc. , Inc. to do the appraisal work for the 5th Avenue Project. 2. Hire Universal Valuation Services to do the appraisal work for the 5th Avenue Project. 3. Direct staff to obtain additional proposals. 4 . Do Nothing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 , to hire Peter J. Patchin & Assoc. , Inc. The main reason for the recommendation is that the total cost of Mr. Patchin' s proposal was less than Mr. Mark' s. Staff feels that either firm is perfectly capable of performing this work, but in the interest of saving the City $4,000.00 , staff feels that the contract should go to Peter J. Patchin & Assoc. , Inc. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct the appropriate City staff to utilize Peter J. Patchin & Assoc. , Inc. to do the appraisal work associated with the 5th Avenue Project at a fee of $3 ,500 .00 lump sum plus $300 .00 for each parcel for a total fee of $10 ,400 .00. DH/pmp APPRAISAL Peter J. 1 A' Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 14300 Niooflet Court, Suite 240, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 435-5999 May 5, 1989 Mr. David Hutton, P.E. City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 RE: 5th Avenue Project Dear Mr. Hutton: In response to your letter, dated May 1, 1989, I am submitting the following proposal for appraisal services. The project involves before and after valuations on land parcels. In this manner it resembles the Upper Valley Drainage Project appraisals which we recently completed for you. Consequently, I would approach this project by using a similar procedure. Our fee for the assembly of the data bank to be used in all of these appraisals is $3 ,500. An additional fee of $300.00 would be charged for each parcel appraised. In this manner, you may add or delete parcels without having to amend the contract. The per parcel fee would be the same, regardless of whether the appraisal ..ac fcr ar. saseuent <.alu tics or market ._l_ bensfit after the project is completed. Thank you for considering our firm. Sincey, 'ter J. Pan, MAI, CRE President PJP:prj Universal v Vd�uatiOn Appraisers/Consultants Services May 9, 1989 Mr. David Hutton City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, Mn. 55379 Re: Acquisition and Benefit Appraisals on Properties affected by 5th Avenue Dear Mr. Hutton; improvement project We have reviewed your letter dated May 1, 1989 requesting a fee quote to prepare appraisals for acquisition and benefit determination on the above referenced street improvment project. After looking over the properties that are affected by this project, we will summarize the scope of this assignment. In your letter you divided the project into four segments. We will briefly review each of these segments. 1 . Fifth Avenue, between Spencer and Fillmore Streets is currently a gravel road. The City of Shakopee will be upgrading this block by pavement and curb and gutter. As we discussed in your office, we do not believe the nine parcels involved in this portion of the assignment will require separate full narative appraisals to allocate benefits. Rather, we will allocate the benefits to each parcel using a group analysis for all properties. We identify this group of properties as parcels 580-584 and 385-386/388-389. 2. On Fifth Avenue between Pillmore Street and Market Street, the project consists of constructing all utilities (sewer and water) as well as a new street, including pavement and curb and gutter. This portion will need additional right of way to be purchased by the City. After reviewing the ownership of these parcels, it appears that three separate appraisals will be required for each acquisition. These properties belong to: Teneyck, Gelhaye and CMC Real Estate in Chicago. CMC Real Estate is currently trying to sell these properties formerly owned by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. We will refer to these appraisals as A- Teneyck, A-Gelhaye, and A-CMC Realty. 1 12951 Koeper Avenue, Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445-9100 These properties will also require a separate benefit appraisal. We will refer to the parcels affected by this portion of the improvement project by the following parcel numbers: 906036; 906134; 010017; 010016; and 906144. 3. Main Street, between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue, will be completed including all utilities, pavement and curb and gutter. Essentially, two parcels are directly affected by this portion of the improvment project: 010023 and 0100024. Each will require a full narrative appraisal. A third parcel, 906117 is also affected. However, due to the shape of this property, it will also be affected by the Fifth Street and the Market Street Projects. This parcel will be included in the Market Street improvement segment since the majority of the area of this parcel lies along Market Street. 4. Sewer and water mains will be installed on Market Street, between Fourth Avenue and Seventh Avenue. The remaining parcels affected by this segment of the project include the following: 906117; 906132/33; 097023; 906135; 906043; and 906115. Per our discussions, each of the parcels identified above will require a full, separate narrative appraisal. All appraisals will comply with all the requirements agreed to by eight major appraisal organizations which have established the Appraisal Foundation. This foundation was formed in 1987 to promote professional appraisal standards and rules of conduct for all appraisers. These rules are now referred to as the "Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice" . These uniform standards have been developed to comply with proposed congressional legislation (The Real Estate Appraisal Reform Act) which will regulate all appraisers by the year 1992 or before. A copy of these regulations are available to you upon request. Due to the specific requirements of these requlations, our typical appraisal report will be in excess of 30 pages in length. In developing our bid, we followed your instructions and estimated our fee based on preparing individual appraisal reports for each property as indicated above. If you decide that a different format should be considered, this bid will not be valid, and we request the opportunity to rebid these parcels under different requirements. We have assigned a fee to each parcel on the following page. We would appreciate your keeping our bid confidential until an appraisal firm has been selected, or until all bids have been received by your office. 2 Y Parcel No. Type of Property Appraisal Report Fee Right of Way Acquisition A-Teneyck Acquisition for Roadway $1, 000 A-Gelhaye Acquisition for Roadway 800 A-CMC Realty Acquisition for Roadway 800 Fifth Street Pavement upgrade 580-584, 385- Allocation of benefits to 1,000 386/388-389 nine parcels Fifth Street-All Improvements 906036 Teneyck Residence and Land 800 906134 Gelhaye, vacant land 700 010017 Home and improvements 800 010016 Vacant Land 700 906144 Vacant RR ROW Easement 800 Main Street Sewer and Water 010023 Vacant Lot 600 010024 Vacant Lot 600 Market Street-All Improvements 906117 Home and Acreage 1,200 906132/33 Vacant Land 800 097023 Vacant Land 800 906135 Home and Land 1,000 906043 Home and Land 1,000 906115 Home and Land 1,000_ Total Appraisal Fee for Parcels $14,400 The above fee reflects the time we estimate it will take to prepare each appraisal, utilizing common comparable sales from similar properties when possible. Our anticipated time of completion, considering current and future assignments received in our office, will be between 60 and 90 days from the time we receive permission to complete the assignment. If you should decide upon our firm to complete these appraisals, we will request a contract stating the terms of our agreement. Considering the length of time required to complete this assignment, we also request that a graduated payment schedule be developed so we may cover our expenses while completing the appraisals. Thank you for requesting a bid from our firm. The assignments will be completed by myself and my staff. A copy of our qualifications are included with this letter. We look forward to working with your office on this project. y/�J//�- D . You i ' (O�' Richard G. Marks (MAI) Universal Valuation Services 3 UNIVERSAL 1100 East Fourth Avenue q,(i VALUATION Shakopee, MN 55379 SERVICES ( 612) 445-9100 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Richard G. Marks (MAI,SRPA) EXPERIENCE: Actively engaged in the appraisal profession since 1976. Have appraised real property interests in 26 of 48 continental United State. and Winnepeg. Canada. Properties appraised include: development land, apartment buildings and complexes, hotels, churches, motels, office buildings. shopping centers, office-warehouse buildings, regional warehouses, industrial buildings, paper mills, grain elevators, bulk commodity terminals, businesses, condominiums, single and multi- family residences, mobile home parks, campgrounds. nursing homes, medical office buildings, mini self storage warehouses, easements, leased fee, leasehold and subleasehold interests. Appraisals prepared were used for purposes of sale-leaseback, insurance. financing, rental. ince tax, purchase, condemnation. ad valorem tax. ayadicati , going coacern (business) valuaan tion. feasibility analysis, mergers and acquisition, and alternate use studies. EMPLOYMENT: Originated Universal Valuation Services in 1984 as full-service appraisal company. Formerly employed full-time a appraiser for Marshall and Stevens. Inc., from 1982 to 1984. Prior experience obtained while employed for Petchin Appraisals. Inc., and City of Plymouth. Minnesota. FHA Panel 1980-1985. TCF Panel since 1984. PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES: Member of American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, (MAI), 1985; Senior Real Property Appraiser (SRPA), 1982: Society of Real Estate Appraiser.: Affiliate. Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors. COURT TESTIMONY: Testified as an expert witness in Hennepin and Scott Counties Commissioner Rearing.; Minneapolis District Court and City of Minneapolis Commissioner Hearings. Reports have been prepared for litigation I. State. of Texas, Minnesota. Nebraska and Iwo. EDUCATION: Received Bachelor of Science degree in 1972 from Northern Illinois University. After graduation. completed all American Institute of Real Estate courses required for Member status and various seminars including: Income Tax and Real Estate; Feasibility: Going Concern Valuation; Condominium Conversion and Management; Real Estate Lav; Cash Equivalency: Computer Spread-Sheet Analysis: Real Estate Management; R-41B and R-41C Seminars; Real Estate Risk Analysis. PARTIAL LIST OF COMMERCIAL CLIENTS PERSONALLY SERVED: Cargill. Inc.: Citicorp; Cloverleaf Dairies: United State. Steel: General Mills, Inc.: Union National Bank. CA: x-Mart Corp.: Beverly Enterprises: Certainteed Corp.: FMC Corp.; Northern Companies. St. Paul; Iowa & Minnesota D.O.T.; Minnesota Mining & Mfg.: Owens. IL; Metropolitan Airport Commission; Red Wing Hotel Corp.: Western Pare Mgmt. Co.; Merchants Grain & Transp.; Cities of Mpls.. Eden Prairie. Orono. Shakopee, Prior Lake, Minnesota; Minnesota DNR; Marshall and Stevens, Inc.; Waconia State Bank; Griffin Companies. UNIVERSAL 1100 East Fourth Avenue VALUATION Shakopee, MN 55379 SERVICES (612) 445-9100 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Ginger R. Johnson - EXPERIENCE: Actively engaged in the appraisal profession since 1978. Have appraised real property interests in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota, and Illinois. Properties include: schools, public buildings, hospitals, nursing homes, commercial, industrial, single family and multiple family residences. Appraisals prepared are used for purpose of insurance, financing, accounting, market value and relocation. EMPLOYMENT: Universal Valuation Services - 1985 to present as residential and commercial/industrial appraiser; Wiley Appraisals, Inc. , 1984- 1985; FHA Panel, 1985 to present; Stevenson-Edwards, Inc. , 1978- 1984. