HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/1989 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: July 27, 1989
1. Filings open August 29th - September 12th for positions on
the City Council. Council positions currently held by Gary
Scott, Gloria Vierling and Mayor Lebens will expire December
31, 1989. Qualified persons wishing their name placed on
the November 7th ballot may file with the City Clerk between
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Filing fee is $2.00.
2. MEBCO has received approval for their industrial development
revenue bonds from the Department of Energy and Economic
Development. All documents for the closing were signed by
City officials on July 24th.
3 . Attached is a copy of a thank you card from Mayor Lebens.
4. Attached is the monthly calendar for August.
5. Attached is a letter to Mayor Lebens from Joe Ries, Scott
County Commissioner, regarding the City's concerns about
plans for the proposed interchange at C.R. 18 and the
Shakopee By-Pass.
6. Attached is a memo from the LMC regarding the 1990
Conference Planning Committee. If anyone is interested in
becoming a member of the committee please contact Jeanette.
7. Attached is a memo from the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission regarding recent changes in their Minnesota Link-
Up America Program.
8. Attached is a memo from Joe Ries dated June 1, 1989
regarding the 1990 budget packet for Scott County. This is
being provided for Council's information at this time - it
will be provided again to Council at budget time.
9. Attached is the August Business Update from City Hall.
10. At their regular meeting on July 18th, Council asked for
information on the senior citizen deferment policy.
Attached is a copy of the application to be completed by the
applicant and a list of the requirements necessary to be
eligible. Section 2.82 of the City Code sets forth these
requirements. Each application for deferment will be placed
on the Council agenda for approval.
11. We have received an application from the Shakopee Lions Club
for renewal of their gambling license. They meet the
requirements of the City Code.
12. Attached are the minutes of the June 26, 1989 Cable
Communications Advisory Commission.
13. Attached are the minutes of the July 6, 1989 Board of
Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission.
14. Attached are the minutes of the July 5, 1989 Community
Development Commission.
15. Attached are the agendas for the August 3, 1989 meetings of
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission.
16. Attached is the agenda for the August 2, 1989 meeting of the
Community Development Commission.
DRK/jms
To: My fellow Covncilmmbers
and City Staff
From: The Mayor
Thanks for the lovely floral arrangement.
It was already on my doorstep to cheer
me up when I returned from the hospital.
Sorry to have missed Tuesday's meeting:
Now, with the foot all patched up, I'm
hoping to be able to run again!
17.
August 1989
UPCOMING MEETINGS
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SRT
1 2 3 4 5
7:00pm City 5:00pm CDC 7:30pm Derby Days
Council Planning
Commission
6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
Derby Days 7:45am
Downtown
Committee
13 14 15 15 17 18 19
7:00pm City
Council
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
7:00pm
Community
Recreation
27 28 29 30 31
July September
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 1 2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
30 31
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCOTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE 110
Id SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1382 (612)937-6100
JOSEPH F.RIES ' � - l Administrator
CLIFFORD G.MCCANN RECEWED
Deputy Administrator
BARBARA NESS JUL 2, t:-1989
Executive Asst.
July 24, 1989 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Honorable Delores Lebens
Mayor, City of Shakopee
Shakopee City Hall
129 Bast First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mayor Lebens:
Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1989, in which the Shakopee City
Council's concerns over preliminary plans for the proposed interchange at
County Road 18 and the Shakopee By-Pass are conveyed.
While your letter has been scheduled before the County Board
tomorrow, I have requested the Highway Engineer to prepare responses to
your concerns for review with the Commissioners in a committee setting.
Rest assured that the concerns of the city will be addressed with a high
priority and with a timely response forthcoming. Thank you for your
remarks on both these projects and for your continued interest in them.
jnistrator erely,
h F. Rie
cc: County Commissioners
Brad Larson, County Highway Engineer
Cliff McCann, Deputy County Administrator
File
JFR:bn
A Equel Opportunity Employer
183 University Ave.East
St.Paul,MN 55101-2526
League of Minnesota Cities (612)227.5600(FAX:221.0986)
July 21, 1989
To: Mayors, Managers, Clerks, Council (% Clerk)
From: Darlyne Lang, Director, office & Building Services
Subj : 1990 Conference Planning Committee
As a city official, you have an opportunity to provide a valued
contribution to planning the League's 1990 annual conference. Your
firsthand knowledge of the problems confronting city government can
provide the insight needed in planning programs to benefit other
municipal officials.
It's important that we have representation from cities of all sizes.
In addition to maintaining the continuity and knowledge provided by
previous committee members, we need new views and input from new
members.
This past year we had an excellent response. To accommodate as many
as possible, we must limit the representation to one per city, while
maintaining some previous along with the new members.
The Conference Planning Committee will convene this fall, meeting
five or six times prior to the conference. The meetings are
initially scheduled monthly, 2-3 hours in length, with the final
meeting held at the conference. The 1990 conference is scheduled for
June 12-15, at the Duluth Arena-Auditorium in Duluth.
If you are interested in becoming a member of the Conference Planning
Committee, or if anyone in your city has an interest, please complete
the attached form and mail it to my attention.
Your participation is welcomed.
MAIL TO:
Darlyne Lang
League of Minnesota Cities
183 University Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101
I am interested in becoming a member of the 1990 Conference Planning
Committee.
I previously served on a Conference Planning Committee
year(s)
I have not previously served
Name: Title:
(please print)
Address:
City: Zip Code:
O ,
• JUL 1 ; 1989
C(TY pp SHhhciP�E
N E N O R A N D U H
DATE: July 14 , 1989
OTO: Local & -County Officials 'n Minnesota
V FROM: Mary Ellen Henn-n
Executive Secretarv�
RE: Recent Chances
Minnesota Link-Up America Program
W
•
Low income households without telephone service may now more
easily obtain telephone service under program changes recently
_ow made by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
•
The Commission deleted the following two requirements:
The applicant must have lived at an address where there
has been no telephone service for at least three months
prior to the date assistance is requested, aad
— The applicant must not have received this assistance
within the last two years .
Persons eligible for Link-Up benefits receive one-half off the
telephone service connection and installation charges, up to
$30 . The local telephone companies may also defer payments on
the balance of installation charges and reduce or waive deposit
requirements for new telephone service. These benefits are
provided through each local telephone company.
Revised Link-Up America applications are available through the
Olocal telephone companies serving your area.
' w The enclosed General Information Sheet may answer your
W questions about Link-Up America. If you have further concerns,
please contact David D. Sharpe of the Commission staff at (612)
Z296-1339 .
ZEnclosure
•S
G
' a AMERICAN CENTER bUIIdING• kEIIOgq ANd ROBERT STS• SAINT PAU4 MN 55101
MINNESOTA LINK-IIP AMERICA PLAN
--General Information--
A. Link-Up America Benefits
The Minnesota Link-Up America plan as approved by the Minnesota
Public Utilities Commission is designed to provide eligible
individuals with an off-set of one-half of the local telephone
service connection and installation charges, up to $30. other
benefits, such a deferred payments on remaining service
connection fees and reductions or waivers of the deposit
requirements may be available under the Link-Up plan at the
option of each local telephone company.
B. Link-Up America Eligibility Criteria
To be eligible for benefits under the Link-Up America plan, an
applicant must meet the following eligibility requirements:
1. Applicant has not been claimed as a dependent for
Federal Income Tax purposes, unless he or she is
more than sixty years old; and,
2. Applicant meets income requirements under criteria
"3" or 114" below.
3. Applicant can show current participation in
one of the following assistance programs to
his or her local exchange company:
-Aid to Families with Dependent Children
-Medical Assistance
-General Assistance
-Minnesota Supplemental Aid
-Food Stamps
-Refugee Cash Assistance or Refugee Medical
Assistance
-Energy Assistance; or
-Supplemental/Social Security Income.
4 . Applicant can show household income level of
150 percent or less of the federal poverty
level. Household income is defined as total
gross income from all sources for all members
of the applicant' s household. 1508 of the
1989 Federal Poverty Income Guideline for all
states (except Hawaii and Alaska) are:
1
Size of Family Unit 1508 of Poverty Guideline
1 $ 8,970
2 12,030
3 15,090
4 18, 150
5 21,210
6 24 , 270
7 27,330
8 30, 390
For family units with more than 8 members,
add $3, 060 for each additional member.
geninfo.lu
2
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCOTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE 110
Id SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1382 (612) 937-6100
JOSEPH F.RIEStr
Administrator �S C!:'>-
w f f r�Fy
CLIFFORD G.McCANN (•,.
Deputy Administrator �'�.
BARBARA
ExecutweAssSS �C/Tr OFSNRkO FF
T0: Dr. Gayden Carruth, Superintendent, ISD #720
Mr. Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Shakopee City Administrator
SUBJECT: 1990 Budget Packet for Scott County -
DATE: June 1, 1989
In keeping with the consensus reached by our respective policy boards
at our first joint meeting on the tax reform issue, I am forwarding copies
of the budget packet presented to the County Board on May 23, 1989. It
should be noted, that the budget guidelines were approved in the form
attached.
In particular, allow me to call your attention to the 1990/CIP -
calendar included in the packet and to request your timely review of our
schedule. This of course, is in the interest of coordinating our
financial planning efforts, and hopefully, will precipitate joint meetings
of our three jurisdicitions. Perhaps we can discuss some strategy along
these lines at our meeting tomorrow when we are scheduled to open
responses to the RFP's on the proposed tax study. If that isn't
convenient, let's attempt to set a meeting date for the express purpose of
coordinating budget and CIP activities. I will look forward to working
with you both.
JR s,
es
strator
.
cc: (memorandum only) -
County Commissioners
Budget Team
JR:bn
An Equal Opportunity Employer
)
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCOTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE 110
SHAKOPEE, MN. 553791382 (612)9376100
JOSEPH F.RIES
Administrator
CLIFFORD G.McCANN
Deputy Administrator
BARBARA NESS
Executive Asst.
TO: Don Martin, Assessor May 23, 1989
James Terwedo, Attorney
Tom Hennen, Auditor
Jim Slavik, Central Services Director
Mails Hedin, Collections Director
Jim Berg, Controller
Greg Ess, Court Administrator
John Hedin, Court Services Director
Dr. John Plunkett, Coroner
Larry McMahon, Data Processing Manager
Tim O'Laughlin, Emergency Management Director
David Hart, Extension Director
Brad Larson, Highway Engineer
Eileen Moran, Human Services Director
Ray Vyskocil, Internal Auditor
Janet Williams, Library Director
John Rade rmacher, Maintenance Engineer
Tom Longmire, Personnel Director
Jon Westlake, Planning Director
Paul Wermerskirchen, Recorder/ Registrar of Titles
Sheriff Bill Nevin
Tom Muelken, Treasurer
Earl Hedstrom, Veterans Services Officer
SUBJECT: 1990 Budget Process
Pursuant to the Scott County Budget Procedure Manual adopted on
February 28, 1989, I am pleased to forward copies of both the Budget
Message and Budget Guidelines for the 1990 budget cycle which were
presented to and approved by the County Board today.
I am also enclosing a copy of the Budget Calendar for this same period
and will take this opportunity to notify you of the details of the
Kick-Off Budget Meeting which has been scheduled as follows:
DATE: Thursday, June 8, 1989
TIME: 9:00 o'clock A.M.
PLACE: Assembly Room, Court House #111
At this meeting, I plan to review the Budget Message with you and
invite your comments and questions at that time. This will also be the
An Equal Opportunity Employer
opportune time to discuss the county's long-range financial plan (6-10-6)
as well as the overall economic climate of our county and those things
that drive our taxes.
Jim Berg will follow by taking us through the Budget Guidelines and
Budget Calendar at which time we will devote whatever time necessary for
discussion and questions on any and all aspects of the budget process.
I encourage your continued support of and compliance with the budget
time lines and pledge any assistance that we can provide you throughout
the process. We appreciate your excellent cooperation in the past.
To somewhat mitigate the burden of the event, coffee and cookies will
be served. Please notify this office if you are unable to attend or send
a deputy or aide in your stead. I will look forward to seeing you on June
8th. Thank you.
R a s,
J
A inistrator
Encls.
cc: w/Enclosures
County Commissioners (Info only)
Cliff McCann, Deputy Co. Admin.
Jim Berg, County Controller
Recording Secretary (Scheduling 6 arrangements)
JR:bn
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR g
SCOTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE 110
SHAKOPEE, MN.55379.1362 (612)937-6100
JOSEPH F.RIES
Administrator
CLIFFORD G.McCANN
Deputy Administrator - May 23, 1989
BARBARA NESS
Executive Asst.
Scott County Board of Commissioners
Scott County Courthouse
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: 1990 BUDGET MESSAGE
Gentlemen:
Although the Legislature adjourned last night, the full impact and effect
of its enactments for this session will not be understood or felt for
sometime. However, it is possible to generalize by saving that the
flexibility of local government in terms of taxes and services has been
further reduced.
In anticipation of the continuing reduction in flexibility, Scott County
has adopted a stringent new set of self-imposed financial guidelines. On
October 25, 1988 the Scott County Board of Commissioners adopted a
long-range financial plan entitled the "6-10-6 Plan." The Plan projects
limits of 6% annual increases in the operating levy and a 10% total levy
growth based upon an assumed 6% annual growth in taxable valuation and is
modeled to restrict county levy growth to 4% or less annually.
The impetus for the Plan was that over the past several years Scott Countv
has experienced financial set-backs and disruption. We have been fully
aware of our declining financial stability and its causes. Our beliefs
were substantiated by the Mill Rate Study conducted in the Spring of
1988. Much of the financial difficulty is beyond Scott County's ability
to control , either through significant revenue increases or expenditure
reductions.
Scott County makes its expenditures in response to state law, citizen
requests and demands. Accordingly, included among the important services
provided by Scott County are:
1. Constructing roads that service commerce and industry, tourists and
residents and the general public.
2. Protecting our citizens and jailing our prisoners.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Scott County Commissioners
May 22, 1989
Page 2.
3. Serving as the nerve center for all police, fire and emergency
responses in our county (911 Dispatch) .
4. Funding the administration of the entire justice system in this
County and our share of the costs of the First Judicial District.
5. Feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and lending a hand to
those least able to help themselves.
6. Collecting and investing the taxes and other revenues for ourselves
and other governments.
7. Providing service to our veterans who served us.
8. Providing information and knowledge through our library system.
9. Protecting the environment.
10. Assuring that safe housing is built for our citizens.
11. Protecting peoples' property rights to land.
12. Planning and zoning for sensible organization of land uses throughout
the County.
13. Supporting senior citizens' programs.
14. Providing assurance that the public's money is not spent illegally.
It must be understood that the "6-10-6 Plan" represents a ten year
commitment restricting the flexibility of the County to respond to
increased pressures for services, whether to increase levels of service or
institute new services to fulfill unmet needs. When coupled with our
limited cashflow reserves, Scott County's ability to cope is limited by
the financial and statutory constraints imposed.
It should be remembered that for the past decade Scott County has lived,
and in the future, will continue to live well within its statutory
limits. While other counties have sought and received authority for
levies over the maximum established by statute, Scott County has striven
to limit its increases year in and year out.
Within the confines of the "6-10-6 Plan," however, we continue to look for
other ways to provide or eliminate service and respond to new needs. This
is the role of strategic planning, program evaluation, economy and
efficiency audits and technology improvements.
I
Scott County Commissioners
May 22, 1989 - -
Page 3.
On May 30, 1989, the Scott County Board will be engaged in a Strategic
Planning Workshop. This workshop may result in a pro-active strategic
plan being developed for each service and program provided by Scott _
County. The Board may require each department to develop an initial
strategic plan as part of the budget process.
Although Board action requiring a thorough and complete strategic plan for
the entire county is not certain, I am advising departments at this point
that considerably more effort on their part and that of their staff may be
required should the Board undertake some form of strategic planning for
this budget cycle.
In the spirit of this Budget Message, the County Controller will follow
with the presentation of the 1990 Budget Guidelines, which have been
recommended for County Board adoption by the Fiscal Management Committee
on May 19, 1989.
Resp tfully,
Jo ph F. Ries
C my Administrator
JFR:jm
SCOTT COUNTY 1990 BUDGET/CIP CALENDAR
May 18 Adoption of 1990 Budget Guidelines by Fiscal Management
Committee.
May 23 Adoption of 1990 Budget Guidelines by County Board.
May 23 Budget message/meeting notice to County Officials/Department
Heads.
June 8 Budget Kick-Off Meeting with County Officials/Department
Heads.
June 12-16 Controller's Budget Workshops in Data Processing Training
Room.
June 26-30 Preparation of the 1990-94 Capital Improvement Plan by the
Budget Team in Consultation with County's Financial Advisor.
July 17 Due Date for 1990 Budgets to the County Controller.
August 1 Final Review of Budgets by the County Controller.
Month of Budget Hearings - County Officials and Department Heads
August Individually
Sept. 12 Budget Presentation to the County Board for Adoption.
Sept. 15 Controller certifies 1990 Levy to the County Auditor for
Truth in Taxation Preparation.
Nov. 10 County Auditor mails Truth in Taxation (Proposed Property
Taxes) Statements to Propertyholders.
Nov. 15 Schedule Public Hearing on 1990 Budget.
thru Dec. 14
Dec. 29 Adopt 1990 and 1990-94 Capital Improvement Plan by
Resolution and Certify to the County Auditor.
March 15, Tax Statements mailed to Propertyholders NLT.
1990
DATE: May 22, 1989
TO: All Department Heads
FROM: Jim Berg, Controller
RE: 1990 Budget Workshops
1 will be conducting several budget workshops the week of June
12 - 16, 1989 for preparation of your 1990 budget. Workshops
will be held at 10 : 00 A.M. and 2 : 00 P.M. each day in the Data
Processing training room. NO morning session on Monday, June
12th and NO afternoon session Friday, June 16th. We can
accomodate six people at each session, on a first come first
served basis . This will be a training session on budget
preparation for your service/services.
The workshops are for you and your staff who will be directly
inputting your budget into the computer. Any Department that
does not have direct access to the computer, will be expected to
attend the workshop , making arrangements with the Data
Processing Department to use their equipment and facility to
input and complete your budget. Please call Mary Petrick at
extension 188 to make your reservation and number attending.
Remember to bring your password, budget instructions and a copy
of your 1990 budget worksheet.
JB:mp
Attachment
1990 Budget Guidelines
SCOTT COUNTY
1990 BUDGET GUIDELINES
The Fiscal Management Committee has endorced the following policy for
preparation, review and finalization of your 1990 budget.
A. Budget training workshops will be held June 12-16, 1989.
B. Each department will input their own budget.
C. Due date is July 14, 1989.
D. The Administration Budget Team will initially review your budget,
if your budget is not in compliance of guidelines you will be
called for review with the Controller, or if necessary the
Administrative Budget Team.
E. Budget appeals will be scheduled before the Fiscal Management
Committee.
F. County levy must be set by September 1, 1989 for the Truth in
Taxation Statements.
G. Any changes in the levy due to public hearings - levy can only go
down.
GENERAL GUIDELINES
A. Check the date of your budget worksheet, information is actual as
of that date.
B. Salaries for 1990 will be budgeted at 12-31-89 rates.
C. The 1990 total County levy will follow the 6-10-6 Long Range
Financial Plan 1989-1998. This is not to say certain services
will not increase or decrease, but the Administration Budget Team
will make necessary cuts or increases to remain in line with
statutory levy limits and the long range plan.
D. If revenues are less than 1989 or expenses greater than 1989, a
short written explanation will be required.
E. Various activity reports, project or client type reports are
available through your manager' s menu.
F. Capital purchases (;300 or more) will be delayed until October 1,
1990.
G. All objects will be restricted to a 38 increase, except 4109 thru
4180.
1 /
Page two of four \
1990 Scott County Budget Guidelines
LINE ITEM GUIDELINES
A. REVENUE OBJECTS
1 . Complete all revenue items, including 3311- Current Property
Tax. Current Property Tax is the difference between income
and expense.
2. All monies received should be reported as revenue and not
credited against an expense object.
3. All Federal and State revenue must have a special object code
by funding source. Your 1989 budget should reflect the new
object codes, if not please call for a new object number.
B. EXPENSE OBJECTS
4001-4095 Should be used for related services delivered
by someone other than your staff. (vendors)
4109-4180 MUST balance to your staffing plans. If you
plan to budget for O.T. and/or additional
part-time employees, please reflect by
classification title, on your Additional
Staffing Plan (see personnel instructions
below) . On your Staffing Plan, the basic
object assigned to each employee is the line
you are charged on your Statement of
Operations. If there is a change or an error,
please inform Personnel. If part-time
employees are used in your office, they will
be monitored and action will be taken to stay
within budgeted wages.
4212-4290 Find a percent of each line item to total
salary, using actual (1989) . Apply this
percent to total projected salaries for each
line of projected 1990 benefits.
4596 Vehicle Purchase
4741 Minor Equipment Purchase (under $300.00)
4746 Major Equipment Purchase' (over $300.00)
4747 Software Purchase
4860 Maintenance Repair-Facility
Remaining Objects Use projections based on actual experience,
for 1989. If any line is increased more
than 38, please give an explanation in the
comment column.
1
Page three of four
1990 Scott County Budget Guidelines
OVER-ALL BUDGET
A. PERSONNEL -
1. Examine your current staffing plan and submit all the staff
changes and O.T. to the Personnel Department for review and/or
referral to the Personnel Committee. You MUST must obtain
Personnel Committee approval before budgets are finalized.
2 . If approved, add to your Additional Staffing Plan and
corresponding budget line object.
B. DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
If you need additional data processing equipment or software, you
must take the following steps:
1. Complete a "Request for Data Processing Services" form and
submit to your Block Group for approval. Upon approval, the
request will be forwarded to the Data Processing User' s Group
for approval before budgets are finalized.
2. If approved, add to your Purchase Addendum and on your
appropriate budget line object 4741, 4746 or 4747.
C. VEHICLES
If you are requesting new vehicles, you must take the following
steps:
1. All vehicle requests must be forwarded to the Fleet Management
Team, in care of Jim Slavik, prior to the onset of budget
review.
2 . If approved, add to your Purchase Addendum and on your budget
line object 4596.
3. Once again, Capital purchases (over $300) will be delayed
until October 1, 1990 .
D. BUILDING
If you are requesting remodeling or construction, you must take
the following steps:
1. All requests must be forwarded to the Building Committee, in
care of Joe Ries, prior to the onset of budget review.
2. If approved, add to your Purchase Addendum and on your budget
line object 4860 .
Page four of four
1990 Scott County Budget Guidelines
E. EQUIPMENT
If you are requesting additional equipment, other than data
processing, vehicles and building, (over $300.00) you must take
the following steps:
1 . All requests must be forwarded to Jim Berg prior to the onset
of budget review.
2. I£ approved, add to your Purchase Addendum and on your budget
line object 4746.
DATE DUE
Budget review will begin July 17, 1989. When you have finalized
your budget, please send a letter to the Controller indicating
completion. If desired, include points of interest for discussion.
Any budget not in the system by July 17, 1989 will receive their
1989 budget allotment less 108.
7
BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL
Vol. 3 No. 8
Dear Chamber Member: August 1, 1989
BUILDING
The ribbon cutting and turning the keys over to the City of
Shakopee for the Shakopee Community Youth Building took place on
July 26th. The building completion represents nine months of
hard work by local service clubs, fraternal organizations,
businesses, industry and local residents.
CITY CLERK
Charlie Fonder has been appointed to the Ad Hoc Downtown
Committee.
Liquor and beer licenses have been renewed beginning July 1, 1989
including issuance of a new liquor license for Centennial
Investment Corporation doing business as Canterbury Inn.
Council has amended the criteria for deferment of special
assessments for homestead property owned by senior citizens. The
assessor's market value of the applicants homestead property as
well as the amount of gross assets the applicant can have have
been increased. The criteria has not been changed since 1983 .
Filings for expiring terms on the City Council will be open from
August 29th to September 12th. Eligible persons desiring to have
their name placed on the November 7th ballot must file with the
City Clerk between 8: 00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. during one of these
days. The three Councilmembers whose terms are expiring December
31, 1989 are Gary Scott, Gloria Vierling and Mayor Dolores
Lebens.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The Shakopee Community Development Commission has created a
Business Appreciation Subcommittee. This new subcommittee will
meet on a monthly basis with approximately ten businesses for a
short breakfast meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to answer
questions that local business owners may have in regard to a
variety of issues. If local business owners are experiencing
problems that may be resolved at the local level, this is an
excellent opportunity for them to bring up the issue with this
new subcommittee. The subcommittee will then forward matters
which can be handled at the city staff level to the appropriate
person. Items that may need formal Council action will be
evaluated by the Community Development Commission and forwarded
to City Council for formal Council action. When a local business
is contacted by a member of the Business Appreciation
Subcommittee, please make every effort to attend the breakfast
meeting. This is an opportunity for you, the business owner, to
state your concerns and desires regarding the local business
climate in Shakopee.
The Shakopee Community Development Commission has also recently
created a City Hall Siting Subcommittee. The purpose of the
committee is to reinstate the process for siting a new City Hall.
The committee will re-evaluate much of the work that was done by
the 1987 Siting Committee. The committee is hopeful that they
can have a prioritized siting list for City Council consideration
in early 1990. If there are members of the community that would
like to assist and serve on this subcommittee, please feel free
to call Barry Stock at 445-3650.
COMMUNITY RECREATION (BCR)
Many businesses and groups arrange for picnics in the summer for
their employees and families. Some arrange for theirs to be held
in Shakopee Parks. Shakopee has two parks that are particularly
designated for those kinds of activities. For years the most
popular site has been Memorial Park with its rustic setting. It
still is popular, but actually Lions Park is gradually becoming
the first choice of many. The Municipal Swimming Pool seems to
be the big attraction for this location. SCR schedules these
facilities on a first come - first serve basis starting January
1st of each year. There is a nominal fee involved. If you are
thinking of this kind of activity for next summer, you might want
to give this some thought.
AI'1'1.1CA1IUN FOR SENIOR (:I"FILEN
HARDSHIP //�
SPBCIAL ASSESSMENT DEFEIIHAI, L�
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE ANSWERS TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY OWN KNOWLEDGE.
ADDRESS PHONE
PLACE OF OIRI'll HATE. OF BIRTH
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
PARCEL NO.
15 THIS PROPERTY YOUR HOMESTEAD
PROJECT ASSESSMENT APPLYING FOR
ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT BALANCE DUE
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
NAME AGE SEX REI.ATIONSIIIP TO I SOCIAL SF,CU-
HUSBAND OR HEAD I RITY NUMBER
ANNUAL GROSS INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
WAGES AND LIST EACH INCOME SOURCE ADDRESS
OTHER INCOME FOR THE PAST CALENDAR YEAR
IF INCOME LISTED ABOVE EXCEEDS CURRENT INCOME LIMIT, THE APPLICANT MAY
SUBMIT ADDITIONAL DATA REGARDING THE TOTAL INCOME OF ALL OWNERS FOR THE
PAST THREE (3) CALENDAR YEARS.
LIST ALL ASSETS EXCLUDING HOMESTEAD PROPERTY
IF 'IIIERE AGE ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAKE THIS ASSESSMENT A
HARDSHIP, PLEASE DESCRIBE:
THE TAXES FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS DULY ADOPTED TN
RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AS OF , 19 WHICII
HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED AGAINST THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD CREATE UNDUE
PERSONAL HARDSHIP ON MY BEHALF AND I RESPECTFULLY REOUEST THAT PAYMENT BE
DELAYED AND THAT SUCH TAXES BE SO DEFERRED FOR THE YEARS 19_ TO 19_
DATE SIGNED
OWNER
- - - - - - - To Be Completed By The City - - - - - - - - - - -
ASSESSOR'S MARKET VALUE APPROVED—NOT APPROVED_ BY THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE THIS DAY OF , 19
PITY ADMINISTRATOR
PPmst.Bnt to Ree: 1713
Date:
To:
Subj: Senior Citizens Hardship Special Assessment Deferral
1, , hereby certify that I am 65 years
of age or older and that it would be a hardship for me to make
payments for special assessments. Therefore, I request that the
City of Shakopee defer the special assessments on my property
according to M.S. 435.193, M.S. 435.194, and M.S. 435.195.
AI Amount of Assessment deferred Code B
RI Rate of Interest
CI Description:
s gnature o app n cant
________________________________________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
To: Scott County Auditor
1, ' hereby certify that the City of
Shakopee has deferred the anove special assessments.
Dated this day of , 19
s gnature
t e
________________________________________________________________________________
1, hereby certify this is a true and correct copy received in the
office Auditor, Scott County, Minnesota, this
day of 19of the County Aud —
ounty u for
0
SENIOR CITIZEN HARDSHIP SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Senior citizens may have their special assessments deferred
if they meet the following requirements :
a. Applicant is 65 years of age or older.
b. Applicant is the owner of the property applied for, which
must be the homestead of the applicant.
C. The annual gross income of the applicant and any other
owner who resides with the applicant does not exceed the
Section 8 Low Income Limits for the past calendar year.
Alternately the applicant may submit data on average
income for the three years prior to the year in which
the application is made.
¢9 c r
d. The gross assets of the owner or owners residing on the
property cannot exceed $36:iB . These assets do not
include the applicants homestead property.
e. The Assessor' s Market Value of the applicants homestead
property can not exceed $60;9Be.
;, , <.
If a senior citizen, aged 65 or ,older, does not meet the re-
quirements set out above; but, does feel his assessment would be
a hardship, may apply. The City Council will review the circum-
stances surrounding the hardship and make a determination as to
whether the deferrment should be granted.
Deferrments will not be granted for assessments of less than
$100.00.
TERMINATION OF DEFERRMENTS
Please understand that the deferred assessment will bear
interest at the rate of 8% per year, unless provided otherwise
under the resolution adopting said assessments , and that the
interest will be paid when the deferrment ends .
If granted, your deferred assessment will terminate at the
following times :
a . Upon the death of the owner, provided that spouse is not
otherwise eligible for the benefits .
b. Upon the sale, transfer, or subdivision of the property
or any part thereof.
C . Upon the property losing its homestead status.
d. Upon the City of Shakopee ' s determination that the hard-
ship has ended so that immediate or partial payment is
required.
3/31/82
14 89
Section 8 Income Requirements
Very Low* Lower
1 person household $14,800 $23,700
2 person household $16,900 $27, 100
3 person household $19,050 $30,450
4 person household $21,150 $33 ,850
5 person household $22,850 $35, 950
6 person household $24,550 $38, 100
*Initially to be eligible for Section 8 assistance the applicant
must be in the very low category.
SOURCE: Scott County HRA
IV
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
Regular Session Shakopee, Mn June 26, 1989
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with
Commissioners Davis, Anderson and Moonen present. Commissioners
Harrison and Abeln were absent. Barry Stock, Administrative
Assistant; Keith Cripps, Executive Vice President, AMZAK Cable
Midwest, Inc. ; Bill Lepley, Access Studio Manager; Mike Dalton,
AMZAK Comptroller; Bruce Tomsak, AMZAK Engineer; and Mike Kazma,
AMZAK Manager were also present.
Davis/Moonen moved to approve the minutes of the March 27, 1989
meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock stated on February 7, 1989 the Shakopee City Council
waived the City of Shakopee's right of first refusal to acquire
the cable system. On May 26, 1989 staff received correspondence
from Mr. Cripps representing AMZAK Cable, Midwest, Inc. stating
their desire to purchase the cable system in Shakopee from
Zylstra/United Cable Television. In accordance with Section
14.02 of the Shakopee Cable Franchise Ordinance the City of
Shakopee has the right to review and approve the sale or transfer
of the Shakopee Cable Franchise.
Mr. Stock stated that he submitted a list of questions to Amzak
outlining those areas which he felt were of importance to the
City of Shakopee in regard to the operation of the cable system.
Mr. Cripps has drafted written responses to each to the questions
as posed by Mr. Stock. Mr. Stock stated that rather than going
through each of the questions he suggested that the meeting be
opened up for questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Moonen questioned what AMZAK's experience was with
local origination and public access and also what their
committment is to public access. Mr. Cripps stated that in all
of the systems in which Nortel is currently operating they are
involved in public access. In Bloomington, the City decided to
take over the control of public access in exchange for an
equipment grant from Nortel. The other communities (Fridley and
St. Louis Park) have studios operated by Nortel and the
communities access groups.
commissioner Moonen questioned if Mr. Cripps was familiar with
the public access studio arrangement in Shakopee. Mr. Cripps
responded in the affirmative. Mr. Cripps stated that it would be
their intent to maintain the public access function as it
currently exists. Mr. Cripps went on to state that to the
subscriber the sale and transfer will be quite transparent.
Commissioner Moonen questioned whether or not the deferrals that
were granted two years ago were transferable to new owners. Mr.
Stock stated that based on his review of the ordinance, all
deferrals are transferable to any new owner. Mr. Stock asked Mr.
Cripps if that was also his understanding of the ordinance. Mr.
Cripps responded in the affirmative. Mr. Stock also pointed out
to Mr. Cripps that the deferrals listed in the franchise were for
capital expenditures. He noted that after the deferral period
the City of Shakopee had the right to hold the franchise holder
to all the promises as set forth in the original proposal. Mr.
Stock asked Mr. Cripps if he was aware of this fact. Mr. Cripps
responded in the affirmative and stated that when the deferral
period has ended they would likely request to renegotiate some of
the deferrals.
Chairman Anderson questioned if the Shakopee office would be
utilized by AMZAK as the main office for the Chaska/Shakopee
Cable Franchise Areas. Mr. Cripps responded in the affirmative
and went on to state that the AMZAK will be utilizing their own
in house billing system which will be located in the Shakopee
office. Mr. Cripps went on to state that the Valley View systems
(Waverly-Montrose-Jordan-Belle Plaine-New Prague) would also be
billed from the Shakopee office.
Chairman Anderson questioned clarification regarding the location
of a system manager in Shakopee. Mr. Cripps stated that things
would pretty much remain as they are in terms of a system
manager. The only noticeable change would be that the systems
manager's supervisor would be located in Bloomington rather than
Chicago, IL.
Mr. Stock questioned if AMZAK has contacted the current employees
of United Cable Television to determine if they would be willing
to stay on when AMZAK takes over the operation. Mr. Cripps
stated that they would like to hold off on making any commitments
to the current employees until everything has been approved by
the Cities.
Chairman Anderson questioned whether or not the channel
realignment as discussed by Mr. Cripps in one of his responses
would have a major effect on the current channel alignment. Mr.
Cripps stated that the changes would be minimal. He noted that
the systems in the Metropolitan Area are all trying to coordinate
their channel alignments. He noted that the trend has been to
move some of the public access channels which were normally on
the 2-13 channel band to higher tiers. He noted that he will be
requesting the Cable Commission approval of any proposed channel
realignments.
Chairman Anderson then questioned the provision of the regional
access channel. Mr. Cripps stated that the AMZAK engineers are
currently investigating the most cost effective method of
activating the regional access channel. At the present time, it
is estimated that it will cost approximately $200,000 to get the
regional access channel activated. Mr. Cripps stated that it is
AMZAK's intent to activate the regional access channel but he
requested that they be given some time to determine the most cost
effective method of delivery the channel. Mr. Stock stated that
he would like a definitive time frame in which the channel can be
activated. Mr. Stock noted that several Council members have
inquired about the activation of this channel and that they would
like a response that they can give to Shakopee residents in terms
of the time frame in which it will be activated. Mr. Stock
stated that he did not think it was unreasonable for AMZAK to
request a 6-12 month extension in the activation of this channel.
Chairman Anderson questioned AMZAK's commitment to service. Mr.
