HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/1991 TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JUNE 3, 1991
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2] Approval of Minutes of August 15, 1990, January 15th, January
29th, and February 11th, 1991
3] Walt Harbeck Memorial
4] Tax Increment Resources
5] Philosophy on use of consultants
6] Recognition of volunteers
7] Other business
8] Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 15, 1990
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Mayor Gary Laurent convened the City Council as a Committee of the
Whole at 7 : 28 P.M. with Councilmembers Joe Zak, Jerry Wampach,
Gloria Vierling, Steve Clay, and Robert Sweeney present. Also
present were Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock,
Ass ' t. City Administrator; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Leroy
Houser, Building Official ; and Judith S . Cox, City Clerk.
Cncl . Sweeney explained the procedure the Scott County Board follows
when meeting as a Committee of the Whole. He also stated that the
only actions taken are those that are referred to the County Board.
Discussion followed.
Vierling/Clay directed the city administrator to prepare a
resolution, for August 21, 1990, establishing a Committee of the
Whole. Motion carried unanimously.
The Finance Director explained that he had received two bills for
plan review services for FMG from firemen. He explained that bills
have not been submitted in the past and that he thought that he
should bring them before Council.
Mr. Ries, Fire Chief, explained that he and Mr. Judd took off work
to go over the plan checks. He said that they usually go over plan
checks at night, but this time it had to be done during the day.
He explained that the Building Official wanted their input, since
they respond to fires.
Mr. Voxland stated that he had a problem paying an employee two
different rates, one rate as a fireman and another rate for plan
checks . Discussion ensued.
Clay/Sweeney directed staff to come up with a policy and fee
schedule clarifying billable expenses for plan checks and to bring
it to Council for consideration.
Sweeney/Vierling moved to amend the motion to include exploring
other alternatives to accomplish the desired outcome. Motion
carried unanimously.
Motion carried unanimously on main motion as amended.
Clay/Wampach moved to recommend to city council the payment of a
bill for $75 . 00 for plan review and that it be placed on the next
city council agenda as a consent item.
Committee of the Whole August 15, 1990
Shakopee City Council Page -2-
Clay/Wampach moved to amend the motion to include both bills
submitted totaling $100. 00 and that they not be put on the agenda
as consent. Motion defeated with Cncl.Vierling, Sweeney and Zak
opposed to the motion.
Main motion as amended defeated with Cncl .Vierling, Sweeney and Zak
opposed.
Sweeney/Vierling moved to recess at 8 : 15 P.M. Motion defeated with
Vierling, Zak and Mayor Laurent opposed.
Discussion ensued on the new By-laws for the Shakopee Fire
Department Relief Association. Representatives from the Relief
Association were present for discussion. Councilmembers reached a
consensus on four issues: 1) 4 day notice for special meetings,
2) the Finance Officer will be an ex-officio member of the Board,
3) vesting shall be reduced to five years, and 4) the pension
shall be tied to the Stanton average for two years.
Mayor Laurent recessed the meeting at 9: 11 P.M.
Mayor Laurent re-convened the meeting at 9 :27 P.M.
Discussion followed on the 1991 budget. Cncl. Zak recommended that
Mr. Kraft and Mr. Voxland bring back a balanced budget.
Cncl.Sweeney suggested that staff balance the budget or provide
alternatives for expenditure cuts. Mayor Laurent stated that he
was not opposed to deficit spending for one year.
Sweeney/Vierling directed staff to come back with a budget with
cuts to balance income and expenses. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Kraft informed City Council of the negotiations involving the
noise variance requested by Mn. Dep't. of Transportation from Mn.
Pollution Control Agency for the Schmitz property for the Bypass.
He stated that he will put the matter on the City Council agenda
for next week.
Sweeney/Zak directed staff to place the variance involving the
Schmitz property for the Bypass on the City Council agenda for
August 21, 1990 . Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting of the Committee of the Whole concluded at 9 : 48 P.M.
(A.(4 l.i I - /
Judith S . Cox
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
7e--'
MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL AND SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 15, 1991
MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT: Kahleck, Spurrier, Rockne,
Lynch, Joos, Allen, Christensen
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Laurent, Zak, Wampach,
Clay, Sweeney, Vierling
OTHERS PRESENT: Lindberg Ekola, Dave Hutton, Dennis Kraft, Karen
Marty, Judy Cox, Mark McQuillan, Sharon Storhoim
I. ROLL CALL
Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 P.M. The
recording secretary took note of the attendance.
DISCUSSION GUIDE:
A. PURPOSE OF THE WORKSESSION
Mayor Laurent explained that the purpose of the worksession was to
bring forth the various goals and objectives in a way to achieve a
sound goal (a consensus on the Draft Plan) . The Council makes the
final decision. The Planning Commission is advisory and the Council
expresses gratitude for their efforts. He invited the Planning
Commission members to help the Councilpersons understand what has
been accomplished. A consensus will be needed and there is lots of
material to cover. A motion will not be necessary on each single
item, although it may help on some issues. If any particular issue
becomes difficult, it should be put aside and returned to later.
There will be a break at about 8 : 30 or 9 : 00 P.M. The meeting should
conclude by 10 P.M. Staff has been asked to limit their
presentation on each element and bring up areas where an adversity
of opinion exists. The Comprehensive Plan is a policy document
(guidelines to work with) not ordinances. It never will be perfect.
After each item presented by Staff, there should be Council
discussion, Planning Commission input, and then audience
discussion. Although there are a number of type-o ' s these should
not be brought into the discussion this evening as they can be
corrected on the final draft. He asked if there were any additional
comments.
B,C DECISION MAKING PROCESS, OVERVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Sweeney said he had noted PEC (Project estimate of cost) many times
in the Plan, for example in reference to the sidewalks. He would
like to know what the cost on such items would be. How can one
compare sidewalks to a park if there are no cost comparisons? There
would not be sufficient funds or sources of funds to implement all
these things in Shakopee in the next 20 years.
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -2-
Kraft said he understood what Sweeney meant and more precise costs
will be obtained. This Plan only provides a general guide. The
costs are not the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. It is outside
the scope of this document.
Ekola provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan and planning
process. He noted the resource material on the walls depicting
zoning and land use development issues, park plan, recreational
open spaces, downtown area and mini-bypass area. The Comprehensive
Plan is a general guide (TBP-think big picture) . It is a guide to
be used on a daily basis by many over a 20 year time frame. The use
of this document is different than that of an ordinance, it comes
before the ordinance, it is a general guide. He showed a Planning
Process guide on the overhead screen and explained that the basic
fundamentals need to be established before moving into the specific
tools. Planning is moving from general to specific framework. The
heart of the Plan is volume 2, which will be discussed this
evening. The definition of goal is a general direction. The
definition of policy is a statement of procedures. The definition
of objective is something that is specific, obtainable or
measurable. The action plan includes priority items for importance
and potential funding sources as well as a list of people to
undertake that particular action. It can be amended.
D. REVIEW OF VOLUME 2 , GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES AND PLANS
1. Citywide Goals Page 15. 1
Ekola noted that these were broad, general range statements that
help build a consensus to bring us together. The six goals he noted
were:
1. Protect and enhance the quality of life
2 . Maintain municipal fiscal health and an acceptable
balance between service quality and property tax rates
3 . Bolster community interest in the downtown and central
riverfront.
4 . Achieve sound urban development on the urban fringe
consistent with the elements of this Comprehensive Plan
5 . Improve deteriorating neighborhoods.
6 . Build civic involvement, commitment and pride.
Laurent suggested that the goals be left as stated. There were no
objections.
2 . Economic Development Plan
Ekola said there are two approaches to this issue. I. To provide
efficient, minimum service. 2 . To make strategic improvements so
all are new.
1
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -3-
Ekola reviewed the next three items for discussion:
Page 16. 3 ED-i
Dean Lake Concern:
Just listing the word "housing" may be too general .
Page 16. 3 ED-p
Better understanding of on site issues
Page 16 . 3 ED-3
Industrial and office facilities in the City of Shakopee. It has
been suggested that this survey be done quarterly.
ED-i Page 16 . 3
Laurent said that in the economic development plan, there is no
analysis of the City process for development requests. There should
be study on how Shakopee processes development requests.
Ekola said that in the land use plan, reference is made to efforts
by the City to improve the process.
Kraft said that development could be encouraged or discouraged.
Laurent said that a City' s development has a lot to do with City
Staff and policies in that city. This plays a big role in how
developers perceive the city.
Vierling asked if goals were not set with the CDC in where they
wanted to be on this matter.
Kraft said yes, and it could be repeated or referenced in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Laurent said that some things are done by other cities that are not
done in Shakopee, such as a formal staff development review
committee that meets with the developer.
Sweeney asked if Staff was directed to implement that proposal .
Ekola answered that it was an assignment for Staff. A time frame
needed to be established.
Zak felt it was a procedural issue.
Laurent felt that the overall analysis of how Shakopee deals with
developers should be listed in the plan on an objective level.
Zak said another Council could be anti-development.
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -4-
Laurent said that in that case, they should do a review of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Vierling also felt this issue was procedural oriented.
Sweeney said he had understood that this document was the residue
of the discussions.
Ekola said that was correct, they had tried to reduce it to top
priority issues that could not be changed without Council approval.
Consensus of Council was to change the language in ED-i from
"housing development near the lake" to "compatable development near
the lake" .
Page 16. 3 ED-p
Ekola said that there is a concern for more clarification on this
statement. What type of industrial distribution uses and what the
intention is should be stated clearly.
Laurent asked if there were any objections, he felt this was a
small point of discussion.
Kraft felt that deleting this item would not harm the plan.
Vierling said she would prefer the statement "should encourage. "
Sweeney asked if all this was subject to change any time, why such
concern?
Jon Albinson came forward and said that the plan is a good
document, but there could possibly be a large development with lots
of outside storage. Personally, he did not want lots of outside
storage promoted.
Vierling suggested the phrase "shall allow" . She asked if there
were restrictions from the park standpoint.
Albinson said not in this particular area.
Laurent reminded those present that this is only a guideline and
does not give developers any rights.
Sweeney asked if someone were to buy a substantial lot, would they
be able to have outside storage?
Albinson said that this plan must carefully state adjectives and
adverbs to eliminate any misunderstanding.
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -5-
Zak suggested the phrase "may allow. " Kraft suggested that the line
be omitted. Vierling agreed, just drop the item.
Laurent asked if anyone would be opposed to dropping the item. No
response. Item dropped.
Page 16. 6 ED-3
Kraft said the City does not have the time to do this, but it
should possibly be done quarterly.
Sweeney said that a list by the development community is
not comparable to a list provided by the City. If the
development community wants such a list, should City staff be doing
it?
Laurent asked about doing it on an annual basis.
Kraft said it has been done annually as a part of the Star
City Program.
Laurent suggested that this item be left as written.
No objections. Item left as written.
Spurrier asked where and how the information for such a
list was obtained.
Kraft said by calls, inspections and surveys.
Christensen said that the Planning Commission has spent a great
deal of time speaking on the downtown development. There is much
temptation on other planned development areas, but development
should be kept in the downtown area, it should not be allowed to
deteriorate as other communities have in the downtown area.
Laurent restated his earlier point, all that is listed in the
economic development plan can be done, but if the processes are not
effective, it will not work.
Hutton said that in other cities, Staff has pre-development
meetings and this speeds up the process. This takes longer in
Shakopee. A statement to expedite the process is a good idea.
Laurent asked if there was any objection to such a statement?
There was none.
Laurent asked if an analysis of various City operations was
needed.
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -6-
Ekola said that in the last section, (the General Management and
Implementation section) , this is addressed.
3 . POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PLAN
Ekola said that the base element in this section was to
monitor population and housing statistics more closely. When
the census information is available, there will be more
information.
There were no comments or additions.
4 . LAND USE PLAN
Ekola pointed out the land use plan displayed on the wall.
He said that Shakopee has both urban and rural environments.
This section is similar in nature to the 1981 plan. A new
hospital expansion musa line is a possibility. (not in Comp
Plan)
Vierling felt that by expanding the musa line, the Council and
Commission would not be acting in a user friendly way to the
people in Shakopee.
Laurent said that the hospital intends to go south of the
bypass with expansion.
Vierling asked if the hospital was aware of the zoning that is
proposed.
Allen arrived at 8 : 10 P.M.
Sweeney asked why something not presently in the Comprehensive
Plan would be created. If this can be changed, why do it now?
Kraft said it could be done later, but St Francis may ask to
see the musa line expanded. It may be a minor amendment to the
Plan.
Sweeney asked if the Metropolitan sewer is willing to make a
jog in the line to benefit one site.
Kraft said that the boundary line of the Metro service area is
the bypass, except near Marschall Road.
Albinson asked the Council to consider if this document could be
changed easily, they will look to this document for their charge,
things should be stated somewhat correctly now.
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -7-
Sweeney said he had been told it could be changed easily and has
treated it that way. It cannot be both ways, do we need to analyze
adverbs and adjectives closely now?
Laurent clarified that this document is a guideline and will give
directions to many people within and out of the city offices. If
this document is not written how someone thinks the guidelines
should be written, it should be brought up. However, this is not an
ordinance and does not give rights. The city is not legally bound
by the wording. We are only trying to achieve goals and set
direction at this meeting and in this plan. These are general
guidelines and not statutes.
Vierling said if matters within the Comp Plan should go to court,
the zoning takes precedence over the Comp Plan.
Marty said that the Comp Plan is a general policy statement.
Albinson said that in the land use action plan, under LU-3 a
business park district is being created. If the words are not
accurate enough, the ordinance may not be created that was meant to
be. An important task is explained in a way that is general in
nature.
Page 18 . 7 LU-8
Ekola noted that this had been under discussion by the Planning
Commission and Staff had recommended that mining extraction be
allowed in I-1 and I-2 districts. The Planning Commission was not
comfortable with this recommendation.
Sweeney asked what an overlay zoning district was.
Spurrier answered that additional requirements would cover land in
excess of the regular zoning for that area.
Laurent said it would be like another blanket of regulations in
addition to the first one.
Kraft said all deposits could be mapped where there is mineable
products. Gravel extraction and single family do not go well
together.
Vierling felt the issue of roads to the mining sites was relevant.
Kraft said the roads should be collector or arterial streets.
Spurrier said there were two areas of major concern:
I. The ultimate use of the property can never be recovered except
for a landfill use.
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -8-
2 . It should be appropriate to give neighbors a notice that the
owner wants to operate a mine of some sort.
Spurrier suggested overlay zoning which preserves the underlying
use of the property. It provides a multiple step process.
Kraft said that State statutes provide for notice to the neighbors.
A reclamation plan could be required and also posting of bond.
Sweeney suggested inhibiting mineral extractions within the city
limits.
Kraft said that was probably illegal.
Marty said the Council does not want to prohibit any legal use, but
could impose conditions.
Laurent said that since the product it here, development of it
should be encouraged.
Marty said a number of legal policy decisions and legal problems
have been associated with this. It needs more consideration and
study.
Kraft said that problems arise when it is adjacent to residential .
Vierling said there was a conflict in 18 . 7 and 18 . 12 .
Sweeney asked to what extent Scott County Planning has been
involved.
Kraft said the involvement had been minimal up to now. Copies of
the plan will be sent to Scott County, Prior Lake, and Eden
Prairie.
Sweeney felt that we could gain from an exchange from Scott County
and they should review it before it is finalized.
Kraft said it would be of some benefit and some delay would be
involved too. The Met Council will be making some comments on the
plan.
Sweeney said he would suggest sending a copy to Scott County as
soon as possible.
Zak asked if any suggestions from Scott County will be listened to.
Laurent said that Shakopee needs to listen to any suggestions.
Joos felt that discussion was getting off the track of mineral
extraction.
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -9-
Consensus of Council was to redraft LU-8 to address the need for
further study for better land use controls of mineral extraction.
Page 18 . 7 LU-9 and LU-11
Laurent asked the difference in LU-9 and LU-11.
Ekola did not know.
Vierling asked which downtown business organization was referred to
in LU-i.
Kraft answered there was a Shakopee Development Commission in the
1950 ' s and 1960 ' s. It rolled over into the Star City.
Vierling said she would like to see LU-1 really happen.
Ekola said that the 2 . 5 acre lot site on page 18 . 12 has been
discussed.
Sweeney asked if these would be economically impossible situations
for the landowner.
Laurent asked if new plats should show evidence of how they should
be platted in the future. Rural areas may have sewer and water in
the near future (transition areas) . Is the Met Council encouraging
clustering and ghost platting?
Joos said that the feasibility of musa line extending to that point
is 30-40 years down the road. The Commission had agreed that 2 1/2
acres is suitable.
Laurent said it would allow development of the highland area for
housing.
Ekola said the issue of on site sewer is being addressed.
Laurent said Staff should make sure that the City ruling is
compatible with the MPCA rule 70-80. Shakopee is different than
Eden Prairie, they will have sewer and water sooner. We are unique
in our situation and in what we allow.
Vierling noted that the Planners are looking at 2 1/2 acres.
Shakopee is not alone in that thinking.
Ekola said that each suburb has it' s own thinking and environment.
Shakopee has a significant band of agricultural land.
Vierling noted that in item LU-18 , "north of the pass" should by
changed to "north of the bypass. "
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -10-
Break was taken from 9 : 05 to 9 : 15.
Page 18 . 4 LU-u
Ekola noted that this referred to collector streets and
transmission lines. The specific location should be deleted and
"roadway system adequate for land use" should be inserted. There
were no objections to this change.
Page 18 . 7 Lu-5 and Lu-6
Ekola said that the specific requirement here needs further study.
The commercial district should be reconsidered. In the
comprehensive plan, it refers to reducing/removing B-1 in favor of
commercial district. This needs more study and exploration of
alternatives. He suggested that LU-5 and Lu-6 be deleted and
replaced with one statement directing further study of all
commercial zoning districts. No objections to this change.
Page 18 . 12 , Business Park
Ekola pointed this area out on the map. The Planning Commission had
recommended to leave it as it is, based on a recommendation by the
consultant.
Kraft noted that the property south of 12th Avenue was owned by
Alliance Corporation.
Phil Carlson came forward and said that the Business Park district
was created for specific reasons (aesthetics) . This is a front door
entry along the bypass and it should be that strip only. The
extension of that zone does not serve a purpose.
Albinson said that a Business Park area is a much higher quality
development area with heavy landscaping and brick veneers, it is
special zoning.
Joos noted that the transitional area would be between the
industrial area and the bypass.
Carlson felt there should be a narrower strip for Business Park.
Zak said that the area will be a growth area within 20-25 years. It
is an aesthetic transition area.
Laurent said he has no problem with limiting the area. He
understand that the request is to reduce the amount of Business
Park north of the bypass to along the bypass only and to convert
the rest to industrial .
o�...
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -11-
Vierling asked if the marketplace should change, could the area
still be put back into Business Park?
Joos asked if 12th Avenue would be the north boundary. Is there a
problem with lot sizes?
Carlson answered that yes, 12th Avenue would be the north boundary.
Albinson said that the lots are 550 ' except for 2000 lineal feet on
the south side of 12th, which is only 315 ' deep.
Sweeney noted that regarding the aesthetic view, the next parcel is
industrial.
Vierling said that upgrading occurs in the westerly direction.
Joos felt that this would allow quite a bit of commercial
development along the bypass, but there still can be an industrial
base.
Kahleck verified that heavy commercial use had been taken out of
this area.
Ekola said it had been taken out, and the Comprehensive Plan would
be changed to reflect that later.
There were no further objections to reducing the amount of Business
Park.
Ekola said that two areas identified on the map will be identified
as Industrial: Koskovick and RTD
Kahleck noted that Koskovick had requested this change.
Laurent said that through this action, it is suggested that new
zoning may be created in this area.
LU-ag Page 18 . 6
Carlson came forward and noted that this was a reference to how
commercial zoning would happen and be phased. He would not like to
have it misconstrued that commercial zoning was reserved for other
two interchanges and not for County Road 18 .
Hutton noted that there was a musa line south of the bypass at 79 .
Vierling suggested that "in the vicinity of County Road 79 and
Marschall Road" be deleted.
Kahleck asked if there was already commercial zoning south of
Marschall Road, why is this item in the plan?
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -12-
Laurent suggested that the word "additional" be added to the
beginning of the sentence. The notation of specific roads could be
taken out.
LU-ai, page 18 . 6
Ekola noted the word enhanced, does it require investment by the
developer to enhance?
Zak said that enhance means to add to. It does not fit in this
item.
Joos suggested "protect and maintain" . There were no objections to
this change.
Page 18 . 12, Race Track Related
Ekola said that the concern was that the district was too
restrictive. This requires further study. No objections.
5. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
Ekola noted that there was a chart of street specifications on
pages 19 . 6 and 19 . 7 . He explained the various street widths and
said that consistency needed to be promoted. This issue will take
a lot of time.
Laurent asked how the street width will be determined. If the street
width is reduced, what about the right of way?
Hutton said that the current standard is 36 ' for Shakopee. The
Comprehensive Plan is recommending ranges. He said that 36 ' will be
adhered to until change is recommended. The trend is to go to
narrower streets. He would recommend a 36 ' width if a 44 ' street is
being redone. A conclusion on this is needed--36 ' or 44 ' ? If the
Council/Board are not serious about the 36 ' width, it should not be
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Christensen said that the Planning Commission had come to no
agreement and the item had been struck out. The cost of snow
plowing and maintenance should also be considered. Are there
alternatives between 36 and 44 ' ?
Joos said that speed is the problem with 44 ' streets. Narrower
streets promote slower speeds.
Kahleck said that the Planning Commission likes 36 ' streets, but
the Council keeps putting in 44 ' streets.
Vierling said she could never vote for a 36 ' street. It needs to be
defined where 36 and 44 ' streets can be used.
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -13-
Sweeney said he was against a 36 ' street. People on 44 ' streets
want 44 ' streets.
Laurent said that 36 ' street residents are supplementing 44 ' street
residents.
Allen said he preferred the wider streets in the new areas.
Hutton said that there is no reason to build a 44 ' street versus a
36 ' street. If there is a 32 ' street, one lane of parking is lost.
The sidewalk issue is related to the street width. Sidewalks need
to be provided on 36 ' streets.
Clay noted that some do not want 44 ' streets, but they do give a
grander look. The extra 4 ' makes a difference.
Laurent said that there is more environmental damage and more run
off with 44 ' streets. A policy needs to be established. Individual
decisions have been made to this point.
Sweeney said that as long as there are residents on a street who
want their street left the width it is, it should be left as is.
The upgrading needs to be limited.
Spurrier felt is was absurd to base arguments on streets that are
collector streets. On other less traveled streets, there is no
danger if the road is narrower. If some residents want 44 ' streets
that already have them, it is fine to let it be. But, it is not
fair to subsidize those residents for their additional width. It
involves 50% more plowing and crack repair.
Joos said a plan is needed. People go faster on wider streets. Flow
and control are needed. Narrower streets would allow the Commission
to control traffic in the city.
Christensen said that she recalled from the meeting before that it
was decided that the Planning Commission would address and research
the cost of this. The public relations issue will need to be
addressed also-grandfathering or redoing streets?
Laurent suggested that the wording be changed to "will develop a
policy for street width when it comes to reconstruction. "
Hutton noted that there is a Tuesday evening public hearing
regarding this issue.
Sweeney said he took exception to Spurrier' s comments on
subsidizing other residents. Residents are being asked to pay for
other amenities also--parks, etc.
Proceedings of the Joint Janaury 15, 1991
City Council & Planning Commission Page -14-
Laurent said that a statement needs to be included in the
Comprehensive Plan that says "establish width of streets for
reconstruction purposes. "
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 P.M. and it was decided to meet
again to continue the discussion on Tuesday, January 29th at 7 P.M.
MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL AND SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 29 , 1991
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Kahleck, Allen, and Lynch.
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Laurent, Zak (left at 9 : 12 p.m. ) ,
Vierling, Sweeney and Clay.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Wampach, Joos, Christensen, Rockne and Spurrier.
OTHERS PRESENT: Lindberg Ekola, Dennis Kraft, Judy Cox, Dave Hutton.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p.m. The
Secretary took note of the roll .
DISCUSSION GUIDE: Continued Review of Volume 2 : Goals, Policies,
Objectives and Plans of the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan.
5 - Transportation System Plan - Page 19 . 1
Lindberg Ekola said the last meeting left off with review of the street
width issue. A determination was made to develop a policy to identify
the best objective in reference to street widths. He reviewed the
three different street types available to the community; arterial ,
local and collector.
Page 19 . 3 TS-i and TS-1
There was considerable discussion on the transportation issue relating
to automotive, pedestrian and bicycling traffic within the City.
Discussion ensued on the sidewalk issue within the City. The Planning
Commission has recommended to try and promote more sidewalks in the
City.
Cncl. Sweeney said he felt the problem with sidewalks is that when we
install a new sidewalk we assess people who do not benefit from it. He
feels that most people do not want sidewalks in front of their house.
He said one of the real hangups about sidewalks is that the person who
has it in front of his property is responsible for the upkeep. He said
if the City could go to a different financing arrangement and maybe
come up with an alternative of referendum bond issue on sidewalks. He
thinks it is unrealistic to build a plan where you cannot persuade the
people who have to pay for it. He said other developing communities do
not have sidewalks .
Cncl . Vierling spoke strongly in favor of sidewalks along the collector
streets, and she agreed with Cncl. Sweeney in that it is citywide and
should somehow be paid for by the City as a whole. She said she would
like to see the Planning Commission come up with some sort of
delineation where the sidewalks will connect with one another.
Cncl. Clay said he feels a policy should be developed for the whole
city. He feels that it depends a lot upon the families, the families
who have young children he feels welcome the sidewalk.
Proceedings of the January 29 , 1991
Committee of the Whole Page -2-
Melanie Kahleck said she feels the same way as Cncl . Clay and would
like to see the City develop a plan for sidewalks whereby it would be
done neighborhood by neighborhood so that in 20 years the City would be
consistent throughout.
Cncl. Zak said he feels that sidewalks disappeared a long time ago. He
would rather see the 44 foot wide streets stay where they are and would
like all our future roads be a certain width.
Mayor Laurent said it is true that most of the newly developed city
neighborhoods are not putting sidewalks in but going with some sort of
pedestrian trail or pathway. He said he feels the City needs a
pedestrian system.
Comm. Allen said he feels there should be some plan especially by the
elementary schools.
Comm. Lynch said she feels there should be sidewalks within the City,
and that a plan needs to be developed whereby it could be assessed city
wide.
The consensus of the Committee was have the City develop a
comprehensive pedestrian transportation plan to be followed by the
City. Dennis Kraft suggested the Planning Commission be directed to
formulate a comp plan on sidewalks within the City. It was suggested
to take out sections TS-j and TS-K under Bicycle and Pedestrian
Systems, on page 19 . 3 and replace it with language addressing the need
to develop a comprehensive pedestrian transportation plan.
6 . Parks, Open Space and Trail System Plan - Page 20 . 1
Lindberg Ekola said the purpose of this plan is to provide for outdoor
recreation within the community and to help provide organization and
coordination as to how we develop our parks. He reviewed the different
types of parks that can be developed within the City.
Sweeney said that it depends on what kind of park we are trying to
develop. He said the City should not in his opinion attempt to get
into large scale natural areas because they are being provided
currently by agencies that can maintain and fund them better. We
should be more concerned with providing kids parks in our
neighborhoods, high concentrated urban use parks.
Page 20 . 4 #5 ; 20 . 3 PT-8
Vierling asked if there was some way the City could appraise the land
and come up with a reasonable value so there is no inequity between
cash, land and worthless land when developers fulfill park dedication
requirements. We need to reference the ordinance that is currently in
place now. Mayor Laurent suggested deleting "private easements" in sect
PT-8 .
Proceedings of the January 29 , 1991
Committee of the Whole Page -3-
7 . Image and Urban Design - Page 21. 1
Lindberg Ekola said the purpose of this element to the comprehensive
plan is to provide direction on the overall image of the community. He
said the signage needs to be looked at.
Page 21. 2 UD-1
Mayor Laurent said he thought the City sponsoring a signage design
contest was getting too specific. Mayor Laurent said he feels a
newsletter would be very beneficial to the community and it could be
done very cost effectively to the City. It was the consensus that UD-1
be changed by deleting "sponsor a design contest"
8 . Housing Plan - Page 22-1
Lindberg Ekola said the purpose of the housing plan is to promote
safety in housing throughout the community. Mayor Laurent asked if the
City was currently enforcing mandating periodic inspections for
multiple family rental housing. Ekola answered the City is conducting
inspections periodically. There was some discussion as to whether or
not the City should be in charge of requiring inspections on single
family homes before time of sale. The consensus was to leave HP-3
alone at this time as it only suggests that the City consider requiring
inspections.
9 . Community Facilities Plan - Page 23 . 1
Page 23 . 2 CF-d
Discussion ensued on the City "may assist" or the City "will assist"
the development of a community recreation civic center site. The
consensus was to leave it read "the City will assist" , and to delete
references to the site being commercial or industrial.
10. Sanitary Sewer System Plan - Page 24 . 1
Lindberg Ekola said the purpose of this item is to promote and provide
for an efficient sewer system within the community.
Page 24 . 2 SS-b
Dave Hutton reviewed the issues that the City should be aware of
regarding the comprehensive plan. He specifically reviewed item SS-b
identifying future expansion of sewer south of the proposed Hwy 101
route to occur via a large interceptor that would serve both Shakopee
and Jackson Township. Dennis Kraft said the Metropolitan Council will
review this document and look upon it in terms of how it will affect
urban development, it will also be reviewed by Jackson Township, he
feels it will be necessary to convey this message to them. He said if
we do not have some sort of control, the Metropolitan Council will flag
the issue. Kraft said he would recommend changing it to read "we will
only provide sewer service within the corporate limits of the City of
Shakopee.
Proceedings of the January 29 , 1991
Committee of the Whole Page -4-
Page 24 . 3 SS-4 SS-5
Dave Hutton explained that lift station L-16 is under capacity right
now. He said the MWCC has declined to expand the lift station due to
excess cost. There has been talk of constructing a new diversion
sewer. Sweeney asked what the role of MWCC is within the City. Dave
replied they are maintaining the lift station at this time and will
continue to do so. Dave addressed the MWCC Trunk, he said that is
their lift station that runs from the lift station to the Blue Lake
Treatment plant. The VIP ties in with the MWCC interceptor. The point
where they join is the line that will be under capacity based on the
projected development.
Page 24 . 3 SS-6 SS-7 SS-9
Mayor Laurent had a concern on SS-6 - the City implementing on site
sewer system requirements. He does not feel the city should be doing
this. Discussion ensued on SS-7 saying we will conduct biennial
inspections of all private septic systems, it was suggested to have it
say "investigate doing the inspections. " Consensus was to drop SS-6
and SS-7 and Mayor Laurent suggested deleting part of SS-9 addressing
the Scott County OSDS ordinance.
Page 24 . 9
Lindberg Ekola reviewed the comments from Alliance Corporation
regarding the tables on page 24-9 . He said they feel the numbers are
too low for the Industrial and VIP Districts. Consensus of the
committee was for staff to contact the consultant and find out how it
was done, and that staff meet with Alliance Corporation and amend the
tables if they are incorrect for residential and commercial growth; and
bring back the specifics to the committee.
11. Surface Water Management Plan - Page 25 . 1
Lindberg Ekola said that with increasing urban development there is a
need to control surface water drainage. Dave Hutton said that this
issue is currently being addressed under the comprehensive storm water
surface water management act. The approval process will be anywhere
from 18 to 24 months, once approved by the Met Council the City will
have to adopt each one of the 509 plans.
12 . Aviation System Plan - Page 26 . 1
Lindberg Ekola said he recently received the aviation systems statement
that was updated in 1989 and he will incorporate those comments into
the comprehensive plan.
13 . General Management and Implementation Page 27 . 1 - Reference
Material Only
Sweeney/Vierling moved that the Committee Of The Whole refer this to
the City Council with a recommendation, as amended. Motion carried
unanimously.
Proceedings of the January 29 , 1991
Committee of the Whole Page -5-
Meeting adjourned at 9 : 35 p.m.
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 11, 1991
Mayor Laurent called the Committee Of The Whole meeting to order at
7 : 20 p.m. with Cncl. Vierling, Clay, Wampach, and Sweeney present.
Cncl . Zak was absent. Also present were Dennis Kraft, City
Administrator; Gregg Voxiand, Finance Director; and Karen Marty,
City Attorney.
Dennis Kraft reviewed the action taken by the legislature that
resulted in a cut of a little over $50, 000 for the City of Shakopee
by this summer. There was some discussion as to where to make the
cuts within the City. He said we will more than likely have fewer
resources to deal with in 1992 than we have in 1991. Cncl.
Vierling said she feels the cuts should be seen by the public so
they may be aware of what the City is facing. Mayor Laurent asked
where the money for the purchase of the bank building was coming
from. Gregg Voxiand replied that it is coming from the Capital
Improvement Fund. Sweeney suggested the City look into the
possibilities of trying to handle the cuts using a levy increase.
Cncl . Clay said thought should be given as to what level of
increase we want to make. The consensus was to explore the ways to
handle the cuts other than by increasing the levy so that we do not
have to pass it on to the taxpayers. Cncl . Clay suggested going to
the individual departments within the City and asking them what a
10% cut would do to their departments and what they could do to
help reduce their costs.
Consensus was to have the City Administrator come back with some
alternatives available to the City without increasing taxes. Cncl .
Sweeney suggested hiring an efficiency expert on a temporary basis
with the cost to be taken out of the contingency account. There
was some discussion on the $50, 000 coming out of the capital
improvement fund or the capital equipment fund. Other revenue
sources were identified on a one time basis to effect the 1991 cut
in Local Government Aid of $50, 000. Consensus was to hire a
graduate student that has a fairly good understanding of government
financing to help the City look into all the possibilities
available to the City.
Discussion ensued on getting members for the Board of Review for
this year. Cncl. Vierling and Sweeney said they would serve.
Councilmembers were urged to encourage anyone they thought would be
interested in serving to apply.
Mayor Laurent adjourned the Committee Of The Whole at 8 : 30 p.m.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Carol S . Schultz
Recording Secretary
May 6, 1991 Pe: Plot So. of lot 9 & 10,
block. 1, bordered on one
tide by Sharon Pkwy. and
Tyrone Drive.
Mr. Dennis Kraft
City Administrator•
City of Shakopee
129 First Avenue E.
Shakopee, MN 05379
Dear Mr. Kraft :
At the last meeting of the "Walt Harbec•k Highway Committee"
we were informed of a resolution adopted by the Jackson Town
Board object ing to our proposal dedicating the Shakopee by-
pass as the "Walt Harbeck Highway".
We were advised by Representative Becky Kelso at the time of
drafting a bill that objection by any government entity
affected by the highway could preclude legislative approval.
With this in mind the committee decided to ask Rep. Kelso to
remove the bill from this session of the legislature, and
examine possible alternatives.
One of these would be to establish a roadside area in honor
of Harbeck and those individuals or groups who have devoted
considerable time and energy toward the successful
culmination of a bridge and by-pass. A parcel of land deeded
to the City of Shakopee by a member of our committee for a
city park apparently abuts the highway right-of-way that
could be established for• a roadside marker, and park/rest
area. The property is also close to the proposed bridge and
access to County road 83 (description above) .
Another alternative could possibly be a dedication of the
bridge or overpass at County 83, which could be compatible
with the roadside marker. The area is in the city limits and
does not intrude on the rights of the adjoining township.
To establish the feasibility of these ideas the committee
suggested we request an audience with the City Council.
However, before that is done we feel a meeting with you,
Mayor Laurent, Councilwoman Vier-ling, and other parties you
may wish to have present, should be held to discuss the
proposal, establish guidelines and legal procedure.
3
Therefore, we are formall,, requesting a meeting at your-
earliest convenience. Please advise us as to a time and
date. We will be contacting you for confirmation. Thank
you.
Sincerely, -fr
Ed Hop s & Ray Foslicf
Co-Chairmen
Walt Harbeck Highway Committee
cc: Mayor Laurent
Councilwoman Vieriing
21
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Tax Increment Resources
DATE: May 1, 1991
1. The Tax Increment Trust Fund has a balance of about five million dollars.
Does Council have any plans or intentions to use these funds for any thing
other than debt retirement?
The CIP shows possible use of TIF for the rest of the downtown
redevelopment project and the next two phases of the upper valley
drainage project. The Capital Projects fund for the upper valley
drainage has almost enough cash on hand to pay for the cost shown in
the CIP ($1,100,000) . The next phase of downtown project is shown
in the CIP at $900,000.
2. Is Council willing to use some of the trust fund cash to defease bonds now
and should staff begin working on defeasing one or more bond issues?