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: RM Candidate, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers ( 1985 ) ; Affiliate Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors ( 1985) . EDUCATION: Received Bachelor of Science Degree in 1974 from University of Wisconsin, Stout, Wisconsin. After graduation, have completed following courses in appraisal field; SHEA Course 101; AIREA, Appraisal Principals; Residential Valuation; Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Parts A and B; Standards of Professional Practice; Adjusting for Financial Differences; Residential Construction Narrative, Report Writing; and Securities and Investments. PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS SERVED: David C. Bell Mortgage; B.R.C. Mortgage Services, Inc. ; Coldwell Banker; Eberhardt; Edina Financial Services; ERA Mortgage; First Bank Systems Mortgage; First National Bank of Chaska; First Gibraltar; Heigl Mortgage; Investors Mortgage; Knutson Mortgage; North American Mortgage; North Star Bank; Northland Mortgage; Old Stone Mortgage; Rothschild Mortgage; TCF Mortgage; United Mortgage; Waconia State Bank. UNIVERSAL7 1100 East Fourth Avenue VALUATION Shakopee, MN 55379 SERVICES (612) 445-9100 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Brian J. Connors EXPERIENCE: Actively engaged in the appraisal profession since Spring, 1986. Properties appraised include: Single Family Residences, Townhomes, Condominiums, & Vacant Land. Counties Serviced: Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Scott and Rice, Minnesota. Previous Related Experience: Lumber Wholesale - Purchasing, Marketing, Sales and Management; Banking - Account Servicing, Loans, Collections, General Accounting. Appraisals prepared for purposes of first and second mortgages, relocation and market value. EMPLOYMENT: Universal Valuation Services, Spring 1986 to present Residential Appraiser; State Bank of Rose Creek, Austin, Minnesota, 1984-1985 - Loan Officer. Prior experience obtained while employed for Canton Lumber Co. , wholesale lumber sales; Superior Lumber Co. , Manager and wholesale lumber sales ( 1975-1984) . PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: MAI Candidate, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1987. EDUCATION: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Course IA-2 (Basic Valuation Procedures) ; Course SSP ( Standards of Professional Practice); University of Minnesota short course on New Construction Estimation, Building Product Performance and Technology; pursuing Bachelors degree in Accounting. PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS SERVED: Coldweil Banker Relocation Services; Gen Rel Relocation Management Group; Twin City Federal Savings; B. R. C. Mortgage Services, Inc. ; Miktomm Mortgage Corporation; local private clients and local banks; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. CONSENT ` 9 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Urban Corp Work-Study Agreement DATE: May 8, 1989 Introduction Attached is an agreement with the Urban Corps for work-study students. Background This program is for a ten week period, maximum is $6.75/hour of which we would be responsible for 36.5% to 61. 5% depending upon which school the intern attends or we can use the stipend program at $30.00/week. The agreement is the same as last years with one exception. On the payment schedule there is a change in the lowest matching rate which was 31.58, to a new percentage of 36. 5%. This change is mandated by Federal regulations. Over the last six years the City has used the stipend program and not the hourly program and that is the program we would continue to use. No one has contacted us regarding employment; however, should we have someone this year who is interested and had a background fitting our needs, I would ask for your approval to hire them outlining the tasks we would have them working on. Alternatives 1. Approve the agreement as presented. This is the same agreement we have approved the last several years and has provided us with several good interns working on stipend. 2 . Drop Shakopee's participation in the Urban Corp Program. This is only one available source of interns. Recommendation Because Council will act on any individual applicant I recommend alternative No. 1 so that the program is available for our use. Entering this agreement now merely qualifies us to become a part of the program should we decide at some time to take advantage of it and budgeted funds are available. Requested Action Authorize proper City officials to enter into an agreement for participation in Urban Corps Program between the City of Minneapolis and the City of Shakopee for a period July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1990 . 1989 - 1990 AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN URBAN CORPS PROGRAM BETWEEN CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS ANIS THIS AGREQMECYr is entered into this _ day of 19_, by and between the City of Minneapolis (herein called "Urban Corps") and (herein called "Agency") . WHEREAS, the above named Agency, a public organization or private non-profit tax-exempt organization, desires to participate in the Twin City Area Urban Corps and in consideration for the assignment of Urban Corps student interns to the Agency, we do hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Urban Corps shall have the right to approve or reject requests'for interns submitted by this Agency upon forms provided for that purpose by the Urban Corps. 2. The Agency will accept a student as an intern by completing and signing the Assignment section of the student's Urban Corps application fo_rn. 3. The Agency shall utilize such students as may be assigned to it in ac- cordance withthespecifications set forth in its written request to the Urban Corps, and shall immediately notify the Urban Corps of any change in nature of assignment, duties, supervisor or work location. 4. The Agency shall provide such students as may be assigned to it with a safe place to work and with responsible supervision. 5. The Urban Corps shall have the right to inspect the work being performed, by such students as may be assigned to the Agency, and shall have the right, to interview such students and their supervisors. 6. The Urban Corps shall have the right to require such students as may be assigned to the Agency to attend such general or special meetings, or W appear at the Urban Corps office, individually or as a group, as shall be necessary for the proper functions of the program. 7. In accordance with the requirements of Federal and State law, work performed by such students as may be assigned to the Agency shall: a. Be in the public interest; b. Not result in the displacement of employed workers or impair existing contracts for services; C. Not involve the construction, operation or maintenance of so much Of any facility as is used, or is to be used, for sstarian in::tructicn or as a place of religious worship; d. Not involve any Partizan or nonpartisan political activity as- sociated with a candidate, or contending faction or group, rr, an election for a public or patty office. n Agency nts as may to it to submit S. ttime reports and follow such othuire such erProceduresas mayb eestablished by the Urban Corps. - 9 The Urban Corps shall have the right to remove any student assigned to the Agency from said assignment and from the Agency at any time for any reason without Prior notice, and the Urban Corm shall not be obligated to replace said student. 10. The Agency shall have the right to remove any student assigned to said Agency at any time with prior notice given to the student and the Urban Corps. 11. The Agency warrants that it is in compliance with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 252) , and Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and Minneapolis Code of Ordinance, Chapter 139 and 141. where applicable. 12. The Agency shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Urban Corps from all claims, causes or actions which may result from the ass$nments of students to the Agency or because of the acts or omissions of the students. 13. The Agency shall obtain at its own expense Worker-s Compensation insurance (or shall be self-insured under State Law) for such students as may be assigned to it under this Agreement. For the purposes of the Agreement the Agency shall be deemed the student's employer and that no emPloyment relationship exists between the student and Urban Corps, and, further, that, no employment relationship exists between the Agency and Urban Carrs. 14. The Agency shall pay to the Urban Corps 40% or other percentage figure ss agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure on the student's Urban Corps application form of the gross compensation earned by such students assigned and accepted by the Agency under a Federal or State Program. The Urban Corps will bill the Agency, in accordance with bi-weekly Payroll' periods, for its proper share of the compensation of such students as may have been assigned to the Agency and performed work during said period. Student hourly rates are set forth in Section 14(a) and 14(b) of this Agreement. a. Hourly compensation for students will be set at minimum rates of $5.75 per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's degree, and $6.75 per hoar for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly 1 compensation rates not to be below the specified rates in 14(a) ; or other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of Minneapolis, through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates. b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement es one who has received a B.A. , B.S. , or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year of a five year Program. 