HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/1991 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: April 26, 1991
1. Attached is the May calendar of upcoming meetings.
2 . Attached is a memorandum from Tami Vidmar regarding the
telephone problems we have been experiencing.
3 . Attached is correspondence from Rev. Robert Hazel requesting
the City to waive the building permit fees for the church
addition and Leroy Houser's response letter to Mr. Bill
Henning.
4. Attached is a memorandum from Southwest Metro Transit
Commission regarding legislative updates on the opt-out
funding issue.
5. Attached is correspondence from Steve Rose, MN Dept. of
Natural Resources regarding Murphy's Landing Negotiations.
6. Attached is a memorandum from Karen Marty regarding Vesting of
Property Rights in a Rezoning.
7. Attached is a memorandum from Karen Marty regarding Defamation
Lawsuit Against a Minneapolis Councilmember.
8. Attached are the unapproved minutes of the April 17, 1991
meeting of the Community Development Commission.
9. Attached is the April 29, 1991 agenda for the Shakopee Cable
Communications Advisory Commission and the Access Corporation.
10. Attached are the unapproved minutes of the March 25, 1991
meetings of the Cable Commission and Access Corporation.
11. Attached are the February 9th and March 9th minutes of the
Community Youth Building Committee meetings.
12 . Attached are the March 20, 1991 minutes of the Community
Development Commission.
13 . Attached is correspondence from Calvary United Methodist
Church requesting permission to park on Vierling Drive May
19th, from 9 : 30 a.m. until 12 : 30 p.m. Also attached is a copy
of the response from the Police Department. Dave Hutton had
no problem with it, but did suggest that Public Works provide
barricades to close the south lane.
14. Attached is a correspondence from Barry Stock regarding the
solicitation of realtor assistance for the Shakopee HRA.
15. Attached is a correspondence from Barry Stock regarding the
Scott County Economic Development Coalition.
/1
May
Upcoming Meetings
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
1 2 3 4
5:00pm Goal
Setting
5 6 7 8 g 10 11
4:30pm 7:00pm City 7:30pm
Public Council Planning
Utilities Meeting Commission
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
7:00pm 7:45am
Board of Downtown
Review Committee
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7:00pm 8:00pm City 5:30pm CDC
Cable Council 7:00pm
Commission Meeting Energy &
7:00pm Park Transport-
8: Rec. ation
Board
26 27 28 2g 30 31
City Hall 7:00pm
Closed Board of
Review (If
Needed)
April June
S M T LAI T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 1
7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
04/23/1991
MEMO TO: Mayor Laurent and Councilmembers
FROM: Tami Vidmar, Receptionist
RE: Telephone Problem
DATE: April 19 , 1991
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
As you are aware per my memo from April 16th, we have been
experiencing problems with the phone system with the main
switchboard disconnecting calls.
This memo is to inform you that we have temporarily fixed the
problem. Toni Warhol and I took it upon ourselves to disconnect my
system and hers and trade phones which has proved to solve the
problem at the main desk. Toni will experience calls being
disconnected from time to time but does not use her phone enough
for this to be as great a problem as it was at the main desk. She
and I feel this solution can get us through until the time whereas
we move into the new building, at which time I believe a new system
will be necessary.
3
April 18, 1991
The Honorable Mayor Gary Laurent
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee MN 55379
Dear Mayor Laurent:
As you know the Church of Saint Mark, one of the oldest institutions
in the City of Shakopee, has been carefully engaged over the last two
years in plans for a Parish Center on the Northeast Corner of our block.
The addition will be connected to the Church and will continue to serve
not only the needs of this Parish but of the Shakopee area for many
decades to come.
The architectural plans were finished very recently by Stageberg
Associates Architects, bids were let, and just last week the contract
for construction was awarded to Bill Henning and Company of Shakopee.
Thus our long range plans are coming to the final phase.
It is my understanding that the City of Shakopee will waive the
Building Permit fees and related fees that accrue to the City of
Shakopee for Churches and other non-profit organizations. In the name
of the Parish Community of Saint Mark I ask you for the courtesy in our
present building project as we continue to serve the needs of this area.
,Peac= --
Re •o.-rt Hazel
. Pastor
RECE!VED
cc: LeRoy Hauser APR 1 9 1991
QF SNAKOP
10"/doir -
�•VVVV
•
' r ,� ‹S'
CHURCH OF SAINT MARK-333 WEST FOURTH AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
MyY =
CITY OF SHAKOPEE o =
SI
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445-3650 KOF
April 22 , 1991
Mr. Bill Henning
P.O. Box 292
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Henning:
I have reviewed the plans for St. Marks Parish Hall and reviewed
the architects code analysis. I am pleased to say I could offer
very little in the area of code corrections other then, what I had
previously mentioned. The hand rail height shown on the plan was
40" this will have to be changed to 34" to 38" in height.
We will issue the permit for the general construction based on the
data submitted. However, the sprinkler plans and mechanical plans
still need to be submitted for review.
Father Hazel contacted me by letter requesting the permit fee be
waived. We will charge for our plan check services and an hourly
rate for our inspection services as we have in the past with other
religious organizations in Shakopee.
My department has signed off on this permit 4/22/91 . We wish you
the best of luck with this project.
Res74fulJ, ,
LeRoy . Houser,
Buil ng Official
cc: Father Hazel
Mayor Laurent
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYE;
#(-
SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT
7600 Executive Drive
April 15, 1991 APR 5 WI Eden Prairie, MN 55344
(612)934-7928
MEMO TO: Southwest Metro Transit Commission and Other Interested Parties
FROM: Diane Harberts, Administrator
SUBJECT: Legislative Update
As you will recall, in January 1991, the Regional Transit Board (RTB) began very
liberally interpreting its level of authority in the funding and managing of the opt-out
transit programs. Opt-out transit programs grew increasingly concerned as the RTB
changed policies without notice to or input from them. These changed policies have
caused significant project delays; forced opt-out programs to intentionally breach
service contracts because of withheld funds; and imposed contract terms which would
increase opt-out programs' administrative costs or which contradict the opt-out
legislation.
The opt-out transit programs considered different options by which to clarify the roles
of the RTB and that of local (opt-out board) authority. With Southwest Metro Transit
taking the lead, the opt-out transit programs elected to clarify the language of the
existing opt-out legislation after they were unsuccessful in achieving cooperation from
the Regional Transit Board.
Please find enclosed a report outlining our activities regarding the proposed language
changes to the opt-out transit legislation.
The report presents the following information:
• After considerable debate, the House Transportation Committee very handily passed
the proposed changes. The proposed changes will now be forwarded to the Senate.
• The approved changes (1) include a provision that the RTB must consult with the opt-
out programs regarding the development of performance standards and regarding those
parts of their Five-Year Implementation Plan which affect opt-opts; (2) clarify the
types of funds on which the 90 percent allocation for opt-out programs should be based;
and (3) outline the schedule for transferring the funds to opt-out programs.
• The approved bill includes two amendments calling for two studies by the Metropolitan
Council of the funding mechanism for opt-out transit programs.
• Another item of interest is a proposed bill that would transfer all regional transit
authority from the RTB to the Metropolitan Council and Light Rail Transit from the RTB
to the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Please call George Bentley or me with any questions or comments you have about this
report or other transit matters.
Thank you.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
April 12 , 1991
Activities at the Minnesota Legislature have been fast
and furious this past week regarding the opt-out legislation
we are proposing. The purpose of this report is to update
you on our activities and the status of our bill.
Our efforts earlier in the week were aimed toward a
House Transportation Committee meeting on Wednesday, where
our legislation was being introduced by Representative Kelso.
Diane Harberts, Beverly Miller and myself, with help from Ed
Kranz and Norbert Theis of the Regional Transit Board, and
Barbara Ross from Lang, Pauly, Gregorson, our attorneys,
lobbied members of the Transportation Committee, strategized,
and sought input from others.
Among those who we sought input from were the
Metropolitan Transit Commission and the Regional Transit
Board, through a series of meetings and conferences.
Through these meetings we made several changes to the
originally proposed legislation. These changes were:
1. Amending the language which would have exempted the opt-
out transit systems from compliance with performance
standards and the regional implementation plan. The bill now
states that the RTB must consult with the opt-out systems
regarding performance standards and regarding those parts of
the implementation plan which affect opt-outs. These changes
were made to address the concerns of other opt-out systems,
the MTC, the RTB staff, and several legislators, and prevent
the appearance that the previous language generated that the
opt-outs wanted to fracture the regional transit system.
2. Amending the language which addressed where excess transit
funds from the opt-out systems were to be deposited.
Originally, these funds, which will be carried over from
previous years, were to be deposited in the state general
fund. Because of the nature of the legislative process which
regards all general fund monies as fair game for other
programs, and because of the difficulty in obtaining transit
dollars in the first place, it was decided that these excess
funds should be placed back with the RTB. This change does
not affect our ability to receive and direct our own funds.
3. Amending language to better specify what funds we, as opt-
out systems, are entitled to . The dollars that make up the
tax base which is used by the RTB in calculating what the
opt-outs get ninety percent of, has historically been a
,1
Legislative Update - Page 2
moving target. The components of the funds that we are
entitled to have changed numerous times, and no one has been
able to agree on an absolute equation. The new language
states that we are entitled to up to ninety percent of the
"certified tax levy" plus HACA aids and fiscal disparity
aids.
The RTB bcard did meet on Monday, April 8th, to discuss
this legislation, but they were unable to reach any decision
on whether to support or oppose the bill, so the discussion
was tabled. This means that officially the RTB board has no
position at this time on our legislation. The changes to the
bill outlined above answered most of the objections raised at
that RTB meeting. The RTB staff, however, has continued to
express concerns about the bill to numerous legislators and
at the House Transportation Committee meeting, and it can be
expected that they will continue their efforts as we proceed.
The hearing on Wednesday was recessed while we were in
the middle of testimony in support of the bill, so the House
members could go into caucuses. It was reconvened on late
Thursday afternoon. On Thursday, after considerable
testimony and debate, the House Transportation Committee
voted to approve the bill, and the amendments listed above,
by a fairly sizeable margin.
Representative Carlos Mariani, DFL - St . Paul, did
manage to introduce and get approved amendments which call
for two studies regarding whether the ninety percent figure
is appropriate and to look at tax feathering for transit
property taxes. His amendments also call for the opt-out
systems to submit for comment and review (not approval) a
budget at the beginning of each year to the RTB and the
legislature, and to require the opt-out systems to hold a
public hearing each year on their budgets.
Representative Mariani had planned on proposing
additional amendments which would have been quite onerous,
but after Representatives Pauly and Kelso, and Ed Kranz and
myself discussed the issues of opt-out transit with him, he
agreed not to introduce those amendments.
Due to the recess on Wednesday of the House
Transportation Committee, their approval came too late for
the bill to be passed on to other policy committees in time
to be heard this session. What this means is that our
legislation will have to be added as an amendment to another
bill in both the House and the Senate. At this time it is
planned to add it to the Transportation Study Board bill, but
until that happens we will have to wait and see what bill, if
any, it does get attached to.
If/
Legislative Update - Page 3
Representatives Kelso and Pauly will be working to get
our bill amended to another in the House, and our Senate
delegation will be asked to do the same in the Senate.
This change in the approval process of our bill is not
necessarily bad. Amending our bill to a bill that has a good
chance of passing will increase our chances of a successful
outcome.
Another item of interest those involved in transit is a
bill proposed by Senator Frank, the chairman of the Senate
Metropolitan Affairs Committee, which would abolish the
Regional Transit Board, and pass responsibility for regional
transit to the Metropolitan Council. It would also pass
responsibility for light rail transit to the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. At this point it appears that
Senator Frank's bill might not make it through this session
of the legislature, but we are watching it closely and will
report to you on its progress.