It may be possible to defease the three bond issues with pooled
support of districts #1 - #6 and therefore be able to close
districts #2 - Highrise, #3 - Downtown and #6 - Motel.
3. One of the parties involved in a tax increment district has approached the
City inquiring about the possibility of lowering the assessment agreement
value in exchange for a cash payment or an extended term for the
agreement.
If Council wants to use all available funds and close down districts
#1 - #6 as soon as possible, then the extended term would be of
little or greatly reduced value.
If a cash settlement is accepted and 100% retained by the City, the
school district will lose a portion of the of referendum generated
by the higher value under the assessment agreement.
4
d 00 n n 00 0, u1 '0 '0 '0 0' n O CO '0 J
'J n '0 N 'O N 0 0 0 1 n .-1 .-1 N J
+1 0 ul CO Cl CO Cl M .i '0 N '0 CO J N J
u u
14 C CO 'o 'O n CO n WI O c, ri Cl c0 rn '0
.-1 04 '0 N n .-1 Vl CO r-I 1 n 0 C1 OO Cf N
C40 .-1 VI CO N . v1 '0 '0 Cf .-1 00 CO O' '0
Il0 h 141 141 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 N CO CO O, 0 N
U ri ei
NO .-I ei b ri O O Cl CO Cl CO 00 00 n
a •O 1 .11 CO O O 1 N Cl O O N .0
-1 II N 1 ./1 1 0' CO 1/1 e-1 0' N .O CO N CO
01 O
O 0 CO O. el 0 CO n ./1 C1 N N �Y O. n n
GCC 17 O1 1 1 J N N N C1 N C1 .!1 J C0 .fl
.-1 CI C1 Cl C1 n n n 0 O '0 1
p0 N N N N
'D .7 C/ Cl CO n 00 CO V1 0 N 0 0 0 N
1 n O' n Cl el .-1 N T CO .-1 .-1 Cf
4) N O 0, O N 1 NO N O '0 1 N
44 0
.0 .i n '0 Cl V1 00 O, e1 1 O' ./1 el n O,
4) n co O, O' v> .n .O N .r1 .n Cl C1 'O
Q n n n n b '0 '0 O' 0, 0' 10 '0 N
41
N N N N N .-I .4 .-1 O
N
1 1 1 1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 W
Cf Cl Cl Cl ei .-1 el ri el .-1 N el ei O,
e . u1 vl 41 N N N N N N N N N O
14 W 0 h .r1 v1 1r1 N N N n N N N N N N
41 H 0 CO Cl C1 Cl Cl 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 N
0 F C .-I .-1 .-1 .-1 'O '0 'O 0 NO •O '0 '0 'O n
F H
C1 C1 Cl Cl ei ri ei ei ei ei ei ei ri N
N
.4
.-10 01 1r1 91) h Cl Cf Cl C1 Cl Cl C1 Cl Cl n
O' 0 W 0, C' 0, 0, 1O '0 10 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 1
I .0 N J J J 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
>, O F
0 Cl) I n .r1 h v1 h .r1 .r1 vl h V1 h 01 h V1 n 0+
Z W Cl Cl Cl Cl 0, 0, O' O' O' 0, 0, 0, 0, O' .-4
O H n n N n M Cl C1 M M M M Cl CI J 0
.-I 0 F 0
O0) 'O
...4 v 0
.0
O, 0, O, O' O, O' 0, 0' 0, 0, 0, O' 0' n 0
C1 Cl Cl Cl CI Cl M C1 Cl C1 Cl M Cl O 0
H .-1 .i .-I el .-1 .i .-1 N N N el N N CO C
1) W
.0 N '0 'O '0 'O '0 'O '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 0, 01
O F 0' 0, 0' 0' 0, O' 0' 0' O, 0, O' O' O' N ..dp
ri 41
41
51
ri D. '0 'O 'O '0 '0 'O '0 'O '0 '0 '0 'O '0 00
C` 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O' • 41
I .7 0' 0' 0, 0, 0' T 0' 0, 0, O, O' O' O, N 01 .0
. . . . . . . . . . .
O H C ei .4 9-1 ei ei .-1 9-1 e1 .-1 .-I ei ei .-I vt 0 b
Z 01 0 VI n n n N n n n N N N N n NCl -.1
.-i 4 1-1 .-1 9-1 N 9-4 .i 9-4 .-1 .-1 ei e1 e1 N N N 4p1, O
O t1 N 6 W
U
O 0
O .0
'0 1 0 NN N N N .Nd -4 01
•4 ✓i N J J J J O' M
4 9/1 41 J CO CO 00 00 Cl 0) O
0. -I 41 M C1 Cl Cl N > 0
0 O 41 O
Al el el el N V1 0 N
1 a
C w
.4 0 14
Cl Cl Cl Cl 'O '0 '0 b 'O '0 '0 '0 0 '0 0
9-1 . 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl Cf Cl C1 Cl CI C/ C/ C1 b T
.-1 O 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO n 1)
N • 01 0 01
N 4) N .i .-1 .-1 el n n n n n n n n n N 01 4.
O al 4) Cl 0, 0, 0, 0, 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 V1 .0 I)
.i .i 111 0 0 0 0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 'O '0 '0
11 4 N 0 0 0 41
4) 4) 0i �.1 r+ rl ei .y 0 14 401
O 0 s el
O -I 0 W
00 p p01
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
4 H
. 14 Cl Cf C1 C1 C1 Cl C1 Cf C1 CI C1 C1 C1 'O 44 C
Z F 7 L 41 O
.0 H '0 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O '0 '0 'O '0 'O '0 '0 N 0 -4
- 44 10 h N N N N N N N N N N N N N N J 0 41
O 0 0
el N el .-1 el N ei N N el el el .-1 '0 "'l 0
4) I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 01
G N C N ri ei ei .i ri ri ri .-1 ri .-1 ri .-1 J 14 .-i
O 7 '4 el 0, -1
14 M U W 4) 0
.0 u '0 - .i N CI J ut '0 n CO O' 0 el N Cl 0
N N C .-1 0' 0' 0, O' C. O' CI' 0, O, 0 0 0 0 41 W
.-I O' O' 0, 0, O' O, 0, O' O, O O O O .0 N
4-1
O 00 41 0 .-1 "'l el el •i .i et el el N N N N F F
0
0 41
O. 0 >4 O .--1.--1N Cf 1 sr) -1 t ,0 CO 0' O . N
4 11)
O, T 0' O' 0, 0' 0, O' O, O, 0 0 0 I.)
..1 7 1 0) T O, T T O, O, O' O, O, O, O O O 0
O 0 ?L ..1 N ei 9-1 ri .-1 el .-I .-1 .-1 el N N N Z
City of Shakopee 29-May-91 Printed
Tax Increment Debt
April 30, 1991 Master KMart Downtown Track Motel HiRise
District 1-6 District #1 District #3 District #4 District #6 District #2
Original district life 25 25 8 25 25
District Termination 2003 2002 1994 2003 2003
1 Bonds issued 79A Spec. Rev.* 5,300,000
Bonds outstanding 12/89 REFUNDED/PD
2 Bonds Issued HiRise 370,000
Bonds outstanding 12/89 PAID OFF
3 Bonds issued Refund. Spec. Rev.* 3,140,000
Bonds outstanding 12/90 2,140,000
Final maturity (call 2/1/95) 2/1/98
Reserve 523,000
4 Bonds issued Track Sp. Rev.* 4,200,000
Bonds outstanding 12/90 2,470,000
Final maturity (call 8/1/91) 8/1/94
Funds on hand 160,335
5 Bonds issued 84A G.O.TIF 2,490,000
Bonds outstanding 12/90 1,625,000
Final maturity (call 2/1/91) 2/1/98
Comment REFUNDED
6 Bonds issued 86A G.O.TIF Ref. 2,105,000
Bonds outstanding 12/90 1,395,000
Final maturity (call 2/1/94) 2/1/98
Funds on hand 52,710
7 Bonds issued 86A G.O.TIF 500,000
Bonds outstanding 12/90 480,000
Final maturity (call 2/1/95) 2/1/01
Comment DEFEASED
'8 Bonds issued 86B G.O.TIF 1,645,000
(/J Bonds outstanding 12/90 1,380,000
Final maturity (call 2/1/95) 2/1/1
Funds on hand 57,724
9 Bonds issued 87A G.O.TIF 2,660,000
Bonds outstanding 12/90 1,450,000
Final maturity (call 2/1/94) 2/1/95
Funds on hand 81,246
10 Bonds issued 87B G.O.TIF 1,600,000
\ Bonds outstanding 12/90 1,525,000
Final maturity (call 2/1/97) 2/1/03
Funds on hand 58,013
11 Bonds issued 88B G.O.TIF 1,015,000
Bonds outstanding 12/90 900,000
Final maturity (call 2/1/95) 2/1/01
Funds on hand 36,762
12 Bonds issued 89A G.O.TIF 3,600,000
Bonds outstanding 12/90 3,470,000
Final maturity (call 2/1/95) 2/1/03
Funds on hand 127,891
Total Outstanding 8,725,000 3,535,000 0 2,470,000 DEFEASED PAID OFF
Total GO TIF debt Outstanding 10,120,000
Total Spec Rev TIF debt Outstanding 4,610,000
Grand Total TIF debt 14,730,000 Principal only
Notes:
* Special Revenue TIF debt is not G.O. and is not an obligation of the City or HRA
1. Orginal KMart project, CR 83 and water system
2. HiRise land, water system & Levee Drive.
3. Refunded issue #1
4. Orginal Track issue for land write down
5. Track offsite improvements (roads).
6. Refund issue #5. (paid by #1)
7. Shakopee Valley Motel project. Continued to MEBCO. (pooled all)
8. Holmes basin storm drainage, 2nd Ave Parking Lot, 169 Bridge. (pooled 1-6)
9. Downtown street/streetscape. (pooled 1-6)
10. Upper Valley storm drainage & 169 bridge. (pooled 1-6)
11. South Bypass Engineering (pooled 1&4)
12. Bridge & Upper Valley II (pooled 1&4)
Bonds for the downtown project were sold after creation of the master district
and there are no bonds that were expected to be paid off solely from the downtown district
SCOTT COUNTY
11111, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COURTHOUSE 109
423 S.HOIMES ST.
SHAKOPE_. MN 55379-1382 (612) 496-8100
WM.KCNIARSKI.Disaia 1,Chairman
DALLAS ECHNSACK.Oiscim 2
R.E.MERZ,Oisaia 3
DICK UNOERF_RTH,Dis.=4
E7 MACKIE,Disci=S.plica-Chairman
•
May 28, 1991
Honorable James Oberstar
United States Representative
2331 Rayburn Eouse Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Oberstar:
I an very pleased to advise you that on Tuesday, May 21, 1991 the
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners adopted the attached Resolution
91-3-492 supporting the Bloomington Ferry Bridge Project. This is a very
. . key development in coordination of our efforts at the local government
level.
Scott and Hennepin Counties are fully committed to completion of this
project. Your past help has been instrumental in getting the project to
this crucial stage. On behalf of the Scott County Board of Commissioners,
and the Scott County Transportation Coalition, I wish to express our deep
appreciation on your continued support for this project.
Very truly yours,
_
WAV ""itja,1-640414:
Wm. Koniarski •
Chairman
Scott County Board of Co=issioners
• Chairman
Scott County Transportation Coalition
Encl.
W3:bn
. c: Scott County Board of Commissioners
Scot: County Transportation Coalition
Letter sent to: Representative Ramstad Senator Durenberger
Representative Sabo Senator Wellstone
Art Equal OpporrartitylAftrrrtctiueAction Employer
•
•
•
•
•
3=SOL ':QN ESTABLZSEZNC CSAE 13/
3LCCM=NGTCN ==?Tcv BRIDGE PROJECT
•
:?CM TE 101/SHAKOPEE 3?PASS TO •
1-494 AS A TO? PRIOR=T? EZCH A=
??.C.77^T FOR TEE ?IP:PCSE OF
• REQUE S:NC FEDERAL AND STATE !NDS. •
•
WHEREAS , Hennepin County and Scott County have been seeking
to accomplish the replacement of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge
t - .•. between T-:
a_:'.� the construction CSR. 18 1.. 101/jllatoDe3 Bypass
in Scott County and 1-494 in Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS , E_nnepi n County and Scott County have bean
•
successful in obtaining Feden=1 and State funds to provide fon. a
portion of the costs from TE 101/Shakopee Bypass to north of . _
108th Street; and
WHEREAS,, s nc_ CSA_ 18 functions like a regional highway
rather than a county highway; and
WEE REAS, in order for the project to be completed, it is r•
ather thaJ to receive additional Federal and State funds" for the
remainder of the costs from TE 141/Shakopee Bypass to north of .
108th Street and for the full cost of the proposed -improvement •
from north of 108th Street to 1-494; •
•
THEREFORE 3E IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners s in
and for the County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the Hennepin
County Board of Commissioners establishes the CSAE 18/
Bloomington Ferry Bridge project from TE 101/Shakopee Bypass to
I-494 as one of Hennepin County' s top priority highway projects
• forthe requesting tin Federal and State funding.
per:ose of r_�s_s�_.S •
BE IT r THER RESOLVED, that copies of this rasolutien be
• furnished to the U.S . Congressional delagat_oai , Senate
U_.S .
Environment and Public Works Committee, and U.S . ECuse Pu.bT c
Works and Transportation Committee. .
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: May 31, 1991
1. Attached are the correspondences sent from Mayor Laurent May
21, 1991 and May 28, 1991 for your information. Note, only
the correspondences that staff felt would be of interest to
City Council have been attached.
2 . Attached is a memorandum from Gregg Voxland regarding Negative
Fines Revenue for April.
3 . St. Mary's Church has applied for an exemption from Lawful
Gambling License. Their games will be limited to a 2 day
event on June 29th and 30th, 1991.
4 . Attached are the minutes from the May 8, 1991 Downtown Ad Hoc
Committee meeting.
5. Attached are the minutes from the May 16, 1991 Municipal
Facility Task Force meeting.
6. Attached are the minutes from the May 15, 1991 Energy and
Transportation Committee meeting.
7. Attached is the June 1991 calendar of Upcoming Meetings.
8. Attached is the year end activity report and performance
survey from the Building Department.
9. Attached is a memorandum from Barry Stock regarding the 1991
Clean-up Program.
10. Attached is the agenda for the June 6, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting.
11. Attached is the agenda for the June 6, 1991 Board of
Adjustments and Appeals meeting.
12 . Attached is the Police Newsletter for Council review.
13 . Attached is a legislative update on the opt-out transit
legislation that we were seeking this session.
41
CITY OF SHAKOPEEVic): ':1:Zt
INCORPORATED 1870
0
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445-3650 KCI `-
r_.I •`,1
M.
`, '.
May 21, 1991
Darlene Shepard
730 South Madison
Shakopee, MN 55379
Carol Friendshuh
849 South main Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Darlene and Carol:
On behalf of the City of Shakopee I want to congratulate and
thank you for the tremendous job that you did in coordinating the
parade on May 18 , 1991 in support of our armed forces. I have
heard nothing but positive comments regarding your efforts.
The City of Shakopee is fortunate to have individuals such as
yourselves who take the time and effort to put forth so much energy
for such a noteworthy cause.
I know there were many others who provided you with support in
coordinating the parade. Please share with all those involved the
City of Shakopee' s sincere gratitude and appreciation for a project
well done.
r
Sincerely, } '
Gary e
Mayor
',6/
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4,N0440._
� r
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445-3650 41KOF `.
ce
t'.
May 21, 1991
Mr. Jason Cordes
921 South Minnesota Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Cordes:
On behalf of the City of Shakopee I would like to congratulate
you on being named the States Male High School Athlete Of The Year
by the Mount Olivet All Sportsman Club. I believe that your
scholastic and athletic achievements will serve as an example for
other students in Shakopee to follow. School athletics is a very
integral part of a community such as Shakopee. I know that there
are many students in our community who have followed your career
and have placed you in a role model position.
I admire your commitment to athletics and pursuit of a quality
education. The Shakopee School District and the City of Shakopee
are both proud to say that you are a member of our community. I am
sure that the City of Shakopee's acknowledgment of your
accomplishment pales in relations to the Athlete Of The Year Award,
but I want you to know that we are all proud of you and the ideals
that you have chosen to guide you in the future.
Sincerely,
.) ;c Z(I61"-`4-61-71--
Gary L. Laurent
Mayor
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
iNgAio=
CITY OF SHAKOPEE , ah`ti ._.
INCORPORATED 1870 ..t \
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445-3650 OLLOI
May 23, 1991
Ms. Sandra Simonson, Representative
Metropolitan Council District 12
Ms. Bonnie Featherstone, Representative
Metropolitan Council District 14
RE: RTB District G Appointment Endorsement for Mr. Tom Workman
Dear Ms. Simonson:
On May 21, 1991 the Shakopee City Council unanimously moved to
endorse Mr. Tom Workman for the appointment to the Regional Transit
Board from District G. The City of Shakopee would like to request
that you give favorable consideration to Mr. Workman during the
nomination process for the Regional Transit Board members.
Mr. Workman has previously served on the Chanhassen City Council
and is familiar with the need for policies and standards for
improving the coordination, availability and delivery of suburban
and metro area transit services in the Twin Cities.
Your consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
-44)/1421----
Gary L. Laurent
Mayor
GLL:trw
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
f
CITY OF SHAKOPEEV9M$!
INCORPORATED 1870
lok ' 2144t1K
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445-3650 ,
r
May 28, 1991
Mr. Tom Ebner
14426 Highland Drive
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Ebner:
Congratulations on your recent election to the Shakopee School
Board. It is always exciting to see someone new step forward and
volunteer their time for such a worthy cause as the School
District.
In light of State Government shortfalls, it will be essential for
all local units of governments to work together in an effort to
maximize resources while maintaining existing service levels. Over
the past two years, a strong working relationship has developed
between the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee School District. I
look forward to developing this relationship and I want to offer my
assistance to you in any way that I can. Please do not hesitate to
call me if you have a concern or idea that can be mutually resolved
or achieved through cooperation between the School District and the
City of Shakopee.
I look forward to meeting you and working together with the
Shakopee School Board to further enhance the quality of life in our
community.
Sincerely, rr
l �
—4
Gary L. L'urent
Mayor
GLL:trw
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CITY OF SHAKOPEE � =
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445-3650 'KQV
May 28 , 1991
Ms. Janet Wendt
535 Thomas Avenue West
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Janet:
Just a short note to congratulate you on your re-election to the
Shakopee School Board. I look forward to continuing the excellent
working relationship that has been developed between the City of
Shakopee and the Shakopee School Board.
Your leadership ability has been a tremendous asset to the Shakopee
School Board. In this time of fiscal conservatism, I am confident
that you and the other School Board members have the knowledge and
ability to direct our education system on a sound and solid fiscal
path. I also recognize that shared resources and intergovernmental
cooperation will be of utmost importance in the 90 ' s. Open and
honest communications between all governmental units will be
essential in controlling program costs in a period of declining
revenues.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have a concern or idea
that can be mutually resolved or achieved through cooperation
between the School District and the City of Shakopee.
Sincerely,
Gary L. `Laurdnt
Mayor
GLL:trw
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870 1OM'
`
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445.3650
May 28, 1991
Mr. Bill Preiss
1522 East 10th Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Bill:
At their regular meeting on May 21, 1991, the Shakopee City Council
accepted your resignation from the Park and Recreation Advisory
Board, with regrets.
On behalf of the Shakopee City Council, I would like to thank you
for all your time and efforts you contributed while serving on this
advisory board.
I wish you well in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
_>4)
Gary L. Laurent
Mayor
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
#.e.:72'
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Negative Fines Revenue for April
DATE: May 22, 1991
Introduction
Council has inquired about the negative fine revenue of $753.19 as shown on
the revenue report for April 1991.
Background
The fine revenue for March (received in April) was $4,298.50. This would
normally show on the April revenue report when it is received. I also loaded
beginning balances for the year and reversed accounts receivable from 12/31/90
in April business. The account receivable reversal for December fines $5,051.69.
This resulted in the revenue report for April showing $4,298.50 less $5,051.69
equalling the $753.19 negative revenue.
The same situation occurs for other revenue accounts on the April revenue
report.
L/
Minutes of the
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
City Council Chambers
May 8 , 1991
Chairperson Keen called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 a.m. with
Commissioners D. Wermerskirchen, Kahleck, B. Wermerskirchen, Keen,
VanHorn, Phillips and Fonder present. Barry Stock, Assistant City
Administrator was also present.
B. Wermerskirchen/Phillips moved to approve the minutes of the
March 20, 1991 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock noted that at the Council meeting on May 7, 1991 he
introduced the recommendation of the Downtown Committee and
Community Development Commission regarding the solicitation of
proposals to update the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Mr. Stock
stated that City Council selected to take no official action on the
recommendation at this time. The City Council was quite concerned
about the availability of funding for the proposed study. City
Council did express interest in a number of the work tasks
identified by the Downtown Committee but, again funding for the
project was questionable. Finally, City Council felt that it was
important to determine if any of the identified work tasks could be
completed in house by existing City staff. Mr. Stock noted further
that several Council members expressed concern regarding the
funding source identified by the Downtown Committee. Mr. Stock
reminded the Committee that the parking lots that will be acquired
in conjunction with the downtown mini bypass were originally
assessed and that one of the originally assessed parties has raised
a concern whether or not the parking lots can be eliminated without
refunding all or a portion of the assessed amount.
Discussion ensued on the need for additional parking within the
downtown area. Mr. Stock noted that staff has prepared some
preliminary information that will be useful in completing the
downtown parking study. He noted that further longitudinal time
analysis needs to be completed.
Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that parking has been problem in the
downtown area for as long as he can remember. Chairman Keen stated
that she felt the Committee should continue to pursue work on a
downtown parking study using in house staff. Commissioner Keen
questioned what the bottom line was with the City Council .
Mr. Stock stated that the bottom line was dollars and cents. The
City Council did feel that this item should be reevaluated when
further information is available on the City' s financial situation
for 1992 . Mr. Stock stated that he would keep this item in front
of the Council when they are discussing projects and programs for
the remainder of 1991 and 1992 .
f
Minutes of the Page - 2
Downtown Committee May 8, 1991
Mr. Stock stated that he met with the Shakopee Public Works
Director and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission Superintendent
to discuss undergrounding downtown utilities. Mr. Stock noted that
the Utility Superintendent did respond favorably to the
undergrounding issues. Mr. Stock stated that the Utility
Superintendent was intending to receive cost estimates on the
undergrounding. When costs estimates are obtained, further
discussion will take place between the City and the Shakopee Public
Utility Commission in regard to cost sharing arrangements.
Mr. Stock reminded the Downtown Committee that the cost of
undergrounding the individual service lines to the buildings in the
downtown area would have to be absorbed by the property owners.
Commissioner D. Wermerskirchen questioned whether or not the alleys
were going to be improved. Mr. Stock stated that the Public Works
Director strongly believes that the alleys within the downtown area
need to be reconstructed. If undergrounding of the downtown lines
occurs, it will be done in conjunction with the reconstructing of
the alleys.
Discussion ensued on the 1991 Work Plan. It was the consensus of
the Committee to continue to work on developing a downtown parking
plan.
Mr. Stock then gave the Committee an update on the Rehab Grant
Program. Mr. Stock noted that Mr. Chuck Mensing has withdrawn his
application for the Rehab Grant Program. Mr. Mensing originally
intended to construct a new foyer and improve the exterior of
Wampach' s Restaurant. Mr. Mensing is concerned that the mini
bypass will interfere with access to his facility. Mr. Stock noted
that Mr. Mensing informed him that MN DOT was considering closing
off the access to Wampach' s Restaurant from 1st Ave. for a period
of time. This obviously concerns Mr. Mensing and he does not feel
it would be the best time to stick money into improving his
property without knowing for sure what the impact of the mini
bypass would be on his property. Mr. Stock also noted that the
grant application submitted by Mr. Bill Lepley for the shoe shop on
Holmes St. has also been withdrawn. Mr. Stock noted that Mr.
Lepley was unsuccessful in finalizing the purchase agreement with
the current owners and that he has backed away from the project.
On a positive note, Mr. Stock stated that Mr. Steve Olson has
completed the awnings and facade improvements on the White Stone
Antique Shop and All Time Watch Repair Shop located on Holmes St.
Discussion ensued on what the Downtown Committee could do to
encourage further retail development in the downtown area. D.
Wermerskirchen stated that he and Commission Phillips had met with
several of the business owners located in the Brambilla block.
Many of them are concerned about the possibility of loosing their
space. In fact, several of them have been informed that they must
Minutes of the Page - 3
Downtown Committee May 8, 1991
vacate the premises by October. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that he
has attempted to assist those people in relocating within the
downtown area. However, the biggest problem seems to be the lack
of available space. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that there is a
limited amount of space available on the north side of First Ave.
but that there is not enough to meet the needs of those persons
that are going to be relocated. Mr. Stock stated that Mr. Jack
Brambilla has discussed with him the possibility of renovating the
Valley Glass/Auto Repair building on the corner of Lewis and First
Ave. Mr. Brambilla presently uses this facility for maintaining
the RV vehicles that he leases. Mr. Brambilla recognizes that when
he has to relocate he could just as easily move the auto repair
portion of his business. This would free up space in the downtown
area for retail purposes.
Mr. Stock stated that he has spoken with Ms. Rene Gillespie, owner
of the Dance Studio on First Ave. on several occasions regarding
space in the downtown area. He noted that Ms. Gillespie is
currently investigating the Country Medical Building for potential
acquisition. Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that Ms. Gillespie was
interested in the former McNearney Funeral Home building but that
the zoning did not allow for a Dance Studio.
Mr. VanHorn questioned whether or not it would be possible to
expand the B-3 zoning district to the east. Mr. Stock stated that
one of the work tasks identified by the Downtown Committee to be
analyzed by a consultant, addressed exactly what Mr. VanHorn was
proposing. Mr. Stock stated that upon completion of the mini
bypass the major north/south collectors within the downtown area
will be changed. This may provide some rationale for expanding the
B-3 zoning district. However, Mr. Stock stated that without
further study and analysis he could not be certain whether or not
it was appropriate to pursue rezoning at this time. Mr. Stock
noted that if the property owners petition for rezoning that it
would expedite the process.
Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that MN DOT has to give the property
owners in the mini bypass right-of-way 120 day notice of vacation
of said premises. With this in mind, Mr. Wermerskirchen stated
that by June 1st the Downtown Committee should know whether or not
MN DOT is serious about their statement that all properties would
have to be vacated by October 1st. Discussion ensued on what the
City could do to assist the affected property owners within the
downtown area. Mr. Stock stated that there is very little that the
City can do except provide assistance to the property owners in
terms of information sharing.
Mr. B. Wermerskirchen questioned what the next step was for the
Downtown Committee in attracting businesses to the downtown area.
Mr. Stock stated that at the present time we have no place to put
new businesses that we might attract. Commissioner B.
/4
Minutes of the Page - 4
Downtown Committee May 8, 1991
Wermerskirchen then questioned whether or not we could attract
developers to construct new facilities in the downtown area. Mr.
Stock stated that he is aware of very few commercial/retail
development projects being pursued by developers in downtown areas.
This may be a function of the present economy or a function of the
market conditions. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that the Chamber
of Commerce is currently in the process of surveying Shakopee
residents to determine what they like and dislike about the retail
environment in Shakopee. He stated that this survey results might
be useful in determining what types of businesses might be suitable
for the downtown area. Mr. Stock stated that he is aware of
several persons who would like to pursue new business ventures in
the downtown area but are not exactly sure where they can go with
their project and whether or not it would be successful. Mr. Stock
stated that he would attempt to obtain the survey results of the
Chamber so that they can be reviewed at the next Downtown Committee
meeting. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen suggested that perhaps the Downtown
Committee would like to pursue their own survey of Shakopee
residents to determine what they would like to see specifically in
the downtown area. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the
Committee that the Chamber survey would be useful in determining
whether or not further survey analysis was needed.
Kahleck/Fonder moved to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 00 a.m.
Barry A. Stock, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE MUNICIPAL FACILITY TASK FORCE
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1991
The meeting was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. Barry Stock
introduced the members of the Committee. The following members
were present: Dave Kaufenberg, Dick Mertz, Jane DuBois, and Jim
Stillman. Jim Murphy, Paulette Rislund and Joan Lynch were absent.
Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator and Jim Fehring were also
present.
Mr. Stock provided the Committee with some historical information
which lead to the formation of this Committee. Mr. Stillman
provided the Committee with background information regarding the
School Districts strategic planning process and the Athletic
Facility Task Force that was created as a result of the strategic
planning process. Mr. Stillman noted that the School District
requested the City of Shakopee to place a moratorium on the
property located immediately south of the present Senior High
School . This was done in an effort to evaluate whether or not the
School District needed any of the property to the south for future
expansion needs. Mr. Stillman stated that the Department of
Education has strict requirements regarding the amount of available
recreational space per pupil. Mr. Stillman stated that the Senior
High was designed to accommodate the expansion of a second wing of
classrooms. In order to meet State Education requirements to
accommodate the future expansion, the School District will need
between 28 and 32 additional acres.
In order to facilitate the process, Mr. Stock suggested that the
Committee must understand their mission. Mr. Stock stated that the
directive as set forth by City Council was to evaluate the
municipal facility needs and the appropriate location for any needs
that are identified. Mr. Stock suggested that the following three
things had to be determined by the Committee in the following
order: 1. Identify what the facility needs are - if any. 2 .
Identify the appropriate location for any needs identified. 3 .
Identify funding options and alternatives.
In an effort to facilitate discussion on the question before the
Committee, Mr. Stock suggested that the Committe list all the facts
relative to this situation as they presently exist. Mr. Stock
stated that this would help give the Committee an understanding of
the issues as they relate to this discussion and will also provide
many answers to questions that they may presently have.
The following facts were listed by the Committee:
1. The City recently acquired a building which will serve as a
new City Hall in 1992 .
2 . The City of Chaska recently constructed a new multi-purpose
community center.
3 . The School has a need for between 28 and 32 acres of
additional space if expansion to occur at the present Senior
High site.
5
Official Proceedings of the May 16, 1991
Municipal Facility Task Force Page -2-
4 . The perception is that the City, School, and County have high
taxes.
5. The value of the land in the moratorium area is between
$15, 000 and $20, 000 per acre.
6 . The County is looking for additional court service space
(jail) .
7 . St. Francis Hospital is contemplating a new complex
development site.
8. The City has a limited amount of developable residential land
within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
9 . There is a need for and demand for single family housing
within the City.
10. A need for major roadways and storm drainage area has been
identified within the moratorium area.
11. There is a private racquetball/health club facility currently
operating within the City. For Sale - $300, 000. 00
12 . There is a perceived lack of meeting room space for seniors
within the City.
13 . The City has no factual or statistical information that
specifies exactly what the Community feels are it ' s needs.
14 . There are potential funding sources available if facility and
space needs are identified including the following:
a. Park Reserve Fund - $200, 000 plus fund balance.
b. Park Land Dedication Option.
c. TIF Trust.
d. Referendum.
e. Capital Improvement Fund Balance.
15. The Hockey Association has an immediate facility problem.
16. The need for an additional Fire Station site has been
identified.
17 . Property immediately south of the Senior High (approximately
160 acres) is presently in a moratorium area that expires on
December 18 , 1991 and can be extended for an additional 1 1/2
years.
18 . Comp Plan support for a Community Center.
19 . The City has been ultra conservative in spending in the past
in the area of Park and Recreation and municipal facilities.
Discussion ensued on the facts as submitted by the Committee. Mr.
Stock suggested that the Committee next attempt to identify as many
new possibilities as possible in regard to the Committees
objective. Mr. Stock encouraged the Committee to use their
imagination. The following possibilities were suggested by the
Committee members.
1. Art Center
2 . Senior Center
3 . Simply acquire some land
4 . Expand the Library at its existing site
5. Build a new Library that would include a Senior Center/Art
Center, Etc.
6. Build an all encompassing municipal facility that would meet
all of the needs identified by the Committee.
Official Proceedings of the May 16, 1991
Municipal Facility Task Force Page -3-
7 . Pursue joint municipal facility opportunities with neighboring
communities.
8 . Pursue joint County facilities in cooperation with municipal
needs.
9 . Purchase the Valley Racquetball Club.
10. Lease space from the Hospital for some of the needs of the
City/County/School .
11. Stand Museum with Stan financing.
12 . Band Shell
13 . Identify a site near existing public or private facility so
that at a minimum parking needs could be shared between both
facilities.
Mr. Stock then requested the Committee to attempt to analyze the
effect of pursuing each of the possibilities they previously
mentioned. It was the consensus of the Committee that irregardless
of the possibility, cost would be a huge factor. In regard to the
possibility of pursuing an Art Center, Mr. Stillman stated that it
would likely have to be combined with something else. He noted
that there was potentially a very limited interest in an Art Center
on a stand alone basis. In regard to the effect of pursing the
development of a Senior Center, Mr. Stillman noted that the seniors
have a significant vote in this community. Ms. DuBois reiterated
Mr. Stillmans concerns stating that they take up a fairly large
percent of the voting population. Ms. DuBois stated that she felt
that a Senior Center would likely have to be combined with some
other type of facility. She doubted if their would be support to
build a stand alone facility. The Committee members present
concurred.
In regard to the effects of acting on the acquiring some land
possibility Ms. DuBois stated that it would accommodate our needs
in the short run and would allow us to keep our options open in
terms of a facility. Mr. Kaufenberg stated that this option would
be less expensive than some of the others and that the price of the
land will continue to escalate over time. Mr. Stock noted that
whenever land is acquired for public purposes that it is also taken
off the property tax rolls. Mr. Stillman questioned what the area
was presently paying in property taxes. Mr. Stock stated that he
could obtain this information for the next meeting but that he
expected that it would be a rather small amount given that the
property is presently in agricultural use.
The Committee then analyzed the impact of expanding the Library at
its existing site. Mr. Stock noted that the City does presently
own the lots immediately behind the Library. Mr. Mertz stated that
this possibility would provide limited future expansion at the site
and limited use alternatives. Mr. Stock noted that this
alternative might have a positive impact on downtown.
The possibility of building a new Library that would include a
Senior Center/Art Center/Etc. was then discussed. Mr. Stillman
stated that this alternative might stimulate greater Library usage.
Official Proceedings of the May 16, 1991
Municipal Facility Task Force Page -4-
He noted that this concept might also accommodate several of the
needs identified.
Pursuing development of an all encompassing facility was then
discussed. It was the consensus of the group that this would
obviously accommodate the vast majority of the municipal community
needs identified by the Committee. However, cost seemed to be the
over riding factor. Mr. Stock noted that when we talk about an all
encompassing facility, we need to also be concerned that some of
the needs are more controversial than others and that some maybe
more likely to be included in a facility as compared to others.
The possibility of pursing joint municipal facilities was
discussed. Mr. Mertz stated that the location would obviously be
a concern. How a cost share arrangement would work would also be
of importance. Mr. Stillman stated that a joint facility would
also maximize utilization as well as the tax dollar. He noted that
under this scenario a facility could probably be developed that
would be more accommodating than what any individual City could do
on its own.
It was the consensus of the Committee that the same issues
identified would apply to the possibility of joint County
facilities.
In terms of acquiring the Valley Racquetball Club; the location and
expansion possibilities were questionable. Mr. Stock also noted
that when this issue is analyzed we have to recognize that we would
be competing with an existing private sector business. Mr.
Stillman also questioned the cost of land for expansion purposes.
Discussion ensued on the possibility of leasing space from the
Hospital. Mr. Mertz stated that several of the problems or
community needs identified could be solved if a way could be
figured out to utilize the existing Hospital. Mr. Stock stated
that identifying a proper use for the existing Hospital would
probably stimulate the construction of a new Hospital. Mr. Stock
stated that a benefit of the existing hospital site is that it is
close to the downtown area with good access to the residential
population. Mr. Stillman stated that there is also an existing
parking lot that could accommodate the needs of the facility during
the evening hours since generally the courthouse usage drops
significantly after 5: 00 p.m. Mr. Kaufenberg questioned whether or
not the future use of the existing Hospital had an impact on the
Hospital development plans. Mr. Stock responded in the
affirmative. Mr. Stock stated that he is of the opinion that prior
to the development of a new Hospital site, St. Francis Hospital
will have to be assured of a buyer or lessor for the existing
facility.
Discussion ensued on the Stans Museum possibility. Mr. Stock noted
that Mr. Stans has previously stated that the location of any
facility would have to be located near the Stans home. It was the
Official Proceedings of the May 16, 1991
Municipal Facility Task Force Page -5-
consensus of the Committee that an important aspect of this
possibility included the possibility of Stans financing for a
portion of the facility. Mr. Stock noted that it was the general
consensus based on Council 's earlier discussions with Mr. Stans
that such a facility would have to be combined with another
municipal need before the City would become involved. Mr. Stock
noted that the ongoing operations cost of a free standing facility
proved to be very prohibitive in the long run for the City.