'S students to At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place y intern under a Stipend Program. This option will be spe 'fied in the Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign bef,jre comnenc ment of the internship. The Stipend rate which the Agency shall pay . the Urban Corps is $30.00 per week for each week the student, works. 16. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place interns for whom the Agency will pay the intern's total compensation plus an additional ten percent (10%) for administrative costs. This option will be specified in the Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor mast sig: before commencement of the internship. Agency rates for said option are set forth in Section 16(a) and 16(b) of this Agreement. a. Agency rates for students will be set at minimum rates of $6.33 per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's Degree, and $7.43 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly compensation rates not to be below specified rates in 16(a); or other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of Minneapolis through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates. b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who has received a B.A. , B.S. , or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year of a five year program. 17. To comply with P.L. 99-272, the agency shall pay to the Urban Corps, for students receiving an hourly salary according to the rates specified in Section 14(a) and 14(b) . Section 16(a) and 16(b), an additional 1.5% or other percentage figure as agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure on the student's Urban Corps application form of the gross compensation earned by such .students assigned to and accepted by the agency after April 1, 1986. 18. Performance under this contract shall commence on July 1, 1989 and terminate on June 30, 1990 unless amended in writing as mutually agreed upon by both the Agency and the Urban Corps; however, either party may terminate upon sixty (60) days written notice. Based upon the statements and affirmations made by the Agency through the above document, the Urban Corps hereby agrees to the assignment of students to said Agency, in accordance with said document and the applicable laws and regulation:. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AGENCY BY Mayor Agency Mame ATTEST: Andress City Clerk COUNTERSIGNED: City State Zip Codes City Finance Officer By Title Approved as to Legality: By Title Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: MM CITY ARRA URBAN nxmc 111 CITY HALL, 350 S. 5TH ST, MI`OTEAPOLIS, MN 55415 (612)348-6967 AGENCY PAYM M gaR1`rII R ST AGENCY PAYS: SaIDENT RECEIVE.': $30.00 $20.00 Interns not eligible for work-study usually receive the stipend. The number of hours a student works is determined by the agency or department supervisor and the intern. Urban Corps recommends at least 10 hours per week. WORK- The percentage of the intern's gross compensation that is billed to the agency depends on which school the intern attends. University of MinnmQta. MacaleAter lie..pa- College of St Th 41 r,% AGENCY PAYS: STUDWr ECEIVES: for undergraduates $2.39/hr $5.75/hr for graduate students $2.80/hr $6.75/hr Hamline University College of 9t Catherine51 5% AU—RNL'.Y PAYS: STUDENT [LFf'RIVES for undergraduates $2.96/hr $5.75/hr for graduate students $3.48/hr $6.75/hr Concord' - Paul nt-f Colleae rollM o State University 61 5% AGENCY PAYS: S IMU EECRTVES- for undergraduates $3.54/hr $5.75/hr for graduate students $4.15/hr $6.75/hr Augsbunz Colleae % AGENCY PAYS: STUDENT =IVES. for undergraduates $3.08/hr $5.75/hr for graduate students $3.61/hr $6.75/hr Most o .h r s hoolg - 76 5% AGENCY PAYS- STUDENT RECEIVES: for undergraduates $2.10/hr $5.75/hr for graduate students $2.46/hr $6.75/hr FULL H 7Rl.Y S6TARY AGENCY PAYS: STUDENT RECEIVES: for undergraduates $6.41/hr $5.75/hr for graduate students $7.53/hr $6.75/hr 9K MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk C�- , RE: Boards and Commissions Annual Picnic DATE: May 8, 1989 Introduction It is appropriate for Council to select a date for holding the Annual Boards and Commissions Picnic. Background on March 5, 1985 City Council adopted a resolution which provides for the Council annually conducting a festivity as an expression of appreciation to members of the Boards and Commissions and their families. For the past four years the Council has hosted a picnic at Tahpah Park. Guests were also able to use the swimming pool and water slide at no cost. It is appropriate to select a date for the 5th Annual Picnic for Boards and Commissions in order to give adequate notice so that people can mark their calanders before their summer evenings fill UP. Beginning with the second week in June and through July, the following dates will not interfere with scheduled meetings: Monday Wednesday Thursday June 12th June 15th June 22nd June 26th June 28th June 29th July 10th July 13th July 20th July 24th July 26th July 27th July 31st If it is Council's desire to include the use of the pool and water slide again, Council should make that motion. Alternatives 1. Select a date for the annual picnic. 2 . Select another festivity. 3 . Discontinue holding an annual festivity. Recommendation Alternative No. 1, select a date for the annual picnic. � f4 Action Requested Direct staff to make plans for the Annual Boards and Commissions Picnic for , and authorize the Community Recreation Director, upon propereservation of the swimming pool under the Community Recreation Group Rental Policy, to include free use of the pool, water slide and picnic shelter for the 1989 Boards and Commissions Picnic. JSC/jms N 1- 2 ❑ O N N /�' nl ^ ❑ �ih N N W � 'J m � � N i�J! r�Gi Z ❑ N W O m m d iJ O w N N /v� ❑ m O P Q m a y F U � O z'C N N A ❑$" O N m � $" O n N �� m S •`. m N m y N N � N zN W f0 N S ^ er N W f m W N fa] H W Y N N 0 tp V m H � O Q (O m N O H A O N t e0i N h W PI I m N W N = C m N G N N N � N 5y N N W ❑ ^ u ❑ r E F O � ` iw Z Z Z _ RESOLUTION NO. 2375 --- A RESOLUTION.PROVIDING FOR THE RECOGNITION OF MANY WHEREAS, through the years countless fine citizens of the City of Shakopee have performed gratitious services for the City with no expectations of compensation of any kind, and WHEREAS, these countless hours of service so generously rendered have been of great and inestimable benefit to our City and its citizens, and WHEREAS, it has long been desired by the Shakopee City Council to show the City's gratitude to all these public spirited citizens in some visible way. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Shakopee City Council in regular meeting assembled, that the Shakopee City Council each year on a date selected by it, put on a picnic, dinner or other festivity as an expression of the City's appreciation to all the public spirited citizens, who would be invited to be guests of honor of the grateful City and to take part in an afternoon or evening of merriment, conviviality and relaxation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the entire cost of the said festivity be born by the - City and that the proper City officials be and hereby are authorized to do all things necessary and proper to make the arrangements for whatever festivities and on whatever date the Council decides. Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council held this S L day of --"'�r 1985. 0 yor of the City of S aCope ATTEST: Z C ty Clerk Prep. a and approved as to form this 25t dayof £ebruarv, 1985. (,_,Julius A. Coller` II, City Attorney 9L MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Reconsideration of Resolution No. 3051 - MEBCO Project DATE: May 10, 1989 INTRODUCTION• On May 9, 1989 the Shakopee City Council approved Resolution No. 3051 Approving Modification of Redevelopment Plan for Minnesota River Valley Redevelopment Project No. 1, Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 located within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Approving and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating thereto. Upon further review of the resolution, staff has discovered that there was slight error in the resolution that should be rectified prior to proceeding with the project. BACKGROUND: Resolution No. 3051 as approved by the Shakopee City Council on May 9th specified that the School District and County were given 30 days to review and comment on the plan. This statement is incorrect. In fact, both the School District and the County waived their right to the 30 day review and comment period. Please note that I have attached Resolution No. 3051 which crosses out the language which should be deleted from the resolution and incorporates a new provision that has been underlined that specifies the County's and School District's waiver of the 30 day review and comment period. One other small modification should be made to Resolution No. 3051. That is that the Planning Commission did not approve a resolution commenting on the proposed tax increment plan modification's consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission's action was done by a simple motion. I would like to request the Shakopee City Council to reconsider Resolution No. 3051 and move it's approval as amended. ALTERNATIVES- 1. Move to reconsider Resolution No. 3051 and move for it's approval as amended. 2. Do not reconsider Resolution No. 3051. 3. Table action on this issue pending further information from staff. RECOMMENDATION• Move to reconsider Resolution No. 3051 and move its approval as amended. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to reconsider Resolution No. 3051, A Resolution Approving Modification of Redevelopment Plan for Minnesota River Valley Redevelopment Project No. 1, Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 Located Within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Approving and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Relating thereto. 2 . Move to amend Resolution No. 3051, as drafted. 