Cripps stated that they will at all times have someone on call
for service calls. Additionally, they will have someone
available on weekends. AMZAK has the advantage of having the
nearby Nortel system within close proximity in case of a major
problem. Employees from Nortel could be called upon in emergency
situations to meet the service needs of Shakopee subscribers.
Mr. Cripps went on to state that all Shakopee and Chaska
subscribers will be notified of the change in ownership by mail.
Chairman Anderson questioned whether or not the converters would
still be needed in the system. He thought there was a move to
eliminate the converter boxes and utilize cable ready television
sets. Mr. Cripps stated that in order to provide an addressable
system convertor boxes are still needed. He went on to state
that AMZAK would like to implement the A.N.I. (Automatic Number
Identification) system for pay-per-view services. This system
would simply allow Shakopee subscribers to call at any time to
subscribe to a pay-per-view movie or special feature. At the
present time, Shakopee subscribers can only call between the
hours of 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. to receive pay-per-view
services. At the present time, all pay-per-view requests have to
be manually punched into the computer and addressed to the
subscriber who requested the service. The A.N.I. system does all
of this automatically including the billing.
Chairman Anderson questioned where Chaska was in the process of
approving the sale and transfer. Mr. Cripps stated that he has
spoken with the City Administrator in Chaska and he has requested
a copy of the questions proposed by Mr. Stock. Mr. Cripps
expected that they would follow Shakopee's lead in terms of
approving or denying the sale and transfer.
Chairman Anderson then questioned the five year proforma provided
by AMZAK for the future operation of the system. Mr. Anderson
stated that he felt the subscriber projections were very
optimistic. He noted that prior to Mr. Stolen's arrival
subscriber penetration had remained fairly stable. Since Mr.
Stolen's arrival and an increase in marketing Shakopee subscriber
rates have increased dramatically. Mr. Anderson stated however
that he felt that the point of saturation was rapidly
approaching. He questioned how AMZAK hoped to obtain 500 new
subscribers a year. Mr. Dalton stated that the proforma is based
on a 60% penetration rate. At the present time, Shakopee has
approximately a 478 penetration rate. Mr. Dalton stated that in
the Bloomington system they are experiencing a 608 penetration
rate and he did not think that was unrealistic for Shakopee. Mr.
Dalton also noted that Shakopee and Chaska were developing
communities in terms of residential growth and that the standard
penetration rate for new housing developments is 608.
Commissioner Davis stated that he did not think the projections
were totally unrealistic. He felt that if everything went
perfectly, the proforma estimates could be attained. However, he
stated that this would be an extremely unusual situation if
everything went perfectly smooth. Chairman Anderson then
questioned why in year three AMZAK expected an additional 1, 000
new subscribers. Mr. Dalton stated that this projection was
based on the completion of the downtown mini by-pass. He stated
that AMZAK felt that when this and other highway projects are
completed Shakopee will experience a tremendous housing boom.
Commissioner Anderson then questioned why wage and benefits
decreased by $13, 000 in year four. Mr. Dalton stated that the
reason for the decrease relates to the fact that in year three
AMZAK would likely have to have additional staff or overtime to
handle the suspected increase of 1,000 new subscribers. In year
four, these part time and overtime services would not be required
and thus the reduction in the amount of wage and benefit expenses
in year four.
Chairman Anderson then questioned when year one of the proforma
would actually begin. Mr. Dalton stated that the proforma was
developed on a calendar year basis. If AMZAK takes over
operation on September 1, then the first year of operation would
begin on September 1.
Chairman Anderson questioned what would happen if the penetration
and subscriber estimates are not met as set forth in the
proforma. Mr. Cripps stated that he is not that concerned with
the subscriber counts listed in the proforma. If the subscriber
counts are not met there are other methods of increasing revenue
to offset the over estimate in subscribers. For example, Mr.
Cripps stated that he felt his pay-per-view revenue estimate is
low and therefore that one factor alone could be used to offset
lower subscriber counts than projected.
Mr. Stock questioned how AMZAK would determine when new plant
extensions would be made. He questioned if service extension
would be made at the time that new subdivisions are platted and
infrastructure is constructed or when the homes are actually
there to support the service extension. Mr. Cripps stated that
AMZAK tended to wait until the homes are in place to extend
cable. He noted that to install wire when the infrastructure is
being put in place and all the other utilities if often
difficult. Based on past experience, he stated that he would
rather go through the expense of repairing peoples yards than go
through the hassle of installing services at the same time that
gas, electrical and telephone are being installed.
� I
Chairman Anderson stated that he would like to see some
commitment from AMZAK to public access when they come in as the
new operator. Mr. Cripps questioned what number the commitment
would have. Mr. Stock stated that he did not know what equipment
was needed in the studio at this time but he was in fact aware of
some equipment that was in bad condition. He questioned if AMZAK
would be receptive to discussing an equipment grant. Mr. Cripps
stated that he would be willing to discuss an equipment grant
with City staff and would be prepared to make a reasonable
financial commitment to public access. Mr. Stock stated that he
would meet with the Access Corporation President to determine
what equipment should be replaced at this time and would meet
with Mr. Cripps to finalize this issue prior to the public
hearing.
Commissioner Davis questioned the need for a public hearing. Mr.
Stock stated that he felt that the change in ownership did
constitute a major change in the franchise and that while the
change may be transparent to Shakopee residents, they should be
given the opportunity to comment on the proposed change. Mr.
Stock stated that the public hearing would also make the transfer
of ownership a smoother process when this issue comes before the
City Council. It was the consensus of the Committee to schedule
a public hearing to solicit comments from Shakopee residents on
the proposed sale and transfer. It was suggested that the public
hearing be held on July 24, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
/3
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
SRARam, 1 mmm
AAT. REGULAR SESSION July 6, 1989
Members Present: Forbord, Kahleck, Foudray, Czaja
Members Absent: Rockne, Stafford, Allen
Others Present: Doug Wise—City Planner, Sharon Swenson—Recording Secretary
I. ROLL CALL
Chairman Forbotd-called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM and roll call was
taken as noted above.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A ION:Kahleck/Czaja moved that the Board approve the agenda as presented.
Motion passed unanimously.
III. APPROVAL OF JUNE 8 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: Kahleck/Czaja moved that the Board approve the minutes of the
June 8th meeting. Motion passed unanimously.
IV.OTNER BUSINESS
None
V. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Foudray/Czaja moved that the Board adjourn. Motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment at 7:33.
l3
PLANE= CMMISSla1
SNAKDPEE,KDNMTA
July 6, 19" Shakopee, Minnesota
COMBIISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Forbord, Kahleck, Czaja, Foudray, Rockne
(arrived at 7:50)
COMHIISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Stafford, Allen
OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Wise--City Planner, Sharon Swenson—Recording Secretary
I.ROLL CALL
Chairman Forbord called the meeting to order at 7:34 P.M. and roll call was
taken as noted above.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Czaja suggested the addition of item under Other Business: Twin Nome discussion
Forbord suggested the addition of item under Other Business: Plat of addition
MOTION: Foudrav/Kahleck moved that the agenda be accepted as presented
with the addition of the two items noted above.Motion passed
unanimously.
III. APPROVAL OF MAY 25 AND JUNE 8th, 1989 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: Kahleck/Forbord moved that the Commission accept the minutes
of the May 25 meeting. Motion passed. Czaja and Foudray abstained.
MOTION: Kahleck/Foud-s7 movedthat the Commission accept the minutes of
the May 25 meeting. Potion passed unanimously.
IV. HOT MIX PLANT APPLICATION BY HARDRIVES, INC.
Czaja/Kahleck moved to continue the hearing on the conditional
use permit for a hot mix asphalt plant. Motion passed unanimously.
Z
Wise explained that the application was first presented two months ago
when the area was zoned I-1 and such a facility was not allowed. Since then,
the zoning has been changed to I-2 and a hot mix plant would now be allowed
on the site preferred by the applirant.The advantages of this site would be:
1. It is away from the highway. -
2. There are trees to screen the plant.
3. It would utilize the private roadway.
Czaja had questions regarding Staff's recommendation Eo- prohibit operation
in periods of air inversion. He asked who is responsible, who regulates and how
this is enforced.
Wise answered that first of all, the responsibility lies with the applicant.
Secondly, if the City were to became aware of a violation, it would take the
responsibity (if necessary; with the professional opinion of an outside source)
to determine if violations were taking place. If that were so, the City could
take neasures to shut the plant down.He agreed that this was not a simple situation,
but the recommendation had been made by the Enviromental Health Department.
The applicant came forward and stated that they have not had to shut down because
of air inversion and that these instances would be most likely in periods of
cold weather. The plant meets all the specifications of the PCA. Hours would be
7-7 daily.
Kahleck/Czaja had concerns about the enforcability of the stipulation and
also about odors generated by the plant.
MOTION: Foudray/Kahleck moved that the public hearing be closed on the
discussion of the application for a hot mix asphalt plant. Motion
passed unanimously.
MOTION: Foudray/Kahleck moved to approve the conditional use permit for
a hot mix asphalt plant and structures in excess of 45' subject to
the following conditions:
1. All existing permits and conditions contained therein,
issued to the J.L. Shiely property shall remain in effect.
2. The proposed plant must be located in the SE corner of the
Shiely property as shown in the original conditional use
permit application.
3 . The applicants must obtain all required permits from the
Pollution Control Agency, and the Pollution Control Agency
must monitor the air pollution on an annual basis. The City
shall be notified of the time when annual air pollution
testing will be preformed and copies of the permits and
pollution control test results shall be provided to the
city.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the locating of
the hot mix plant on the property, Hardrives must execute
and record an easement agreement with NSP for use of their
3
I
private driveway serving the proposed site.
5. The plant shall not be operated during periods of air
inversion.
Responsibility will lie with the City Staff, who will rely on an accepted
meterologist's infumation to determine air inversion periods .
6. The plant shall utilize a bag house type of pollution
control device.
7. An annual review will be required.
Motion passed unanimously.
Czaja had concerns regarding odors and combinations of odors causing problems/
pollution.
Wise responded that the present regulations pretain to each particular industry.
He felt that question needed some review and discussion. He stated that this
item will be added to the next agenda.
V. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNAL INSTITUTION BUILDING,
SHAKOPEE VFW.
MOTION: Rockne/Kahleck moved that the public hearing be opened for discussion
of the conditional use permit for the Shakopee VFW. Motion passed
unanimously.
Wise explained that the applicant owns 3 lots. A conditional use permit was
received in 1985 to construct the building, but the one year time limit
has expired and plans have been changed. The applicant has reapplied. The
main issue of concern had been parking spaces. City code requires only 25,
but the plans show 119. The building plans have been reduced in size,
allowing more narking spaces in the proposal than in 1985.
Cecil Clay of 2085 Austin Circle appeared and stated that the original building
was to have been 12,000 square feet. It has been cut to 6,600 square feet so
more parking is available.
Brian Koening of 1133 E. 3rd St came forward with his concerns:-
1. Street parking
2. Grade on the property
3. %se,, duust o?dms.landscastio ed how.fh�sl 5/ould be controlled.
copy pe pan avai a e.
Wise explained that whatever was in effect presently for street parking would
stay effective. Only the grade on the property owned by the applicant would be
changed, not any owned by the City.
Wise explained that the lot would be paved to eliminate the dust problem.
Most of the activity was within the building, so he did not feel that noise
should be a problem.
4
Czaja questioned the height of the proposed wood fence.
Clay answered it would be 6' high.
POTION: Foudray/Kahleck moved that the public hearing be closed for the
discussion of the application for a conditional use permit for
Shakopee VFW. Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Foudray/Rockne moved to approve conditional use permit 565 for a
fraternal institution building (Shakopee VFW) subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval is based upon the site plan dated 6/1/89.
2 . Parking shall be paved and striped.
3 . Parking in the front yard setback must be screened to a
height of 3 ' with at least two types of screening along both
Third Avenue and Marschall Road.
4. Lighting shall be directed away from adjacent streets and
residential uses.
5. A sidewalk shall be constructed along Third Avenue.
6. The applicant shall install all landscaping and construct
the sidewalk prior to issuance of a final certificate of
occupancy or provide a certified check, letter of credit or
performance bond equal to 125% of the cost of required
landscaping and the sidewalk.
7. A solid (100% opaque) wooden fence, 6' high, shall be built on the
westerly
Motion passed unanimously.
VI. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION TO OPERATE AN
AUTO/TRUCK REPAIR SHOP TO INCLUDE OUTDOOR STORAGE.
Czaja excused himself from the discussion because of a conflict of interest.
MOTION: Foudrav/Kahleck moved that the public hearing be opened for discussion
of conditional use permit 566 made by Gerald Schmitz. Motion passed
unanimously.
Wise explained that that the property is located on Marshall Road, north of
County Rd 14. Schmitz is requesting an auto/truck repair business on the site
with storage and parking areas in the barn area. There have been problems in
the past with autos on the property. Two requirements for such an application
are that the applicant must live in the house and the occupation must take
place in the house or an adjacent building. He went on to quote from the code:
Pursuant to the Shakopee City Code Section 11. 05, Subd. 10,
"any home occupation may be permitted only as a conditional
use if it complies with the minimum requirements of this
5
3
subdivision. " The proposed conditional use may not comply
with part B or C of the above mentioned Subdivision. Part B
states that "the home occupation shall be carried on wholly
within the principal or accessory structure. " Part C
states that . exterior storage of materials except in the
Ag or R-1 district and exterior indication of the home
occupation or variations from the residential character of
the principal structure shall not be permitted. "
Section 10.74 of the City Code states that "it is unlawful
to park or store any unlicensed, unregistered or inoperable
vehicle, furniture, household furnishings or appliances, or
parts or components thereof, on any property, public or
private, unless housed within a building, and any violation
is hereby declared to be a nuisance."
Forbord noted that this problem has been ongoing since 1981 when the
City took the property owner to court.
Bob Novotny, 3374 MacShane Road, came forward with his concern,
which was:
Outside storage-this can became an eyesore. He felt there should
be some control/restrictions in this area.
Schmitz stated that he would definitely like a conditional use permit for
the shop and he would only park licensed cars in the storage area.
Dave Czaja, 5262 Eagle Creek Boulevard, said he felt the City's enforcement
policy has an urban standard in a rural area. He asked if this site was
grandfathered in for home occupation uses. He asked how it was determined that
the property was undesirable for future development--is this an opinion
or a fact? This has been allowed in the past at a nearby property with
the proper screening. He was concerned how code was being enforced in a
rural enviroment.
Chuck Bremer of the CDC stated that if exceptions are to be made in
outside storage in an R-1 zone, it should be reflected in an ordinance
or the area rezoned.
Schmitz stated that Shakopee took over that area in the early 1970's.
Cars have been stored there since 1968.
MOTION: Kahleck/Foudray moved that the public hearing be closed on
the discussion of application 566 by Schmitz for home
occupation. Motion passed unanirausly.
Forbord stated that he felt the ordinance was clear. He realized that
Czaja felt it should be changed and maybe the Planning Commission and
City,Council should do so.
6
Kahleck/Forbord moved that the Commission deny application 566 according
to Staff recommendations. Vote: Kahleck, Forbord-aye , Rockne, Foudray- nay.
Tie vote resulted and motion died.
Forbord and Kahleck felt the ordinance is clear on this matter and asked
why the code was in effect if it is not adhered to.Forbord said the Commissioners
needed to consider how they would feel if it were next to their home.
POTION: Foudray/Rockne moved that the application 566 by Gerald Schmitz be
tabled until the next meeting until Staff can provide recommendations
on what would be required of the applicant to operate a conditional
use on the site. Motion passed 3-1. Forbord voted nay, Czaja abstaide
MOTION: Czaja/Foudray moved that the Commission take a brief recess.
Motion passed unanimously. Recess taken at 9:00 PM
MOTION:Foudray/Rockne moved that the Commission reconvene. Motion
passed unanimously. Reconvened at 9:15 PM.
VII. ANIMALS HOSPITALS IN B-2 DISTRICT
MOTION: Rockne/Foudray moved to continue the public hearing
on animal hospitals in the B-2 District. Motion
passed unanimously.
Wise explained that .ri June 8, 1989, the Planning Commission opened
a public hearing on a proposed zoning code amendment to allow
animal hospitals and veterinary clinics in the B-2 Zoning
District as a conditional use. Discussion at the June 8th
meeting centered on restricting the animal hospitals allowed in
this zone to those that treat small animals. After this
discussion the Commission passed a motion continuing the public
hearing until their July 6, 1989 meeting and directed staff to do
further research.
Wise explained that he had gotten no specific information on this matter
from research through other cities. He recommended that it be allowed as
conditional use permit for small animals treated within the building.
Forbord suggested that covenents sometimes have good definition of small
animals and possibly this could be researched.
Clete Link, 12831 Link Drive, stated that he did not wait to see outside kennels.
MOTION: Foudray/Kahleck moved that the public hearing be closed for
dis cession of the proposed code amendment to allow animal
hospitals in the B-2 District. Motion passed unamiously.
MOTION: Czaja/Kahleck moved that the item be tabled until the next
meeting pending clarification of "small animal" by Staff.
Motion passed 3-2. Kahleck and Forbord voted nay.
7
VIII. PROPOSED CHANGE TO ZONING CODE WHERE PARTY WALLS ARE USED
MOTION: Foudray/Czaja moved to continue the public hearing for discussion
of the proposed change to zonuig code where party walls are used.
Motion passed unanimously.
Wise explained he had spoken to a representative of Burnsville and in that
City they required approval of a PUD. He stated that lot width and area
requirements could be varied with approval of a PUD.
Czaja ..felt negotiations meant that give and take should be done on both sides.
He did not feel that much of that took place in Shakopee.
MOTION: Foudray/Rockne moved that the public hearing be closed on the
discussion of the proposed change in zoning code where party
walls are used. Motion passed unanimously with Czaja abstaining.
MOTION: Rodme/Foudray moved that the Commission recommend to the
City Council amendment of City code section 11.03, Subdivision
3 to add the following:
F. Lots maybe excluded from the width requirements and area
requirements if party walls are utilized or buildings are
planned to be constructed as an integral structure, when a
Planned Unit Development approval for the entire property
has been secured (except twin homes) . Separate ownership of
twin home units requires approval of a lot split (Section
12.08) provided each unit has a lot width and area equal to
at least 1/2 of the area and width required for a two family
dwelling.
It was suggested that Staff define what a twin hone is and this
definition be added to the motion.
Motion passed unanimously. _
IX. CAPITAL IMPROVEMWI PROJECTS FOR 1990-1995 C I BUDGET
Wise stated that the Planning Commission must review the 1990-1995 CIP
and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Forbord indicated he had not read the information.
MOTION: Czaja/Forbord moved that the item be tabled until the
next meeting. Motion passed unanimously.
6
X. DISCUSSION
Review Application Forms
Discussion on this item was postponed until the next meeting to give
Commission members more time to review the information.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion took place on the Nelson duplex being constructed at the end
of Limestone Drive. Since the lot meets the requirements in the City
Code, the City had no choice but to grant the building permit. The City
Engineer was opposed but had no legal grounds on which to prevent construction.
The Assistant City Attorney said that any future request to split the lot
can be denied because there is a single service to the property.
MOTION: Kahleck/Czaja moved that the ordinance/code should be amended
requiring twin homes to have separate services. She suggested
that the Staff bring back some recommendations on how to deal
with this type of situation. Potion passed unau+monaly.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
POTION: Foudray/Rockne moved that the Commission adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. Adjournment at 10:10 PM.
�Y
MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
City Council Chambers
Shakopee, MN
July 5, 1989
Chairman Joos called the meeting to order at 5: 00 p.m. with the
following members present: Commissioner Albinson, Brandmire,
DuBois and Joos. Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant and
Christen Converse, Chamber Executive Director were also present.
Commissioner Furrie was absent.
Albinson/Brandmire moved to approve the minutes of the June 7 ,
1989 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock gave an economic development update on the Mebco
project. He stated that the industrial development revenue bond
process has been completed and that the developers agreement for
the tax increment financing should be completed in early August.
Mebco intends to break ground in mid-August with completion
scheduled for next Spring. Commissioner Albinson stated that
Mebco would be finalizing the purchase agreement in the later
part of July.
Mr. Stock stated that the Bergquist Company has approached the
City of Shakopee and is requesting tax increment financing for
their project. Mr. Stock noted that last year Bergquist
approached the City and intended to construct a 66, 000 sq. ft.
manufacturing facility with a value of approximately $3 million.
Last Fall City Council gave preliminary approval for three years
of tax increment financing assistance to Bergquist. Mr. Stock
noted that the currently proposed project is only 22, 000 sq. ft.
with a value of approximately $700, 000. He also noted that
Bergquist intended to employ approximately 30 employees at the
proposed facility. Mr. Stock noted that under these conditions,
Bergquist's request does not meet the City's Industrial
Development Incentive Policy. He stated that he was leaning
towards not recommending tax increment financing assistance for
the Bergquist proposal. Commissioner Albinson stated that he did
not feel the City should veer from the criteria set forth in the
policy given the tax climate and resident attitudes at this time.
Mr. Stock went on to state that the Bergquist property does have
some development problems associated with it. For example,
access to the property at this time is limited to one road on the
North side. Bergquist has requested the City to construct a
South road along the entire Southern portion of their property.
Mr. Stock noted that the property to the South is owned by
Scottland and that the City would have to pursue condemnation
proceedings to acquire the property associated with said
construction. Mr. Stock stated that Bergquist does intend to
construct the remainder of their plant in Shakopee within the
next five years. He noted that a product that they were hoping
1
to develop has not taken off as fast as they expected and they
are pulling in their horns somewhat in terms of expansion.
Mr. Stock stated that the Planning Commission has recently
approved the final plat for Meadows 2nd Addition. This added an
additional 31 lots to the City's residential property inventory.
Mr. Stock stated that he has not heard anything from Robert's
Ent. since our last meeting. He expected that they are
evaluating site locations at this time.
Mr. Stock stated that the medical waste incinerator plant has
decided to scratch Shakopee from their site location alternatives
at this time. Commissioner Albinson stated that he was
disappointed with the original reception that the City Council
had towards this project. Councilmember Zak stated that the City
was very up front with this company in their opposition to the
project. Commissioner Albinson stated that if the City of
Shakopee does not want this type of facility they should consider
adopting an ordinance banning these types of facilities.
Commissioner Albinson stated that at this time the use for this
type of facility is permitted in the industrial park. It was the
consensus of the Committee to have staff research Chaska's
ordinance on the banning of hazardous waste facilities.
Mr. Stock reported that the Downtown Committee is currently in
the process of completing a downtown property inventory. At the
last Committee meeting they decided to narrow the focus of the
inventory to four key blocks in the downtown area.
Commissioner Albinson gave an update on the Transportation
Coalition. He stated that there may be some delay in the
completion of the Southerly By-Pass due to the lack of funding.
He noted that the original project cost estimate was
approximately $8 million and that the County Road 83 intersection
alone at this time was projected to be in excess of $1 million.
Commissioner Albinson then gave an update on the business
appreciation breakfast that was held last week. He noted that
the first session was a tremendous success. He reviewed several
of the concerns that were expressed by the businesses attending
the meeting. He stated that he would be forwarding a list of
some of the minor concerns that staff could handle on an
administrative level without any action from City Council. Mr.
Albinson stated that the business appreciation subcommittee will
be scheduling another meeting in July.
Mr. Stock reported that at the last meeting the Community
Development Commission directed staff to put the following items
on the agenda for the Committee's discussion. The first item
related to Community Development Department staffing needs. Mr.
Stock stated that in light of the City Administrator vacancy, it
2
r4
might be premature to act on this issue until the City
Administrator vacancy can be filled. Mr. Stock gave a brief
history on City staff's attempts to hire an additional planner.
Mr. Stock also reviewed the areas of responsibility and current
staffing levels within the Community Development Department.
Commissioner DuBois stated her frustrations in trying to get
answers from Shakopee City Hall. The issue of cross training was
discussed. Mr. Stock stated that there is only so much
information that can be shared and remembered by someone who does
not deal with planning activities on a day-to-day basis. Council
member Zak suggested that the Community Development Commission
wait in making any recommendation on the staffing levels for the
Community Development Department. He suggested that perhaps who
ever the new Administrator is might have some ideas on
reorganization or additional staffing what ever the case may be.
It was the consensus of the Committee to defer discussion on this
issue until such time that a City Administrator can be appointed.
Commissioner Brandmire questioned the staffing levels at Shakopee
Public Utilities. Mr. Stock stated that he did not know what the
staffing levels were in that area. Commissioner Brandmire
suggested that perhaps some of the duties in the Planning
Department could be shared with Shakopee Public Utility
personnel. Mr. Stock stated that given the geographic location
of Shakopee Public Utilities as compared to City Hall this may be
difficult. Mr. Stock also stated that there has been an
antagonistic relationship between Shakopee Public Utilities and
the City of Shakopee for quit some time. Mr. Stock noted that
Shakopee Public Utilities was a quasi independent agency and the
City of Shakopee had no direct control over their actions.
Discussion then ensued on the status of a new city hall. Mr.
Stock stated that in 1988 a non binding referendum on the
location of a new city hall was placed on the ballot for Shakopee
residents to consider. At that time Shakopee residents were
given two choices for the location of a city hall. The residents
at that time favored a site located near the current public works
facility. Mr. Stock also noted that in conjunction with the
completion of the Comprehensive Plan, a survey of Shakopee was
conducted in regard to this issue. Again Shakopee residents
favored a site near the Public Works building.
The consultant working on the Comprehensive Plan is recommending
that if a new city hall is constructed that it be constructed
near the downtown core area and institutional area.
Commissioner Albinson questioned whether or not a subcommittee
could be created on the Community Development Commission to
investigate this issue. He suggested that perhaps the Downtown
Committee could look in to this matter of site location.
Commissioner DuBois stated that she felt the Downtown Committee
should not be involved in the process because any decision that
3
they would recommend may be seen as biased. Council member Zak
stated that he would bring this matter to the attention of City
Council and would inform them that a subcommittee of the
Community Development Commission would begin investigating this
issue.
Mr. Stock reported that at the last meeting of the Community
Development Commission discussion ensued on what type of
marketing campaign the City should embark on to improve the
community's image and marketability. Mr. Stock stated that the
City does currently have a fact book that is distributed to
interested developers upon request. Mr. Stock stated that the
folder is in relatively good shape and the City has over 5,000
folders remaining. However, the content in the brochures is
outdated.
Christen Converse shared with the Committee a marketing piece
that was done by the Chamber several years ago. She stated that
perhaps the City of Shakopee could work with the Chamber to
update this piece. The Committee felt that a joint effort
between the Chamber and the City would be a good idea in reducing
costs. It was the consensus of the Committee to request staff to
work with the Chamber in developing a marketing piece. Mr. Stock
stated that subsequent approval by City Council on any
expenditures of funds for a marketing piece would be necessary.
Mr. Stock then reviewed the Business Update from City Hall.
Commissioner Albinson then gave a brief update on the Comp Plan.
Mr. Stock stated that the next meeting for the Comprehensive Plan
Committee would be Monday, July 17th. Mr. Stock then shared with
the Committee a correspondence from Universal Lumber regarding
their perception of the community as a new business. Mr.
Albinson stated that Universal Lumber was invited to the first
business appreciation breakfast and some of their concerns were
addressed at that time. Council member Zak requested staff to
place this item as a non agenda info item for City Council. He
stated that he would do a cover memo for this piece. Discussion
ensued on what contacts are made with new businesses upon their
arrival in the community. Mr. Stock stated that the City of
Shakopee has never had a formal program for visiting with new
businesses. Ms. Converse stated that the Chamber is just in the
process of developing a Ambassador Program. A group of members
would formally contact new businesses upon their arrival into the
community and welcome them. Mr. Stock stated that the City has
ordered hats that we can distribute to new businesses upon their
arrival in the community. This would serve as an ice breaker.
Commissioner DuBois suggested that perhaps the City could
establish a business license program. Under this type of program
the City could keep track of what new businesses are entering in
to the community. This would allow the City staff with a direct
list to follow up on welcoming new businesses. Mr. Stock stated
4
that he felt this would just be one more burden that a new
business would have to go through upon entering the community.
Commissioner Albinson stated that the fee for the license could
be nominal and that it would provide City staff with an accurate
list of businesses. It was the consensus of the Committee to
place this item on the next agenda for further discussion.
Albinson/Brandmire moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 P.M.
Motion carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
5
TENTATIVE AGENDA
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Regular Session Shakopee, MN August 3 , 1989
Chairman Forbord Presiding
1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2 . Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of July 6, 1989 Meeting Minutes
4. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a request for a
Variance to build an addition 5' from the side lot line
instead of the required 10' upon the property located at
1174 Monroe St.
Applicant: David Broderson
Action: Variance Resolution No. 567
5. 7:40 PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a request for a
Variance to construct an accessory building closer to the
front lot line than the principal building upon the property
located at 812 East County Road $77.
Applicant: Bert Notermann
Action: Variance Resolution No. 568
6. 7:50 PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a request for variances
regulating the existing accessory structure upon the
property located at 1199 Quincy Street.
Applicant: Gerald Schesso
Action: Variance Resolution No. 569
7. Other Business
a.
b.
8. Adjourn
Douglas K. Wise
City Planner
TENTATIVE AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Session Shakopee, MN August 3 , 1989
Chairman Forbord Presiding
1. Roll Call at 7: 30 P.M.
2. Approval of Agenda
3 . Approval of the July 6, 1989 Meeting Minutes
4. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow for the keeping of horses
upon the property located at 8029 E. Martindale Drive.
Applicant: Sohn P. Biwer
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 570
5. 8:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an 8' high
privacy fence upon the property located at 1042 Sibley
Street.
Applicant: Reith & Kathy Lusignan
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 571
6. 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a custom
wood cabinet finishing and repair shop upon the property
located at 2287 Eagle Creek Blvd.
Applicant: Charles Ritchart, CSR Finishing
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 572
7. Request for CUP by Gerald Schmitz
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 566
8. Final Plat - Heritage Place 2nd Addition
Action: Recommendation to City Council
9. Request for Amending Zoning Code re: Animal Hospitals and
Veterinary Clinics in the B-2 District
Action: Recommendation to City Council
10. capital Improvement Projects for 1990-95/1990 C.I. Budget
Action: Recommendation to City Council
11. Review of Conditional Use Permit No. 555 - Commercial
Recreation Center at Eagle Creek Plaza
12 . Discussion:
a. Review Application Forms - Cont.
b. Air Quality in River Valley Area
C. Code Amendment re: Duplex/Twinhomes
d.
13. Other Business
a.
b.
14. Adjourn
Douglas Wise
City Planner
NOTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
1. If you have any questions or need additional information on
any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday
or Tuesday prior to the meeting.
2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the
Planning Department prior to the meeting.
Note Meeting Time: 5: 00 P.M.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Community Development Commission
City Hall Council Chambers
August 2, 1989
1. Call to order at 5:00 P.M.
2. Approval of the minutes - July 5, 1989
3. Economic Development Update: (Verbal)
a. Mebco
b. Bergquist
C. Jellystone Campground
d.
e.
4. Subcommittee Reports (Verbal)
a. Downtown Committee
b. Transportation Coalition
C. Park Development
d. Business Appreciation
5. Discussion Items
a. Harzardous Waste Facility Ord.
b. City Hall Siting Subcommittee
C. Business License Ord.
6. Informational Items:
a. Business Update from City Hall
b. Comp Plan Update (Verbal)
C. Marketing Plan
d. Staffing Needs
7. Other Business
a. Next Meeting - Wed. , Sept. 6, 1989 - 5: 00 PM
City Council Chambers
b.
S. Adjourn
Barry A. Stock
Administrative Assistant
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Please call Barry or Toni at 445-3650
if you cannot make the meeting.
Joe Ries
Scott County Administration
Scott County Courthouse
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Subj: SENIOR CENTER COORDINATORS-SCOTT COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES
DATE: July 25,1989
Joe,
1 agree with the efforts of the Scott County Commissioners and County Administration to
keep any new tax increases to a reasonable amount and as you know, the Shakopee City Council
is currently going through this same type of deliberation with gsZ 1990 budget. I did,
however, want to submit a short letter to communicate my concerns with the proposal from
Eileen Moran, Human Services Director in the Shakopee Valley News of July 20, 1989.The gist of
the proposal was to cut funds for senior center coordinators in Scott County to help restrict
the rate of increase in Scott county taxes.
I certainly believe in the old saying, that a society is best judged by the care and
respect it gives to its elderly. For many of our senior citizens,the senior center provides
the only source of socialization, activity and recreation.There is probably no more important
item in serving the needs of the senior citizen than a healthy, thriving seniors program. My
father, who lived with me in the last years of his life, was a solid member of a senior center
in Pennsylvania and I was able to witness the effect,impact, and benefits of that relationship
on his Irfe and the impact that he made in the lives of his friends at the center. He would
not have missed a single day.
I would urge you to continue the program, as is, without a break, and find other avenues
to reduce the increase in taxes. This will be no easy task but I , for one, have first hand
knowledge of the value of the these centers to our senior citizens and the senior program in
Shakopee is certainly proof that this program has an identifiable result.There are other
county(and city)efforts that can not be justified in such a dramatic and visible fashion.
Reserving more dollars to expand a home care situation for the frail elderly is
obviously worthwhile and it is not difficult to justify the enhancement of this program.
But, you have to analyze the impact of both of these programs. Home care speaks to the end of
life. The senior center is directed to the continuation, growth and enjoyment of life.
It is an affirmation of Irfe and the value of its continuation. I would have to guess that this
type of service is the essence of
"Human Services"and deserves continued funding.
Many Thanks, ( Uo� :aJ�
Shak a K'Councilmember
cc: Scott County Commissioners
JEileen Moran, Human Services
g-1
99 info idem
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 1, 1989
Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding
1] Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting
3] Re-convene
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
51 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an
asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
so requests, in which event the item will be removed from
the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence
on the agenda. )
*71 Approval of Minutes of July 11, 1989
8] Communications:
*a] Governor Rudy Perpich re: State Legislature's
transportation funding bill
*b] Jospeh F. Ries to Olsen, Thielen & Co. LTD re: property
tax situations proposal
9] PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a] Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments
for the Downtown Streetscape Phase I, Parts 1 and 2 ,
Project No. 1987-2 - Res. No. 3071
b] Proposed Assessments for 11th Avenue Street and Storm
Sewer Construction, Project 1988-5 - Res. No. 3092
c] Proposed Improvements to Boiling Springs Lane by
Drainage Facilities, Project 1989-9 - Res. No. 3090
d] Proposed Assessments for Vierling Drive from CR-17
Easterly ± 3200 Feet, Project 1988-1 - Res. No. 3091
10] Boards and Commissions:
Cable Communications Commission:
*a] Approval of Cable Sale and Transfer
Energy and Transportation Committee:
*b] Refuse Disposal Ordinance Amendments
TENTATIVE AGENDA
August 1, 1989
Page -2-
11] Reports From Staff:
a] Assessment Policy for Improvements in Killarney Hills -
tabled 7/18
*b] Shakopee Shops Shopping Center Commercial Development
Revenue Note Refinancing Request - Res. No. 3097
c] Police Civil Service Request for Financial Assistance
to Hire A Police Chief - tabled 7/18
*d] Amendment to the Home Energy Check-Up Agreement
*e] MEBCO Developers Agreement
f] Authorize Purchase of Alley Grader
g] Approve Bills in Amount of $167, 114 . 30
*h] Application for Non Intoxicating Liquor License by
Stonebrooke of Shakopee Inc.