If anyone has questions regarding our legislation or any
other legislative matter, please call me at 897-1919 (work)
or 944-2486 (home) . I will be happy to help you in any way I
can.
George Bentley
Legislative Liaison
# 5
n�STATEnOF
It
JUVIZED1Jz
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONE NO. 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 772-7999 FILENO.
April 10, 1991
Barry Stock
Assistant City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
RE; MURPHY' S LANDING NEGOTIATIONS
Dear Barry,
The DNR has decided that further negotiations with the governing
board of Murphy' s Landing concerning the MVT access, would prove to
be unsuccessful. The parties are so far apart, that little can be
gained through further discussions.
Instead of spending valuable staff time and money where no
resolution seems possible, the DNR feels our time will be better
spent pursuing the acquisitions of the Peavey and Valleyfair trail
accesses. We feel that these negotiations shall be resolved once
the appraisals are completed.
Once we have completed the acquisition of the MVT land from Peavey
and Valleyfair, we will petition the Shakopee City Council to
obtain an easement through Murphy' s Landing.
The DNR will remain open to any new proposals put forth by Murphy' s
Landing concerning the MVT access, and are certainly willing to
meet with anyone to discuss this issue.
We remain determined to complete the MVT in the Shakopee area, in
order to provide recreational opportunities that your local
residents deserve. Thank you for your cooperation in this arduous
journey.
Si( Rea
Steve Rose
MVT Specialist
c: John Winter
Karen Bowen
Bill Morrissey
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
#(c)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney
DATE: April 12 , 1991
RE: Vesting of Property Rights in a Rezoning
The question has arisen several times recently as to when
property rights vest in relation to a request for a building
permit, a conditional use permit, or other zoning issue. On
April 2 , 1991, a new case was reported, Rose Cliff Landscape
Nursery, Inc. v. City of Rosemount, dealing with this issue.
Rose Cliff Landscape Nursery obtained site plan approval from the
City Planner and building officials, then purchased ten acres of
land for a commercial greenhouse and nursery. Staff recommended
that the Planning Commission approve the site plan, but instead
the Planning Commission voted to deny it and recommended amending
the zoning ordinance. The City Council then amended the zoning
ordinance, prohibiting the business from using the site as it had
planned.
The business sued, and the Trial and Appellate Courts
sustained the City' s actions. The Court stated, "Appellant ' s
right to rely on the initial ordinance was subordinate to the
City Council ' s police power to enact a different zoning
regulation. We conclude . . . that Appellant had no vested right
to construct its project . . . " This result might be different,
the Court noted, if the business had proven wrongful conduct on
the part of the City Council, and had shown expenditures which
were unique to the proposed project and which would not be
otherwise usable. Since the business did not prove these items,
the City action was approved.
This case is attached for your information. If you have any
questions about it, please let me know.
n
Signed c7.111---;:- - (?' -moi
Karen Marty, City Attorney
KEM:bjm
[9MEMO]
Attachment
cc: Judy Cox
Lindberg Ekola
7
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney
DATE: April 18 , 1991
RE: Defamation Lawsuit Against a Minneapolis Councilmember
Attached is an unusual lawsuit involving the liability of a
councilmember and a city for the councilmember' s actions. A
Minneapolis councilmember, Van F. White, received complaints from
his constituents that a physician desiring to sell some land might
sell to Ferris Alexander, a well-known proprietor of adult book and
entertainment stores. The councilmember sent a letter on city
council letterhead to approximately 1500 of his constituents,
describing the physician as "the ' esteemed' Dr. Thomas H. Johnson, "
and included the sentence "Given my past record of FIGHTING
PORNOGRAPHY in all its forms, the community can rest assured that
I will continue to be ever vigilant in my opposition to people like
Ferris Alexander and Dr. Thomas H. Johnson and his son. "
Dr. Johnson sued for defamation, which means he alleged that
the letter was an unprivileged communication of false and
defamatory matter which injured his reputation and held him up to
public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. The councilmember attempted
to get out of the lawsuit by arguing that, as a councilmember, he
was immune from suit for defamation. The court held that official
immunity does not apply to protect city councilmembers from being
sued for defamation. Minneapolis also tried to get out of the
lawsuit by arguing that a city cannot be sued for defamation, but
the court rejected this as well .
The result of this court decision is that the city and the
councilmember will have to defend the councilmember' s actions,
which may be difficult. The councilmember could have accomplished
much the same effect if he had simply left "the ' esteemed'" out of
the first paragraph, and revised the later sentence to read " . .
I will continue to be ever vigilant in my opposition to people like
Ferris Alexander and to proposals such as this sale of land. " A
little more judicious wording could have saved much grief.
If you have any questions regarding this, please let me know.
Signed Qom
Karen Marty City t
KEM:bjm
[17MEMO/2]
Attachment
cc: Dennis Kraft
APRIL 12,1991 7
FINANCE AND COMMERCE COURT OF APP EDITION
PAGEBI6 COURT OF APPEAL •
White Bear Isuzu seeks a new trial in a dispute concerning the CRIMINAL OPINIONS
sale of an automobile.Affirmed.
FILED APRIL 9, 1991 /
PROPERTY C3-90-1628 State vs.Hanson '
C2-90-1782 Pine City Townshipfuss,Iliaavisto PAGE B23 //
PAGE B17 • The defense of medical necessity is not avails a to a person
Appellant Pine City Townshipr�hallenges a declaratory judgment charged with marijuana use or possession becau the legislature,
which determined that the road in dis,ppute is not a public road.Pine in itsrclassification sea of Act,marijuana and i its enac considered the THC
City contends the road is public undetrtlte doctrine of common law Therapeutic a broader Research n has byim li on rmdand
dedication or Minn.Stat.§160.05(1988).Affirmed. rejected a exception for medical u Affirmed.
CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT OF ,- P P E A L S
C6-90-1977 Houghton v.Hibbing Taconite CRIMINAL OPINIONS
PAGE B18 UNPU: ISHED
A jury, by special verdict, found respondent Hibbing\Taconite C5-90-1775 State v.Anderso
Company(the Company)liable to David G.Houghton for$147,000 'AGE B25
under an employment contract enforced by operation of promissory This appeal is from a ' demeanor conviction for careless driving
estoppel.The trial court granted the Company JNOV pursuant o in violation of Minn.S •t.§ 169.13,subd.2(1990).Affirmed.
Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.02, determining that the implied aintrac�
between the parties conflicted with the terms of a collective bargain- CS-90-1775 State v 'ossa
ing agreement and was void.The trial court denied the Company's \ PAGE B25
alternative motion for a new trial pursuant to Minn. R.Civ. P.59.
Houghton appealed and the Company filed a notice of review. • ial statent co ends the bytrial courtaerred when it dial i to rogation
Reversed.
pr• ial state •nts made appellant duringcustodialinterrogation
at the cene• a drug"buy-bust." Appellant also challenges the trial
C4-90-2187 Moe v.Liberty Restaurant and Lounge,City of Red court's eel al of her motion for a downward dispositional departure
Wing from thewsumptive sentence.Reversed and remanded.
PAGE B20 C3-90 245 tate v.Pennertz
Appellant,William Moe,challenges entry of summary judgment PAGE B29
for respondent,City of Red Wing(City), arguing that City is not he state appea from an order suppressing evidence of respon-
immune from tort liability under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 ent Aaron Howard •ennertz's field sobriety and intoxilyzer tests.
(1988),or protected from liability under the public duty doctrine. The state claims suffi•'ent probable cause was present with and
Appellant also argues that there is an issue of negligence as a result without the'results of a .'reliminary breath test (PBT), to subject
of City's failure to adequately train its police officers.Affirmed. respondent to the intoxilyz: test.Affirmed.
C2-90-2107 Reberg v.Zwack C2-90-1202 State v.Burette
PAGE B21 i PA B30
Jerry Zwack challenges the trial court's denial of a new'trial Appellant John William Sarett- challenges his conviction for
motion, alleging they were denied a fair trial due to procedural violation of Minn.Stat.§617.246(19::),use of a minor in a sexual
irregularities and erroneous evidentiary rulings in a beneh trial
where respondents appeared pro se.They also argue the,evidence crime.'Appel and Minn.Stat.ge §609.05esu '88),aiding and abetting a
does not support trial court's findings.Affirmed. crime.'Appellant challenges the suffict ncy of the evidence to
sustain his conviction and the constitut •nality of Minn. Stat.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW §617.246•Reversed.
C9-90-2265 Independent School District 709, Duluth, Mn., v. CX-90-2243 Thernell v.Commissioner of Pu 'c Safety
State,Commissioner of Veteran's Affairs,Habert PAGE B31
PAGE B21 James Lyle Thernell appeals from the trial court ord- ustaini
William Habert appeals the termination of.his employment the revocation of his driver's license.Affirmed.
firmed. / COURT OF APPEALS
EMPLOYMENT REIJLATIONS CIVIL OPINIONS
C4-90-2075 Nolan v.Bloomington Chrysler Plymouth • FILED April 9, 1991
PAGE t 2 ,.,;�,�..:
Matthew Nolan appeals from `<:>1 ::<_:» :<�*��: :...:. « 1NI...
PPS ummary judgment grant to ::; ::; ,,...:`�: �- 3
respondents Bloomington �,.
Po Chryer-Plymouth,Inc.In _��_��:�}� . ti� ,
8 h, c.and its fo mer ''> : �<� >:>:<::... �.;��<. .::� � �.
used-car sales manager, ..�:<..,>:.;;:.;�:.: .: •�• <..��,�. � ��;
Sco Reid. Nolan contends ?>: .:.:,,». �.::.,.:t:. . x,.,,..
g �cher are ...,:> �.,:..�. .�•:' :\:.;..
genuine issues of material fa and the court erred in its appli tion � ��� ��� � ������ ������"'
of the law,relative to his cl m for discriminatory discharge n the. Hennepin County Crippen,Judge •
basis of age, in violation .f Minnesota Human Rights Act, inn.
Stat. § 363.01-.15, an, his common law claim for defa tion. Thomas H.Johnson,M.D., Kay Nord Hunt .
Affirmed. / Thomas H.Johnson,III, James M.Lockhart
Lommen,Nelson,Cole&
1 Respondents, Stageberg
1800 IDS Center
BZ
1 7
1INANCE AND COMMERCE COURT OF APPEALS EDITION APRIL 12, 1991
. 80 South Eighth Street of his motion for summary judgment. In Anderson v. City of
1 Mpls.,MN 55402 Hopkins, the Minnesota Supreme Court allowed interlocutory ap-
peal on a claim of municipal immunity under Barlow v.Fitzgerald,
vs. 457 U.S. 800, 102 S. Ct. 2727(1982).Anderson, 393 N.W.2d at
Northside Residents Robert J.Alfton 364.The court concluded this immunity claim was analogous to an
• Redevelopment Council, Minneapolis City Attorney immunity plea of the United States Attorney General reviewed in
Jerome F.Fitzgerald Mitchell v.Forsyth,472 U.S.511, 105 S.Ct.2806(1985).Ander-
•'Defendant, Assistant City Attorney son, 393 N.W.2d at 364. The Mitchell Court conducted inter-
: A-1700 Government Center locutory review after determining the trial court had rejected a claim
• Van F.White,et al., 300 South Sixth Street of immunity from suit, not a mere immunity defense, so that the
Mpls.,MN 55487 value of the claim would be effectively lost if the case were er-
Appellants. roneously permitted to go to trial.Mitchell,472 U.S.at 525-30,105
Filed: April 9, 1991 S.Ct.at 2815-17.