3 . Move to approve Resolution No. 3051, as amended. RESOLUTION NO. 3051 RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1, ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.7 LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1, AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City has established its Minnesota River Valley Development District No. 1 (the "Project") in and for the City and approved a Redevelopment Plan therefor (the "Redevelopment Plan") , pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.027 to 469.029, inclusive, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority has, by resolution, approved and requested the City Council to make certain modifications, in the Redevelopment Plan and to establish a new tax increment financing district in the Project area and adopt a tax increment financing plan therefor, all describing certain actions to be taken by the Authority in aid of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City now proposes to modify the Redevelopment Plan, to establish its Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (the "Financing District") in the Project area, and to adopt a tax increment financing plan therefor (the "Financing Plan") , pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.027 to 469.029 and 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, as requested by the Authority; and WHEREAS, the proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan has been submitted to the City's Planning Commission for review and comment as to whether the proposed modification is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.027; and the Planning Commission has, by rese,ketieM7 determined the proposed modification to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has provided an opportunity for the members of the County Board of Commissioners of Scott County and the members of the school board of the school district in which the Financing District is located to meet with representatives of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has presented to the members of the County Board of Commissioners of Scott County and the members of the school board of the school district in which the Financing District is located the City's estimate of the fiscal and economic implications of the establishment of the Financing District tbrrtp-{38}-dny9- prioro--May-p--}9897 and the members 1 0 of the County Board and the school board were given an opportunity to present their comments at the public hearing held on the date hereof; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has received correspondence from the County Board of Commissioners of Scott County and the school district in which the Financing District is located indicating their decision to waive their right to the thirty (30) day review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the "Council-') , on the date hereof, held a public hearing regarding the modification of the Redevelopment Plan, the establishment of the Financing District, and the approval and adoption of the Financing Plan, notice of which was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten (10) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date hereof; and WHEREAS, the City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the modification of the Redevelopment Plan, the establishment of the Financing District, and the approval and adoption of the Financing Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. On the basis of investigations and studies carried out by City staff and consultants of the information presented to the Council at meetings regarding the modification of the Redevelopment Plan, the establishment of the Financing District, and the adoption of the Financing Plan, and of the information presented at the public hearing and at other Council meetings regarding the foregoing, the Council hereby finds and determines that: (a) the proposed modifications to the Redevelopment Plan are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and should be adopted; (b) the establishment of the Financing District within the Project area and the adoption of the Financing Plan are necessary and in the public interest and to the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the City and its residents; (c) the Tax Increment District is an economic development district, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 12; 2 7,Y, (d) the redevelopment in the Project area proposed to be assisted, as described in the Financing Plan, is not reasonably expected to occur within the foreseeable future through private investment and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing for assistance as described in the Financing Plan is deemed necessary; (e) the Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole; and (f) the Financing Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project area by private enterprise. 2. The proposed modifications to the Redevelopment Plan are hereby approved. 3. The Financing District is hereby established, and the Financing Plan is hereby approved and adopted by the City in substantially the form on file in the office of the City Clerk on this date. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of the Financing Plan with the Minnesota Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development. S. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to request the County Auditor of Scott County to certify the original tax capacity value of the real property within the Financing District, as described in the Financing Plan, and to certify in each year hereafter the amount by which the tax capacity value has increased or decreased from the original tax capacity value of such property, and to remit to the Authority each year, commencing on the date indicated in the Financing Plan, that portion of all taxes paid in that year on real property in the Financing District which the captured tax capacity value bears to the then current tax capacity value, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177. 6. The City Clerk, together with the City's financial advisor, legal counsel, bond counsel, and other consultants, is authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and the Financing Plan and, for this purpose, to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council, for its consideration, all resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 3 9 � Adopted in Adjourned Regular Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, this 9th day of May, 1989 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1989. City Attorney 4 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Wilfred Mahowald's Concerns Relating 11th Avenue DATE: May 10, 1989 INTRODUCTION• At the May 2, 1989 City Council meeting Mr. Wilfred Mahowald, 1077 Prairie Street, appeared before the City Council and raised questions regarding the future improvement of 11th Avenue adjacent to his property. Mr. Mahowald indicated to the Council his concerns regarding the planned improvement of 11th Avenue as a part of the approved preliminary plat for the Meadows subdivision. After hearing Mr. Mahowald's concerns the City Council passed a motion directing City staff to check previous minutes and research the history regarding Mr. Mahowald's property and the approval of the adjacent plat. BACKGROUND: At the time that Eagle Bluff 2nd Addition was platted the North 1/2 of the 11th Avenue right-of-way was dedicated to the City. It was the intent of the City at that time to obtain the South 1/2 of the right-of-way with the platting of the land to the South of 11th Avenue allowing the City to complete 11th Avenue at a future date. In 1976, Mr. Mahowald obtained a building permit for constructing his house and in 1977 a building permit for constructing a detached garage on the rear of the property. Mr. Mahowald has indicated that at the time he asked the City whether it had plans to improve 11th Avenue. When the City indicated that there were no plans at that time to improve the street, Mr. Mahowald constructed his driveway serving the attached garage and detached garage locating the driveway within the 11th Avenue right-of-way. (see attached site plan) . Mr. Mahowald has also landscaped and placed a garden within the 11th Avenue right-of- way. The staff was not able to locate any documentation either in the Building or Engineering Department files indicating Mr. Mahowald was given permission to construct his driveway on the public right-of-way. At the February 3, 1987 City Council meeting Meritor Development Corp. came beforethe City Council to discuss a proposal to develop the land South of Mr. Mahowald's property. The original plan submitted by Meritor Development Corp. included the improvement of 11th Avenue all the way through the entire development. Concerns were raised at that time regarding 11th Avenue being a through street and the plans were altered to eliminate one block of the street between Minnesota and Dakota Streets. On February 5, 1987, Meritor Development Corp. came before the Planning Commission and discussed the proposed development with the Commission. On April 9, 1987 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat for Canterbury Estates (now the Meadows) and approved the preliminary T Ty--� plat with the design showing 11th Avenue improved except for the block between Minnesota and Dakota Streets. On April 21, 1987 the City Council approved the preliminary plat. Enclosed are copies of the preliminary plat as approved and the minutes from the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The City Engineer has indicated that at the time that 11th Avenue is constructed in this area the existing driveway within the public right-of-way will be removed and the approaches of the driveway connecting the garages with the new street will be constructed for the property owner as part of the public improvement project. The City Council in it's approval of the Meadows and Prairie Estates subdivision to the East have decided to retain the existing North 1/2 of the 11th Avenue right-of-way in the areas where the street is not to be improved and to construct a sidewalk through these areas connecting the developed portions of the street. If llth Avenue through this block were not to be constructed, the locating of a sidewalk within the existing 11th Avenue right-of-way could pose a hardship on the property owner by requiring him to move the existing driveway to allow for the sidewalk. The amount of space available for relocating the driveway is extremely limited. The developer of the Meadows subdivision has indicated that according to their time schedule it will be approximately another 2 - 3 years until 11th Avenue would be constructed through this area. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer and pass a motion that the platting proceed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and that the removal of the existing driveway in the right of way and construction of new driveway approaches be included in the 11th Ave. improvement project and the cost incorporated in the overall project cost. 2. Offer and pass a motion directing the City Attorney to research whether the City can legally require the developer to redesign the plat. If this alternative is selected, the City should determine whether redesign of the plat is in the best interests of the City. 3. Offer and pass a motion directing the City staff to further research the costs to the property owner and the developer of putting the street in vs. not putting in the street. 4. Table action until the final plat is submitted to the City and review the options at that time. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. The staff has no record of Mr. Mahowald being given permission to construct his driveway on public right-of-way. When the City has granted property owners permission to use a public right of way in the past, it has been with the understanding that the City has the right to remove the improvements or require the property owner to remove the improvements when the street is improved. ACTION REODESTED: Offer and pass a motion as outlined in either alternative #1, 2, 3 or 4 above. �al l�w3sv� a�vNldba 3 �=-Kiln . oi c � s aIV 0 � � C z £ ,N4✓ � 60� J H c_ Y. C CJ 7. 