*i] Application for Non Intoxicating Liquor License by
Kenneth D. Berg dba/Shakopee Bowl
j ] Policy on Use of City Vehicles
k] Letter of Understanding on Hiring of City Administrator
1] Alley Behind City Hall
m] Southerly Bypass - Supplemental Agreement with Barton-
Aschman
12] Resolutions and Ordinances:
*a] Res. No. 3094, Amending the 1989 Fee Resolution
*b] Res. No. 3096, Amending the 1989 Budget
*c] Res. No. 3093 , Repealing Res. No. 1351 Regarding
Department Head Physicals
*d] Res. No. 3095, Amending Personnel Policy
e] Ord. No. 269, Establishing A Fine For Not Reporting and
Paying Local Lodging Tax
13] Other Business:
a]
b]
C]
141 Adjourn to Tuesday, August 15, 1989 at 7 :00 P.M.
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
TENTATIVE AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Regular Session August 1, 1989
Chairman Gary Scott presiding
1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2. Approval of July 11 and July 18, 1989 Meeting Minutes
3 . Reconsideration of Jellystone Campground Tax Increment
Request
4. Other Business
a.
b.
5. Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
Executive Director
PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN JULY 11, 1989
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7: 01 p.m. with
Comm. Clay, Zak, Wampach and Vierling present. Also present were
Mayor Lebens; Dennis Kraft, Executive Director; David Hutton,
City Engineer; Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney, and Judith S.
Cox, City Clerk.
Wampach/Clay moved to approve the minutes of June 6, 1989.
Motion carried unanimously.
The application for tax increment assistance by Bergquist Company
was withdrawn at their request.
Wampach/Zak offered Resolution No. 89-3 A Resolution Requesting
the Shakopee City Council to Consent to the Levy of a Special Tax
by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Shakopee, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Clay moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Dennis Kraft
Executive Director
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING SHAKOPEE, MN JULY 18, 1989
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7: 15 p.m. with
Comm. Vierling, Clay, Wampach and Zak present. Also present were
Dennis Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Administrative
Assistant; Judith Cox, City Clerk; David Hutton, City Engineer;
Doug Wise, City Planner; and Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney.
Vierling/Wampach moved to accept the Special Meeting Call.
Motion carried unanimously.
Barry Stock reviewed the Shakopee Valley Motel Tax Increment
request for Financing project. He said Mr. Wallace Bakken is
requesting $100, 000 financing for this project. Mr. Bakken has
secured a loan for this project. Barry said Mr. Bakken has
failed to meet one of the requirements for financial assistance
being a minimum of 50 employees. Cncl. Zak said he felt since
the issue was closed that it is now considered a new project and
should be treated as such. Comm. Clay said since the bonds have
already been sold that he would like to see the City work with
Mr. Bakken in some way. Consensus of the council was since Mr.
Bakken does not meet all the requirements in regards to tax
increment financing that the City cannot help him.
Wampach/Vierling moved to deny Mr. Bakken's request for $100, 000
of tax increment money. Motion carried with Comm. Clay opposed.
Vierling/wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7 :35 p.m.
Dennis Kraft
City Administrator
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
�3
MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Shakopee Valley Motel Tax Increment Financing - Request
for Reconsideration
DATE: July 25, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
On July 18, 1989 Mr. Wallace Bakken appeared before the Shakopee
BRA to discuss reviving a portion of the old tax increment
agreement between the HRA and the Shakopee Valley Square
Properties in an effort to secure $100,000 in financing from the
bonds that were sold in conjunction with the originally proposed
project. At that time, the Shakopee HRA denied Mr. Bakken's
request for tax increment assistance. On July 24, 1989 I
received a correspondence from Mr. Bakken requesting that the
Shakopee BRA reconsider their action. (See attachment #1)
BACRGRODND•
In 1986 the Shakopee HRA entered into a developers agreement with
Shakopee Square Properties for various improvements to the
Shakopee Valley Motel property. The originally approved
agreement included a motel expansion in the amount of $1.2
million, a restaurant with a minimum value of $440,000 and a
camping and recreation facility to be constructed with a value of
$500,000 or more. According to the developers agreement once all
of these improvements were made the BRA would then give $330, 000
to the developer to assist in the development of the property.
In 1986 the Shakopee HRA sold $500, 000 in tax increment bonds to
finance this project.
On October 14, 1987 the Shakopee HRA amended the developers
agreement between Shakopee HRA and the Shakopee Valley Square
Properties. The amended development agreement provided for the
disbursement of $100,000 to Mr. Bakken providing that he complete
the Jellystone Park Campground by January 2, 1988 and providing
the campground would have a minimum market value of $855,000.
After several delays by Mr. Bakken in obtaining financing for the
project, the Shakopee HRA on November 15, 1988 terminated the
amended and restated contract for private development by and
between the Shakopee HRA and Shakopee Valley Square Properties,
and terminating the assessment agreement and assessors
certification by and between the Shakopee HRA and Shakopee Valley
Square Properties. Mr. Bakken contends that he has spent
approximately $25,000 in conjunction with the sale of the
$500,000 in tax increment bonds. Additionally, Mr. Bakken
contends that he has spent thousands of dollars for improvements
that he has made to the Jellystone Campground and Resort. It is
Mr. Bakken's contention that if he would have had financing in
place last Fall, he would have received the $100, 000 that he is
now requesting. Since Mr. Bakken has now secured financing he
feels he should be entitled to the $100,000 at this time.
Finally, Mr. Bakken points out that when the bonds were sold for
this project he met the development criteria as setforth by the
City and he should not be obligated to meet the new criteria.
Staff has contacted our bond counsel to determine if the City of
Shakopee could release $100,000 in proceeds to Mr. Bakken for the
improvements associated with his project. It is the opinion of
our bond counsel that the City could reinstate the development
agreement as amended in 1987 and offer $100, 000 in proceeds to
Mr. Bakken from the bonds that were originally sold in
conjunction with this project. I have also contacted the Scott
County Assessor to determine the estimated tax on the
improvements made to the Jellystone Campground. It is estimated
at this time that the campground would generate approximately
$50,000 in tax revenue. Prior to the improvements the property
generated less then $6, 000 in tax revenue. The original bond
issue for the Shakopee Valley Square Properties project was in
the amount of $500,000. Early this year the City allocated
approximately $300,000 of these bonds to the MEBCO Project.
Therefore, approximately $200,000 of bonds remain in escrow at
this time. If the City does not allocate the remaining bond
proceeds, they will be placed in a debt service fund to pay off
the original bonds sold.
When the HILA terminated Mr. Bakken's agreement last fall, they
indicated to him that he should contact the MRA for financial
assistance when he had his financing in order. Mr. Bakken has
incurred significant financial expense as a result of the Tax
Increment process which perhaps past City staff should not have
encouraged in the first place. Staff is therefore recommending
approval of Mr. Bakken's request. Additionally, staff feels that
Mr. Bakkens's project should not have to meet the criteria as set
forth in the City's Industrial Development Incentive policy.
This policy was drafted for manufacturing facilities not
commercial facilities. What the City may want to consider at
some point in time is a separate policy for commercial oriented
projects.
If the HILA wishes to discuss Mr. Bakken's request, several
motions would be in order. The first would be to reconsider your
earlier motion denying Mr. Bakken's request for $100,000 in tax
increment assistance. If no motion is made to reconsider, the
HRA's previous action will stand.
If a motion is made to reconsider, it would then be appropriate
after discussion to make another motion accordingly. (See
alternatives listed below. )
ALTERNATIVES-
1. Direct staff to prepare the necessary documents (development
agreement and assessment agreement) to disburse $100, 000 in
tax increment assistance to Mr. Bakken for improvements that
have been made in conjunction with the campground.
2. Deny Mr. Bakken's request for $100,000 of tax increment
money.
3 . Direst staff to prepare the necessary documents to disburse
an amount less then $100, 000 to Mr. Bakken for improvements
that have been made in conjunction with the campground.
4. Table action on this issue pending further information from
staff.
5. Table action on this issue until all members of the HRA are
present.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Move to reconsider the motion denying Mr. Bakken's request
for $100,000 in tax increment assistance.
2. Move to direct staff to prepare the necessary documents
(development agreement and assessment agreement) to disburse
$100, 000 in tax increment assistance to Mr. Bakken for
improvements that have been made in conjunction with the
campground.
Attachment #1
w1,2
JULY 24, 1989
DEAR BARRY A. STOCK,
YOU ARE THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AND I HAVE DECIDED
TO WRITE YOU A LETTER 1N DISGUST. AS TO THE DECISION MADE BY THE
HRA BOARD ON JULY 18, 1989.
1 AM WRITING A LETTER TO ASK THAT THEY RECONSIDER THE ACTION
TAKEN ON MY TAX INCREMENT FOR THE JELLYSTONE CAMP-RESORT. I
WOULD LIKE TO GET ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXTMEETING.
I STARTED MY PROJECT NINE YEARS AGO, AND AT THAT TIME THERE
WAS NOT EVEN A ROAD GOING TO THE METRO WASTE CONTROL BUILDING.
I HAVE WIDENED EASEMENTS BECAUSE THINGS LIKE THE FORCE MAIN WERE
NOT EVEN IN THE EASEMENT GIVEN THEM. WE PAID$137,000.00 TO PUT IN
CURB AND ROADS TO THE PROPERTY. WE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO
PUT A ROAD INTO THE WASTE CONTROL SITE. FILL IN THE SITE AND PUT IN
A PARKING LOT.
I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS LIKE MY
NEIGHBOR OR ANY KIND OF HELP. I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD GET TAX
INCREMENT HELP IF I WOULD IMPROVE ON THE PROPERTY SO IT WOULD BE
ABLE TO GENERATE INCOME AND IMPROVE THE TAX BASE. I DO NOT HAVE
TO GO THROUGH DETAILS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF PROBLEMS I HAVE GONE
THROUGH TO GET THE FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT I DID GET THE
FINANCING FROM INVESTORS CREDIT TO FINISH THE JELLYSTONE RANGER
STATION. MUCH OF THE TAX INCREMENT WILL BE FOR ROAD IMROVEMENTS
AND SITE PREPARATION FOR THE MINIATURE GOLF, FENCING IN METRO
LIFT STATION, LAND PAYBACK, AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OVER BRIDGE.
WE SPENT AROUND $17,000.00 TO CITY TO GET THE BONDS SOLD AND
AROUND$8,000.00 FOR LETTERS OF CREDIT, INTEREST, AND ATTORNEY FEES
TO GET $500,000.00 OF TAX INCREMENT BONDS SOLD, $230,000.00 WAS TO
GO FOR MOTEL EXPANSION, $100,000.00 FOR CAMPGROUND IMPROVEMENTS,
AND $170,000.00 TO IMPROVE BLUFF AVENUE. WE SPENT ABOUT
$25,000.00 TO SELL $500,000.00 IN BONDS AND ARE ONLY ASKING FOR
$100,000.00 WORTH OF BONDS THAT ARE ALREADY SOLD.
I COULD NOT GET THE TAX INCREMENT PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE I COULD
NOT GET THE LOAN AND NOW WHEN I HAVE A LOAN, THE INDICATION IS
THAT i DO NOT NEED THE TAX INCREMENT. I COULD NOT GET AS BIG A
LOAN AS I NEEDED AND I NEED THE TAX INCREMENT MORE THAN EVER. WE
HAVE PAID THE COST FOR THE BONDS SOLD AND THE MONEY IS ALREADY
THERE. THE PROJECT QUALIFIED WHEN THE BONDS WERE SOLD. WHEN THE
PROJECT IS COMPLETED, THERE WILL BE AROUND 50 PEOPLE EMPLOYED,
WE HAVE PAID THE PRICE OF WAITING, THE COST OF SELLING THE
BONDS, AND ARE ASKING FOR ONLY A FRACTION OF THE BONDS SOLD.
1, WALLACE D. BAKKEN, AM ASKING THE SHAKOPEE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER THE ACTION TAKEN JULY
18,1989. IF THERE IS A PROJECT THAT NEEDS HELP, THIS ONE MUST
QUALIFY. WE HAVE WORKED HARD TO GET SOMETHING DECENT AND
FAMILY ORIENTATED PUT TOGETHER AND WOULD APPRECIATE SOME HELP.
SINCERELY,
WALLACE D. BAKKEN
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL
AAT. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN JULY 11, 1989
Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl.
Vierling, Scott, Zak, Clay, and Wampach present. Also present
were Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator; David Hutton, City
Engineer; Judith Cox, City Clerk; and Julius A. Collar II, City
Attorney.
Vierling/Clay moved to recess for Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to reconvene to City Council at 7 : 13 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Liaison reports were given by councilmembers.
Cncl. Scott brought up the issue of dangerous dogs such as pit
bulls within the City limits. There is nothing in the City
ordinance pertaining to dangerous dogs. Discussion ensued on -
drafting an ordinance regarding the keeping of these dogs by
residents.
Clay/Scott moved to have staff review Minneapolis legislation
concerning dangerous dogs and come back with some wording for a
new ordinance for the City of Shakopee. Motion carried
unanimously.
Scott/Vierling directed the City Administrator to talk with
Police Chief regarding controlling pit bulls until an ordinance
is adopted. Motion carried unanimously.
Scott/Zak moved to have a letter of appreciation be sent to Tom
Brownell, Chief of Police; Earl Fleck, Juvenile Officer; and Cora
Hullander, Building Secretary. Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the consent business.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of June 19th and 20th,
1989. (Motion approved under consent business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to receive and file the letter dated June 22,
1989 from Harold and Carol Armstrong regarding the recent recall
vote of the school referendum. (Motion approved under consent
business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to accept the resignation of Tom Brownell,
Chief of Police, with regrets effective July 21, 1989. (Motion
approved under consent business) .
Proceedings of the July 11, 1989
City Council Page -2-
Clay/Vierling moved to accept the resignation of Earl Fleck as
Juvenile Officer with the Shakopee Police Department, with
regrets effective July 31, 1989. (Motion approved under consent
business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to accept the resignation of Cora Hullander
with regrets and authorize the filling of the position. (Motion
approved under consent business) .
There will be a Joint Council/SPUC meeting on July 18th at 5:30
P.M. Cncl. Vierling, Zak, Wampach, Scott and Clay will attend.
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the Shakopee Softball
Association, in consultation with appropriate staff, to hire an
electrical engineer lighting consultant, at no City expense for
the purpose of preparing a lighting plan for Tahpah Park Softball
Fields. (Motion approved under consent business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the police department to hire
one police officer to fill the position vacated by Officer Earl
Fleck. (Motion approved under consent business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to appoint Assistant Chief John DuBois as
Acting Police Chief for the City of Shakopee beginning July 21,
1989 at 4:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the Police Department to
purchase one warning siren using budgeted 1989 capital equipment
funding. (Motion approved under consent business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to declare the following property surplus and
that it be sold by auction or bids.
1982 Aries - Blue #1B3BD26DXCF1', 0694
1982 Aries - Brown #1B3BD26B3CF170695
1980 Oldsmobile - Green #3R69FAM447987
1984 Honda - 4 Wheeler
1947 American Lafrance - Red #L3224
Hose Expander
(Motion approved under consent business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize payment of $500.00 to Arthur J.
Hatch in partial compensation for the appraisal he obtained from
Newcombe & Hansen Appraisals, Inc. (Motion approved under consent
business) .
Discussion ensued on prohibiting promoting a public nuisance as
it relates to moving a structure onto vacant property and letting
it sit there. The City Attorney reviewed what the definition is
of a public nuisance as opposed to disorderly conduct which is
Proceedings of the July 11, 1989
City Council Page -3-
already provided for in the City Code. Consensus was to let the
ordinance remain as is except to fine violators everyday they are
in violation.
The City Clerk reviewed the present licensing fee structure as
written in the City Code. The League of Minnesota Cities has
informed her that other cities do prorate license fees on a month
to month basis. Cncl. Clay said he would like one flat change so
that the City's expenditures will be covered.
Clay/Scott moved to prorate liquor license fee to the month with
a minimum of 1 month fee retroactive to July 1, 1988.
Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Scott, Zak and Mayor Lebens
Noes: Cncl. Wampach and Vierling Motion carried.
Dennis Kraft said the requests for proposals were sent out to
several major accounting firms for the purpose of determining why
property taxes rose during the past year. Two proposals were
received. The cost of the study will be $103 , 000 and the City
would be expected to pay 1/3. Independent School District $720
voted against funding it at this time because of their financial
condition. The County Board tabled the item until the Prior
Lake/Savage School District can make a decision whether or not
they would like to participate in this study. Cncl. Vierling said
she has a problem with another school district taking part in a
study such as this because the problems are totally different.
Mayor Lebens felt that the study was not necessary and it would
be a waste of money for the taxpayers.
Scott/Wampach moved to table taking action on the proposals
received for the property tax study until the County Board makes
a decision on what they intend to do. Motion carried with
Council Clay opposed.
Scott/Zak moved for a 10 minute recess. Motion carried
unanimously.
Zak/Clay moved to reconvene at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the St. Francis Ambulance
Agreement for the provision of ambulance services for the period
from July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1992 ; and authorize the proper
City officials to execute the agreement.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
The City Engineer reviewed the preliminary layout for the
interchange of CR-18 and the Shakopee Bypass from Scott County.
He said MnDOT has not approved this layout as yet. He addressed
a number of concerns he has regarding the layout saying the cost
Proceedings of the July 11, 1989
City Council Page -4-
is high and it takes up a tremendous amount of land. Cncl.
Vierling had a concern on protecting Valleyfair and Canterbury
Downs and other businesses along that stretch. Consensus was to
have the City Engineer submit a letter to the Scott County
Highway Engineer regarding the City Council's concerns on the
proposed interchange layout for County Road 18 and the Shakopee
Bypass and stating that the Council believes that the original
plan is adequate at this time and that they don't want any delays
to the project.
Clay/vierling moved to authorize the City Engineer to include
storm sewers in the final design for the Alley in Block 81, to be
funded out of the Storm Sewer Utility Fund. (Motion approved
under consent business) . -
The City Engineer reviewed the removal of a sidewalk at 238 E.
4th Avenue. He said Mr. Buesgens had removed and replaced the
sidewalk in front of his property because it was considered a
hazard. He is asking the City to reimburse him 50% of his cost
based on the new ordinance, however, the new ordinance was not in
effect when the work was done. The sidewalk was in extremely had
condition. The new sidewalk has been approved by the City and it
is his recommendation that the City reimburse Mr. Buesgens 50% of
his cost which is $246. 10 .
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to
reimburse Mr. Buesgens of 238 E. 4th Avenue an amount of $246 . 10
to cover 50% of the sidewalk replacement costs at the same
address. The funds should come out of the General Contingency
Fund.
Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Vierling and Mayor Lebens
Noes: Cncl. Wampach, Scott and Zak.
Motion fails.
Cncl. Zak said he feels that Mr. Buesgens should be entitled to
100% reimbursement since he cleaned up a safety hazard for the
City.
Zak/Scott moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to
reimburse Mr. Buesgens of 238 E. 48th Avenue an amount of $492 .20
to cover 100% of the sidewalk replacement costs at the same
address. The funds should come out of the General Contingency
Fund.
Roll Call: Ayes: cncl. Wampach, Scott and Zak
Noes: cncl. Clay, Vierling and Mayor Lebens
Motion fails
The City Engineer recommended that out of a good faith effort
they reimburse Mr. Buesgens 50% because the sidewalk has been
replaced properly and approved.
Proceedings of the July 11, 1989
City Council Page -5-
Vierling/Clay moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to
reimburse Mr. Buesgens of 238 E. 4th Avenue an amount of $246. 10
to cover 50% of the sidewalk replacement costs at the same
address. The funds should come out of the General Contingency
Fund.
Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Vierling, Clay, Scott, Wampach and
Mayor Lebens
Noes: Cncl. Zak Motion carried.
The City Engineer reviewed the revisions received from MnDOT
regarding the Shakopee Southerly bypass. He said they have
revised their cost estimate from $23 million to $34 million.
They have scaled back their project substantially from the layout
approved by Council in 1978. He said he is concerned that the
finished bypass will not be adequate enough to handle the volumes
of traffic that currently exists on Hwy 169 and traffic will
still continue to use the old 169 through downtown.
Clay/Scott moved to direct the appropriate city staff to send a
letter to MN/DOT District Engineer, Bill Crawford, expressing the
Council's opposition to recent cutbacks regarding the Shakopee
Bypass. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Clay moved to approve the bills in the amount of
$2,874,766. 19 .
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Scott/Zak moved to appoint Dennis Kraft as Shakopee City
Administrator and make his salary retroactive to what is agreed
upon within a contract, the details of which are to be worked
out.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Scott/Vierling moved to authorize the City Attorney to pursue
condemnation and demolition of the resident at 211 Fillmore
Street, Shakopee, as recommended by the Building Official and
that the Building Official may quit said action if the conditions
prompting the condemnation are abated by the owner of record
which satisfy the Uniform Housing Code, and City Ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Clay offered Resolution No. 3076, A Resolution
Authorizing the Sale and Issuance of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds under the Municipal Industrial Development Act and
Approving and Authorizing the Execution of Documents (MEBCO) , and
moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Zak, Vierling, Clay, Wampach and
Mayor Lebens
Noes: Cncl. Scott Motion carried.
Proceedings of the July 11, 1989
City Council Page -6-
C1ay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 3074 , A Resolution Declaring
the cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed
assessments for 11th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer Construction
Project No. 1988-5, and moved its adoption. (Motion approved
under consent business) .
Clay/Vierling offered resolution No. 3073, A Resolution regarding
Negative Declaration of Need for an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer Project,
Project No. 1987-5 and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved
under consent business) .
Clay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 3077, A Resolution Declaring
the cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed
Assessments for Vierling Drive from County Road 17 Easterly for
plus or minus 3200 feet, Project No. 1988-1, and moved its
adoption. (Motion approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 3078, A Resolution
Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for
Bids for the 1989 Pavement Preservation Program - Sealcoating
Project No. 1989-10, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Clay offered Resolution No. 3075, A Resolution Receiving
a Report and Calling a Nearing on Improvements to Boiling Springs
Lane, Project No. 1989-9 and moved for its adoption. Motion
carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 3080, A Resolution Accepting
Bid on Upper Valley Drainage Project No. 1987-5 and award the
contract to Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. , 11000 93rd Ave. MN. ,
Osseo, MN 55369 and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved
under consent business) .
Clay/Vierling Offered Resolution No. 3079, A Resolution Accepting
Bid on Third Avenue Reconstruction Project No. 1989-5 and award
the contract to Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. , 11000 93rd Ave. ,
Osseo, MN 55369, and moved for its adaption. (Motion approved
under consent business) .
The City Clerk reviewed the deferment of special assessments for
senior citizens and said that she believes the City Code should
be updated.
Vierling/Clay Offered Ordinance No. 268, An Ordinance of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending City Code Chapter 2 Entitled
"Administration and General Government" by Adjusting the
Assessor's Market Value as set by Section 2 .82 D and Amending
Gross Asset Figure as Setout in Section 2.82 C and by Adopting by
Proceedings of the July 11, 1989
City Council page -7-
Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 2 .99 which
Among other things Contains Penalty Provisions, and moved for its
adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Clerk reviewed the On Sale 3 .2 Beer License by Damile
Inc. , which was tabled at the last meeting. He said the property
is not owned by the applicant and so the issue of the tax payment
is a mute point because the applicant has no control over the
payment of taxes. The Council had a concern on the fact that the
taxes have not been paid On this property. Consensus was to
require that the deed be brought in for inspection by the
applicant. Cncl. Scott felt that the taxes should be paid in
order for a license to be issued.
Clay/Wampach moved to remove the application for an On-sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license from Damile, Inc. , 2400 East 4th
Avenue, from the table. Motion carried unanimously.
Scott/Wampach moved to not issue a license until the taxes have
been paid. Motion fails with Cncl. Vierling, Zak and Mayor
Lebens opposed.
Vierling/Zak moved to table the application from Damile, Inc. for
an On-sale Nonintoxicating Liquor License. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to reconsider the motion of June 19, 1989,
to give the Scouts $5, 000.00 of the $7,500. 00 the Scouts had
turned back to the City. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to amend the motion to issue a check in
the amount of $5, 000.00 to the Youth Organizations Building Fund.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Scott/Vierling. moved to adjourn to July 18, 1989, at 5:30 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10: 00 p.m.
Ju S�C�
Clerk
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
a STATE OF MINNESO'T'A
Omm OF T GOVEItNOft CONIsaa
ST. PAUL 55155
RUDY PERPICH
GOVERNOR
duly 17, 1989
Dear Transportation Supporter:
We wish to thank you for your ongoing support of transportation. For
the second consecutive year the State Legislature passed a substantial
transportation funding bill. This bill provides an additional $67.8
million for Minnesota's highways and transit systems.
As a result of this legislation, we can continue: (1) reducing spring
road weight restrictions; (2) rebuilding and repairing highways and
bridges; (3) improving access to communities throughout the state; (4)
stimulating economic development; (5) managing urban traffic; (6)
assisting older citizens and disabled people; and (7) enhancing safety
for those who travel on our highways. This law will also enable the
Minnesota Department of Transportation to more adequately address the
needs of low volume roads in Minnesota.
This bill will create approximately 3,000 highway construction jobs in
the state and will increase revenue for township roads from $9 million
to $18 million.
This important legislation received strong bipartisan support from all
areas of the state. Transportation is critical to Minnesota's future.
This till will keep us moving forward.
S4E'RYPI
LEONARD W. LEVINE
Governor Commissioner
Action Recommended:
Acknowledge letter dated 7/17/89 from Governor Perpich regarding the State Legislature's
transportation funding bill.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
8�
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ®1�9 ��NT
SCOTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE 110
SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1382 (612)937-6100
JOSEPH F.RIES
Administrator
CLIFFORD G.MCCANN
Deputy Administrator
BARBARA NESS
Executive Asst. July 14, 1989
Mr. Dennis R. Carson, CPA
Vice President and Director
Olsen, Thielen 6 Co. LTD.
Certified Public Accountants & Consultants
6640 Shady Oak Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: An Analysis of the Property
Tax Situations and Practices
of Certain Scott County Taxing
Jurisdictions
Dear Mr. Carson:
Thank you for appearing before the Joint Committee on June 26, 1989,
in response to our Request for Proposals on the above noted study. The
committee was extremely impressed with the quality of your proposal, the
professional manner in which it was presented and the excellent
credentials of your firm, and by consensus, agreed to recommend to the
respective governing boards of the Joint Committee jurisdictions, the
engagement of Olsen, Thielen 6 Co., LTD to conduct the study.
Unfortunately, our joint recommendations were rejected by the ISD #720
Board of Education on July 10, 1989 only because severe financial
constraints preclude their being able to pay for their share of the study.
However, the same recommendations went before the Scott County Board of
Commissioners and the Shakopee City Council the next day, and in both
cases, were tabled pending full participation in and the sharing of costs
for the study. While this situation may present a rather bleak prospect
of the study ever being commissioned, continuing efforts on the part of
the Joint Committee will be made towards seeking funding for this
project. In the interest of providing us adequate time for our salvage
efforts, I am requesting herewith, the consideration of your firm towards
extending the conditions of your May 30, 1989 proposal to September 1,
1989. May I have your written response to this request at the earliest
practicable date. This will confirm our telephone conversation earlier
today.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
I will take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of the Joint
Committee and its sponsoring governmental units for responding to our
Request for Proposals and for the genuine interest your firm demonstrated
in conducting this study. Notwithstanding your response to the above
request, your proposal will remain in our active files where we will not
hesitate to consult it when similiar needs arise in the future.
S' rely, l
>,
o p F. Ries
4
A inistrator
cc: Dr. Gayden F. Carruth, Superi dent of Schools, ISD 720
Dennis R. Kraft, Shakopee City Administrator
Norbert Theis, Chairman, Jackson Township Board of Supervisors
William Dellwo, Chairman, Louisville Township Board of Supervisors
File
JFR:bn
Recommended Action:
Acknowledge receipt of a letter dated 7/14/89 from Joseph F. Ries, County
Administrator, to Mr. Dennis R. Carson, CPA, Olsen, Thielen and Co. LTD, asking
the extension of conditions of their May 30, 1989 proposal on property tax situations
to September 1, 1989.
�)r'
TRANSPORTATION STUDY BOARD
® Tom L. Johnson, Executive Director(612)2967932
Mary Beth Davidson, Administrative Assistant
G-24 State Capitol, St. Paul, MN 55155
NOTICE OF IMPORTANT PUBLIC MEETINGS (2 LOCATIONS)
Executive Committee
Rep. Henry Kalis
Chair,Walters MINNESOTA'S TRANSPORTATION STUDY BOARD
Sen.Keith Langseth
ViceChair,Glyndm
Kerry Van Fleet
Secretary,Fridley WHAT DO YOU ENVISION MINNESOTA'S
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO BE IN THE 21ST CENTURY?
Legislative Members
Sen. Clarence Purfeerst
Faribault The Transportation Study Board will be developing a
Sm. P� �
y" "fry major legislative proposal for the 1991 Session aimed at
Sen. Lyle Melukens our surface transportation needs into the 21st century.
Red Wing
Rep. Jim Rice Local government participation is essential since Facility
Minneapolis and Financial Needs at the local level will be carefully
Rep. Bernie Leder considered b the Stud Board. It is im y
Crookston b attending. If you wish to u
Rep. Sidney Pauly participate Y g• Y pre-
Eden Prairie sentation please contact Tom Johnson in advance of the
meeting (296-7932) .
Public Member,
Warren Affeldt TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989
Fosston
Paul Bailey 7.00 P.M.
Minneapolis
Fred Corrigan
Prior Lake KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HALL
Jack Fitaaimmons
Waeera 1760 4TH AVENUE EAST
Ray Hogan
St. Pau SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Gladys Johnson
Duluth
BIRKomarekl WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1989
Belle Plaine
She.Liimataineo 7:00 P.M.
Cloquet
Bruce Nawrocld
Columbia Heights SPRING LAKE PARK HIGH SCHOOL, FINE ARTS CENTER
Abe Rosenthal
St. Paul 8000 Hwy. 65 (take Hwy. 65 to 81st Ave. N.E.
Robert ScMagel go West on to Frontage Road) SPRING LAKE PARK, MINNESOTA
Marshall
Ph..Zak
Little Fall. Additional public meetings are being planned for:
Fergus Falls--Sept. 19, Brainerd--Sept. 20, Duluth--Oct. 24
St. Paul--Oct. 25, Mpls.--(date undetermined), Crookston--
(date undetermined) .
The Public is invited to attend and encouraged
to come and make presentations before the Board.
P»emd an,ayrJed Asper
TRANSPORTATION STUDY BOARD
Tom L. Johnson, Executive Director(612)2967932
Mary Beth Davidson, Administrative Assistant
G24 State Capitol, St. Paul, MN 55155
Executive Committee
Rep. Henry Kane Dear local Government Official:
Chair,Walters
Sen. Keith r,Glynth The Transportation Stu Board is a legislative eanmission,
V.Keitsir,Glyndon Study eg
Kerry Van Fleet created during the 1988 Session, to conduct a study of Minnesota's
Secretary,Fridley surface transportation needs into the 21st century. In addition
to 8 legislators, the Study Board has 13 citizen members repre-
senting many different interests and backgrounds.
Legislative Members
Sen. Clarence Pnrfeerst The Transportation Study Board. is required red to reeamn-3 a program,
Farioaalt for malting surface transportation improvements, to the Governor
San.Marilyn Lantry and the legislature by January 15, 1991. The u
St. p..] Study Board has
Sen. Lyle Mehrkens recently contracted with consultant firms to assist in conducting
Red Wing a statewide Needs analysis and in developing a Financial program
Rep.Jim Rice to meeting t!ZW needs.
Minneapolis
Rep. Bemis Lieder
Crookston In the end the Study Board is required to determine whether
Rep. Sidney Pauly additional funding is required in order to accomplish surface
Eden Prairie transportation goals and objectives and to recd mlend the use
of possible new sources of revenue.
Public Members In doing our cork the enabling legislation requires the Study
Warren Affeldt Board to review current state transportation goals and objectives,
Foston to look at the current level of service provided and recommend
Paul Bailey
Minneapolis changes, to review torr state and regional planning is being
Fred Corrigan done and to determine the extent to which the state should
Prior Lake contribute financially to local and regional transportation
Jack Fisaammme. activities.
Wassra
Rei p°ul" we are also required to determine whether cost-effectiveness
Gladys Johnson would improve through the increased use of public/private partner-
Duluth ships, through different methods of relating expenditures to
Bill Komarek, benefit and through changes in staffing levels at Mn/DOT.
Belle Plaine The Study Board will also be looking at design standards and
S CLonnummen
louser bid-letting procedures with an attempt to improve cost effective-
Brute NeI1PSS.
Columbiabia Heights
Ane Rosenthal Our charge is very broad and yet cosy critical to the future
St. Paul of transportation in Minnesota. 61e w 11 be making meaningful
RoMarshallbert schlagel reconue dations for changes during the 1991 legislative Session.
Ph..Zak Rectmmended changes will relate to tow decisions in transportation
Little Fall. are currently being node, tow current financing methods compare
with our log term needs and tow administrative changes at
the state and local level could improve the overall efficiency
of our transportation system. Public input and involvement
is not only welcomed but considered essential. Please contact
our office at the State Capitol anytime.
Prinw on mquial paper
, ,
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape
Project No. 1987-2
DATE: July 25 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
The public hearing for the special assessments for the Downtown
Streetscape Project has been continued until August 1 , 1989 .
BACKGROUND:
On June 13 , 1989 the City Council held a public hearing on the
special assessments for the Downtown Streetscape Project . At
that public hearing , staff responded to several questions raised
by the property owners from the project area but in general that
proposed assessments were accepted by the City Council . The
Council did discuss eliminating the proposed deferment of the
assessments for residential properties, and therefore decided to
continue the public hearing until July 20 , 1989 for the purpose
of allowing the property owners affected by that change in policy
to be notified.
At the July 20 , 1989 public hearing staff presented several
options regarding the deferment policy These alternatives
included eliminating the credits for street oversizing, deferring
the assessments with interest and deferring the assessments with
no interest . At our last meeting , Council directed staff to
revise the assessment roll to eliminate the residential credits
for street oversizing and maintain the deferment policy. Council
also indicated that the deferred assessments shall accrue an
annual interest during the deferment period.
By eliminating the residential credits for street oversizing , the
assessments for all residential properties increased around 8-9% .
The increase ranged from $75 .00 to $359 .00 depending on the size
of a lot, but for a standard size City lot (60 Ft. x 142 ft. ) the
increase was $156 .00 . The increase affected 17 properties .
At the July 20 , 1989 public hearing , there were several other
adjustments to certain specific assessments discussed. Staff was
directed to research these adjustments and report back to
Council. The following relate to those specific properties where
adjustments may be necessary:
Sawvell/Soraaue Parcels (Lots 6. 7 . 8 of Block 25)
These 3 parcels are located on the south side of 1st Avenue ,
between Sommerville and Spencer Streets at the far east end of
the project. Mrs. Sawvel stated at the hearing that she did not
feel her lot should be included in the assessment area due to the
fact that her lot is somewhat removed from the project area and
also because she would lose her access to 1st Avenue once the
minibypass was built.
Council , based on staff ' s recommendation, concurred with Mrs.
Sawvel and directed staff to eliminate the easterly 3 lots on
this block from the assessment area. (Lots 6 , 7 , and 8 of Block
25) •
Staff has eliminated those lots from the assessment area. There
are three alternatives for picking up those assessments. The
first alternative would be for the City to absorb those
assessments. The second would be to spread the cost out to all
the other properties in that zone. The third alternative would
be to spread the cost out to all properties within the assessment
area .