Office of Appellate Courts Councilman White appeals the denial of his summary judgment
't•ISYLLABUS on several bases. First, he sees merit in a claim of Harlow v.
t'
' ; Fitzgerald immunity. This qualified immunity, however, applies
1. The denial of a city councilperson's motion for summary only to actions commenced under 42 U.S.C.§1983(1988).Respon-
judgment based on common law official immunity in a defamation dents have brought only a state claim for defamation.The Minnesota
suit may not be challenged in an interlocutory appeal. Supreme Court clearly has rejected application of Harlow v.
2.Defamation is a"personal injury"under the municipal liability Fitzgerald immunity to state tort claims, but in so doing has
statute. reasserted the vitality of the common law of official immunity in
Affirmed. this state. Elwood v. County of Rice, 423 N.W.2d 671, 676-77
Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Lansing, (Minn. 1988).
Judge,and Peterson,Judge. White also claims he is entitled to official immunity.The Elwood
OPINION decision discusses official immunity based on Restatement
CRIPPEN,Judge(Hon.Beryl Nord,District Court Trial Judge) (Second)of Torts§895D(1977).Elwood,423 N.W.2d at 678.This
,The trial court denied summary judgment motions by appellant section of the Restatement draws a distinction between privileges
• Van F. White and the City of Minneapolis.White claimed official and immunities as they relate to various torts.Specifically,it notes
immunity and the city claimed statutory immunity. Interlocutory the law of privilege is properly applicable to claims of defamation
i appeal was taken pursuant to Anderson v.City of Hopkins, 393 committed by a public official. Restatement (Second) of Torts
N.W.2d 363 (Minn. 1986). We affirm denial of the City of §895D comment e(1977).
Minneapolis's alleged statutory immunity and conclude denial of • Absolute privileges provide immunity from defamation suits.
3 Van White's motion is not presently appealable. This form of privilege includes the absolute privilege afforded
FACTS legislators.
Respondents Thomas H. Johnson, M.D.and his son Thomas H. A member of the Congress of the United States or of a
Jbhnson, III decided to sell land and buildings they had used to State or local legislative body is absolutely privileged
operate the Plymouth Avenue Medical Center in Minneapolis. to publish defamatory matter concerning another in the
Ferris Alexander, a proprietor of adult book and entertainment performance of his legislative functions.
stores,expressed an interest in purchasing the property. Restatement (Second)of Torts §590(1977).This privilege stems
A neighborhood group became aware of Alexander's interest and from the federal constitutional provision which protects speech or
debate in the halls of Congress.Id.comment a;see U.S.Const.art.
began a campaign to block a sale to him.Among other tactics used
tp this end,the group suggested concerned citizens phone and write I,§6.However,as noted in comment c of this section,a number of
their district councilperson,appellant Van F.White. states do not extend the absolute privilege to members of subor-
In response to citizens' complaints, White sent a letter dated dinate legislative bodies. The privileges afforded these public of
7 February 2, 1988, to approximately 1500 households. That letter ficers are set forth in Restatement(Second)of Torts§598A(1977).
reads in relevant part: An occasion makes a publication conditionally
You have probably heard by now that properties at privileged if an inferior administrative officer of a state
2215 Plymouth Avenue North, 1256 Queen Avenue or any of its subdivisions who is not entitled to an
North and 1246 Queen Avenue North all properties absolute privilege makes a defamatory communication
owned by the"esteemed"Dr.Thomas H.Johnson--are required or permitted in the performance of his official
duties.
being considered for purchase by Ferris Alexander.
Minnesota is among the jurisdictions applying this conditional
Given my past record of FIGIITING PORNOG- privilege to city council members.
RAPIIY in all its forms, the community can rest as- It seems to be well recognized, however, that the
sured that I will continue to be ever vigilant in my proceedings of subordinate bodies, including
' 'opposition to ole like Ferris Alexander and Dr. municipal councils or town meetings, are not within
S'' H. Johnsonthe licy underlying absolute immunity since the
'Thomas and his son.
(Emphasis in original.) The letter was signed by White and sent on members of such bodies are sufficiently protected by
his city council stationery. exemption from liability in the exercise of good faith.
Dr.Johnson and his son sued White and the City of Minneapolis Jones v.Monico,276 Minn.371,375, 150 N.W.2d 213,216(1967).
for defamation. White and the City moved for summary judgment Qualified privileges do not act as an immunity from suit,but rather
• on various theories of immunity.All motions were denied. as an immunity from liability for damages. A qualified privilege
provides a defense to suit rather than the immunity from suit
ISSUES afforded by absolute privilege.See Sego v.Gordon,407 N.W.2d
1. Can this court conduct interlocutory review on the claim of 801, 812 (S.D. 1987) (question of whether public official abused
common law official immunity by an inferior state officer sued for qualified privilege not appropriate for summary disposition).
defamation? Further, a qualified or conditional privilege may be defeated by
2. Is the City of Minneapolis immune from suit for defamation a showing of common law malice. This introduces a subjective
pursuant to Minn.Stat.§466.03,subd.8? element into the trial court's determination of a motion for summary
judgment, raising the question whether the statement was made
ANALYSIS
1.Van White seeks interlocutory review of the trial court's denial "from ill will and improper motives,or causelessly and wantonly
B3
A"RIL 12,1991 FINANCE AND COMMERCE COURT APPEALS EDITION
for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff." Stuempges v. Parke, liability. •
Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Minn. 1980) (quoting Mc. • • •
Kenzie v. William J. Burns Int'l Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Subd: 8.Any claim for a loss other than injury to or
Minn. 311, 312, 183 N.W. 516, 517 (1921)). This issun is_one loss of property or personal injury or death.
normally resolved by the jury. Stuempges, 297 N.W.2d at 257 The City argues defamation does not fall within the legislature's
(citing W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 115 at 796 intended class of torts spared from a declaration of immunity,and
(4th ed. 1971)). This subjective element renders the conditional specifically that it is not a"personal injury"claim.
privileges available to appellant White inherently different from the As appellant points out, Minn. Stat. § 466.03 was amended in
immunity provided under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, which has been 1986 to include the"personal injury"liability allowance provision
"purged • * •of its subjective components." Mitchell,472 U.S.at of subdivision 8. 1986 Minn. Laws ch. 455, § 67. Although the
517,105 S.Ct.at 2810.Although the Anderson court found Harlow timing.of this amendment may imply refutation of this court's
immunity "analogous" to the claim reviewed in Mitchell, see decision in Bird v.State,Dep't of Pub.Safety, 375 N.W.2d 36,
Anderson, 393 N.W.2d at 364, common law official immunity 41-42 (Minn. App. 1985), which holds state agency employees
provides only a qualified privilege in defamation cases,and thus is subject to defamation suits,we do not believe the legislature clearly
dissimilar. ' =• : .4 .,, .:i intended such a repudiation. If the legislature was so inclined to
Even under general principles of official immunity,absent refer- declare immunity in all defamation cases,a more definite statement
ence to privileges recognized in defamation cases,we would reach would be expected. License for claims of"personal injury" is an
the same conclusion.Official immunity, as it is understood.in this, unlikely vehicle to exclude defamation from statutory immunity..
state, requires determination of the same subjective,et<ement;cot}-, [Personal injury]is chiefly used in this connection with
sidered in qualified privilege. actions of tort for negligence and under worker's com '
It is settled law in Minnesota that a public official pensation statutes.But the term is also used(chiefly in •
charged by law with duties which call for the exercise • statutes) in a much wider sense,and as including any
of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to injury which is an invasion of personal rights,and in
an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful this signification it may include such injuries to the
or malicious wrong. person as libel or slander,criminal conversation,mall-
Susla v.State,311 Minn. 166, 175,247 N.W.2d 907,912(1976) cious prosecution,false imprisonment and mental suf-
(pre-Tort Claims Act case). Thus, this immunity is subject to a feting.
factual condition of malice,which is generally a jury question.See Black's Law Dictionary 707(5th ed.1979).
Erickson v. County of Clay, 451 N.W.2d 666, 669inn,
(M App. This court recently has reiterated that a reasonable definition of
1990)(only claim of absolute prosecutorial immunity amenable to personal injury includes defamation type torts.Hamlin v.Weslera
interlocutory appeal under Anderson v.City of Hopkins);Restate- Nat'l Mut..Ins. Co., 461 N.W.2d 395, 398 (Minn. App. 1990).
meet (Second)of Torts §895D comment c(the limited immunity Absent a clear statement to the contrary by either the legislature or
of legislative officials usually may not extend to improper motive), our supreme court, we decline to alter this interpretation in,the
Having in mind the rationale against interlocutory appeal,1 immunity context.
•
t'The briefing of this case bears ample witness to the . . DECISION
dangers of loosely expanding the opportunity for inter- The district court's denial of a motion for extension of official
locutory appeal.The parties have extensively briefed . immunity or qualified privilege from suit for defamation by a city
constitutional defenses to defamation actions that were councilperson is not appealable.The trial court correctly determined
determined inapplicable by the district court. These the City is not immune from suit for defamation. 1issues clearly do not involve immunity and should not •.Armed. I
be reviewed in this procedural posture. ,
The interlocutory re-examination of every issue in-
volved inany motion for summ judgment remised k, ,'�: ;'! --; «'• >-.;1.., „„,<,..
in part on an immunity defense would raise the question �` 'g. 1 ,a
of why the motions are brought in the first instanceNaW .; ,,,,Sx.* � :<::;
',5'.?X<.,' ^'+�' '..4 `�2Ydl:`.>.`: : R� '.s65` '7' ;:`9..9.r+.: .4
before the trial court.It renders the work of trial courts
superfluous and suggests primary jurisdiction in this
court over claims against public officials.This is an Hennepin.0......... Davies,Judge
imprudent waste of judicial resources. ' Patricia A.Meitograf, Thomas M.Brudvig 1
More importantly, interlocutory appeals can in-
crease intolerably the demands of litigation on the _ • 121 Rosedale Towers
parties.Claims may be defeated by process rather than Appellant, 17se West Highway
on the merits.During the delay caused by interlocutory i;) h; .' Roseville,MN 55113
appeal,evidence grows stale and budgets are strained.. + ' �s•
•
This runs directly counter to the stated goals of the •.,' DouBlas Corporation, John French
conduct of civil actions in this state to"secure the just, Andrea M.ens
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every ac- Respondent, Faegre&Bnson
tion." Minn.R.Civ.P. 1. 2200 Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street .;
and the rubric of Anderson, we conclude the privileges or int- ,- •• . . , Mpls.,MN 55402
munities available to appellant White operate as defenses or 1m- • ••.. , ;, .'
munities from liability and are not reviewable upon-denial of a Wausau Insurance Company, Dale B.Lindman t
summary judgment. Victor E.Lund •'
2. The City of Minneapolis claims immunity from syi(.undet Respondent, Mahoney,Dougherty&Mahoney
Minn.Stat.§466.03(1988),which provides in part 801 Park Avenue
Subdivision 1. Scope. Section 466.02 [subjecting
Mpls.,MN 55404
municipalities to tort liability] does not apply to any;
claim enumerated in this section.As to any such claim,,' 1l Parkview Treatment Center, •
every municipality shall be liable only in accordance; ..;,.,
with the applicable statute and where there is no such - Defendant.
statute, every municipality shall be immune from
B4 . .
* g
Minutes of the
Shakopee Community Development Commission
City Council Chambers
April 17, 1991
Chairman Albinson called the meeting to order at 5:40 P.M. with the
following members present: Mike Pennington, Charles Brandmire,
Mike Beard, Bill Mars, Jon Albinson and Mark Miller. Commissioner
DuBois was absent. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator, Greg
Smith, Chamber of Commerce Liaison and Ted Jasper were also
present.