Discussion ensued on the possibility of a Band Shell . Mr. Stock
stated that a Band Shell could stand alone as a project within an
existing park. Mr. Stock stated that it might also be possible to
obtain community organization funding for such a project. Mr.
Stillman stated that he would not limit a Band Shell to an existing
park. He noted that it could be included in a park setting such as
adjacent to a school or some other open space that might be
accessible by a trail.
Mr. Stock stated that he felt that going through the process that
was followed this evening brought forth a lot of issues that need
to be considered when the Committee actually begins to identify
exactly what they plan to propose to City Council. Mr. Stock
stated that at the next meeting he would like to have the Committee
evaluate the human consequences of acting on any of the
possibilities that where identified this evening. This will likely
lead the Committee into a more concrete discission making path in
terms of which possibilities are realistic, the timing of pursuing
certain possibilities as compared to others and also the
combination and assemblage of possibilities. Once a list of needs
and possible packaging of needs can be determined the Committee can
them move on to the actual preferred sites for any needs or
combinations thereof that are identified. Finally, the Committee
will have to evaluate the proper sources of funding for any needs
or combination of needs that are identified and the timing thereof.
Mr. Mertz stated that if the School needs to acquire property in
terms of meeting the Department of Education requirements as it
relates to a building expansion, is the Committee not obligated to
look at that area for future community needs. Mr. Stillman stated
that in order for the School to expand they will need to acquire
some of the property south of the present Senior High. He felt
that it was important for this Committee to evaluate how City and
County needs can best be accommodated to work in conjunction with
what the School District will be required to do if they ever want
to expand. If some type of municipal facility is identified as a
strong community need and the property is adjacent to whatever the
School District will be acquiring, Mr. Stillman noted that some
mutual sharing of parking facilities for example could be pursued.
This would ultimately reduce the cost for both parties since less
land would have to be dedicated for parking purposes.
Mr. Stillman requested staff to determine prior to the next meeting
how the land for the Stans Park was acquired. He felt that given
i
Official Proceedings of the May 16, 1991
Municipal Facility Task Force Page -6-
the proposed roadway system through the moratorium area that it
might be beneficial to relocate Stans Park and have the School
District acquire the present Stans Park area.
It was consensus of the Committee to schedule the next meeting for
Thursday, June 13 , 1991 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 00 p.m.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
Minutes of the
Energy and Transportation Committee
Regular Session
May 15, 1991
Chairman Drees called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. with
Commissioners Otto, Drees, Stolarcek, Case, Ward and Kelly present.
Commissioners Roman, Mars and Reinke were absent. Barry Stock,
Assistant City Administrator and Linda Hagen, Shakopee Workplace
were also present.
Stolarcek/Case moved to approve the minutes of the March 20, 1991
meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock noted that the City of Shakopee has been participating
with the Regional Transit Board in a demonstration project at the
Workplace. Mr. Stock explained that the Workplace is a training
center for the developmentally disabled. The intent of the
demonstration project was to train the developmentally disabled to
utilize the Dial-A-Ride program. Throughout the demonstration
project, the Regional Transit Board covered the cost of the rides
provided by Dial-A-Ride. Mr. Stock noted that monthly ridership
from the Workplace has ranged between 60 and 120 passenger trips
per month. The demonstration project expires on May 31, 1991.
Mr. Stock shared with the Committee a correspondence that was
received from Ms. Eileen Moran, Director of Scott County Human
Services, requesting the City to consider adopting a new fare
category for the developmentally disabled. Ms. Moran proposed a
fare of 25¢ per trip.
Mr. Stock stated that he has several concerns regarding Ms. Moran' s
proposal . First, the Regional Transit Board has a Farebox Recovery
Ratio Policy that the City must adhere to. Mr. Stock noted that he
has contacted the Regional Transit Board and they have stated a
willingness to consider excluding passenger trips from the
Workplace and subsequent costs from the Farebox Recovery Ratio
standards.
Mr. Stock stated that his second concern revolved around the
definition of developmentally disabled, as compared to handicapped.
Mr. Stock stated that he felt the difference between the two could
simply be defined as mental disability verses physical disability.
Mr. Stock stated that the Shakopee Dial-A-Ride program does provide
handicapped service for the physically disabled with a 24 hour
advanced notice. The fare for the physically handicapped conforms
to our standard fare structure. (No pricing incentive. )
Commissioner Stolarcek questioned the objective of the Workplace in
training the developmentally disabled. Ms. Hagen explained that it
is the desire of the Workplace to train the developmentally
Minutes of the Page - 2
Energy and Transportation Committee May 15, 1991
disabled so that they can hold down a regular paying job. Ms.
Hagen stated that the vast majority of the Workplace clients earn
well below minimum wage. She stated that many of these persons
simply cannot afford the regular Dial-A-Ride fare. She also stated
that this is their only means of transportation.
Commissioner Kelly stated that individuals that we are talking
about and their ability to pay is substantially less than the vast
majority of our regular riders. He stated that he would be willing
to propose a fare of 100 per passenger trip for the developmentally
disabled.
Mr. Stock stated that adopting a fare category on the ability to
pay issue could be bad precedent. Mr. Stock noted that perhaps
there are other residents in the community that are in the same
predicament as the Workplace clients in terms of ability to pay.
Mr. Stock stated that in lieu of creating a new fare category, he
favored extending the demonstration project.
Commissioner Stolarcek stated that she would also support extending
the demonstration project through 1991 providing that the Workplace
clients be subject to paying some kind of fare. She stated that
she felt that it would be beneficial in terms of self esteem if the
Workplace clients had to pay a fare. This would also serve as
another training opportunity for the Workplace clients in terms of
trying to mainstream them.
Kelly/Stolarcek moved to continue the Dial-A-Ride demonstration
project at the Workplace through December 31, 1991 with the
Workplace patrons subject to a 100 per ride fare with a 24 hour
notice beginning June 1, 1991. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock explained that in the fall of 1984 , the City of Shakopee
replaced the MTC service with its own transit program. One element
of this program which served to replace the express bus service,
provided for a Vanpool Program. The initial fare established for
the vanpool program coincided with the MTC express fare that was
being applied prior to the City of Shakopee' s opting out. The fare
was $1. 25 per passenger trip. Up until this year neither the City
of Shakopee or the MTC have had a fare increase. Meanwhile, actual
operating costs for the vanpool program have increased by nearly
60%. At the same time, the farebox recovery ratio for the vanpool
program has fell well below the 15% Regional Transit Board
standard. In fact, in 1990 the farebox recovery ratio for the
vanpool program was less than 10% . Conversely, the City of
Shakopee subsidy per passenger trip for the vanpool program has
increased dramatically. Mr. Stock explained that the Regional
Transit Board does not apply their farebox recovery ratio
independently to the vanpool and Dial-A-Ride programs. The City is
fortunate in this respect.
Minutes of the Page - 3
Energy and Transportation Committee May 15, 1991
Mr. Stock noted that on March 1, 1991 the MTC increased their
express route daily fare by 350 per passenger trip. Fares were
also increased for weekly and monthly passes but were much smaller
in terms of the percentage increase as compared to the daily fare.
Mr. Stock stated that he would like to propose that a public
hearing be scheduled by the Energy and Transportation Committee to
solicit comments on a proposed Vanpool fare increase. Mr. Stock
stated that he would like to propose that the Shakopee Area Transit
Vanpool fare be increased by 250 per passenger trip (from $1. 25 to
$1. 50) and that the monthly fare be increased from $47 . 50 to
$52 . 00. Mr. Stock stated that the $52 . 00 level would correspond to
the MTC monthly bus pass. Chairman Drees noted that the Vanpool
riders are expecting a fare increase. He stated that the vast
majority of the riders are aware that the MTC increased their fares
on March 1 and that the City has not had an increase since 1984 .
Mr. Stock stated that it would be up to the Energy and
Transportation Committee to determine the level of the proposed
fare increase, if any, and when it should be implemented. Mr.
Stock questioned when the Committee would like to have a public
hearing to solicit comments on the proposed Vanpool fare increase.
Commissioner Ward stated that she felt that there would be little
opposition to the fare increase and that it would be appropriate
for the Committee to schedule the public hearing to coincide with
their next regularly scheduled meeting date. Ward/Stolarcek moved
to request staff to schedule a public hearing to solicit comments
from Shakopee residents regarding a proposed Vanpool fare increase
to coincide with the Energy and Transportation Committee ' s next
regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock then shared with the Committee operating statistics from
the various opt-out communities. Mr. Stock explained funding
sources for the Shakopee Area Transit Program. He noted that the
majority of the transit funding comes from the transit taxing
district. In the past, the City has also been eligible for HACA
funds.
Mr. Stock noted that the Regional Transit Board staff have made a
new interpretation of the opt-out legislation which states that the
City is no longer eligible to receive HACA funding. Mr. Stock
noted that Representative Kelso has proposed legislation to clarify
language in the opt-out legislation regarding the availability of
funds for opt-out systems. Mr. Stock noted that if the Regional
Transit Board' s new interpretation is correct, the City is at risk
of loosing nearly $38 , 000 of HACA assistance in 1992 . Mr. Stock
noted that the 1991 budget for transit is $235, 000. In 1991 the
transit taxing district is expected to generate $215, 000 of funds.
In 1991, the City will be eligible to receive the $38 , 000 in HACA
funding. Therefore, there are adequate funds to continue existing
transit operation levels through 1991. Mr. Stock stated that
generally the transit taxing district proceeds increase by 10%
annually. If he is accurate in his projection, there will be
4
Minutes of the Page - 4
Energy and Transportation Committee May 15, 1991
approximately $235, 000 of transit district funds available in 1992 .
This would put the City right at the threshold level in terms of
available funding versus projected program costs. Discussion
ensued on cuts that could be made in service if there are not
adequate funds available. Mr. Stock noted that there are numerous
options available where the City could reduce costs in the
provision of transit service, including Saturday Dial-A-Ride
service and weekday evening service. The City could also elect to
eliminate the Vanpool Program and go to a fixed route express
service. Mr. Stock stated that he just wanted to bring this
information to the attention of the Committee so that they are not
surprised if we have to modify service levels in 1992 .
Commissioner Stolarcek stated that perhaps we should give serious
consideration to establishing a fixed route Dial-A-Ride service
with the Southwest Metro Service Area rather than continuing to
provide limited Dial-A-Ride service. Mr. Stock stated that he has
had conversations with the Southwest Metro manager in regard to
this issue and that they are also interested in pursuing this
option.
Mr. Stock reviewed the revenue and expenditures associated with the
1991 recycling day. Mr. Stock stated that he felt the program was
a tremendous success. Mr. Stock noted that City Council directed
staff to attempt to pull the program off in 1991 at a break even
for the City of Shakopee. Mr. Stock stated that 1991 program will
actually end up costing the City of Shakopee approximately $900. 00.
Mr. Stock stated that in designing the 1991 program certain levels
of service had to be reduced in order to save on cost. These
reductions resulted in generally a 2 hour wait to dispose of refuse
at the collection site. Even though numerous people had to wait in
line for over 2 hours, Mr. Stock stated that he did not receive any
phone calls from persons who wanted to complain about the program.
Most people realize that the City was offering a tremendous service
at a substantially reduced cost than what would be applied at the
landfill. Finally, Mr. Stock noted that he has received
notification from Scott County that they are applying for another
grant that would provide funding for a similar cleanup program in
1992 and 1993 . Mr. Stock requested the Energy and Transportation
Committee to make a recommendation to City Council that the program
be continued in 1992 and that $2 , 000 be included in the 1992 budget
to offset City related costs in providing the collection program.
Commissioner Ward stated that she thought the program was a
tremendous asset for Shakopee residents and that the City would
receive flack if the program is discontinued. Discussion ensued on
whether or not a limit should be set on the number of tires dropped
off. Mr. Stock stated that since the County is providing funding
for the disposal of the tires, he did not feel that a limit on the
number of tires needed to be set. Mr. Stock stated that the City
did have a volume limit in place by stating that no vehicles could
enter the cleanup site that were larger than a pickup or a trailer.
G
Minutes of the Page - 5
Energy and Transportation Committee May 15, 1991
Mr. Stock stated that perhaps some limit should be placed on the
size of the trailer.
Ward/Otto moved to recommend to City Council that $2 , 000 be
included in the 1992 budget for a City Cleanup Program. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock explained that the Dial-A-Ride contract has a three year
extension provision. He noted that the initial three year contract
expires in March of 1992 . Mr. Stock noted that he has met with the
transit managers from Southwest Metro and Plymouth to discuss
mutual concerns regarding the provision of Dial-A-Ride service.
Mr. Stock shared with the Committee a list of concerns that he had.
Mr. Stock noted that the majority of the concerns were directly
related to dispatching. He noted that at the present time
dispatching for Shakopee, Southwest Metro and Plymouth is all being
handled from one central dispatching facility. Mr. Stock stated
that he felt there are not enough dispatchers and that centralized
dispatching has created confusion for the dispatchers. Discussion
ensued on several problems that residents have been experiencing
with Dial-A-Ride. It was the consensus of the Committee that
dispatching did seem to be the biggest problem. Consistent
dissemination of information by the dispatchers and the drivers
also seem to be a problem. Access to the vehicles by Seniors was
also cited as a problem to discuss with National School Bus
management.
Mr. Stock then reviewed the Dial-A-Ride and Vanpool monthly
reports. Chairman Drees questioned what percent of the waste
stream was diverted from the landfill through the City's recycling
program in 1990. Mr. Stock stated that he would attempt to have
this information for the Committee at their next meeting. Mr.
Stock stated that he estimated that it was approximately 15%.
Stolarcek/Otto moved to adjourn the meeting at 8 : 15 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock, Recording Secretary
f7
June e 1 9 9 1
Upcoming Meetings
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
1
2 3 4 5 6 ? 8
4:30pm 7:00pm City 7:30pm
Public Council Planning
Utilities Meeting Commission
7:00pm
Committee
of the
Whole
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:45am 7:00pm
Downtown Municipal
Committee Facility
Committee
16 1? 18 19 20 21 22
7:00pm City 5:00pm CDC
Council 7:00pm
Meeting Energy &
Transport-
ation
23 24 25 26 2? 28 29
7:00pm Park
& Rec.
Board
30 May July
SMTIAIT FS SMTWTFS
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31
4:k8
Memo To: Council
From: LeRoy Houser/Building Official
Date: 5/28/91
Subject: Year End Report, Performance Survey
INTRODUCTION
Attached, the year end activity report and performance survey.
BACKGROUND
Each year we send out a questionnaire to all builders who have
pulled permits in the City the previous year. I have used this
questionnaire for the past ten years and the intent of the
questionnaire is to provide us with a bench mark for improving
service to our customers.
You will note on the last page of the summary, users comments for
improving our service. Listed below, my response to each critique:
1. We used to let the plumbing permit go when the plumber started
work. We had to change it because there was to many permits not
being pulled prior to starting the plumbing. Our control is
requiring all permits for a project to pulled at the same time.
2 . We do provide the builders with a written inspection report for
all inspections we do and we make the builder or builder' s
representative sign the inspection card acknowledging the
inspection tag.
3&8. Very seldom does a builder wait longer then three days to
obtain approval of permits. They should be aware that there
are three separate departments reviewing the permits and if
one departments lacking documentation or there is a legal or
planning/plat problem, then it can take longer to process.
4 . We provide answers to technical questions eight hours a day,
there are three people in the department who can provide
technical information to all builders. Some questions do require
research before providing an answer, better a little late and
correct then fast and wrong. We will try to do better.
5. The City of Shakopee, County of Scott, City of Savage, and
the City of Prior lake put on a yearly seminar in the evening
for all area contractor and developers. This is specifically
intended to update all builders on all code changes. We provide
them with hand outs and explanatory materials. The City of
Shakopee and Scott County was the first government units in the
State to provide this service, now we understand all seven
counties in the metro area now have a similar code update for
their contractors.
g/
Council, year end, page two.
6. A "hot line" is available to answer questions or check a
building officials interpretation of code items, most builders
are aware of it. If there is a concern on part of the builder as
to the appropriateness of the inspectors interpretation, we call
in for the builder.
7 . Permit fees and plan check fees are a constant concern in most
cities in the metro area. We do not charge any more then any
ther city. The fee schedule is part of the state code which
Council has adopted.
9 . Needs no response.
10. Needs no reply.
11. This critique was provided by George Shorobura, FMG
representative. I will try to get planning, engineering and
building to set down and draft a list of most of the
requirements so we may provide them to the applicant prior to
them taking out a building permit.
12 . Needs no response.
As a department head, I am favorably impressed with the critique.
I am a little disappointed that so few contractors took the time to
respond. However, what we did get provides us with some
constructive criticism which we can build on.
REVENUE/EXPENDITURES
The department has generated $70, 847. 68 in profit for the 1990
operating year. Included in the cost was six months of the housing
inspector' s salary.
PROJECTIONS
Based on the level of activity as of 5/15/91, unless we pick up a
sizable commercial/industrial project between now and years end, we
may well show a deficit or at best a break even picture for this
year.
O
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1990 YEAR END REPORT
Building Activities Building, plumbing and heating inspection,
plan check and housing inspection
Employees Building Official - LeRoy Houser
Building Inspector - Fulton Schleisman
Housing Inspector - Newton Parker 1/2 yr.
Secretary - Jeanette Shaner
INCOME BREAKDOWN BY DIVISION
Electrical
Total Income Less Pd. To Inspector Net City
1986 22 , 021. 00 17, 616 . 80 4 , 404 . 20
1987 11, 323 .97 9 , 059 . 18 2 , 264 .79
1988 13 , 339 . 50 10, 671. 60 2 , 667 . 90
1989 13 , 401. 00 10, 720.80 2 , 680.20
1990 23 , 379 . 20 18, 703 . 36 4, 675. 84
Plumbing and Heating
1986 43 , 381. 00
1987 21, 903 . 21
1988 21,759 . 50
1989 21,788. 67
1990 45, 071. 99
Building
1986 100, 322 . 98
1987 101,439 . 68
1988 93 , 574 . 25
1989 283 , 210 . 69
1990 180,796 . 32
1990 GROSS INCOME
Electrical Permits $ 4, 675, 84
Plumbing & Heating Permits 45, 071.99
Building Permits 180,796. 32
10% C.O. Charge 7 , 441. 40
$237 , 985 . 55
Revenue Expenditure Percent Net to City
1986 183 , 486. 00 126, 544 . 02 69 . 0 56, 941.98
1987 132 , 374. 88 105, 634 . 65 79.7 26, 740. 23
1988 130, 806. 32 145, 373 . 08 111. 1 -14 , 566.76
1989 320, 167 . 44 183 , 436. 86 57 . 0 136, 730. 58
1990 237, 985. 55 167 , 137.87 70. 0 70, 847. 68
10% of department costs are non-building related activities, i.e.
administration, legal, Hirise, government buildings, etc. The
Housing Inspector costs were included in our department cost for
six months in 1990.
PERMIT BREAKDOWN
Single Family Multiple Dwelling Units Valuation
1986 64 102 $ 8, 352 , 324
1987 61 129 10, 320, 100
1988 93 7 7, 289 , 537
1989 94 6 7 , 217 , 265
1990 100 0 7 , 488 , 490
Commercial & Industrial Valuation
1986 63 $20,766, 762
1987 53 2 , 928 , 531
1988 46 3 , 234 , 420
1989 61 51, 588, 756
1990 53 21, 973 , 575
Miscellaneous Activities
Congregate Dining, public building maintenance manager,
construction coordinator for City projects, housing code violation
complaints, assist Zoning Department, Engineering Department and
Administration. We picked up the duties and continuation of the
rental inspection program.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVENUE AND EXPENSE
,
300M �� •
•
•
`�
250M
i
i
200M i
150M
100M
50M
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
KEY: Expenses Revenue ---------
BUILDING PERMITS
200
180
160
140 \ \
120 \ \
100 \ - -- - - - - - -
80
60
40
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
REY: Single and Multi-Family Dwellings ——- - - -Commercial and Industrial
VALUATION
50 MIL
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
1
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
REY: Single and Multi-Family Dwellings - - - - - - - -
Commercial and Industrial
2
SUMMARY
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
8 Excellent 9 Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector's attitudes as compared to other
communities?
7 Excellent 7 Good 1 Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector's technical knowledge?
9 Excellent 6 Good 2 Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
6 Excellent 10 Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checking services.
5 Excellent 7 Good 2 Fair Poor
6 . Please rate field inspection services in quality.
6 Excellent 10 Good 1 Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
10 Excellent 4 Good Fair Poor
8 . Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
8 Excellent 6 Good Fair Poor
9 . Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
6 Excellent 4 Good 2 Fair Poor
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1) SEE ATTACHED SHEET
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
9 Better Than 5 Equal To Inferior
Name
er
Please list three areas we may improve our service to you:
1. Pull plumbing permits when we do plumbing, not when builder
pulls permit.
2 . Providing builders with a list of most common corrections
needed after inspection.
3 . Quicker approval of permits.
4 . Technical questions by builders given immediate, or very fast
answers by a city representative available 8 hours each day.
5. Send information out to the local builders as to upcoming code
changes or redefinitions that will affect them.
6. Review and response to structural and engineering concerns has
been excellent, but I personally feel that either some of the
code restrictions or definitions need to be clarified to be
understood by everyone. I have found over the years that the
U.B.C. is interpreted and enforced differently in every town.
Would it be possible to have a "hot line" available to
builders, where someone could field questions on city policy?
Maybe a joint venture with the seven county metro areas?
7 . Permit costs for plan review are very high - especially on
larger homes where there is higher value but not much more
work to check. Charge $250 for the first $80, 000 or under in
value, + . 001 per thousand over $80 , 000.
8 . Be quicker getting out permit - 2 days not a week.
9 . So far everything is great.
10 . Service has been good. Shakopee inspectors seem friendlier
and less business-like than in other communities which makes
it easier to relate to you. Other communities have some
inspectors who only want their interpretation of the code to
apply, and sometimes don't use common sense.
11. To minimize sometimes repetitive inquires, consider preparing
a written "step-by-step" outline of permit application
procedures. Continue to encourage pre-application meetings
with owners, contractors and architects to discuss all
requirements and concerns of everybody involved.
12 . Department and staff was always professional, service was
quick, genuine and always consistant.
e
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector's ability to communicate
effctively?
'' Excellent Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector' s attitudes as compared to other
co unities?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector' s technical knowledge?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
V Excellent Good Fair Poor
5. Plea a rate plan checking services.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
6. P1 se rate field inspection services in quality.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
JExcellent Good Fair Poor
8. Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
9. Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
JExcellent Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1)
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than Equal To Inferior
/ —
,ame
iv
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector's ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector' s attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent X Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector' s technical knowledge?
Excellent ;>'\ Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent __ Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checking services.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
6 . Please rate fieldj,nspection services in quality.
Excellent x Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant a d polite to deal with?
Excellent
Good Fair Poor
8. Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent >(Good Fair Poor
9 . Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the oppo unity to use her as an information source.
Excellent /Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than ' Equal To Inferior
-!me /
i
i
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
V Excellent Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector's attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector's technical knowledge?
XExcellent Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
XExcellent Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checking services.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
6 . P e se rate field inspection services in quality.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
XExcellent Good Fair Poor
8 . Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
9. Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
)(Excellent Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1)
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than Equal To Inferior
Name /
O
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent , Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspe or' s attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector's technical knowledge?
Excellent good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checki services.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
6 . Please rate field ips ction services in quality.
Excellent Gi Good - Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was a pleasant and polite to deal with?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
8 . Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate acc ately to the question.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
9. Rate her basic building code and cit code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use he as an information source.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1) fr2L 'c/Ula ,bers I/ki l f� /11r Of m ost mmi1/t
Lorre ions n ded �lnS ec1io/l,
(2) r
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department v�is-a-vis other communities.
Better Than L/ Equal To Inferior
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent X Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector' s attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent Good k Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector' s technical knowledge?
Excellent Good /\/ Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent X Good Fair Poor
5 . Please rate plan checking services.
Excellent )( Good Fair Poor
6 . Please rate field inspection services in quality.
Excellent x Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
8 . Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
9 . Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
P LV
D
Do„ t( SE
AIR' - OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1)
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than X Equal To Inferior
6�t1�S M u.04)/C.A-G, //04-d
Name
g/
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector's ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent ,/ Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector' s attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent X Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector' s technical knowledge?
Excellent Good X Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent )( Good Fair Poor
5 . Please rate plan checking services.
Excellent / Good Fair Poor
6. Please rate field inspection services in quality.
Excellent X Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
8 . Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent ,/ Good Fair Poor
9 . Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.�
4)//
Excellent Good Fair Poor 4
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1)
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than Equal To Inferior
Name
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent t/ Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector' s attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent , -/ Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector's technical knowledge?
/"Excellent Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent V Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checking services. Set S44_ %‘-fie
Excellent Good Fair Poor
6 . Please rate field inspection services in quality.
Excellent ;/ Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Wasshe pleasant and polite to deal with?
V/Excellent Good Fair Poor
8. Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
-✓ Excellent Good Fair Poor
9 . Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
Excellent (/Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
10 . Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1) 0✓ tcke &'. 7r^ev.x( d :C po`rYt , ]L 5 .
(2) J�;c C n ! c cr( ✓e s d o n s 7, v , l c�{� S q v�f7 /� � rpr e eti�4le e,v-
iJvP/k''�/ �u s / ct n w 1'.%-> b j 4 C '74-7 J i^er e s 09 n �c4 /. e ova;/u 6/e
C NN i early, G,q t� ,
3) 56-7c, ir7A/ 9<—rs•r4•1Ca,i7 el/V 49 t`74/ /0C / !ov:,fro'/S� .(.75 •7v v trJ.,,,,,� ;,:
CoCele NCrr7 is odr .t� .`,`/7, T�p/JS � cv,i( G�J` c'L / 4,ry,
11. As an overall %rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities. /
Better Than Equal To Inferior - p Ch, /f--
Cun v655an ) .4D/5 ? --G1);ncf
_ -/
Name +
/ C.;v7.- -e-.7't. 1-ft-ti ,
I ti ir e_ ✓C(V1(5 d gives/I6)77 # S Rev% f_ ? ✓'Qrmns(e
5-k✓1(1;' `r en ,`n e�:� ;n Con < r�^� 5 sJen e c //e � T
�
b�4 i IPv-.56,71-7ce(/7 lee 1 4-Li� (1 e 7-Li ,,e,7• 50,7 e v .-E 44 e
Oct? JI� / cI,'& $ o°'-' d e . -) � :cr75 neecQ 740o e
C/ ' ,` ' e`Gl 70 4e ✓ nctat'�- -IcceDde oc/r'c.,re�E', J- t 4,
o e,ev` toe y.e2 's f4ex - 1-4 e l/1,c, z 5 ►'r71 t��i"E ' e d
qn ea pcd,Cee, el,`i`1`e','erlP7 r/ PLiep-7 -1-0wn , uiepe e i'/
ble,5 ; /-e 4-c) 64.v e cf div f I ;rl& `' qr;16 /E. 7'0 .4v,'lc/e,-.
whe,,e se,,,0,e (O`'(6, 1` i`e !cf f ve5J,vci 5 o,7 C ;si7
c /{� T
/4 L i te a it 0; n Yir`7'r(fit"L" Gi/ I-4 1-4 7 G 0 L'rJ7. .,,,i,4,..'ico
i
I
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent 1,// Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector' s attitudes as compared+ to other
communities? 22, '± 2,0 ii A k y�,�e re (o uT S tkcz /a(pr e
Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector's technical knowledge?
Excellent V Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time? /
1 Excellent i/ Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checking services.
Excellent (/ Good Fair Poor
6. Please rate field ins ection services in quality.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
(/ Excellent Good Fair Poor
8 . Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent ' Good Fair Poor
9 . Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity� / to use her as an information source.
Excellent V Good / Fair Poor
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1) p p .Aa - _4 --
(3) 101
cv.k>7°g0 006
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than Equal To Inferior
^j- I / //,
Name
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find t inspector's attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the
ii pector's technical knowledge?
Excellent �/ Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checking services
Excellent Good Fair Poor
6. Please rate field iz4 ection services in quality.
Excellent L/ Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was a pleasant and polite to deal with?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
8. Was initial information provided to you by her accurate
and id it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
9 . Rat her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
hav had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1) 6 �� a A/o
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspe ion department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than Equal To Inferior
N`�me
v
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent Good Fair — Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector' s attitudes as compared to other
communities?
1, Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector's .technical knowledge?
Excellent Good _ Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
K. Excellent Good __ Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checking services.
Excellent Good __ Fair Poor ^
6. P ease rate field inspection services in quality.
Excellent Good _ _ Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
XExcellent __ Good Fair Poor
8 . Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
\k Excellent _ _Good Fair Poor
9 . , Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
Excellent _Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
•
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1)
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than Equal ToInferior
f1,4
Name
Vlereck Fireplace Sales Inc.
3465 NW 140,h St.
Shakopee, Mn.55379
612-445-5620
1
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector' s attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector' s technical knowledge?
�C Excellent Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
tExcellent Good Fair Poor
5 . Please rate plan checking services.
yExcellent Good Fair Poor
6. Please rate field inspection services in quality.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
XExcellent Good Fair Poor
8. Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
9. Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
XExcellent Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1) NI:::;?
(2) k ` 41 QS G6 _
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
X, Better Than Equal To Inferior
/ 77-2-7 /o
Name
if
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent ✓ Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector' s attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent '/ Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector' s technical knowledge?
Excellent v Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan cher ing services.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
6. Please rate field inspection services in quality.
Excellent / Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
Excellent // Good Fair Poor
8 . Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent ✓ Good Fair Poor
9 . Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
•
10 . Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1)
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than ✓ Equal To Inferior
V1( /11'}.7
Name %
•
1
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
Excellent X Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector's attitudes as compared to other
communities?
Excellent x Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector' s technical knowledge?
Excellent x Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent X Good Fair Poor
5 . Please rate plan checking services.
Excellent Good \ Fair Poor
6 . Please rate field inspe • ices in quality.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
Excellent X Good Fair Poor
8. Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
Excellent X Good Fair Poor
9 . Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
-W N.C191,t/Ue A.2-4 4e-e-41 pf 1, 5-heilepee '. (;t141/2.8. 4.0...OPPL_
ye' ?za �-. :1' • . , - d.ike 7Zz
11A4Ale. "t".4e- ,. • - '• • 4i-494:4,077 -<7-0,44 064:1 1,24144,44V&71
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
XBetter Than Equal To Inferior
/
II ` /
Name
7
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
V Excellent Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector's attitudes as compared to other
communities?
- Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector's technical knowledge?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent ,V Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checking services.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
6 . Please rate field ins ection services in quality.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
KExcellent Good Fair Poor
8. Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
/Excellent Good Fair Poor
9 . to her basic building code and city code knowled ou
have the opportunity to use her as an ormation source.
Excellent Go Fair Poor--
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1) ✓
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
xBetter Than - Equal To Inferior
t4zdL
•ame
er" ,
1991 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find our inspector' s ability to communicate
effectively?
x Excellent Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector's attitudes as compared to other
communities?
x Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector' s technical knowledge?
1 Excellent Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
5 . lease rate plan checking services.
X. Excellent Good Fair Poor
I
6. Please rate field inspection services in quality.
?c7 Excellent Good Fair Poor
PLEASE RATE THE SECRETARIAL/PERMIT PROCESSOR WHO PROVIDED
SERVICE TO YOU.
7 . Was she pleasant and polite to deal with?
/\ Excellent Good Fair Poor
8 . Was the initial information provided to you by her accurate
and did it relate accurately to the question.
i(Excellent Good Fair Poor
9 . Rate her basic building code and city code knowledge if you
have had the opportunity to use her as an information source.
\(-c-
Excellent Good Fair Poor
- OVER -
10. Please list three areas we may improve our service to you.
(1)
(2)
(3)
11. As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities.
Better Than Equal To Inferior
Name 64
U
1
/99/
19-89 CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
(Building & Plumbing Department)
1. How do you find inspector' s ability to
PEt•1 ov.1o►►.1G, 17►5 JS', o'-1 e7 AL\NI.M. 5 1-,► +--, Z�Ocommunicate
effec� vely. G ,10JY
_
E,R►OJ 5 P2o a 1-4 4i.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2 . How do you find the inspector's attitudes as compared to other
communities? ATTt'TJOE vVAS co-opeitPT►o,-1; t-1oc C.o..1 F1Zo.••1TAT%0,4
)( Excellent Good Fair Poor
3 . How do you rate the inspector's technical knowledge?
X Excellent Good Fair Poor
4 . How do you rate the permit application process relating to
issuance time? Boy-. 4A DEPA-s21*r-+ENT'S ABi...+T`r To Atut 10(-E P£42-t-A►Tt7
me-.1 A FAST Tt`PG.K. erP,4,1'! r+A OC• Tr1E Ot•FCER.Ew1c.E. m..1 o`-l12
X Excellent Good Fair Poor
5. Please rate plan checking services.
Excellent X Good Fair Poor Picky
6. Please rate field inspection services in quality. pe-A.O 1►.159Ec-7r►°PS
vvEes. P.A..vua-1, Poor-A PT p►..1O .5Tlg.Atti14 r Fo¢vvAQO•
X Excellent Good Fair Poor Picky
7. List three areas we may improve our service to you.
1) -re) 1••,1..11v-,17_Cc. ,50MET,1-4E4i REPET,r1vE. 1..4 62J121E4, 4-0.-1s►0Ela 92.E9A'E.t,..1y
GN"0Q1'CTEa0 STEP-BY-S'CFP' 00.TwNE oG 9E21-11T APP'`ic.P.-vtow1 it .oc..EOJIZ.ES.
2) et,a.tT,►..1JE To E1..1Gou12.AC,a .PRE-A13P,_%ca.T% o.-i t•-.AEET►KG4i .XVITT 0vvt,IE¢.4
ONTEAc.TO 4 A.1.10 AP_.t.,dvcELTS. To 015c,0 4,4 AI..L QGGJ,(ZEMEr4Ty Atap1
3)�0t.1C-eIZv1'°7 of acv€¢Yt3o ON" t.-1vo%..vEO.
8 . As an overall rating, how would you compare the Shakopee
inspection department vis-a-vis other communities?
X Better Than Equal To Inferior
EPP.¢Ti-+E�+T A'4P STAFG vVog A-.v(/4*.Y5 PQOF . or-IAl- , SEiZvIG. ve/ALjQUiE'.
4e1-16)1,.IE P.-1D P..--sx, .YS 40rSstsTP0-1T.
-.Eoe.c.E st-koeo oeQ. A.-•t . n,
Name Q20 E7c,vc - c -T
KA ‘..-4 A 11-V7 2e-a AT 1 O'-1 AL 1 v-1 C-.
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator
RE: Review of 1991 Clean-up Program (Non-Agenda
Informational)
DATE: May 29 , 1991
INTRODUCTION:
On April 27, 1991 the City of Shakopee conducted its annual clean-
up program. Staff would like to share with Council the final
program statistics and cost information.
BACKGROUND:
In 1991, the City of Shakopee was fortunate that Scott County had
obtained Metropolitan Council grant funding assistance to offset a
large portion of the costs associated with the annual clean-up
program. Shown in Attachment #1 is a summary of the 1991 program
costs as compared to original projections. The initial program
budget was prepared as a break-even program for the City. However,
gate fees did not reach projected levels. The total program costs
allocated to the City equaled to $983 . 18 . There were adequate
funds within the Recycling Program budget to offset this expense.
The remainder of the project costs were picked up through gate fees
and the County grant.
Shown in Attachment #2 is a summary of the cleanup program costs by
year, since the program' s inception in 1986.
To reduce program costs, the 1991 program was shortened as compared
to previous years in terms of the hours of service provided.
Additionally, not as many refuse trucks were supplied as compared
to previous years. Keep in mind that the cost for disposing of
refuse was not an eligible County grant expense. These two factors
did impose on those persons wishing to dispose of refuse somewhat
of an inconvenience in terms of the amount of time that they had to
wait in line. The average wait in line ranged between 45 minutes
and 2 hours. Those residents wishing to dispose of eligible
recyclable items had to wait in line for a very short period (1 to
10 minutes) .