If the City absorbed the assessments for these three lots, the
total cost to the City would be $5 ,817 .00 . If the costs were
spread over all remaining properties in that zone , the assessment
for each lot would increase around 10-12% . The increase ranges
from $34 .00 to $513 .00 depending on the size of the lot, with a
standard size City lot (60 ' x 1421 ) increasing by $228 .00 .
Staff recommends Alternative No. 3 , spreading the assessments out
over all remaining properties within the assessment area for the
following reasons. First, the adopted assessment policies state
that only 25% of the street rehabilitation costs would be
assessed and this assessment would be spread out over all
properties in the benefitted area. The fact that the assessment
area is being revised should not result in the City paying more
costs for this project. As indicated earlier by staff, only 8 .7%
of the total project costs are being assessed . The remainder is
being funded by the City spreading these assessments out over the
remaining properties is simply conforming to the assessment
policies adopted by the City Council .
If the correct assessment area had been utilized in the first
place, the assessments would have been spread out over all the
properties anyway .
Gilles Property (Block 20)
Again the assessment area was adopted by City Council at the
beginning of the project and included all of the Gilles property
and railroad property, which extends all the way to Scott Street.
Mrs. Gilles informed Council that she fe:Lt the area used for her
assessment should not be the entire lot, but rather use the same
depth of her lot as exists for the properties north and south of
her.
Council , based on staff' s recommendation, concurred and directed
staff to revise the area used to calculate the assessments for
both the Gilles and railroad properties.
Staff has made those adjustments. The area used for the Gilles
property was changed from 12 ,369 sq. ft. to 8 ,067 sq . ft. The
area for the railroad property was changed from 20 ,926 sq. ft. to
8 ,973 sq . ft. The front foot assessment (70% ) did not change .
Again , there are three alternatives for picking up the
assessments due to the change in area, either spread them out
over all properties , spread them out over the zone or the City
picks them up.
Based on the previous discussion regarding the Sawvell/Sprague
assessment, staff is recommending that the assessment be spread
out over all other properties in order to be consistent with the
assessment policies. Again, if the correct area of these lots
had been used from the start, the costs would have been spread
out. Staff would also like to point out that only 25% of the
pavement , curb & gutter and sidewalk costs are being assessed.
None of the streetscape items , sewer , water , etc . are being
assessed .
PearSQn'S Credit for Sidewalk
Mr . Pearson had previously submitted correspondence to Council
requesting that a credit be given to his assessment for new
sidewalk that was replaced . His sidewalk was only 6 years old at
the time of replacement.
Per Council directive , staff has adjusted Mr . Pearson ' s
assessment to give him a $248 .00 credit for the relatively new
sidewalk that was replaced.
Ries/Schmitt Parcels
The assessment policies state that the assessment shall be based
on a 70% front foot/30% square foot formula . In addition , it
states that for every property, the front foot portion of the
assessment shall be based on the shortest distance along any
street as the adjusted front footage. This distance is then
adjusted such that each lot' s shortest frontage is apportioned
over the total "shortest" footage of all lots in that block.
The rationale for this policy was to make the assessments fair
for all properties, including corner lots and the numerous small
lots located in several of the blocks.
By using these policies , the adjusted front footage of the
Schmitt' s parcel is 67 .6 feet. The adjusted front foot for the
Ries parcel is 60 .0 feet. So the Schmitt parcel actually has a
greater frontage than the Ries parcel as far as the assessment
goes , which contributed to the Schmitt assessment being the
higher of the two .
The other factor is that those properties located adjacent to 2nd
Avenue (adjacent includes all properties located between the
alleys and 2nd Ave. ) paid a proportionately higher assessment per
front foot than those properties located on 3rd Avenue. The main
reason being that those properties on 2nd Avenue received both an
assessment for the street fronting their house and a "zonal"
assessment for the side streets. The properties on 3rd Avenue
only received a zonal assessment for the Downtown Project. But
those properties on 3rd Avenue will also be receiving another
assessment for the 3rd Avenue Project being constructed this
year. The total of those two assessments on the Ries property
will be nearly identical to the single assessment that Mr .
Schmitt is receiving for the Downtown Project.
Mr. Schmitt' s assessment is $4 ,396 .00 , Mr. Ries' s assessment from
the Downtown Project is $2 ,364 .00 and they will be receiving
another assessment of approximately $1 ,600 .00 with the 3rd Avenue
Project for a total of $3 ,964.00 .
Staff hopes the above discussion explains the difference in
assessments between these two parcels. Staff does not recommend
any adjustments to the Schmitt assessment. because that would not
be fair to all of the other properties which were assessed using
the adopted policies.
If Council has no other questions or comments , attached is
Resolution No . 3071 which adopts the assessments for this
project . The assessment roll was prepared based on the
recommendations contained in this memo.
Assessment ADDeal3
Staff has received two written appeals on the proposed
assessments and these letters are attached for Council review.
ALTERNATIM:
1 . Adopt the proposed assessments by Resolution No. 3071 .
2 . Deny Resolution No. 3071 .
3 . Continue the public hearing in order to make adjustments to
the proposed assessments based on public testimony received .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No . 1 , to adopt the proposed
assessments as listed in Resolution No. 3071 .
ACTIOB REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3071 , A Resolution Adopting Assessments for
Downtown Streetscape, Phase I Parts i and 2 , Project No. 1987-2
and move its adoption.
DH/pmp
RESOLUTION NO. 3071
A Resolution Adopting Assessments
Downtown Streetscape Phase I, Parts 1 and 2
Project No. 1987-2
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and
passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of:
Downtown Streetscape Project Phase I , Parts 1 and 2
Includes the following streets:
2nd Avenue, from Sommerville to Atwood
Atwood Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
Fuller Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
Holmes Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
Lewis Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
Sommerville Street, from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue
By street lighting, sidewalk , curb and gutter , pavement,
sanitary sewers, watermain, storm sewers, and miscellaneous
streetscape items and appurtenances within those project
limits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That such proposed assessment together with any
amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein
included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed
improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it.
2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first
installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in
January, 1990 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 7 .75
percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added
the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this
resolution until December 31 , 1990 , and to each subsequent
installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on
all unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may , at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor,
may pay the whole of the assessment on such property , with
interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer,
except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment
is paid within thirty (30 ) days from the adoption of this
resolution; he may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the
installment and interest in process of collection on the current
tax list, and he may pay the remaining principal balance of the
assessment to the City Treasurer.
A. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to
this assessment in his office and shall certify annually to the
County Auditor on or before October 10th of each year the total
amount of installments and interest which are to become due in
the following year on the assessment on each parcel of land
included in the assessment roll.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1 . That such proposed assessments together with any
amendments for all those properties currently in use as
residential properties, shall be deferred without interest until
such time as those properties are converted to commercial uses.
The said deferred residential properties are marked ndeferredn on
the aforementioned proposed assessment, a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. The deferred assessments will be subject to the same
conditions and interest rate as listed above in this resolution
except that the first installment is payable on the first Monday
in January of the year following the date the deferred
assessments cease. Interest will accrue on an annual basis on
the assessment during the life of the deferment.
3. The assessment will be deferred a maximum of 10 years
or until the properties are converted to commercial use ,
whichever comes first.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota , held this day of ,
19 _
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day
of , 19
City Attorney
March 5 , 1987
Attachment # 7
Proposed
Assessment Policies
Downtown Streetscape Project
1. The assessment district should include all parcels bounded
by Atwood (both sides of the street) an the west, the North
side of Third Avenue an the South, Sommerville on the East
including the west side of Spencer abutting First Ave. an
the East and the alley alignment between First Avenue and
Levee Drive on the North. In addition, it includes parcels
on the West side of Atwood that have front footage on said
street.
2. The assessment policy shall use the shortest distance along
a street as the front footage.
3 . Each parcel shall receive a separate assessment.
4. city use and other parcels owned by non-profit entities
will be considered as commercial for assessment purposes
(consistent with other city assessment practices) .
5. Street Rehabilitation assessments on single family and two
family residential properties within the assessment district 's
shall be deferred with no interest until property is
converted to commercial use. These assessments shall be
paid for initially from tax-increment proceeds or other
funds until the conversion use occurs.
6 . Any city parking lot shall not be assessed but the cost for
those areas shall be paid for from tax-increment proceeds.
7 . The 70% FF/308 square foot formula shall be utilized for
assessment purposes.
8 . 25% of street rehabilitation project cost will be assessable
to the property owners.
9 . The entire streetscape portion of the project cost shall be
paid for from tax-increment proceeds.
C
rL. LL
cz n
T \J 3
T o
A � \N N O
1A1 o M � "� N C
' a N
1 ` � T fn
� � 64 �
L b
C m a
cli
/1 0 fes. Ql
� u
co
C: +
r =3 n
zCQ
a 0 \
I-
LLL — N, co Ci
m m 0)
+� +r 92 N
co
UU �
LLQ
NCl)
Cl C
C
o m
r- CO c
c� m
�O m
°
C
\ gAolla 40
JUL 1 C 1989
_ . Gla f OF SHAKOPEE
L
,iL 1 HA
Judith S. Cox C;T,!
City Clerk
City Of Shakopee July 19 1989
Be advised That we intend to appeal the: assessment for improvements
on our property at 212 Atwood St for downtown streetscape
project 1987-12.
Parcel number 27-00126$-0 assessment of 4,061.00
Signed.
ASSESSMENT TABLE
Page 1
1
I PID I PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
i
;American Oil Co. !N 100 ' of Lots ! $3 ,619.00
127-001130-0
1 15001 W. Both St./Suite 881 16&7 , Blk. 20 1 i
! 1Mpls. , MN 55437-5435 ;
1 ;
127-001135-0 ;Richard Stoks lP.0.1 -3 ,Blk. 21 ; $4,944 .00 ;
1 ;P.O. Box 65 !Lying N' rly of 1
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 1Ln Beg 110 .17 1
! 1 IS of NW Cor 1 1 i
; ! ISE to Pt 138.851
! 1 1S of NE Cor 3 1
! ! ;
! ! '
127-001140-0 !Gary & Randolph Laurent !Lot 6 , Blk. 21 1 $2 , 167 .00 1
1 1128 S. Fuller i ! !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1
! ! 1 ' '
127-001141-0 !Michael & Patricia Kikos !Lot 7 , Blk. 21 1 $2 ,167 .00 1
1 1214 W. 1st Ave. ; !
1 !Shakopee , MN 55379 1 1 1
! ! i i �
127-001142-0 !Leo McGovern & Wife 1E 3/4 of Lot 8 1 $1 ,625.00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1218 W. 1st St. ;Blk. 21 1 1
1 !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 '
' i
127-001143-0 !Total Minnesota, Inc. ;Lot 9 , 10 & W1/41 $4,875 .00 !
1 IP.O. Box 500 - !of 8 , Blk. 21 1 1
; !Denver, CO 80201 1 1 1
1
127-001151-0 !Ann Golla IN 20 ' of E1/2 1 $1 ,044.00 1
1640 McDevitt St. !of S 1/2 of Lot ! ;
1 !Shakopee, MN 55379 16, Blk. 22 1 1
127-001152-0 !Steven & Brenda Olson !S 1/2 of Lots 1 $2 ,340 .00 1
1 17347 Coleen Circle 16&7 EX N 20 ' of ! !
1 !Eden Prairie, MN 55346 1E 1/2 of S 1/2 1 1
1 ! !of Lot6 , B1k.22 ; ,
I i i i i
127-001153-0 !Daniel Colich IN 1/2 of 6&7 Ext $1 , 186 .00 1
1 1124 W. 1st Ave. IN 27 .41of E 8911 1
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 1Blk. 22 1 ;
127-001154-0 !Arlo Lee IN 27 .4 ' of E89' ! $830 .00 1
1 16512 Creek Drive :of N 1/2 of Lot ; ;
! ! Edina, MN 55435 16&7 , Blk. 22 1 1
! ! ! ! '
127-001155-0 !Daniel Colich !Lot 8 , Blk. 22 1 $2 ,167 .00 1
1 1124 W. 1st Ave.
! !Shakopee, MN 55379
! ! !
jt
ASSESSMENT TABLE
PAGE 2
: PID i PROPERTY OWNER ! DESCRIPTION ! ASSESSMENT i
127-001156-0 l;Charles & Lola Hensing !Lot 9 Ex W 36 ' 1 $2 ,178.00 1
i 117 S. Fuller 1o£ S 751 ,31k.221 ;
: :Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001157-0 :Charles & Lola Mensing !W 36 ' of S 75 ' 1 $2 ,155 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1117 S. Fuller :of 9 & all of 1 :
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 10 , Blk. 22 ! :
127-001164-0 :VFW Post 4046 Shakopee !S 10 ' of N 80 ' 1 $684 .00 1
: : 132 E. First :& W 36 ' of N7011 !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! of Lot 6 ,B1k.231 !
127-001165-0 !Bruce Bermel :S 39 ' of 6 & S 1 $1 ,710 .00 1
: ! 6320 Pheasant Court 123 ' of N 103 ' 1 :
! :Edina, MN 55435 :of 6 & E 15' : !
!of S 62 ' of 7 , 1 1
:Blk. 23 ! :
127-001166-0 ! Joseph Topic Jr. 1E 24 ' of N 70 ' 1 $1 ,011 .00 1
: :P.O. Box 317 !of 6 , Blk. 23 1 :
! !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001167-0 !VFW Post 4046 Shakopee 1E 1/2 of Ex E 1 $1 ,014.00 1
: 1132 E. First 115 ' of S 62 ' ! !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of 7 , Blk. 23 1 :
127-001168-1 ! Earl & Virginia Dressen :W 1/2 of 7 , 1 $1 ,083 .00 1
:
11529 W. 6th :Blk. 23 ! :
: !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! ! !
:27-001169-0 !Arnold Theis :E 26 ' of 8 , ! $939 .00 1
: 1122 E. 1st :Blk. 23 ! :
: !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001170-0 : Joseph & Monica Sullivan 1W 1/2 & W4 ' of 1 $1 ,408.00 !
! 15133 Dugan Plaza 1E1/2 of 8 & E 1 :
: ! Edina, MN 55435 14-5/6' of 9
IBlk. 23 ! !
127-001171-0 :Bruce Garness & Wife !W 24' of E 28- 1 $903 .00 1
: 11197 VanBuren St. 15/6 ' of 9 , 1 !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 :Blk. 23 : :
:27-001172-0 Male Huber/King So1 .Lodge !W 31-1/6 ' of 9 1 $1 ,119 .00 :
! 11165 Jefferson lBlk. 23 ! !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! : !
ASSESSMENT TABLE , PAGE 3
I PID ! PROPERTY OWNER ! DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
127-001173-0 �!Kevin & Vonda Hogan !W 38 1/21o£ 10 ; $2 ,699 .00 I
1 13005 135th St. lBlk. 23 i
: !Burnsville, MN 55337 i !
127-001174-1 !Rueben Ruehle & Wife !E 21 .5 of Lot10 ! $776 .00 1
1 1108 E. First 131k. 23 1 1
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
127-001182-0 !Eugene Pearson !Lot 6 , Elk. 24 1 $1 ,919 .00 1
: : RR 1 Boz 251 1 1 1
! !Jordan, MN 55352 1 1 1
! !
127-001183-0 !Steven & Warren Clay !E 27 ' & S 41 ' ! $984 .00 !
1 1232 E 1st Avenue !of E 30' of 7 1 1
! !Shakopee, MN 181k. 24 1 1
! !
127-001184-0 !Motor Parts of Shakopee !W 1/2 & N 101 ' ! $1 ,189 .00 !
1 1230 E. First Ave. !of W 3 ' of E ! !
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 130 ' of 7 ,B1k.241 !
1 ! 1 ! !
127-001185-0 !Shakopee Bowl, Inc. !Lot 8 , Elk. 24 1 $2, 167 .00 1
1 1222 E. First Ave. ! ! !
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! ! !
,
! !
127-001186-0 !Richard Hal ver !Lot 9 , Elk. 24 ! $2 ,167 .00 :
1 1460 Great Plains Blvd. ! ! !
1 ! Chaska , Mn 55318 ! ! !
,
! ! ! !
127-001188-0 !Terrence Mennen & Wife IN 26 ' of 10 1 $397 .00 1
1 11116 Jackson St. lBlk. 24 1 1
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
,
127-001189-0 !Wallace Perry IS 21 ' of N 47 ' 1 $321 .00 !
1 : 834 S. Lewis !of 10 , Elk. 24 1 1
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
,
! ! ,
127-001190-0 !Roman Kopp Jr. IN 35 .45 ' of ! $1 ,822.00 !
1 1202 N. Water Street IS 95 ' of 10 1 1
: !Northfield, MN 55057 lBlk. , 24 1 1
! ! ! ! !
127-001191-0 !Wallace Kopisca IS 59 .55 ' of 1 $1 ,510 .00 1
1 113415 Marystown Rd. 110 , Elk. 24 1 1
: :Shakopee, MN 55379 ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
,
i "
ASSESSMENT TABLE PAGE 4
i
i : 1
i !
PID PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
i i i i i
127-001198-0 ;Norman & Karoline Monroe Lot 9 , Blk. 25 1 $2, 167 .00 1
1 1312 E. First Ave. ; ! 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 ! 1 1
i i i
127-001199-0 !David & Catherine Eckart ;Lot 10 , Blk. 251 $2 ,167 .00 1
1 1300 E. First Avenue i i !
I !Shakopee, MN 55379
' I
127-001128-0 !Hastings & D Railway !Lots 1-3 Ex N ! $3,434.00
1 1547 W Jackson Blvd.P.O.Box 62051P/O 2 & 3 1 1
! ! Chicago, IL 60680 :Blk. 20 1
127-001129-0 :Edward & Jeanette Gilles 1P/O 2-5 Com NW 1 $4,474 .00 1
1 1126 S. Atwood ;Cor of Lot 1 E : !
: !Shakopee, MN 55379 !on N line of ! :
! 1 11&2 85 to POB 1 1
' ' IS 37 ' E 15 ' 1 1
! 1 1207 .13 ' N 80 ' 1 1
! ! !W 216 .95 ,B1k.201 !
:27-001129-1 :Cy' s Standard Service 1S 42 ' of Lots 1 $2 ,197 .00 1
1 1312 W. First 16&7 , Blk. 20 1 1
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I ! ' ' '
127-001134-0 ! City of Shakopee !Part of Lots 1 $1 ,764.00 1
1 1129 E. First Ave. 11-3 , Blk. 21 1 1
: !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
127-001144-0 :Art Berens & Sons, Inc. !Lots 1 ,2 ,3 1 $9,653 .00 1
1 1123 W. 2nd 1Blk. 22 1
! !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001145-0 !Art Berens & Sons, Inc. 1S 102 ' of 4 1 $2 ,336 .00 1
1 1123 W. 2nd IBlk. 22 1 1
: !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
! : ! : :
127-001146-0 !Eugene Brown IN 32' of S 62' 1 $1 ,797 .00 1
1 11661 W 6th Ave. ! of 5 , Blk. 22 1 1
: !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 i
ASSESSMENT TABLE PAGE 5
I PID i PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
i
127-001147-0 :Joseph Topic Jr & Rita :S 1/2 of N 40 ' ! $1 ,345 .00 !
! l405 E. 11th !of 4&5,Blk. 22 1
!Shakopee, MN 55379 '
i
'N 20 ' of Lots 1 $1 ,352 .00 1
:27-001148-0 :Stalar i ,
' 1% Davies, Stanley 14&5 , Blk. 22 1 '
: 927 S. Lewis : ' '
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 '
, i
:27-001149-0 ;Mertz-Horeish, Inc. IS 30 ' of 5 ! $1 ,340 .00 ;
1 1140 S. Holmes lBlk. 22 1
I :Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I ! I ' '
127-001150-0 !William Daniels IN 40 ' of S 10211 $2 ,291 .00 1
1 :4539 Heritage Hills CR !of 5 , Blk. 22 1 1
I :Bloomington, MN 55437 1 1 1
127-001158-0 !First National Bank Shakopee !Lots 1 ,2 ,3 & 1 $10 ,196 .00 1
1 1129 S. Holmes !W 1/2 0£ S 10211 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of 4 , Blk. 23 1 1
I I I I
127-001159-0 !William Wermerskirchen !Lot 4&5, Ex N 1 $4,584 .00 1
1 1138 S Lewis 1401 , Blk. 23 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I I I ' '
127-001162-0 !Betti Lu Prow IN 40 ' of 4 & 1 $1 ,678.00 1
1 1126 S. Lewis IS 22 ' of N 40 ' 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 :of 5 , Blk. 23 1 1
I I I ' '
:27-001163-0 :Frances Topic IN 18 ' of 5 1 $1 ,223 .00 1
1 1407 E 11th lBlk. 23 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1
I I I I I
127-001179-0 !Eugene & Esther Brown !Lot 3 ,4 & E 1 ' 1 $8 ,577 .00 1
1 11661 W. 6th Ave . !of 2 , Blk. 24 1 1
I :Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I I I I I
127-001180-0 !Darrel & Joyce Yohnke :Lot 5 Ex N 1 $2 ,025 .00 1
1 1148 Sommerville 164 1/2 , Blk. 241 1
I :Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I I I I I
127-001181 -0 !Audrey McGovern IN 11 1/2 ' of S 1 $1 ,689 .00 1
1 1125 W. 10th 179 ' & N 63' 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of 5 , Blk. 24 1 1
I !
127-001192-0 !Bart Partners !Lots 1 ,2 ,3 1 $9,644.00 1
1 14804 W. 60th St. lBlk. 25 1 1
I ! Edina, MN 55424 1 1 !
I I I I !
i
I-;-
!
ASSESSMENT TABLE PAGE 6
r
I PID PROPERTY OWNER i DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
127-001226-0 ;Ronald Scherer & Alice !Lot 10 Ex S $2 ,762.00 ;
! (DEFERRED) 11037 Bluff Avenue 124.51 , Blk. 28 1
i !Shakopee, MN 555379 !
I
127-001227-0 !Douglas Culhane 1S 24.5 ' of 10 1 $952 .00 1
12124 Bridge Spur Crossing !Blk. 28
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001233-0 1NW Bell Telephone Co./Tax Mgr. !S 12' of Lot 6 1 $679 .00 1
1100 S 19th St. , 91050 1& S 12 ' of E
!Omaha, NE 68102 148' of 7 ,B1k.291
127-001234-0 1NW Bell Telephone Co./Tax Mgr. ! N 130 ' of Lot6 1 $6,575 .00 1
1100 S 19th St. , 91050 1& N 130 ' of E 1 1
!Omaha, NE 68102 148' of 7 ,B1k.291 !
r
r r r
I I I I I
127-001235-0 1NW Bell Telephone Co./Tax Mgr. !W 12' of Lot 7 1 $5 ,602 .00
: 1100 S 19th St. , 91050 :Lot 8 & E 1/3 1
:Omaha, NE 68102 1of 9 Ex RR
: !Blk. 29 :
r i �
127-001236-0 !Joseph Topic Jr. 1W 2/3 of Lot 9 1 $6,256 .00 1
i 1P.0. Box 317 :Ex RR & all of I
!Shakopee, MN 55379 110 , Blk. 29 i
r r r r r
I I I I I
127-001248-0 !Keith Eastman !S 50 1/2 ' of 1 $3 ,346 .00 1
! 152752 Thistle Dr. !Lots 6 & P/0 1 i
!Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 !Alley abutting 1 1
i : said lots 7 1 :
:Blk. 31 !
127-001249-0 !Veronica Case 1N 91 1/2 ' of 6 1 $4,290 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1210 S. Holmes :Lot 7 Ex RR 1 :
!Shakopee, MN 55379 131k. 31 ! i
r r r r r
I I I I I
r i
127-001250-0 !Keith Eastman ILot 8 & P/O 1 $3,614.00 1
1152752 Thistle Dr. !Alley abutting I ;
!Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 !the E 20 ' of 8 1
1Blk. 31 !
127-001251-0 !Marjorie Henderson !Lot 9 , B1k.31 1 $3 ,714.00
1905 S. Holmes
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001252-0 !Marjorie Henderson :Lot 10 , Blk. 31 ! $3,714 .00 !
: 1905 S. Holmes ! ! !
!Shakopee, MN 55379 ! ! i
ASSESSMENT TABLE PAGE 7 ,
PID i PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION I ASSESSMENT 1
127-001256-0 ;Jerome Wampach :Lots 4 ,5 ,6 i $3,468.00 :
1524 Holmes St :Blk. 32 '
I :Shakopee, MN 555379
I
127-001257-0 ;Jerome Wampach ;Lot 7 , blk. 32 : $3,468 .00 i
1524 Holmes St
I (Shakopee, MN 555379
I
127-001258-0 !Thomas Gestach :Lot 8 & E 38' 1 $5 ,663 .00 1
1 1135 Crosstown Blvd. 612 !of 9 , Blk. 32 1 1
1 (Chaska, Mn 55318 1 1 '
I 1 i I
127-001259-0 ; Jerome Wampach :W 22' of 9 & E i $2,139.00 :
1 1524 Holmes St 115 ' of 10 , 1 1
:Shakopee, MN 555379 :Blk. 32 1 1
I : I
127-001260-0 !Daniel Lebens 1W 45 ' of 10 1 $3,004.00 1
1 1207 1/2 S. Atwood :Blk. 32 1 1
I !Shakopee , MN 55379 1 1 1
! I : i
127-001264-0 !Thomas & Lucille Novitzki IN 62' of Lot 1 $3 ,762 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1208 Atwood 16&7 & W 42 ' of 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of S 80 ' of 7 1 1
I I lBlk. 33 1
I I I 1 ,
127-001265-0 !Dennis Schmitt & Wife :S 80 ' of Lot 6 1 $4,396 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1535 E 8th Ave 1& E 18' of S80 ' I I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 !of 7 , Elk. 33 1 1
I
I I ,
127-001218-0 :Frederick Houle & Wife i5 90-3/10 ' of : $2 ,040 .00 !
! (DEFERRED) :231 S Sommerville !Lots 1 & 2 EXRR : I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 :Blk. 28 1 1
I I I I
127-001219-0 !Charles Borchard IN 51-7/10 ' of 1 $1 ,652 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1225 S. Sommerville 11&2, Elk. 28 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
127-001228-0 !City of Shakopee !Lot 1 & 2 1 $3 ,804.00 1
1 1129 E. First Ave. IBlk. 29 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1
I I I I '
127-001238-0 !Mona Strunk :Lots 1&2 lying 1 $1 ,532.00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1103 E. 3rd Is' erly ofn' erlyl I
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 1511 , EX S 50 ' 1 1
I I !of E 50 ' of 2 : I
I I :Blk. 30
! : :
:
kOGd@sOB
w
ASSESSMENT TABLE
PAGE 8 ,
PID PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
, , ,
127-001238-1 ;David & Karen Moonen 1N'erly 51 ' of 1 $1 ,336 .00 1
1236 S Lewis Box 300 !Lots 1&2 & S i ;
!Shakopee, MN 55379 11/2 of vacated 1 !
i ! !alley on n' erly !
! side lots
:Blk. 30 ! !
127-001239-0 ! James & Berit Gerhardson 1S 50 ' of E 50 ' ! $836 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 17724 Hampshire Ave N !of 2 , Blk. 30 1 i
!Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 ! ! i
127-001240-0 ! Calvin & Rosemary Brown !Lot 3 , Blk. 30 1 $1 ,846 .00 1
i 1956 S. Holmes ! ! !
!Shakopee, MN 55379 ! i 1
127-001241-0 !Shakopee Investment One !Lot 4 & N 81 ' 1 $2,744.00 1
! 18520 W. 135th St. !of 5 , Blk. 30 1 1
!Apple Valley, MN 55124 i
127-001242-0 !Hoffman Family Partnership 1S 60' of 5 1 $1 ,529 .00 1
! 1135 E. 3rd iBlk. 30 i !
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001245-0 !Scott & Debra Ryan !Lot 1 , Blk. 31 1 $1 ,846 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1135 W. 3rd Ave. ! !
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001246-0 !Ervin Monnens & Wife !Lot 2, Blk. 31 1 $1 ,846 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1129 W. 3rd ! 1 1
i !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001247-0 !First Nat. Bank - Shakopee !Lots 3-5 &S' rly ! $5 ,151 .00
i 1129 S. Holmes 11/2 of adjacent ! i
!Shakopee, MN 55379 !vacated alley 1 1
lBlk. 31
127-001253-0 !Donald Yahnke !Lot 1 , Blk. 32 1 $1 ,846 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1239 W. 3rd Ave. i
i !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001254-0 !Susan Niewind !Lot 2 , Blk. 32 1 $1 ,846 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1229 W. 3rd Ave.
!Shakopee, MN 55379 i
127-001255-0 !Diane Heinz !Lot 3 , Blk. 32 1 $1 ,846 .00 1
! (DEFERRED) 1219 W. 3rd Ave.
!Shakopee, MN 55379 ! i
ASSESSMENT TABLE PAGE 9 ,
i
i PID : PROPERTY OWNER : DESCRIPTION : ASSESSMENT I
1
:27-001256-0 ;Jerome Wampach (Lots 4 ,5 ,6 $2,395 .00 1
1524 Holmes St. IBlk. 32 :
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-001263-0 !John Ries Jr. :Lot 5 Ex W 2 1 $2,364.00 1
: :220 W. 3rd Ave. !of S 73' ,
: !Shakopee, MN 55379 lBlk. 33
:
1 1 : : $236 ,915.00 :
I�
July 27,1989
City of Shkopee
129 East First Avenue
ShakoPee,Minuesota 55379-1376
To ':ihom it may Concern.
My property is at 119 East 3rd Avenue parcel number 27-001240-6
On the very first public hearing held in the Scott County corthouse
before this project was started I was informed by a City engineer
I had nothing to worry about as I was not included in this project.
To my surprise I get the notice I have an assessment of $1,846.00
receiving no benefit of any kind from this project I feel this
is very unfair. In checking on the formula used to come up with
this figure I find I have 60 feet of frontage on 3rd avenue and
a full lot but Iam assessed more than lots that have 70f f/et of
frontage on 3rd avenue but there lots do not go back (North & South)
all of the way but they receive curb and gutter all of the way.
Hy assessment is over 600.00 more.
$400.00
In reading the City minutes from your last meeting it stated
that the North side of 3rd avenue received no benefit from thin
Downtown Streetscape Project so there assessments are less but I
do not find this in my case.
Si cerelyyJ/'��
CalYin LB" rownn
I feel the formula you are using to set assessments is
discrimnating .
Thank you kindly.
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: 11th Avenue Assessments
Project No. 1988-5
DATE: July 24, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
A public hearing on the proposed assessments for the 11th Avenue
Project has been scheduled for August 1 , 1989 . Attached is
Resolution No. 3092 , which adopts the assessments for this
project for Council consideration.
BACKGROUND:
The construction for this project is essentially completed. On
July 11 , 1989 the City Council set a date for the public hearing
on the proposed assessments for August 1 , 1989 by Resolution No.
3074 .
The total project costs can be summarized below:
Total Construction Costs $73,531 .98
Total Engr./Admin. Costs 12.121 .94
Total Project Costs $85,653.92
The feasibility report discussed several assessment alternatives
for both the street and storm sewer portions of the project.
For the street costs, Alternative No. 4 was adopted by Council .
Basically the street costs are assessed 100% to all abutting
property owners, although corner lots received a 50% adjustment
to their frontage on 11th Avenue. The total street costs were
$63 ,638 .60 , including engineering and administrative costs , and
this amount was assessed to abutting property owners 100% . The
street assessment was approximately $35 . 15 per adjusted front
foot.
For the storm sewer portion, Alternative No. 3 was adopted by
Council. This alternative assesses one-half of the storm sewer
cost completely back to the developer on the south side of 11th
Avenue and assesses 25% of the storm sewer costs back to the
properties abutting the north side of the street. The total
storm sewer costs were $21 ,302 .59 , including engineering and
administrative costs. Of that amount, $13 ,314. 12 was assessed
and the remainder absorbed by the City . The storm sewer
assessment was approximately $2.61 per adjusted front foot.
Staff will give a detailed presentation of the assessment
calculations at the public hearing.
Attached is Resolution No. 3092 , which adopts the assessments for
11th Avenue, Project No. 1988-5 for Council consideration . A
complete assessment roll is attached to the Resolution.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt Resolution No. 3092 .
2 . Deny Resolution No. 3092.
3 . Based on the public testimony received , revise the
assessment roll to make any adjustments desired to specific
properties and then adopt the resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternatives No. 1 , to adopt Resolution
No. 3092 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3092 , A Resolution Adopting Assessments for
11th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer Construction , Project No .
1988-5 and move its adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM3092
RESOLUTION NO. 3092
A Resolution Adopting Assessments
On 11th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer Construction
Project No. 1988-5
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and
passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of:
11th Avenue between Spencer Street and Minnesota Street by
Street and Storm Sewer Improvements, Project No . 1988-5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That such proposed assessment together with any
amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein
included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed
improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it.
2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments extending over a period of ten ( 10) years ( check
with Finance Director on years ) , the first installment to be
payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1990 , and shall
bear interest at the rate of 8 .50 percent per annum from the date
of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first
installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment
from the date of this resolution until December 31 , 1990 , and to
each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest
for one year on all unpaid installments .
3 . The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor,
pay the whole of the assessment on such property , with interest
accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except
that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within thirty ( 30 ) days from the adoption of this
resolution ; he may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the
installment and interest in process of collection on the current
tax list, and he may pay the remaining principal balance of the
assessment to the City Treasurer.
4 . The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to
this assessment in his office and shall c=ertify annually to the
County Auditor on or before October 10th of each year the total
amount of installments and interest which are to become due in
the following year on the assessment on each parcel of land
included in the assessment roll.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota , held this clay of , 19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST.
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day
of 19
City Attorney
11TH AVENUE
ASSESSMENT TABLE
PROJECT NO. 1989-5 PAGE 1
PID i PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION i ASSESSMENT 1
127-013017-0 !Phyllis Berg ;Lot 10 , Elk. 1 1 $3,198.75 1
i 11070 Market Street !Capesius Addn. 1
!Shakopee, MN 55379
127-013018-0 !Earl Lenzmeier !Lot 11 , Elk. 1 ! $3 , 198.75 1
11075 Markst St. :Ex. N. 18 .1 ' ! '
!
!Shakopee, MN 55379 lCapesius Addn. ! 1
127-022008-0 !Harry E. Lane !Lot 8 , Elk. 1 1 $3 ,360 .23
11067 S. Main !Southview Addn. !
i !Shakopee, MN 55379
127-022014-0 !James & Lois Kohout !Lot 6 , Elk. 2 1 $3 ,531 .74 1
11070 S. Main !Southview Addn. ! $712 .73 1
!Shakopee, MN 55379 ! 1 $4,244.47 1
127-022015-0 !Keith Fauks lP.O of 8 & 7 1 $1 ,805 .06 1
1409 E. 11th Ave. !Blk. 2 1 1
I !Shakopee, MN 55379 !Lying E of Line ! I
!Com at Pt. !
1 1
1126 .84 E NW Cor !
:of 8 , S to Pt 1 1
!on S Line 7 , !