Mars/Pennington moved to approve the minutes of the March 20, 1991
meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock gave a brief economic development report stating that two
residential plats are currently being processed, including Meadows
5th - 38 lots and Weinandt' s - 24 lots. Mr. Stock commented that
industrial inquiries have been minimal.
Mr. Stock stated that at the last meeting of the Community
Development Commission, it was suggested that staff attempt to
tighten up the program guidelines in the proposed Residential
Development Incentive Policy. Mr. Stock noted that he had made
several changes to the program in an effort to specifically address
eligibility criteria that the HRA and City can use to determine
which projects are eligible for assistance. Mr. Stock noted that
he also included language that specifically addressed what
constitutes blight in terms of the proposed program.
Mr. Stock noted that the program, as presently proposed, provides
two types of financing. The first type utilizing the HRA fund
balance is entitled Municipal Assistance. The second funding
source would be traditional Tax Increment Financing. In both
cases, certain criteria would have to be met by project applicants.
Mr. Stock noted that the primary objective of the Municipal
Assistance Program is to encourage small scale residential
development project (less than 25 units) which would not have
otherwise occurred without financial assistance. Traditional Tax
Increment Financing would be utilized when more than 25 units of
residential development are proposed. Projects pursuing
Traditional Tax Increment Financing would also have to meet the
state criteria specifying that said housing to be developed would
have to be made available for low and moderate income families.
The Municipal Assistance Program does not include such language.
Another difference between the two funding sources is that the
Municipal Assistance Program only provides the amount of tax
increment generated by the City portion of the tax statement.
Under Traditional Tax Increment Financing, all three of the major
e
Minutes of the Page - 2
Community Development Commission April 17, 1991
taxing jurisdictions are generally captured and remitted to the
developer or utilized to retire bond payments. Mr. Stock shared
with the Committee an example of how both programs might work on
the recently proposed Jasper Project.
Mr. Stock noted that under the Municipal Financing Program as
proposed, none of the current taxing jurisdictions would be
deprived of any tax base. The City portion of the tax bill would
simply be utilized to determine the level of grant assistance
(utilizing the HRA fund balance) that would be distributed to the
developer.
Mr. Stock noted that the program, as proposed, provides financial
assistance on a pay as you go basis. In other words, the applicant
would not receive funding until the property taxes are paid.
Chairman Albinson stated that this generally works okay for large
industrial projects since they generally stay under one ownership.
However, in the case of a residential development project, he
stated that the individual properties would be sold off and that
many different persons might end up paying the taxes on the
project. Mr. Albinson stated that he did not see a problem with
providing the developer with cash up front, providing the developer
supplied a revokable letter of credit in an amount equal to the
grant or assistance amount. Mr. Stock questioned how long the City
would retain the letter of credit. Mr. Albinson stated that he
felt the City would only have to retain the letter of credit until
such time that all of the residential units as proposed were
completed. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that the letter of credit
could be released upon the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
Permits for all residential units as proposed by the developer. It
was the consensus of the Commission that the program guidelines
should be amended to include language providing for cash up front
to projects receiving assistance under the proposed program,
providing the developer provide the City with an irrevocable letter
of credit in an amount equal to the grant or tax increment
assistance.
Commissioner Miller stated that the CDC has proposed programs in
the past that are taking a portion of the HRA fund balance. He
questioned how much money was available for this type of program
and how much needs to be made available under the Municipal
Financing option. Mr. Stock stated that he could not be sure of
how much is actually available in the HRA fund balance at this
time. He noted that the HRA will be acquiring some property near
the 5th Ave. project area. Mr. Stock stated that there might be
between $25, 000 and $50, 000 available for this type of program.
Commissioner Miller asked staff to give their opinion on how many
potential projects there are in the City that could utilize the
Municipal Financing option. Mr. Stock stated that given the strict
blight criteria, he did not believe there were a large amount of
Minutes of the Page - 3
Community Development Commission April 17 , 1991
projects within the community that could qualify under the
Municipal Financing option. He stated that, in his opinion, the
total amount of eligible projects could be as low as $25, 000 or as
high as $100, 000 depending on the density of the project. Mr.
Stock stated that the program guidelines do not specify that at all
times does the HRA have to provide up to five years of assistance.
The amount of assistance could be less if the development costs do
not justify providing more assistance than what is actually needed.
Chairman Albinson questioned how the HRA replenishes their fund
balance. Mr. Stock stated that the HRA does have a small mill levy
authority that generates approximately $30, 000 per year in funds
for the HRA fund. Mr. Stock reminded the Commission that
assistance under the Municipal Financing option in the residential
development program is passed on to the developer as a grant.
Mr. Brandmire stated that any project receiving assistance under
this program would generate new tax base for the City and the HRA.
He stated that he felt that the purpose and mission of the HRA was
to stimulate development projects that would not have otherwise
occurred without City assistance and to eliminate blight.
Commissioner Brandmire stated that extraordinary development costs
and soil conditions were not listed as a program goal and that he
felt it should be included. He suggested that Item #8 be modified
to include language addressing extraordinary development costs. It
was the consensus of the Commission that Goal #8 should be amended
accordingly.
Chairman Albinson questioned whether or not an Assessment Agreement
would be required in conjunction with the Developer' s Agreement.
Mr. Stock stated that a Developer' s Agreement would not be
required. Mr. Stock noted that Assessment Agreements are only
required when bonds are sold. Mr. Stock stated that generally, the
Developer' s Agreement does address a minimum value on a specified
date.
Beard/Brandmire moved to recommend to the Shakopee Housing and
Redevelopment Authority that the Housing Assistance Program
Guidelines be approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Miller questioned whether or not it would be
appropriate to address a set aside dollar amount for potential
program applicants. Chairman Albinson stated that the Committee
did recommend that a certain amount of dollars be set aside when
they propose the Downtown Rehab Grant Program.
Miller/Brandmire moved to present the Housing Assistance Program to
the HRA with initial funding allocation in the amount of $30, 000 to
be applied to the program. Motion carried unanimously.
I
Minutes of the Page - 4
Community Development Commission April 17, 1991
Mr. Stock stated that Mr. Jasper has submitted a residential
development proposal . Mr. Stock stated that he felt Mr. Jasper' s
proposal met the development criteria and blight test established
in the proposed Residential Development Program. Mr. Stock stated
that due to the unusual soil conditions in the project area, Mr.
Jasper is faced with extraordinary developer' s cost in terms of
providing City water and sewer service to each of the proposed
residential units. Mr. Stock stated that the layout of Mr.
Jasper' s residential development project (condominium or townhouse)
will determine how many service wyes he can use to service the
residential units. Mr. Stock stated that service wyes has been a
controversial issue lately and that he cannot be certain as to what
the City of Shakopee or Shakopee Public Utility Commission may
require in conjunction with Mr. Jasper' s project.
Mr. Jasper stated that he felt he only needed to run one service
line to service the individual units. In terms of sewer, Mr.
Jasper stated that he did not know why a four-plex could be
serviced by one common sewer line. He stated that he thought it
was ridiculous to require four separate sewer lines for a four-
plex.
Mr. Stock stated that this is an issue that the CDC does not have
to resolve. Mr. Stock noted that it is a City Council policy
decision and that the policy is being drafted at this time and that
the type of home ownership involved generally dictates how sewer
and water service lines are installed.
Mr. Miller stated that as with past programs that the CDC has
recommended to the City Council and/or HRA for consideration,
persons have been waiting in the wings to utilize them. He noted
that since Mr. Jasper' s proposal does meet the criteria as set
forth, he would feel comfortable recommending HRA approval of
Municipal Financing Assistance for Mr. Jasper' s project. Mr.
Miller questioned Mr. Jasper on what he thought of the proposed
program. Mr. Jasper stated that if the City ' s policy on service
wyes cannot be flexible, even with the level of assistance provided
under the proposed Municipal Assistance Program, he did not feel
his project would be worthy of pursuing.
Miller/Beard moved to go on record in support of Mr. Jasper' s
proposed residential project under the proposed Municipal Financing
Assistance option as addressed in the proposed Residential
Development Incentive Policy. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock stated that the Downtown Committee is recommending that
the Community Development Commission recommend to City Council that
a consultant be hired to complete an update of the Downtown
Revitalization Plan. Mr. Stock noted that the Downtown
Revitalization Plan was completed in 1984 . Mr. Stock noted that
the currently proposed Comprehensive Plan does call for updating of
S)
Minutes of the Page - 5
Community Development Commission April 17, 1991
the Downtown Revitalization Plan in either 1991 or 1992 . Mr. Stock
reviewed with the Commission a list of tasks that the Downtown
Committee would like the consultant to analyze. Mr. Stock noted
that many of the tasks are addressed in the Star City One-Year Work
Plan.
Commissioner Miller commented on the back sides of the buildings in
the City Hall block. He questioned whether or not the existing
Downtown Grant Program could be utilized by the property owners to
clean up the backs of these buildings. Mr. Stock responded in the
affirmative. Mr. Stock stated that the Downtown Committee felt
that a consultant could do a conceptual rendering of what the back
sides of these buildings could look like if they were restored or
slightly modified. Mr. Miller stated that he felt that it was a
good idea to bring in a consultant to look at options. Mr. Miller
questioned if the Downtown Committee considered getting assistance
from graduate schools to perform some conceptual designs. Mr.
Stock stated that back in 1983 the City did have the assistance
from the U of M. in preparing some architectural renderings on some
of the historical buildings in downtown Shakopee. Mr. Stock stated
that he did send a letter to the University of Minnesota School of
Architecture requesting assistance on doing a similar project for
the rear sides of the buildings on 1st Ave. in the downtown area.
To date, no response has been received. Commissioner Miller
suggested that perhaps staff could expand the list of schools
contacted and perhaps utilize different programs from universities,
such as geography, planning and/or public administration. Mr.
Stock stated that this could be easily accomplished.
Miller/Brandmire moved to request staff to seek further outside
assistance from college universities in Minnesota to develop a
conceptual and/or planning analysis of the downtown area. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Brandmire commented on one of the work tasks that specified the
need for residential development within the downtown area. Mr.
Brandmire stated that he did not think residential development
should be permitted in the downtown area. Mr. Brandmire went on to
state that it was important for the consultant to address the
development of a consistent theme in the downtown area. It was the
consensus of the Committee that the theme concept was a good one.
Chairman Albinson questioned whether or not Mr. Brandmire ' s concern
regarding residential development could be addressed by amending
work task #2 to read "determine the potential economic demand for
various businesses and new residential development within the
downtown area" . Commissioner Brandmire responded in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Pennington questioned whether or not the consultant
would analyze alternative design plans for the downtown area and
various themes. Mr. Stock responded in the affirmative. Mr. Stock
F,
Minutes of the Page - 6
Community Development Commission April 17, 1991
suggested that if City Council does approve hiring a consultant
that the City could solicit proposals and the CDC and/or Downtown
Committee could interview the consultants to obtain a better
understanding of the consultants vision and previous work. It was
the consensus that this was an excellent idea.
Discussion ensured on the funding source for this type of study.
Mr. Stock stated that the Downtown Committee is recommending that
the CDC recommend to City Council that the funds generated from the
sale of the parking lots be utilized to offset the cost of the
study. Mr. Stock noted that he does not know when Mn DOT will
actually acquire the parking lots. Commissioner Albinson suggested
that perhaps the Downtown Committee's recommendation could be
amended to initiate soliciting proposals from a consultant
following Mn DOT's acquisition of the parking lots. It was the
consensus of the Commission that they felt a recommendation should
be made to City Council at this time to stress the importance and
need for a Downtown Revitalization Plan update. However, they also
thought it was prudent, given the City's financial condition that
no study be initiated until the City actually receives the funds
from the sale of the parking lots.