On May 9 , 1991 I was informed by Mr. Al Frechette, Scott County
Environmental Health Manager, that Scott County has applied for
another grant from the Metropolitan Council that would provide
funding, in 1992 and 1993 for a City clean-up program. With this
in mind, on May 15, 1991, the Energy and Transportation Committee
moved to recommend that $2 , 000. 00 be included in the 1992 budget to
offset expenses that may not be recoverable from the County Grant
Program for a clean-up program in 1992 . Staff will initially
include this item in the 1992 budget where it can be addressed by
City Council as a part of the regular budget process.
au: clean92
9
Attachment #1
Shakopee Recycling Clean-up Program
Expenditures Projected Actual
Batteries $ 250. 00 NA
Tires $ 500. 00 $ 1, 650. 00*
Appliances $1, 000. 00 $ 750. 75*
Wood Clipper (Brush) $1, 000. 00 $ 880. 00*
Yard Waste Disposal $ 500. 00 $ 311. 80*
Yard Waste Staffing $1, 500. 00 $ 1, 434 . 00*
City Staff (Brush, Tires,
Scrap Metal) $1, 000 . 00 $ 1, 076 . 49*
Administration $ 400. 00 $ 400. 00*
Promotion $1, 200. 00 $ 1, 186. 32*
Refuse Disposal $4 , 000. 00 $ 2 , 628 . 18
Refuse Staffing $2 , 250. 00 $ 1, 222 . 50
Contingency $ 400. 00 $ 00. 00
Total Expenditures $14 , 000 . 00 $11, 540 . 04
Revenues
Gate Fees $ 6, 650. 00 $ 2 , 867 . 50
County Grant $ 7 , 350. 00 $ 7 , 689 . 36
Total Revenues $14 , 000. 00 $10, 556 . 86
Balance -0- (983 . 18)
if
Attachment #2
City of Shakopee Clean-up Day
Budget
Expenditures 1989 Actual 1990 Actual 1991 Actual
Maust Fiber Fuels (Tires) $1000. 00 $ 500. 00 $1, 650 . 00
Zein Appliance 708 . 75 903 . 00 750 . 75
Waste Management Inc. 4349 . 12 6136. 50 2 , 656. 50
Refuse Disposal Fees 3558 . 00 2775. 00 3 , 819 . 98
Shakopee Area Catholic Sch. 300. 00 400. 00 400. 00
Public Works Staff Time 407 . 29 - 1, 076 . 49
Misc. /Contingency0. 00 597 . 18 1 , 186. 32
Total Expenditures $10, 323 . 16 $11, 311. 68 $11, 540 . 04
Revenues
County Grant -- -- $7 , 689 . 36
Gate Fees $ 600. 00 1, 773 . 00 2 , 867 . 50
Appliances 405. 00 817 . 00 --
Furniture 326. 00 301. 50 --
Brush (leaves) 300. 00 600. 00 --
Tires 501. 00 300 . 00 --
Total Revenues 2 , 132 . 00 3 , 791. 50 10, 556. 86
Net Program Costs $8191. 16 7 , 520. 18 $ 983 . 18
Notes:
Tipping Fees
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Gate Fee - NC NC NC $1. 00 $3 . 00 $10. 00/
15. 00
Appliances - NC NC NC $3 . 00 NC NC
Furniture - NC NC NC $3 . 00 $3 . 00 NC
Bush - NC NC NC $3 . 00 $3 . 00 NC
Tires - NC NC NC $1. 00 $1. 00 NC
NEW PROGRAM COSTS
$5000* $9000* $12 , 988 $8191 $7520 $983 . 18
* Estimates
TENTATIVE AGENDA `
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Session Shakopee, MN June 6, 1991
Chairperson Melanie Kahleck Presiding
1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2 . Approval of Agenda
3 . Approval of May 9, 1991 Meeting Minutes
4 . Recognition by Planning Commission of Interested Citizens.
5. REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 610: Flood Bros. - Operate
Wholesale damaged car business at 1513 County Rd. 18 .
6. 7 : 40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a
Preliminary and Final Plat for Gary and Lori ' s Land at 1101
Naumkeag Street.
Applicant: Gary and Lori Grunst
Action: Approve Preliminary & Final Plat
7 . Dan Routson Chevrolet - Vacation of Alley in Block 30 of East
Shakopee Plat.
8 7 :50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a
Preliminary and Final Plat for Park Place at 1206 East First
Avenue.
Applicant: Dan and Teri Routson
Action: Approve Preliminary & Final Plat
9 . 8 : 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow an office building to be moved
in at 1206 East First Avenue.
Applicant: Daniel & Teri Routson
Action: Resolution No. 613
10. Final Plat - Heritage Place 3rd Addition - Heritage
Development.
11. DISCUSSION: Interim Ordinance Report
12 . 8 : 15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment - Public Notice
Requirements.
13 . DISCUSSION: Wood Storage
14 . DISCUSSION: Wall Signage
15. Other Business
a. Park Dedication Fee Interest Charge
b.
c.
d.
16. Non-agenda Informational Items
17 . Adjourn
Lindberg S. Ekola
City Planner
NOTE TO PLANNING MEMBERS:
1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any
of the above items, please call Lindberg or Aggie on the Monday
or Tuesday prior to the meeting at 445-3650.
2 . If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the
Planning Department prior to the meeting.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Regular Session Shakopee, MN June 6, 1991
Chairperson Terry Joos Presiding
1. Roll Call at 7: 30 P.M.
2 . Approval of Agenda
3 . Approval of May 9 , 1991 Meeting Minutes
4 . Recognition by Board of Adjustments and Appeals of Interested
Citizens.
5. 7 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a
variance to allow an addition to a nonconforming residence in a
B-3 Zone at 229 West First Avenue.
Applicant: Claude Sinnen
Action: Resolution No. 612
6. Other Business
a.
b.
c.
7 . Adjourn
Lindberg S. Ekola
City Planner
NOTE TO THE B.O.A.A. MEMBERS:
1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any
of the above items, please call Lindberg or Aggie on the Monday
or Tuesday prior to the meeting.
2 . If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the
Planning Department prior to the meeting.
3
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
May 20, 1991
The last Legislative Update, dated May 17, 1991,
indicated that the opt-out legislation we were seeking had
been attached by rider to the Transportation Study Board
(TSB) bill and was awaiting floor action in the House of
Representatives.
On Saturday, May 18th, the House passed the TSB bill,
and the Senate passed the companion bill. Since these two
bills contained different language, they were sent to
conference committee to work out the differences.
In conference committee on Sunday, May 19th, the TSB
bill was negotiated out and sent back to the floors of the
House and the Senate for final action. Unfortunately, all of
the language from our opt-out legislation was removed in
conference committee.
In essence what this means is that our opt-out
legislation was not successful in this session of the
legislature .
The main reason we were not successful in the conference
committee was that the make-up of the committee was decidedly
unfavorable to our purposes. We also fell victim to the
internal legislative politics surrounding LRT, which was part
of the TSB bill, since there were two different LRT versions .
in the House and Senate bills.
Rep. Sidney Pauly, who was a member of the conference
committee, tried valiantly to retain our language, but the
politics of the session prevailed and our language was
removed.
It would be incorrect, however, to say that our efforts
were in vain or that we had failed. First , we definitely
raised the level of awareness of opt-out systems, their
problems and their importance to the overall transit picture
in the metro area.
Second, we made the RTB cognizant of our intent to
require of them fair treatment of opt-out systems. While
funding issues may continue to be a problem, the RTB will
probably be more willing to work with opt-outs in reaching
solutions to problems as a result of what occurred in the
legislature.
Finally, if problems with the RTB persist our
legislators have promised to carry our bill back to the next
session of the legislature where it will be made a top
priority item early in the session.
Update - Page 2
Special thanks go out to the legislators who devoted a
great deal of time and effort toward our bill. Particularly,
thanks should go to Rep. Becky Kelso, Rep. Sidney Pauly, Rep.
Connie Morrison, Rep. Art Seaberg, Sen. Judy Traub, and Sen.
Earl Renneke. Also, a special thank you should be expressed
to the legislative assistants to these legislators for their
extensive help and assistance, especially Pat Morrison of
Rep. Kelso 's office, and Sally Burmeister of Rep. Pauly"s
office.
If anyone has questions or would like more information I
would be happy to assist you in any way I can. Please call
me at 897-1919. Thank you.
George Bentley
Legislative Liaison
2
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 4, 1991
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M.
2] Approval of Agenda
3 ] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting
4] Re-convene
5] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
6] Mayor's Report
7] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
8] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an
asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
so requests, in which event the item will be removed from
the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence
on the agenda. )
*9] Approve Minutes of May 21, 1991
10] Communications:
a] David Lawrence, Northern States Power Company, notice of
hearing on request for electric price increase
11] PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a] 7 : 00 P.M. - Appeal of action by the Planning Commission
to an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
No. 376 by NBZ Inc. (formerly Scott County
Lumber)
b] 7: 30 P.M. - Proposed assessments for street reconstruc-
tion to Lewis Street between 4th and 10th,
and Sommerville Street between Shakopee Ave.
and 10th Avenue, Project 1990-5 - Res. 3410
12] Boards and Commissions: None
13] Reports from Staff:
a] 1990 Annual Report - bring copy received May 21st
*b] Requesting Appraisal of Heritage Place 3rd Addition
c] Ordinance Amendment on Mineral Extraction
TENTATIVE AGENDA
JUNE 4, 1991
Page -2-
13] Reports from Staff continued:
d] Liquor License Violation
e] Personnel Policy Issue
f] T.H. 169 Bridge and Mini Bypass Lighting
*g] Park and Recreation Department Staffing
*h] Selection of Realtor - See HRA #3
*i] Temporary Beer License - St. Mark's Church
*j ] Temporary Beer License - St. Mary's Church
k] Storm Sewer Billing in Relation to Water Usage - memo on
table
*1] Closure of Debt Service Funds
*m] Special Assessments on City Property
n] Approve Bills in Amount of $125, 082 . 33
*o] Surplus Vehicle
*p] Equipment Purchase - Mower
q] Close City Hall July 5th
*r] Youth Employment Program Worksite Agreement
14] Resolutions and Ordinances:
*a] Res. No. 3409 - Approving Plans & Specs for Phase IB of
the Shakopee Bypass
*b] Res. No. 3411 - Establishing Valley View Road Between
CR-83 and CSAH 21 As A Municipal State
Aid Highway
*c] Ord. No. 311 - Amending The Membership on The Park and
Recreation Advisory Board
15] Other Business: G?°kAiid
b r„i„A.434 Jed-
d]
16] Adjourn to Tuesday, June 18, 1991 at 7 : 00 P.M.
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
TENTATIVE AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting June 4, 1991
1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2 . Approval of the May 7, 1991 Meeting Minutes
3 . Selection of Realtor
4 . Other Business
a)
b)
5. Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
Executive Director
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN MAY 7 , 1991
Chairman Zak called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p.m. with Comm.
Clay, Sweeney and Wampach present. Comm. Vierling was absent.
Also present were Dennis Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock,
Asst. City Administrator; Dave Hutton, City Engineer; Lindberg
Ekola, City Planner; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith Cox, City
Clerk; and Mayor Laurent.
Wampach/Clay moved to approve the minutes of April 2 , 1991. Motion
carried unanimously.
Barry Stock reviewed the Residential Development Incentive Policy
saying that in the past year the Community Development Commission
has been requested to entertain several proposals for residential
development, generally these proposals have been linked to areas
with unusual soil conditions or other development constraints. In
order to deal with these requests the Community Development
Commission is proposing a program that would help deal with these
requests. It is comprised of two different financing options,
municipal and traditional tax increment. The municipal option is
provided through the HRA fund balance, the traditional option is
funded through the existing tax increment legislation regarding
housing. The municipal option is limited to five year assistance
and the traditional is open for ten years of increment for projects
with 25 or more units. Cncl. Sweeney asked if we went with
municipal financing could the HRA recover its investment by
recapturing the City' s tax? Consensus of the Council was they
like the concept if something could be done to replenish the HRA
reserve fund.
Sweeney/Wampach moved to table until further information can be
obtained regarding the possible replenishing of the reserve fund
through the proposed program. Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7 : 15 p.m.
Dennis Kraft
City Administrator
Carol L. Schultz
Recording Secretary
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, HRA Executive Director
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator
RE: Selection of Realtor
DATE: May 29, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
The Shakopee City Council and HRA directed staff to solicit
proposals from realtors for the listing and sale of surplus City
property. Three proposals were submitted in response to the
advertisement for the Request for Proposals.
BACKGROUND:
Shown in attachment #1 is the notice of Request for Proposals that
was sent to all realtors in Shakopee. The notice was also
advertised in the legal section of the Shakopee Valley News.
Proposals were submitted by the following realtors:
1. Maggie Klein\Gene Brown Realty, Inc.
2 . Coldwell Banker
3 . Realty World - Kubes
Shown in attachment #2 is a summary of the three proposals. All of
the proposals meet the minimum requirements as setforth in the
proposal specifications. All three of the agencies have a proven
track record in terms of their experience in the real estate
profession. However, the amount of commission charged does vary
from one proposal to the other.
The Klein\Brown Realty proposal includes a sliding commission
schedule based on the sale price of the property. For the
Authority and City Council ' s information, the majority of the City
owned properties fall within the 0 - $20, 000 range. Therefore, in
most cases the Klein\Brown Realty proposal would necessitate a 10%
commission.
The Realty World\Kubes and Coldwell Banker proposal are based on a
flat commission fee. (5.9% and 5.8% respectfully) The difference
in commission between the Realty World\Kubes and Coldwell Banker
proposal is minimal. On a $20, 000 sale, the difference in
commission between the Realty World\Kubes and Coldwell Banker
proposal would equate to $20. 00.
Staff would like to point out that the Klein\Brown proposal did
include the following statement, "In-house listing and sales are
negotiable to a lessor percentage" . In a follow-up conversation
with Mr. Tom Klein, he informed me that this statement basically
would provide room for negotiation on the commission charged if one
of the Klein\Brown in-house realtors sold the property directly.
Mr. Klein further stated that their sliding commission schedule was
intended to attract other brokers and/or realtors from outside the
:3
area to Shakopee to market the City and HRA' s property. Mr. Klein
stated that on a typical $20, 000 vacant property sale that a 10%
commission would attract area realtors and expedite the sale of the
vacant property.
Finally, in response to a question posed to Mr. Klein regarding the
level of a negotiated commission in the event of an in-house
listing and sale, Mr. Klein stated that the commission rate would
be approximately 6%.
Since the three proposals are essentially the same, staff has
attached the "guts" of each of the proposals. Attachment #3 -
Maggie Klein\Gene Brown Realty, Inc. Attachment #4 - Coldwell
Banker Attachment #5 - Realty World\Kubes.
In evaluating the proposals, staff felt that the Realty World -
Kubes proposal was most complete in terms of their plan of action
in terms of marketing the City property. While it is generally a
"boiler plate" plan of action. it never-the-less did specifically
address all facets of their plan. The Realty World proposal also
included a unique provision regarding their interest in selling any
remnant parcels owned by the City and/or HRA. Mr. Kubes also went
through the effort to include examples of what a highlight sheet
might look like for a City and/or HRA parcel .
The proposal specifications did include a paragraph stating that
the determining factor for entering into an agreement with the
preferred realtor will be the amount of commission charged and the
amount and period of exposure provided. Since the only tangible
difference between the proposals is in the area of commission,
staff is recommending to the HRA and City Council that the
appropriate City officials be authorized to execute a realtor
agreement for services between the Shakopee HRA, City of Shakopee
and the Coldwell Banker.
Since the Shakopee HRA and Shakopee City Council are separate legal
entities, it will be necessary for the Shakopee Housing and
Redevelopment Authority and City Council to act independently on
this item.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Move to authorize the appropriate HRA and City officials to
enter into an agreement with Coldwell Banker for realtor
assistance and services.
2 . Select one of the other proposals submitted and direct the
appropriate HRA and City officials to execute the appropriate
agreement accordingly.
3 . Reject all the proposals that were submitted.
4 . Table action pending further information from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Shakopee HRA
Move to authorize the appropriate HRA officials to enter into an
agreement with Coldwell Banker for realtor assistance and services.
Shakopee City Council
Move to authorize the appropriate HRA officials to enter into an
agreement with Coldwell Banker for realtor assistance and services.
Attachment #1
NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The City of Shakopee and Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) are requesting proposals from realtors for listing
and sale of City and HRA surplus properties.
The number, type and legal descriptions of the properties and all
other pertinent data will be supplied to the successful bidder.
The present inventory of surplus property consists of several
developable residential lots and several commercial properties.
All properties are presently vacant. The term of the proposed
agreement shall be three years.
The successful proposal should include the following information:
(1) The amount of the sales commission.
(2) A copy of the Brokers license.
(3) A copy of your firm's liability insurance policy.
(4) Confirmation of MLS membership.
(5) A brief summary on how you plan to market the properties
including the amount of public exposure in; (a) local media,
(b) Multiple Listing Service.
The determining factor for entering into an agreement with the
preferred realtor will be the amount of commission charged and the
amount and period of exposure you intend to provide.
The City of Shakopee and Shakopee HRA reserve the right to cancel
this solicitation of proposals, waive irregularities in said
solicitation and reject any and all proposals if it is considered
to be in the best interest of the City and/or HRA.
Proposals are to be sealed and delivered to the Assistant City
Administrator at 129 East 1st Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota by 10: 00
A.M. on May 29, 1991.
The proposals will be opened May 29, 1991 at 10: 00 AM in the City
Council Chambers of the City of Shakopee.
TAMI\ADMIN\REALTORS
Attachment #2
Realtor Proposal Summary
Brokers Liability MLS
Commission Liscense Insurance Membership
Klein\Brown 6% - 10% Yes Yes Yes
Depending on $1, 000, 000
Sale Price
Coldwell Banker 5.8% Yes Yes Yes
$2, 000, 000
Realty World 5.9% Yes Yes Yes
$300, 000
Attachment # 3 3
', MUM!1.SIMG S(wp
WEA,T:>W mums Maggie Klein / Gene Brown Realty, Inc.
119 South Lewis Street Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 Telephone:612/445-5560
May 29, 1991
To: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator
From: KLEIN/BROWN REALTY. Tom Klein-Broker
Subject : Proposal : Property Listing Agreement Letter-May 10, 1991.
The following is the proposal from Klein/Brown Realty Inc. to the
City of Shakopee and Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) concerning the listing and sale of City and HRA surplus
properties :
The amount of sales commission charged will be as follows :
Sale price of property Commission
$0-39 ,900 10%
$39 , 900-69 ,900 8%
$69,900-99 ,900 7%
$99 ,900+ 6%
* In house listing and sales are negotiable to a lesser percentage.
Klein/Brown Realty Inc. markets their listed properties in the
following manner. 1. We use the Multiple Listing Service for all
properties for the length of all listings . 2. We advertise in
newspapers on a weekly basis for the length of all listings .
3.We use "For Sale" signs and also hand painted signs with the
description of property if necessary. 4. Multiple Listing Service
Computer will have all listings entired in it for the length of
the listing.
Klein/Brown Realty Inc. is a full service Residential/Commercial
real estate company. Locally owned and operated, we are staffed
with eight real estate sales professionals who are residents of
Shakopee. These people have over 60 years of real estate
experience.
Klein/Brown Realty Inc. wishes to thank the City of Shakopee and
Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the opportunity
to make this proposal.
Klein/Brown Realty Inc . Tom Klein-Broker
(612)445-5110 BUSINESS
(612)445-7640 FAX
A YEu9En pc Pie SEARS FINAMEL fEnvoek (612)445-7155 RESIDENCE
0 JANE C.DuBOIS
Certified Residential Specialist
_ COLDWELL BANKER
piss LJ BEST HOMES
327 S.MARSCHALL ROAD
SHAKOPEE,MN 55379
An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates.Inc.
Attachment #4
BANKeR
BEST HOMES 327 S.MARSCHALL ROAD
55379
BUS.(612)445-5110
FAX(612)445-7640
Mav 29 . 1991
Mr ' Dennis Kraft
Shakopee City Adminitrator
129 1st Avenue East
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear Dennis ,
In response to your request , I am submitting a proposal for
the marketing of the city owned parcels in question .
Coldwell Banker Best Homes is an independently owned
affilliate office co-owned by Lee Olson and myself . Our
Shakopee office is located at 327 South Marschall Road , Suite
300We are a full sevice brokerage with a current staff of
eight . Our office hours are 8:00AM to 7:00PM Monday thru
Friday and 9 :004M to 2:00PM on Saturday . Sunday is covered
by the Prior Lake office of Coldwell Banker Best Homes from
10:00AM to 4 :00PM ' ( That office is also owned by Lee Olson as
an affilliate office . )
The proposal I am submitting is as follows :
1 . The property would be placed on the multiple listing
service and would be available to over 7 ,000 realtors
in the seven county metro area .
2 . Classified advertising would be done in local
newspapers and the Minneapolis Star Sunday lot
section . This would not be our major focus since
only 12-15% of buyers come from classified
advertising .
3 . Our major focus would be marketing to contractors and
builders . We would do this by using brochures showing
zoning , lot size , allowable usage , etc . All phases of
marketing would be handled by myself along with an
appointed sales associate from the Shakopee office .
An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coidwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc.
-.3
.MEMBER OFTHE SEARS F1N=~NETWORK
COLD weu.
BEST HOMES 327 S.MARSCHALL ROAD
nH^xopcs.Mw55mro
SUS.(6,e)+^s-m`n
FAX(612)445-7640
4 . We will work in conjunction with the Coldwell Banker
Commercial Department based in Edina , Minnesota ' They
are the largest commercial brokerage in the metro
area with a staff of over 40 associates . In working
cooperatively with their office , we feel we can
maximize the negotiating position of the city to
achieve the optium in price .
5 . The brokerage fee will be 5 .8% with a 4% payout to
cooperating brokers . We would request a six month
listing contract .
I have also enclosed a copy of the requested information . You
will note the acting broker is Denny Wright from the Coldwell
Banker Best Homes Prior Lake office . I have just passed the
brokers test and have not as of this date received my new
license . We do not have any documented proof to show that we
are a member of MLS so I have enclosed a copy from the MLS
directory . We are members of the Minneapolis Association of
Realtors and the National Association of Realtors .
If you have any questions , feel free to call . Thank YOU for
your consideration .
Sincerely ,
91e,ote.
Jane DuBois , Manager
Enclosures
JD/jh
An Independently Owned and Operated Member of CoIdwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc.
r- .1111,11MIMI Randy Kubes �
\��/
Broker-Owner
1111
'% W' Member Multi-Million
Dollar Club
REALTY WORLD'
REALTY WORLD®—Kubes
1240 East 3rd Avenue,Shakopee,MN 55 9
Bus:(612)445-9110
Res:(612)445-8181
Each
Each orrice independently owned and operated (�""S
�iml
Attachment #5
REALTY WORLD® - Kubes
Mai
1240 East 3rd Avenue,Shakopee,MN 55379
MEI Telephone:(612)445-9110
REALTY WORLD'
May 15 , 1991
Barry A. Stock
Assistant City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, Mn 55379
Subject: Property Listing Agreement Proposal .
1 . Sales commission on all vacant lots ( residential and Commercial )
will be 5 . 9%.
2. For our fee we will follow our Marketing Plan spelled out on our
"Plan of Action" (see attached) .
A. We use the following publications for advertising your
property: Shakopee Valley News, Shakopee Mint, Chaska Mint,
Prior Lake American, Eden Prairie News, Mpls. Star Tribune, etc.
B. A Highlight Sheet will be delivered to prospective Builders/
Buyers on all properties. ( see examples enclosed) .
C. A completed listing input form will be submitted to the
Multiple Listing Service (MLS) on all properties, for exposure
to all local members and through out the metro area.
3 . We are also interested in taking care of all remnent/remedy
property owned by the City and/or HRA. This would mean locating
property owners adjoining said property and negotiating a sale
of said properties to them. The goal in mind would be to get
the properties out of your ownership list and on to the tax rolls.
(Our fee in the above matters would be negotiated on a per
case basis) .
Thank you. If you would have any questions, please call .
Respectfully Submitted,
Randolph J. Kubes
Broker/Owner
REALTY WORLD-Kubes
Each office independently owned and operated
REALTY WORLD'
TIN RESULTS PEOPLE:
REALTY WORLD® — Kubes
11.11. 1240 East 3rd Avenue, Shakopee, MN 55379
`OW Telephone: (612)445-9110
REALTY WORLD. "THE PLAN OF ACTION"
The following is Our Company's Plan for marketing your home/property:
1. Submit your home/property to the Multiple Listing Service.
2. Submit copies of the listing to our company sales staff for their waiting buyers.
3. Tour your home/property with my office.
4. Promote your home/property at the real estate meetings for maximum exposure to the
other agents in the area.
5. Develop a list of features and benefits of your home/property, for cooperating agents
to use with their potential buyers.
6. Suggest and advise you as to any changes you might want to make in your home/property
to make it even more marketable to the buyer.
7. Constantly update you as to any changes you might want to make in your home/property
to make it even more marketable to the buyer.
8. Knock on 50 doors in the surrounding area.
9. Add Additional exposure through a professional sign and lock box.
10. Hold an Open House when possible.
11. Advertise when necessary.
12. Pre-qualify when possible all prospective buyers.
13. Make you completely aware of all the various methods of financing that the buyer
may want to use.
14. Have the cooperating brokers in your area tour your home/property.
15. Provide on a monthly basis for the cooperating brokers a list of the features
and benefits of your home/property.
16. Follow-up on all the salespeople that have shown your home/property for their response.
17. Assist you in arranging interm financing, if necessary.
18. Deliver a copy of your Multiple Listing for your approval, also a copy of all
advertisments that have been published.
19. Represent you upon the presentation of all contracts by the cooperating brokers and
to help in negotiating the best possible price and terms for you.
20. Handle follow-up and keep you informed, after the contract has been accepted, on
all mortgage, title and other closing procedures.
21. Deliver your check at closing.
Submitted By: Your Acknowledgment:
//‘"
Each office independently owned and operated
REALTY WORLD`
TUE RESULTS PEOPLE`
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 21, 1991
Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 8 : 00 p.m. with Cncl.
Vierling, Clay, Sweeney, Wampach and Zak present. Also present
were Dennis Kraft, City Administrator; Dave Hutton, City Engineer;
Lindberg Ekola, City Planner; Karen Marty, City Attorney; and
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk.
The following item was deleted from the agenda:
11d - Liquor License Violation.
The following item was added to the agenda:
13a - Resolution 3407.
Sweeney/Clay moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion
carried unanimously.
Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers.
Mayor Laurent read the Mayor's report.
Mayor Laurent asked if there was anyone from the audience who
wished to address anything not on the agenda. There was no
response.
Item 12d, Resolution No. 3403 , was removed from the consent
business.
Vierling/Zak moved to approve the consent business as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Sweeney moved to approve the minutes of May 7, 1991. Motion
carried with Cncl. Vierling abstaining.
Vierling/Zak moved to endorse Mr. Tom Workman for the appointment
to the Regional Transit Board from District G and direct the
appropriate City officials to draft a correspondence to the
appropriate Met Council Board members indicating said endorsement.
(Motion approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Zak moved to accept the resignation of Mr. Bill Preiss
from the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, with regrets. (Motion
approved under consent business) .
Dennis Kraft introduced Mr. Ed Winfield as the new Management
Analyst who recently joined the City staff.
Clay/Wampach offered Resolution No. 3405, A Resolution Requesting
the Minnesota Department of Transportation to close the Crossover
in the Median Between the Westbound and Eastbound Lanes of Trunk
Highway 101, approximately 1, 000 feet east of County Road 18 and
moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Laurent opened the public hearing on the proposed
improvements to 11th Avenue between Dakota and Naumkeag by roadway
Official Proceedings of the May 21, 1991
Shakopee City Council Page -2-
construction and storm sewer. (The southerly one half of 11th
Avenue is being platted within the proposed plat of Meadows 5th
Addition. )
Dave Hutton reviewed the feasibility report. The City would
construct pavement, curb and gutter and storm sewer. The
improvements would consist of 36 foot wide streets. Sidewalks will
be installed on the north side of 11th Avenue only, between Dakota
and Minnesota Streets at the developers expense. The estimated
total project cost is $68 , 272 .44 ($40, 744 . 94 for street constuction
and $27 , 527 . 50 for storm sewer) . The assessment formula for the
street construction comes to about $23 . 00 per front foot.
Adjustments have been made for corner lots. Corner lots are
assessed at 50% of the front footage using the short side of the
lot, which comes to about $11.83 per front foot. The remainder of
the cost will go to developer on the south side of 11th Avenue.
His assessment will be about $37, 000 for the street construction.
The storm sewer cost is estimated at $27, 527 . 50 . The property
owners to the north would pay 25% of one-half of the cost. The
storm sewer utility fund would pay the remaining 75%. The
Developer would pay 100% of one-half of the cost. The cost to the
properties to the north would be $10. 24 per front foot of short
side of lot.
A letter from Art Gesswein opposing the construction project was
entered into the minutes. Dave Hutton reviewed the payment options
available to the residents, with an interest rate of about 8-1/2%
Mayor Laurent asked if there was any comments from the audience.
Mr. Mahowald, corner of 11th and Prairie, said when he bought his
land in 1977 , he was told that 11th Avenue would not go through.
He then put $5, 000 into a driveway off of 11th Avenue to his
garage. He is opposed to his paying anymore money for the street
that he was initially told would not be built.
Bob Klehr, 11th and Dakota, asked how he is going to benefit from
this project and if he has any other choices. He feels Gold Nugget
Development should pay for the project because he does not use 11th
Avenue at all.
Joel Cooper, representative of Gold Nugget Development, said that
they would try to work with Mr. Mahowald so he could use his
driveway during construction.
Mayor Laurent closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued on
whether or not the properties along the north side of 11th Avenue
should be assessed.
Sweeney/Zak offered Resolution No. 3402 , A Resolution Ordering an
Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for
11th Avenue between Dakota Street and Naumkeag Street, Project No.
1991-5, and moved its adoption. Motion fails with Sweeney, Zak and
Wampach opposed.
Official Proceedings of the May 21, 1991
Shakopee City Council Page -3-
Dave Hutton said the result of this motion is that the City will
not be constructing 11th Avenue. The developer can construct it at
his own expense.
Mayor Laurent opened the public hearing on the proposed
improvements to the alley lying between Pierce Street and St.
Mark's Road and South of 7th Avenue, Resolution No. 3401.
Dave Hutton said that the alley improvements were petitioned by 50%
of the property owners. The estimated cost is about $8 , 000. The
cost will be 100% assessed to the abutting property owners. It
will be assessed on a per lot basis which comes to approximately
$689 . 11 per lot. He said a second petition was received signed by
10 property owners opposing the improvement. Mayor Laurent asked
if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address this
issue.
Jerry Knight, 727 W. Shakopee Avenue, said he contacted 8 of the 12
property owners and 7 said they would sign the petition opposing
the improvements. He said he felt all it needed was to be
regraded.
Steve Heller, Shakopee Avenue, said he feels real estate taxes are
already too high.
Marsha Knight, 727 W. Shakopee, said no improvements have been done
on this alley for a long time.
Harold Dellwo said he want the alley to be fixed for the drainage
problems but not be paved.
Mayor Laurent closed the public hearing.
Clay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 3401, A Resolution Ordering
an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for
the Alley in Block 1 of Marymark Addition, Block 1 of Terrence
Addition Replat and Block 8 of Terrence Addition, Project No. 1991-
6 and moved for its adoption. Motion fails unanimously.
Mayor Laurent called a 15 minute recess at 9 : 45 p.m.
Mayor Laurent reconvened the meeting at 10: 00 p.m.
The City Planner reviewed the preliminary plat for Weinandt Acres
2nd Addition. He said the sight is located at the southwest corner
of County 17 and 42 and is zoned R-1. He said one of the
conditions is that the outlot be dedicated as right of way with the
final plat approval and the construction plans be included with the
improvement plans prior to final approval. He reviewed the
recommendations of the planning commission stated on his memo dated
May 15. Cncl. Vierling said that she is somewhat uncomfortable
with the issue of ghost platting. The City Planner said in
reference to ghost platting he feels it is a very long time off and
because of the time frame and considering topography and location
Official Proceedings of the May 21, 1991
Shakopee City Council Page -4-
of this subdivision, he does not see ghost platting being effective
in this area.
Harry Weinandt, Developer, 1259 Maxine Circle, said that he would
like to discuss three of the conditions of approval recommended by
the Planning Commission. Number 3 recommends that a park dedication
be paid for the lot upon which a house has already been
constructed. He would like the Council to reconsider this
requirement. Number 6 limits access from two sided lots to the
cul-de-sac. He asked for clarification of this condition. Mr.
Ekola clarified that the access limitations are proposed against
Lots 4 , 5, 11, 12 , 13 , 14, & 15 in Block 2 . This access
restriction is against the lots that abutt County Road 17 and
Marschall Lane. Number 10 requires the dedication of Outlot A for
right-of-way. Mr. Weinandt questioned why the cost of construction
should be born by the two abutting properties. He stated that he
believes the future developer to the west should pay for the road
construction. Mr. Ekola explained that the road will benefit the
abutting properties when development occurs to the west. Mr. Ekola
stated that the road would be constructed at that time.
After discussion by the City Council, the Mayor stated that he
supported imposing the park dedication on Lot 10, Block 2 ; to allow
the dedication of Outlot A (as recommended by the Planning
Commission) , and to identify the lots which will have restricted
access as identified by the City Planner.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the preliminary plat of Weinandt
Acres 2nd Addition subject to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission and contained in the May 15, 1991 memo from the
City Planner, Lindberg S. Ekola, (CC-DOC #185) ; and the additional
conditions just enumerated by the Mayor. Motion carried
unanimously.
The City Planner reviewed the final plat of Meadows 5th Addition.
He said it is zoned R-2 and contains 38 single lots. He explained
the park dedication requirement and how it has been satisfied for
each of the five additions.
Clay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 3397 , A Resolution Approving
the Final Plat of the Meadows 5th Addition, and moved for its
adoption.
The developer said that he would be willing to build 11th Avenue at
his cost and asked if the City would participate in the storm sewer
costs, which amount to approximately $10, 000 .
Clay/Sweeney moved to amend the resolution to include reimbursement
to the developer for storm sewer improvements in 11th Avenue from
the Storm Sewer Utility Fund based on the formula: 75% of one-half
of the actual construction cost for installing the storm sewer in
11th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion carried unanimously on Resolution No. 3397, as amended.
tr
Official Proceedings of the May 21, 1991
Shakopee City Council Page -5-
Vierling/Zak moved to appoint Bob Nead, Sara Call, and Darrell
Trowbridge to the Community Youth Building Committee for the term
ending January 31, 1993 . (Motion approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Zak moved to authorize the appropriate city officials to
enter into a legal services agreement with Popham, Haik, Schnobrich
and Kaufman, Ltd. , regarding participation in a proposed Critical
Incident Consortium by the Chief of Police. (Motion approved under
consent business) .
Dennis Kraft reviewed the request by Murphy' s Landing for the City
paying the storm drainage bill for them. He said this is a utility
bill and the agreement with Murphy's Landing states that no major
changes in the operation of Murphy's Landing be made without
approval of the City.
Sweeney/Zak moved to have the City pay the storm sewer drainage
bills for the Murphy' s Landing site. Cncl. Wampach, Vierling and
Mayor Laurent opposed. Motion fails.
The City Attorney reviewed what she found in regards to the
offsetting special assessments with condemnation awards. She said
she contacted other cities and that she found no City that does it.
She also stated that the public purpose was unclear.
Sweeney/Zak moved to have staff continue to research off setting
special assessments with condemnation awards from a policy
viewpoint. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Zak moved to direct staff to prepare the appropriate
ordinance to reduce the membership on the Park and Recreation
Advisory Board from eight members to seven. (Motion approved under
consent business) .
Vierling/Clay moved to approve the bills in the amount of
$377, 519 . 09. Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney/Vierling moved to authorize staff to advertise for
applicants for full-time prosecutor and legal secretary positions.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/zak offered Resolution No. 3398, A Resolution Initiating
the Vacation of the East/West Alley in Block 30 East Shakopee Plat,
Scott County, Minnesota, and moved for its adoption. (Motion
approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Zak offered Resolution No. 3399, A Resolution Accepting
work on the Upper Valley Drainage Project - Phase II, Project No.
1987-5A, and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved under consent
business) .
Vierling/Zak offered Resolution No. 3400, A Resolution Accepting
Work on the Vierling Drive Watermain Project from Limestone Drive
to approximately 2, 000 feet west, Project No. 1990-2 , and moved for
its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business) .