I 1 1127 .19 E of SW 1 1
lCor & there 1 1
! terminating 1
!Southview Addn. ! 1
127-022016-0 ! Ramona P Ries 1P.0 of 8 & 7 1 $2,041 .79 1
! 1401 E. 11th 1Blk. 2 ! i
!Shakopee, MN 55379 !Ly W of Line !
i !Beg N Line 8 1 1
153 .73 E NW Cor 1 1
18, S to Pt. S 1
I 1 !Line 7 , 54.08 1 1
1E SW Cor of 7 ! 1
!Southview Addn. ! i
127-022017-0 !Paul & Susan Vaccaro !P/O 8 & 7 1 $920 .08 1
1403 E. 11th !Elk. 2 ! i
1 !Shakopee, MN 55379 !Beg 53 .73 ' E oft
INH Cor 8 , E !
!24.37 ' , S to Pt !
1 ! 178.45 ' E of !
15W Cor 7 , W 1 !
!24.37 ' N
!to POB ! !
!Southview Addn. ! i
ASSESSMENT TABLE
PAGE 2
DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
PID , PROPERTY OWNER ,
1 i 1
27
1 -022018-0 !Joseph Topic Jr. lP.O 7 & 8 1 $920 .0
1P.O. Box 317 lBlk. 2 i
!Shakopee, MN 55379 !Beg 78 .10 E of ! !
!NW Cor of 8 , E 1 !
:24 .37 S to Pt. 1 !
�
1102 .82 E of SW i �
ICor of 7 , W ! !
124.37 ' N to Beg : !
iSouthview Addn. 1 :
127-022019-0 !Prances Topic !P/O 7 & 8 i $920 .08 :
1407 E. 11th Ave. lBlk. 2 i
! !Shakopee, Mn 55379 iSouthview Addn. !
! ! ! 1
127-041007-0 !Roger Schmieg & Wife !Lot 7 , Blk. 1 1 $3 ,784.85 1
1 11076 Minnesota Street !Eagle Bluff 1 :
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 12nd Addtn. ! !
!
127-136030-0 !Gold Nugget Development !Lot 12, Blk. 3 1 $4,842 .84 1
1
18857 Zealand Ave. N. !Meadows 1st ! !
! !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 :Addn. !
,
127-136031-0 !Robert & Roxanne Ahsenmacher !Lot 13 , Blk. 3 ! $4,842 .84 !
!
11109 S. Minnesota St. !Meadows 1st ! I
! !Shakopee, MN 55379 {Addn. !
127-136033-0 !Gold Nugget Development !Lot 15, Blk. 3 ! $4,842.84 1
!
18857 Zealand Ave. N. !Meadows 1st ! !
! !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 !Addn. !
127-136034-0 ! Gold Nugget Development !Lot 16 , Blk. 3 1 $4 ,842.84 1
!
18857 Zealand Ave. N. !Meadows 1st ! !
1 !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 IAddn. !
I ! !
127-136035-0 !Gold Nugget Development !Lot 17 , Blk. 3 1 $4,842.84 !
!
18857 Zealand Ave. N. !Meadows 1st 1 !
! !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 lAddn. !
! !
! ! 1
127-136036-0 !Gold Nugget Development !Lot 18 , Blk. 3 ! $4,842 .84 !
!
18857 Zealand Ave. N. !Meadows 13t ! 1
1 !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 !Addn. !
! ! 1 1 1
127-136037-0 !Gold Nugget Development !Lot 19 , Blk. 3 1 $4,842 .84 1
1
18857 Zealand Ave. N. !Meadows 1st ! !
1 !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 IAddn. !
! 1 ! ! !
ASSESSMENT TABLE PAGE 3
i
!
,
PID 1 PROPERTY OWNER 1 DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 1
127-136038-0 !Gold Nugget Development !Lot 20 , Blk. 3 1 $4,842.84
18857 Zealand Ave. N. !Meadows 1st 1 ;
i !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 !Addn. i
i i ! i i
127-136039-0 !Gold Nugget Development !Lot 21 , Blk. 3 1 $4,842 .84 1
! 18857 Zealand Ave. N. ;Meadows 1st 1 !
! !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 !Addn. ! !
i i i ! !
127-136040-0 !Gold Nugget Development !Lot 22 , Blk. 3 1 $4,842 .84. 1
! 18857 Zealand Ave. N. !Meadows 1st ! !
! !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 !Addn. ! !
! ! ! !
127-136042-0 !Gold Nugget Development !Lot 23 & 24, 1 $4,842 .84 1
! 18857 Zealand Ave. N. 1Blk. 3 ! !
! !Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 !Meadows 1st 1 !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
TOTAL ASSESS $77 ,665.38 1
"BRING FEASIBILITY REPORT FROM 7/ 18 COUNCIL PACKET"
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator tz—
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Boiling Springs Lane - Drainage Improvements
DATE: July 24, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 3090 for Council consideration which
orders plans and specifications for drainage improvements to
Boiling Springs Lane.
BACKGROUND:
In March, 1988 the property owner at 9186 Boiling Springs Lane
contacted the City Council and requested that the City construct
drainage improvements in the Boiling Springs area to alleviate an
annual flooding problem. The City Council ordered a feasibility
report on the improvements on April 18, 1989 by Resolution No.
3035 .
The feasibility report has been completed and was distributed to
the City Council on July 11 , 1989 and subsequently a public
hearing was scheduled for August 1 , 1989 by Resolution No. 3075 •
The proposed improvements consist of constructing a drainage
swale from Boiling Springs Lane to Eagle Creek, which is located
in the City of Savage, in order to alleviate an annual ponding
problem in the Boiling Springs area.
The feasibility report discusses the proposed improvements ,
estimated project costs and assessment procedures. Staff will
give a presentation on the feasibility report at the public
hearing.
At the conclusion of the public hearing if Council wishes to
proceed with the project, Resolution No. 3090 which orders the
preparation of plans and specifications for the project is
attached for Council consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Determine that the project should proceed and order plans
and specifications by adopting Resolution No. 3090 .
2. Determine that the project is not in the best interest of
the City and deny Resolution No. 3090 .
3 . Table any action and direct staff to provide additional
information to Council, if desired .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3090 , A Resolution Ordering an Improvement
and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Drainage
Improvements to Boiling Springs Lane, Project No. 1989-9 and move
its adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM3090
RESOLUTION NO. 3090
l �
A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And
The Preparation of Plans And Specifications For
Drainage Improvements to Boiling Springs Lane
Project No. 1989-9
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3075 , adopted on July 11 , 1989 fixed
a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Boiling
Springs Lane by Drainage Facilities; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through
two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the
hearing was held on the 1st day of August 1989 , at which all
persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be
heard thereon.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter
described:
The construction of a drainage swale from Boiling
Springs Lane easterly to Eagle Creek
2. David Hutton, City Engineer is hereby designated as the
engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota , held this day of
19_•
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
19—.
City Attorney
Or-, THE qd
VSCOTTLAND
COMPANIES
July 31, 1989
Mayor and City Council, City Clerk
City of Shakopee
City Hall
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: Proposed Assessment for Project No. 1988-1
Dear Mayor, Council and City Clerk:
Scottland Inc, owns the property proposed to be assessed as set
forth in the attached Notice of Hearings, Exhibits A and B, in the
approximate amount of $405,357 .09 for the construction of Vierling
Drive and storm sewer .
This letter constitutes our written objection to the proposed
special assessments. The objection is based on many reasons,
several of which are discussed hereinafter ,
1. The assessments exceed the special benefits to the property.
2 . Certain areas have been excluded from assessment which
should have been included.
3. The assessment formula used by the City is arbitrary and
unreasonable.
4 . The project for which the property is being assessed is of
general benefit to the City and should not be specially assessed to
the extent proposed.
While we always try to work with the City, we cannot agree to
pay a special assessment which we believe is far in excess of the
special benefit to the property.
Very truly
yyOoouu�r/�s��,'',`'
rooks Hauser
hairman of the Board
186ZSAM/20
P.0. 13=509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612)445-3242
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Vierling Drive Assessments
Project No. 1988-1
DOTE: July 24, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
A public hearing on the proposed assessments for the Vierling
Drive Project has been scheduled for August 1 , 1989. Attached is
Resolution No. 3091 which adopts the assessments for this project
for Council consideration.
BACKGROUND:
Vierling Drive, between C.R. 16 and C.R. 17 , was constructed in
two phases under two separate contracts. The eastern half of the
street was constructed through Hauer ' s Addition in 1987 and
assessments have previously been adopted by Council for this
portion.
The west half of Vierling Drive was recently completed and is the
subject of this memo. This portion of the street crosses through
properties owned by Scottland Companies, Inc.
The project is essentially complete. The total construction
costs for the project are $379,532.87 , which includes $174,694.05
for storm sewer construction and $204 , 838 . 82 for street
construction. The total engineering and administrative costs to
date are $149 , 173 .60 , which includes an amount of $89 ,200 .00 for
the right-of-way acquisition costs.
The total project costs are summarized below:
Construction Costs $379 ,532.87
Engr. and Admin. costs $149 . 173 .60
Total Project Costs $528,T06.4T
Vierling Drive was constructed as a 50 foot wide, state aid
collector street. The feasibility report for this project
recommended that the abutting property owners be assessed the
equivalent of a 36 foot wide local street, with the City paying
for the street oversizing costs . In addition , the report
recommended assessing the sidewalk 100% while the City would pay
for all of the boulevard trees.
Using those criteria , the total assessment for the street
portion, including engineering and administrative fees , is as
follows:
Assessed Portion $186 ,947 .35
Non Assessed Portion $ 98.402.40
Total Street Costs $285 ,349.75
Similarly, the feasibility report recommended assessing the storm
sewer based on the runoff created by the entire drainage basin
and local street versus the runoff created by the oversizing of
Vierling Drive . Since the entire drainage area is located on
properties owned by Scottland Companies, the only portion of the
storm sewer that is non-assessable is that portion attributable
to the overwidth of Vierling Drive.
Using that criteria , the total assessment for the storm sewer
portion, including engineering and administrative fees is as
follows:
Assessed Portion $218,409.74
Non Assessed Portion 24.946 .98
Total Storm Costs $243,356.72
The summary of both the street and storm sewer assessed costs is
as follows:
Assessed Costs Non Assessed Costs
Street Portion $186 ,947 .35 $ 98,402.40
Storm Portion $218.409.74 24 .946 .98
Totals $405,357-09 $123,349.38
The $405 , 357 . 09 that would be assessed to the Scottland
Companies, Inc. has been divided up into two separate assessments
by frontage for the twoseparate parcels owned by Scottland . A
complete assessment roll is attached to the Resolution.
Attached is Resolution No. 3091 which adopts the assessments for
Vierling Drive, Project No. 1988-1 for Council consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt Resolution No. 3091 .
2 . Deny Resolution No. 3091 .
3. Revise the resolution in order to make adjustments to the
proposed assessments based on the public testimony received
and then adopt the resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Depending on the public testimony , staff recommends Alternative
No. 1 to adopt the proposed assessments as listed in Resolution
No. 3091 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3091 , A Resolution Adopting Assessments on
Vierling Drive from County Road 17 Easterly for + 3200 Feet,
Project No . 1988-1 and move its adoption .
DH/pmp
MEM3091
RESOLUTION NO. 3091
A Resolution Adopting Assessments
On Vierling Drive From County Road 1T
Easterly For + 3200 Feet
Project No. 1988-1
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and
passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of:
Vierling Drive from C. R. 17 Easterly for + 3200 Feet ,
Project No. 1988-1 by Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter, Storm Sewer
and Pavement Improvements
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That such proposed assessment together with any
amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein
included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed
improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it.
2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments extending over a period of ten ( 10 ) years (check
with Finance Director on years) , the first installment to be
payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1990 , and shall
bear interest at the rate of 8 .50 percent per annum from the date
of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first
installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment
from the date of this resolution until December 31 , 1990 , and to
each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest
for one year on all unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may , at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor,
pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest
accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer , except
that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within thirty ( 30 ) days from the adoption of this
resolution ; he may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the
installment and interest in process of collection on the current
tax list, and he may pay the remaining principal balance of the
assessment to the City Treasurer.
4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to
this assessment in his office and shall certify annually to the
County Auditor on or before October 10th of each year the total
amount of installments and interest which are to become due in
the following year on the assessment on each parcel of land
included in the assessment roll.
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
VIERLING DRIVE FROM C.R. 17
EASTERLY + 3200 FEET
ASSESSMENT TABLE
PROJECT NO. 1988-1 PAGE 1
1 1 1 i i
1 PID i PROPERTY OWNER ! DESCRIPTION ! ASSESSMENT
1 ! 1
1
127-907015-0 (Scottland Inc. 17 115 22 1 $162,776 .21 i
11244 Canterbury Road 138.33 i i
!Shakopee, MN 55379 INE 1/4 SE 1/4 1 i
1 ! IEX .67 A ROAD ! i
127-908001-0 ;Scottland Inc. 18 115 22 1 $242,580 .88 1
1 11244 Canterbury Road 156 .85 i 1
1 !Shakopee, MN 55379 1W 16 .55A OF !
1 1 !OF NE 1/4 SW ! i
1 11/4 EX RR R i 1
1 !NW 1/4 SW 1/4 i 1
I i i i i
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS $405 ,357 .09
CONSENT /061
MRMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Approval of Cable Sale and Transfer
DATE: July 25, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
In January, the City of Shakopee received formal correspondence
from Zylstra/United Television Company informing the City of
Shakopee of their desire to sell the Shakopee Cable system. On
February 7, 1989 the Shakopee City Council waived the City of
Shakopee's right of first refusal to acquire the cable system.
On June 26, 1989 the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory
Commission reviewed technical, financial and operational plans as
submitted by AMZAK Cable in regard to the operation of the
Shakopee cable system. In accordance with Section 14 . 02 of the
Shakopee Cable Franchise Ordinance the Cable Commission felt that
the proposed change constituted a major change in the Franchise
Ordinance and thus a public hearing was held on July 24, 1989 to
solicit comments from Shakopee residents regarding this issue.
The Cable Commission upon closing the public hearing moved to
recommend Council approval of the Cable sale and transfer.
BACKGROUND:
Shown in attachment #1 is the correspondence received from AMZAK
Cable, Midwest indicating their desire to acquire the Shakopee
Cable Franchise.
Following the receipt of this letter, I requested Mr. Keith
Cripps to respond to several key questions which I felt would be
of interest to the Cable Commission and City Council. Shown in
attachment #2 are the formal respondences to those questions as
provided by AMZAK Cable, Midwest, Inc. The questions relate to
the following issues: 1) Public Access, 2) Service Extensions, 3)
Office Location and Staffing, 4) System Upgrade, Channel
Realignment and Regional Access, 5) Institutional Network, 6)
Financial Data, 7) Capital Improvement Plans, and 8) Marketing.
At the public hearing these issues were reviewed with officials
from AMZAK Cable. Based on the responses received it does not
appear that there will be any significant change in the operation
of the Shakopee cable system.
The issue of regional access was also discussed at the public
hearing. At that time, AMZAK officials stated that it would be a
significant capital expenditure for them to activate the regional
access channel at this time. AMZAK officials were not opposed to
activation of the channel but requested that the City allow them
some time to respond to this issue. In the Spring of 1986 the
Shakopee City Council approved an amendment to the Cable
Franchise Ordinance. This amendment extended a five year
deferral to the cable company for all unmet capital expenditure
commitments required by the franchise. The Cable Commission is
recommending that activation of the regional access channel be
considered a capital expenditure and deferred for a time period
to coincide with the deferral period as setforth in Section 16.04
of the Cable Franchise Ordinance. Under this scenario, AMZAK
Cable, Midwest, Inc. would be required to activate the regional
access channel at the end of the five year deferral period. The
deferral period ends on April 1, 1991.
At the public hearing the operational status of some of the
pubic access studio equipment was questioned by several Cable
Commissioners. After hearing input from the Shakopee Access
Corp. and the Cable Commissioners, Mr. Cripps agreed to provide a
$2500 equipment grant at closing and a second $2500 equipment
grant one year from now.
Upon closing the public hearing the Cable Communication
Commission moved to recommend to City Council approval of the
sale and transfer of the Cable Franchise Ordinance to AMZAK
Cable, Midwest, Inc.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to approve the sale and transfer of the Shakopee Cable
System and Franchise Ordinance from Zylstra/United CAble
Television to AMZAK Cable, Midwest, Inc.
2. Do not approve the sale and transfer of the Shakopee Cable
Franchise Ordinance and Cable System to AMZAK Cable,
Midwest, Inc.
3. Table action pending further information from staff.
nCOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to approve the sale and transfer of the Shakopee Franchise
Ordinance and Cable System from Zylstra/United Cable Television
to AMZAK Cable, Midwest, Inc.
®NSENT IDb
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Refuse Disposal Ordinance Amendments
DATE: July 25, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
In March, the City of Shakopee implemented a volume based refuse
collection program. The new program also offered Shakopee
residents with the capability to dispose of recyclables in
conjunction with regular refuse collection. Additionally, yard
waste collection services were provided by the City as a separate
program. In order to effectively administrate the new programs,
several changes to the City's refuse ordinance are necessary.
BACKGROUND:
Shown in attachment #1 is the current section of the City
ordinance relating to refuse collection. The current City Refuse
Collection Ordinance allows Shakopee residents to either select
the City's contracted refuse hauler or the private hauler of
their choice.
The fact that our refuse collection program is not a closed
system has allowed a number of customers to drop our contracted
refuse collection service. Residents are dropping our service
for several reasons. First, the disposal rates for City's new
program is based on how much refuse you produce. The new program
is confusing for some people and others have had to pay higher
disposal fees to get rid of their refuse. Second, the City
charges extra to dispose of yard waste. This point is compounded
by the fact that several private haulers provide for the
unlimited collection of yard waste and residential refuse at a
rate of approximately $12 .00 per month. (The City's contracted
rate is $9 .95 per month. ) The issue of private haulers disposing
of yard waste in conjunction with regular refuse will be ratified
by State mandates which go into effect on January 1, 1990. The
new law requires all yard waste to be separated from residential
refuse. It is likely that private haulers will have to increase
their disposal rates as a result of this new law. Thus
furthering the gap between the City's refuse disposal rate and
private haulers disposal rate.
Most cities under contract with a private refuse hauler provide
for the collection of refuse from all dwelling units up to and
including four olexes in the community being served. The
rational adhered to by those cities operating under a closed
system are as follows:
1. A closed system insures that all refuse is disposed of in a
manner which protects the health, safety and welfare of the
residents.
2. A closed system limits the number of garbage trucks that are
traveling on city streets and/or alleys and thereby
increases the life expectancy of the city's infrastructure.
3. A closed system insures the use of uniform refuse containers
which are more aesthetically pleasing than randomly selected
disposal methods.
4. A closed refuse program insure collection at all households
within the refuse collection service area.
S. The use of a closed system streamlines the complaint
process.
6. Dealing with a closed system will make it easier for the
City to monitor and enforce State and local mandates.
7. The provision of a closed system helps to insure the lowest
long term possible rates for collection and disposal.
8. A closed system will reduce the potential for illegal
dumping since all households are provided with refuse
collection.
The City's current refuse contract provides for the collection
from all residential units up to and including four plexes within
the City of Shakopee's refuse collection disposal area. This
area is defined as all areas North of the proposed Southerly By-
Pass and within the Shakopee City Limits. The contractors bid
price was based on a projection of the number of units to be
served within the refuse collection disposal area. When
residents are given the option to select any hauler they want to,
the City's contractor is at the risk of losing customers. In
future contracts, the loss of customers could subsequently cause
an increase in the refuse collection disposal rates for all
residents receiving refuse collection services from the City's
contractor. More importantly, staff is aware of several
households in the City that have no regular trash collections.
It is unknown what happens to this refuse, but one might conclude
that it is being deposited in commercial dumpsters used by area
businesses, city park receptacles or along road sides.
On July 24, 1989, the Energy and Transportation Committee held a
public hearing in regard to the proposed changes to the City's
Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance. Local private haulers
that staff is aware of that are operating in Shakopee were sent
notices of the hearing.
Shown in attachment #2 is the draft ordinance which the Energy
and Transportation Committee is recommending for Council
approval. The ordinance provides for a closed refuse disposal
system in Shakopee. Upon adoption and enactment of the
ordinance, all residential units up to and including four plexes
would be mandated to go with the City's refuse contractor.
Industrial/commercial and residential units larger than four
plexes would continue to be responsible for contracting with
private haulers for the disposal and collection of their refuse.
All residents who are currently contracting with private haulers
would be grandfathered until such time that the residential unit
is sold or until the expiration of the City's current refuse
contract (January 14, 1992) whichever comes first. Residents
outside the refuse collection service area that are receiving
service from the City would also be grandfathered. Upon
execution of the new contract in 1992, these customers would be
excluded from the City's service unless they could obtain 1008
participation from the residents in the subdivision.
The proposed ordinance also addresses the type of refuse
container to be utilized, the collection point and the provision
of recycling and yard waste collection services by the City's
contractor. The ordinance also includes an anti-scavenging
section which provides the City of Shakopee with some recourse
against those persons who are unlawfully taking recyclable
materials from residents recycling containers.
Finally, the ordinance addresses the refuse collection service
area and how residents outside the area are to dispose of their
waste. At this time, it is being proposed that all areas outside
the refuse collection service area be handled through private
contracts between the resident and the private hauler of their
choice. If a subdivision would like to receive City contracted
service they would need 1008 participation of the residents
within the subdivision. Their are several factors which make it
difficult to service this area with a City contract at this time.
First, some of the area is not provided with utility service from
Shakopee Public Utilities. Therefore a separate billing system
would have to be set-up. Second, low density of the rural area
would have an impact on City collection rates. It would be
possible to set up a separate rural rate but the current refuse
contract would have to be amended accordingly to reflect this
change. If Council is interested in extending service staff
would recommend that it be done in conjunction with the rebidding
of the service.
At the public hearing, several objections were raised in regard
to the proposed ordinance changes by Mr. Norbert Schmidt
representing Shakopee Services. He contends the following: 1.
Taxpayers should have the right to select who they want for
refuse collection. 2 . A closed system impedes the free
enterprise system. 3 . It is not the City's responsibility to
ensure the lowest prices for refuse collection. 4. Four-plexes
should be considered commercial property. 5. If the City wants
to save wear and tear on City streets they should place limits on
all trucks not just garbage trucks.
The Energy and Transportation Committee felt that Mr. Schmidt did
make some good points but that in the long run the health, safety
and welfare of Shakopee residents could best be furthered by a
closed refuse collection program.
If Council concurs with the Energy and Transportation Committee's
recommendation, it would be appropriate at this time to direct
the City Attorney to draft the appropriate Ordinance amending the
Refuse Collection Section of the City Code providing for a closed
refuse collection system.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Direct the City Attorney to draft the appropriate ordinance
amending the refuse collection of the City Code providing
for a closed refuse collection system.
2 . Amend the proposed ordinance as submitted and direct the
City Attorney to draft the appropriate ordinance amending
the refuse collection section of the City Code.
3 . Amend the proposed ordinance as submitted deleting all
references to a closed refuse disposal system and direct the
City Attorney to draft the appropriate ordinance amending
the refuse collection section of the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REODESTED:
Move to direct the City Attorney to draft the appropriate
ordinance amending the refuse collection of the City Code
providing for a closed refuse collection system.
. 0
Attachment #2
SOURCE SEPARATION, COLLECTION,
AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE
Section 3 .15 Rules and regulations relating to source
separation, collection and disposal of refuse.
Subd. 1. Definitions. As used in this section, the following
terms shall have the following meanings:
1. "Refuse" as used in this section shall include
"garbage", refuse and litter as defined in Chapter 10
of the City Code, but shall exclude construction
materials.
2. "Paper" shall include paper of the type commonly
referred to as newsprint.
3. "Cans" shall include all disposable containers made and
fabricated primarily of metal, aluminum and tin.
4. "Glass" shall include products used as bottles, jars
and other glass containers, excluding however, blue and
flat glass commonly known as "window glass' .
5. "Receptacle" shall mean individual containers
constructed of weather proof, insect and rodent proof
materials such as plastic or metal for refuse and
recycling purposes.
6. "Recycling" shall mean any process by which materials
which would otherwise become solid waste are collected,
separated or processed and returned to the economic
mainstream in the form of raw materials or products.
7. "Yard Waste" shall mean grass clippings and leaves.
8. "Refuse/Recycling Service Area" shall mean the area in
which the City shall provide for the collection and
disposal of refuse, recyclables and yard waste,
generally defined as the area South of the proposed 101
by-pass or otherwise approved by the City Council.
Subd. 2. Collection and Disposal of Refuse. The City shall
provide for the collection and disposal of all refuse
from single family and multiple family units up to and
including four plexes in a sanitary manner to insure
the health, safety and general welfare of it's
residents, under such terms and conditions as the City
may, from time to time, deem appropriate. Such
collection shall be made only in the areas defined by
the City as the refuse/recycling service area and in
accordance with the schedule, as established by the
City Council.
Attachment #2
SOURCE SEPARATION, COLLECTION,
AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE
Section 3.15 Rules and regulations relating to source
separation, collection and disposal of refuse.
Subd. 1. Definitions. As used in this section, the following
terms shall have the following meanings:
1. "Refuse" as used in this section shall include
"garbage", refuse and litter as defined in Chapter 10
of the City Code, but shall exclude construction
materials.
2. "Paper" shall include paper of the type commonly
referred to as newsprint.
3 . "Cans" shall include all disposable containers made and
fabricated primarily of metal, aluminum and tin.
4. "Glass" shall include products used as bottles, jars
and other glass containers, excluding however, blue and
flat glass commonly known as "window glass".
5. "Receptacle" shall mean individual containers
constructed of weather proof, insect and rodent proof
materials such as plastic or metal for refuse and
recycling purposes.
6. "Recycling" shall mean any process by which materials
which would otherwise become solid waste are collected,
separated or processed and returned to the economic
mainstream in the form of raw materials or products.
7. "Yard Waste" shall mean grass clippings and leaves.
8. "Refuse/Recycling service Area" shall mean the area . in
which the City shall provide for the collection and
disposal of refuse, recyclables and yard waste,
generally defined as the area South of the proposed 101
by-pass or otherwise approved by the City Council.
Subd. 2. Collection and Disposal of Refuse. The City shall
provide for the collection and disposal of all refuse
from single family and multiple family units up to and
including four plexes in a sanitary manner to insure
the health, safety and general welfare of it's
residents, under such terms and conditions as the City
may, from time to time, deem appropriate. Such
collection shall be made only in the areas defined by
the City as the refuse/recycling service area and in
accordance with the schedule, as established by the
II
Subd. 3 . Collection of Recyclable Materials. The City shall
provide for the collection and disposal of newspaper,
glass, cans and yard waste in a sanitary manner to
insure the health, safety and general welfare of it's
residents, under such terms and conditions as the City
may from time to time, deem appropriate. Such
collection shall be made only in the areas of the City,
and in accordance with a schedule as established by the
City Council.
Subd. 4. Kind and Placement of Containers.
a. Residential Units - The City shall be responsible
for providing refuse and recycling receptacles to
all single family units up to and including four
plexes located within the refuse collection
service area. The cost of the receptacles shall
be included in the refuse collection rate. The
refuse receptacles shall be made of plastic and
not exceed 65 gallon capacity. These receptacles
shall be water-tight and fitted with handles and a
substantially tight fitting cover to prevent the
disturbance of contents thereof by cats and dogs,
and to prevent the propagation of, and infestation
by, rats, flies, etc. The City shall also be
responsible for providing residents within the
refuse collection service area with a 30-gallon
recycling receptacle. The recycling receptacle
shall be constructed of weather proof, insect and
rodent proof material such as plastic. The cost
of the receptacles shall be included in the refuse
collection fees.
b. Commercial and Industrial Establishments - The
owner, manager, proprietor, agent or occupant of
any residential unit larger then a four plex,
store, hotel, restaurant, saloon, stable or
industrial building within the City shall be
responsible for providing water tight receptacles
for the reception of garbage and refuse. These
containers shall be water tight and fitted with
substantially tight fitting covers to prevent the
disturbance of contents, and to prevent the
propagation of, and infestation by rats, flies,
etc.
C. Placement of Containers - In so far as practical,
receptacles shall be kept in the rear yard of
homes and other places served as near to the alley
and accessible to the collector as possible, and
in those instances where homes and other places
are not adjacent to alleys, the receptacles shall
be placed on the driveway or other place
convenient to the collector by 6 A.M. on the
designated day of collection. Receptacles shall
be removed by 7 P.M. on the designated day of
collection and not otherwise be stored in areas of
the front yard visible from the front curb line.
d. All materials classified as refuse shall be
wrapped, except in the case of restaurants, stores
and commercial establishments.
Subd. S. Separation of Recyclable Materials - Recyclable
materials collected by the City or it's authorized
agent shall be separated, prepared and placed for
collection in the manner hereinafter set forth.
a. Newspapers - Used newspaper shall be placed into
the recycling receptacle directly or neatly-
packaged and securely tied bundles not exceeding
(50) fifty pounds, or neatly packed into strong or
doubled paper bags.
b. Metal Cans - Used metal cans shall be placed into
a paper bag and deposited within the recycling
receptacle.
C. Glass - Used glass, such as glass bottles, jars
and containers (except blue glass, and flat glass
commonly known as window glass) shall be free from
all food and liquid or other substances and placed
into a paper bag and deposited with the recycling
receptacle. With respect to glass, the caps and
all other metal shall be removed.
d. Yard Waste - Yard waste shall be placed in bags or
other suitable containers. Yard waste should be
free from refuse.
Subd. 6. Disposal Required. Every person shall, in a sanitary
manner, store and dispose of refuse that may accumulate
upon property owned or occupied by him in accordance
with the terms of this section. Refuse shall be
collected or otherwise disposed of at least once a
week. Within the refuse collection service area,
individual householders and single family units up to
and including four plexes shall be collected directly
by the City's contractor. Individual householders
outside the refuse collection service area shall
contract with the authorized agent of their choice.
Residential units larger than four plexes, industrial
and commercial properties shall contract with private
collectors directly and shall not receive City
collection service. Individual householders outside of
the City's refuse collection service area may receive
City collection service if City collection is
implemented in said outlying neighborhood and 100%
( V
participation of the residents in the neighborhood
agree to said refuse/recycling collection service.
Subd. 7. When Collection Shall be Made by the City.
a. The City or their authorized agent shall be
responsible for the weekly collection, removal and
disposal of all contained refuse and recyclables
from all residential buildings containing not more
than four dwelling units and located within the
refuse collection service area.
b. Owners or lessees of residential buildings outside
the refuse collection service area, residential
buildings containing more than four dwelling
units, industrial and commercial properties shall
be responsible for the collection, removal and
disposal of the refuse generated by those dwelling
units and properties in the same manner and with
same frequency as for other residential buildings
located within the refuse collection service area.
Subd. S. Service Charge for the Removal and Disposal of Refuse
and Recyclables. The City may charge a fee for the
disposal of refuse and recyclable materials. The fee
shall be set and maybe amended as determined by the
City council.
Subd. 9. Billing. The City shall send to the owner of the
premises from which refuse/recycling collections are
made or to the "customer" responsible for payment of
the water bill if such person is not the owner, a
notice of the refuse/recycling disposal charges that
are due, at the same times and intervals, in the same
manner and together with, the water and sewer billings.
Subd. 10. Duty to Provide Dumpster-Type Containers. The owner or
occupant of any commercial/industrial building shall
provide that building with a large dumpster-type
rubbish container or containers. Said dumpster type
rubbish container must be rodent proof, well
maintained, bear identification of the rubbish firm
supplying the containers, including the phone number,
and be provided with metal or other approved material
coverage which people can operate with no unusual
physical effort. The rubbish haulers providing the
dumpster service must provide collection service at
least once every week and the dumpster or dumpsters
shall be of sufficient size and/or number to handle the
accumulation of the rubbish between pick up periods
from the address being served. Two or more citations
for loose rubbish within a one year period shall be
presumptive evidence that an additional dumpster or
larger type container are needed to serve that address.
Subd. 11. Storing of Refuse. No persons shall throw, place or
deposit rubbish in any street, alley, sidewalk or on
any public or private property in a commercial/
industrial district except in a dumpster type container
as described in this article. No persons shall remove
any refuse therefrom, except the refuse haulers or
persons having the consent of the owner or occupant of
the property served or law enforcement agencies in the
pursuit of evidence. It shall be the responsibility of
the owner and occupant of any private property in a
commercial/industrial district to maintain the property
in a condition free of strewn or piled refuse.
Subd. 12. Grandfather Provision. All single family and multiple
family units up to and including four-plexes within the
refuse collection service area that are contracting
with a private refuse hauler at the time of ordinance
enactment shall be grandfathered from participating in
the City's refuse collection program until such time
that said residence is sold or until the expiration of
the present refuse contract (January 14, 1992)
whichever comes first. Likewise, all single family and
multiple family units up to and including four plexes
outside the refuse collection service area who are
currently receiving contracted City service shall
continue to receive said service until such time that
the residence is sold or until the expiration of the
present refuse contract. Upon termination of the
present contract, these neighborhoods will be required
to meet the participation criteria set forth in Subd. 6
prior to receiving disposal service from the City's
contractor.
Subd. 13 . Collection of Recyclables Unauthorized Persons
Prohibited.
a. From the time of placement of the recyclable
materials herein defined and designated at the
curb or other designated place of collection by
the City or it's authorized agent pursuant to the
provisions of this ordinance and any rules and
regulations adopted thereunder, said recyclable
materials shall become and be the property of the
City or it's authorized agent.
b. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any
person not duly authorized by the City to collect
or pick-up or cause to be collected or picked-up
any recyclable materials placed at the curb or
other designated place for collection by the City
or it's authorized agent pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter. Any and each such
unauthorized collection in violation hereof from
one (1) or more residences shall constitute a
separate district offense punishable as
hereinafter provided.
Subd. 14. Unwarranted Disposal. No person shall throw, place or
deposit refuse, yard waste, recyclables, construction
materials or brush upon public property or privately
owned property unless otherwise solicited by the City
or private property owners.
Subd. 15. Violation a Misdemeanor. Every person violates a
section, subdivision, paragraph, or provision of this
Chapter, when he/she performs an act thereby prohibited
or declared unlawful, or fails to act when such failure
is thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, and upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a
misdemeanor.
"THE SECOND ACTION REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT POLICIES FOR THIS
PROJECT WAS TABLED AT THE 7/ 18/89 MEETING. "
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer II W
SUBJECT: Killarney Hills Subdivision
DATE: July 13 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Staff has developed several assessment options for the street
improvements in the Killarney Hills Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
On June 1 , 1988 , a public hearing was held to consider
improvements to all roads within the Killarney Hills Subdivision.
The public hearing was closed but no action was taken. Council
directed staff to explore additional improvement alternatives.
On June 20 , 1988 the Council held another public hearing to
consider the improvements and proposed alternatives. Staff had
recommended constructing a full urban street section with curb
and gutter, rather than a rural street section with ditches and
Council concurred . The majority of the discussion at this
meeting related to the proposed assessments. Council directed
staff to prepare various assessment tables based on a 258 , 50%
and 75% assessments to compare with the 100% assessment
recommended in the feasibility report.
Staff has completed the various assessment calculations and a
complete assessment roll for each is attached. Staff would like
to briefly discuss each alternative as well as all other relevant
data.
Please refer to staff memos dated April 27 , 1989 , May 24, 1989 ,
June 15 , 1989 and the feasibility report for additional
background information.
Improved Lots Versus Unimproved Lots
At both of the public hearings there was considerable discussion
on whether these streets should be considered "existing" and
thereby subject to the reconstruction assessment policy (25% ) or
"new" streets and subject to a 100% assessment. Several property
owners feel that this should be considered a reconstruction, even
though the streets were never constructed to any standards.
Only a portion of these streets are paved. There is a definite
boundary between the paved section and the non-paved section .