Brandmire/Mars moved to recommend to City Council that the City of
Shakopee obtain proposals for updating the Downtown Revitalization
Plan, following Mn DOT's acquisition of the parking lots located
behind City Hall. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reviewed the City Map layout with the Commissioners.
Commissioner Brandmire commented on the lack of information on
trails. Mr. Stock stated that the City Parks and Trail Systems
would be set out as a different color on the final map.
Commissioner Brandmire commented on whether or not the major
recreational facilities could be identified on the final map. Mr.
Stock responded in the affirmative. Mr. Stock also noted that the
ticket offices of the major tourist attractions could also be
included on the telephone number listing.
Beard/Pennington moved to request staff to proceed in completing
the City Map/Brochure. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock briefly commented on the Athletic Facilities findings and
Council 's decision to create a committee to investigate the
municipal need for space in the proposed moratorium area.
Mr. Stock also noted that a Chamber Industrial Session has been set
for April 30, 1991, 4:30 to 7: 30 at Canterbury Inn.
Mr. Stock noted that he is presently having someone from staff
analyze the number of available residential lots within the MUSA
line. Mr. Stock stated that he is concerned that we may run out of
developable lots in the near future and that we should consider
I
Minutes of the Page - 7
Community Development Commission April 17, 1991
taking the necessary steps to expand the MUSA line. Mr. Stock
stated that he hoped to have some inventory results by our next
meeting.
Beard/Brandmire moved to adjourn the meeting at 7 : 20 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
NOTE: MEETING LOCATION - PUBLIC ACCESS STUDIO
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission
Public Access Studio
REGULAR MEETING April 29 , 1991
1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2 . Approval of Minutes of March 25, 1991
3 . Discussion: Public Access Studio Location
4 . Action: 1991 Cable Budget Amendment
5. Information Items
A. Cable Administrators Report
B. Continental Cablevision News Story
C.
6. Other Business
A. Next Meeting - ?
B.
7 . Adjourn
Shakopee Access Corporation
REGULAR MEETING
1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2 . Action: 5 Year Equipment Program
3 . Information Items (Verbal)
A. Equipment Issues
B. Treasurers Report
C. Studio Insurance
4 . Other Business
A. New Frontier Report
B.
5. Adjourn
AtIC)
Minutes of the
The Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission
March 25, 1991
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7: 00 P.M. with the
following members present: Commissioner Moonen, Bastyr and
Anderson present. Commissioners Abein and Harrison were absent.
Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator, Bill Lepley, New
Frontier Productions Manager, Beth Anderson, Studio Manager and
Mike Kazma, Amzak Cable Co. Manager were also present.
Bastyr/Moonen moved to approve the minutes of the February 25, 1991
meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Anderson asked if there were any nominations for the
chairperson position. Commissioner Bastyr nominated the following
slate of officers: Bill Anderson - Chairperson, Larry Moonen -
Vice-Chairperson and James Bastyr - 2nd Vice-Chairperson. There
were no other nominations. Bastyr/Moonen moved to appoint Bill
Anderson as the Chairperson for the Cable Commission, Larry Moonen
as 2nd Vice-Chair and James Bastyr as 2nd Vice-Chair. Motion
carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued on the location of the Public Access Studio. Mr.
Stock stated that he has not had time to meet with Mr. Ward from
the School District to discuss the possible location of the studio
at the Sr. High School. Mr. Stock noted that the new
superintendent should be on board within the next month and this
should allow more time for Mr. Ward to meet with City staff on the
potential location of the Public Access Studio in the school .
Commissioner Anderson questioned whether or not any progress had
been made on acquiring the Marquette Bank building for City Hall .
Mr. Stock stated that the City was very close to finalizing the
acquisition of the bank building. Mr. Stock noted that it will be
some time before it can be determined if there is room in the
Marquette Bank building for the Public Access Studio. Mr. Stock
stated that if everything went perfectly, it might be possible for
the City to occupy the new building in early 1992 . This of course
assumes completion of the new Marquette Bank facility prior to
years end.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was a Cable Administrator' s
Report. Mr. Kazma stated that Amzak will be launching Prime Sports
Network within the next month. He noted that it will primarily
cover NHL Hockey and Timberwolves Basketball. Mr. Kazma stated
that he expected the merging of Prime and Midwest Sports Channel
prior to years end.
Bastyr/Moonen moved to adjourn the meeting at 7 :40 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock, Recording Secretary
# 10
Minutes of the
Shakopee Access Corporation
March 25, 1991
Chairman Ziegler called the meeting to order at 8 : 00 P.M. with
Commissioners Kazma, Bastyr, Moonen, Anderson and Ziegler present.
Commissioners Harrison and Abeln were absent. Barry Stock,
Assistant City Administrator, Bill Lepley and Beth Anderson, New
Frontier Productions were also present.
Anderson/Bastyr moved to approve the minutes of the February 25,
1991 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Ziegler asked if there were any nominations for the
chairperson position.
Commissioner Bastyr asked Mr. Ziegler if he would be willing to
serve as the Chairperson for another term. Mr. Ziegler stated that
he preferred to serve as treasurer since he has been maintaining
the books for the past year. Commissioner Anderson nominated the
following slate of officers: Bill Harrison, Chairperson, Jim
Bastyr, 2nd Vice-Chairperson and Bob Ziegler as treasurer. There
were no other nominations.
Anderson/Moonen moved to appoint Bill Harrison as Chairperson, Jim
Bastyr as Vice-Chairperson and Bob Ziegler as treasurer for the
Shakopee Access Corporation. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock summarized the financial support that the Cable Co. has
agreed to provide for Public Access. Commissioner Anderson in an
attempt to visualize what we can expect to receive in terms of
income as compared to expenses listed the following income items
for 1991:
Studio Maintenance $ 2 , 000. 00
Subscriber Access Fees $ 6, 400. 00
Rent $ 9, 600. 00
Franchise Fees $25, 400. 00
In terms of expenses, the Corporation came up with the following
items:
City Administration $ 3 , 000. 00
Studio Office Expense $ 2 , 000. 00
New Frontier Productions $17, 000. 00
Studio Rent/Utilities $ 9, 600. 00
This would leave the Access Corporation with $11, 800 . 00 for capital
equipment purchases in 1991. Discussion ensued on 1992 income and
expenditures. The following income items were listed:
Minutes of the Page - 2
March 25, 1991
Shakopee Access Corporation
Maintenance $ 2 , 000. 00
Subscriber Access Fees $10, 000. 00
Rent $ 9 , 600. 00
Franchise Fees $30, 000. 00
The Following projected expenditures were also listed:
City Administration $ 3 , 000 . 00
Studio Office Expense $ 2 , 000. 00
New Frontier Productions $18 , 000. 00
Studio Rent/Utilities $ 9 , 600 . 00
This leaves $18 , 400 . 00 available for capital equipment purchases in
1992 . Mr. Anderson noted that if we can get into a rent free
situation in 1992 and utilize the rent proceeds for capital
equipment, it would leave $28 , 000 . 00 available for capital
equipment purchases in 1992 . Mr. Anderson stated that if we
project $19 , 000. 00 for the next four years, we would have
$76, 000. 00 available plus what we have incoming in 1991, giving a
total potential pool of funds in the amount of $88 , 000 . 00 for
equipment purposes over the next five years.
Mr. Lepley pointed out that the Access Corp. has been collecting
funds through the deferrals for the past five years and has only
managed to accumulate $20, 000 . 00. Mr. Kazma stated that this may
be true but subscribers and Cable rates have increased over a
period of time which will generate more funding for the Access
Corps. in future years. Mr. Anderson stated that the numbers
presented in the previous illustration are committed funds. Mr.
Anderson also stated that he would like to see the studio
maintenance amount increase by $200. 00 per year. Mr. Anderson
questioned how the studio has been making out on the $2 , 000. 00
allocated per year for studio maintenance. Mr. Lepley stated that
generally the Access Corp. has been able to bank the majority of
the annual studio maintenance fee away because the equipment that
has gone down cannot be fixed at a value cheaper than what it would
cost to acquire new equipment.
Mr. Anderson suggested that the Corporation go through the five
year plan on an item by item basis to bring it in line with what is
available in terms of funding. Mr. Moonen stated that there is
approximately $12 , 000 . 00 available for 1991. Mr. Anderson
responded in the affirmative. Discussion ensued on how much money
remains in the Access Corp. account. Discussion then ensued on
year one of the five year capital improvement plan. Discussion
ensued on the need for a new routing switcher. Mr. Lepley stated
that the routing switcher could be budgeted for a later year if
some upgrade could be made to the existing switcher. He stated
that approximately $1, 000 . 00 would be adequate to upgrade the
switcher. It was the consensus of the Commission to reduce the
//D
Minutes of the Page - 3
Shakopee Access Corporation March 25, 1991
amount budgeted for SVHS editing furniture from $2 , 000. 00 to
$1, 200 . 00 and delete the furniture for the VHS editing station. It
was also the consensus to reduce the amount budgeted for edit
station chairs from $1, 200. 00 to $250. 00 and to acquire one 5"
production monitor for on location use rather than two. Finally,
it was the consensus that the time base corrector for the SVHS
playback deck could be deleted in its entirety. It was also the
consensus that the amount budgeted for storage cabinets for tapes
and programs could be reduced from $400 . 00 to $100. 00. Total
projected equipment costs for 1991 totaled $13 , 750. 00 after the
proposed changes were made.
Commissioner Anderson questioned when the Access Corp. receives
their franchise fees. Mr. Stock stated that the way the present
system is established, the Access Corp. receives on a bimonthly
basis the amount that is directly paid to New Frontier Productions.
Commissioner Moonen questioned whether or not the franchise fee
amount increases each year. Mr. Stock responded in the
affirmative. Commissioner Moonen then questioned where the
additional funds went if they were not going to the Access Corp.
Mr. Stock stated that a portion of the franchise fees is retained
by the City for City administration purposes in monitoring the
franchise ordinance. He stated that this generally equates to
$3 , 000. 00 per year for staffing and an additional $1, 000. 00 for
other expenditures. Mr. Stock stated that when he prepared the
1991 budget, he projected franchise fees at approximately
$22 , 000 . 00 . If franchise fees in fact exceed that amount, the
monies at this time would be placed in the City' s General Fund.
Mr. Anderson stated that if franchise fees exceed staff
projections, how can the Access Corp. receive those funds. Mr.
Stock stated that the Access Corp. could request the City Council
to consider amending the 1991 Cable budget. If franchise fees will
actually be higher than what staff projected, this would provide
sound rationale for amending the Cable budget. Mr. Stock also
noted that in previous years, franchise fees have generally hovered
around $22 , 000 . 00 . Mr. Stock also noted that during the early
years of the Cable franchise in Shakopee, the City expended more
funds than what was collected through franchise fees to enforce the
Cable Franchise Ordinance.
Commissioner Moonen stated that he felt it was important for the
Access Corp. to make sure that whatever the City does not utilize
from the franchise fees be turned over to the Access Corp. for
equipment purchases. It was the consensus of the Board that Mr.
Stock attempt to determine what we can realistically project for
franchise fees in 1991 and determine what will be needed for City
expenses and prepare a budget amendment that the Access Corp. can
present to the Cable Commission and City Council for consideration.
Minutes of the Page - 4
Shakopee Access Corporation March 25, 1991
Commissioner Moonen questioned what Mr. Kazma would project for
franchise fees in 1991. Mr. Kazma stated that with the rate
increase that went into effect approximately two months ago, he
projected 1991 franchise fees to be approximately $32 , 000. 00. Mr.