Official Proceedings of the May 21, 1991
Shakopee City Council Page -6-
Sweeney/Vierling offered Resolution No 3403 , A Resolution Approving
Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisements for Bids for
2nd Avenue, Between Sommerville Street and Naumkeag Street,
including various abutting Cross Streets, Project No. 1991-3 , and
moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Zak offered Resolution No. 3404, A Resolution to the
Minnesota Department of Transportation Requesting a New Railroad
Crossing at Market Street in Exchange for closing the Railroad
Crossing at Naumkeag Street, and moved for its adoption. (Motion
approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Zak offered Resolution No. 3406, A Resolution Accepting
Bid on Shumway Street, 3rd Avenue to 6th Avenue and Scott Street,
6th Avenue to 7th Avenue, Project No. 1991-1 and Jackson Street,
and Harrison street, Between 11th Avenue and 12th Avenue, Project
No. 1991-2 , and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved under
consent business) .
Vierling/Zak moved to approve of a contingency in the amount of 15%
for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders on
projects 1991-1 and 1991-2. (Motion approved under consent
business) .
Vierling/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 3407, A Resolution Related
to Bonding for 1991 Construction Projects, and moved for its
adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
The Committee Of The Whole Meeting was rescheduled from May 28th to
June 3 , 1991 at 7 : 00 p.m. .
Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
Judith S. Cox
C__.:7
Clerk /-\
��11
� C�` I L
Carol L. Schultz
Recording Secretary
10cu
Northern States Power Company
Law Department
Gary R.Johnson 414 Nicollet Mall Attorneys
Vice President—Lew Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Gene R.Sommers
Telephone(612)330-6600 Ralph S.yowler
HdNaa Y.Wlnaton ph D.Bizzano,Jr.
Secretary Fax No. (612)330-7558 Stephen C Lapadat
Harold J.Bagley
()and A.Lawrance Jack F.S4oho m James L.Altman
Director—Law Director—Law Donnelida L.Rice
Cheri L.Brix
Writer's Direct Dial Number
Michael J.Hanson
Michael C.Connelly
330-6648
May 10, 1991
TO MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES IN NSP ' S
ELECTRIC SERVICE TERRITORY :
Re: Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Docket No. E-002/GR-91-1
On January 28 , 1991 , Northern States Power Company ( "NSP" )
filed for an electric rate increase with the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission ( "PUC" ) . The Commission has referred
this filing to the Office of Administrative Hearings for
evidentiary and public hearings .
In accordance with paragraph 4b of the Commission' s Notice
and Order for Hearing dated March 11 , 1991 , attached is the
notice of scheduled public and evidentiary hearings to
be held in this proceeding.
If there are questions , feel free to call the undersigned .
DAVID A. AWRENCE
Director - Law
Attachment
PRICE INCREASE NOTICE:
HEARINGS SET ON NSP'S
REQUEST FOR ELECTRIC
PRICE INCREASE
Public baring are scheduled on Northern Stases Power Company's request foram electric
Price increase.Any NSP electric customer may appear or make a oilmen at these bearings 7bu are
•
arened to address ceetam such as the adequacy and quality of NSP's electric service,the Y.d of prim
or other Maud mates You do nor need to be eepeeamted by an attorney.The herbage will be
1991Ilibetnesday MontevideoThursdaySt Paul
Chippewa Cry Qt House May 30 1991 Minaeota PUC
7 pm 629 N.11th St 7 pm - American Cater ildg.
Thane* SL
Large Haring Rea 713
991 Cloud
130E Kellogg Blvd
Ha
7 Rm. 400 Second SL S. Wednesday Winona
7Are 1991 �Floor m. 207
May 211,1991 Hennepin Qy Gov Ctr
1.00 pm Auditorium Monday North blanket*
300 S.Sixth St_ pine 10.1991 Bin%mere Garda Inn
7 pm 1111 Range St.
esdaY Coon Rapids
May 29,1991 North Suburban
7 pm Family Service Cu
1323 Coon Rapids Bh+d.
Evidentiary bearings for presentation of formal direct testimony.Mantel and taa,ebuual
sectimocy,and cross-examination of that lenience'are scheduled for Wednesday.June 19.at 9 am_and
thereafter as needed,9 a.m.,Large Haring Room,7th Foot,American Center Building.160 E.Kellogg
Blvd,St.Paul,MN 35101.
Infotmsrire shoe the public and evidentiary bearing may be obtained from Admit
Law Judge Richard C.Luis,Minnesota Office of Administrative Harings,500 Flow Exchange
Building,310 Fourth Avenue South,Minneapolis,MN 55415. •
NSP has asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission(PUC)for a 1.1 perm=($962
million)Maltase m electric menus s Part of shat total,a 5.94 percent(5719 million)interim price*Dear
is now refieaed in customers'bills,subject to refund.
The public parings will provide an opportunity for customers and others affeaad by the
propound increase to prem bear views to the Administrative La.Judge and the PUC.
Bssaleaeathl Avenge Moseley B0
Vile Palest retriaa Proposed
250 KWH S16.10 $17.06 $16.34
500 KWH 34.70 36.76 37.1E
750 KWH 49.60 52.76 53.53
1000 KWH 64.90 66.76 69.67
6+m l Omni Service
Ute Praeet laamir Pegosed
SCO KWH $36.60 $36.99 S 39.26
1000 KWH 67.00 70.96 71.47
7000 KWH 127.40 134.97 137.33
Geared Service
Ua/Owed Present Maeda Proposed
(KWH/KW)
10,000/50 S 629 S 666 S 677
30,000/75 1,342 1,422 1,455
400,000/1000 17,607 11,653 19,141
NST REQUESTED THE PRICE CHANGES-DESCRIBED ABOVE.THE MINNESOTA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COULD EITHER GRANT OR DENY'THE RF-QUESTED
CHANCES,IN WHOLE OR IN PART,AND MIGHT GRANT A LESSER OR GREATER
INCREASE THAN THE ONE REQUESTED FOR ANY CLASS OR CLASSES OF SERVICE.
If you warm more information about this incase,nonan the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commitaion,7th Floor,American Cerate Building,160 East Kellogg Boulevard,St.Paul,MN 55101.
You can aumiae the information NSP submitted to the MPUC during normal bucnas
Yaws at:the Department of Public Service,790 American Center
Paul and at Northern States Poe414 Ni i0 Ears Kellogg Blvd..Sr.
Company offices bated at coksng.Oa M1all.Minneapolis;2302
Great Northern Drive.Fargo;421 Wabesha St..St.Paul;£25 Rice Si..St.Paul;1700 E.County Road
E,White Bear Lake;3000 Maxwell Ave..Newport;2763 Fust Ave.,N.W.,Faribault;3930 Pepin Ave.,
Red Wing;3515 Third St.N.,St.Cloud;5050 Service Drive.Winona;500 W.Russell St.,Sioux Falls;
4501 660 Ave.N.,Brooklyn Cmta;5309 W.70th Scree,Edina:210 Lime St.,Mankato;5505 County
Rood 19,Sboressod;1505 Washington Ave.,Montevideo;and 3113 Crave Pointe Drive,Roseville.
MP
derevern teem Pewit Oenpeoy
MN Electric Rats Cam 111991.1R
•114rrsion to Mankato riflemen only,
May 1991
67116x$4
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner
RE: Appeal of Action by Planning Commission on an Amendment
to Conditional Use Permit No. 376 by NBZ, Inc.
DATE: May 31, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
At their meeting on May 9 , 1991 the Planning Commission denied the
granting of an amendment to NBZ, Inc. (formerly known as Scott
County Lumber) . The amendment request was to extend the hours of
operation for the gravel mining business to 7 : 00 a.m. - 7: 00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday from the current hours of 8 : 00 a.m. - 5: 00
p.m. Monday through Friday. The gravel mining operation is located
west of County Road 83 and south of County Road 16.
NBZ, Inc. has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to
the City Council. NBZ, Inc. has previously filed for an amendment
to the conditional use permit for extending the hours of operation.
This request, submitted in 1990, was also denied.
BACKGROUND:
For background information regarding this item, please refer to the
following attachments:
1. Minutes of the May 9, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
2 . Staff report to the Planning Commission regarding this item.
3 . Letter of appeal from the applicant' s attorney, Mr. Gerald S.
Duffy.
4 . Amendment No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 376.
At the May 9, 1991 meeting the Planning Commission also considered
an amendment to allow security lighting to be placed on the site
and the required three year renewal of the conditional use permit
for the mining operation. Both the amendment for security lighting
and the renewal of the permit were approved by the Planning
Commission.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can offer the amendment to Conditional Use
Permit No. 376 concurring with the action of the Planning
Commission, denying the extension of hours.
2 . The City Council can offer the attached amendment to
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376, and then amend it
to concur with the applicant' s request.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission in their action on May 9, 1991 remained
consistent with their previous decision by denying the amendment to
extend hours of operation for the gravel mine.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve Amendment No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
CC-376 for NBZ, Inc (Formerly Scott County Lumber) .
a.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
AMENDMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. CC - 376
WHEREAS, Scott County Lumber/Bert Notermann having duly filed
an application for a Conditional Use Permit dated September 21,
1984 under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, Section
11.04, Subd. 6, as follows: to approve the application for mineral
extraction and land rehabilitation in the Agriculture zoned area;
and
WHEREAS , the property upon which the request was made was
described as the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 17, NE 1/4 of NW 1/4
of Section 16 , W 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Section 16, on County Road 83 ;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on August 20, 1985 adopt
Resolution #2427 denying the Conditional Use Permit which denial
was appealed; and
WHEREAS , the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ordered the City
of Shakopee to issue the Conditional Use Permit with conditions;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on April 5, 1988 adopt
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376, which approved the
application subject to twenty conditions including a renewal of the
permit every three years; and
WHEREAS, the applicant (now known as NBZ, Inc. ) did duly file
an application to the Conditional Use Permit on March 22, 1991 for
the renewal and two amendments as follows: to extend the hours of
operation from 8 : 00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday to 7: 00
a.m. - 7: 00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and to allow exterior
security lighting to be placed on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission on May 9, 1991
denied the amendment for the extension of hours and approved the
amendment request for security lighting and granted renewal of the
permit for an additional three-year period; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission also replaced
Condition 13 with a new Condition 13 as follows:
13 . No direct exterior lighting shall be visible from
adjacent properties or the public right-of-way.
Two 125 watt high pressure sodium security lights
can be installed on the site and they must be
located on the site as shown on the submitted plan;
and
WHEREAS , the applicant has appealed the Shakopee Planning
Commission' s decision to deny the amendment extending the hours of
operation to the City Council.
/j a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE as follows:
That the application for an amendment to Conditional Use
Permit Resolution No. 376, requesting an extension of operation
hours to 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday is DENIED.
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota held this 4th day of June, 1991.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form.
City Attorney
Attachment II 1 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION May 9, 1991
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allen, Joos, Kahleck, Lynch, Mars,
Spurrier
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Lindberg Ekola, City Planner; Dave
Hutton, Public Works Director; Karen
Marty, City Attorney; Aggie Unze,
Secretary
I. ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken as noted above.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The City Planner requested that item 11a, Terminal Transport
Review be moved to 10c under discussion items.
The agenda was approved as amended.
III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 4 , 1991
The minutes of the April 4, 1991 Planning Commission meeting
were approved as kept.
IV. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
Chairperson Kahleck asked if anyone present wished to address
the Commission on any item no on the agenda. There was no
response.
V. PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT, RENEWAL AND REVIEW OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 376 - SCOTT COUNTY LUMBER CO.
Chairperson Kahleck opened the public hearing.
The City Planner noted that the Scott County Lumber Co. was
granted Conditional Use Permit No. 376 on April 5, 1988 to
allow a sand and gravel mining operation on an agriculturally
zoned property. One of the conditions of the permit was an
annual review and a renewal of the permit every three years.
At this time the applicant is also requesting two amendments
to the Conditional Use Permit.
Ekola explained that one of the requested amendments involves
the extension of operating hours of the mining operation from
8 a.m. - 5 p.m Monday through Friday to 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. Monday
/ / G—
Minutes of the Page - 2
Shakopee Planning Commission May 9, 1991
through Saturday. He explained some of the reasons for the
restrictions on operating hours in the original conditional
use permit and the hardships that these hours cause to the
mining operation.
The second amendment is a request to install two security
1 lights on the property. Condition #13 of the Conditional Use
Permit requires that no exterior lighting be used on the
operation site. The applicant is requesting two lights for
security purposes be allowed. The proposed lighting would not
cause any direct light to be visible from adjacent properties
or public right-of-ways.
The City Planner outlined the renewal requirement and noted
the mining operations compliance to the 20 conditions listed
in the conditional use permit. He also noted that there have
only been two complains filed with the Police Department since
last year' s review.
IJerry Duffy, a lawyer representing the applicant, came forward
to explain the need for the extended hours and the security
lighting. He stated that the confining hours make it
difficult for the mining operation to be competitive in
bidding because they could not promise delivery until after 8
1 a.m. and not later than 5 p.m. The work hours for area
construction projects are longer than 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. These
projects also work a lot of Saturdays. He stated that there
are 12 truck trips an hour in and out of the mining site. He
contended that farmers and other businesses have similar or
more trips. Mr. Duffy expressed willingness for the mining
operation to be tested for noise levels and that he is sure
the operation meets PCA noise level standards. Mr. Duffy
referenced the complaints cited by Mr. Ekola. He noted that
those complaints were not substantiated when investigated by
the Police Department.
Discussion ensued on the phase of operation the mine is
presently in, if the reclamation process is being adhered to
and what months the mine is in full operation. Mr. Duffy and
f Mr. Tom Zwiers, operator of the mine, explained that the mine
is in Phase I. It is a little behind the projected schedule,
partially due to the restrictive hours, and that the
reclamation process is being done. Mr. Zwiers explained that
the mine normally operates from mid April to November
depending on road weight restrictions.
Harold Schneider of 3300 Valley View Road presented the
Commission with a letter from Beverly Koehnen of 2036 County
Road 83 who was unable to attend the meeting. Chairman
Kahleck read the letter which listed reasons why she wished
the Planning Commission to refuse renewal of the mining
\� permit. She cited noise from the crusher and brake beepers,
traffic hazards and other permit violations as some of her
/1
Minutes of the Page - 3
Shakopee Planning Commission May 9, 1991
objections to the operation in a rural residential and
agricultural area.
Mr. Schneider then presented a petition from the neighborhood
residents requesting the Commission to deny the extension of
hours and Saturday operation. He pointed out that morning
work traffic and evening Racetrack and Bingo Palace traffic is
heavy enough without adding truck traffic to those heavy use
hours.
Ken Rutt of 1750 County Road 83 presented his concerns
regarding the mining operation. He cited the mining operation
as violating the conditions of the permit in regard to
operating hours, required depth limitation violations of the
mine floor, height of stockpiles, noise and weed control. He
was also concerned about the installation of a well on the
site and the effect the mining operation has on neighborhood
wells. Mr. Rutt also noted that he is unable to sell his
property due to the fact he is located near the mining site.
Mr. Duffy noted two studies concluding that residences near
mines do not lower market values nor reduce less outdoor
activities by neighborhood residents. He again expressed
willingness to have noise testings from the sites of the
neighbors having problems with the noise, explained that the
long trailers on C.R. 83 do not belong to the operation and to
his knowledge no accidents were caused by the mining trucks.
Mr. Zwiers noted that they have seeded the berms with clover
as a weed control effort and have asked area farmers if they
wanted to cut the clover but have not yet heard back from
them. He also noted a permit was obtain for the on-site well
by the well driller.
Chairman Kahleck closed the public hearing.
The Commission continued discussion on the extension of hours,
requesting information of the City Engineer as to the
operating time of City projects and the time needed for
material arrivals. Dave Hutton, Public Works Director, stated
that City ordinance allows street work to begin at 7: 00 a.m.
and that some projects can stockpile gravel the day before and
some cannot. The City of Shakopee requires projects to get
permission to work Saturdays. He also noted that the state
offers bonuses for early completion time of projects. The
Engineering Department has not received any complaints about
the mining operation but were requested to measure stockpile
heights and they were under the 25 ' requirement.
Commission Lynch questioned the City Attorney regarding
setting a precedent if the Commission chose to change the
N
// °1°°
Minutes of the Page - 4
Shakopee Planning Commission May 9, 1991
hours of operation. Karen Marty replied that the conditional
use permit conditions are specific to the individual operation
and the surrounding area. The Commission' s charge in setting
conditions is to protect the health and welfare of each
specific situation and therefore would not be setting a
blanket precedent.
MOTION: Commissioner Joos, seconded by Christensen, moved to
deny the amendment request to change the hours of mining from
8 a.m. - 5 p.m Monday through Friday to 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. Monday
through Saturday. Motion passed. Opposed: Allen, Kahleck
and Mars.
MOTION: Commissioner Joos, seconded by Christensen, moved to
approve the amendment request to install two 125 watt high
pressure sodium security lights on the mining site. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION: Commissioner Lynch, seconded by Christensen moved to
approve the renewal of Conditional Use Permit No. 376 and the
Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit for the
Scott County Lumber Mining Operation. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chairperson Kahleck advised the applicant of the 7 day appeal
process to the City Council.
VI. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 608 -
ONE WAY SWEEPING
Chairperson Kahleck reopened the public hearing.
The City Planner explained the proposed operation of One Way
Sweeping. The business requires outdoor storage of salvage
and the stockpiling of parking lot sweepings. The site of the
operation is zoned Light Industrial and is located east of
Maras St. and south of 13th Avenue East. The sweepings come
from parking lots such as Target, Burnsville Center, Southdale
and Holiday gas stations. The sweepings would be stockpiled
and then screened to separate clean fill from debris which
would then be hauled to appropriate landfills. The screening
would take place between the hours of 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday. _
Discussion ensued on the 100 ' x 200 ' bermed area to be used to
stockpile the sweepings and the suggested clay or polyurethane
liner used as a barrier to prevent any seepage into the
groundwater. There was also discussion concerning the use of
the private road, Maras St. , as business entrance. The City
Attorney assured the Commission that the road is not the
concern or liability of the City but rather the road owners.
Attachment it 2 4// 4 '
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner
RE: Renewal and Amendment to Scott County Lumber
Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit
and Conditional Use Permit No. 376
DATE: May 3 , 1991
INTRODUCTION:
On April 5, 1988 , the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit
Resolution No. 376 for Scott County Lumber to allow a sand and
gravel mining operation on an agriculturally zone property which is
located south of County Road 16 and west of County Road 83 .
Two considerations are being requested at the May Planning
Commission meeting. First, the applicant is proposing an amendment
to allow the hours of operation to be changed from Monday through
Friday, 8 : 00 A.M. to 5 : 00 P.M. to Monday thought Saturday, 7 : 00
A.M. to 7 : 00 P.M. The amendment also would allow the applicant to
install security lighting on the site. The second request is for
the renewal of the Conditional Use Permit and Mineral Extraction
and Land Rehabilitation Permit. The amendment will be considered
first and the renewal will be considered second at the May meeting.
The format of this memo will be in two parts. The first part will
provide discussion on the amendment, and the second will review the
renewal. Attachment #1 is an area zoning map.
BACKGROUND - Amendment:
Attachment #2 is a letter from the applicant requesting the
proposed amendment to change the hours of operation and to add
security lighting. Attachment #3 is a copy of the staff report for
a similar amendment request filed in 1990. The request in 1990 was
to extend the hours of operation on Monday through Friday from 7 : 00
A.M. to 7 : 00 P.M. The 1991 request would amend the hours of
operation on Monday through Saturday, 7: 00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
The proposed amendment also proposes to allow the applicant to
install security lighting on the site. Attachment #4 is a site
plan showing the location of the proposed security lighting.
DISCUSSION - Amendment:
In the staff report on the 1990 amendment to change the hours of
operation, four alternatives were identified by staff:
1. The Planning Commission could approve the applicants request
to amendment Conditional Use Permit No. 376 to allow the
mining hours to change from 8 : 00 A.M. to 5 : 00 P.M. to 7 : 00
A.M. to 7: 00 P.M. subject to conditions.
/f&
2 . The Planning Commission could deny the applicants request to
amend Conditional Use Permit No. 376.
3 . The Planning Commission could approve an extension of the
mining hours in the afternoon but not in the morning.
4 . The Planning Commission could approve an extension of the
mining hours in the morning but not in the afternoon.
On March 8 , 1990, the Planning Commission denied the amendment to
change the hours of operation request (Alternative #2) . Attachment
#5 is a copy of the minutes from that meeting.
The applicants letter cites that no complaints have been filed with
the City on the operations of the mine. Staff has received
complaints on noise dating July 18 , 1989 and August 7 , 1989 . Staff
has also received other operational complaints. Attachment #6
lists the complaint types and dates received by City staff on the
mining operation.
The letter also notes that a permit was issued to the J.L. Shiely
Company which would allow that mine to operate from 7:00 A.M. to
7 : 00 P.M. The J. L. Shiely Co. mine is located on an industrial
zoned parcel and is surrounded by other commercial or industrial
properties. No complaints have been received by staff on the J.L.
Shiely mining operation.
The existing and future land uses surrounding the Scott County
Lumber mining operation are residential and agricultural.
Operations in the morning hours impacts the area residents as
indicated in the complaints received by the City.
Section 11. 05 , Subd. 7C, Performance Standards, establishes the
7: 00 A.M. to 7 : 00 P.M. hours of mining operation time frame. The
Ordinance also grants the Planning Commission the authority to
require additional conditions which it considers necessary to
protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community
as a whole.
The intent of the reduced hours of operation is to reduce the
impacts of the mining operation in an area that has residential
development. Morning hours (7: 00 - 8 : 00 A.M. ) tend to have more
impact on the area residents. Staff is of the opinion the
extension from 5: 00 - 7 : 00 P.M. would play less impact because
area residents tend to be more active at this time of the day as
well as on Saturdays.
The proposed amendment also requests consideration to allow the
applicant to install security lighting on the site. Condition 13
prohibits the use of exterior lighting on the site. Staff suggests
that the condition be amended to allow the proposed security
lighting provided that no direct light is visible from adjacent
properties or public right-of-way.
l/6/
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Amendment:
Staff recommends the alternative which would extend the hours of
operation from 5: 00 - 7 : 00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. This
recommendation would maintain the 8: 00 A.M. daily starting time.
Staff also recommends that Condition 13 be amended to:
13 . No direct exterior lighting shall be visible from adjacent
properties or the public right-of-way. Lighting must be
located on the site as shown on the submitted plan.
ACTION REQUESTED - Amendment:
Move to approve amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 376 to
allow the hours of mining to be changed from 8 : 00 A.M. to 5: 00 P.M.
to 8 : 00 A.M. to 7 : 00 P.M. Monday through Saturday and move to
approve Condition 13 as stated above.
BACKGROUND - Renewal:
Attachment #5 is a copy of the Conditional Use Permit #376 .
Condition number one requires an annual review and renewal every
three years. The 1990 annual review was approved by the Planning
Commission.
DISCUSSION - Renewal:
Engineering and Planning staff have inspected the subject property
and conducted a review of the conditions as stated in the
Conditional Use Permit. Shown below are the findings of staff in
regard to each of the conditions as listed in the Conditional Use
Permit resolution:
1. Condition met.
2 . City Council approved the Mineral Extractions and Land
Rehabilitation permit.
3 . Condition met.
4. Condition met.
5. Condition met.
6. Condition met.
7. Condition met.
8 . Condition met.
9 . Proposed amendment.
10. The City has not received complaints on dust since the 1990
review.
11. The City has not received complaints on noise since the 1990
review.
12 . Condition met.
13 . Condition met.
14 . Condition met.
15. Condition met.
16. Condition met.
17. Condition met.
18 . Condition met.
19 . Condition met
20. This condition does not apply since this public hearing is one
of the three year renewal meetings.
Shown in Attachment #6 is a listing of complaints that the Shakopee
Police Department has received concerning the mining operation.
The Planning Department staff has received one complaint in
reference to the gravel pit operation. Concerns identified with
this complaint include overheight stock piles (above 25 feet) , and
additional buildings on the property. From the site inspection the
stock piles do meet the height requirements, and only one building
is located on the site. The building is accessory to the operation
of a mining pit.
In the staff review process no problems were identified by any of
the corresponding departments.
Based on the review of the conditions and the complaints submitted,
it is staff' s determination that the applicant has adhered to the
conditions contained in the resolution and has been conscientious
and responsive in alleviating the concerns submitted by the
complainants. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission accept the findings of the staff concerning the renewal
of Conditional Use Permit No. 376 and the Mineral Extraction and
Land Rehabilitation Permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Renewal:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings
in regard to Conditional Use Permit No. 376 and the Mineral
Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit for the Scott County
Lumber Mining Operation.
ACTION REQUESTED - Renewal :
Move to accept the finding of staff in regard to Conditional Use
Permit No. 376 and the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation
Permit for the Scott County Lumber Mining Operation.
LSE/tiv
AGGIE\PLANNING\SCOTTCTY.MEM
Attachment II 3 I/
LAW OFFICES
SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A.
rORMERLY
GROSSMAN. KARLINS. SIEGEL A BRILL
RICHARD SIEGEL RETIRED
SUITE 1330
JOSIAH E. SPILL.JR. M. L.GROSSMAN
JAMES R. GREUPNER IOD WASHINGTON SOUARE SHELDON O. KARLINS
GERALD 3. OW-FY
wOOD R. FOSTER, JR. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 35401
THOMAS M. GOODMAN
ALSO ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON
MICHAEL A. HATCH TELEPHONE (612) 339.7131
K. CRAIG WILOrANG TELECOPIER (612) 339-6591
JOHN 3. WATSON
WM. CHRISTOPHER PENWELL
SUSAN M. VOIGT
KATHLEEN A. CONNELLY May 14 , 1991
STEVEN L. SCHECHTMAN*
ANTHONY J. GL£EKEL
SHERRI L. ROHL,
BRIAN E. WEISOERG
ROSEMARY TUGHY
17 , 855-D-001
Mayor Gary Laurent
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee MN 55379
Re: Renewal of NBZ, Inc. formerly known as
Scott County Lumber
Conditional Use Permit No. 376
Dear Mayor Laurent:
On Thursday , May 9 , 1991 , the Shakopee Planning
Commission for the City of Shakopee at its regular session
approved the extension of Conditional Use Permit No. 376 to
allow NBZ , Inc . formerly known as Scott County Lumber to
operate a sand and gravel business in an agricultural zoned
area. In addition, the Planning Commission approved the
applicant ' s request to add two security lights on its
property. However, the Planning Commission rejected the
applicant' s request to extend the hours of operation for the
gravel mining business to 7 : 00 a.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday from 8: 00 a.m. to 5: 00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. This letter is formal notice of the applicant ' s
appeal of the Planning Commission's rejection of its request
to extend its hours of operation. It is our understanding
that this appeal will allow the applicant' s request to be
heard by the City Council at the next available council
meeting.
\*\
ifs
Mayor Gary Laurent
May 14, 1991
Page 2
We request permission to address our appeal to the City
Council at that meeting. If you or your staff have any
questions concerning the appeal or need any facts clarified
prior to the City Council meeting, please feel free to
contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Gerald S . Duffy ( D)
GSD: srw
cc: Lindberg S. Ekola
Thomas Zwiers
Ma/
Attachment Il 4
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
AMENDMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 376
WHEREAS, Scott County Lumber/Bert Notermann having duly filed
an application for a Conditional Use Permit dated September 21,
1984 under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, Section
11. 04 , Subd. 6, as follows: to approve the application for mineral
extraction and land rehabilitation in the Agriculture zoned area;
and
WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is
described as the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 17 , NE 1/4 of NW 1/4
of Section 16, W 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Section 16, on County Road 83 ;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on August 20, 1985 adopt
Resolution #2427 denying the Conditional Use Permit which denial
was appealed; and
WHEREAS , the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ordered the City
of Shakopee to issue the Conditional Use Permit with conditions.
WHEREAS, the City Council did on April 5, 1988 adopt
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376, which approved the
application subject to twenty conditions including a renewal of the
permit every three years.
WHEREAS , the applicant having duly filed an application to the
Conditional Use Permit on March 22 , 1991 for the renewal and two
amendments as follows: to extend the hours of operation from 8 : 00
a.m. - 5 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday to 7 : 00 a.m. - 7 : 00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday and to allow exterior security lighting to
be placed on the subject property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, that the aforementioned
Conditional Use Permit application amendment for the extension of
hours is hereby denied and the amendment for the provision of
security lighting and the three year renewal is hereby approved
with the replacement of Condition 13 .
13 . No direct exterior lighting shall be visible from
adjacent properties or the public right-of-way.
Two 125 watt high pressure sodium security lights
can be installed on the site and they must be
located on the site as shown on the submitted plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Shakopee City Code,
Section 11. 04, Subd. 6C-12 , if an approved Conditional Use Permit
is not utilized within one year from date herein approved or by May
9 , 1992 , it shall become null and void.
Adopted in regular session of the Shakopee Planning Commission
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 9th day of May, 1991.
/ r /
V 1/-6 / / /
.airperson of the Planning Commission
ATTE'
4101 .
IMAILAWL
Ci'•y Planer
i1c
• david braslau associates, incorporated
1313 5tr st'eet s.e. • suite 322 • m nneapoits. mn. 55414 • telephone: 612-331-4571
4 June 1991
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Shakopee
129 1st Avenue East
Shakopee, MN 55379
HAND DELIVERED
RE: NBZ, Inc. Gravel Operation - Extension of Operating Hours
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I have been asked to prepare this letter on behalf of NBZ, Inc. of Shakopee,
who is requesting an extension of permissable operating hours from the current
period, 8 am - 5 pm, to an expanded period, 7 am - 7 pm.
This letter addresses the impact of this change on compliance with the Min-
nesota State Noise standards and with other well-accepted regulations or
guidelines on the control of noise.
(1) Minnesota State Noise Standards
The Noise Standards have been developed for various types of land uses
adjacent to noise sources. The standards for the most sensitive use clas-
sification (NAC-1, which includes residential) are listed below:
DAYTIME (7 am - 10 pm) NIGHTTIME (10 pm - 7 am)
L10 65 dBA 55 dBA
L50 60 dBA 50 dBA
It is assumed that the gravel operation is currently in compliance with these
standards during the 8 am - 5 pm daytime operation. Since no change in the
type of operation will occur during the additional hours (7 am - 8 am and 5 pm
- 7 pm) , no increases in noise level will occur. Based upon the Minnesota
Standards noted above, the operation could occur between the hours of 7 am and
10 pm without any impact on compliance with the standards.
Therefore, based upon the Minnesota Noise Standards, the extension in
hours of operation is compatible with the standards and is not expected to in-
crease the impact on surrounding land uses.
City of Shakopee
4 June 1991
Page 2
(2) Federal Noise Guidelines
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated noise impact
guidelines which also include the daytime (7 am - 10 pm) and nighttime (10 pm
- 7 am) time periods. This served as the basis for the time periods used by
Minnesota and other states and federal agencies. Thus, the extension of
operation would also be compatible with federal noise guidelines.
(3) California Noise Standards
The State of California has adopted standards which are slightly more
restrictive than those in Minnesota. While Minnesota has only daytime and
nighttime standards (with the nighttime being 10 dBA lower) , California has
standards for three time periods as noted below:
DAYTIME 7 am - 7 pm
EVENING 7 pm - 10 pm (5 dBA lower)
NIGHTTIME 10 pm - 7 am (10 dBA lower)
It can be seen that the proposed operational time (7 am - 7 pm) follows
the defined daytime period used in California. Since the operation will not
extend into the evening or nighttime periods, no change in impact would occur
under the California standards.
(4) Effect of Expanded Time Period on Potential Noise Impacts
Based upon the Minnesota Noise Standards, federal guidelines and cur-
rently accepted practices in other states, no change in noise impact should
occur from an expansion in operating hours at the NBZ, Inc. gravel facility.
I would be happy to answer any questions related to the points raised here.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Braslau
President
nbzinc.let ws63
If
Dr. David Braslau
President, David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Qualifications in Environmental Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Background
Dr. David Braslau, President, David Braslau Associates, Inc. received his
B.Sc. Degree in Civil Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy in 1956, where he specialized in structures and design and completed a
thesis on the effects of blast loading on structures. He expanded his work to
linear and non-linear acoustics during his masters and doctoral studies at the
University of California Berkeley.
Following employment in the aerospace and engineering industry and teaching at
the University of Minnesota, he established the firm of David Braslau As-
sociates, Inc. in 1971, to address environmental noise, acoustics and vibra-
tion problems.
As President of David Braslau Associates, Inc. , Dr. Braslau directed projects
such as:
- Assist in development of Minnesota Noise Standards
- Test and Validate Highway Noise Models
- Evaluate various descriptors for Aircraft Noise
- Evaluate and design numerous highway noise barriers
- Develop land use compatibility plans
- Establish noise run-up rules for Minneapolis-St. Paul Intl. Airport
- Noise control measurements for industrial plants
- Vibration studies and mitigative design
- Mitigation of noise from outdoor concerts
- Evaluate impact on noise on thoroughbred racing
- Numerous building noise control studies
- Prepare Builder's Guide to meet aircraft noise guidelines
Professional Registration
Minnesota Registration 9725
//ate
Professional Activities
Member, Acoustical Society of America
Past President, Upper Midwest Chapter
Member-at-Large, Upper Midwest Chapter
Technical Program Chairman, 1984 National Acoustical Society of America Meet-
ing in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Member, Architectural Acoustics Committee, Acoustical Society of America
o Organized session on Exterior/Interior Building Constructions for Decem-
ber 1986 National Meeting in Anaheim, California
o Presented paper at Anaheim Meeting entitled: Community Aircraft Noise
Ordinance - Sound Transmission Considerations
o Organizing session on Computer Applications in Architectural Acoustics
for June 1987 National Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana
Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineers
Secretary, Minnesota Foundation for Acoustics Education and Research
Member, Catgut Acoustical Society
Served on Scientific Advisory Board for INTEST (Acoustical) Laboratories
116
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
e/V61J1/
SUBJECT: Lewis Street/Sommerville Street
DATE: May 29, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 3410, a resolution adopting special
assessments for the Lewis Street/Sommerville Street Project No.
1990-5.
BACKGROUND:
The Lewis Street/Sommerville Street Project has been completed and
all project costs have been identified. This project consisted of
complete reconstruction of Lewis Street from 4th Avenue to 10th
Avenue and Sommerville Street from Shakopee Avenue to 10th Avenue
including pavement, curb & gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sewer,
watermain and sidewalk. The final project costs are $590, 298.51
and can be summarized below:
Total Construction Costs $485, 173 .93
Total Admin./Engr. Costs 105, 124 . 58
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $590,298.51
The total project costs had been estimated at $654 , 400. 00 in the
feasibility report. The final project costs are approximately 10%
below the estimated cost.
As presented in the feasibility report and adopted by Council at
the public hearing ordering this project, 25% of the street
reconstruction costs (pavement, curb & gutter and sidewalks) would
be assessed to the abutting property owners. All storm sewer costs
would be funded by the Storm Sewer Utility Fund, all watermain
reconstruction costs would be funded by Shakopee Public Utilities
and all sanitary sewer improvements would be funded by the Sanitary
Sewer Enterprise Fund. In addition to the 25% street assessment,
any water or sewer service connections that are found to be
defective were replaced and will be assessed directly back to those
property owners. The original cost estimate did not include any
costs for service connections and replacement.
Based on the current assessment policies and the formulas as
adopted in the feasibility report, the total street assessment
would be $84,792 .92 . This computes to an assessment of $15. 51 per
front foot. The original feasibility report had estimated the
assessment to be approximately $16.85 per front foot. The total
amount of the sewer and water service connections that was assessed
is $30,953 . 00. Therefore, the total amount assessed for this
project is $115,745.92 or approximately 20. 1% of the project costs.
" 4-
Attachment
A (3 pages) summarizes the assessment calculations for
this project. Attachment B summarizes the total project costs for
each element of this project. These can be summarized as follows:
Total Street Costs $339, 171. 69
Total Storm Sewer Costs $ 31, 163 .89
Total Sanitary Sewer Costs $116, 115.72
Total Watermain Costs $ 88, 058. 61
TOTAL PROJECT COST $574,509.91
Attachment C is a chart showing the funding breakdown for each of
the elements in this project and Attachment D is a pie chart
showing the same funding breakdown.
All properties on this project received a lower assessment for the
street portion of the project than what was presented at the public
hearing ordering the project since the final project costs came in
lower than estimated. But depending on whether or not a property
received a new sewer service or a new water service, their final
assessment may be greater than what was presented at the public
hearing due to those services being installed. There is no way to
determine which services need replacing prior to the project
starting construction and therefore those costs are not available
in the feasibility report.
Attached is Resolution No. 3410, which adopts special assessments
for this project.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 3410.