0 O N .Q T � � J I LLI 1 it 3 Jg0 S o y b � -f or- at as I , v, •,. iv r ?� .1 c i ry ti Y # � 3i -1S M12i1HZld 3 iYJ9//Ow aL0 1�2o0ervl-7 I'YI t - _ s _ ^�1 d a K N- ` r v t s � - E—FY• ., ... 3 i m x x Canterbury .,=owoo.Tjo. E.. - - q PRELIMINARY PLAT . , Estates _...:... G +_rl COVwciL Z/3/B ' -Yyi Discussion Pnsued on tbo propoaPd rosidontial dovolopmont of chP Rob.ria Yit area by Meritor DPVPlopmont Corporation. Larry Frank, Meritor DPv-1opmont Corporation addrPssPd rho Council saying that their Company has boon developing singlo family lots in the Twin City arca for 12 yoars. The total arca they aro considering is 162 acres currently calling for 346 lots. Tho City would have to commit to the PxtPusion of the sanitary spwor main from Past property ling to wast proporty line; watprmaln PxtPnsion south to rho 1st Intersection, the upgrad- ing of 11th AvPnuP, the lots abutting collector strPPts would haw Pntrances onto collector strPPts with turn arounds on the lots, and cul-dP-sacs would bP longer than pPrmittPd. Mayor Rpinkp PxprPssPd concom over the Pxtpnsivp looping that would by involved with the watPrmain PxtPnsion. Cncl. Leroux said that thoy would bP crPating another collector str-Pt boing 11th AvPnuP and that the Council would prPfPr 11th AVPnup not bw complPtPd. Council would like 13th AvPnuP and 10th AvPnuP to tako all the traffic and 11th AvPnuP only bo used to actually sprvp too homes and not go all the way through. Mr. Gerald Poolp, 1077 Dakota, askod whPrP tho other half of 11th AvPnup would comp from and if the water would bP coming from a lack of storm spwor in tbP addition. Mayor Roinkp said that if 11th Avonup will by put in thou thprp will by a public boating and asspssmonts of which rho dPVPlopPr will bo rpsponsiblp for paying for at least 50 pprcpnt of tho total cost of rho raodway and adjoining propPrtips along the north side will rPcPivP an asspssmont. Cncl. Clay said hP doos not Ilk. the wording done in the Market Analysis and Sitp Evaluation rogarding pol- itical factors. Cncl. Wampach said hP thought the Markpt Analysis was wall done and one of the factors against ShakopPP is rho lack of accessibility to highways which is why houses arp not soiling in ShakopoP. Wampach/ViPrling moved to rPcPivP and file the proposed rpsidpntial dovolopmpnt by Meritor DPVPlopmont Corporation with the inclusion of commputs by Council and audience. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vlplring moved for a 5 minute rPCPss. Motion carried unanimously. Ivroux/LvbPns moved to rPconvPn- at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant, addressed the concPrns brought up by tbP Council at their worksession on the Downtown RedPVPlopmont project. HP said Phase I consists of a 1987 and 1988 construction season and Phase II would by 1991 First Avenue. Ho said that they arp proposing that 3rd Avonue bo taken out of rho Downtown project and dorso as a spparatp Council lnitiatpd projoct in 1988, and that the north south strPPts botwopn 3rd and 4th bP done at that timo also. Cncl. LPbPRs said that a now petition should bP lnitiatod beforo this projptt is started. Thp quostion was askod that on the construction proposed for 1987 will anybody bosidPs the abutting property owners rocoivP any asspssmont. Thp City EnginpPr said that assuming tbP projoct is ordprod thorp is an option of ordoring Phasp I, Part 1 or Phasp I Part 1 and 2. If both arp ordered thou assessmonts arp put on rho Pntirp area. Cncl. I.obons said shP fPpls Atwood Strppt should bP PliminatPd from this project all togPthor. Functional str-Pt lighting, which is strictly the high lPVPl, would add about $381.00 to Pach asspssmont, rho City Is rocommonding against this issue because it has not boon done In the past. ._- -4'a 6- ^ Schmitt/ aja roved t- accept he legal Opirion of builds:_- over lot lines submstted�by ty Attorney. ..olioo carried anansmcusiy, ^t0zh - ,_ strati and :: . T - f ve :ssists:t, reviewed �;xe prop.=ai ;rox Car: luureni and ;ir. Pomp7a:-Sen jfor development of a 200 acres�e n ;'jowd consssting Ofa residents development and i3 hole golf c ..r�e. C;.nr laurent reviewed the plans with the Planning ,^,omsission sarin.-, that the and is located north of O'^owd ;ake, "hey currently have secured ownership of most of the property involved. Tom ^-augen is currently a consultant with about 90 golf courses within the state of ;iir�esota h;r. --au-en addressed 'he Commis3i3 sarin., that golf has za'ned rapidi.- and dere is a need for golf courses in the Twin City area. .here will be a club house built which will have 'limited membership, 1'^e par'. ,'Z lot will be On 79 for approximately 120 vehicles. They are proposing about 88 single family building sites and along with that there will be four 5-unit single family attached on the south border of the City Comm. Czaja asked whet the avar.ge lot size would be. Fir. ?zarent answered the let sizes will vary from 10,000 to 25,000 square feet, "_:sere is one cal de sac that is longer than usually al'_owed. There is a possibility of providing an emergency access to the club house. It is in the developers plan to do an individual soil analysis of each lot to determine that each has suitable conditions for sewage disposal. Cam l , Schmitt brought up the possildty Of some sort of comanzty water system but not a community sewer system. ➢ir. Taurent replied that they will investigate that possibility further. Price range of residential property will be from '1100,000 to ;300,000. 7:r, las;ent addressed the P.-- ). restriction of Ordinance :to. 20' regarding clarification on private water service may be allowed, no mention is made of sewer service, Comm. Schmitt said that some provision be allowed that would allow for smaller lot sizes so that community water service 3:ght be available. ]iscussicn ensued on .e possibility of using trade-offs to incorporate the 20 acre parcel currently not in the development. "`_airman "__...a„_:: asked if thers was anyone from the audience to furth.ar a,..__._� L iS issue. There was no response. Concerns were raised by Corif=ion members as to the density of residential houses and sewer. -..,c'.c.e/schmitt moved for a 5 minute recess. ro tion e=_re=ed m.ani mcus'_y. Foudra'/--:^airy moved tcreconvene at 11:03 P.M. -stior. carried unanimously, .-arty _rank, Veritor Development Corporation reviewed their plans for residential development they are proposing for the City of oShasonee. County Road 79 is the west properly line, 11th 're-ue is on tie north, the south property line is the fu-ure by-pass, The development is ose3 to be in toe POberts Fit a '7h s c cilJ area. _,.__ pian ba„ presented to tII2 C,^AL^w^il On I February 3 and a few of their concerns have been reworked.. _,here is proposed to be approximately 3i° resident--' lots. T_-s that �E _ty wocld be responsiile for is bringing the s_._ta sewerthis u.,, 11th lvenue would -:- P�je =- have to be upgraded, =id watermain would have to ba brought do.^: to tee 3eveiopmeni. ='he two main concerns the -ity Uouscil hag were 1—h Avenue not going all tk;e woy thrsugh and lots fronting on the cullectors street. Co=. �zaja said that one cul de sac appeared io be over the limit in length and asked that some reworking on the. be done. '!--. 3erlld Poole s said that most of his ce:.ccrnraised at the city Council meeting have been answered. Schnitt/:zaja saved to accept memo from. the ^.ommunity Deveni:ment Director A .?anuary 29, °s7, regar3ing Taestlons raised at the january 09 1937 ^laming Commission meeting w.'_t:; one ch-nga t'.zet item '=2 be changed to reflect P:' part. instead of n-bile park. :otion carried unanimously. 'he Community Development Director said a eublic hearing has been set up for consideration of rezoning certain property around Fairest :ade Foods Ino. and a creation of a new district (*_ndusirial Planned District). The public hearing w_ll be set for ^Thursday, February 12, 1907, at 7:330 p.m. Comm. Sol-mitt asked the Comity Development Director if anyone has investigated the home occupation at 911 So. F-1-men. Foudray/Sch-Stt moved to adjo.:rn. !lotion carried urani;.ously. :•ieeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Dennis Kraft ,ommunity Develcpmernt Director Carol Schultz Recording Secretary 1 - Planning Com-.4 ssion April 9, 1937 Pace -2- Czaia/?omerenk2 moved to close the p:.Tbl.ic ?raring on Ja n}:scn Business Park. Lotion carried �rne.ni�.ously. P ^rarerdce/Cza'a moved for. F 10 .ainute recess. :'coon carried - _la c - 1 ..i '-ae bac' to at: 9:10 ehc c-c r; i.t_ -. .ties. It s-,-igeL_ d that action ca n this be held util the April 16 iaeeting of the Planning Ccarzissien to clarify the suggested. amendments made by the Council. Czaja/Pomerenke moved to delay the final approval of th., PLTD ordinance amendments until April 16, 15;7. notion carried /unanimously. - IIPUBLIC HEARING - Rezoninq request, Meritor. Develonmen'. Corroration. Pomerenke/Foudray moved to open the public hearing to consider the rezoning request to rezone approximately 85 acres of land located east of County Road 79 and South of 13th Avenue from Ag to R-2 and R-3. -Motion carrie3 unanimously. The City Planner said the applicant is requesting the rezoning of approximately 85 acres currently zoned Ag to R-2 and R-3 . The plan proposes urban residential development for this area and projects extension of urban services to this area between 1985 and 1990. There is no commercial allowed in he R-3 zone. Comm. Pomerenke expressed a concern over the future bypass creating a sliver of land of 5 or 6 acres that could be land locked. The City Planner replied that the multi family development that is proposed would create a buffer between the highway and the residential properties. - Larry Frank, Meritor Development, said the reason for the R-3 land was to create a buffer. Comm. Czaja said since there is no rezoning map included how can they handle this rezoning request. Mel Fisher- 1075 S. Market, stated he is against rezoning of area because he will be assessed for it, and also concern of low income housing surrounding his home. - - Wilfred Mahowald, corner of Prairie and 11th St. , said he is against the rezoning because of lower income housing. � Planning Commission ?,:^1 9, 1987 P -3- ....., to __ .,_s __ _ ..�� no _ _.. L ca_ried ur.a:`a_:aously -. The City - Plarner reviewed -he preliminary plat, half is zoned RR-2. The proposal is for 339 jots with open space areas. Larry Frank, Maritor Davelopr�ent reviewed the site plan. He said they :.losed 11th Avenue oft so it is not a through street. A 4.8 acre- ..ark area was put in. Comm. Czaja ask.:d where the access would be to get into the. park. Sue Hofmeister, 1028 Dakota St. raised a concern over all the people from the development going to Pearson School parking lot. She said she is against the proposed plat. — *.