Stock stated that when the 1991 budget was prepared by staff in
August of 1990, he was not aware of the impending Cable rate
increase.
Mr. Stock stated that with the $3 , 200. 00 in subscribers access fees
due in April and October, in conjunction with a Cable budget
amendment, there would be adequate funds to meet the first years
capital expenditures as set forth by the Access Corp.
Mr. Lepley stated that the budget as set forth does not include any
funding for promotions. Mr. Stock suggested that some of the
community organizations be contacted on an annual basis for a grant
or sponsorship for special programming. Mr. Stock stated that he
felt this was a revenue source that has been untapped by the Access
Corp.
Commissioner Ziegler questioned if the previously discussed
equipment list was in order of priority. Mr. Moonen stated that
the priority of acquisition would have to be discussed by the
Corporation at a future time. He noted that it would primarily be
based on what is available in terms of dollars.
Commissioner Ziegler questioned if he had the authority to approve
certain expenditures without bringing them to the entire board. It
was the consensus of the board that the treasurer utilize his own
discretion in terms of expenditures under $1, 000. 00 . Expenditures
in excess of $1, 000. 00 should be brought to the board for final
approval. Mr. Moonen stated that if there is a breakdown of
equipment and it requires replacement of equipment in excess of
$1, 000 . 00 that he would be satisfied with a simple polling of the
board members to okay the treasurers acquisition. It was the
consensus of the board that this was a reasonable approach if a
piece of equipment went down and a board meeting was not scheduled
in the upcoming weeks. Discussion ensued on whether or not access
users should be charged for video tapes. Mr. Anderson stated that
in the past the Access Corp. has been responsible for providing
working tapes but that generally a producer was only provided with
one program copy of the final product free of charge. Any other
tapes that the producer wanted to keep would be charged to the
producer.
It was the consensus of the board to revisit the Five Year Capital
Equipment Program and finalize it at the board' s next meeting.
Discussion ensued on the lease agreement between the Access Corp.
and Mr. Lepley for the studio space. Mr. Stock briefly reviewed
/ v
Minutes of the Page - 5
Shakopee Access Corporation March 25, 1991
the lease agreement, noting the following changes: The term of the
lease should be from April 1, 1991 through March 31, 1992 . The
amount of rent should be $550 . 00 per month. The rent payment
should be paid on or before the first date of each month. Mr.
Stock noted that the amount of rent requested by Mr. Lepley is
slightly below the market rate in the downtown area.
Moonen/Ziegler moved to authorize the appropriate Access Corp.
officials to execute the lease agreement between Mr. Bill Lepley
and the Community Access Corp. for the studio space. Motion
carried unanimously.
Discussion then ensued on the Access Support Agreement. Mr. Stock
noted that the Shakopee City Council approved the Cable Franchise
Ordinance Amendments, granting the five year deferrals of certain
items. Mr. Stock noted that the deferrals and ordinance amendments
are conditioned upon the successful execution of an agreement
between the Access Corp. and Amzak Cable Midwest. Mr. Stock
briefly reviewed the Access Support Agreement. He noted that the
major changes in the agreement in compared to the previous
agreement was that the subscriber access fees will be increased to
40¢ per month in conjunction with the Cable Company' s next rate
increase or on April 1, 1992 whichever comes first. Mr. Kazma
stated that Amzak Cable Midwest, Inc. is a Texas corporation and
not a Minnesota corporation.
Mr. Anderson questioned whether or not the Cable Co. would be
willing to increase the studio maintenance fee by $200. 00 per year.
Mr. Kazma stated that he would entertain an increase in the studio
maintenance grant if consideration could be given to adding a
provision for reopening the amount provided for studio related
rental expenses if the Cable operator selects to build their own
building. Mr. Stock stated that at the present time the Access
Support Agreement includes $2 , 400. 00 per quarter for studio related
expenses, including but not limited to rent, utilities and
equipment for use by the Access Corp. This breaks down to
approximately $550. 00 per month for studio rent and an additional
$250. 00 per month for utilities. Mr. Kazma stated that Amzak Cable
did not have any plans on constructing a new building at this time
but he wanted to leave open the possibility of constructing a new
building that would include the Public Access Studio. This would
allow him to be relieved from the $2 , 400 . 00 per quarter expense
that he will be incurring if the proposed Access Support Agreement
is approved. Mr. Moonen stated that he understood Mr. Kazma ' s
position but it would be detrimental to the Access Corp. to put in
such a provision. He stated that the Access Corp. would have no
guarantee or say in where the studio would be located if such a
condition were included in the Access Support Agreement. Extensive
discussion ensued. It was the consensus of both parties that a
provision be added for reopening the Access Support Agreement if
Minutes of the Page - 6
Shakopee Access Corporation March 25, 1991
Access Corp. utility costs increase by 10% or more and if the Cable
operator selected to construct a new building subject to the
approval of the Access Corp. It was also the consensus of both
parties that the Studio maintenance grant be increased by $100. 00
per year in each successive year of the agreement.
Moonen/Anderson moved to authorize the appropriate Shakopee Access
Corp. members to execute the Access Support Agreement between the
Shakopee Community Access Corp. and Amzak Cable Midwest as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Anderson questioned if the studio insurance issue
could be placed on the next agenda for discussion. Mr. Stock
responded in the affirmative.
Moonen/Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting at 10 : 00 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock, Recording Secretary
44 1)
SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY YOUTH BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES: FEBRUARY 9, 1991
9: 00 - 9:35 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Lindstrom, Gwen Marie Solseth, Joyce
Bassinger
Minutes from the meeting of January 11, 1991 were approved by the
members present.
OLD BUSINESS:
We still need applications for vacancies on the Committee.
It was decided to wait until Fall to check the fireplace for the
need to clean it.
NEW BUSINESS:
Derby Days - discussion was held regarding selling only popcorn at
the Youth Building booth.
Annual Report was submitted to the City Council.
It was decided that the funds held for the Building are to be used
for maintenance of the building only - not for improvements. The
requests for divider curtains and a storage shed should be provided
for through donations.
The meeting adjourned at 9: 35 a.m.
The next meeting of the Shakopee Youth Building Committee is
scheduled for Saturday, March 9, 1991 at 9 : 00 a.m.
* 11
SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY YOUTH BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES: MARCH 9, 1991
9: 00 - 9: 50 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Lindstrom, Gwen Marie Solseth, Joyce
Bassinger
OLD BUSINESS:
We still need applications for vacancies on the Committee.
NEW BUSINESS:
The Building has not been cleaned properly after usage. It appears
to be after use by the Girl Scouts. It will be brought to their
attention.
Discussion was held regarding renting the Building to private
parties. Mark McQuillan of the Park and Recreation Department was
at the Building during our discussion. The concensus of members
present was that the Building should not be rented to private
parties since it was donated to the youth of Shakopee for their
use. The discussion was tabled until more members are present to
ensure agreement on this item.
Gary will contact Ed Dressen to request his attendance at the next
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 50 a.m.
The next meeting of the Shakopee Youth Building Committee is
scheduled for Saturday, April 13, 1991 at 9: 00 a.m.
1 424
Minutes of the
Shakopee Community Development Commission
City Council Chambers
Wednesday, March 20, 1991
Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 5 : 35 P.M. with the
following members present: Mike Pennington, Charles Brandmire,
Mike Beard, Bill Mars, Jane DuBois, Jon Albinson and Mark Miller
present. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator, Jim Stillman
and Jim Fehring were also present.
Pennington/Beard moved to approve the minutes of the February 20,
1991 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock gave the Committee a brief economic development update.
He noted that DelMac Petroleum was still considering Shakopee in
their site development plans. In regard to the Jasper proposal ,
Mr. Stock noted that on March 4 , 1991 he appeared with Mr. Jasper
at the Shakopee Public Utility Commission meeting to request that
the Utility Commission' s policy on watermain looping be waived in
this case. Mr. Stock stated that the Shakopee Public Utility
Commission did vote in favor of Mr. Jasper' s request. Therefore,
Mr. Jasper is not requesting City financial assistance to loop the
watermain at this time. Mr. Stock went on to state that he
expected Mr. Jasper to submit another request for financing
assistance for his proposed residential project due to the
extraordinary costs with installing individual service lines for
each of the proposed residential units. Mr. Stock noted that rock
is at or near the surface in the proposed project area.
Chairman Miller introduced Mr. Jim Stillman. Mr. Stillman stated
that he is serving as co-chairperson for the School District ' s
Athletic Facility Committee. He stated that the Committee was
created in conjunction with the School District ' s Strategic
Planning process. Mr. Stillman then gave a brief bit of history on
the School District ' s land use planning process that has occurred
over the past twenty years.
Mr. Stillman noted that the subcommittee' s original task was to
determine an appropriate spot for the athletic field. When this
issue was analyzed, it became apparent that the School District was
in need of additional land to facilitate expansion at their
existing site. This is what prompted the School District to
request the moratorium on development within the 160 acre quadrant.
Mr. Stillman stated that the subcommittee had the School District' s
consultants complete a conceptual design of the area located within
the moratorium area. He noted that when the subcommittee began to
evaluate the school ' s needs in conjunction with the community' s
needs, it became that this was an ideal site with great development
potential in terms of the community needs for park, recreation,
municipal and school district needs . Mr. Stillman noted that the
Committee would like to request the Community Development
Commission to go on record in support of the formation of a
subcommittee comprised of both school and municipal officials to
evaluate the potential acquisition of the entire 160 acre parcel .
Mr. Stillman also stated that one of the objectives of the
subcommittee would be to identify possible funding alternatives for
acquiring said property.
Discussion ensued on whether or not the entire 160 acre parcel was
needed for school and/or community needs. Discussion also ensued
on the alternative funding sources. Commissioner Mars questioned
how many acres the Committee identified for school needs. Mr.
Stillman stated that 32 acres has been identified by the school for
their future growth needs. Mr. Stock noted that the present school
district site occupies approximately 26 acres.
Chairman Miller stated that numerous questions were asked regarding
the site. The Commissioners have stated good questions but that he
felt that they could best be answered by the Committee that the
Athletic Facility group is requesting to have created.
Beard/Mars moved to recommend to City Council that a subcommittee
of CDC be established with representation from the CDC, Park
Advisory Board, Planning Commission, School District and City
Council to analyze the potential for acquiring the entire parcel
occupied by the moratorium area. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reported that the City has received correspondence from
the Shakopee Public Utility Commission manager regarding
undergrounding of overhead utility lines within the downtown area.
Mr. Stock noted that when the downtown project was initiated, it
was the intention of the City officials that it would be beneficial
to have the overhead utility lines within the downtown area
relocated underground. Mr. Stock noted that when Phase I of the
Downtown Redevelopment Project area was completed, conduit was
installed under the newly constructed streets when future
undergrounding might be practical. There was also conduit
installed in each of the alley intersections. The cost for
installing the conduit for the future undergrounding was absorbed
by the City as a project cost. The approximate cost for the
undergrounding was $80, 000 . Mr. Stock noted that in conjunction
with the mini bypass, MN DOT in cooperation with the Shakopee
Public Utility Commission will be undergrounding the overhead
utility lines located North of 1st Ave. within the mini bypass
right-of-way area. Mr. VanHout is now requesting whether or not
the City is interested in some sort of cost sharing arrangement
between the City and Shakopee Public Utility Commission to
underground additional overhead lines in the downtown area. Mr.
Stock noted that if undergrounding does occur, the abutting
property owners would be responsible for costs associated with
relocating their service connection from overhead to underground.