The non-paved section is basically a dirt pathway and does not
even contain any gravel.
There is no way this section of the road can be considered a
reconstruction.
Therefore, in all of the assessment calculations staff has kept
the assessments for those unimproved lots at 100% and calculated
the various assessment alternatives for the improved lots only.
Attachment #1 lists those lots that are definitely on an
unimproved street as well as those lots that are on the paved
portions. Map #1 shows the limits of the pavement. Attachment
#2 summarizes the proposed assessments for those lots on the
unimproved roadway at 100% assessment. These assessments will
not change for any of the alternatives.
75% Assessment
Attachment #3 summarizes the proposed assessments if 75% of the
project costs were assessed. For those lots currently on a paved
street, the assessment would decrease from the recommended rate
of $49 .24 per adjusted front foot (100% assessment) to $36 . 93 per
adjusted front foot.
Of prime importance is the City portion of the total costs. With
this alternative, the City would pay a total cost of $72 ,358 .00
( including assessments for City owned property) or about 421 of
the total project.
50% Assessment
Attachment #4 summarizes the proposed assessment if 50% of the
project costs were assessed. The assessment rate would decrease
to $24 .62 per adjusted front foot while the total City cost
increases to $88 ,436 .00 or 51% of the total project costs.
25% Assessment
Attachment #5 summarizes the proposed assessments if 25% of the
project costs were assessed . The assessment rate would be
reduced to $12 .31 per adjusted front foot while the total City
costs increase to $104 ,514 .00 or 61 % of the total project costs.
Credit for In-Place Pavement
Council had also directed staff to calculate the amount of
credits that could be attributable to the existing asphalt "in-
place" .
According to the soil borings obtained for the feasibility
report, there is approximately 2-3 inches of asphalt thickness in
the road and no gravel base . Using 3 inches of asphalt, the
amount of pavement currently in-place is approximately 285 tons.
Using the same unit prices as estimated in the feasibility
report, this inplace asphalt is estimated to be worth around
$6500 or approximately 5 .2% of the total construction cost
estimate.
Rural Street Versus Urban Street
Staff still feels that since the construction of an urban street
is approximately the same cost as an rural street, an urban
street would be more feasible now than at a future date. But
because there are no utilities installed in these streets there
is also some merit to constructing a rural section at this time.
If this project gets ordered, staff would like to request that
both street alternatives be designed so that a more refined cost
estimate can be prepared for each once the plans are done .
Council could then decide which alternative should be
constructed . This would result in higher design costs than
normal .
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Assess all properties 100% of the total costs.
2 . Assess all properties abutting a paved street 75% of the
project costs and all other properties 100% .
3 . Assess all properties abutting a paved street 50% of the
project and all other properties 100% .
4 . Assess all properties abutting a paved street 25% of the
project and all other properties 100% .
5 . Assess all properties 100% of the total costs but give those
properties abutting a paved surface a 5 .2% credit for the
in-place asphalt.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City of Shakopee has specific assessment policies that have
been adoptd to ensure consistent assessments on every project .
That assessment policy states that new streets will be assessed
100% and reconstructed streets will be assessed 25% . The City
has been very consistent and uniform in applying this assessment
policy to all streets and subdivisions, including Eaglewood .
Staff does not see any valid reason for deviating from this
policy for this particular subdivision .
The primary question is whether or not the proposed streets
should be considered as new or reconstructed. Staff still feels
that since these streets were never constructed to acceptable
standards and because the pavement was constructed more as an
erosion control measure than anything else, that these streets
should be considered as new streets for the purpose of
assessments and therefore 100% assessable.
If Council decides that the existing streets are legitimate, no
matter what specifications they were built to , and that this
project is actually a reconstruction, then the 25% assessment
policy should be applied.
Staff sees no basis for using a 50% or 75% assessment since there
is no policy supporting this decision. Council had indicated
that if one of these two assessment rates were used, the outlots
could be assessed for the portion being picked up by the City ,
once the roads are extended . Due to the uncertainty of
developing these outlots , the City may never recover these
assessments from the outlot. There is also some question of the
legality of such a "future" assessment.
Staff does feel that there is some merit to giving a credit for
that existing asphalt that is in-place and in fact the City
Council has given credits on other street projects.
Staff recommends either Alternative No. 1 (100% assessment ) or
Alternative No. 5 ( 100% assessment with credits) .
ACTION REQUESTED:
1 . Order this project by offering the attached Resolution
No . 3059 , A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the
Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Roadways Within
Killarney Hills Addition Namely (Sharon Parkway and Tyrone
Drive) , Project No. 1989-7 and move it adoption.
2 . Move to establish the assessment policies that shall be
followed for this project.
DH/pmp
HILLS
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
The following lots are on a paved surface:
LOT BLOCK ADJ. FRONT FOOT
Park 1 400 '
10 1 147 '
11 1 200'
1 2 150 '
2 2 180 '
3 2 190 '
4 2 129'
5 2 161 '
6 2 112 '
1 3 146 '
2 3 91 '
Total 1906 '
The following lots are on the unimproved street:
LOT BLOCK ADJ. FRONT FOOT
Park 1 421 '
8 1 122'
9 1 120 '
3 3 99 '
1 4 164'
2 4 122'
3 4 169 ,
4 4 211 '
5 4 Lul
Total 1587'
Total of Both 3493'
MAP R1 �� w
"KILARNEY HILLS
EXISTING PAVEMENT
existing asphalt urrra w c6''2!,- Q'�ou. dirt
Pathway
�,•`' o .'rig ds .a "��'���' ! c=�'�
6
��mry
ty
IV mo-
Tt-
cr
- : .v /C� �• S /meq•/ 6 r.J � 72S<
' 1 �V. � / —gyp a _ ,V . _ g1 .�.� •9 �c? . ...
A
Glc.-F�r
?. at
• - ¢ + �,
i59 ^
f
ATTACHMENT #2
Use ratios to determine the total amount that should be assessed
for the unimproved roads and what amount should be used for the
assessment alternatives (25% , 50% , and 75%)
Total Assessment
Unimproved Road Portion = 15871/3493 ' x $172,000 = $ 78,146 .00
Improved Road Portion = 19061/3493 ' x $172,000 = $ 93 .854 .00
Total_ _ $172,000 .00
Individual Lot Assessment — Unimproved Portion
Assessment = $78 ,146 .00/1587 ' = $49.24 per Adi . F.F.
(Same as Feasibility Report)
La BLOC[ ADJ. FRONT FOOT Assessment
Park (City) 1 421 ' $20 ,730.00
8 (City) 1 122' 6 ,007 .00
9 1 120 ' 5 ,909 .00
3 3 99 ' 4 ,875.00
1 4 164 ' 8 ,076 .00
2 4 122' 6 ,007 .00
3 4 169 ' 8,322.00
4 4 211 ' 10 ,390 .00
5 4 1199' 7 .830 .00
Total $T8,146.00
City Total = $26,T3T.00
o
ITTACBMENT i3
751 ASSESSMENT
Total Assessment = $93 ,854 x 753 = $70,390 .50
Assessment per Adj. F.F. _ $70 ,390 .50/1906 ' = $36 .93/Adj. F.F.
City pays the difference $93 ,854.00
- 70 .190 .50
$23 ,463 .50 Plus any Direct
assessments to City
property
Assessment Noll
LOT BLOCK ADJ. FRONT F007 ASSESSMENT
Park (City) 1 400 ' $14,772.00
10 1 147 ' 5 ,429 .00
11 (City) 1 200 ' 7 ,386 .00
1 2 150 ' 5 ,540 .00
2 2 180 ' 6 ,648.00
3 2 190 ' 7 ,017 .00
4 2 129' 4,764.00
5 2 161 ' 5 ,946 .00
6 2 112 ' 4, 136 .00
1 3 146 ' 5 ,392.00
2 3 91 ' 3 .161 .00
Total 1906' $70,391 .00
City Cost = $22,158.00
Total City Cost
253 Non-Assessed Portion = $23 ,463 .00
Assessment Improved Lot = $22 ,158 .00
Assessment-Unimproved Lot = $26 .717 .00
TOTAL = $72.358 or 42% of the total project
ATTACHMENT #4
505 ASSESSMENT
Total Assessment = $93 ,854 x 50% = $46 ,927 .00
Assessment per Adj. F.F. _ $46 ,927 .00/1906 ' = $24 .62/Adj. F.F.
City pays the difference $93 ,854.00
- 46 .927 .00
$46 ,927 .00 Plus any direct
assessments to City
property
Assessment Roll
LOT BLOCK ADJ. FRONS FOOT ASSESSMENT
Park (City) 1 400 ' $ 9 ,848.00
10 1 147 ' 3 ,619.00
11 (City) 1 200 ' 4,924.00
1 2 150 ' 3 ,693 .00
2 2 180 ' 4,432.00
3 2 190 ' 4 ,678.00
4 2 129' 3 ,176 .00
5 2 161 ' 3 ,964.00
6 2 112' 2 ,758 .00
1 3 146 ' 3 ,595 .00
2 3 -91 ' 2 .240 .00
Total 1906' $46 ,927.00
City Cost $14,772.00
Total City Cost
50% Non-Assessed Portion = $46 ,927 .00
Assessment Improved Lot = $14 ,772 .00
Assessment-Unimproved Lot = $26 .737 .00
TOTAL = $88.436 or 51% of the total project
ATTACHMENT /5
25% ASSESSMENT
Total Assessment = $93 ,854 x 25% _ $23 ,463.00
Assessment per Adj. F.F. _ $23 ,463 .00/1906 ' _ $12 .31/per Adj.F.F.
City pays the difference $93 ,854.00
23 .463 .00
$70,391 .00 Plus any direct
Assessments to City
- property
Assessment Holl
LOT BLOCS ADJ. FRONT FOOT ASSESSMENT
Park (City) 1 400 ' $ 4,924.00
10 1 147 ' 1 ,810.00
11 (City) 1 200 ' 2 ,462.00
1 2 150 ' 1 ,847 .00
2 2 180 ' 2 ,216 .00
3 2 190 ' 2 ,339 .00
4 2 129' 1 ,588.00
5 2 161 ' 1 ,982 .00
6 2 112 ' 1 ,379 .00
1 3 146 ' 1 ,796 .00
2 3 911 ' 1 .120 .00
Total 1906, $23,464.00
City Cost = $ T,386.00
Total City Cost
75% Non-Assessed Portion = $70 ,391 .00
Assessment Improved Lot = $ 7 ,386 .00
Assessment-Unimproved Lot = $26 .737 .00
TOTAL = $1049514 or 61% of the total project
ATTACHMENT 6 i- / /N
Fr �6V le ACrESsWE, 00rr- Kaci AsrB�ti
fFA` TABULATION
�E.DoeT
it-
OF
- ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
ADJUSTED FRONT
LOT # BLOCS # FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT
(City) Park 1 821 $40,417.83
(City) 8 1 122 $ 6,006 .06
9 1 120 $ 5,907 .60
10 1 147 $ 7,236 .81
(City) 11 1 200 $ 9,846 .00
.1 2 150 $ 7,384.50
2 2 180 $ 8,861 .40
3 2 190 $ 9,353 .70
4 2 129 $ 6,350.67
5 2 161 $ 7,926 .03
6 2 _ 112 $ 5,513 .76
1 3 146- $ 7, 18T-58
2 3 91 $ 4,479 .93
3 3 99 $ 4,873.77
1 4 164 $ 8.073.72
2 4 122 $ 6,006 .06
3 4 169 $ 8,319.87
4 4 211 $10,387 .53
5 4 159 $ 7,827.57
i
TOTAL 3,493 F.F.
TOTAL COST $171 ,948.98 TOTAL CITY COST $56 ,269.89
$171 . 948.98 a $49.23/F.F.
3,493
TYPICAL LOT ASSESSMENT - $7,236 .81
(AVERAGE LOT = 147 FEET)
COST COMPAR_TSON
AFF METHOD = $7 ,236 .81
PER LOT = $ 9, 049 .95
ATTACHMENT i7
SUNKART OF ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES
Proposed Assessment
(Cost Per Adi. F.F. Total City Cost
100% Assessment $49 .23/F.F. $ 56 ,270.00 (33%)
75% Assessment $36 .93/F.F. $ 72 ,358.00 (42%)
50% Assessment $24.62/F.F. $ 88,436 .00 (51%)
25% Assessment $12.31/F.F. $104,514.00 (61$)
0% Assessment 0 $172 ,000 .00
ATTACHMENT 18
Method of Calculating Adiusted Front Footage
The City of Shakopee Special Assessment Policy, Section VIII - A
(2) , Page 13 states:
"For odd shaped lots such as exist on cul-de-sacs, curved
streets, etc. , and where there is more than 2 .0 feet of
difference between the front and back lot lines, the "odd
shaped loth method of determining the adjusted front footage
shall be used . The adjusted front footage shall be computed
by dividing the area of the lot by 9 ,000 to determine the
equivalent number of front footage units in the parcel. The
area shall be computed to a maximum depth of 150 feet only.
The number of units multiplied by 60 feet will give the
adjusted front footage.
RESOLUTION NO. 3059
A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And
The Preparation of Plans And Specifications For
Roadways Within Killarney Hills Addition
Namely (Sharon Parkway and Tyrone Drive)
Project No. 1989-7
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3047 , adopted on May 2 , 1989 , fixed
a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of all
roadways within Killarney Hills Addition (Sharon Parkway and
Tyrone Drive) by pavement, curb & gutter and storm sewer ; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through
two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the
hearing was held on the 6th day of June 1989 , at which all
persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be
heard thereon.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter
described:
The construction of bituminous pavement, curb & gutter
and storm sewer on Tyrone Drive and Sharon Parkway
located in Killarney Hills Addition
2 . David E. Hutton, City Engineer is hereby designated as
the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19 •
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
, 19_•
City Attorney
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Julius A. Collar II, City Attorney
RE: Killarney Hills Assessment Policy
DATE: July 28, 1989
On July 18th Council discussed the assessment policy for improvements to
Killarney Hills, after adopting the resolution ordering the project. During
the discussion I was asked how many votes were needed to adopt the assessment
policy. I understood the question to be how many votes were needed to order
a Council initiated project and answered 4/5ths or 5 out of 6. In fact the
answer should have been a simple majority of councilmembers present can establish
such a policy. Keep in mind, also, that a future council may see fit to change
a policy set be an earlier council. — A good example is the deferment policy
for residential property in the downtown project which Council is currently
discussing.
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
CONSENT
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Commercial Development Revenue Note Refinancing
Requests - Resolution No. 3097
DATE: July 27, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
A request from Mr. Ed Brownell of Juran & Moody, Inc.
representing Shakopee Shops Shopping Center has been submitted
for the refunding of $507,00 in commercial development revenue
notes sold in December of 1981. The Internal Revenue Code of
1986 requires that the City conduct another public hearing before
issuance of the refunding note. Therefore, staff has prepared
the necessary resolution establishing a public hearing on this
issue.
BACKGROUND:
In December of 1981 the Shakopee City Council approved the
issuance of $600,000 in Commercial Development Revenue Notes for
the Shakopee Shops Shopping Center Project. (Red Owl Complex)
These bonds were issued at an interest rate of 128. The owners
of Shakopee Shops Shopping Center are very interested in
refinancing this project. The owners feel that at this time they
can obtain a substantially lower interest rate. (Approximately
8%) The owners are also seeking to extend the final payment of
the note from 1996 to 2000 so that the balloon payment due on the
final payment date is also significantly reduced.
Since the City has already authorized the issuance of the note,
it is only necessary for the City to pass certain resolutions
making it necessary to insure that the issuance of the refunding
note complies with current provisions of the Federal Tax Code.
The main point of compliance is that of a public hearing. it
will be necessary for the City to hold a public hearing
concerning the issuance of the refunding note prior to the time
at which the City Council passes the final resolution authorizing
the issuance of the refunding note.
The issuance of the original commercial development revenue note
and the proposed refunding note do not impose any financial
obligations on the City. Therefore, staff is recommending that
Resolution No. 3097 as attached be approved. The resolution
establishes a public hearing for September 5, 1989.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to offer and approve Resolution No. 3097 calling for a
public hearing on the proposed commercial development
revenue refunding note for the Shakopee Shops Shopping
Center Project.
2. Do not approve Resolution No. 3097 .
3 . Table action on this issue pending further information from
staff.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REODESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3097, a resolution relating to commercial
development revenue bonds (Shakopee Shops Shopping Center
Project) ; calling for a public hearing on the issuance thereof
and move it's adoption.
Councilmembe[
introduced
the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 3097
RESOLUTION RELATING TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
REVENUPPNG
CENTEREREFUNDING PROJECT) ; CALLING(FOR AKAPPUBLIC EE PHEAROINGION
THE ISSUANCE THEREOF
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City Of
Shakopee, Minnesota (the City) , as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1 .01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469 . 152 through 469. 165, as amended (formerly codified as
Chapter 474) (the Act) , the City is authorized to issue revenue
bonds to finance capital projects consisting of pr P
ert
useful in connection with a revenue-producing enterprise and to
issue revenue bonds to refund bonds issued for such purpose.
Pursuant to such authority and resolutions of this Council
1981 and December
adopted on January 6, 1, 1981, the City
issued its Commercial Development Revenue Not1981hainpee theShops
Shopping Center Project) , dated December 17,
principal amount of $600,000 (the Note) , to finance on behalf
of Blair Wolfson, Robert E. Segal, Robert E. Segal, as personal
representative of the estate of Benjamin Segal, deceased, and
Blair Wolfson and Elizabeth Wolfson, as trustees of the
residuary trust created under the last
will
ltind of of
Wilfred Wolfson, deceased, a project
construction and renovation of a building on land in the City
for use as an approximately 28,900 squareTheeProject r a
islocated
shopping center facility (the Project) . The Project is
at 810-828 East First Avenue in the City.
Wolfson; Robert E . Segal; Blair
currently owned by Blair
Wolfson and Elizabeth Wolfson, as trustees of the residuary
trust created under the last will and testament of Wilfred
Wolfson, deceased; Hermosa Associates; BenjaminSegal Segal,
Testamentary Trust A, u.w. f .b.o. Sada Segal, u w.f.b.o.
trustee; and Benjamin Segal Testamentary Trust obert E. Segal,
Jerry Segal, Leslie Segal and Hillary Segall,,
trustee (the Owners) .
1 .02 . This Council has been advised by representatives
of the Owners that a refinancing of the Project through the
issuance by the City of revenue refunding bonds or notes at a
lower interest cost would make the Project economically more
feasible.
1.03 . Representatives of the Owners have requested
that the City issue its revenue refunding bonds or notes in one
or more series (the Bonds) pursuant to the Act on behalf of one
or more of the Owners or related parties (collectively, the
Borrower) in such aggregate principal amount as may be
necessary to refund the Note, subject to agreement by the
Borrower to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the
Bonds .
1.04 . This Council has also been advised by
representatives of the Owners that, on the basis of their
discussions with potential buyers of tax-exempt bonds, the
Bonds could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms
to refinance the Project.
1.05 . Under the Act, the full faith and credit of the
City may not be pledged to or responsible for the payment of
the principal of or interest on the Bonds .
Section 2. Public Hearing
2 .01 . In order that the interest on the Bonds not be
includable in gross income for purposes of federal income
taxation, this Council is required to conduct a public hearing
on the Project. A public hearing on the proposal to refinance
the Project and to issue the Bonds is30hereby called and shall
be held on September 5, 1989, at - o'clock P.M. at the
City Hall.
2 .02 . The City Clerk shall cause notice of the public
hearing to be published in the official newspaper of the City,
at least once not less than 14 days nor more than 30 days
before the date fixed for the public hearing. The notice shall
be published in substantially the following form:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SHAKOPEE SHOPS
SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT AND THE ISSUANCE
OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING
BONDS UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES,
SECTIONS 469.152-469 . 165
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the City) , will meet on
September 5, 1989, at 7:30 P.M. , at the City Hall, 129
E. 1st Ave. , in Shakopee, Minnesota, for the purpose of
conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City issue
its revenue refunding bonds or notes, in one or more series
(the Bonds) , under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial
Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469 . 152 through
469 . 165, in order to refund the Commercial Development Revenue
Note (Shakopee Shops Shopping Center Project) , dated
December 17, 1981, issued by the City in the original principal
amount of $600,000 to finance the cost of a project consisting
of the construction and renovation of an approximately 28,900
square foot commercial shopping center facility (the Project) .
The Project is located at 810-828 East First Avenue in the
City. The Project is currently owned by Blair Wolfson; Robert
E. Segal; Blair Wolfson and Elizabeth Wolfson, as trustees of
the residuary trust created under the last will and testament
of Wilfred Wolfson, deceased; Hermosa Associates; Benjamin
Segal Testamentary Trust A, u.w. f.b.o. Sada Segal, Robert E.
Segal, trustee; Benjamin Segal Testamentary Trust B, u.w.f.b.o .
Jerry Segal, Leslie Segal and Hillary Segal, Robert E. Segal,
trustee (the Owners) and leased to various tenants . The
maximum aggregate principal amount of the proposed bond issue
is $510, 000 . The Bonds would be issued on behalf of one or
more of the Owners or related parties (collectively, the
Borrower) .
The Bonds will be special, limited obligations of the
City, and the Bonds and interest thereon will be payable solely
from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, except that
such Bonds may be secured by a mortgage or other encumbrance on
the Project. No holder of any such Bonds will ever have the
right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to
pay the Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment
against any property of the City except money payable by the
Borrower to the City and pledged to the payment of the Bonds.
All persons interested may appear and be heard at the
time and place set forth above, or may file written comments
with the City Clerk prior to the date of the hearing set forth
above.
Dated: August 1, 1989 .
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
By
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
2 .03 . The Owners have agreed to pay directly or
through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in
connection with the proposed issuance of the Bonds, whether or
not the Bonds are issued.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee this 1st day of August, 1989 .
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day
of 1989.
City Attorney
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Police Civil Service Commission Request for
Financial Assistance to Hire a Police Chief
DATE: July 28, 1989
Introduction
At the meeting of July 21st a written request was received from
the Civil Service Commission for financial assistance to
facilitate the hiring of a Police Chief. At that time the Chair
of the Commission, Mr. Dan Steil, was on vacation.
Backoround
The Civil Service Commission is desiring to expedite the process
of hiring a Police Chief for the City of Shakopee. As a part of
that process they would like to engage various professionals to
help them with the testing, screening and interviewing of Police
Chief candidates so that they can make a timely recommendation to
the City Council. At the meeting of August 1st, Mr. Dan Steil
will be in attendance to discuss this matter with the City
Council. The Civil Service Commission held a meeting on Friday,
July 28th and has prepared information that they would like to
have discussed by the City Council at the meeting of August 1st.
Action Requested
Once the discussion has been held the City Council needs to
inform the Chair of the Civil Service Commission the level of
financial and other assistance that will be available to the
Civil Service Commission in facilitating the hiring of a new
Police Chief.
DRK/jms
CONSENT 11d
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Amendment to the Home Energy Check-Up Program Agreement
DATE: July 27, 1989
INTRODUCTION-
Minnegasco has inquired whether or not the City of Shakopee is
interested in extending our Home Energy Check-Up Program through
the remainder of this year. Staff is recommending that City
Council authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an
amendment to the Home Energy Check-Up Program Agreement between
the City of Shakopee and Minnegasco which would provide for the
extension of the program through December 31, 1989.
BACKGROUND:
In September of 1987 the Shakopee City Council approved entering
into an agreement between the City of Shakopee and Minnegasco for
funding of a Home Energy Check-Up Program in Shakopee. The
program provides free home energy check-ups to persons living
within the Shakopee city limits.
The City of Shakopee subsequently entered into an agreement with
the Scott\Carver\Dakota Community Action Agency to conduct the
home energy check-ups for our residents. The City of Shakopee
provides $50. 00 per home energy check-up to the
Scott\Carver\Dakota Community Action Agency. An additional
$30.00 worth of energy conservation materials are given to each
home owner participating in the program. Minnegasco in turn
reimburses the City in the amount of $80. 00 per home energy
check-up.
To date over 50 home owners have participated in the program.
The program is being provided at no expense to the City of
Shakopee. It is a grant from Minnegasco.
Our current agreement with Minnegasco expires on August 31, 1989 .
Minnegasco has agreed to extend the program through the remainder
of this year at previous funding levels ($80. 00 per home energy
check-up) . Staff believes that this a worthy program and does
promote the conservation of valuable fossil fuels. Additionally,
the program is being provided at no expense to the City of
Shakopee. Therefore, staff is recommending that the appropriate
City officials be authorized to execute the amendment to the Home
Energy Check-Up Program Agreement between Minnegasco and the City
of Shakopee. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached for
council's review and consideration.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to approve the amendment to the Home Energy Check-Up
Program Agreement by and between the City of Shakopee and
Minnegasco.
2. Do not approve the amendment to the Home Energy Check-Up
Program Agreement between the City of Shakopee and
Minnegasco.
3 . Table action pending further information from staff.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to direct the appropriate City officials to execute the
amendment to the Home Energy Check-Up Program Agreement by and
between the City of Shakopee and Minnegasco.
AMENDMENT TO
HOME ENERGY CHECK-UP PROGRAM AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT to the Home Energy Check-up program Agreement for the
period September 1, 1987, through August 31, 1989, between Minnegasco,
Inc. (Minnegasco) and the City of Shakopee (City) , is effective August
31, 1989.
RECITALS
Minnegasco and the City entered into a Home Energy Check-up program
Agreement for 300 Home Energy Check-up visits at $80.00 each for the
period September 1, 1987 through August 31, 1989.
Minnegasco and the City desire to extend the term of the agreement
through December 31, 1989.
NOW, THEREFORE, Minnegasco and the City agree to amend certain
sections of the Agreement as follows, with all other provisions of
such Agreement remaining unchanged:
SECTION 7. MPUC APPROVAL
The terms of this Agreement are dependent upon MPUC's approval of the
request by Minnegasco to operate this program in Shakopee. Unless
this Agreement is prohibited by the MPUC, or recovery of program costs
through natural gas rates is disallowed by the MPUC, this Agreement
shall be in force through December 31, 1989. If approval is
withdrawn, Minnegasco shall notify the City and thereafter performance
by the parties will not be required.
SECTION 12. TERMS
This Agreement shall be in effect from September 1, 1987 through
December 31, 1989.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Minnegasco and the City have executed this
Agreement.
MINNEGASCO, INC. CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By: By:
i i p on ammo oreD—T—sZe e�
Vice President Mayor
Gas Supply &
Regulatory Admin
By:
enm
City Administrator
By:
u iJ�tF-170-x -
City Clerk
Dated: Dated:
2
CONSENT
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: MEBCO Developers Agreement
DATE: July 24, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
The Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Shakopee
City Council have approved the majority of the documents
necessary for the approval of the MEBCO tax increment project.
The only document which remains to be executed is the development
agreement between MEBCO Industries and the City of Shakopee.
BACKGROUND:
On May 9, 1989 the Shakopee City Council approved Resolution No.
3051 approving modification of the redevelopment plan for the
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.
MEBCO Industries, Inc. intends to begin construction of their
manufacturing facility in Shakopee within the next week. At this
time it would be appropriate for the Shakopee City Council to
authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a contract
for private development by and between the City of Shakopee and
MEBCO Industries, Inc. The development agreement describes the
acquisition and development plan for the MEBCO project. The
agreement also sets forth a construction time table and other
obligations of the developer. Finally, the agreement provides
financial assistance to the developer in the amount of $142, 682
upon completion of the developer improvements as set forth in the
development agreement.
Due to the length of the development agreement, I have not
included a copy for your review. If any of the Council members
would like to review a copy prior to the meeting or at the
meeting, please contact me. One item of note, the contract sets
forth a construction date of August 1 and project completion date
of March 31, 1990. The agreement does provide legal remedies to
the City should the developer default on the agreement.
If the City Council does not have any questions regarding the
development agreement, it would be appropriate at this time to
direct the appropriate City officials to enter into the contract
for private development by and between the City of Shakopee and
MEBCO Industries, Inc.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute
the contract for private development by and between the City
of Shakopee and MEBCO Industries, Inc.
2. Do not authorize the appropriate City officials to execute
the contract for private development by and between the City
of Shakopee and MEBCO Industries, Inc.
3. Table action on this item pending further information from
staff.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REOUESTED•
Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the
contract for private development by and between the City of
Shakopee and MEBCO Industries, Inc.
111f
MEMO
TO: DENNIS KRAFT, ADMINISTRATOR
EQUIPMENT COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM KARKANEN, PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: ALLEY MAINTAINER PURCHASE
DATE: JULY 28, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
The 1989 Capital Equipment budget provides 812 , 000 for the
replacement of our 1955 Huber alley maintainer which is no longer
operable.
BACKGROUND:
The Street and Park departments have been operating without
an alley maintainer since our 1955 Huber maintainer had quit
functioning last fall . This older maintainer has been declared
surplus , and we are attempting to find someone who might buy it.
This type of grader is generally used for grading all of our
alleys , doing shouldering work, constructing and maintaining ball
diamond infields, and landscape work. Our alley grading program
is generally scheduled for late Spring, as soon as the frost is
out of the ground, and continues until early summer. If we have
time, we will grade the alleys again in the fall , depending on
climatic conditions. This machine is used throughout the summer
season for various maintenance activities, and is considered
essential to our operation.
Because of the urgency to grade our alleys this Spring, the
decision was made to lease an alley grader in order to get our
alley work finished on schedule . After investigating alley
graders at New Ulm, Long Lake and Minnetonka, we were able to
lease a small maintainer from Boyum Equipment Co. of Lakeville.
This machine, a Raygo 350 maintainer, was inspected, tested, and
considered adequate for our various grading projects. This Raygo
maintainer is articulated, powered by a 35 hp. diesel engine, has
a front push blade installed, and is equipped with a cab. Parts
are available from Zieglers, Inc. , in Bloomington.
Our lease agreement with this dealer contains an provision
which allows us the option to purchase the machine, providing
that the grader will meet our work requirements. The $1200
lease payment will be applied 100% towards the purchase of the
machine. We have finished with the alley projects, and have
determined that this machine meets our criteria, and is capable
of performing the various grading operations required in both
departments .
While using the machine under the lease agreement, we have
discovered several mechanical deficiencies that would require the
dealer to make some necessary repairs before we would consider
it
implementing the purchase option in the agreement. In
negotiating with the dealer, it became apparent that we could
save considerable money if our City Mechanic made these repairs
during the winter season. The dealer has made us an attractive
sale offer which would benefit the City by accepting this "as is"
proposal. The dealer has also given us a secondary proposal
which would require him to re-condition the grader, but we would
receive a limited warranty for the machine. This machine will
eventually need some repair in its drive train area, (axles and
drive chains ) , and we have estimated the projected repair costs
with our mechanic, so we know how much repair we will do to this
machine during the off-season.
There are several machines of this type on the market, and
the new machines of this type are selling for approx. $47 ,000 .
For this reason, we are recommending the purchase of a used
machine.
Proposal # 1 "As is" $ 6850.00 'I
less 100% rental paid -1200.00
---------------
Our cost $ 5650.00
Our City Mechanic projects a drive train repair
cost to be approximately $2000. We would recommend
that this repair be done in 1989 , and the money
taken out of the Capital Equip. fund.
Proposal # 2 Reconditioned price $ 10,800.00
less 100% re%tal paid - 1 ,200. 00
---------------
With limited warranty $ 9 ,600.00
ALTERNATIVES :
1 . Proposal 01 . Purchase the grader in an "as is"
condition for a net price of $5650.00, and perform the
necessary repairs in-house with repair costs not to
exceed $2000.00.
2 . Proposal #2. Purchase the grader in a reconditioned
condition for a total of $9, 600 .00.
3. Not purchase a maintainer.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1 . Purchase the grader in an "as in" condition,
for $5650.00, and schedule further repairs with a cost not to
exceed $2000.00.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Public Works Dept. to purchase a Raygo 350
road maintainer from Boyum Equipment Co. for $5650.00. And
to authorize up to $2000. 00 from the Capital Equipment fund
for any needed repairs by the City Mechanic.
N N N N N N NN N I, Cr
O O O O O O O O O O OO O O
J S
0 0 ® 0 0 00 o m
+ P + P + A W N • + W + V + m + O + PP • A O '
2 y
O K
O
O n
O O O O O O O O O O 00 O D -
J J J J J y m
NW m N N N N N N N N NN N D
O 0 m m m 0 m O m01 W S
9
m m o m m m m o m m mm m m
a
;
0
mW NN C_
mm mm NN N y
NN 00 NU1 NN 00 NN WW NN
00 mm mm mN NN WN NN 00 NON 00
WW 0000 00 mW 00 000
vJ mm mm
00 00 oW 00 00 00 mo 000 JJ
o 0 O 1 O o m m s as
mm o0
m � y m a ➢ ma r <
r W r x O z z nn m m
o < o x
0
n o z y A m o
W O y m x D Y O yY A p
T 2 A p m 2 Z T
y W W Ji
m N 22 A
y
y
A
m C C m A C O C Z K? N T
OW N m
C � ➢ W m N W Dy T m
C 9 < O O m A
r y y W O 2D
z O y3 Y
v m mY p
Y 2
O O O O O O O O O O mA O D
mm 0
N W N N W W N W W mm A O
N W C
m m N r r r m 2
O O O O O O
N F 00 r Z
W 00 m O
IL
0 00 A
N r N v r 00
00 m
P m W m
p W m N P
0 N 9 m
s p
m m
3
m v
m D
n m
m
s s s s s s s s s s
N NNNN N
O O O O O O O O OOVO O O n w
J J 2
w N N r T m
+ m + N + J + P + r + J a m P m00m a r + a
3 Y
O <
O
O T
V O J D O O O O 0000 0
m w W w 0 m W w 000m W W S
m m m m m m m m mmmm m m m
a
ww
00 0o c
z
mrn eP rou Y
mm Ww NNN WW
AA 00 ww mm Prrrr
Wm 00 00000 00
rr rr NN mm rr 00 00 mm 00000 00 NN
3 3 3 r 2 2 O D +ITTT +I
O r O m Y 2 O 2 AAA9 ➢ G
r p O m a 2 NNNN 2
T O C Z m A YYYY T 2 G
t T a A D
W T A r DDD➢ Y m Z
m Y 2 T m N «« < D O
C r r Y w TmTT T 9
m n D D D
n O C- Y O T rrrr p < 2
O o mmmm n m
V 2 2 < DDDD O m O
m n azzz c s
C 9 9
n p AAAA 9 A
2 S C NNNN m
W
Y
m
m
c m v m m mmmm m m ..