2 . Deny Resolution No. 3410.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3410, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for
Lewis Street, 4th Avenue to 10th Avenue and Sommerville Street,
Shakopee Avenue to 10th Avenue, Project No. 1990-5 and move its
adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM3410
//
ATTACHMENT A
LEWIS STREET ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
I. PROJECT COST SUMMARY
A. Construction Costs - From last pay estimate
Value of Work Completed $485, 620. 54
Plus Work Remaining 500. 00
Subtotal $486, 120.54
Minus liquid. damages 2,600. 00
Total Contract Costs $483,520. 54
Plus SPUC costs to
relocate poles $ 1, 653 . 39
Total Const. Costs $485, 173 .93
B. Administrative/Engineering Costs
See attached computer printout from Gregg Voxland
Total Project Costs $590,298. 51
Minus Const. Costs -485, 173 .93
Total Admin./Engr. $105, 124. 58 (21.7%)
Total Project Costs = $590, 298. 51
C. Breakdown of Construction Costs
Street Portion $278,778 .93
(from Pay Estimate)
Plus Work Remaining + 500. 00
Minus Liq. Damages - 2 , 600. 00
Plus C.O. #2 (Railings) + 437 . 25
Plus SPUC Costs + 1, 653 . 39
Total $278, 769. 57
Sanitary Portion $ 95, 437. 00
Storm Portion $ 25, 614 . 00
Water Portion $ 72 , 376.50
City Portion (Library) $ 12 ,976.86
Grand Total $485,173.93
Add in Administrative/Engineering costs on a percentage basis
•
ATTACHMENT A 11
Admin./Engr. Costs = $105, 124. 58
Const. Costs = $485, 173 .93
% of Const. Costs = $105, 124.58 = .216674008 or 21.7%
$485, 173.93
a. Street Costs
Construction $278,769.57
Admin./Engr. 60, 402 . 12
Total Street Costs $339, 171. 69
b. Sanitary Costs
Construction $ 95,437. 00
Admin./Engr. 20, 678. 22
Total Sanitary Costs $116, 115.72
c. Storm Costs
Construction $ 25, 614 . 00
Admin./Engr. 5, 549.89
Total Storm Costs $ 31, 163 . 89
d. Water Costs
Construction $ 72, 376.50
Admin./Engr. 15, 682 . 11
Total Water Costs $ 88, 058. 61
e. City Portion (Library)
Construction $ 12 , 976.86
Admin./Engr. 2 ,811.74
Total City Portion $ 15,788. 60
GRAND TOTAL $590,298.51
GRAND TOTAL (EXCLUDING LIBRARY) $574, 509.91
D. Assessment Calculations
Street
25% of Street Costs Assessable
Total Street Costs = $339, 171. 69
ATTACHMENT A 1i
25% x $339, 171. 69 = $84,792 .92
(Total Assessable Costs)
Sanitary
Funded by Sanitary Sewer Fund, except for service
connections, which will be directly assessed.
Total Sanitary Costs $116, 115.72
Minus Direct Assessments (Services) - 27, 356. 00
Sanitary Sewer Fund Total $ 88,759.72
Storm Sewer
Funded by Storm Sewer Utility
Total $31, 163.89
Watermain
Same as Sewer
Total Watermain Costs $ 88, 058. 61
Minus Direct Assessments (Services) - 3 , 597. 00
Total SPUC Portion $ 84,461. 61
City Portion (Library)
A Separate Project - Not Part of the Lewis Street Project
Total $ 15,788. 60
E. Assessment Rate
1. 100% Rate
Total Assessable Costs = $84, 792 .92 =
Total Front Foot 5, 468.50
15.50569992 Per Front Foot
Use this number in Assessment Roll. Add in column
for direct assessments (Services)
2. 50% Rate
50% Rate = 7.75285/F.F.
Several properties near 4th Avenue and Lewis Street
received corner lot adjustments, utilizing the 50%
assessment rate.
it -
ATTACHMENT B
NON
ITEM ASSESSED ASSESSED TOTAL
STREET $84 , 792 . 92 $254 , 378 . 77 $339 , 171 . 69
STORM $0 . 00 $31 , 163 . 89 $31 , 163 . 89
SANITARY $27 , 356 . 00 $88 , 759 . 72 $116 , 115 . 72
WATER $3 , 597 . 00 $84 , 461 . 61 $88 , 058 . 61
TOTALS $115 , 745 . 92 $458 , 763 . 99 $574 , 509 . 91
)/ ,
ATTACHMENT C
FUNDING BREAKDOWN
Assessed $115,745.92 (20. 1%)
Non-Assessed - General $254, 378.77 (44. 3%)
City Costs
Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 88,759.72 (15.5%)
Shakopee Public Utilities $ 84,461.61 (14 .7%)
Storm Sewer Fund $ 31, 163 .89 ( 5.4%)
TOTAL $574,509.91
I/
ATTACHMENT D
Q)
CO
CO 0
r 'Cr
., •
N
CC
P +
Li
0 N
W rn wrn
• oz Co
O = w
Tt° = .L_
. O 00wCD h
•
C/ I J O 0 Zi .__1 4.
Cn f Q m __ �_
YT V ' i D
1 ti a..
I CDN o
w >- b '- z
Cn F--
Er; LoLu
i (n co 0 00 Z
Q M v) v)
Z Z Z V)
O w O -64'
zoo
RESOLUTION NO. 3410
A Resolution Adopting Assessments
For Lewis Street, 4th Avenue To 10th Avenue
And Sommerville Street, Shakopee Avenue To 10th Avenue
Project No. 1990-5
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and
passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of:
Lewis Street, 4th Avenue to 10th Avenue and Sommerville
Street, Shakopee Avenue to 10th Avenue by complete street
reconstruction which includes pavement, curb & gutter, storm
sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain and sidewalk
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. That such proposed assessment together with any amendments
thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof,
is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is
hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the
amount of the assessments levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual install-
ments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first
installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January,
1992, and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 . 0 percent per annum
from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To
the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire
assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31,
1992 and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the
interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
3 . The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay
the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued
to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no
interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within
thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; he may
thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest
in process of collection on the current tax list, and he may pay
the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City
Treasurer.
//
4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to
this assessment in her office and shall certify annually to the
County Auditor on or before October 10th of each year the total
amount of installments and interest which are to become due in the
following year on the assessment on each parcel of land included in
the assessment roll.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
ie
z` CO v Oma. oma•
W
J = f'S CO N 0. O — M
✓ N O a0 I •0 . •O
O W _ _ _ _
•-. U) N U1 an
N N M M N M N M
• p
W CO O N O O O O O O
-- O ccpp ep
3 U •O ' 2 .N1 M P .- P
WN M MM S Sr M M M 43.
3 W
• CC
W N
N
W O O O O O O O
CL •
V. N .f .{ v N v N
W J N M M M M N M
O
U
CC P N M 1.11 ...
W_ M .t N J M .t
< WGo
M
• 0
<
M Q.
0. 8
U.
W
N pp
.. M .T P P P f.4 N
2 •
_ ..MD V..W O O O a
•O .f O ^ O N V1
P N •O •O
N M •_ _ _ _
W Sr Sr
N 4* M M N M M
N
<
CV
•O U) Y v v 0 0
l.. .. — 4— — M M
g 8
CC U.
W
O U) ?. O U) ?. O U\ Y. >. ). > >•
ad .T U1 M .T UI )• — N •••• .• .• isi_ _
]t ••• 3 • U 2 • U 2 • U in u U .0 U it 61
m ••• 'r• 0 v. •.• O r = 0 M O .4 0 CO 0 m 0
o\ D o co 0 o m x 0 m Jt '7 W) 0. ••o vs gg. `o `o
J N N N Y 0 0 N Y3 P Y 0 • Y 0 • Y .0 .0
.0 •O1. 4 q O _ 0 _ 0 ... Y 4 a.. QC 0 — 0 .Q. 0
L L O L 0 — L 0 — L .t U1 L
2 2 O U) U) N 0 N J 0 U) J m N J m U) < I� U) < A U)
I-
0 ` O
P..
is L A. Ps
A n
01 L UdZ .4 0 w
U) a 44) M N 0 M M — M M t M
N W K N 2 �, N' . U1 0 4• )n G In I. N
4.1 •► 2 ....
H 0 2 2 .1+ L L L 0 2
L N .0 it 0 0 0 .• . U 0 Cl
S. Y J 4?
0 .f 0 M J 6) G — 0 _Y . 0N = 4)
i )
• s LA 441
¢ ¢
= 3 � W O a /1 O S Ul 0011 O ~= V
C LIN 0
N L 0 L
eO
O +
r.. i- L U
A 4
0 L — 0
7 — L 2 .T 0
L N 0
OL ia 101 L
•3 .f N '1 CO CL CC 41 L11 ••1 N N 0. ^ N UU) N \ N
J Y
< 4 • •
• • •
2 W O O O O O O e0
IQ
OW[ a V7 '0 ^ U) ^ A m
W — — O .O
I = N d .T v Y .t .T N U1
W — O O O O O O O
N 3 '
• W Cs. A A N. P... N. CU
<
< J N Cl) N N N N N
//4-
rn O O .,
2 .t .t 0. 0 rn .v
W
J 2 0 0 N N M
f<• N r.. ^ C 10
•O .t CO
O W _ _ .1.• 4 . ••••I N
N M M M 44 N M
< p
W N O S O O O O
< iO.1 O N O N N N
3 O rn rn rn M rn
W .t U) •O 1!1 0 Y1
04 U 10 M N M N N
• Cr
W
W N
N p
U.S O C O O O O
CI. •
1.1. N .t .t .t d .t
N J N N N M 2 M
O
U
gg 0 00 10 CO CI CO
W_ .t M .f rn rn rn
C. W
3 0
LC
Lt. �
CC 8
U.S
N
N r, PC O P •t A
r. v v P M .t
U.S r• O S 10 N
N N NN •
_ .. ••• _ _
N N M N M M
N
O N
COes N. Is. •O CO
rz- 1Q
O 8
W
1. Y 2
a ." Y 0 CO 3. Y O3. 0 O 3.
MY L. Y 4.4 V 4, • 41I 4•4Y 4.4
O 0 Y 0 . ...• O • 0 • ••-
Y N U mi .2 0 0 U J U J - U J . U ..1 -IC U
J • - J O O _ 10 _ CO
0 0 O 0- m 0 ; ^ tOar 0 • uOa 0 O 0 m O 0 CO N.
0 0 2 0• O N 0 3 0. X 6 ` - S v 0 U, UL N 1UL
n 0
Cl •O w Y y o 04 a a .- .a a .o .s m 30 b a
J W 01 N 3 ••' < D N Cl) 3 0• ss l N 0• N N .0 N 2 .t N
I.
O
2
0. -
r 0. O. 0. 0. a O.
U.S 4. M 3 MM rn L M U 10
a. N _ 1.46 O Cl) U N 1. 10
N W 11. U1 ♦[41 r V. < N >. Cl) 0 N 0 U')
W 0 ! Z1 3 W i+ilt = .+ 2 Y V 0 2
J L Y CO L 0 . ( 0 (000 0 . �0rr 4 S.
y V O J 0 0. J 0
LU�C .I J O 0 O = Z II 0. O 3 66
0 0y
v N m �{ O J O a J 00• - 0l = Cl;
.+ Y . > Y O .0ac
.O a L d a
O h a 3 N O IA a V ^ C
Cl) •0 Cl 0. CO N O •0 a r0 t .0 N L
N Y M L O N .0 . = •O N C •O Cl) U •O N
O
J2
K 1 .
W O O O O O O
3 a▪ WC O •a (3 ^ - m
• Y U~r a. •O .0 •O 0 0 •O
Cl) N O OO O
N ••••
O O O Co O O
Cl) W N. P. A r` N. N.
< J N Cl (V Cu Cl Cl
I/
2 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0
W
J 2 A col 4- QM A V1 N .t N
- N O O 0. O. •0 •O N
QCl) N N N
Cl, 4* M M N M M N
• • 4
•
0
W N0 0 O8 p 8• O• p 0 O
U d QO n A3 M y M IA
W •O N M N M N M IA 1A .t d
y U M M M 4* 44 44 M M M M M
CC
3 W
W tel
N p
Wo 0 O 0 0 0 0
O. •
IV .r .r J_ .t .f .r N
A
VI J M M M M M M M
0
U
W At .r Y M M Y M
I-
W W
3 'C
y ..-
ac 8
W
W
N pp Qo oo
r m P . O• O+ O. P
W 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hx N� 0 0 OO
0
UI •LU NI _• I.
• ' .. _ _
Cl) M M N M M M M
V1
N
< A A A A A A
Om - .••
38
/Y Ib
is
r
O 7.4 w • 0 ). �i • 0 A • 0 0 >.
A y 0 y 1 u 0 .. r ••
Y Y U •f U J ^ U •O U J ^ U J Y U J Y U
J r •
` CO OQ O V A. Y_ 0 O 0 41 O Y_ 41 O 0 OQ CO 41
gOyO N0 QNo
O N V N 0
0 Q, N ^ O
•
•
J At- O Im Y • .`•• IA O Y 0 S.
A m A. y 0 A y O
J N 2 0 N N .t N 2 In V1 N .O Cl) N 0. N 2 P Cl)
L
O
L
L V
•
IA
E O. 0 0. 1- 0. O• O.A. O.
1.1.1 -4. A O A O A A y+ M M
PA
W Y M K M m M r 40 Cl) N L LA IA
r Z • • IIA - V1 • ICA A •O. O N C N O V1 IA
N W O L J O L • 0 4A O IA 0
0 •
r O • 2 air IA 10 3 C s C
W • < ti N Z - 2 N Z m E 2 Z
3
J •i •ti . 7 • . J O • y d 7 .r 2 < Y tl O
y •0 O O J O 3 0 2 J OJ
O
DC O sqO¢ y• A• ¢ O O. J U y N ¢ 82w
r1a1.
¢
`L .O 0
▪ M at
C O Y
.ml
.f O
N L d • ts
im M t ..pp •
O L - OZ
Y A C
O A O Y
-
IA O
O A L V Y
M O L
r 4 N 2 A H In A Cl) In A N CO ..- Us 2 A N Al A N
0
J 2
8 <
K W 00 0 0 0 0
1A. W Q A
2 d• 0 0 M J V\ .0 Cl) N
Iy r•. N A •f 447 A A A
S tq O. d ACO A _ A_ •••• _
N Cl) 00 0 0 0 0 0
CS -• 0 O 0 0 0
V1 � A A A A A A A
Vt W N N
< � N N N N N
1/I'-
-
M CO —
2v M N
W •
J2 vMI P — A
cm
O W _ _ _
4. N M
N M M M N
<
p a
W N O O O S O
- O
< U •O •O •O N N
3 -4 v N M M
W 4% 4%
a/ U M M x M
. s
3 W
W N
N
W O O O O
O.▪ •
w. v v N_ v
W J M M N M
0
U
OC P P 0 CO
W M M M M
3 Lac
c2
M 8
OL
1
W
N
N M CO ..4,
•.- v M v1
2
141 Ws
_ ^ N P
Cl) C M
Cl) I.. IP. OP.•
41..W
Cl) M N N M
N
< .43
pp
A •O P N
M. M. —
38
OL u.
W
— N
mr O a m > •. O .i 01 O >
4. 0 r 0 —
y
0 O .0. 0 .g. .4 N N 0 f •
Id J — U .4100 U J U IV NOU
- NJ 1A M 3 Y
4 _ X
` 0200gO3 • p2Omp� oM .� t O O 0 �i P
Po ~ CL4 ~ ~
\ • Y CO if • Y NN N COO r v Y
..— C..1 4. Y O O N m O
N Y m in N N 4% 4. — •.. m
L — • t L
O t
2 N ID Cl) N M Cl) N — ID Cl) 2 3 N 0 J 2 < co
L
V •r V
LLU - M M 2 M 3 P
N U N N VN
CO W
- • [ = C 41
S LM Y N 2 J - m CO
J m 3 u 2
S 41 4 O = y Y 1 m
m> J 61 ID Y J 4
y 2m _m y 2.•
.
Jfii .2
Cl) mmi N gmm Cl)
1 u 0 aN - o$
OL A A N 2 O
K O N
. O
8
OC W 0 0 0 0
.2. O N N O
d A_ A A A
N N O O O O
W - O O O O
N 3
CA W A A A A
< J N N N N
//t 41.
►. 4.. V V ^ P P
2 O M M
J 2 0. v 0 ^ 41.• O
< vS N IA .T V1 CO
N A P V M A V1
O W M N
r V1 N r• " '.
Cil N M M N
4
W N O N 0 0 0 0
LJ 3 4aa sr 0 1 h N O ^ O
N CO
W •O •O 01V M M
M U M M M
CC 7
CC
3 W
W N
VI
0 0
W 0 0 8 0 0
O. •
0 CV
W
(4* J 4* M M 4* M
0
U
aL A N V N O
W -r v
.. .O
< W V
3 G7
✓ r
14L8
42.W
N
V V ^P P
0 0
2 N M M
W421 0 0 ..... O O
2 OP WI M
V O O
N NI M M M 0. _
(Cl M M M
CO
<
N
d •00 N A s.IS
r �
38
I- W
W
A
N so r N 2 -" r r r A r A
N O .... M O 0 21 • .� 0 .... b
J 3 0. 0 U 2 •O N U W .4 O At U J U 1 U •0
ta ... 2 —
r. O 6 N 0 r .� O O �1 J CO O d 4)
teO Ogt.
Ps
OO O O
0
M .4 §. Y sr
O .
O 0 0 1 in . .
J O CO P • .0 v1 M 2 0 • Y $ J YN • .4 . Y
O, .4 A rY < N M YA Y A
u+ 41 0 so = 0L _ L S
5 0 0 O N N 0 0 J OS Vl 2 0 •0 .t N fA V O V1 2 CO 10 N
4)
_ - 0
30 1.
.4 Wes 0. b P P C P 0
W C A c
LI( 01 M 3 M _O N in let 0 In
p2. OL U r 1• 01 .4 N 3 1n 1f% O r V1 C
1► O
yl ... A L 0 2 6 M r .2 0
3 N 1. 3 1.
J0 4) 1 Y 22.• 2 Is OI 1 2 J
K OL J d J b Y J O J
n
J YE
.4
G u sY §. .4 W L
▪ N 0
P 4 - .24
N 0
.4. as
- N 0
.11
V O
0N — it
U •C0 Pet .2 424
va
0 U) 13
Q
O L CO 41 O Vl JO U CO N OL w
W
O
J2
OC W 0 0 0 0 0 0
`.. WM V
2 OL O N 8 CU O 0
W I. 0. co co
S N O. A CO O O
N N 0 0 0 0 0 O
V1 W
< J N N N N N N
#'e
►. O A
2 0 h CO 0
J S A •Q P A
CA hI.. N P F- O.r• O
O W _ 4.• .p., .1 ,Y. N
N M M 4* 44
W N O O O O
I . O .
3 Ci M O P •O
W 0 V1 .T .l
tl U M M 4* M
m >
W
W N
N
LU O O O O
.. .r .1. N N
F.
N J M M M M
0
U
OC 10 `0 IA
W M M .r
-
< W M
3 0
<
y ..
GCC 8
W
N
A
N. 0 h (O 0
2 MS
A V1
C_C M 0 (P
M N O
N _ _ ••• _
(Wil N M 4* M
N
<
O fA 1A g,
0. .p
P.. Fp- A
W
.r L .7 <
7. C . Y ^ {1 0 Y1 ^ (MI
V
...• O N M C • V C
N � m •N (WA •• N 3 W OP• 2 W _
rm
m A O M .r .4 0 M Y W M N •0 N 41 < N -r O Al M1
A ^ y Al •• N M. •� O - 0 N .T M. Al
r. 4 Y N G 2 O - • • •r 0 .T (A
O O ^ X ^ ^ W O 41.6 N ^ � o LLI ^ -
J Y C O ^ 0 J QoN •Y p er. .. \ W 2
m N - •O N X - - 0. 0 0. m •• 3 N \ W .N•. .-
.• N N ad 2
M V
L
O
Z 71
r 0. P 0• 0.
W A ad
W M - M M M
IX • to U N in N r-
•-•
►- 01 - U'1 (A NC C
1 _ 0. N Z C = S 8 0
L N .0
3 -i y all _ a >9 J a ° s al CA
oc .LC Y _ qt < s
W Z� L
N J N _ J 4(
.T X ` M O 3 C it
L •0 C C
N N X au N 0. O 43 UN H
CO U 43 N 3
O
. J 2
• -
W0 0 0 0
••••
WN
2 0•••• O v - 41.M M
2 vl 0. 0 O C O
N N O 0 O0 0
W
P 0. P
N 3 ^ ti A N.
N W
< J I N N N N
// 4
— V l
z 10
M I02O
W
U S S
O W 41,.. q,r N r
N M N M
as r 0 0
W N 0 0
r.- 0
< U •0 •O
3 N in
LU .f .t
M GJ M M
• a<
LU N
N
W S 0
W N N
4*
N J N M
0
c.0
ac a co
W N1 N1
< W
2 43
as▪ 8
W
N
N Y .f �C
M M2
2
W 0 0 OX PM alq
N O. 0. a6
N M M _
W
N N
N
<
.00 00 N
ea h..
g8
as w•
W
.4
W
cn r w 0 O Al -1 •0 N N •'O . in
• .f > — N_ 4 r LU • K V • N N
a — a. W_ ^ + O J 3 N w 0 — C ..e. W — • W 3
1`. LU M J it 0 N a7 0 0 v r
O N •f • 2 O C • 0 N \ . < N . <
0
D
J - Y 0 VI m _ M ^ N M N
O ' JO• Pa ^ _
\ W V 0 Z 0 as tl ^ 2
A.
2 N N 2 2 N - 2 tl 0 0 co N 0 0 0
h.tia A ti A
W N1 O M N1
at in ..
N W N 3 &•.%
in in
tu
sy1 0 OJ V L. J
co;ac
O 1� J O 11/
H ¢ CI
0 NW J
a Jit
- OO Y O 0 00 0 1 `C
0 .3. N co N J 0. N J O. N -' 4P.
O
J 2
at Pa
W O O O
la LL1
2 OC O O O 0N
N a. O O O
N N N N
(A N O O
W -. S O O
N 3
N W ti ti 1.-
<
< J N N (Si
r7 4
O .. .s O
2 .r M M •r
J Z M•
•
O^ .O
✓ N .4. M .f to
O W GA _• •
_- _
0-• N M 4* N M
W N S O 0 O
• 4-43 f 0 N m CO
W .. .t -4 .T
ad U M N M h
CCC >
CC
3 W
W N
N p
W8
0 0 0
U. N N N N_
N J M 4* 4* N
0
U
00 .0 CO 0 0
W PA PA .t '4
• W
3 0
y r
y. 8
3 u.
W
N
N 0 .T .t O
1- .r n PA v
2
W N O 0 to
x CO PA PM CO
VI co C N 44 O
CD M M
N
aC
fa. •O •O ti
H 1..•
38
C. ..
W
2 aa 0 O N N
LA
IA
O
0
_ p ^ N Pa tV'
• r. N IA 0 N _ IA 7O N
Y 0 all ^ 0 .4 W
Pa. *1. _ W
^ G7 0
0
W _ m
O W .4 N N O 0 0Pi
PA _ d d �
O O N N
< iA .t to •O LA < a Pa. CO
J W • •tN W ./.• .t N 2 3 • O N N V • O Al N
CU a.. 4 C 0 — _ _ O .- a.. ••• + d n L.._
. .. '. M ^ ad X a0
O m t W 0 N m CO W 0 0 W m 0 N 0 0 W m C7 N 0 0
O.
U.I 0. 1Q.. fa. ti ti
W PA M PA Al VPA
.. or N 3 N N .A = iA
N W
3
W N S 0 s o. S f-
J
J - vd N 4 d J d O J 61 7 4
L
al 3 CI
L J r N Y J2 41
W 4u
Y0 4 Ja Y
1 4 I. CU CI C
Y
L 40 4
N N _ N N ' N L
-1 P O. O. N > O•
O. N
J 2
Y -
W 0 O O 0
r W
2 Y 0 Al • N
Al Alus ma 0 Ai
N N
N d O
N NLai _ 00 0 O 0
N 3 ti fa fa-
VIW Al Al N N
� J
Ifo
.r •0 •o •o
2 re, M M v o.
W
< N CO .t M O.
r• Vl M1 Y v •O P
O W _• _ _ _
. -
1— N N
co M M M N N
oC
W• N 0 0 S 0 0
— O
< U U) •o v .0 v
3 0 IA -r .n 0
W v v v v in
M U M N 4* M N
• cx
3 W
W N
NCC Cp 0 0o
p
W O O 0 8 0
0.
•
4• N _N N N N
Cl) J M M M M M
0
U
K ./ O A 0 N
W M M Mf W1 -r
< W
3 1.1
y 1.*
OL 8
is
W
N
Cl) .r •O •O •O
✓ f•9 1.1 1+1 Y P
2
W 0 INp.. ppN. 0 0
P O. PPI
N ..
Cl) M 4* 4* _
W N
N M M
N
< Q
3 Z Z 2
8
d' -
W
O .. .O
N 0 0 O A
..
J rN
N •.- N •+ 0 O • - P
Y _ O N 0 •-• J J •f
CO
V - m
.....
G ^ •
O •p i O d A O M A 0 O A A
0 < In N < In 0 < ft 0 < •O < <
J V' ..• • . 0
W = O O 2 N = Q 1 N at m In O .t O Y
y 0 dtl
G7 W M 2 CO N M m 0 N ..• co t0 N .f 3
2 M m 0
0
C
oit
C - 0. - P < P 0. P
W A0 A C A A A
W 3 M O _ M 5 M M M
GC 0 CCI 2 M 1n — 1n m Y .n Cl') .n
N W 0 > t 0
41
vi ' s et
to m
>m ' X s > m
s
W Cl) G + Cl)• O 0 U •N O - N
gl.
Ce _ C
L N O . N m Z O m at
tl A O
S A m
Cl) 0 P N .l P N O P US S P N N P N
0
. 2
J <
O
Y W 0 0 0 0 0
2 CC ON N N N M
N S 0 O O 0 0
Cl) N N N N €V
N N 0 0 0 0 0
W -• 0 0 0 0
of 3
N W C. PS ^ A A
< - N N N N N
... •0 •Oep r .r .41
3 .r v P •O .n FA WI
S x+01 O q .O .O pMpIInCO .
- N !� 1� r i+
. 1 M O•
O W _ _ .r. N
•••• N N
N N N M M N M
< p
& O O O O 0
3 U O. 0CO P Xi N
W .r N M V
tl U M M 4* M
5OC O.
3
CC
W N
N
W O O O O
0. •
r• N N_ N N
Uf J M M N M
O
U
IX N N 0.1 O
W .r M M
is
< W <
3 (.7
tl
<
a8
w
W
N Xi sti ..6 �p
N sr sr
V .r O• •O n M M
2
O O O OPA O
gni
N N .Or Q P O•
UU1 _ _ .6, M M N
W N
H M M M M
N
< Q Q Q
a7 W •O N V •O
N r-
3
38
O: W
W
O
N y.1 N A .r
is PA
tl 0 3 N
Y Ht Ps C J 0 fA Y 2
CD O ^ 4 ' Y 0 W N .4 m ad
■. P. 1� a ti — N A h .r
O < < as ..c N < N ' < N N < N N
Y m • M • • S. 40 • •••• • Inil
N
O at 0 ++ Y
O ..4 O — yO ^ ^ — .d 0 1 O •r . OisJ m ( ..a m 0 J W CO 7 J ad CO Y 0 (7
-4 0
4. Y
N SIM
r • N Q t• ` O O. —1 O• 3 O•
W Y O M • WI < WI XI M of WI LO
• _ 3 11% in IA
- K N A > N 0 N `. V N V m N
Y
Y
u.
q _ el pO O � mm 6.
r
ILI
. c.
a a >; a t . Cl..
ea m tl 2 Z i
> co N to C { COI 42 • V
2 • •
¢ V13 i ¢
W L ¢ C N C N
m3 O
'0 t �+ � a u N ¢ .14at
L O a qa •
mY 0 m Y .r m > CO
l •O L WV O •.. . L Y
KU P Ni N N O N H 2 P to C3 O. N Y O.
J Q
8 <
2W O O O O O a 0
r
2 O[ 0 N WI N A O O•
�y is s. M M M M WI M WI
KY y a N N N N N N N
W (ACA O O O 0 0 O O
H 3
N W P. A Ps Ps Is P. A
< J 1 N N N N N N N
l�
CO
2iy M M WI N1 O.
< ai P23 ON. C
li N a .t WI M N-
O W N
t- U
U7 N N N N
OC ►- O O O O
us• C 0 0 0 0
3 U Uri In .4O h
M U_ 0 N N M
SOC
3
OL
W U1
U1
OC 0 0 0 O
W O O 0 0
0. •
m. N_ N N_ N_
N• J 4* N N N
0
U
OC 23 N N O
W M1 M
►- P. O
< W M M
3 4.7
<
OCS
3 W
W
N
- M WI WI WI P
2
W pNp "Np.. N.
0 0
VI a a P OM• WI
N N N N N •• ,.W
In N
U1
O O COUN
Ott, Y-
38
C[ W
W
03 r CO 0 CO CO
"1 ... 0
• N N A O • 0 • H1 N •
X N N. N •4- J it J Y r- .
•
A. i C •.. O A. i O •
N A 1 0 m i C m O y m
O i ' O < WI _ < •O < •O < <
O NC C a ^
.1L 0 •-. -+ m .0 0 +1 2 YO •0 N tl O N M 0
p .44 44
m _< 2 CO C7 N M CO G9 t7 40 .t C7 4.O
44
J 0 0 C7
C
0
Y •..
r. a a U aa o a a
til N. ti e N- 3 A. > 0 N. N.
LU WI M 2 en M1 M&ftC M
in
4.. Ci N •••• N G = NCC in -4 in in = � N N01 In 0 - N 6 . N
N W C L. YIII it
L r [ O �_ Z ?. L Y .....>
J L
S.
Y 6. j
000 q
74 O C N O b m L N O K L
O
OC
C ` Cl. '26Gi S 4,41 C4A. p, YLH G
l.
1 it
O O N O it
CO Or N O a S 0y
N < a N at a UD O a
N W a In CIC a N
. O
J 2
Ot W 0 0 0 0 0
- W
2 OC 0 0 .V N •O
a O g o 0 0
N N N N N N
0
W - 0 0 0 0 0
VI N. N. N. N. N.
U1 LU
•C N N N N N
ii
2 0
N m Y •O N
W=
Pei
O▪ y .0 V '0 aSA IA
.f
Y- N N
N N 44 44 44 _
M
p p0
C O O O 0
< U .0 .0 .0 WI
Ul VI
W .Ni v .4. O•
b U M M 4*
CC > M
CC M
3 W
W N
N
CC 0 0 0
W 0 0 0
0. •
W _N Al_ N
O J M 44 N
U
OC O CO O 44
W M WI M WI
2 N LLJ
.4
Oe8
W
N
N -'• A0
— N CD - '0 N
2 y1
W O. AA O 'QQ O
N M8 Cu W .T
N _
W --
N Cl. N 44 CO CO
N 44
P 'O m N ui%
f.. F- r"
38 2
c„, �. .t
W IA
N O w
ON Al 0 u1
NC 4. _
J m 0 Y 0 • J - r.
AS M m ' t N • i < N W 22
J .•• N Y pp 0 OO O 'r � ^ .4 _
010
N
JNmV J 0 V J m 0
V W N
N s <
I- N
L. N W
O W U
A — N
• Cil
4. P- < W
44.W n 3 Ps A - 1- GC S N
W WI 141 M J M W CC
CC in r- CC 0 Y 4, 44 te1 IA IA A 41
r • N O N 14 p4 1A W U. ►-
N W 0 .. 3
r 00 — L G < 0 3
N L. - L. 0 .0 • 2
OyiC C E tlV ►- V 0 0 . N 61 =
Gr O 8. .12
qa1 py. _
O N 0
Q N O �/ N O y W ► UJ
-
Y Y Y Y E L. ..pp Y W OC
O N L A L • ^ L V 0 t us
N yW OC
- J O G 0. N O 0. N W O. N NC WI N < O W
e 2 CeCC
x
< W 0.
CC 1- N
W 0 0 0 0 0 W
F- W • 7C N
2w CC O A O O• 0 0.. O
N O. 0 0 O O CC .-
(AN N N CM o
N N 0 0 O O W CC
W u• 0 0 0 0 O
N 3 • r
N W A A A A
< J N N N N • 4
#\\ b.
821 Lewis
Shakopee,
Minnesota 55379
June T 1991
City Clerk
City of Shakopee
129 1st Avenue, E.
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear City Clerk ,
In response to the registered letter regarding the
assessments for improvements on Lewis Street , I wish to
register the following complaints:
First , from discussions at the initial hearings on this
project , it was estimated that property owners would have
to pay approximately $18 per foot of property along the
street. The assessment for 821 Lewis is given as over
$3000, a charge of over $25 per foot. This variance is
considerably higher than estimated , and I believe too
much more given original discussions of cost.
Second , your letter stated that only 30 days would be
allowed for payment without interest charges after the
adoption of the assessments. I propose that property
owners should be allowed at least the same amount of time
to pay these assessments_ as it took to complete the
projects without any interest charges, particularly in
light of the increased assessment.
The above are my two main concerns regarding your registered
letter to property owners. I would appreciate these
concerns being aired at the City Council meeting scheduled
for June 4, 1991 . I am unable to attend this meeting due to
my work schedule, and would also appreciate some form of
feedback on these concerns , hopefully a lessening of the
assessments and a longer time to pay the assessments without
interest. Thank you.
Sincerely,
441RECEIVED
er Knudson
821 Lewis
i%iTY OF SHAKOPEE
„
/ It)
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
DATE: May 29, 1991
Council received the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report on May 21, 1991.
It was on the table for the Council meeting. Council has retained the firm of
Jasper, Streefland and Company to audit the report and the records of the City.
James Streefland will be at the June 4, 1991 Council meeting to report on their
audit.
Council should bring their copy of the report to the meeting.
tn � r�
�00i\l
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner t
RE: Request For Appraisal
Park Dedication Fee Determination
Heritage Place 3rd Addition
DATE: May 31, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
Heritage Development Co. has recently submitted a final plat for
Heritage Place 3rd Addition. To determine the park dedication fee
requirements, an appraisal is needed to better define the market
value of the land in the proposed subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
On January 8th, 1991 the City Council amended that portion of the
City Code which regulates park dedication requirements. The
previous fee schedule method, which used a cost per dwelling unit
basis, was determined by the courts to not comply with the state
law. The new method for determining park dedication fees is based
on the fair market value of the undeveloped land in the proposed
subdivision. The ordinance lists four sources to establish the
fair market value of undeveloped land. They are as follows:
1. The price of the subject land sold within the past year.
2 . An appraisal performed for or on behalf of the City within the
past year.
3 . An appraisal performed for or on behalf of the subdivider
within the past year.
4 . The value determined by the County Assessor used to determine
the market value of the land for tax purposes.
DISCUSSION:
The estimated market value from the Assessor' s Office for the
proposed subdivision plat is approximately $1, 000. 00 per acre. The
area within the proposed plat is approximately 8 acres. Keep in
mind that the City Ordinance requires a 10% land dedication or 10%
of the value of the land. In this case, 10% of the land value
would equate to approximately $800. 00. When this value is applied
against the number of lots to be developed (26) , a $30. 00 per lot
park dedication fee is required for this residential subdivision.
Typically the park dedication fees for residential subdivision have
been ten times greater on a per lot basis.
The estimated market value from the Assessor's Office is based on
the use of the property as farm land. Complex tax laws limit the
valuation of agricultural lands and creates a lower estimated
market value. When the park dedication formulas are applied to
undeveloped farm land, a low estimated market value results in low
park dedication fees.
AU/LE/HRTG3PRK
23 A
Staff is requesting the authorization to hire an appraisal in order
to establish a more representative property value. The appraisal
services will not exceed $800. 00. The funding source for the
proposed appraisal would be the Park Reserve Fund.
Utilizing the estimated market value from the Assessor' s Office
would result in the City collecting approximately $800. 00 for park
dedication fees for the proposed plat. A more realistic estimate
could result in a park dedication fee in the range of $6, 000. 00 to
$8, 000. 00.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Move to authorize an appraisal on the proposed plat of
Heritage Place 3rd Addition at a cost not to exceed $800. 00.
2 . Utilize the current estimated market value from the County
Assessor' s Office to figure the park dedication fee.
3 . Table action pending information from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to authorize obtaining an appraisal on the proposed plat of
Heritage Place 3rd Addition at a cost not to exceed $800. 00.
AU/LE/HRTG3PRK
1413 C
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Ordinance Amendment on Mineral Extraction
DATE: May 30, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
Councilman Sweeney has indicated an interest in considering taking
action in the near future on the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance
as relates to reducing the number of zones in which mineral
extraction operations can occur. This item was discussed with both
Mayor Laurent and myself.