Mr. Stock noted that there would also be costs for reconstructing
/ %
Minutes of the Page - 3
Community Development Commission March 20, 1991
the alleys in which undergrounding occurs.
Chairman Miller questioned if the alley improvements would be
assessed. Mr. Stock responded in the affirmative. Mr. Stock
stated that the assessment of an alley would probably be applied on
a zonal basis to all property owners within the block.
Commissioner Brandmire questioned whether or not the Shakopee
Public Utility Commission would be responsible for covering a cost
of the individual service line. Mr. Stock stated that he was not
aware of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission ' s policy on this
issue.
Mr. Stock noted that the Downtown Committee was concerned about the
various costs and how they would be assessed. Mr. Stock noted that
the Downtown Committee is recommending to the Community Development
Commission that the appropriate City officials be directed to meet
with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission officials to generate
cost estimates, potential cost share arrangements and assessment
alternatives for undergrounding the overhead utility lines in the
downtown area and improving the alleys and report the findings back
to the Downtown Committee and Community Development Commission for
further consideration.
Commissioner Brandmire stated that the alleys are a mess right now
and that if the only benefit from all this is that the alleys get
improved, he felt it was an accomplishment. Chairman Miller
questioned the condition of the overhead utility lines in the
downtown area. Commissioner Brandmire stated that the overhead
lines are in poor condition. He noted that the insulation is
peeling off in may cases and that the lines have been spliced in
many areas. Commissioner Pennington concurred that the alleys were
in atrocious condition.
Mars/Brandmire moved to recommend to the City Council that the
appropriate City officials be directed to meet with the Shakopee
Public Utility Commission officials to generate cost estimates,
potential cost share arrangements and assessment alternatives
regarding the undergrounding of overhead utility lines in the
downtown area and improving the alleys and report the findings back
for further review and analysis. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reported that on February 20 the Community Development
Commission requested staff to draft a Residential Development
Incentive Policy for the Commission' s review and consideration.
Mr. Stock noted that the proposed Residential Development Incentive
Policy is drafted in a format similar to the existing Industrial
Development Incentive Program and Commercial/Retail Development
Incentive Program. Mr. Stock stated that the funding sources for
the Residential Incentive Policy were somewhat precarious. Mr.
Minutes of the Page - 4
Community Development Commission March 20, 1991
Stock noted that the only viable source that he could think of was
the HRA fund balance. He noted that this fund has been discussed
on many occasions as a funding source for various projects. To
date, Mr. Stock stated that there is approximately $175, 000 of un-
allocated proceeds at this time. To give the Commission a better
grasp of the magnitude of assistance for a typical residential
project, Mr. Stock used the Jasper proposal that was presented at
the last meeting. Mr. Stock noted that the Jasper proposal would
have been eligible for approximately $45, 000 in assistance. This
would assume a three year tax increment collection. If the policy
was amended to simply capture the City portion of the taxes payable
during a three year period, the amount of taxes collected over a
three year period would have equated to $7 , 500.
Discussion ensued on the proposed policy. Commissioner DuBois
questioned why a potential project had to have a minimum size of
two acres. Mr. Stock stated that he did not have any firm
rationale for two acres. Commissioner DuBois questioned what other
cities do for residential development assistance. Mr. Stock stated
that he is not aware of any other cities that have specific
residential development policies for new development. Commissioner
DuBois questioned whether or not the program could be amended at a
later date if it was necessary. Mr. Stock responded in the
affirmative.
Chairman Miller questioned whether the City would see an increased
need for residential assistance after the mini bypass, County Rd.
18 and southerly bypass are completed. Mr. Stock stated that he
did not believe that it was the intent of the proposed program to
assist developers who are building houses in the newer subdivisions
where there are few development restraints. Mr. Stock stated that
he felt the program was for projects where there are extraordinary
development costs due to blight of unusual soil conditions.
Commissioner Mars stated that in order to be eligible for this
program you would have to present a hardship situation. He went on
to state that if those types of criteria are not included in the
program at this time, they should be added. Commissioner Albinson
concurred.
Commissioner Beard stated that when he made the motion last month
to have staff develop a policy, he expected to have guidelines and
program criteria developed which would actually set forth when City
assistance would be available. Commissioner Beard stated that it
was his understanding that the money available in this program
would be issued as a grant. Mr. Stock stated that a grant is one
option of disbursing the money. Other options might include a
revolving loan program or an interest write-down program.
Commissioner Beard stated that if we are going to have this program
Iz
Minutes of the Page - 5
Community Development Commission March 20, 1991
established on a grant basis, we should have some pretty tight
guidelines.
Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or not the proposed program
would cover a single family homeowner who had some major
improvements that were necessary in order to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the occupants. Mr. Stock stated that this
program would not be available to single family homeowners for
rehabilitation purposes. Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or
not that type of a program could be incorporated into this program.
She went on to state that there were many older homes in the
community in need of rehabilitation. Mr. Stock stated that he felt
that a rehab program for residential purposes was totally separate
in terms of scope from what the intention of the currently proposed
program was. He stated that he felt the Community Development
Commission should establish what objectives they are trying to
accomplish in order of priority. Mr. Stock stated that the
improvement of blighted areas or areas where development would not
occur without the infusion of City assistance, is one area to look
at. A second area might be to evaluate the need for a program to
assist property owners in need of rehabilitating their property.
Mr. Stock stated that he felt these were two distinct, separate
objectives and that a separate program should be developed for each
one of them. However, given the limited financial resources
available, he felt it was important for the Committee to identify
what they feel is of utmost importance and draft a program that
would accomplish their desired objective. Mr. Stock stated that he
felt a housing subcommittee should be created to evaluate and list
in order of priority the housing needs in our community.
Discussion ensued on the primary housing objective in our
community.
Commissioner Albinson stated that he felt that the primary
objective of the Committee, in terms of a housing program, should
be to stimulate the development of property that would not
otherwise develop without the infusion of City assistance. Mr.
Albinson stated that he felt the private sector would take care of
the older housing stock in the community. He noted that when older
residents move out, younger families will move in and renovate the
property.
Commissioner DuBois stated that she felt at some point in time the
community has to recognize the problem with the older housing stock
in Shakopee. She felt that, in her opinion, a program should be
developed at some point in time to assist property owners in
rehabilitating the residential housing stock.
Commissioner Beard stated that the original intent with his motion
made at the last meeting was to have a program that would not
simply be a handout to everyone who applied. He concurred with
Minutes of the Page - 6
Community Development Commission March 20, 1991
Commissioner Albinson and stated that it was his intention that a
program should be developed to assist developers or property owners
when a true hardship exists that would make it otherwise impossible
for the property to become developed. It was the consensus of the
Committee that the program guidelines should be redrafted and
tightened up in order to address the "but for" test. Mars/DuBois
moved to table the Housing Assistance Policy. Motion carried
unanimously.
Albinson/Beard moved to table the evaluation of the Business
Appreciation Program, City Map Layout and Subcommittee Reports
until the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Miller asked if there were any nominations for the officers
positions. Commissioner Brandmire offered the following slate of
officers:
Jon Albinson, Chairperson
Bill Mars, Vice-chairperson
Mike Beard, 2nd Vice-chairperson
There were no other nominations. Pennington/DuBois moved for the
appointment of the slate of officers. Motion carried unanimously.
Mars/DuBois moved to adjourn the meeting at 6: 50 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock, Recording Secretary
1 1 i* i3
\1/4,.:
iri.....,, eaEa Waited Netitodia e
705 FIRST AVENUE EAST
P.O.BOX 96
SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379
445-2722
APR 21991
April 22 , 1991
Mayor Gary Laurent
City Council Members
129 1st Avenue East
Shakopee MN 55379
Dear Mayor Laurent and Council Members ,
On May 19th , 1991 , Calvary Church would like to hold our
Sunday Worship service on our newly purchased land off
Vierling Drive . It is our understanding that there is no
parking on Vierling . We request of the Council permission
to block off space for 40 cars on the most southern lane of
Vierling (south of Limestone ) from 9 : 30a .m . until 12 : 30p . m.
Since Vierling is 4-lane , and Sunday morning traffic is
slight , we hope this will not be a problem.
Thank you for consideration of this request .
Sincerely ,
J ry B ker
Chair , Trustees
JB : mn
/3
SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT
IN HOUSE MEMO
T CHIEF STEININGER
F- Sgt Erlandsen
I'- April 25, 1991
Er-"T'CT: PARKING REQUEST - Calvary United Methodist Church
In response to the above request to park in a posted no parking
z^n� on Vierling Drive near Limestone Drive, I offer the following
c"--vations and reccommendations.
C - 7VATIONS:
The roadway in question is four lane and undivided.
It is a posted 30 MPH zone.
Vierling Drive is an east/west roadway which curves to
the northeast slightly just east of Sapphire Lane.
East of Jasper Road, Vierling Drive curves again to the
northeast and slopes down.
There is no sidewalk on the southside of Vierling Drive.
F -1,1MENDATIONS:
Allow parking in the No Parking zone as requested with
the following conditions:
1) All vehicles must be parked on the south side of
Vierling Drive.
2) All vehicles must be parked within the straight
section of roadway between Sapphire Lane and
Jasper Road.
3) Pedestrians use care and stay to the curb side
of Vierling Drive as much as possible.
#1L/
MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator
RE: HRA Realtor Assistance - Non Agenda Informational
DATE: April 25, 1991
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
On April 2 , 1991 the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) directed staff to solicit proposals from real estate agencies
to sell HRA properties. Staff is in the process of completing the
proposal specifications. When the specifications are completed,
they will be mailed to all realtors in Shakopee. Staff will also
place a brief ad in the legal notice section of the Shakopee Valley
News informing the general public and other realtors who we may not
be aware of of the request for proposals.
Staff expects the entire process of advertising and reviewing the
proposals to be completed by the end of May. Staff intends to have
the item placed on the Shakopee HRA' s June 4 , 1991 agenda for their
consideration. If anyone has any questions regarding the process
or proposal specifications please feel free to call me.
+ ISME4+ 15—
MEMO
MO TO: Shakopee City Council
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator
RE: Scott County Economic Development Coalition - Non Agenda
Informational
DATE: April 25, 1991
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The first meeting of the Scott County Economic Development
Coalition was held on April 25, 1991. The following communities in
Scott County have officially joined on as members of the Coalition:
Shakopee, Prior Lake, Savage, New Prague, Belle Plaine and Jordan.
The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Scott
County are also members. Each community also has at least one
financial institution participating in the Coalition. Finally, one
major developer has joined as a member.
At the first meeting, the Coalition officially appointed members to
the Board of Directors and elected officers. I have been elected
as Chairperson for the first year. The actual amount of time
commitment involved as chairperson should be minimal. In fact, the
efforts of the Coalition should ultimately improve my effectiveness
and efficiency in the area of economic development.
The Coalition has decided to meet on the third Wednesday of each
month for the next two months at 7: 30 a.m. in the Prior Lake City
Council Chambers. The communities represented on the Coalition
have appointed staff members from their organization to serve on
the Board.
One of the first objectives of the Coalition will be to make any
necessary changes to the by-laws and joint powers agreement. If
changes are recommended to the joint powers agreement, they will be
submitted back to City Council for approval. The Coalition will
also be working on establishing their 1991 work plan.
I intend to submit the minutes of the Scott County Economic
Development Coalition to City Council as non agenda informational
items. If anyone ever has any questions regarding the activities
and direction of the Coalition, please feel free to call me.
MEMO TO: Mayor & City Council
All Department Heads
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: May 1, 1991 - WORKSESSION
Date: May 26, 1991
5: 00 P.M. to 7: 00 P.M. - worksession in the Council Chambers
Lunch will be served. Toni will contact you for your order.