Y q D q D q rrrr p q Y
c c o o c c c o00o c c m
r T r DmOD 3
V 9 v 9 9 3 9 9
Y 3 3 w m 3 3 3 DDDD 3 3 T
T D D D ➢ D ➢ D 0
m _ < < _ _ _ 2ZZZ O
2 YYYY 2 2
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y
O
2
O O N O O O 0000 O O D
m O
O
P PIL P P P P O
N NNNN N C
2
O O O N N 0000 -�
m PWrr W W 2
P N O
P W W 0wrr
A N w N r N N N Nrmm N N 2
G
m P N
O A O # O
P m
m J m p O
O
x m �
3
vn
41 D
n
D
o O O O O O O O O O T
s s s s s s s s y s
m m m w w m m W w N
N N NN N N N NNN N
O O V 00 O O O 000 O O O O
J YJV V V m
N 0 0 NO N N ppH A A W I=�1 m
O • A • m • WW • 0 a J • 0 • W0W a N • r • 0 Jt 0
0 C
O
O 0O0 O O O D T
m N N N N N N NO D
0 WW 0 W 0 W W 0
m mm m mm m m m mmu m m m m
s
c
a
00 ti WW ti
WW OAN 00 AA mNNN mm NN WW
mm mOm AONW
W p0 -Om 00 00 0000 00 aP
O 00 NN YOv 00 00 AA 0000 rr 00 rr
C ti N W W H VI 0 Ono 9 Z
w D D aD a C C 000 O 9 9
ti G < O 1 ti 0
S r O « O tititi H N m
z m yoo 0 n z
O O 1 Z O O
0 00 N < «< O
Z 0 O nn
a o o ss a c 000 m 0 i
r z m m m rrr r o
m m c rrr o
m 0 < m Ono z F
A D tititi O z
< 9 z m
y 1
3 ti
m C OA O 2 A CCC Q O -I -1 A
O D 9 2D O 0 999 C 0 '.
m ti 'r r'r v
Br 0Ib 0 01F m ONO D T 0
z n W n
H O 20 C Z P
C
m Om 9
O r0
OM ~
w m O
-1 ti Z
O O O i0 O O O 100 O O O >
O
H A A AP A A A AAP A A O
N N WW W N W C
0W W 2
O O O 00 O O 000 - 0 O 1
r r A AJ Yr~ N 0 N O
�-m
P A A
G
PPA
Y>P T O
rrr A O
O �
a m
3
m 9
0 D
0 0
n m
0
0 0 n 0 0 n 0 0 n 0 T
x s s s s s s H s H
0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 W
N N NN NN
O O O O O O 00 O 00 O O O J O O = W
V V v V J V vV 0 W 0 0 W 0 m
o m v m u a uu v �o o . � � m . o
m ' '
z
o <
o 0
J O O O O O 00 O JJ O 0 O O 2O D
J ti N
N0 w N N .NW N oN N 0 N N N N D
0 W W W 0 O 0 W W O 0 JC
m O m m 0 m 00 m 00 m O m O O O m
D
W 4Nl
_ a
m � Www wN Wa rr aA WVI �
00 0o r oo mev N o mF rr WW Nw �Nm
00 om mm sa a ooa o0 0o Pp JJ
000 00 00 W m0 000 V r0 W 00 0b rr WW A0
O 00 00 00 00 NN ANN WW 0W0 WW as 00 00 00 00
; H O ; SS O D➢ D N N G A C
z m Y z sa o ns a s „
n i n xx_ z na r r n z m
C O H T D Z O yy W y 9 O O <
r O 3 C DDA O Aa m A O 0 A O
£m r D A C TT ti 99 9 Z W x z A
D D Zz Z < O
A n y 2 mO 9 yy n
W O z 3 O r mm w w m s
D Z y A 3 « O n m
i .n.
<
nn o
r 0 o 0 0 00
0
ti
A
0 O 9 0 A ti 9 x 99 9 N y ti m N
O pA pA
3; 0 Om Om 2 0 9 N < O 3
P y P W 00 yy P 3 m r ➢ m
A C < C P YZ « 9 N 0 y P _ A
2 2 0 y Ny C Z W 1
8 y C m H C n'I
y b y
y y y O
y y 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 o Wor 0 0 o O O a
W PP W 0
W N W W W W AA W aA W N N W W a O
rr 0 rW W 0
m W r m 0 W 0 W W W Z
O O O O O mb O
A OA 0 O Wa P a s
O N aA O W O
r O O WO O r
a O O as P a
r O r m N N pA O rN N N r a W N Z
a
00 0
A W
00 O
O r
3
y D
W m
a
y
n n n n n
m
z s s z s
y N y W y p
0 0 0 0 0 0o n m
J S
m m
0
z
O K
o 0 0 0 0- oo a
Y N
N N N ➢
\ \ \ \ \ \\ 0
w 0 w w fD ww
D
3
C
N O NP 2
Y
r wUNNWrwr 00 wA� 00 PA WW �
WPOOUWAwWw 00 00 PA mAP
W rOOJwOmJ 00 Va WW 00 O
W NVWOO�"`m ONP 00 WW 00 �-ti UVw O
4 N m m DD
O TTTTTTTT r 2 Q� r m YY
Y CC_CC_C_C_C_C_C_C
D 2 Z 2 N N A OO G
r 0000000000 x A y S DD 2
WWUPN Nr �-O T 2 Y D r O
WWUNNwUNAr T C -n1 O OO A
00000000000
000010000 N m 2 33 S
1
� 00000000 'a 0 m AA O
sassaasaa o
rrrrrrrrr � c i an s
i n mm
6 9 -NI
m
N rrVVMOSOLJ 9 N N N N NN ti A
0=3wAAAm A C C 9 CC Y
Owwi -MDDD2 O N 9 99 m
.9 wwD2m 3 0 v 9 3
3 39Oo2 �m O H r .ri wH O
0333arwiO � m m m mm m
"A9990Om 1 O N N N NN �
DOOOTTO C N '9
LJ 33z Cr. O 0
m m YZY 0
zy nn z
c TYr
0 ONCN
. O
izO9
OZa
0N1 O
0 9 O
K N m
n
Y o 0 0 0 0Vn
P Y 0
v A N vv c
O O O O 00 0
m O P UN O
P O Pr
O w rr Z
W
wm
W Y O
q m
as
0
O .-
s w �
3
m 9
N ➢
N T
O
n m
NN
000-1000000000m m m m m m m mmm m m m 0000 0
rrrwrrrrrrrrr F � F F r r r r rrr r r r r r r r r
WW WWWWWW W�pF�Fp�p�.p� W W W W �O �O t �0�10
FNF^W1N• Yr�N1MNY^' YYFNF+WH INr•�FO�rO�rO�YO S AOO
NNNNNMNON� N N N
S S pivNOi wlNlI VWOI VWmI VW�SI WOHHHHH J CSRnR
SY
O
VI
MwY HW rHFwr FVir-.1rWH S S 00 S 00 00 8 8 SSS S S S SSSS Y
N r NW YW�1
0001000000000 �» m (jq m m m m m mmm m m m 0000 O O
rrrwrrrrrrrrr F r r r r r rrr r r r rrrr r '1
000000 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 O n
r r r r r r rr H r rrr r r r r r r r r Y r r r r r r r r r r n
000000 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O o 0 0000 o R
ro
a
n
l•1
fA Iw
w w r -.1 W N �O N OmFp��Vppf�p t r 01 N �
HH N F
F�rrVi FFr10F O N N W F O �O O10�W �O F N�W�O m 7
R
Fw�OO�1d�NO\v1FOF w vi
W O O r N V1,1 T10 VI V� FT V1 mS NFw
O r0wm 0 O\ mN m
R
n
0
� O
(n E n .y z
a m m 0 im y
r m 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 W R O m •3 t/1
m n v r r t+ i-• r r r i+ '- mm n m W
71 m Y F �
O S SOT S O y b 3 '+1 +1 n n 2 Y t/1 m m K
m H W m r H m m m O H r t•• R° a
m . . . . ro . H 'G W 0 H > > m z r r 0 1p
m m H r a n n r m n a � N C
H 'f !0-' m K 'm1 S I N m 1i V C•l
n0 Y H O
3 3 N m > > > r m 0 O m
ro ro m m m m r R �
n
;Q a
'8 e m �msm m SSmm
FFFFF FFFFFFtt W N Y
C t�1 n 3 a a
y pa µ m ] 0 N ro yWy �WWq an N m M Y M
m
m 0 O
A F
O 0
O m
ro
m m r
m a
m m
n
x
vs j?
Y R
N O F r D\ w
m 0 0
m O N N w F . . . . . F . .
�n
0 �1 vNi m S H S Y O\ W O O m
00 0 0 00000m m moa m O m m m (a 0 10 0 o ,m Vt Vl 0000 N
rr Y r rrrrrr r rr r r F F F r r r a`rn rrrr
FF F F PPPPPP F FF F W N N N N F _F F F F FF FFFF 1'• y
• W W w W N N NNN�o �o �o�o �D
r H H O O O O O O N w N 0 IN-
H F N N N N n
rrF88WH � mNrHHSSSSS 00S 8
NrYN<oSSS8p000p pppYwNH N mm w r w w M
4G
Y
00 O O 00000 m m mm m O m m O O O O mvl vl 0000 •nl
rr r r rrr t, t, r rr r r F F r r r r r rnrn rrrr
r Y r r r r r r r r r Hr Y Y r r r r r Y r r r r r r r r r a
00 0 0 000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0000 m
00 0 0 000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 m
ro
a
n
ca
fPr (Pr F
F N r
mm r w w FVI
O FNm INVF F w N O N m N T Y O r r
O
OOo
N SOM0 0S 0S� S0O SSS0 00
-
W
M
n
� n
n
= o
9 9 M 3 . . O O ro W O) 0 m
m m •* G m m m m m O W m W m
m 1
3 m O O O O m r r r 3
m m r v w •- .• n �. m m w .- .� m .-
S S •+ r 0 0 0 0 W 1+ i+ r ro
O O W m C ro '•1 '1 (n ? S S S m m m m ro � m 3 W a
m m m v 9 0 H H I I b pp W a
n a a ro ro ro a m [m
M
3
m m O
� m n
a
W W
wrSwSr W8rN W8 088800
W8W8W W WS
W8W8W W8W8W8W w8w8W8 W 0
8 or rr rr
H000000 mm m o
Y
O w O m µ W C 4 O O h1 = KJ _ _ = C•J <
fn ro i+ 9 y 3 K C �]
u S p. N S M h > y 'mm
0 0 7
E m o G c m O ro 3 W w a m c m•
m r w m O O 1 m m 0 Y Y
cr c S i+ Y Y y .* m m m y
m
0 W
Y U1 F � y m m O r•
y S m m y
< W H y
O
ro w
m p
m F
� W a
F Y N r �O Vri M
Oma w w w F N O\ O �O F O m F O \11 ym O F Ir.
O m O N O N w m w r vl vl .1 O O T m m
�n pp
0 O 0
,1 � O H � J Y O 0 0 vl vl 0 0\ a\ v w O
R S
a
n
� G
Y
'G
mm-t.no � n
Frw o+Y
5
I I I I nI Cy a
Uo 1 H
yyKama
n
t r3 .. w bi �
Y v� Y
1 10
H W M fi
c'00 3 3
m m O
C
� � O
µ I M
Yv
N
n
� o
m
i�
a
ppF r N m
V �IOY �W LC+1
�n t00�1 N C
�t � r vl vl Rl
v
n
Fl
z
n r
F O)
b
Z
O
m
'J
a
0
n
F
a
3
CONSENT I I k
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Adm lstrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for 3.2 Beer L ense by Stonebrooke
DATE: July 27, 1989
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND:
Stonebrooke of Shakopee, Inc. , 2693 County Road 79 has made
application for a 3.2 beer license for the clubhouse at
Stonebrooke Golf Course.
The City Attorney has reviewed the application, surety bond and
certificate of insurance and they are in order.
One of the conditions of the administrative waiver from the
Planned Unit Development for the temporary building for the
clubhouse was that no food service shall be allowed in the
temporary building. The applicant has agreed to limit sale of
beer to cans, until the permanent facility is completed.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Approve applications.
2. Deny application.
RECOMMENDATION•
Alternative No. 1, Approve applications.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the application and grant a non-intoxicating malt liquor
license to Stonebrooke of Shakopee, inc. , 2693 County Road 79.
JSC/tiv
"-"®N' orz'I ii
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for 3.2 Beer License by Kenneth D. Berg
dba Shakopee Bowl
DATE: July 27, 1989
Introduction and Background
Kenneth D. Berg, doing business as Shakopee Bowl, has made
application for a 3.2 beer license at 222 East First Avenue.
In previous years the application was in the name of Judy A.
Berg.
The City Attorney has reviewed the application, surety bond and
certificate of insurance and they are in order.
Alternatives
1. Approve application.
2. Deny application.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 1, approve application.
Recommended Action
Approve the application and grant an on sale non-intoxicating
malt liquor license to Kenneth D. Berg, 222 East First Avenue,
from August 2, 1989 to June 30, 1990. '.
JSC/jms
�edise � I lJ
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Policy on Use of City Vehicles
DATE: July 28, 1989
Introduction
At the meeting of July 21st the City Council discussed the
provision of an automobile for the City Administrator. Council
agreed to provide an automobile and determination was made that
the provision of the automobile should be consistent with a City
policy on vehicle use.
Background
The usage of City vehicles is regulated by a City policy.
Several changes have taken place since the last policy was
adopted five years ago. This policy has been updated to reflect
current usage along with provisions on the use of a vehicle by
the City Administrator.
Alternatives
1. Approve the amended policy and resolution as presented.
2. Amend the policy on City vehicles and approve it.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 1 is recommended.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 3098, A Resolution Amending the City's
Policy for City Vehicles, and move its adoption.
DRK/jms
RESOLUTION NO 3098
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S POLICY FOR
CITY VEHICLES
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council has determined that it is
in the best interest of the City of Shakopee to formulate a
policy to regulate the use of City owned/leased vehicles and
private vehicles used for City business; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clearly convey this
policy to City employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the Shakopee City Council does
hereby adopt the City Vehicle Policy dated August 1, 1989 which
shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 2466 is hereby
repealed in its entirety.
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
CITY VEHICLE POLICY
August 1, 1989
Vehicles owned or leased by the City of Shakopee are divided into
three categories. These categories include (1) regular City
vehicles, (2) commuting vehicles and (3) the City Administrator's
vehicle. Further information and regulations for the three
aforementioned categories of vehicles are provided below.
Regular City Vehicles
Regular City vehicles are those vehicles owned or leased by the
City which are to be used for official business only. No
personal use of these vehicles will be allowed except for the de
minimus use such as a lunch stop between two business locations
or other meal stops associated with City business. Employees
shall use City vehicles when available for business use.
Employees who use their personal vehicles for City business shall
be reimbursed at the rate established by the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) . The City may require proof of insurance
be provided by City employees using their personal vehicles.
Communting Use Vehicles
Certain City owned/leased vehicles may be assigned to employees
for commuting use as well as official City business. These
vehicles are used for commuting purposes so that they can be
available for emergency responses and in other ways to best serve
the interest of the residents of Shakopee. These vehicles are to
be used for business of an official nature and for commuting use,
except for de minimus personal errands between the workplace and
the employee's residence. The City shall adhere to IRS
regulations regarding the reporting of the commuting use of City
vehicles. The following employees may be allowed to have access
to commuting use vehicles:
Public Works Superintendent
Street Department Foreman
Police Chief
Fire Chief
Building Inspector
City Engineer
City Administrator Vehicle
The City Administrator is to be provide a City owned/leased
unmarked vehicle for personal and business use. This use of the
City vehicle is allowed anywhere that the City Administrator is '
conducting City business. Personal use of the City vehicle shall
be restricted to the seven-county Metropolitan area, except as
otherwise allowed by the City Council. When the vehicle is used
for business use outside the seven-county Metropolitan area, de
minimus personal use for meals, etc. is allowed. The
Administrator shall keep a written log of all business mileage.
The City shall adhere to IRS regulations relative to the
reporting of the personal use of the City vehicle.
Conditions which AD01V to All Personal Use of Vehicles
The following shall apply to all City vehicles used for commuting
use or use by the City Administrator. The taxable portion of the
employer-provided automobile shall be treated-aa-paid-annna��p-en
Beeember-33. The use of City vehicles and personal vehicles for
City use may be further delineated in a City vehicle drivers
policy. All City vehicles, except the City Administrator's
vehicle and those vehicles used for police purposes, shall be
aemarked and licensed in accordance with applicable state
statutes.
* grossed into the employees income as required by the Federal
Deficit Reduction Act.
11J
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Policy on Use of City Vehicles
DATE: July 28, 1989
Introduction
At the meeting of July 21st the City Council discussed the
provision of an automobile for the City Administrator. Council
agreed to provide an automobile and determination was made that
the provision of the automobile should be consistent with a City
policy on vehicle use.
Background
The usage of City vehicles is regulated by a City policy.
Several changes have taken place since the last policy was
adopted five years ago. This policy has been updated to reflect
current usage along with provisions on the use of a vehicle by
the City Administrator.
Alternatives
1. Approve the amended policy and resolution as presented.
2. Amend the policy on City vehicles and approve it.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 1 is recommended.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 3098, A Resolution Amending the City's
Policy for City Vehicles, and move its adoption.
DRK/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 3098
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S POLICY FOR
CITY VEHICLES
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council has determined that it is
in the best interest of the City of Shakopee to formulate a
policy to regulate the use of City owned/leased vehicles and
private vehicles used for City business; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clearly convey this
policy to City employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the Shakopee City Council does
hereby adopt the City Vehicle Policy dated August 1, 1989 which
shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 2466 is hereby
repealed in its entirety.
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
CITY VEHICLE POLICY
August 1, 1989
Vehicles owned or leased by the City of Shakopee are divided into
three categories. These categories include (1) regular City
vehicles, (2) commuting vehicles and (3) the City Administrator's
vehicle. Further information and regulations for the three
aforementioned categories of vehicles are provided below.
Regular City Vehicles
Regular City vehicles are those vehicles owned or leased by the
City which are to be used for official business only. No
personal use of these vehicles will be allowed except for the de
minimus use such as a lunch stop between two business locations
or other meal stops associated with City business. Employees
shall use City vehicles when available for business use.
Employees who use their personal vehicles for City business shall
be reimbursed at the rate established by the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) . The City may require proof of insurance
be provided by City employees using their personal vehicles.
Communting Use Vehicles
Certain City owned/leased vehicles may be assigned to employees
for commuting use as well as official City business. These
vehicles are used for commuting purposes so that they can be
available for emergency responses and in other ways to best serve
the interest of the residents of Shakopee. These vehicles are to
be used for business of an official nature and for commuting use,
except for de minimus personal errands between the workplace and
the employee's residence. The City shall adhere to IRS
regulations regarding the reporting of the commuting use of City
vehicles. The following employees may be allowed to have access
to commuting use vehicles:
Public Works Superintendent
Street Department Foreman
Police Chief
Fire Chief
Building Inspector
City Engineer
City Administrator Vehicle
The City Administrator is to be provide a City owned/leased
unmarked vehicle for personal and business use. This use of the
City vehicle is allowed anywhere that the City Administrator is
conducting City business. Personal use of the City vehicle shall
be restricted to the seven-county Metropolitan area, except as
otherwise allowed by the City Council. When the vehicle is used
for business use outside the seven-county Metropolitan area, de
minimus personal use for meals, etc. is allowed. The
Administrator shall keep a written log of all business mileage.
The City shall adhere to IRS regulations relative to the
reporting of the personal use of the City vehicle.
Conditions Which Apply to All Personal Use of Vehicles
The following shall apply to all City vehicles used for commuting
use or use by the City Administrator. The taxable portion of the
employer-provided automobile shall be treated as paid annually on
December 31. The use of City vehicles and personal vehicles for
City use may be further delineated in a City vehicle drivers
policy. All City vehicles, except the City Administrator's
vehicle and those vehicles used for police purposes, shall be
unmarked and licensed in accordance with applicable state
statutes.
Ilk
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Letter of Appointment of City Administrator
DATE: July 28, 1989
Introduction
Attached is a letter in which I have attempted to outline my
interpretation of the conditions imposed and agreed to by the
City Council relative to my appointment as City Administrator for
the City of Shakopee. I£ the attached letter reflects the
consensus of the City Council the Council should direct the Mayor
to execute the letter.
Action Requested
Move to authorize the Mayor to execute the letter of employment
dated August 1, 1989 to Dennis R. Kraft.
DRK/jms
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553791375 (812)465.1650
,
August 1, 1989
Mr. Dennis R. Kraft
13121 Oakland Drive
Burnsville, MN 55337
Re: Letter of Employment
Dear Mr. Kraft:
At a special meeting of July 21, 1989 the City Council
discussed employment conditions relative to your appointment as
City Administrator effective July 11, 1989. The general
conditions relating to this appointment are as follows:
1. The position will be treated in a manner similar to
other exempt class City employees relative to obliga-
tions, duties, rights, and compensation pursuant to all
other applicable conditions of the City's Personnel
Policy and local and state ordinances and regulations.
2 . The appointment will be at Step III of the Pay Plan for
the job of City Administrator.
3. The compensation for the position will be moved to Step
IV of the Pay Plan effective January 11, 1990.
4. The City Administrator shall specifically refrain from
active involvement in Shakopee political activities.
5. The City Administrator shall be given proper adminis-
trative latitude to run the City organization
consistent with the provisions of Section 2 . 05 of the
City Code.
6. Emphasis shall be placed upon the establishment and
maintenance of an open, high level of communication
with all City Council Members.
7. The City Council agrees to evaluate the job performance
of the City Administrator every six months, beginning
January 11, 1990.
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPRORTUNITY EMPLOYER
it r(
Dennis R. Kraft
Page Two
August 1, 1989
If you agree with the provisions of this letter please sign
at the place provided below.
Dolores M. Lebens, Mayor
Accepted by:
Dennis R. Kraft Date
Attest:
City Clerk Date
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Alley Behind City Hall
DATE: July 25, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council has directed staff to investigate whether or
not it would be feasible to close off the alley behind City Hall
to through traffic.
BACKGROUND:
On July 18 , 1989 the City Council of Shakopee directed staff to
explore the possibility of closing the alley off behind City Hall
to through traffic. A tremendous amount of traffic is using this
alley as a short cut to get to Holmes Street rather than wait for
the traffic congestion on First Avenue to clear. City staff,
along with Council members, have received numerous complaints on
the amount of traffic, speed of the traffic and unsafe conditions
for pedestrians trying to cross the alley from the municipal
parking lot. Council has requested that the alley be closed at
Holmes Street to eliminate the high volume in this alley but to
leave the alley open at Lewis Street so that vehicles can still
enter the alley to park behind the businesses located in this
block.
Staff has discussed this situation with the Public Works
Superintendent, Mn/DOT, Chief of Police and all business owners
located in this block.
The Chief of Police is in full support of this proposal and has
recommended that this alley be closed in the past. Mn/DOT would
also prefer to see this alley closed to eliminate traffic
problems on Holmes Street just south of the bridge. The Public
Works Superintendent does not foresee any problems with the
proposal either.
Staff has discussed this idea with all property owners located in
this block and, with the exception of two, all business owners do
not have any problems with the proposal to close off this alley.
There were two business owners who had some concerns regarding
this, as follows:
The owner of Parkside Printing is very concerned about this
proposal for several reasons. First, they receive approximately
one semi-truck per day delivering supplies to his business. If
the alley was closed at Holmes Street, the semi would have to
either turn around to come back out on Lewis or else back out of
the alley. Secondly , he is concerned because much of their
business is delivering. Their delivery trucks utilize this alley
I � X
quite extensively to exit onto Holmes Street and go north across
the bridge. If the alley was closed, the delivery trucks would
then have to go out Lewis onto First Avenue and then get on the
bridge. Due to the heavy congestion on First Avenue and the fact
that Lewis Street is often blocked with semi-trucks, the owner is
concerned about the loss of time for the delivery vehicles.
In short, the owner of Parkside Printing is opposed to the idea
of closing off the alley to through traffic. He has suggested
that the City install signs on the alley and on First Avenue
stating that this alley is not to be used for through traffic .
He is also suggested that the City install larger speed bumps in
the alley to discourage its use from through traffic.
The second business owner who had a concern regarding this
proposal is the owner of the antique store. Her concern is that
nearly 100% of her business is from drive by traffic on First
Avenue. Most of these vehicles will see her store from First
Avenue while they are waiting for the light to change and will
then turn right onto Holmes Street and turn right at the alley to
park behind her store. She has installed a large sign in her
window that says "Parking in Rear" . Her concern is that by
closing this alley, the drive by traffic will not be able to park
anywhere near her store to shop there. She is also opposed to
this proposal .
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available are as follows:
1 . Do nothing, thereby allowing the through traffic to continue
to use this alley.
2. Close off the alley at Holmes Street, thereby eliminating
any through traffic.
3 . Do not close off the alley, but try to discourage through
traffic by increased signing and larger speed bumps.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff understands the concerns of the affected businesses along
this alley, but the use of this alley is more of a convenience
than a necessity and the use of the alley is more of a habit than
anything. Speed bumps have proven to be ineffective in this
alley mainly because vehicles will drive around the ends of the
speed bumps. Signing would help but would not solve the problem
because vehicles would ignore the signs and it would be extremely
difficult to enforce them.
As I understand it, the semis for the print shop back up to the
loading dock every morning. It does not appear to me to be a
difficult maneuver to exit easterly towards Lewis Street rather
than westerly towards Holmes Street from that parked position .
Even if they do not back up to the loading dock, it would not be
a difficult maneuver to back out of the alley once the through
traffic is eliminated from the alley. Additionally, staff is
proposing to build a driveway ramp at the far west end of the
parking lot so that vehicles could actually turn into the City
lot and come back through the lot onto Lewis Street without
having to back down the alley. Staff feels that this would be an
acceptable interim solution.
Staff also believes that delivery vehicles and customers will
find alternative routes for driving and parking once the alley is
closed. Once the habit of using this alley is broken, staff does
not view this act as an inconvenience to the area.
Staff is recommending that the City Council close the alley to
through traffic by installing barricades at Holmes Street. In
addition signs should be placed at the east end of the alley
indicating that this alley is no longer available for through
traffic.
The City Council should be aware that during the first several
weeks that the alley is closed , there will be a substantial
uproar from the traveling public and the Council should be
prepared to receive phone calls. During the time the public is
getting use to this idea, there will be a period of confusion
when vehicles will still continue to enter the alley and be
forced to return to Lewis Street to get back on to First Avenue.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to direct the appropriate City staff to close off the alley
behind City Hall at Holmes Street by installing barricades at the
west end of the alley and also to install the appropriate signing
at the east end indicating that the alley is a dead end alley and
no longer in use for through traffic.
DH/pmp
ALLEY
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Shakopee Bypass (Southerly)
DATE: July 24, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a supplemental agreement with Barton-Aschman
Associates, Inc, for design services associated with the Shakopee
Bypass.
BACKGN00MD:
Currently , the City has an agreement with Barton-Aschman
Associates, Inc. for design services associated with the Shakopee
Bypass . The agreement includes designing the six , County
crossroads (83, 16 , 17 , 79 , 77 and 15) as well a preparing the
right-of-way documents for Mn/DOT.
These design services were initiated by Mn/DOT, who requested
that the City of Shakopee retain a consultant to assist them in
completing the design. The agreement has a snot-to-exceed"
figure of $280 ,770.00.
Mn/DOT has now sent a letter to staff ( letter attached )
requesting that the City of Shakopee provide further assistance
to them by having Barton-Aschman prepare the drainage easement
documents, also. Staff contacted Barton-Aschman regarding a
change to their existing contract and have received a proposal
for a supplemental agreement (attached) . Per this supplemental
agreement, they will do the additional work for an estimated cost
of $51 ,873 .60 . This would increase he total contract with
Barton-Aschman to $332,643 .00.
The funding for this agreement is part of the City of Shakopee' s
$1 .0 million contribution to Mn/DOT towards this project.
The City Council of Shakopee has previously executed two other
agreements for design services to assist Mn/DOT on this project.
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron is dong the drainage design for the bypass at
an estimated cost of $115 ,000 . Mn/DOT has also retained two
consultants to complete the bridge design and the City agreed to
pay for these consultants. The bridge design is estimated at
$361 ,487 .00 .
The following table summarizes the City of Shakopee' s committed
expenditures for the various design elements:
Drainage Design (OSM) $115,000
Bridge Design (Mn/DOT) $361 ,487
Cross Roads Design (Barton-Aschman) $332.64-4
Total (To Data) $809,130
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Approve of the supplemental agreement with Barton-Aschman
for design services associated with the Shakopee Bypass.
2 . Deny the agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to direct the appropriate City officials to execute a
Supplemental Agreement with Barton-Aschman to provide additional
design services associated with the Shakopee Bypass.
d'"'"ESOT9 Minnesota
a° yo Department of Transportation
District 5
700 AO¢ 2055 No. Lilac Drive
op raP`' Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
16121593- 8404
June 14, 1989
Dave Hutton, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Shakopee
129 East First Ave.
Shakopee, IMI 55379-1376
Re: S.P. 7005 (101=187) Shakopee 8y-pass
Barton-Asch an Associates'
Pre-acquisition Contract Expansion
Dear Mr. Hutton:
Construction plans for the Shakopee By-pass have been expanded to include the
construction of a portion of the Upper Valley Drainage Project from CSAH 15 to
C.R. 17 (phase III on the attached map) and six connector ditches. In order
to expedite this project and to avoid multiple acquisitions from adjacent
property owners, Mn/DOT requests that the City extend the existing
pre-aoquisition contract with Barton-Aschman Associates to include the
drainage project.
In addition, for the sake of continuity of right of way pre-acquisition,
M IDDT requests that the portion of T.H. 101 from its' intersection with T.A.
169 to CSAR 15 (stage 5 on attached map) be included in the Barton-Aschman
contract.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Paul H.
Stine, Assistant District Right of way Engineer, at 591-4646.
i
S' obrel -
1 �
1
ensen
stmt District 1hgineer
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Barton•Aschman Associates, Inc.
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350 Phone:(612) 332-0421
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Fax: (612) 332-6180
USA
July 14, 1989
Mr. David Hutton, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Pial to Provide Supplemental Right-o£-Way Pre-acquisition Services
Associated With the TH 101 Bypass and the Upper Valley Drainage
Improvements in Shakopee, Minnesota (S.P. 7005)
Dear Mr. Hutton:
As you know, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. is preparing contract documents
and riot-of-way documentation for various construction stages of the TH 101
bypass. In an effort to maintain overall project continuity we hereby
submit the following proposal for extra work as requested.
Pased on our urierstan ing of the specific goals and objectives established
by MnDOT and the City of Shakopee, we have identified for your
consideration, the following supplemental work description and scope of
services.
Work Descriction
This supplemental agreement shall amend that agreement dated November 7,
1988, between the City of Shakopee and Barton-Asrlman Associates, Inc. as
follows.
Modify Attachment A, Section 3.7.3 "Right-of-Way Plans/Acquisition" to
include:
1. Conduct pre-acql,;=ition richt-of-way documentation for all partial land
acquisitions from TH 169 east to CSAH 15. Total takings have been
completed by MnDOT.
2. Conduct pre-acquisition easement documentation for all drainage
easements associated with the Upper Valley drainage inproveent project
- Stage III (S.P. 7005.8808) . Backgnxrd design data will be furnished
and coordinated with the city's drainage consultant.
O
� -YYA-
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
July 14, 1989
Page 2
Oomoamation
The Cost plus fixed fee is estimated at $51,873.52 to ooWlete the above
services. A contract pricing proposal is attached for your reference.
If you have any questions or require any additic�nal information please
contact me or John Millan.
Sincerely,
ASaMW ASSOCIATES, INC.
David B. =2 P.E.
Principal Associate
Approved by the City Council of Shakopee
Jam^/� f_ on the 1st Day of August , 1989 .
J' chn C. Millan, P.E.
Vice President and Its
Contracting Officer
DBW/JQ4:kro Dolores Lebens , Mayor
x. N men, MnDOT Date
Dennis Kraft , City Administrator
Date
ATTEST :
Judith Cox , City Clerk
Date
(7 *"-
CONTRACT PRICING PROPOSAL 06<e °( Man.t.menE ind Budget
(RESEARCH AND DEVELOP.NENT) AppID.d N°- "_RoIRA
TDi. i. W .r rl,m !:1 •.b
! O, F.
P4R ds Ir. FPR r-fxT_fl a ,.Vud.d rd Ince ro. Iro.O,•.us
al fx wburvse. dte Op.. Ft+e. H u rY.Rvd bT dw aaM°..n.E 06R...
r R O.OM RCA SV.Yl1 r 10W 14.':CEf 10 LL WmW,lc
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Supplemental Right-of-Way
.ore 0MC1Ae - Pre-acquisition services for the TH 101
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350 Bypass in Scott County Minnesota (S.P. 7005)
Minneapolis, MN 55401
°IW:OHSI AMC LofATG Sl'ALAE M4 0 to.E KV D MTU ArOwr Or IAO 0" �CO9l SOLKRADOr M.
Minneapolis Office S 51,873.52
DETAIL DESCRIPTION OF COST ELEMENTS
EST COST (SJ TOTAL REFER.
E. Ct•ECI.uRCu(EhY... Giid A/ EST COST' ENCE=
a PUQCY D'AATS CARD Supplies and Reproduction 1,000.00 -__
4 SDKOMrRACTED Oe1.1
c rn .—/IJ uw rAtcnu
ISl Sou.nAro.RD mrrR.LTAt rtw "
(J) WE[RNNSICruR VERSA,.rM N.. .1
TOTAL DIRECT MATERIAL I'1"
x rARRua owsrtAn' pL,. sXl I.rrl --A
R. MaLAID. (SR,n/�l EMOUR30 "OUR COST T(S)
Principal Associate 60 31.50 1,890.0
Senior Associate 80 25.00, 2,000.0
ssociate =80 17.001 - €I
technician =`1
TOTAL DIRECT"ROR '_r 'r- ^_ ,.. ,� " ' -" +' WW 718.Oti
.. LAID.e9u.eAp (Sp.:/I GTS C-° F- Ow-.LAIR :"S' ElT mat (Rl
r
1.6566 9 718.00 16 098.8
TOTAL "DOR OVERHEAD •-- 16, .84
S SMCILL i[fipG (l.,!✓I.'.j fd/ I A, G,�M,i.,,Jl.,w,l 6T CMr /S1 --.� :.'
{
TOTAL SPECIAL. TFSTIVG 1 r.- I
t s,t Y EC.DrEMT (l/Z. .b q,) (L ted.r P la:,AI
(6:n d-d r ,_Y SdN ') Elr CWT IS) :I
.. reuu.omrlo,. Milea e X 0.24 100.0 °
A M.Dor p SULUSRM6
'TOTAL TRAVEL I"" 00.0Q
R. cOMfLLTYRf (u...:/�-P..r.-••••/ ea cmrr/) - .,...:1
u.
Kosenoium - ttorney (title investigations
pproxima e y as a /Eirie and con inua ions
odlund-Ta for Inc. - Appraisers 1 20 000.0
Approximately 20 parcels at $1,000/parcel TOTAL COXSULTA..TT 22,375.0m
9. CIM.O eRCI COS.Il--r EJ4AI
�G TOTAL DIRECT COST AND OVERHEAD
- Il. GWEY.I MD ADr1114rM ELWIE (Ri/. t .(ret duet y /�
Ex .OT41LS•
ES TOTAL ESTI.ATED COST
EA Me O.ApEI
E3. TOTAL ETTIMATED COST AND FEE OR PROFIT 151 873.5
I oP o"D L 1.14 m
' (k,Mee 1911
II ��
RESOLUTION NO. 3042
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR DESIGN SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EIGHT
CROSSROAD BRIDGES FOR STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 101
SHAKOPEE BYPASS
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has agreed to contribute $1 . 0
million to the State of Minnesota towards the State Trunk Highway
101 Shakopee Bypass, and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has entered into an agreement
with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. for roadway design for six
of the crossroads associated with the Bypass in the amount of
$380,769. 89, and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has entered into an agreement
with Orr Schelen Mayeron & Associates, Inc. for storm drainage
improvements associated with the Bypass in the amount of
$115, 000.00, and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is
requesting that the City of Shakopee spend a portion of this
commitment towards bridge design consultants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the proper City officials are
hereby authorized to execute Agreement No. 65657 with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for the cost of consultant
services for the design of Bridge Numbers 70011, 70012, 70039 ,
40040, 70013 , 70014 , 40037 and 70038 on the State Trunk Highway
101 Shakopee Bypass in the amount of $361,487.00.
Adopted in R.ri� ' /71,P, session of the City Caun 1 gf the
City of Shakopee, Mijines�a, held this day of ,
1989 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City— 1lark
Approved as to fors this
day of , 1989 .