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council meetings of January 22nd and February 19th,
1991 the City Council tabled action on a Zoning Ordinance amendment
which would limit mineral extraction operations as a conditionally
permitted use only in the I-1 and I-2 zones, (at the present time
mineral extraction operations are allowed as a conditionally
permitted use in the AG. , R-1, I-1 and I-2 zones) . The City
Council tabled action on this ordinance because of a pending
conditional use permit application for the McKenna mineral
extraction operation on Highway 42 . The application process began
in the fall of 1990 and has not yet been concluded. At the time of
the initial tabling actions in January and February of this year I
believe the City Council was of the opinion that the process would
be concluded in the near future. However, subsequent to that it
was determined that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
would be required for the project. This resulted in an additional
90 - 120 days being added to the conditional use permit process.
Concern has been expressed by members of the City Council that it
might be in the best interest of the City to take action soon to
amend the ordinance so as to protect properties located in or near
both the AG and R-1 zones from new mineral extraction operations.
The McKenna operation is currently located on property which is
zoned AG. If the ordinance amendment which was tabled by the City
Council were to be approved at this time it would be necessary for
Mr. McKenna to obtain not only a conditional use permit but also to
have his property zoned either I-1 or I-2 . If the property were
not to be rezoned by the City Council the mineral extraction
operation could not occur.
Related to this zoning ordinance amendment is a letter from Mr.
Leonard Prescott, Chairman of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community. In his letter Mr. Prescott expressed concern over the
potential negative impacts of the mineral extraction operation on
Reservation land of the Mdewakanton Sioux Community which lies on
the west side of McKenna Road across from the proposed gravel
mining operation. On this land are also several residential
structures. The attached memo from the City Planner and Mr.
Prescott's letter will also be evaluated by the City Council prior
to taking action on this subject.
/36°
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council could take no action on this time and await
completion of the EAW process and the conditional use permit
process for the McKenna extraction operation and take action
at that time. If this were to occur there is some risk that
another application for a sand and gravel (mineral extraction)
permit might be sought for property in another part of the
City.
2 . The City Council could take action on amending the Zoning
Ordinance allowing mineral extraction to occur only in the I-1
and I-2 zones and then direct that the City Clerk not publish
the notice of the Zoning Ordinance amendment for some certain
time period e.g. 60 days (the ordinance does not become
effective until published) . If this were to occur the policy
direction of the City Council would be more clear i.e. to
amend the zoning ordinance and at the same time Mr. McKenna
would still have the opportunity to have his conditional use
permit application completed without having the need to have
the property rezoned to either I-1 or I-2 .
3 . The City Council could consider the creation of a special
mineral extraction (MX) zone and apply that zoning to the
existing mineral extraction operations in the community. If
such a zone were to be created it would be possible to also
provide tight regulations on the use of property for mineral
extraction purposes and would not allow the creation of other
uses which are currently permitted in the I-1 and I-2 zones.
In other words the creation of the mineral extraction zone
would necessitate the rezoning of the property to another zone
once the mineral extraction operation was completed, rather
than to allow other industrial uses to then occur on MX zoned
property. This would provide a greater level of protection
for the community but would be inconsistent with the desires
of the Sioux Community.
4 . Another alternative would be for the City Council to apply for
a Metropolitan Significance Review as requested by Mr.
Prescott.
This would result in additional delays for the application
process and would also involve other governmental entities.
Prior to taking this action the City Council should carefully
evaluate the impact of attempting to include the Metropolitan
Council in this or any other local zoning action.
5. The City Council could enact an interim zoning ordinance
amendment which would result in a moratorium on any mineral
extraction operations until such time as a more complete study
on the area could be completed. This decision would be
consistent with one of the positions that Mr. Prescott has
advocated but would most likely be strongly opposed by Mr.
McKenna. Prior to making this decision the City Council would
/ 3G
once again have to carefully evaluate the intent of Minnesota
Statutes Section 462 . 56 Subd. 4 which states the conditions
which must be met before a moratorium is enacted.
The process utilized and the conditions which would have to be
met would be comparable to those that the City Council
discussed prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance
moratorium amendment for the 150 acres of land located
immediately south of the Shakopee High School.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should discuss and carefully evaluate the
ramifications of all of the above mentioned actions and then direct
the staff to provide for appropriate follow up.
/3 c---
MEMO
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner LE
RE: Letter from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Regarding the Proposed McKenna Sand and Gravel Mine
DATE: May 31, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
The City recently received the attached letter from the Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community, with respect to the proposed McKenna
Sand and Gravel Mine. The Sioux Community is requesting that the
City consider the proposed ordinance amendment on deleting mining
operations in residential and agricultural districts before the
McKenna conditional use permit application is considered. The
Sioux Community is also requesting that the City refer the proposed
mine to the Metropolitan Council for metropolitan significance
review.
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 1991, the City Council approved a motion tabling the
ordinance amendment on mineral extraction. The motion to table the
ordinance amendment was to allow for the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet to be completed for a proposed conditional use permit
request.
The EAW for the McKenna Sand and Gravel Mine has been distributed
for review to all required state, regional and local agencies.
Comments were due on May 29, 1991. A response to the comments and
the decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) will need to be made by the City within 30 calendar days or
on June 29 , 1991.
Chapter 5800 of the Minnesota Rules regulates matters of
metropolitan significance. The purpose of this review process is
to determine whether proposed projects are of metropolitan
significance. Legal counsel for the Sioux Community have cited
Subparagraph 4 of Section 5800. 0040, which regulates proposed
projects that have substantial physical effect on a local
government unit, other than the local government unit in which the
project is located.
DISCUSSION:
The Sioux Community' s first request is for the City Council to
reconsider taking action on the proposed mineral extraction
ordinance amendment. This ordinance amendment deletes mining in
the Ag and R-1 districts.
Based on previous decisions by the City Council, the applicant has
continued to work on obtaining approval of his proposed mining
operation from the Planning Commission. The applicant has made
expenditures and spent considerable time seeking approval for the
conditional use permit.
AU/LE/SIOUXLTR
I3C
The second request from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is
to have the City refer the proposed mine to the Metropolitan
Council for a Metropolitan Significance Review. Staff has
contacted the Metropolitan Council 's staff and reviewed the Chapter
5800 rules.
The Sioux Community also has requested the City of Prior Lake to
submit a request for a Metropolitan Significance Review. At the
time of this memo, staff has not received a decision from the City
of Prior Lake on the request to file for the review process. There
is question as to whether or not the Sioux Community could apply to
the Met. Council for such a review.
The City of Shakopee can also request a review by the Metropolitan
Council. Staff suggests the City Council consider this option.
ALTERNATIVES:
Mineral Extraction Ordinance Amendment
1. Do not take the ordinance amendment on mineral extraction off
the table at this time.
2 . Approve the ordinance amendment on mineral extraction which
would delete mining operations in the Ag and R-1 districts.
Approving the ordinance amendment would prohibit the applicant
from obtaining a conditional use permit for his proposed mine
without the property being rezoned to I-1 or I-2 and a
conditional use permit being issued. Also the City may incur
costs if the applicant litigates with the City.
Metropolitan Significance Review
1. The City of Shakopee could take the lead role in applying for
the Metropolitan Significance Review.
2 . Allow the City of Prior Lake or the Sioux Community to
initiate the request for the Metropolitan Significance Review.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Planner recommends that the ordinance amendment on mineral
extraction continue to be tabled until after the Planning
Commission review of the proposed mining application.
AU/LE/SIOUXLTR
�) -
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2330 Sioux "Bail N.W., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
"Tribal Office (612) 445-8900
PflWTON Si
fti
P
f.„
v t . .
\., . • .
ei 'I,
p�F
May 23, 1991
Honorable Gary Laurent and
Members of the City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re:Proposed McKenna Gravel Mining Operation
Dear Mayor Laurent and Members of the City Council:
As you probably know, the Shakopee Planning Commission has
before it an application by David McKenna for a conditional use
permit and mining permit to operate a gravel mine on an 80-acre
site in Shakopee on the east side of McKenna Road and north of
County Road 42 . The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has
Reservation land which lies on the west side of McKenna Road,
across from the proposed gravel mining operation, and a number
of the members of our community have homes on this Reservation
land.
Because of the radical manipulation of the land, the gravel
truck traffic, noise, dust and other problems which are
anticipated, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is opposed
to the gravel operation. We have met with Mr. McKenna and
reviewed the various plans to mitigate the nuisances involved in
the proposed gravel mine, but, after careful consideration, we
conclude that such cosmetic remedies simply cannot overcome the
inherent problems with such an operation. We understand that the
Shakopee Planning Commission apparently recognizes this fact and
unanimously supports a proposed ordinance amendment which would
totally exclude such gravel operations from all residential
areas. We further understand, however, that at the present
time, the City intends to defer consideration of the proposed
amendment until after a decision has been made on the McKenna
application. We do not think it is appropriate for the McKenna
project to be considered for approval just before the ordinance
i/3C-
Honorable Gary Laurent and
Members of the Shakopee
City Council
page 2
is changed. We feel that the ordinance amendment should be
considered before the McKenna application is considered so that
the Community and the surrounding landowners can benefit from
the effect of the amendment. Our attorneys have advised us that
under the State moratorium law (Minnesota Statutes, Section
462 . 56, Subd. 4) , the City of Shakopee could adopt an interim or
moratorium ordinance to consider an amendment to the zoning
ordinance to exclude gravel operations from all residential
districts. We think that it is appropriate that a moratorium
ordinance be adopted; indeed it would seem that the State
statute is designed precisely for this type of situation.
Our attorneys also advise us that under Chapter 5800 of the
Minnesota Rules, projects of this type should be referred to the
Metropolitan Council for review as matters of metropolitan
significance. It is our belief that the proposed project is of
metropolitan significance, and that Shakopee should not proceed
until the project has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council
for review. Our attorneys have corresponded with your City
Attorney in this regard. Under the Rules, a project is
considered to have metropolitan significance if it has a
substantial physical effect on a local governmental unit other
than the local unit in which the project is to be located. We
think it is clear that both the Reservation and the City of
Prior Lake would be affected by this project. Representatives
of the applicant have testified that truck traffic to and from
the site will be as high as 200 gravel trucks per day (400
trips). It is anticipated that much of this truck traffic will
be through portions of Prior Lake. This certainly will have a
physical effect on Prior Lake, as well as the Reservation
property.
We urge you to direct your staff to refer this matter to the
Metropolitan Council for review. We are requesting that this be
done as soon as possible, since a project becomes exempt from
review if it is not referred to the Metropolitan Council within
30 days after a negative declaration on the environmental
assessment worksheet. A negative declaration has not yet been
issued, but that could occur in a relatively short period of
time.
If a moratorium ordinance is adopted, the project could be
referred to the Metropolitan Council for review during the
moratorium. If we can be of any assistance in preparing the
request to the Metropolitan Council, please let us know.
Respectfully,
4----
jLEv,'1<<1 J Pe-6
Leonard rescott,
Chairman
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mew-s Park Centre. 230 East fifth Street. St. Paul. MN 55101-1634 6/2 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 77Y 612 291-0904
May 8, 1991
Lindberg S. Ekola
City of Shakopee
129 First Av. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: EAW
McKenna Sand and Gravel Mine
Metropolitan Council District 14
Dear Mr. Ekola:
Council staff has conducted a preliminary review of this environmental assessment worksheet to
determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The staff review has
concluded that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no
major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes.
Staff notes, however, several technical problems with the EAW:
1. The specifications of the two ponds shown in the drainage report do not seem to be those
indicated on map B of the plans.
2. The basin shown on the plans does not meet the design criteria for either proposed basin in
the specifications of the report. Therefore, it cannot be expected to function correctly.
3. The basin shown on the plans is not presented in cross-section as indicated.
4. The report indicates that the wash water basin will have a sealed bottom, but no
specifications are included to indicate the method or degree of sealing that will be provided.
This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. No formal action on the EAW will be taken
by the Council. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Barbara
Senness, Council staff, at 291-6419.
Sincerely,
Roger Israel, Director
Research and Long Range Planning
RI/kp
cc: Bonnie Featherstone, Metropolitan Council District 14 "
00
Jim Larsen, Metropolitan Council Staff r1 4
•
Lynda Voge, Metropolitan Council Staff "`' • -�r:
Barbara Senness, Metropolitan Council Staff L`
4/3d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorne f
DATE: May 17, 1991
RE: Liquor License Revocation or Suspension Hearings
BACKGROUND:
The City Council is being requested to review a liquor
license under City Code provisions relating to revocation or
suspension of a license for a violation of law. In this case,
the licensee's son (who apparently works in the establishment)
pled guilty to sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on the
premises after hours, under Minn. Stat. Sec. 340A. 504 Subd. 2 .
DISCUSSION OF LAW:
City Code Sec. 5. 02 , Subd.4 .F, a copy of which is attached,
and Minn. Stat. Sec. 340A.415, which relates to the same subject,
give the City Council three options:
(1) the City Council may revoke the liquor license, after
affording the licensee an opportunity for a hearing under
the state administrative procedure act "contested case"
procedures;
(2) the City Council may suspend the liquor license for a
period of up to 60 days after affording the licensee an
opportunity for a hearing as above; or
(3) the City Council may impose a civil fine of up to
$2, 000. 00.
If the City Council selects option (1) or (2) , the ordinance
provides that the City Council may suspend instead of revoke if
the violation appears to not have been willful, and the violation
is a first or second offense.
The revocation or suspension hearing may be before the
entire City Council, a City Council committee, or an employee of
the state office of administrative hearing. The City Council
must choose which of these avenues it wishes to pursue.
Regardless of who conducts the hearing, the state "contested
case" procedures must be followed.
Page 2
May 17 , 1991
Dennis Kraft
ACTION REQUESTED:
Decide whether to proceed to hearing. If yes, decide
whether the entire City Council , a committee of the Council, or
an employee of the state office of administrative hearing shall
conduct the hearing. Direct staff to prepare the appropriate
notices calling the hearing.
Decide whether to impose a civil fine without a formal
hearing. If yes, select an amount up to $2 , 000 . 00.
KEM:bjm
[LIQLICR]
Attachment
j
3 5 . 02
Mall be prorated on the basis of 1/12th for each calendar month o
pa thereof remaining in the then current licensed year. Lice. -es
shal be valid only at one location and on the premises the ein
licens- • .
Source : Ordinance No . 271, 4th S- ies
Effective Date : 8-25-89
C. License Refundment in Certain - ases. In the
event that, duri • the license year , the licensed • ' emises shall be
destroyed or so d aged by fire, or otherwise, that the licensee
shall cease to car on the licensed busin - ss , or in case the
business of the licen ee shall cease by re- son of his illness or
death, or if it shall become unlawful for he licensee to carry on
the licensed business und- his license except when such license
is revoked, the City shall, upon the appening of any such event,
refund to the licensee, or to . is e ate, such part of the license
fee paid by him as corresponds t. e time such license had yet to
run. In the event of death of t• - icensee, his personal represen-
tative is hereby authorized to conti •ue operation of said business
for not more than ninety (90 days aft• the death of such licensee .
D. Tran er. No license shall be transferable
between persons. No cense shall be tran erable to a different
location without pr ' •r consent of the Counci and upon payment of
the fee for a du- icate license. It is unl- ful to make any
transfer in viol- ion of this Subparagraph.
Source: City Code
Effective Date : 4-1-78
E. Refusal and Termination. The Council -y , in
its -•le discretion and for any reasonable cause, refuse to • ant
an application. No license shall be granted to a person • f
• •estionable moral character or business reputation. License
shall terminate only by expiration or revocation .
Source: Ordinance No. 124, 4th Series
Effective Date : 8-4-83
F. Revocation or Suspension. The Council shall
revoke or suspend, for a period not to exceed sixty days, a license
granted under the provisions of this Chapter , or impose a civil
fine not to exceed $2,000.00, for each violation on a finding that
the licensee has failed to comply with a statute , regulation or
provision of the City Code relating to alcoholic beverages. The
Council shall revoke the license upon conviction of any licensee or
agent or employee of a licensee for violating any law relating to
the sale or possession of beer, wine or liquor upon premises of the
licensee , or if such revocation is mandatory by Statute. If it
shall be made to appear at the hearing thereon that such violation
was not willful, the Council may order suspension; provided that
revocation shall be ordered upon the third such violation or
offense. No suspension or revocation shall take effect until the
licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the
-117- 12-1- 39
/3411/
5 5 . 02
Council ,
. J-
Council , a committee of the Council , or a hearing under the
Administrative Procedures Act, as may be determined by the Council
in action calling the hearing. Such hearing shall be called by the
Council upon written notice to the licensee served in person or by
certified mail not less than fifteen nor more than thirty days
prior to the hearing date , stating the time , place and purpose
thereof. As additional restrictions or regulations on licensees
under this Chapter , and in addition to grounds for revocation or
suspension stated in the City Code or Statute, the following shall
also be grounds for such action: (1) that the licensee suffered or
permitted illegal acts upon licensed premises unrelated to the sale
of beer , wine or liquor ; (2) that the licensee had knowledge of
such illegal acts upon licensed premises, but failed to report the
same to police ; (3) that the licensee failed or refused to
cooperate fully with police in investigating such alleged illegal
acts upon licensed premises ; (4) that the activities of the
licensee created a serious danger to public health , safety , or
welfare; or (5) that the licensee violated the letter or spirit of
the State charitable gambling law.
Source : Ordinance No . 226, 4th Series
Effective Date : 8-27-87
G. Notice . No beer , wine or liquor : cense
appli - tion , or request for transfer thereof between • - sons or
location shall be acted upon by the Council until - least ten
(10) days ' - ve elapsed after the date of one publi •- tion, in the
legal newspa_ - r of the City, of a notice of suc ► application or
request for tra fer .
Source : City Code
Effective Date: 4 -78
H. Corpor- e Applicant and Licensees. A corporate
applicant, at the time of a• •licati• , shall furnish the City with
a list of all persons that hav- a interest in such corporation and
the extent of such interest. '" list shall name all shareholders
and show the number of share held • each, either individually or
beneficially for others. is the du . of each corporate licensee
to notify the City Admi , strator of any hange in legal ownership
or beneficial interes' in such corporation -r in such shares. The
Council, or any ofc cer of the City designat=e by it, may at any
reasonable time - amine the stock transfer recor• and minute books
of any corpor - Le licensee in order to verify a - . identify the
shareholders and the Council or its designated offic- may examine
the busine=s records of any other licensee to the exte . necessary
to disc •se the interest which persons other than the lice ee have
in th- licensed business. The Council may revoke any 1 ' ense
iss -d upon its determination that a change of ownership of sh- es
a corporate licensee or any change of ownership of any intere
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney( '
DATE: May 30, 1991
RE: Personnel Policy
INTRODUCTION: I am in the process of revising our personnel
policy. We have one booklet entitled "Personnel Policies" , and
numerous other policies relating to personnel which are neither
commonly known nor contained in this booklet. Aside from
combining and updating the documents, I have been reviewing them
in light of recent court decisions relating to employees. Before
I proceed further, we need to make a major policy decision as to
whether our employees should be "at-will" or "contract" .
BACKGROUND:
At-will . Employees may be "at-will" or "contract" . An
"at-will" employee may be terminated at any time, for any non-
discriminatory or legal reason, or for no reason at all. If we
have at-will employees, we will not be required to go through
cumbersome step-by-step disciplinary procedures to get rid of a
bad employee. On the other hand, the employees have less
protection from discharge for poor or no reasons.
Contract. A "contract" employee may not be terminated or
disciplined except as spelled out in the personnel policy. These
employees are protected from the varies of their bosses by
various procedures and limitations in the personnel policy. A
supervisor who has a problem employee must document the problems,
work with the employee to improve his or her performance, and
follow the steps necessary prior to termination. Progressive
discipline is required. Termination may occur only after notice
of charges, containing specific facts, are given to the employee,
and a hearing is provided wherein the employee can cross-examine
the witnesses against the employee, and the employee can present
testimony and witnesses on his or her own behalf. A record is
made, including findings. Removal can only be for substantial
reasons relating to and affecting the administration of the
position of the person being removed.
The problem with all these protections arises in the legal
arena. A contract employee indeed has a contract with the
employer (the City) , and if this contract is violated the
employee may sue. If the supervisor has difficulty in spelling
out the problems in annual performance reviews (which is a common
problem) , and gives good reviews, it will be difficult or
impossible to eliminate a problem employee without being sued.
Page 2
Dennis Kraft
May 30, 1991
Current personnel provisions. Shakopee ' s employees were
originally "at-will" employees. The Personnel Policies adopted
by the City Council in 1980, as amended, still reflect this
concept in its first paragraph, which provides that the personnel
policy "is not to be construed as a contract of employment. "
Contradicting this, however, is language throughout the Personnel
Policies which limits disciplinary action to that "for just
cause" , gives the employee a right to a hearing, establishes
progressive discipline, etc. I am unable to predict with any
degree of confidence whether a court would rule we have "at-will"
or "contract" employees.
Options. We must decide whether we want "contract" or
"at-will" employees. If we select "contract" , then I will delete
contrary language in the Personnel Policy. If we select
"at-will" , I will add language approved by the courts to more
definitively indicate that our employees are "at-will" . We can
continue to provide our employees protection against improper
discipline or discharge, but the existing detailed provisions
will be replaced with more general provisions, giving more
flexibility to management.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Clarify the Personnel Policies to specify that our
employees are "at-will" , while retaining protections which are
not inconsistent with this clarification.
2 . Make our employees "contract" employees.
3 . Make our employees "at-will" employees without retaining
present protections relating to discipline or discharge.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1.
REQUESTED ACTION: Direct staff to clarify the Personnel
Policies to specify that our employees are "at-will" , while
retaining protections which are not inconsistent with this
clarification.
KEM:bjm
EPERSMEMO]
/.31f
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
CY)
SUBJECT: T.H. 169 Bridge and Minibypass Project
DATE: May 30, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
City Council direction is needed on the type of lighting that
should be designed into the new bridge and minibypass project in
downtown Shakopee.
BACKGROUND:
Mn/DOT has submitted correspondence to staff requesting that the
City of Shakopee determine the type of lighting that should be used
on the bridge and the new minibypass in downtown Shakopee. Mn/DOT
normally would use the standard mast arm with cobrahead lights on
their highways (Please refer to Attachment A for a detail of this
type of lighting) . According to their estimate the approximate
construction cost for this type of lighting would be $20, 000. 00 and
would utilize a total power consumption of 1600 watts for the eight
lights.
During the reconstruction of the Downtown Streetscape Project,
decorative lighting was used which consisted of concrete poles with
one or two decorative lights on each pole. These lights are
shorter than the standard Mn/DOT lights and therefore would require
more lights to provide the same level of lighting on the bridge and
minibypass. According to Mn/DOT the estimated cost for the
decorative lighting would be $55, 000. 00 with a total of twenty-two
lights and the estimated total power consumption for these twenty-
two lights would be 4400 watts.
Mn/DOT has indicated that the cost difference between their basic
lighting and the decorative lights that the City of Shakopee used
downtown would be $35, 000. Mn/DOT has indicated that the City of
Shakopee would be responsible for any additional costs associated
with the decorative lights.
Staff is requesting City Council direction on the style of lighting
that should be used on the bridge and minibypass.
If the City Council were to authorize the decorative lights it
would cost the City of Shakopee approximately $35, 000. 00. The
Finance Director has indicated that the funding option for this
money would be either the General Fund Contingency, the Capital
Improvement Fund, the Bridge Project Fund, or the Tax Increment
Fund. The Finance Director will be available at the City Council
meeting to answer any specific questions regarding these funds or
their balances.
J
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to notify Mn/DOT that the City of Shakopee
desires to use the decorative lights on the bridge and
minibypass project and that the City agrees to pay for the
additional costs of these decorative lights.
2 . Direct staff to notify Mn/DOT to use their standard highway
lighting on this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff feels that adding the decorative lights to the bridge and
minibypass would certainly be more attractive and enhance the
entire project. It would also be consistent in keeping with the
theme established in the Downtown Streetscape Project and with the
future 1st Avenue redevelopment.
The real issue is cost. Does the City Council feel that it is
worth $35, 000. 00 to install the decorative lighting on the bridge
and minibypass? Compared to the $1.9 million dollars that the City
has contributed towards this project and the $2 . 0 million dollars
that the City has spent on redeveloping the downtown area plus the
additional $900, 000. 00 scheduled for redeveloping 1st Avenue, staff
does not feel that the additional cost associated with the
decorative lights is excessive. There are existing funds available
to utilize for the lights, according to the Finance Director.
Staff has not taken this issue to the Downtown Committee yet, but
staff is quite certain that they would be in favor of installing
the decorative lights rather than the standard lights. The City
Council can certainly defer any action on this issue until a formal
recommendation is made by the Downtown Committee (next meeting June
12, 1991) , but Mn/DOT has expressed an urgency on a decision so
that the plans can be finalized.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discuss the lighting issue and provide staff with the appropriate
direction.
DH/pmp
LIGHTING
1.3/
0,0Esoi.
O
n ° Minnesota Department of Transportation
3
p� Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155
4 42
of TW4
612-296-6997
May 21, 1991
Mr. Dave Hutton
Shakopee City Engineer
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
SUBJECT: S.P. 7009-59 , Bridge over Minnesota River
Roadway Lighting
Dear Dave:
We made a cost comparison between the two lighting systems
proposed for Bridge No. 70002 over the Minnesota River, and the
difference between basic lighting and using the concrete poles
proposed by the City of Shakopee with acorn luminaires is
approximately $35, 000. 00. The basic lighting system and the
concrete pole system are more completely described below:
- The basic lighting system was designed using 30 ' or 40 ' poles,
either davit style or bent straw mast arms, with cobra head or
shoebox luminaires and 200 watt high pressure sodium lamps. The
system consists of 8 lighting units providing an average
maintained footcandle level of .8 and utilizing a total power
consumption of 1600 watts. Approximate construction cost is
$20, 000 . 00.
- The concrete pole lighting system was designed using 15 '
concrete poles with 2 acorn luminaires each and 100 watt high
pressure sodium lamps. The system consists of 22 lighting units
providing an average maintained footcandle level of . 9 and
utilizing a total power consumption of 4400 watts. Approximate
construction cost is $55, 000 . 00.
In Equd!Oppurrunr{r Entptover
As you are aware, the City of Shakopee will be responsible for
paying the additional cost of the concrete pole system.
Therefore, final design will not begin until the city determines
what system should be constructed. Please notify myself as to
the city' s choice of lighting system.
Sincerely,
cf1-12- kka-414
Sue Schwartz , P.E.
Lighting Engineer
cc: Janet Blacik
Mike Speilmann
File
/J(
MN/DOT STANDARD LIGHT
ST___._SS STEEL OR ALUMINUM
T
h.,.______ 96 —......____J
.,r
_ --�5� 70 tuir't"
��%' �.ut25ct.wATT HIGH PRESSURE
SCDIuM .unA1RE
446-40
11.
ij
i'
1.......— PANTED STEEL POLE
;FF 111
,'.: 1d4ST ARM
. .
i�j� LEtrGTH Rous f
III
L-2I a• .
t •
Ali mi T:. .
'1�� W0UNTING MEIGNT SHALL BE 40'(NOMINAL
A80vE BYPASS ROADWAY GRA0E.
II 2.SEE STD.PLATE 8332A FOR ANCHOR'
f80LT CLUSTER.
1
iiGHT aASE
DESIGN E
3 UNIT TYPc 9 _40
ONSENT
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Reorganization of Recreation Department
DATE: May 30, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
The Shakopee Community Recreation Commission was dissolved
effective December 31, 1990 and the City of Shakopee assumed
control for 100% of the funding of this operation and the Community
Recreation employees became employees of the City Council. Action
on reorganizing this department was tabled until the first meeting
of June. This item should be addressed at this time.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council decided not to appoint a Park and Recreation
Director or reorganize the department until the operations of the
department could be evaluated over time. Subsequent to the
decision by the City Council to table this item Council directed
the City Administrator to hire a Management Analyst to evaluate all
of the operations of the City in an attempt to find ways of
operating City Government in a more economical and efficient
manner. An employee has been hired and is currently working on the
Council directed study. It would appear to be premature to decide
on an organizational structure for the Park and Recreation
Department prior to the completion of this study. If the study
were to recommend another organizational structure it would not be
sound management practice to reorganize the department twice in a
period of a few months.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Determine a structure for the Park and Recreation Department
and effectuate it at this time.
2 . Hold any action in abeyance on reorganizing the Park and
Recreation Department until such time as the Management
Analyst Study is completed.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council hold off any action on
reorganizing the Park and Recreation Department until such time as
the Management Analyst has completed his study of the Shakopee City
Government.
ACTION RECOMMENDED:
Move to table discussion and action on the possible
reorganization of the Park and Recreation Department until such
time as the Management Analyst Study is completed.
I
/ /4
2; °1\iSENT
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for Temporary Beer License from St. Mark' s
Church
DATE: May 24, 1991
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The City has received an application from the Church of Saint Mark,
3rd and Scott for a temporary 3 . 2 beer license for July 27th and
28th, 1991. Sales will be confined to a tent which will be set up
on their playground north of Third Avenue. The application is in
order.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve the application and grant a temporary non-
intoxicating malt liquor license to the Church of Saint Mark, 333
West 4th Avenue, for July 27th and 28th, 1991.
CONSENT / 3j
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for Temporary Beer License from St. Mary' s
Church
DATE: May 24, 1991
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The City has received an application from the Church of Saint
Mary' s, 535 South Lewis Street for a temporary 3 . 2 beer license for
June 29th and 30th, 1991 . The application is in order.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve the application and grant a temporary non-
intoxicating malt liquor license to the Church of Saint Mary' s, 535
South Lewis Street, June 29th and 30th, 1991 .
\:.22) k_.
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Sanitary Sewer Billing - Residential Basis
DATE: May 30, 1991
Introduction
Mr. Ralph Lenzmeier appeared before Council suggesting that Council look at
changing the sewer billing base or the rate to reduce the impact of fall
sprinkling.
Background
Rates
Council has not changed the sewer rate for several years. The growth in the
use of the system and cost management has provided adequate levels of income
within the current rate. The following discussion assumes that any change will
result in the same total revenues for the City.
Changing rates to alleviate the impact of fall sprinkling will probably not
work because the problem being addressed is the base (water usage) not the rate.
However, there is a combination Council may want to look at.
Sewer rates are in two parts. One is the monthly charge of $3.00. The
other is the flow charge of $1.22 per thousand gallons of water use or measured
sewer flow. Raising the monthly charge one dollar would equate to a flow charge
cut of $0.04. The average residential water usage is 15,000 gallons per quarter
(sprinkling excluded) , which yields a sewer bill of $9.10 per month.
Please see the attached chart for the effect of changing rate on various
sized accounts. For the small user, the cost would go up and many senior
citizens are perceived to be small users (less than average) . Previous councils
have declined to raise the monthly charge due to the effect on the small users
(senior citizens) .
Residential Billing Base
The residential billing base is the amount of use that the rate is applied
against. Prior to the current arrangement based on usage, the City billed each
residential unit the same amount for sanitary sewer. This led to complaints
because a household with one person using 2,000 gallons of water a month paid the
same sewer bill as a household using 10,000 gallons of water a month. About
1980, council changed the billing method to attempt to make sewer charges
correlate to sewer use for residential accounts.
One method to correlate sewer charges to sewer use is to measure sewer flow.
However, the cost of installing meters is prohibitive except for large accounts.
The city current has about six industrial accounts with a sewer meter. The cost
of installation and maintenance is the responsibility of the owner.
Another method is to base sewer charges on water use. There are two
approaches to this manner of billing. One is to base sewer charges on a fraction
/ 1<-
of
of current water use year around (i.e. 85%) . The theory is that of the total
annual water use, that fraction goes down the sewer. However, this still leaves
the disparity between the heavy sprinklers and the light or no sprinkler users.
The other approach is to base sewer charges on water use when there is
little or no sprinkler usage such as the winter months when almost all the water
used goes down the sewer. SPUC reads water meters quarterly so that the city has
the choice of using 1 quarter (Dec 20 - March 20) or 2 quarters (Sept 20 - March
20) . One quarter usage is going to be the most accurate in terms of eliminating
sprinkling but is a smaller base and therefore more prone to error due to
incorrect readings, vacations, extra company, winter absences, etc. . Two
quarters is a larger base for more representative usage but the period does start
in September when some people may still be watering yard plants.
Another approach used by about numerous commercial/industrial accounts is
to install a separate meter for sprinkling usage. The water going through these
meters not used to charge sewer but there is the $5.00 monthly minimum water
charge applied all year. The cost and difficulty of installing a separate meter
varies by installation and is up to the owner.
SPUC has been contacted in the past about reading water meters monthly so
sewer could be based on five or four months but there has been no movement
towards monthly water meter reading.
Alternatives
1. Status Quo. .
A. Separate water meter.
B. Sewer flow meter - too expensive and hard to maintain.
C. Adjust bills on an exception basis but allow staff continuing authority to
adjust bills.
2. Flat rate for residential units - less equitable than current process.
3. Use one quarter for the billing base.
4. If SPUC changes to monthly water meter reading, use 4 or 5 month base.
5. Use a percentage of water use for the billing base each quarter - does not
solve sprinkling issue.
6. Extra meter reading in November for sewer billing use only - requires
customized programming and impacts others areas of the billing program and
therefore probably not practical.
7. Change to one quarter for the billing base and increase the monthly part of
the rate to offset the "snow bird" effect.
Recommendation
At this point, the most practical alternatives for Council to consider are 1C,
3, or 7.
If 1C is selected, affected customers would have to contact staff to
request an adjustment each year. Those who do not contact the city would
be paying higher sewer bills due to sprinkling.
/ 3 #4
If 3 is selected, those accounts that have reduced usage in the winter
quarter will benefit by having lower bills all year. The city may get
calls from other customers who feel that the "snow birds" are benefitting
unfairly at their expense.
If 7 is selected, the "snow bird" effect is mitigated by raising the
monthly charge and lowering the flow charge. However, Council would have
to recognize that the bill for small accounts "senior citizens" would go
up and the bill for large accounts (industry) would go down.
Alternative 1C can be implemented immediately. Alternatives 3 or 7 require
programming changes and would be effective 1 April 1992. Earlier implementation
may cause serious problems with the billing system.
There are pro's and con's to each alternative and it appears to be a choice
between differing interests of various constituencies.
Action
Discuss the issue and give staff direction.
p
Usage Monthly Rate $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00
(Quarterly) Flow Rate/1000g 1.22 1.18 1.14 1.10
5,000 5.03 5.97 6.90 7.83
10,000 7.07 7.93 8.80 9.67
15,000 9.10 9.90 10.70 11.50
20,000 11.13 11.87 12.60 13.33
25,000 13.17 13.83 14.50 15.17
50,000 23.33 23.67 24.00 24.33
100,000 43.67 43.33 43.00 42.67
1,000,000 409.67 397.33 385.00 372.67
10,000,000 4,069.67 3,937.33 3,805.00 3,672.67
R62-0-164,- /cei-4-1-_-‘1_ 3 / 7 7 /
R_aii&A, ` Ay, zYw
ala/vc'A / ? 9 / , _7i'LQ--aesk # 7472,„/ ,
y
a77-2,2,4-e,vd;e1
G7J-C.1
,,A, 4/z(°
/ 1.64 /3t . kfau,„„ &-4 Je-zz-e,7)
[/ r2 ,/SLC t `774,
iiito f-4C --t:Z/t.J/ A)2.e. y•
. 19L ci 2--cx A-- .-Q-11(-<.)-4r-- C 1 rg-0-12-(2 . el-7A (,-di
cc meti, Grp at. C��, �-uti� u►-�
0, 06,-/t,
.
oLcal Z t' ter- /L , c*( o ' ' a mug _Q a
4/c e r L �ivZ�1is2.a-,L /11vi-f-vuc
L YI r
1/VL k i''se:D a .'92/ Q'/L?d ' . c'/2--(1i-Q3k,.
71,.0-& ti
) 7d/ Z Q
aue J f/ st-4
7-Ai JO 06 0 9 arq, atae-t-- I-2)eg-e-z-a*ty:;,) S " cL-i-z-
I/ FR‹_ ��
ik-k /`1T-' t - � //d 'f(dc'
C k�
iotrra
• OK'
AZ;vi-e — /14-trevt.
tq tlJdowd- cX,(4 1.3; .,Pvt •
TAAst-5%ktAr—r----(--L-4-
yj
64- 7‘A4 „1-
7-t //,(:.-7,_Q
Zikkk / 1/1- AnC47 (T: t Ct/tr1-1
PA/k Ct_ r'eP 1/% 4/ ctY- _0 CrA,421- J-XiZL.