Attached is a copy of the 1990/91 Strategic Planning
Analysis
I will be giving an update on the 1990/91 Strategic Planning
Analysis
Discussion will follow on updating the Strategic Plan
Agenda Addendum
May 1, 1991
I. Review Update of 1990/91 Strategic Planning Analysis (DRK)
Comments: City Council & Staff
II. Discuss SWOT' s
- review initial proposals - DRK
- add to each specific area - City Council & Staff
III. Purpose of Shakopee City Government: Our reason for existence
is to provide services to all Shakopee residents in a fiscally
responsible manner.
In doing this we need to recognize certain things:
- we can't be all things to all people
- while providing for the common good we sometimes
function in a manner detrimental to some individuals
- we need to recognize the difference between being
responsive and being responsible
IV. Additional goals for 1991
1990/91 STRATEGIC PLANNING ANALYSIS
Goal #1 - To eliminate over crowding in City Hall, to meet
handicapped accessibility standards and to improve the
community' s image, construct a new city hall.
Objectives
1. Identify a site by for a City Hall facility by August, 1990 .
2 . Based upon the site selected for a City Hall facility implement
a decision strategy to ensure occupancy in as timely manner as
possible.
Goal #2 - To provide for the orderly development of Shakopee,
complete, adopt and implement the comprehensive plan and
subsequent amendments to the City Code.
Objectives -
1. Secure City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan by
September, 1990 .
2 . Secure Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan
by December, 1990 .
3 . Provide the necessary staff resources to complete a major
overhaul of the Zoning Ordinance by the fall of 1991.
Goal #3 - Develop a program which will improve internal and
external communications as well as the community' s
image.
Objectives -
1. Quarterly distribute a Community newsletter to Shakopee
residents using bulk-rate mail.
2 . Set up a formal press release program which would be utilized
to announce positive events occurring in our community.
3 . Continue to have Mayoral and Council representation at as many
public functions as possible.
4 . Develop a citizenship program which recognizes extraordinary
examples of volunteerism or community support and have an
awards banquet or similar event to recognize those individuals.
5 . In addition to the employee picnic, annually conduct an open
house for City Hall and Public Works/Police buildings . This
program would allow Council to informally mix with City
personnel and give Council a better understanding of the
employment classifications and corresponding job duties and
responsibilities.
6 . Semi-annually conduct a one hour worksession with department
heads to discuss objectives, issues and problems.
Goal #4 - Develop plans and programs which will stimulate
industrial development.
Ob-iectives -
1. Continue to work with the Chamber to retain our existing
industries working towards a positive working relationship
between all parties and developing an awareness amongst our
existing industries that the City of Shakopee is concerned
about their well-being and problems that they may be
experiencing.
2 . Investigate working with other communities in Scott County to
create an Economic Development Coaltion. Said coalition would
be able to obtain membership in the Twin Cities Certified
Development Corporation. Said membership would provide access
and development assistance to small businesses interested in
low interest loans. Fees collected from loans processed would
generate revenues for the Development Coaltion that could be
that could be utilized to market the Scott County Area.
3 . Develop an Economic Development Activity Report that could be
distributed to brokers and realtors on a semi-annual basis.
Goal #5 - To improve the economic vitality of the Downtown area,
develop plans and programs for the elimination of
downtown blight and the rehabilitation of the area.
Ob-i ectives -
I. Continue to support the Downtown Rehab Grant program through
1991 at its current level of financing commitment. ($50, 000
total available funds)
2 . Consider hiring a consultant to analyze the redevelopment
potential of the existing buildings in the Downtown Area
developing a property inventory rating the preservability of
the existing buildings in terms of cost and market conditions.
3 . Following the completion of the property inventory, consider
hiring a consultant to analyze the parking needs in the
Downtown area and subsequent development costs associated with
suggested improvements.
LK
4 . Work with the County to maintain the location of all County
Services presently provided at the Courthouse within the
institutional area.
5 . Encourage and support the development of high density multi-
family development within or adjacent to the Downtown and
Institutional areas.
Consider 6. Establish a program to acquire non conforming uses identified
in the property inventory analysis as they become available
on the market.
Consider 7 . Acquire the railroad depot and offer it for sale to a
developer interested in rehabilitation and relocation to a
site within the B-3 zoning district.
8 . Continue to solicit and contact developers interested in
pursuing development projects in the downtown/institutional
area.
Goal #6 - Develop a program which will ensure that quality
services are being provided to Shakopee residents at
the lowest possible cost.
Objectives -
1. Continue to practice the frugal budgeting practices that
City Council and City Staff have been accustomed too.
2 . Have each department head meet with their employees in a one
hour meeting to brainstorm on methods for reducing costs and
increasing revenues . Assemble all ideas and have a one hour
worksession with City Council and Department heads to continue
brainstorming session and adopt specific ideas for
implementation.
3 . Continue to inform residents of our fiscal disparity dilemma
and continue to lobby on this issue whenever the opportunity
arises.
4 . Pursue local , state and federal grant programs whenever it is
economically prudent to do so.
5 . Periodically evaluate whether quality services are being
provided at a reasonable cost.
Goal #7 - Develop plans and programs which will provide quality
park and recreation programs, services and facilities to
our residents.
Objectives -
1. Provide necessary staff support to provide smooth transition
from the Joint Rec. Board to the newly established Park and
Recreation Advisory Board.
2 . Continue to encourage community organization commitment to
developing our parks .
3 . Develop a plan to ensure that all organizations or individuals
are recognized publicly for their financial contributions or
in-kind support.
4 . Encourage the Park and Recreation Advisory Board to develop
financing mechanisms which support program expansions and
new park development.
Goal #8 - Develop programs which will provide for the enforcement
of the City Code and a means to ensure code compliance
in those cases where violations are apparent.
Objectives -
1. Amend the City Code where it is no longer effective in terms of
enforcing code compliance.
2 . Consider hiring a code enforcement officer in 1991 to handle
both zoning violations and nuisance complaints that are
commonly referred to the police department.
Goal #9 - Develop programs or policies which will foster
intergovernmental cooperation in an effort to reduce
overlapping responsibilities and sharing information
which may reduce the financial impact on the various
taxing jurisdictions in our area.
Oblectives -
1. Continue to have a Council liaison in attendance at the County
and School Board Meetings.
2 . Conduct an annual joint meeting with the School Board and
to discuss capitol improvement issues and the financial
condition of the various jurisdictions given their taxing
abilities.
3 . Conduct an annual meeting of the administrative directors
(Dept. heads) from the County, City and School in an attempt to
identify areas where duplicative services are being provided in
an effort to consolidate services whenever possible and reduce
costs.
Staff Doing But Should Not
Council Staff
1. Taking sides on issues and 1. To involved Civic Groups
bringing back old issues.
2 . NA at this time 2. To oriented to developers
3 . Initiating Projects 3 . Unequal Code Applic.
w/o Council direction
4 . Reading about proposed 4. Twenty minute rule (10 min)
activities in appointed
committee minutes or
newspaper.
5. Getting only one bid on 5. To much manual paper work
items of significance (P.D. )
when time allows.
6. 0 6. Lack of delegation
7 . Taking public positions 7. Writing Ordinances
re: fiscal atmosphere
letters to Ed.
8. Accepting procedures not 8. Don't know - tell me!
conducive to final result.
9. Finance Director not
appropriate person to be
in charge of maintenance
acquisition of city
vehicles/major equipment
should be dept. head.
Staff Not Doing Should be Doing
Council Staff
1. Furnishing full info on all 1. More involvement in budget
alternatives ie. agenda items process rather than just
budget worksheets.
2 . Proposing policy to cover & 2. Better staff meetings
handle re-occurring items. rather than simple agenda
reviews.
3 . Promoting long range
planning in daily decision
making.
4. Interdepartmental
Cooperation.
5. More face to face contact
with community.
6. Need for cross training for
advancement.
7. Setting personal goals.
8. Staff development/training.
9. Exploring new technology
10. Code enforcement/follow-up.
Council Does Well
Council Staff
1. Intergovern. Coop. 1. Analyze Issues
2 . Reacts to Pub. Needs 2 . Fiscally Responsible
3 . Aware Policy Impact 3 . Support Issues as a Council
on Taxes.
4. Careful Study & Timely Dec. 4 . Pass on citizen complaints
5. Cooperation/Communication 5. Mtg. Procedures
6. Procedure (Council Mtg. ) 6. Reasonable - Even Temp.
7. Everything: Political Stand 7. Sincerity
8 . Trust staff - support 8 . Allow minority opin.
9. Organizational Process 9. Positive Image
10. Seek info & ask ? 10. Read Agenda
11. Available to staff/public
12 . Accept staff input
13 . Open lines comm.
14 . Promote Comp Plan
15. Monitor Board & Comm.
16. Int. Coop.
17. Pos . Council/Staff
Relationship
Council Does Not So Well
Council Staff
1. Standby convictions once 1. Sometime silent majority
vote taken says little.
2 . Does not stick to point in? 2 . Lack of Council Support -
Staff Rec.
3 . Re-enforce Support Staff 3 . No surprise Policy
4 . Re-enforce Other Council 4 . Not Pushing City Hall
Past Councils
5. Redundant Disc. 5. Too much time debating
small issues.
6. Doesn't Assess L.R. Impact 6. Budget/Purchasing policies
7 . Too responsive to Pol . 7. Fall too special interest
concern groups groups positions
8. Initiate Dir. for staff 8. Fin. Panic
9 . Develop charge for appt. 9 . Everyone (repeat comments)
comm.
10. Handle Citizen Complaints 10. Sometimes involved in
Admin.
11. Make motions sooner 11. Review policies
periodically
12 . Adopt policy for re-occurring 12 . Stick policy not operations
detail
13 . Allow staff to Admin. 13 . Indecisions (Table)
Staff Does Well
Council Staff
1. Council Agendas/Staff Reports 1. Public Contact
2. Improved telephone 2. Communication
3 . Research 3 . PW snow & sewer
4 . Processing/Procedures 4 . Ideas & Problem Solving
5. Respect Council Direct/Input 5. Fire/Police/Parks
6. Courteous to citizens 6. Networking
7. Department Management 7. Cost Conscious
8. Teamwork 8. Planning Org.
9. Communications 9 . Support Boards & Comm.
10. Support 10. Hard working/Exc. staff
11. Special Projects 11. Extra effort
12 . Exc. Eng/Police 12. Positive Image
13 . Org & Documentation 13 . Int. Coop.
14 . Cost conscious 14 . Responsible
15. Public Perception/Awareness 15. Admin. Support
16. Desire to serve
17. Fiscal Conserv.
18 . Research
19 . Produce
Staff Not So Well
Council Staff
1. Day to day comm. with 1. Passing on info (teamwork)
Council Internal Comm.
2. Past Planning 2 . Formal Comm. with public
3 . Tech. Logis (use of) 3 . Candid response to Council
concerns
4 . Past P.W. Perf. 4 . Crisis Comm.
5. Opinionated on certain proj . 5. Use of computer by Police
6. Self-directed 6. Code enforcement
7 . Equip Need - Re-evaluation 7 . Not monitoring Dev. Impact
based on current $
8. Long term $ impact - Projects 8. Promoting LR goals &
visions Follow-up
9. Project impact on individual 9. Promoting intergov't coord.
10. $ alternatives 10. Dev. base maps
11. Communication 11. Innovative fin. & cost
containment
12 . Public Relations - Lack of 12 . Non compliance - policy
13 . Being too assertive when 13 . Dept. efficiency
Council is going other way
14 . Following Council policy 14 . Creative problem solving
15. Promoting Ind. Dev.
16. Improving Employee Morale