*r Wilfred Mahowald expressed concern on losing his privacy die to the developmc-nt. Mel Fischer, 1075 Market, said the reads in the town now cannot handle all the traffic, why have another 700 cars eventually to go no place. He asked if a traffic study has been done. The City Planner answered that the developer will have to do a Envirormental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) which will include a traffic study. - Roger Schmieg, 1077 Minnesota Street, said he would just as soon see 11th Avenue go through. As to the development itself, he feels it would be developed sooner or later and it will probably be better now than later. He asked what the price range of houses in the area will be. The developer answered between $80,000 and $130,000. Patty Trutenow, 1035 Dakota, asked if there was a specific size house, minimum square foot, proposed for this area. She also asked if any covenants have been set. The developer said the covenants have not been set. The City Planner said that as far as the size house, it would have to meet the requirements of the Planning commission. !.. April 9, 1987 Page -4- R--2 --one. V,ny propesin.g to have 4 different b.c 1d -_-s e-.- .q _.'.h . dif -ori: nc� - I:cr•.;ea. ;3111.,111-1 1.3 > `a ". • eet, i d a cc n _ - � .._.. ; � .. _ 15:� 'i;F _ .. •,i.1 >«,.,n to r';' 11 , .., -_- - .r _ 10 r_ -._ a cc: -•arn - r a tlz d'co b2- r, . - Uin _scta and De%n :a and will it ba g._.dod dc:r _ n _ �i11cd in. Chairacman VanMaldeghem asked i£ there was anyone el.e £rcn th a,:d*'_ance ,. o wichzd to addr355 this i sue. _._.___ was ro response. Czaja/Ponerenke mov_c. to continue the public hearing to May 7, 1987. - Motion carri•=d unani=usly. - 7 - Pomerenke/Cza 'a moved to a pprove the preliminary plat for the area from 13th Avenue North to 11th Avenue subject to the - following conditions: 1. Streets must be named, side and rear setbacks must be shown and utility easements shown. 2. Land dedication for park purposes is required. 3. Either dedication or easements of 120 - in width must be provided for the drainage way. 4. A plan for construction and maintenance of the open space and ponding areas must be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat. 5. Street grades cannot exceed 5%. 6. R-O-W between -Minnesota St. and Dakota St. must be vacated, the easements must be retained. - 7. A permit must be obtained from the . County Engineer for access onto County Road #79. - - 8. A sidewalk along 13th Ave. will be required. Planning Co;-mission April 5, _587 Page -5- 9 . -.-- _i`.^. C' q ^"`3 s ac.`.- -bl- ❑t for construction of with _ . L,..al -rcand _ _ - wi zi_:j tha Plat shall be const,.-._t_ in accor-- d. h -h= .gt.rr _'ter i-s of the design criaeria and standard s_ecifications of the Ci .y of S::akopee. E. The developer agrazs to rei7. ;urse the City for costs on 13th Ave. equivalent to the costs for a 36 resident-*.l street. Costsharing to be determined by the City ii Engineer. 10. Approval of a title opinion by the City Attorney. - 11. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement stating that not More than 10% of the plat within the R-2 zone will be developed into twin homes. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit for open sales lot, William Bakken. Pomerenke/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider an application for Conditional Use Permit to operate an open sales lot upon the properties located at 1266 E. lst A%! nue and 7380 Highway 101, both locations are in a B-1 zoning district. Motion carried unanimously. The City . Planner said the site for 1266 E. First Avenue has been removed for consideration for the site. There will be only access to the site for east bound traffic. The zoning is appropriate and they will need a peddlers license. Comm. Czaja asked about this setting a precedent for anyone being able to set up an open sales lot. Bill Bakken, applicant, displayed what he will be selling. They will be selling pictures and they have sold them to some stores. He said the owner of the land has given his permission and is r I cow �t � rvNL � y/z//9-7 Discussion ensued on renaming 13th Avenue. cncl. clay seen an view of the alignment as it goes there should be a new name to go with it. Clay/Leroux moved to create a contest for a new name of 13th Avenue to go no later then may 5th, 1987. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens and Wampach opposed The Shakopee Valley News will print an article in their next issue and the public suggested names forlbe the newlyed to aligned1l or write 13th Avenue. the City with sugg ugg r I The City Planner reviewed the Canterbury EstateplatPreliminary Plat. He said the Planning Commission app roved for the portion of Canterbury Estates from 13th Avenue north to 11th Avenue. Mayor Reinke asked if Canterbury was a registered trade name. The developer said he will check into it and if it is he will change the name. Cncl. Leroux asked about land dedication for park purposes. The City Planner said there will be two areas dedicated for park purposes in the northern part of the plat alone, a total of 15 acres of park land. Cncl. wampach asked where the sidewalk along 13th Avenue will be located. The City Planner replied that it will probably be the north side of 13th Avenue and the abutting property owners will be responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk. It was the feeling of the developer i that maintenance should be required by the City for the sidewalk and not the abutting property owners. Leroux/Clay moved to approve the preliminary plat of Canterbury Estates with the 11 conditions as stated by theCommission in their minutes of April 9, 1987. Motion carried unanimously. i The City Planner said the Planning Commission selected a new site for the tot lot in Hauer' s 4th Addition. The developer said that he believes Jasper Road will have more traffic than the road where the new site has been selected and it is more centrally located for the neighborhood. The City Engineer said when Hauer' s 3rd Addition wasrplatted there was an extra depth and oversizing of thethat was put in to service the area to the south. At the time the City reimbursed the developer of Hauer' s 3rd for that cost and now the cost should be repaid as a result of having that availability on this particular plat. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2717, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Hauer' s 4th Addition, with the CONSENT 9 � MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting C Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Cler RE: Nomination and Appointment the Community Development Commission DATE: May 12, 1989 INTRODUCTION: I have received an application from Mr. Charles Brandmire, who is interested in an appointment to the Community Development commission. BACKGROUND: Following the resignation of Donald Koopmann from the Community Development Commission, notice was placed in the Shakopee Valley News of the vacancy on May 4, 1989. In follow-up to that notice, Mr. Brandmire has completed an application expressing his interest in filling the vacancy. As of this writing we have received no other calls from residents inquiring about the vacancy. After speaking with Mr. Stock, it is my understanding that there will be another resignation from the Community Development Commission forth coming. The routine procedure for appointments to Boards and Commissions provides that individuals are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the next meeting. Because we have received no other inquiries regarding this vacancy, and because there will be another resignation forth coming, Council may wish to dispense with the rules and make the nomination and appointment at the same meeting. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Do not nominate Charles Brandmire to the Community Development Commission. 2 . Nominate Charles Brandmire to the Community Development Commission. 3 . Nominate Charles Brandmire to the Community Development Commission, dispense with the rules, and appoint Charles Brandmire to the Community Development Commission. RECOMMENDATION• Alternative No. 3. RECOMMENDED ACTION• 1. Nominate Charles Brandmire to the Community Development Commission. 2. Dispense with the rules, and appoint Charles Brandmire to the Community Development Commission to fill the unexpired term of Donald Koopman, expiring January 31, 1991. JSC/tlV APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL ADVISORY BOARDS AND/OR COW;ISSIONS In City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 We welcome you as a possible applicant for one of our City Boards and/or Commissions. What are the qualifications for serving on these advisory Boards and Commissions? You must be a resident of Shakopee, except where non residency is permitted by Council resolution, and more importantly, you must have an interest in serving your community. The Boards and Commissions meet during the evening and typically have from one to two meetings per month, as follows: Planning Commission/Board of 1st Thursday after 1st Tuesday Adjustments and Appeals at 7: 30 p.m. Community Development Commission 2nd Wednesday at 5: 00 p.m. Energy & Transportation Committee 3rd -we 'at 7:00 p.m. Ad HOC Downtown Committee As Needed Wednesday at 7:30a.m. Cable Communication Commissions As Needed Monday at 7:30 p.m. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board As Needed Building Code Board of Adjustment As Needed & A^peals Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 1st Monday at 4:30 p.m. Shakopee Community Recreation 3rd Monday at 7:00 n.m. Police Civil Service Commission As Needed Name: Charles Brandmire Address: 640 Gorman St. - 307 Phone: (H) 496-2915 (B) How Long Have you Been A Resident of Shakopee? two years Occupation: Business management/public admin. Currently unemployed Does Your Work Require You To Travel? (check one) ' A Great Deal Periodically n/a very Little _ Not At All Do You Have Anv Special Interests or Training Which You Feel A Particular Board or Commission Could Use? (Useseparate sheet i necessary) FORMER city planning comm. chairman, city administrator, chamber of commerce president, business owner/operator Board or Commission In Which You Are Interested? Community Development Commission Please State Briefly Why You Are Interested In Serving On this Board/Commission For which You Are Submitting An Application: To provide input in planning h 1 p of the City of Shakopee. Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which the individual has or could have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or indirect. In accordance with this definition, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No X If yes, please prov,de details on a separate sheet of paper. In accordance with this definition, do you own any real property located in Scott County in which you have a legal or equitable interest which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No X if yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. Please List Three References (Name, Address and Phone) : 1, Cliff Gardner, Attorney, Janesville 507/234-5106 2, Bernard Mittelsteadt, Pres. , OSM, Mpls. 331-8660 3. Clifford White, Super. , Gedney Co. , Chaska 448-2612 I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are . true and correct to the best of my knowledge. - Signature R=71TUMN APPLICATION AND PL'D TO: City Clerk May 10, 1999 City c: Shakopee Date 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, NSI 533379 445-3650 DATE RECEIVED: CITY OF SHAKOPEE (� BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION PLEDGE 1) I agree to attend an annual Board/Commission evening orientation held in January once during my first two years on the Hoard/Commission. YES X NO 2) I agree to read the agenda material provided prior to the Board/Commission meetings so that I am prepared to participate in discussion. YES X NO 3 ) I agree to read and use the attached "How To Aid Discussion By Asking The Right Questions" to enhance my performance as an active Board/Commission member. YES X NO 4) I agree to offer discussion on the pros and cons of the policy/issue being discussed and agree to refrain from personal criticism directed toward citizens, applicants, fellow Board/Commission members and staff. YES x NO 5) I acknowledge the City' s requirements regarding attendance (Outlined in Section B, Subparagraph I) and understand that I can be removed from a Board/Commission because of poor attendance. ES X NO 6) I agree to call City Hail to notify the appropriate staff person when I cannot attend a regularly scheduled meeting. YES X No 7) 1 agree to refrain from voting on issues where I have a conflict of interest. YES X //�. NO f//' ' ".X1'/5 ✓ ^ Applicant May 10, 1989 Dame CONSENT 10 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting C' Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Cler RE: Nomination and Appointment o the Downtown Committee DATE: May 12, 1989 INTRODUCTION: I have received an application from Theresa Roehrich, who is interested in an appointment to the Downtown Committee. BACKGROUND: The Downtown Committee may comprised of 11 to 20 members, as currently established. There are only 8 members currently serving on this Committee. Although Ms. Roehrich is not a resident of Shakopee, she is certainly familiar with Shakopee and would be an asset to the Committee. The City's guidelines for appointments to Boards and Commissions encourage a representation on all Boards and Commissions from a diversity of professions and occupations. There is currently no one serving on the Downtown Committee from a lending institution. The routine procedure for appointments to Boards and Commissions provides that individuals are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the next meeting. Because there is a shortage on the membership on the Downtown Committee, Council may wish to dispense with the rules and make the nomination and appointment at the same meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not nominate Theresa Roehrich to the Downtown Committee. 2. Nominate Theresa Roehrich to the Downtown Committee. 3. Nominate Theresa Roehrich to the Downtown Committee, dispense with the rules, and appoint Theresa Roehrich to the Downtown Committee. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative No. 3. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Nominate Theresa Roehrich to the Downtown Committee. 2. Dispense with the rules and appoint Theresa Roehrich to the Downtown Committee. JSC/tlV APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL ADVISORY BOARDS AND/OR COWZSSIONS 76 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 we welcome you as a possible applicant for one of our City Boards and/or commissions. What are the qualifications for serving on these advisory Boards and Commissions? You must be a resident of Shakopee, except where non residency is permitted by Council resolution, and more importantly, you must have an interest in serving your community. The Boards and Commissions meet during the evening and typically have from one to two meetings per month, as follows: Planning Commission/Board of 1st Thursday after 1st Tuesday Adjustments and Appeals at 7: 30 p.m. Community Development Commission 2nd Wednesday at 5: 00 p.m. Energy & Transportation Committee 3rd Thursday at 7:00 p.m. Ad HOC Downtown Committee - As Needed Wednesday at 7:30a.m. Cable Communication Commissions As Needed Monday at 7: 30 p.m. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board As Needed Building Code Board of Adjustment As Needed & Appeals Shakcpee Public Utilities Commission 1st Monday at 4:30 p.m. Shakopee Community Recreation 3rd Monday at 7: 00 p.m. Police Civil Service Commission As Needed Name: Theresa L. Roehrich Address: 1805 Rome Ave. St. Paul MN Phone: (H) 698-8304 (B) 445-6300 How Long Have you Been A Resident of Shakopee? nnn-ra s;`lanr Occupation: Marketing Officer, First National Bak Qf 4R k opap Does Your Work Require You To Travel? (check one) A Great Deal Periodically XX Very Little Not At All Do You Have Any Special Interests or Training Which You Feel A Particular Board or Commission Could Use? (Use separate sheet-J- necessary) Past ikecutive Director - Shakopee Ch }x, f Active 1 r =Prcpr in St. Paul DoMtown Council 1983-1987 Board or commission In Which You Are Interested? Ad Hoc Downtown f'rr Please State Briefly Why You Are Interested In Serving On this Board/Commission For Which You Are Submitting An Application: As an activecpmm_mity volunteer and employee of the largest business in downtown Shakopee I am keenly interested in being a part of the changes and discussions that effect downtown Shakopee. Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which the individual has or could have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or indirect. In accordance with this definition, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No XX If yes , please provide details on a separate sheet of paver. In accordance with this definition, do you own any real property located in Scott County in which you have a legal or equitable interest which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No XX If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. Please List Three References (Name, Address and Phone) : 1. George Muenchow, Shakopee Community Recreation, 445-2742 2. Virgil Mears, Shakopee Public Schools, 445-4832 3 . Bill Wermerskirchen, Bill's Toggery, 138 Lewis 445-3735 I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are truet,and correct to the best of my knowledge. �V 12 As fol I"L, I a� , Signature RETURN APPLICATION AND PLED TO: City Clerk � I t it City cf Shakopee Date 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, M 553379 445-300-50 DATE RECEIVED: CITY OF SHAKOPEE l BOARDS AND COrW SSZONS VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION PLEDGE 1) I agree to attend an annual Board/Commission evening orientation held in January once during my first two vears on the Board/Commission. YES XX NO 2) I agree to read the agenda material provided prior to the Board/Commission meetings so that I am prepared to participate in discussion. YES XX NO 3 ) I agree to read and use the attached "How To Aid Discussion By Asking The Right Questions" to enhance my performance as an active Board/Commission member. YES XX NO 4) I agree to offer discussion on the pros and cons of the policy/issue being discussed and agree to refrain from personal criticism directed toward citizens, applicants, fellow Board/Commission members and staff. YES XX NO 5 ) I acknowledge the City's requirements regarding attendance (Outlined in Section B, Subparagraph I) and understand that I can be removed from a Board/Commission because of poor attendance. - YES XX NO 6) I agree to call City Hall to notify the appropriate staff person when I cannot attend a regularly scheduled meeting. YES XX NO 7) I agree to refrain from voting on issues where I have a conflict of interest. YES XX NO \�\ �1 1 ➢ M �hp IA.L l� Applicant Dat FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHAKOPEE 9 ° SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55979 MEMBER FDIC May 12, 1989 Honorable Mayor City of Shakopee Shakopee, MR 55379 Dear Mayor: I submit this application for membership to the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee for the city of Shakopee as a replacement for the seat previously held by Harry Kohler. Harry has left First National Hank of Shakopee for a new banking position in the metro area. As past Executive Director of the Shakopee Chamber o f Commerce I have been extremely involved in the Shakopee community. I would like to continue my involvement by participating in the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee. Thank you for your consideration of my application. Sincerely, Theresa L. Roehrich Director of Marketing PHONE 612-445-6300 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: DNR Trail/Street Vacations - Resolution #3052 DATE: May 8, 1989 INTRODUCTION: The Department of Natural Resources is in the process of finalizing their agreement with Mr. Bob Sweeney for trail access across his property. Before finalizing the agreement with Mr. Sweeney, the Department of Natural Resources has requested a statement from the City of Shakopee reaffirming the vacation of Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff Avenue. BACKGROUND: In November of 1988 Mr. Bob Sweeney initiated vacation proceedings for Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff Avenue. During staff's review of the request it was discovered that these two streets were vacated under a 1917 Judgement and Decree of the District Court. On February 13, 1989 staff informed the Department of Natural Resources of the City's legal opinion regarding the vacation of the streets in questions. Due to the historical date of the records relating to this issue, the Department of Natural Resources Lands Bureau has requested that the Shakopee City Council reaffirm the street vacations. Shown in attachment #1 is a memo from Jack Coller, which addresses the issue of whether or not Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff Avenue have been vacated. In addition to the 1917 court ruling, Mr. Collar points out that it does not appear that the streets in question were ever laid out as streets and hence, the City and the public lost all right thereon 15 years prior to 1898. Based on staff's review of the information available, we would recommend that City Council approve Resolution #3052 reaffirming the vacation of Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff Avenue. Note that the resolution also acknowledges the City's right to retain any easement rights that may be necessary on the Westerly 1/2 of Market Street. Approval of the resolution would put closure on the vacation procedure which the City initiated last Fall at Mr. Sweeney's request. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Offer Resolution #3052 and move it's approval. 2. Do not approve Resolution #3052 . 3. Table action on this issue pending further information from staff. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to offer Resolution #3052 A Resolution Reaffirming the Vacation of Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff Avenue and move its adoption. [6 0" Resolution No. 3052 A Resolution Reaffirming the Vacation of Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff Avenue WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources Land Bureau has requested a statement from the City reaffirming the vacation of Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff Avenue; and WHEREAS, the vacation of the aforementioned streets is necessary in order for the Department of Natural Resources to complete the Minnesota River Valley Trail System through the property in questions; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee finds that it is desirous for the Minnesota River Valley Trail to be completed in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, a 1917 Judgement and Decree of the District Court assigned the ownership of the property in question to Mr. Herman Schroeder; and WHEREAS, it appears that the streets and alleys within the area in question were never laid out as streets and hence the City and the public lost all rights thereon 15 years prior to 1898; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee hereby reaffirms the vacation of Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City reserves, however, to the City of Shakopee its licensees and franchise holders a perpetual easement on, under and over any rights it may have for the Westerly 1/2 of Market Street for utilities with the right to install, maintain, repair, lay and relay the utilities by the City, its licensees and franchise holders. 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 Attachment #1 JIILii79 A.COLLEE. II - - �euos •.couce ATfonNEY AT LAW ea us ¢m SEAEOPEE,MINNESOTA SSOi9 Memorandum to: Judy Cox, City Clerk ,(t✓ Date: February 8, 1989 From: Julius A. Collar, II, City Attorney Re: Whether or not Minnesota and Market Street North of Bluff have been vacated The western boundary of the Plat of East Shakopee in the area under consideration is Market Street on the West, the Minnesota River on the North and Minnesota Street on the East. All of the Blocks, alleys, levee and Minnesota Street and others North of the Alley in Block a and b and others not relevant hereto were vacated years ago under the terms of the City's Charter. Market Street is not named as being vacated, but Market Street is wholly in the plat of East Shakopee and is the western boundary of it and all that part of Market Street North of said alley would, by common rules of construction, also be vacated. Subsequently, under date of October 22, 1917 by judgment and decree of the district court Herman Schroeder was found to be the occupant and owner of all of the lots in Blocks hereinafter described and all of the alleys in said block except the alleys in Block A and 23 and all of the Streets lying between and bordering said blocks except Minnesota Street between Blocks A and B, E and F, C and D, and Market Street bordering Blocks B,C,F on the West side thereof and Levee lying north of Blocks B and 19 have been duly vacated and that Herman Schroeder is the owner thereof. It can be noted that the Judgment and Decree of the District Court is not as broad as the vacation proceedings. Neither does it decree the area covered by the previous proceedings. But over and above all of this, it does not appear that the Streets and alleys within the area bounded by Market Street on the West and Minnesota Street on the East, Bluff Street on the South and Levee on the North were ever laid out as Streets and,hence the City and the public lost all right thereon 15 years prior to 1898. Just prior to the snow, I drove down and looked at Market Street. From looking at it it clearly appears that the East half of where Market Street is supposed to be north of Bluff and abutting the land to the east thereof is within the lands owned by Mr. Sweeney, but if the public has or may have some rights and title in the west half of Market Street cannot be determined from the record and looking at the location of where the street would be it appears that the west half is used. The determining question is — by whom? If it is Mr. Sweeney, that doesn't change the status of it, but if the public uses it or some segment of the public uses the west half then there is a question. 6 a� To: Judy Cox, CityClerk From : Julius A. Collar, II Re: Whether or not Minensota and Market Streets North of Bluff have been vacated To get a good title of record, of course, the title to all the land in question would have to be either registered or clarified by an action to quiet title. This is a confusing situation and I don't think I have helped it too much, but this is the best I can do. MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator ID FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Downtown Assessments DATE: May 8 , 1989 INTRODUCTION: Staff would like Council to set a date for the public hearing on the assessments for the downtown project. BACKGROUND: Phase I of the Downtown Project is essentially completed, except for some minor restoration and "punch list" items. None of the work remaining will be included in any assessments. The total construction costs to date for both the 1987 and 1988 projects is $2 , 237 , 326 .35 . The total engineering .and administration costs are $457 ,280 .72 (20%) . This makes the total project costs to date $2 ,694 ,607 .07 , with the project being approximately 99% complete. Of this total amount, only $242,102.47 will be assessed. This represents 25% of the street reconstruction costs and any private service connections that need replacing. The 25% street reconstruction costs are based on a standard 44 foot wide pavement and includes curb and gutter and sidewalk replacement (at 25%) . Any additional pavement due to the nodes or wider streets was not included in the assessments. Any pavement associated with the parking lots and alleys was not included in the assessments. The 25% assessment for street reconstruction items is consistent with the current City policies and was adopted at the public hearing prior to ordering the project . The individual assessments for each property are based on a formula using 70% front footage and 30% square footage. Staff will go through the assessment calculations in more detail at the public hearing. For your information, at the public hearing ordering the project the assessments had been estimated at $287 ,400 . The actual assessments of $242 , 102 .44 is approximately $45,300 less than what was estimated. Per state law regarding 429 Projects, all property owners must receive a minimum of a 14 day notice for the assessment public hearing. In addition, an official notice must be published in the local newspaper for two weeks. Because of this, the earliest that Council could held a public hearing would be at the June 6 , 1989 regular meeting. Council may wish to hold the public hearing on a different date than on a regular Council meeting. Staff would like Council to set a date for the public hearing on the downtown assessments. Staff also recommends holding the hearing at some other place instead of City Hall, such as the Courthouse. Attached is Resolution No. 3053 , which declares the cost to be assessed and sets the date for the public hearing. The date for the hearing has been left blank and should be filled in by Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 3053 • 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3053 • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Move to set the date for the assessment public hearing for the Downtown Streetscape Project , Phase I for and offer Resolution No. 3053 , A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for the Downtown Streetscape Improvements, Project No. 1987-2 and move its adoption. DH/pmp 16 RESOLUTION NO. 3053 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments For Downtown Streetscape Improvements Project No. 1987-2 WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of: Downtown by Streetscape and the contract price for such improvements is $2 ,237 ,326 .35 , the construction contingency amounts to $ 0 .00 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amounts to $457 ,280 .72 so that the total cost of the improvements will be $2 ,694 ,607 .07 and of this cost the City will pay $2 ,452 ,504 .63 as its share of the cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be $242,102 .44. 2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected , without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. That the City Clerk shall , upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1 . That a hearing shall be held on the day of , 19 _, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. He shall also cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 19 City Attorney MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administratpr FROM: John DeLacey, Enginering Tech. III SUBJECT: Alley in Block 102 J DATE: May 8 , 1989 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3054 Declaring the Adequacy of a Petition and Ordering a Report Prepared for Alley Improvements to Block 102 of the Shakopee City Plat. BACKGROUND: Block 102 of the Shakopee City Plat is bounded by 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue and Sommervlle Street and Spencer Street. A petition has been received and approved by the City Attorney requesting alley improvements in this block. The requested improvements consist of asphalt pavement. The property owners that signed the petition indicated that they will agree to share the cost of these improvements under the 429 Special Assessment Process . All abutting properties to the alley have signed the petition. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Deny the petition for alley improvements. 2 . Accept the petition and adopt Resolution No. 3054 ordering the preparation of a report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 , to accept the petition and order the preparation of a report. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3054 , A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering the Preparation of a Report for Alley Improvements to Block 102 of the Shakopee City Plat and move its adoption. JHD/pmp RESOLUTION NO. 3054 A Resolution Declaring Adequacy Of Petition And Ordering Preparation Of A Report For The Alley in Block 102 Of The Shakopee City Plat BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . A certain petition requesting the improvement of asphalt pavement to the Alley in Block 102 of the Shakopee City Plat , filed with the Council on May 16 , 1989 , is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby . The declaration is made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429 .035 . 2. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineering and he is instructed to report to the Council with convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19—• City Attorney