City At ney
ONSENT
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Commercial/Industrial/Mortgage Revenue Bond Refinancing
Fee - Resolution No. 3094
DATE: July 25, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
The City of Shakopee has received a request from a developer to
refinance industrial revenue bonds that were sold in a 1981 bond
issue. This is a request that the City of Shakopee has not
experienced in the past and since administrative costs will be
incurred in conjunction with processing said refinancing, staff
is recommending that the fee resolution be amended accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
The currently adopted fee schedule provides for a fee for
processing commercial/industrial/mortgage revenue bond
applications. The present fee is 1/10 of 1% of the bond amount
with a $2500 minimum and $6000 maximum. The present fee
resolution also calls for the payment of legal expenses as billed
by the party requesting said financing. However, the present fee
resolution is not clear on whether or not both the 1/10 of 18 fee
and the legal expenses as billed should be simultaneously paid by
said party requesting financing. Additionally, the present fee
schedule does not address a fee for processing refinancing
requests.
In an effort to clean up this section of the fee schedule and to
provide a fee for processing refinancing requests, staff is
recommending Council approval of Resolution No. 3094 as attached.
The proposed resolution clarifies the 1/10 of 1% fee in the
amount of bonds issued with a $2500 minimum and a maximum not to
exceed $6000 plus legal expenses as billed. The proposed
resolution also establishes a refinancing fee in the amount of
1/20 of 18 of the amount of bonds originally issued with a
$1250.00 minimum and $3,000 maximum plus legal expenses as
billed. This is 1/2 the original application fee.
Staff is recommending Council approval of Resolution No.
amending Resolution No. 2987 adopting the 1989 fee schedule
providing a fee for the processing of commercial/industrial/
mortgage revenue bonds and establishing a fee for refinancing of
commercial/industrial/mortgage revenue bonds.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Approve Resolution No. 3094 amending the 1989 fee schedule
providing for the collection of an application fee for
commercial/industrial/mortgage revenue bonds and for
refinancing of said bonds.
2. Do not amend the fee schedule providing for a fee to off-set
City costs incurred in conjunction with refinancing of
commercial/industrial/mortgage revenue bonds.
3. Amend the 1989 fee schedule clarifying the collection of a
commercial/industrial/mortgage revenue bond fee plus the
payment of legal expenses as billed and do not propose a new
fee for processing commercial/industrial/mortgage revenue
bond refinancing request.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REODESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3094, a resolution amending Resolution No.
2987 adopting the 1989 fee schedule providing for the collection
of an application fee for commercial/industrial/mortgage revenue
bonds and the payment of legal expenses as billed and
establishing a new fee for processing commercial/industrial/
mortgage bond refinancing requests and move it's adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 3094
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2987
ADOPTING THE 1989 FEE SCHEDULE PROVIDING FOR
THE COLLECTION OF AN APPLICATION FEE FOR
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL/MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND
REQUESTS PLUS THE PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES
AS BILLED AND ESTABLISHING A NEW FEE FOR
PROCESSING COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL/MORTGAGE
REVENUE BOND REFINANCING REQUESTS
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council passed Resolution No.
2987 adopting the 1989 fee schedule, and;
WHEREAS, the present fee schedule as it relates to
commercial/industrial/mortgage revenue bond application fees is
not stated in a clear manner and;
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has received a request to
refinance industrial revenue bonds, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee does not currently have a fee
for processing said refinancing request.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, MN that Resolution #2987 adopting the 1989 fee
schedule is hereby amended by clarifying that the fee for
commercial/industrial/mortgage revenue bonds will be 1/10 of 1%
of the amount issued with a $2500 minimum and a $6000 maximum
plus legal expenses as billed, and; establishing a fee in the
amount of 1/20 of 1% with a $1, 250 minimum and $3000 maximum for
City costs incurred in the processing of refinancing requests for
commercial/industrial/ mortgage revenue bonds plus legal expenses
as billed.
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
CONSENT � � b
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1989 Budget Amendment Resolution No. 3096
DATE: July 26, 1989
Introduction
Council has taken action on or approved of many items since the first of the
year that impact on the 1989 Budget in addition to other events that affect the
budget. The attached Resolution amends the budget to reflect those changes and
other items as detailed below. This is a "housekeeping" action. Council
should feel free to call if there are any questions.
Backcround
The changes are shown below.
General Fund
Police 1988 backpay 01-4100-312-31 $ 10,570
1988 backpay 01-4141-312-31 1,270
1988 Uniform Allowance 01-4210-312-31 5,400
Reimbursed Services (track) 01-4100-312-31 26,800
" 01-4141-312-31 3,200
Pool Sun Shade increase 01-4511-611-61 1,000
Painting 01-4232-611-61 1,990
Time Clock 01-4511-611-61 280
Finance Network Software 01-4511-154-15 1,000
Govt Bldg Hirise oven 01-4511-184-18 1,900
Unallocated Debt service transfer 01-4710-911-91 129,308
Revenue Police Services 01-3531 30,000
Contingency 01-4991-911-91 (6,170)
Fund Balance (146,548)
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 3096, A Resolution Amending Resolution NO. 2989 Adopting
the 1989 Budget, and move its adoption.
Resolution Number 3096
A Resolution amending Resolution Number 2989 adopting the 1989 Budget.
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did pass Resolution No. 2989 adopting
the 1989 Budget, and
WHEREAS, subsequent events and circumstances make it desirable to amend
said budget,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, that the 1989 Budget is hereby amended by the following
amounts;
General Fund
Finance Capital $ 1,000
Police Personnel 41,840
Supplies & Services 5,400
Pool Supplies 6 Services 1,990
Capital 1,280
Government Bldgs Capital 1,900
Unallocated Debt Service Transfers 129,308
Unallocated Contingency (6,170)
Revenue Police Services 30,000
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1989
ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1989.
City Attorney
;ONSENT
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Department Head Physical
DATE: July 25, 1989
Introduction
The City has had a policy for several years of the City paying for the
cost of a physical that is not covered by insurance. This applies only to
department heads and the City Administrator.
Background
The policy (Administrative Policy Number 93) of the City paying the cost
of a physical that is not covered by insurance has been in place for several
years and was based on Resolution Number 1351. This benefit has not been used
very much and the current health insurance policy does pay for the cost of an
annual routine physical. Due to IRC Section 89 provisions that consider this
policy as disproportionately favoring highly compensated employees, the City
has three options.
Alternatives
1. Discontinue paying the cost difference for Dept. Head physicals.
2. Extend policy to all employees. City would need to explore the impact on
SPUC and coordinate with SPUC.
3. Status Quo and risk the sanctions of violations of IRC Section 89.
Depending on the final revisions of Section 89, penalties could be as much
as $40,000 plus impact on SFUC.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 1. Discontinue paying the difference for Department Head
physicals and rescind Administrative Policy Number 93 and repeal Resolution
Number 1351.
Action Reauested
Move to discontinue the policy of the City paying the portion of the cost
of department physicals not covered by insurance and offer Resolution Number
3093 A Resolution Repealing Resolution Number 1351.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 3093
A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 1351
WHEREAS, the monthly contribution to health and life insurance is
currently set by the pay resolution; and
WHEREAS, the current employee group health insurance policy covers the
cost of an annual routine physical; and
WHEREAS the City Council desires to stop the practice of paying for the
uninsured portion of department physicals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that Resolution Number 1351 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE'S EMPLOYEE BENEFITS is hereby repealed.
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 from this day
of 1989.
City Attorney
N'Yn
l.ESOLUTION :10. 1351
A ILESOLO ION AHE1U)IOG
THE CITY OF S!IAr.OPEE'S UIPLO`%E 86NE1'ITS
WHEREAS, the City Adaluistrator has recommended that , stain
changes be made to the employee benefits of the City of Sial--once;
and
lii'. :FAS, there changes will be beneficial to the City of Sluduu ce
and the CiCy empluyees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed these proposed changes
and Rials that they are in accordance with the goals and objecllvc>
of he Faipluynt"t Policy of the City of Shakopee.
NW, '111EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI3'Y
OF 5HAROPLS, MINNESOTA, that 8csclution No. 1208, 113, rnsuranc,
Coverages" is Lereby repealed a,:,l roplaccd with the following:
INSLIPANCE COVERAGES:
Unless otherwise specified i.: a fomsal agreement with a partic-
ular bargaining unit, huspieilizatio.:, mafor medical and lift. Insurance
ceverages shall be provided Co all City e.m.loyees after 30 days of
continuous service, with the City paying a awrimnm of $80 roward the
total cost of these coverages for the individual employees and their
dependent coverage premiums. For department heads and the Ciry
AdminISLrator, the City shall also pay for ars annual physical.
examination performed by the individuals physician provided that a
copy of Chat examination is submitted to the CiCy.
Adopted Lr, session of the City Council cf
Che City of Shakopee, Hi nnesoCa hc]d this 2?,&C _ day of
1979.
ATTEST:
_ Mamor = eet"-Ey 0 S-hakor--
CLCy
Ckerk
!
AllptInd as to form thisa�' _ day
of 1979.
�Y
C icy At", rncy
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. 93
Subject : Department Head Physicals
J
Date Adopted: April 28 , 1983
Source of Authority: Resolution No. 1351
From Resolution No. 1351 adopted January 2 , 1979 :
"For department heads and the City Administrator, the City shall
also pay for an annual physical examination performed by the
individuals physician provided that a copy of that examination
is submitted to the City."
Procedure agreed to by Department Heads May 5 , 1983 :
Department heads should submit their bill to their insurance carrier
first and to the City second. The City will pay whatever is not
covered by insurance. The amount not covered by insurance will be
credited by the insurance company towards the employee ' s deductable.
The frequency of physicals is Left to the discretion of the employee
and his doctor. The employee shall advise the administrator when
he has had or is planning on having a physical .
The scope and cost of a physical is left to the discretion of the
_ employee and his doctor.
The new American Medical Association Recommendations for annual
checkups ( taken from the Minneapolis Tribune April 24, 1983 issue)
is as follows :
40 years and under - Every five years
40 - 65 - Every one to three years depending on an
individual ' s current health, medical history
and occupation
65 and over - Once a year
RESOLUTION NO. 3095
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE PERSONNEL POLICY
AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1571
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1571 was adopted by the City to provide
reasonable and clear expectation of the conditions of employment for its
employees; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2983, amended by Resolution No. 3040 was adopted
by the City approving the City's Affirmative Action Policy and the
commitment to Equal Employment opportunities without discrimination; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain sections of Resolution No. 1571
to be in accordance with the City's Affirmative Action and maintain
reasonable and clear conditions of employment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that Section 1. PURPOSE is hereby amended as follows:
The purpose of this Personnel Policy is to establish a uniform and
equitable system of personnel administration for employees of the City
and is not to be construed as a contract of employment.
SECTION 1. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT POLICY
This is to affirm the City of Shakopee's policy of providing Equal
Opportunity to all employees and applicants for employment in
accordance with all applicable Equal Employment
Opportunity/Affirmative Action laws, directives and regulations of
Federal, State and Local governing bodies or agencies thereof,
specifically Minnesota Statutes 363.
The City of Shakopee will not discriminate against or harass any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed,
religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, or
status with regard to public assistance.
The City of Shakopee will take Affirmative Action to ensure that all
employment practices are free of such discrimination. Such employment
practices include, but are not limited to, the following: hiring,
upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising,
selection, layoff, disciplinary action, termination, rates of pay or -
other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including
apprenticeship.
The City of Shakopee will use its best efforts to afford minority and
female business enterprises with the maximum practicable opportunity
to participate in the performance of subcontracts for construction
projects that the City engages in.
The City of Shakopee will commit the necessary time and resources,
CONSENT z d
Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
From: Marilyn Ramer, Personnel Coordinator
Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
Re: Resolution No. 3095 Amending Personnel Policy
Date: July 26, 1989
Introduction
At the July 21, 1989 council meeting, staff was directed to add a policy
to the City's Personnel Policy regarding appointment/stipend of
individuals in the "Acting" capacity when a vacancy occurs.
Background
Vacancies have occurred in the past year resulting in the appointment of
individuals in the "Acting" capacity. Council has directed that they
wish to compensate these individuals for the additional duties by means
of a stipend to be determined by Council.
In addition to adding this policy, the Personnel Policy needs to be
amended in accordance with the City's Affirmative Action Policy as
approved by Council and certified by the Commissioner of Human Rights.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement replaces Section I.
The previous Section I. PURPOSE becomes a general policy statement with
the addition of the statement that the policy is not be to be construed
as a contract of employment.
Section 4. APPOINTMENTS is also amended thereby bringing the City's
hiring practices into compliance with the Affirmative Action Policy.
3.2 of Subd. 3 adds: Council may designate an individual to
temporarily fill the vacant position as "Acting" to be compensated for
the additional duties with a stipend as determined by Council.
Section 1 and Section 4 of the Personnel Policy (before changes) are
attached. (Attachment A & B) .
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Personnel Policy be amended by Resolution No. 3095
thereby bringing it in conformance with the City's Affirmative Action
Policy.
Action Reauested
Move to adopt Resolution No. 3095, A Resolution Amending the City of
Shakopee Personnel Policy as Adopted by Resolution No. 1571.
1 } .
both financial and human, to achieve the goals of Equal Employment
Opportunity and Affirmative Action.
The City of Shakopee fully supports incorporation of non-
discrimination and Affirmative Action rules and regulations into
contracts.
The City of Shakopee will evaluate the performance of its management
and supervisory personnel on the basis of their involvement in
achieving these Affirmative Action objectives as well as other
established criteria. Any employee of the City, or subcontractor to
the City, who does not comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Policies and Procedures as set forth in this Statement and Plan will
subject to disciplinary action. Any subcontractor not complying with
all applicable Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action laws,
directives and regulations of the Federal, State and Local governing
bodies or agencies thereof, specifically Minnesota Statues 363 will be
subject to appropriate legal sanctions.
The City of Shakopee has appointed the Personnel Coordinator to manage
the Equal Employment Opportunity Program. The Personnel Coordinator's
responsibilities will include monitoring all Equal Employment
Opportunity activities and reporting the effectiveness of this
Affirmative Action Program. as required by Federal, State and Local
agencies. The City Administrator of the City of Shakopee will receive
and review reports on the progress of the program. If any employee or
applicant for employment believes he/she has been discriminated
against, please contact Personnel Coordinator, 129 East First Ave. ,
Shakopee, MN. 55379, or call 612-445-3650.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that Section 4. APPOINTMENTS: is hereby amended to read
as follows:
SECTION 4. APPOINTMENTS:
Subdivision 1 General
Every appointment to municipal service shall be made by the City
Council on the basis merit and fitness for the position for the
position. It shall be the intent to fill vacancies by promotion
whenever practicable. When required by law or by the City Council,
merit and fitness shall be ascertained by written, oral or other
examinations designed to evaluate the ability of the candidate to
discharge the position for which the examination is held. A physical
examination may be required by the City Administrator for any
position.
A position vacancy results from resignation, promotion or a new
position is authorized.
Subdivision 2. Applications
All applicants for a position with the City of Shakopee are required
to file an application on forms provided by the City. Any applicant
giving false information or making false or misleading statements on
the application shall not be considered for the position or will be
subject to immediate dismissal with complete loss of benefits.
Personnel will maintain an application file containing all pertinent
information regarding the position. All applications received by the
due date will be kept in the application file in the Personnel Office.
Section 13.43, Subd. 3 of the Minnesota Statutes provides that names
of applicants shall be private data, therefore, all applications will
remain in the Personnel office.
All questions regarding the advertisement or the position will be
directed to the Personnel Coordinator who may refer them to
appropriate department head.
Subdivision 3 Promotion
3.1 Immediately after the receipt of a formal resignation (prior
to Council action) or when a vacancy occurs due to promotion
or authorization of new position, the City Administrator
will check the Budget and if it is a full-time permanent
position, will authorize the Personnel Coordinator to post
notices in all city work places for five (5) days, prior to
advertising publicly. The City Administrator has the option
to authorize advertising publicly commencing concurrently
with the posting.
3.2 City Council is notified at their next regular meeting and
acts on the resignation and formally authorizes the filling
of the position. Council may designate an individual to
temporarily fill the vacant position as "Acting" to be
compensated for the additional duties with a stipend as
determined by Council. If Council does not authorize
filling the position, any advertising that has commenced is
stopped.
3.3 Any qualified city employee can apply for the position by
submitting a completed application to the Personnel
Coordinator.
3.4 At the end of the five (5) day period, the appropriate
Department Head and the Personnel Coordinator will review
any city employee applications and will decide to:
a. Interview the City employee(s) . If one is
selected, he/she will be recommended to Council
for approval. No employee can be so hired without
having been competitively screened and hired for a
permanent position for the City.
b. Advertise. If the Department Head decides to
advertise, he/she will notify Personnel (and City
Administrator) who will in turn notify the
employee(s) who applied. All City employee
applicants will then be included in the group of
finalists interviewed for the position.
Subdivision 4. Advertising
The Personnel Coordinator shall prepare and publish the ad in
accordance with the Affirmative Action Policy after coordination
with the Department Head.
Subdivision 5. Screening
After the application deadline, the Personnel Coordinator will
initially screen the applications in accordance with the Affirmative
Action Policy. Thereafter, the Department Head and the Personnel
Coordinator will further screen to determine candidates to be
interviewed. Each individual involved in the screening process
shall document criteria and results. The Personnel Coordinator will
schedule the interviews and testings that may be required.
Subdivision 6. Selection & Hirine
6.1 The Department Head (City Administrator optional) will
conduct the interview with the Personnel Coordinator
participating.
6.2 The selection process shall give prime consideration to
Affirmative Action goals as established.
6.3 The Department Head and Personnel Coordinator will recommend
to the City Administrator a candidate and a salary to be
offered consistent with the pay plan and the advertised pay
range. Personnel Coordinator will make the offer pending
City Council approval and passing a pre-employment physical
if required.
6.4 City Council will be presented with a staff memo, prepared
by the Personnel Coordinator, covering the hiring process,
eg. date of advertising, number of applicants, screening and
interviewing process, qualifications of the recommended
applicant and recommended starting date and salary.
Subdivision 7. City Council Action
7.1 City Council can approve the recommendation by simple motion
and the Personnel Coordinator will notify the applicant the
following day, followed by a formal letter of employment and
preliminary employment papers.
7.2 City Council can adjust the recommended starting salary
should they find reason to do so.
7.3 City Council can reject the recommendation should the, find
a reason to do so, and instruct the City Administrator to
come back with a new recommendation.
Subdivision 8. Orientation
Upon reporting to work on the first day, a new employee shall be
sent to the Personnel Office for orientation and completion of the
necessary forms.
(The procedure for hiring sworn Police Officers shall be regulated
by the Police Civil Service Commission.)
Subdivision 9. Seasonal/Temoorary Positions
The employment process for seasonal/temporary employees generally
follows the same procedures as for permanent employees although the
following deviations may allow:
9.1 Re-hires of previous employees can be accomplished without benefit
of an open application process.
a. The Department Head will notify Personnel of the
number of seasonal/temporary positions to be
filled.
b. Former employees receiving a good review and
recommendation for re-hire from the Department Head
will be offered positions for the current season.
Personnel will notify those employees on file from the
previous year by letter, informing them of current
seasonal positions available and offering them first
chance for filling those positions. If they do not
respond by the designated deadline, the remaining
vacancies shall be filled by new applicants.
9.2 The available seasonal/temporary positions will be posted by
Personnel at all City buildings and advertisements will be placed in
local publications; namely, the Shakopee Valley News and The Hint.
a. The Department Head will notify Personnel of the number of
seasonal/temporary positions to be filled, period of
employment, description of duties, salary range and
qualifications required. Personnel will draft an appropriate
ad and review it with the department head. Personnel will
place the agreed upon employment ad in local publications. It
shall be Personnel's discretion as whether to advertise
concurrently with the notification of the eligible re-hires,
taking into consideration the number of vacant positions versus
the number of eligible re-hires. Eligible re-hires will be
given first consideration in filling the positions.
b. All applications for City positions will be received at the
Personnel Dept. at City Hall. Those applying at remote sites
(i.e. , Public Works Dept. , Comm. Rec. , Swimming Pool, etc.)
shall be referred to City Hall.
C. The successful candidate will be offered the position at the
appropriate established salary ranges pending the City
Administrator's approval. Council action is not required for
temporary positions.
d. All applications shall have a list and documentation of those
interviewed and references checked.
e. Personnel shall receive all employment authorization forms,
including copies of certificates or licenses which are a
requirement of the job. To comply with Federal Immigration Law,
the employee must also establish employment eligibility by
presenting any of following documents: a U.S. passport, a U.S.
birth certificate, a Social Secutrity card or a alien ICDc
card. To establish identify, either a driver's license issued
by any state or a MN. state photo identification card must be
presented. Only documents listed by the Form I-9 Handbook will
be accepted for verification.
Personnel is to be notified (on form provided) within seven days of
termination of the seasonal/temporary employees The effective date
of the termination of the seasonal/temporary employees' services
with the Department Head's recommendation for possible re-hire is to
be provided.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this _ day of the , 1989.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1989.
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT A
PERSONNEL POLICY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
SECTION 1. PURPOSE:
Purpose of this Personnel Policy is to establish a uniform and equitable
system of personnel administration for employees of the City.
SECTION 2. SCOPE OF POLICY:
/ Subdivision 1. Personnel Covered
Except as otherwise specifically provided, this policy applies all
employees of the City except the following:
I1. All elected officials;
2. The City Atto.t7 and the Health Officer;
I 3. Members of City\boards, commissions and committees;
1 \
4. Volunteer fire fighters and other volunteer pets el;
5. Emergency employees;
6. Other employees not regula.1 employed i permanent positions.
Nm ; Subdivision 2 visions Su a Bede in arta' C es
Clid^'Ge �\ Any employee included in a collectiv rgaining agreement entered into in
accordance with the Public Emp yment Labor Relations Act, Minnesota
Statutes Sections 179.61, or an other ag ement entered into between the
City of Shakopee and a group o employees she be exempt from any provision
j of that part which is incons' tent with such ag ement. Any employee within
/ the jurisdiction of a ersonnel board or ivil service commission
established under Minces a Statutes Chapters 44, 419, or 420, is exempt
from any provision of is part which is inconsiste with such statute or
rules and regulation adopted thereunder. Nothing in is part is intended
to modify or sup Bede any provision of the Veteran Preference Act,
Minnesota Statute Section 197.45 to 197.481.
SECTION 3. EFINITIONS:
Full Ti Employee -
An ployee normally scheduled to fill a full-time position with an on-g ing
r ular work week of at least forty (40) hours.
1
ATTACHMENT 6
SECTION 4. APPOINTMENTS:
Subdivision 1. General
Every appointment to municipal service shall be made by the City Council on
the basis of merit and fitness for the position. It shall be the intent to
fill vacancies by promotion whenever practicable. When required by law or
by the City Council, merit and fitness shall be ascertained by written,
oral, or other examinations designed to evaluate the ability of the
candidate to discharge the position for which the examination is held. A
physical examination may be required by the City Administrator for any
position.
Subdivision 2 Applications
All applicants for a position with the City of Shakopee are required to file
an application on forms provided by the City. Any applicant giving false
information or making false or misleading statements on the application
shall not be considered for the position or will be subject to immediate
dismissal with complete loss of benefits.
Subdivision 3 Promotion From With"
It shall be the intent to fill vacancies by promotion whenever practicable.
To that end, the following excerpt from Resolution No. 2408 is repeated:
1.0 Position is vacated by resignation.
1.1 Immediately after the receipt of a formal resignation, and prior to
Council action, the City Administrator will check the
Budget/Personnel Resolution and if it is a full-time permanent
position, Personnel will post notices in all City work places for
five (5) days, prior to advertising publicly.
1.2 City Council is notified at their next regular meeting and acts on
resignation and formally authorizes the filling of the position. If
Council does not authorize filling of the position, the advertising
is stopped.
1.3 Any qualified City employee am apply for the position by submitting
a completed application to the Personnel Department.
1.4 At the end of the five (5) day period, the department head involved
will review any City employee applications and will decide to:
a. Interview the City employes(s) . If one is selected he/she will be
recommended to Council for approval. No employee can be so hired
without having been competitively screened and hired for a permanent
position with the City.
b. Advertise. If the department head decides to advertise, he will
notify Personnel (and City Administrator) who will in turn notify the
employee(s) who applied. All City employee applicants will then be
included with the group of finalists interviewed for the position.
3
1.5 Personnel will start an application file containing all pertinent
information regarding the position.
2.0 Advertising for the vacant position.
2.1 Personnel will prepare and publish the ad in the newspaper.
2.2 The City shall advertise in the local newspaper and in any other
publication that is deemed appropriate for the position. The
position shall be advertised for a minimum two week period beginning
at time of publication in the Shakopee Valley News. Applications
received for positions will be kept on file for one year.
2.3 All applications received by the date included in the ad will be kept
in an application file in the Personnel Office. Any applications
received after the deadline will be filed and considered only if
position is not filled by the applications received on time and/or
position is re-advertised.
2.4 All questions regarding the ad or the position will be directed to
the Personnel Department who may refer them to appropriate department
head.
3.0 Screening
3.1 After the application deadline Personnel will present the
applications to the department head and the City Administrator who
will jointly screen the applicants as provided in Section 4 Subd. 1
of the City Personnel Policy.
3.2 If there are any tests to be administered they will be conducted by
Personnel, scored and presented to the department head and City
Administrator for further screening.
3.3 Applicants who are to be candidates for interviews will be presented
to Personnel who will schedule the interviews.
4.0 Selection
4.1 After the department head and City Administrator have decided upon a
candidate to be offered the job they will decide upon a salary to be
offered within the appropriate salary range and the department head
(or Personnel) will make the offer Pendine City Council approval.
4.2 City Council will be presented with a staff memo covering the hiring
process, eg. date of advertising, number of applicants, screening and
interviewing process, qualifications of the recommended applicant and
recommended starting date and salary prepared by the appropriate
department head.
4.3 City Council action.
a. City Council can approve the recommendation by simple motion and the
department head will notify the applicant the following day, followed
by a formal letter of employment and preliminary employment papers.
4
b. City Council can adjust the recommended starting salary should they
find reason to do so.
c. City Council can reject the recommendation should they find a reason
to do so, and instruct the City Administrator to come back with a new
recommendation.
5.0 Upon reporting to work on the first day, a new employee shall be sent
to the Personnel Office for orientation and completion of the
necessary forms.
(The procedure for hiring sworn Police Officers shall be regulated by the
Police Civil Service Commission. )
Subdivision 4 SeasonalZIgmporary Position&
The employment process for seasonal/temporary employees generally follows
the same procedures as for permanent employees although the following
deviations may allow:
1. Re-hires of previous employees can be accomplished without benefit of an
open application process.
a. The Department Head will notify Personnel of the number of
seasonal/temporary positions to be filled.
b. Former employees receiving a good review and recommendation for re-
hire from the Department Head will be offered positions for the
current season. Personnel will notify those employees on file from
the previous year by letter, informing them of current seasonal
positions available and offering them first chance for filling those
positions. If they do not respond by the designated deadline, the
remaining vacancies shall be filled by new applicants.
2. The available seasonal/temporary positions will be posted by Personnel at
all City buildings and advertisements will be placed in local
publications; namely, the Shakopee Valley News and The Hint.
a. The Department Head will notify Personnel of the number of
seasonal/temporary positions to be filled, period of employment,
description of duties, salary range and qualifications required.
Personnel will draft an appropriate ad and review it with the
department head. Personnel will place the agreed upon employment ad
in local publications. It shall be Personnel's discretion as whether
to advertise concurrently with the notification of the eligible re-
hires, taking into consideration the number of vacant positions versus
the number of eligible re-hires. Eligible re-hires will be given
first consideration in filling the positions.
b. All applications for City positions will be received at the Personnel
Dept. at City Hall. Those applying at remote sites (i.e. , Public
Works Dept. , Comm. Rec. , Swimming Pool, etc.) shall be referred to
City Hall.
5
c. After the application deadline, Personnel will present the
applications to the department head, who will screen and interview the
applicants according to the skills, knowledge and experience as
required. The successful candidate will be offered the position at
the appropriate established salary ranges pending the City
Administrator's approval.
d. All applications are returned to Personnel for filing, with a list and
documentation of those interviewed and references checked.
e. Personnel shall receive all employment authorization forms, including
copies of certificates or licenses which are a requirement of the job.
To comply with Federal Immigration Iaw, the employee must also
establish employment eligibility by presenting any of the following
documents: a U.S. passport, a U.S. birth certificate, a Social
Security card or a alien I.D. card. To establish identity, either a
driver's license issued by any state or a MN. state photo
identification card must be presented. No other document is
acceptable.
Personnel is to be notified (on form provided) of the effective date of the
termination of the seasonal/temp, employees' services with the Department
Head's recommendation for possible future re-hire.
6
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clem /
RE: Local Lodging Tax �""
DATE: July 24, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
The attached Ordinance amends the City Code establishing an
automatic fine if the report and payment of the local lodging tax
is not made in a timely manner.
BACKGROUND:
At their regular meeting on July 18th, the Shakopee City
Council directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance
amending the current City Code regarding the local lodging tax.
Council concurred with the City Attorney's recommendation that a
fine be implemented if the report and payment was not made in a
timely manner.
When preparing this amendment, the City Attorney noticed,
and is reminding Council that the lodging tax provision will
automatically expire on April 23, 1990 unless renewed. Staff
will make a note of this and put it in the suspense file for
January, 1990. This item will be brought back to Council for
discussion at that time.
RECOMMENDED ACTION•
Offer Ordinance No. 269, 4th Series, An Ordinance of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee Code Chapter 6
Entitled "Other Business Regulations and Licensing" By Repealing
Subd. 2 of Sec. 6.44 and By Enacting A New Subd. 2, Sec 6.44 And
By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Sec.
6.99, which Among other Things Contain Penalty Provisions, and
move its adoption..
JSC/tiv
Jmus A. COLLEB. II
�uuua . a AIT06NEY AT Lew eia-ws-iz.+
iesa- s.oLz wca. .� .uc
SHAEOPEE.MINNESOTA
"Ot9
July 20, 1989
Special Note to Mayor and Shakopee City Council:
Section 6.44 Lodging Tax adopted and effective on April 23, 1987
will and by its terms expire on April 23, 1990 unless renewed.
The Council may want to consider this before that date.
Res ectfully,
ulius�, II
City Attorney
x.,ry
JUL
)a�19
C);y
ORDINANCE NO. 269
Fourth Series
An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, amending Shakopee
Code Chapter 6 entitled 'Other Business Regulation and Licensing"
By Repealing Subd 2 of Sec 6.44 and by Enacting a new Subd 2
Sec 6.44 and by adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1
and Sec 6.99, which among other things contain Penalty Provisions
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION I: Repeal
Subd 2 of Sec 6.44 is hereby repealed. -
SECTION II: A New Subd 2 Sec 6.44 adopted
Subd 2 Report and Payment of tax. Any person subject to the lodging tax
imposed hereby shall report the gross receipts hereinbefore referred to to the
City within 15 days of the end of the month when collected and said report shall
be accompanied by payment in full. If the report and payment of the tax is not
made within 15 days as herein provided an automatic fine of $100.00 is hereby
imposed in addition to the tax and which is to be paid when the tax is paid.
SECTION III: Penalty Provision
Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled 'General Provisions and Definitions'
applicable to the entire City Code including penalty for violations and Section
6.99 entitled "Violation a Petty Misdemeanor" are adopted in their entirety by
reference as though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION IV: When in force and effect
After the adoption, signing and attestation of this Ordinance it shall be
published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be
in full force and effect on and after the date following such publication.
Passed in _session of the Shakopee City Council held this
day of 1989.
ATTEST:
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk �. �
Approved as to form this 20th day of July, 1989. I�
ornev
r
1341
To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
From: Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager
Re: Service Area acquisition, discussion at joint meeting and
interpretation of impact of a customer trade on payment
to the city
Date: 8/1/89
To confirm our discussion today of the affect of a trade on the
annual contribution from SPUC to the City General Fund:
I
After polling the Utility Commissioners, their position was that i
their comments at the joint meeting were meant to indicate their
intent not to drop the level of the SPUC contribution to the City's
general fund below the normal level that would have occurred
without the acquisition having taken place. '
They had discussed their plan with the Council of using up to
51,000,000 of SPUC cash reserves for the acquisition. The
additional amount of cash which would be generated by those
customers in the newly acquired area will be used to recover the
costs of the acquisition above $1,000,000. Once the recovery is
completed, the normal formula to determine the annual contribution
from SPUC to the general fund would apply to all customers, which
will result in additional revenue to the general fund from the
additional customers.
If a trade of certain existing SPUC customers were to occur, an _
adjustment would be made so that the loss of those customers would f
not reduce the amount of revenue in the contribution formula while
the recovery was taking place. This is consistent with the
previously stated intent to not let the contribution from SPUC to
the general fund drop below the level which it otherwise would have
been had the acquisition (and/or trade) not taken place.
To use some hypothetical examples: If the acquisition cost without
a trade was $1,500,000, SPUC would plan to recover the costs in
excess of $1,000,000, or $500,000. Once this amount was recovered,
the normal formula for city contribution would resume. If, the
acquisition cost with a trade were only $1,200, 000, SPUC would only
have to recover 5200,000. This would shorten the time period
needed. The amount of annual contribution from SPUC to the City's
general fund would be the same under either example, during the
time period of the recovery.
RESOLUTION NO. 3099
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF THAT PORTION OF
THE ELECTRIC SERVICE AREA OF MINNESOTA
VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
WHEREAS, it has been the policy of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee for the past decade to have all electrical users
within the city limits of Shakopee served by the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota law has authorized the acquisition by
municipalities of the electric service area operated by electric
cooperatives and located within that municipality's corporate
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee has
determined that in order to further the City's goals to
(a) provide electric utility services to all of the
residents of Shakopee,
(b) lower the electric rates of those Shakopee
residents presently served by Minnesota Valley Electric
Cooperative and ultimately provide uniform electric
rates throughout the City of Shakopee,
(c) attract new residents to the City in those areas
presently served by Minnesota Valley Electric
Cooperative by reason of such lower rates,
(d) to provide a broader economic base to absorb the
fixed overhead and administrative costs of the City
electric utility system, and
(a) share among all Shakopee residents the right and
obligation to contribute to the financial stability and
welfare of the City's municipal government and
municipal utilities throuch enhanced revenues resulting
from the sale of electric energy and the consequent
increased ability of the utilities to support City
functions,
the acquisition of the service area of the Minnesota Valley
Electric Cooperative located within the City of Shakopee is
necessary for the furtherance of these and other public
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has
recommended said acquisition to the City Council of the City of
Shakopee;
i
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the City Council of the City
of Shakopee as follows:
1 . That the acquisition of the service area currently
operated by the Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative and located
within the municipal boundaries of the City of Shakopee is hereby
in all respects approved.
_ . That the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission and
appropriate staff and consultants be and hereby are directed to
proceed with a filing of the appropriate petition before the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to effectuate and finalize
such acquisition.
Adopted at the regular session of the
City Council of the City of Shakopee on the day
of April, 1989 .
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
by:
Its Mayor
ATTESTED TO BY:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Kress and Monroe