'J4/-
(74 a‘-` 1--a-- (-0,1)t--ex
1 i„)„ 14 •
71.129-(2, A-Gt p/L141-1- 14-t4&
6LiCeiLC2'& Z -32
zkro* rept
/t )Vsagri,a-
3 k 01-1 --Q./r<J42411-7(
0 ( /) rikSa-A;C(1.1kAM
Arr P c_
- -
• , ,„
• a “tst
1 /kv1,2:12,k,
SE:syKAs2--
/ 3 &.
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Sanitary Sewer Billing - Residential Basis
DATE: May 14, 1991
Introduction
Mr. Ralph Lenzmeier appeared before Council suggesting that Council look at
changing the sewer billing base or the rate to reduce the impact of fall
sprinkling.
• Background
Rates
Council has not changed the sewer rate for several years. The growth in the
use of the system and cost management has provided adequate levels of income
within the current rate. The following discussion assumes that any change will
result in the same total revenues for the City.
Changing rates to alleviate the impact of fall sprinkling will probably not
work. Sewer rates are in two parts. One is the monthly charge of $3.00. The
other is the flow charge of $1.22 per thousand gallons. Raising the monthly
charge one dollar would equate to a flow charge cut of $0.04. The average
residential bill based on 15,000 gallons per quarter would go from $9.10 per
month to $9.90 per month. For someone using 50,000 gallons the cost per month
would go from $23.33 per month to $23.67 per month. For the small user, the cost
would go up and many senior citizens are perceived to be small users (less than
average) . Previous councils have declined to raise the monthly charge due to
the effect on the senior citizens.
Changing the rates to alleviate the impact of fall sprinkling does not work
for most users due to the larger total amount generated by the flow charge versus
the monthly charge.
Residential Billing Base
The residential billing base is the amount of use that the rate is applied
against. Prior to the current arrangement, the City billed each residential unit
the same amount for sanitary sewer. This led to complaints because a household
with one person using 2,000 gallons of water a month paid the same sewer bill as
a household using 10,000 gallons of water a month. About 1980, council changed
the billing method to attempt to make sewer charges correlate to sewer use for
residential accounts.
One method to correlate sewer charges to sewer use is to measure sewer flow.
However, the cost of installing meters is prohibitive except for large accounts.
The city current has about six industrial accounts with a sewer meter. The cost
and maintenance is the responsibility of the owner.
Another method is to base sewer charges on water use. There are two
approaches to this manner of billing. One is to base sewer charges on a fraction
of current water use year around (i.e. 85%) . The theory is that of the total
annual water use, that fraction goes down the sewer. However, this still leaves
the disparity between the heavy sprinklers and the light or no sprinkler users.
/.3rX.
The other approach is to base sewer charges on water use when there is
little or no sprinkler usage such as the winter months when almost all the water
used goes down the sewer. SPUC reads water meters quarterly so that the city has
the choice of using 1 quarter (Dec 20 - March 20) or 2 quarters (Sept 20 - March
20) . One quarter usage is going to be the most accurate in terms of eliminating
sprinkling but is a smaller base and therefore more prone to error due to
incorrect readings , vacations, extra company or winter absences. Two quarters
is a larger base for more representative usage but the period does start in
September when some people may still be watering plants.
Another approach used by about 100 commercial/industrial accounts is to
install a separate meter for sprinkling usage. The water going through these
meters are not charged sewer but there is the $5.00 monthly minimum water charge
applied all year. The cost and difficulty of installing a separate meter varies
by installation and is up to the owner.
SPUC has been contacted in the past about reading water meters monthly so
sewer could be based on five or four months but there has been no movement
towards monthly water meter reading.
Alternatives
1. Status Quo.
A. Separate water meter.
B. Sewer flow meter.
C. Adjust bills on an exception basis but allow staff continuing authority to
adjust bills.
2. Flat rate for residential units.
3. Use one quarter for the billing base.
4. If SPUC changes to monthly water meter reading, use 4 or 5 month base.
5 . Use a percentage of year - round water use for the billing base.
Recommendation
CUi" SENT
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Closure of Debt Service Funds
DATE: May 21, 1991
Background
Two bond issues have been paid off this year. Council action is requested
to close the debt service funds.
1. The debt service fund for the sewer revenue bonds needs to have
$293.56 transferred in from the sewer fund operating cash to pay for
final costs and close the fund.
2. The debt service fund for the 1980A Improvement bonds has a
remaining surplus of approximately $360,000. There was $140,000
planned and budgeted to be transferred from this fund into the 1990A
Improvement debt service fund for interest expenditures this year.
Council's past practice has been to transfer remaining assets into
the Capital Improvement fund. Remaining assets are cash and
assessment receivable.
Action Requested
1. Move to transfer $293.56 from the Sewer Fund operating cash to the
Sewer Revenue Bond debt service fund to close the debt service fund.
2. Move to transfer $140,000.00 from the 1980A Improvement debt service
fund to the 1990A Improvement debt service fund as budgeted.
3. Move to transfer the remaining assets of the 1980A improvement debt
service fund to the Capital Improvement Fund in order to close the
1980A Improvement debt service fund.
CONSENT 13 ,ij
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Special Assessments on City Property
DATE: May 21, 1991
Background
Council recently adopted the assessments for the Fourth and Adams project.
Included was an assessment against city property in the amount of $16,915.00.
If Council acts on the June 4th meeting to prepay the assessment, interest
expense to the paying fund can be avoided.
Last several assessments against city property were prepaid with funds from
the Capital Improvement Fund.
Alternatives
1. Let the assessments run on the taxes. The paying fund has been the
General Fund in the past and interest has been paid.
2. Prepay with General Fund monies.
3. Prepay with Capital Improvement Fund monies.
Recommendation
Alternative number 3.
Action
Move to prepay the assessment against city property in the amount of
$16,915.00 for the Fourth and Adams project using Capital Improvement Fund
monies.
-10
I- * r * 1-.0. r * 0.•i..• * I-I- * r * r r * I- * r * I- J3N
A * A * AA A * AA * AA * A * A A * A * A * A A CO
CO * (D * CO(O 0 * (O CO * (0 CO * CO * CO CO * CO * CO * CO S CO
I- * r * 00 O * 00 * 00 * O * O O * 0 * O * O m r
).• *
O * (O 00 CO * CO(O * CO CO * CO * O) 0) * CD * N * 0 0
r * W * W Ca) N * O O * V V * Co) * r O * CO * CO * CJI 7C 0
M
Z -1
0 <
0
CO i
0 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 O 0 0 ...r1a
Vt N N 0 0 Cn Cil N CA VI Vt Vt U) N 0 -I N
\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ -S 01 2
N N NN N NN NN N N N N N N a
(0 (O (0 CO CO CO CO (O(0 CO CO co CO (D CO 7C
\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ . 0
CO CO CO(O CO CO CO CO CO (O t0 (O (0 (O m
r I- ►-I- r 1-•/-• /-•1.-• I- r r I- r r m
m
D
3
0
1.-f.- C
- -
0)0) NN I- CO CO NN CO CO -
CR CO CD VA(9 0)Of 0)C000 ANI- (0(O 00 CO CO Cit VI AA Of0)
(D CD CO (O0C0 0000 0N1%) CJ0OA 00 0)O) 0)0) 010) CO CO NN
I- 010) r CON 00 0(n VI NCOA 00 VV AA 00 CO CO AA
(4 00 NCOA AA 000 000 00 CO CO 00 4.)CO VV 0)O)
* * * * * * * * * * *
A A C)C) C) C)C) C)C) 00 00 00 00 m D
70 0 mm a 2x 00 C 73 70 D -n
70 3 I-I- < AD 1313 70 < a C -ft I-
I- v r-I-. C) -017 m a 0 m D
CO C CC 0 MM MM a Z 70 a A <
0 -( f-I- zz Z2 C 73 Z in
Z m as 00 70 D 00 0 Z
7, 7323 '9"0 0 0 C) C m v
7, 3 0 0 000 m X Z 1- y 73
Ir X 2Z r(- A -(
C) -1 m 01 M M 70 -0 1.4 Z =
-I N N M 7, Z m
0 0 MM X 0 99X
0 G 73 2 G)) D CC) a
n( 70
I- -( m
N M
•0
m
70
Rt A -I-( m V-0 N N 7D V) 111 m (n 70 o-r
.O a 0101 0 7770 CC m c O Q C m -1
C 17 I-l' C MM MI"t1 2 P3 C C "0 3 m
M M mm M Z Z "0V -1 m M M -V M Z
-1 -013 - -I V r r v) D -0 -a r -4
3 r 00 3 12.Q1 mm m M ro
v
a ZZ a VIN D D N D (d)
M m turn M -0 TJ 3 M M Z C)
Z 0 Z CC A Z Z C) a
-1 C -I 000 -( -1 -I rt 1.4
M 73
0 -I
H 1.4
Z O
V) Z
0 0 0 0 0 (4(9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 D
t- r •-•I-. r I,.I-• I..a-- r r r I- r r C)
aa a
i ) ( t t ) a a a ( a C)
A A AA A AA AA A A A A A A 0
N Vi WW N W W N N W N N N N CO G
W I- NN W VI Vt rI- 00 I- W (W r N Z
N r I-a-- N 0 0 0 0 0 Cit N N 0 0) --4
a
a
a a a ) a t a t
A I- G)(J A Cit Cit I-I- (9 A A A 0) 0 Z
A N N r A COLO 0)Cn r N N N N 0 0
I-. 0) I-I- r A W r r r V 0) 0) a- O .
a
a
I a a ) ) t a a
A I- (JW A A A I-I- W A A A 0f O 1.4
A N Nr A 1-..0.. 0)VI r N N N N 0 Z
r N I-r
A r a-.
CJ 0 00 N V 0 Col
A CO Vt V7 I- r O) 0) Cit as 0
O CO NN W r 0 0 CO 0)
I- r V V CO A 0 V 13 a
CO W N a- • 0
0 a-
a)
m
se r
3
m -
0 a
* * * * * * * * * CA O
* * * * N. * * * * > m
* * * * * * * * * C)
a
a
a a a a a 1 m
C) C) C) C) C) C) A C) C)
X X 7C X X x X 7C 7C
CA N N 0 (n N (/) N N I-
me
* r * r * r * I -4 * r * r * - * r * F.F. * r * r
* A * A * A * AA * A * A * A * A * AA * A * C) CO
* CO * . CD * CO * CO CO * O * CO * CO * CO * CO CD * CO * S CO
* N * N * N * 1...F. * r * r * IF * r * IF F.. * r * m r
* V * A * r * OO * CO * CO * V * O * NN * r * A
* VI * Q) * A * NN * V * 0 * A * 0 * V1 4.41 * CO * 7: C) _
H
Z -4
0 <
0
. 0 -+1
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 D
U) tri V1 U1 U1 V7 4.I1 O N V1 U1 4.1) -, CA
�..„ �� m =
N N N NN N N N N NN N 3*
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 7;
\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ - \.- 0
CO CO CO OO CO CO CO CO OO CO •O
- r r 1-.1,- r r r r r r m
RI
D
3
0
AW C
- - Z
OO 00 0)Cd Gd CJ Cad r r Ul CO U1 -
0)O) OO rr A r C4 VV AA IF F. 1F 1r NON OO VI
NN OO AA 0)0 U1 00 U)UI i-I- 00 0 U1 U1 00 CO
AA V-.1 CO CO NCJI-1 00 00 00 OO 000 00 r
00 UI(.11 VI CA 000 00 00 CO CO 4-4.3,- 000 00 w
* * * * * * * * * * *
-1 1-4 N G)C) 0 11 c-1 rn 00 0
RI z -1 DD '1 0 0 x mm a
x -a m x77 0 z X m << 7:
73 r 'a 00 D 0 Z A ZZ 0
,< S Z Z m C m m -1 <
z m m rn 77 n -I -c< D rn
7: D Z xi xr N < 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 M
I- = x003 n Z rn �� 0 073
1-C Z 73 0 0 m Z 1-1 N►, 7) C)
Z0 r- CAN D Z C)C) m =
Q m ZC) m m 0 n
3* -< < 4-4
Z 3 3 C) 7:
N G) 00 73
H N SS H m
< Z C)
CZ) y A -4 i
-)
m
=
-13 77 -4 C)C) -a 0 -4 Cl) C)17 '0 H
73 m 73 73 r 73 C D m 73 -4
O -4 3* 00 0 0 < -0 ►0-+Z l fin3
Cn m 00 m r- -I-1
CA r == V) 3 r 1-4 D CO 0
rn 00 x3 3*! 2• Cl)mr z Cif
a R.
< 73 73 < n
Boa < Z
CO .44 f1 V N O C >'
C 00 C C 03 1-4
CO CO N
(I) N -4
M 3'-4 1••C
N Cl) 0
-4 -C Z
0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 00 0 D
✓ r r AA r r r r rr r C)
1 1 I 1 1I I 1 1 I i 1 C)
A A A NN A A A A AA A 0
W W W Cad C.d C4 N W N U1 CEJ W C
r CO w 0 0 r w C.) r I-.VI r Z
0 0 0 NN 0 0 0 0 r0 0 V
I I I 1 1 I I 11 1 I I
(4 r r 0 0 r W Cad C4 W CO W Z
C.) C.) N 0 0 V1 r r r r r r 0
✓ r 0) 00 N r N r 4-.N. N
I I I I I I 11 I 1 1 1
C4 r r 0 0 r C4 Ca) Cl) Cl)CO C4 H
C4 W N 00 V1 Ir r 4-r r Z
CTI Co CO Gd 3,-.3-4 0
CO OO A COO A
r r C.) r U1 A 0 1* 0
0) A A r NCO 0 0)
co .0. AV 0 U 1
N CO 0) N O 0
O
It r
rn -0
Cl) D
* * N. * * * * * * * * CA A
* * * * * * * * * * * D rn
* * )1. * )1. * a. * * * * O
I 1 1 I I i 1 1 1 I I m
C) C) C) C) A C) C) C) C) C) A
N co) co CO CO N CA co CO Cl) CA N
✓ * r r * r * r1+ * rrP-r * r * 1+1+ * r * 1+.9+ * r r
A * A A * A * AA * AAAA * A * AA * A * AA * A C) CO
t0 * t0 CO * CO * CO CO * CO CO CO CO * CO * CD CD * CO * CO CO * CO = CO
A * C.) C) * C.) * C.)C.) * C.)C..)C)C.) * C.) * WW * CJ * CJ C.3 * W m r
✓ * CO (O * CO * CO LCD * 00000000 * V * 0101 * VI * co VI * I— C)
NJ * Of CJI * N * 0 0 * Co Co Co CO * 00 * CO W * (D * N N * V 7C C)
M
Z -C
0 <
0
O 0 0 0 00 0000 0 00 0 00 0 • m
D
N V1 VI 1.0 UI UI VI UI V1 VI V• U1 V1 (11 N CP N V Cl)
\ \ \ \ \\ \\\\ \ \\ \ \\ \ m =
NJ N N NJ NN N N N N N NN N NN N D
(0 CO t0 CO CO CO CO CO CD CO CO CO(D CO CO CO CO 7C
\ \ \ \ \\ \\\\ \ \\ \ \\ \ 0
(0 CO CO (0 (O CO CO CO CO CO (0 CO(0 (O (0 CO Co 'O
✓ r r r rr rrrr r 1...1.-. r r1+ . m
III
3*
3
0
1+ C
• Z
N NN UINN O)r1--rr NN WrN 1...k-. t....I... -I
A WW Of0) VV NOfOf CoVGJ0003 CJ C.) 000)CJ AA AW I-.I+
O) AA VIN LA V1 Nat-.I-. COVI CO of V (31(31 CAAN 0000 CJ0V VV
✓ VI VI 00 00 000 U100NN 0)0) 000 00 000 NN
VI V V . 00 000 000til(.1t (0 C0 000 (DCO Of00) NN
* * * * * s * * * *
O z z z zz zzzz z 33 3 u- I
N U) 00 0000 ZZ CO DD 3*
Cl) 'C -0 TI << 23 XI 03 A U) D -I-C C)
03 DD £ ££ -I 0C) 0
1 0 7« mm(nrn D 00 33 C <
Z I I U)U)U)U) A 0 m m
Q. --t -n"'t -4--1-1-( _= m 1
M 1-r -1 >> Azo Z 0
D m mm CO CO CAW C -< 0303 0
N 73 C)C) >>>> 73 DD m ,3
U) x7C ZZZZ -n MSI 00 0 C)
0 •
0XXXX MN =2 C S
M 0 XIII
ZZZZ 1
0 mm 73a v
z
C) M .72
Z m
0 0 •
M
N
V
m
C C Cl) C)C) -o'V'o'0 m mC) XS 13N m M
XI -4 -1 C DDDD 0 OC m XI 0 -4
O M M 12 0 0 -<-«< C 0 0 3 0'0 C (n
-1 r r 13 M M M M M M'0 M -'I 0 M 3
M M r C)A ZZZZ 'a -0I V C'- 13
U) -I -t M == C)C)C G) M N M 0
rn M M m G)G) 1 1 rn C) 1"11 RI 3 m
03 m m Cl) DDDD > DN D 73C/) D N
< CO V) AAI G3G3C3A M M Z < M C)
-n M m(n m m z Z C) Z 73
00 zzzz -1 -I m -1 M
-4-C-4-4 z -
-4
-71.71 M-rt M M
mmmm Z 0
mmmm Cl) 1
0 0 0 O 0003 01 A w 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 D
r r r r AA Wr0V r I-.I-. r i...i-. r A
I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 C)
A A A A NN AAAA A AA A AA A 0
Cd Cr) CJ N WW Of Of Of Of N NN (0 WN N C
I— V V r 00 rrrr W C.)r N I-I W Z
0 0 0 0 NN NNNN NJ N0 0) 00 N -1
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1
A A A r 00 0000 A W W 0 C...)C...) A Z
✓ NJ N V 00 0000 A NN 0 f...I-. A 0
r V V r 00 0000 r '-.1 0 WI-- r
I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I i
A A A r 0 0 0 0 0 0 A CO GI O CD CW A 1-1
r N N V 00 0000 A NN 0 ' I-S A <
r 0303 CO 0 r
N (0 CO NJ NJ U1
N A A r CO A 011 0
V N W 0 r N 0)
0 03 0 1
0 • 0
O r
1
(0
Mt r
3
m
N D
* * * * * * * * * N C:)
N. * * * X. * * * * > m
* * * X. * * * * * G)
I I I I 1 I 1 p I m
C) C) C) C) C7 A A C) C)
U) N CO CO Cn U) N Cn N C.)
WIM
rrr * r * r rr r * r * r * r * F.F. * r * r
AAA * A * A AA A * A * A * A * AA * A * AAAAA C) CD
CO CO CD * . W * CD WW CD * CD * CO * t0 * WO * t0 * CO C0 C0 CO C0 X t0
U1 U'N * in * 0 00 Cn * A * A * A * AA * A * AAAAA m r
NNN * r * r rr r * 0 * CO * C) * AA * N * C)
AAA * 00 * 0 AA W * (.0 * r * CO * -,1,4 * 0 * NNNNN 7C C) _
M
Z -1
0 <
0
0 "r1
000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00000 D
Vt U1N 0 Ut 001 0 0 0 0 NVt Vt 00000 -1 N
\\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\\\\ m x
N N N N N NN N N N N NN N NNNNN D
(0(0(0 0 CD 400 t0 t0 0 0 00 t0 (0(0(0(0(0 7C
\\\ \ \ \\ \ - \ \ \\ \ \\\\\ 0
40040 0 CD 040 CO 0 t0 CO 4040 CO 000040 M
rrr r r rr r r r r rr r m
m
D
X
N.)1... 0
(00) rr 010r1-.W4.1 C
- - - -
r UI W(...) rr 0r00 NN WNr UI6)NA(0 -1
1---(0- 0000 rr WN-•••.I WOO rr WW WW W430 rr GO•••10,14.1103
00-.0 WW VV (OrV 0)0) 00 00 rr NON WW Of i-.5-.4.10-.4
0v0 corn 0)0) 00101 0000 00 00 00 WOW NN COUiCONVO)
W00 0001 r-1 000 tntr 00 00 00 A0A 00 ( .Ut(0V0)
* * * * * * * * * *
00u) N N NN N N N 70 vv S 00000
-1-1-4 -I M MM M C) C) 0 MM D
XIMM N 00 0 0 S 0 mm z NNNNN
mrum m XI= M M 1-4 D 00 0
M) 0 -4-I -I -4 rA33333
D Qn7NN O m
XXX Z )
MM f.R''RoR'R* Z
mmm C) 'o NA -4 -4 0 m 00 v 0
7170M M D 00 0 -< 70 Z ZZ D >>>>> 0
NNN V) Z CC v Z M Cn NNNNN 7J
M -1-4 m rr N NNNNN A
>, m M M a >> 00000 X
M Co m 7, v 0000 00000 m
A 0 0 7, OW C)
0 Z M 7C
X 0 m ZZ 00000 70
0 ma N 00 0
i M
N
-1
M
a
M00 v 0 X0 Cl) r m 00 MO -i vvvvv M
.0CC 70 r DC C m 0 r .00 m 7J>,==70 -i
CMM 0 0 - v v A C 0 CM D 00000 rn
4-IMM 'T1 A MM - D M A MM < MMMMM 3
-rr Mr- r r v yr m
MM N X MM M X M r NNNNN 0
;mm m D Dm m T1 X D In, mmmmm m
370N 70 M rN Cl) M D M DN R^ a,=7,707, N
M < Z I- M Z M <<<<< C)
Z -1 M Z -4 Z CO M
M Z -4 - C M
A 0 M
N 1
V M M
m Cl) 0
RI -1 z
000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 W W W N N >
rrr r r rr r r r r rr r rrr U1W 0
1 I 1 11 1 1 I 1
I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 C)
AAA A A AA A A A A AA A AAAAA 0
NNN W N NN N W N N NN W (4(4(4(4(4 C
Wrr r W rr r r W W Wm W Z
(.300 0 0 00 0 0) NJ 0 NO 0 00000 -I
1 1 1 I I 1 II I I I II 1
WWW (0 al 0101 W r A r AA A 0000 Ut Z
rrr r W Ar r W A ( AA N 0000VNV 0
NNr r 0 rr N A r r rr r UI,N5O •
1 1 1 1I 1 1 I I I I I I 1
WWW (.0 0) CD0) W r A r AA A AAAAA M
rrr r N Ar r W A 00 AA N Z
N N W (04.0
(0 CO CO VV
00 r W NN St 0
W 00 0) NN 0)
r -4,1 'O I
CO A • 0
0 t.-
t
CO
IR r
I
RI v
U) D
* * * * * * * * N A
* * * * * * * * D m
* * * * * * * * A
1 1 11 1 i I i rn
C) C) A 0 C) C) 0 C)
Jrft
l3
r * r s r r * r rrr * r rr * 1 r * O+ * rr.. * r.
A * A * A A * A AAA * A AA * A A * A * AA * C) CO
CD * (O * (0 (0 * CD CO CD(O * CO CO CO s CO CD s CO * CO(D >f = CO
CA * C) * V1 VI * V) N VI UI It N U)UI * U1 VI * N * VIN * m r
0 * O * CO (O * Co Co co co * V V V * A A * W * N N * C)
co * 0 * 4.41 A * r 000 s V CAC) * N A * (0 * ...IV * X ()
M
Z V
0 <
0
0 m
0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00 0 0 0 00 A •
VI VI U1 VI V1 V1 UI UI UI V1 UI 4.41 U1 N win -1 CO
\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ m z
N N N N N NNN N NN N N N NN D
CO CO (D (D CO CO(0(O Co Co(D (0 CO CD CD CO 7C
\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ 0
CO CO Co Co CO Co CO(O CO CO(0 CO (O (0 Co(D V
F.. r r r r rrr r rr r r r rr m
M
>
x
0
A C
C) AA rr AA rr WW rr `A -A
0 CAO) VV O)O) WW CWNN U)(n OoAA VV 0)C) VIVI r V
A LAW WW -IV 00 4.414,44r3 C4 WW 000 WW AA 00 V(OV V
0 I—F•• 00 VV VV WACnW 00 000 WW 0)0) WM N(DW N
0 WM 00 CAC) AA A0Vv 00 000 (n(n rr 00 CACAO W
* * * * * * * * * * * s
< 0 < < C CCC C CC CO CO CO NN
V M A ZZZ ZZ Z Z M CC
N m X r N MMM CI) MM D I1 > "O•o
M 0 M r -I-I-4 << V > 20 mm
0 Z m E 000 mm I r mm <
M 0 < m 000 m a s 0 •••I D D m
Z < CO 0 NN Z -Ti I XX Z
C) 0 CO CO -I 23,372 0 MM M M MM 0
X M M mmm M 1-I -4 m W az 0
r m 0 C) ZZZ I <-< 0 m C MM a
D m m 0 -.1-4....1 D O Z A C) A
Z r 1 = DDD CO 00 r m m DD =
O CI) I rrr M '1-1 (n 0 m
M m C)
Z A mmrr73 l+ ZZ 0 0
Ma73 = .'O
«<
# M
N
-4m
m
C -I m CO -4 mCAW -9 AA CO 0 0 X0 M
1 73 0 C m rnrr 0 00 C C C OC -I
M D C 13 r 300 Cn ZZ V -0 m -Io m
I- < M V m MAA -I mm V M CO Om 3
M m M r V M D r r ar
M r M = XX G) 26 9* M M !t. M 0
M m
m fir CI) Z z IA( IA1 m (n(n 0 (m/) N C O 0
0 M m 4-•ZZ 0 0 C m C)
N Z -II-I-1 == 1A r a
C -4 0 8 OO C/) M
W XIW3 r 1 = --A
M WO M M
CI) A V 0
-I m -I Z
Z
<
r 0 0 0 0 0000 0 00 0 0 0 00 D
A r r r r rrr r rr r r r rr C)
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I O
A A A A A AAA A AA A A A AA 0
W W N N W CONN W WW N N W NN C
V W W r N W W W N CD CO r r (O NI.-. Z
0 0 N 0 r NJ00 0 00 0 0 r NO -I
I I I I
I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I
r r CA O) C) 0 A W O) 1..... A W W WW Z
A UI r A N ONO+ A ....IN A N r rr 0
W r r r 1Orr r rC) r r r NN
I I I I I I I 1 I 1 i I I I 1 1
I.. I- CA CA ) 0 A W CA r r A W W (.3(4 M
A UI r A N ONr A VN A N r rr• Z
<
is r r r
0 0 0 0
mAA C) 4t 0
I....00 W C)
W -0 I
A • O
0 4-
I I
co
*R I.
3
M M
N D
* * * * * * * * N 0
* * * * * * : * > m
* * * s * * * * C)
1 1 I 1 I I 1 I m
C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C)
0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 UI
r r r - r r rr r r r r r r r r r * r * r
A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A * A * C) Co
co co CO . CO Co co CO W co co (o co c0 CD (D CD CO * CO * 2 CO
co Co co Co co co Co 0o co Co Co co Co CO CO CO Co * 0) * R) r
r r r I- r r 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 * NI * n
N A W N r 0 CO CD Co V D) U) A W N r O * CO * 7` C)
M
Z -1
O <
O
0 T
o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D
N UI U U' UI UI Cn U1 UI 0 N 0 (n UI to to N U) -1 Cl)
\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m 2
NJ N NJ NJ NJ N NJ NJ N) N) N NJ NJ NJ N N NJ N D
CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CO (D CD CD CO CO CO CO CD CO CD 7
\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0
CO CO CO CO CO CD COW CO CO CO CO CO CO (D CO CO CO v
✓ r r r r r rr r r r r r I- r r r I-. m
m
D
3
0
NN 0)Cl) A C
- Z
NN AA NN AW rr AA WW NN U)U) NN rr 0) -1
N -4,4 W W CO CO 00 0000 0....1W 00 00 AA NN rr 00 U)U) -.4.....1 WM AA O
0 4 0)0 NN 00 (0(0 00O 00 00 00 U)U) 00 00 00 -4-...1 00) (TU) A
0 0(1) 00 -.1-...1 00 00 000 00 00 00 AA 00 00 00 NN NN -4,1 0
0 0)O) 00 00 00 00 000 00 00 00 U)U) 00 00 00 COW 00 U)U) O
)4. * * * * * * * * )t * * * A * * *
Z (n -1 0 3 r t-('-( 2 (n 0 m C) C) co Co W E
D --1 m > 0 D D D D -1 0 r > C C C > m
-1 D 77 < Z Z 00 N m r Cl) v ( v -1 M N
r 70 M r Z 0 MM -4 0 0 3 XI N m -1 -1 -1
-< 0 m m M 2 m 0 0 D m RI <
D 73 Z < Z m Z M -I M C 77 r v m
(n m Z Z N (n 0 Z m Z Z C Z
N r M m V) >, -I C) 0 0 C) CO 0
Z 0 1 r w () 2 C > 0 'i v 0 r 0
\ > ,-a (n r D D m I- 0 v -4 Z )-( 70
-4 0 -1 0 0 1 C r m C C) 2 (n v) ()
MN Z 77 v M r D M 73 Cl) -12 2
M (7 --C Z M A M m
Z N 0 M M M 0 3 C Z C)
Z 0 M - M m C) () C) 7:
Z C) Z 73 Z D D -I
> 0 n M n rte-, v 0 7,
m
n Z 0 Z C) .
1 2 C) 1 M .
Cl)
—.1
rn
A
0 (A -< —1 co C) n N C) C) Cl) Cl) N n C) Cl) () 0 M
C C 0 7J r D OC D C C C D 0 C C -1
m v C D 0 v 1-17 v 0 v v v v Z v 0 m m
V) v --1 < C) 4-4 "0-0 M -0 v v H T -0 Cl) I
r 2 m -1 r -1 C) r r r -i r C)
Q* M r 3 D Q.)--( > 1 1-4 )-C M > {' M 2 9. 0
m 0 D r m r G) m m m r- m 0 m
(n Cn 0 2. M 00 CI) N 0 (n CA Cl) Cl)
C T Z m C) m 73 IT A v C n
CO -1 0 -4 0 2 0 ') 0 2 T W z
N W C C 0 C 0 C 0 0 N )-4
n D W M 0 M M O C) v
m r UI v r v v r v --1
M r HI Cl) (n M M
v Cl) v 0
-4 70 -4 -I Z
T
0
0 0 0 0 0 O 00 0 0o 0 0 0 V 0 0 W O D
✓ r r r r r r r r A r r r r r r A r n
A A W A A A A A A N A A A A A A N A 0
W N U) W N U) C.)NJ U) W N NJ N U) W N W C.) C
CO r W W W r CO r r O r r r r CD r 0 CO 1
✓ 0 r 0 0 r 00 r NJ 0 0 0 r 0 0 N r -4
C.) W 0 C.) 0 A GIC-) C.) 0 W C7) 0) V C.) r 0 r Z
✓ r 0 r r r rr r 0 r r r r r 0) 0 C7) 0
✓ r 0 N V r rr r 0 r r r r C.) r 0 r
I I I I I I
I
✓ W O CO 0) A W C.) C+.) O C.) 0) 0) V C.) r 0 r N
✓ r 0 r r r r r r O r r r r r a) 0 U) 1
W A 0 CO Co NJ r C.) CO
NJ O r NJ U) Co A A 0 U)
CD CO 0)(f r CO CJ r N Co it 0
A A r O) r CO r r co NJ O)
✓ co CO V 0) A A v 1
NJ A 0
O 1-
CO
IS .-
I m v
Cl) D
* * V) C)
* * > m
* * G)
M
n n
7 7C
Cl) 0 U)
)3
0 cc,
■ S CD
x m r-
• n
• >; 0
M
Z -i
0 <
0
0 T)
D
-4 Cn
m =
D
0
v
rn
m
D
Q1 t- N p
00 1-)-0) 00 W W A 00 C
. _ _ . . - _
00 (Cr U)U)h-rF-f-N00OO)A -
W C Q -J(400 OO)-UI000 N
CO AN Ocn CO CO V'--UIV ACJ cfl
W ACD OOONNVVO)OW O
CD O Cn 0 0 0 cn N co V CAO(4 0
-f
p m T m m T T m m T m T T
-i C C C C C C C C C C C C
D Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
000000000000
0000va)AACA)WNN -Q 0
AF-)-4.34-OVh-C1)W Ar- 0
-I--I--t-1-c-1--i-i--i-i-4--i C)
000000000000
-11-4-I-4-i-4-4-i-4-4-4 rn
DDDDDDDDDDDD C')
rrrrrrrrrrrr
m
G)
Cn
-4rn
'17VII--co F-s-.-QNO N
CAD RICOcoCDCDCDxip,om -
C)<£co co co cocoDCDZ
27�om- co -izm 3
4027 G)DD ZCn27
Zr- Np 44>rn)-+D 0
rm3 -4 C.) m
Cv-+31-1vmr Cn
-1227~-C-CI-II 27 < m C)
2700T27 00 c 27
C < I ON<DCD Z �--4
cq m0<• rn'17< 0 v
-4 I U)m O) rI i -4
m 3 C)-1v 4-4
z RI • DD 0
- Z vrv) Z
-i N
v
N I
0
0 4
Cn m
0
D
C)
C)
0
C
Z
-4
Z
O
rr
z
it O
O)
U
O
O ►-
CO
St I-.
RI• -0
Cn
s Cn C)
D m
Y C)
RI
C)
N
l3 It..
Cl) OD OD CO Co 0 w w w IN IO O 0 OD OD OD CD CO OD CO CO /O ty .7
H H H H H H H H H vt H H H H H H H H H H H H n o
NO NO NO \O\O w vi `n \fl NA N N N NO \O \O NO NO NO NO NO W c* ]C
N N N N N H H H I--, H w w H N N N N w N N R) N •
w w H N 0 0 NO NO NO NO N N v1 v1 co 1 H H OD N 0 0 a •
O O O O O H n u
Nt w W - O O O O O O O O H 0
O O O O O 1 Co CO Co N N H N O O O O O O O O w e.
0 0 0 O O O\ vl vi NA H H H 1 0 0 0 0 0 O O O H 3
O O O O O H -P' -P' -P-• W w 4' O O O O O O O O H cG
O O O O O 1 H H H H N H N O O O O O O O O w
Co •
W N 0 '=J CO CD Co Co CD 0 w W W N O O 0 CO CD OD CD CD CD CD Co 0 0
H H v1 H a H H H H H H H H H \n H H H H H H H H H H H H K
1111 CJ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a
'V H C7 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H n
P) \O K cD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
c< \OP H
K HH• cD 9 a'b
H H W W U) n
H'd CDD H CxJ
H K '.J
K 0 CD
cn N 'd $D, vt H N
c+ r• - H H NO NA W H 1 OD CO a
C] c+ 3
• P1 N H ON H N H 0 N Nn NA`n N -- w WWW 0 o
'TJ H w W N 0\n ON 1 N_n \.n 0 \n w ON O\ 0 N CO N W ON 0 z
• N ON 1 H w 1 O 0 0 0 N OO 1 O N O -wO '
,-o \O O O ON H O H O O O O O vi N 4 Co H N O 1 w w Oci-
0 0 N O\\O H O O O O O O CO H O \n NO 0 CO ON - O
cam.
C)
nVj
c+ c+
m
«c c
Nil -_F.-4- 0
H O\ 7d 7d ZI 70 7� 'd = = O O = LTJ co 7J 7J .Tl 7) 7� 77 7D Tl C
CD CD (D CD CD K c+ c-+ •a C CD CD CD cD CD CD CD CD 0 2
1‘) --I O\O 3 S O K B H
-P' O 1 0 a\
H. H. H. H. H. 'h CD• lD r• 'h r• r• r• r• H. H. H. H. c+ Cn
N CO O O c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ K K t3 W c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+
\O O O O CO 'd b CO TJ TJ CDD H H 3 CD x 'V C7 to 'd 3 T] TJ c�D x a
O O \O LTJ t=i H H H K (D LTJ cD H P1 (p H H N ►G
7d 71 H a H < 'd• 'd r• 3 P) 7i M H °< ID, a H a
a 9 a K '1 Z P) H a cD K F-'• a W
O 0 c+ c+ c+ '1 0 n
< < H P)
C] H K r�
a CO (D E
cn 'd ) C7
< n
tzi
w w w w w w c,.) w LAI L.) w w W W W W W W w C.0 w w (.-) Fp,
n n v � \n \n vn vvt
\ \ vi tvt vi vi v, i \ i VI v �n v
tvt ,
—4 —4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 —1 —4 -] —4 —1 —4 —1 —1 —4 —4 —1 x ,,,IS
• NO NO NO NO NO \O NO NO NO NO NO OD OD CJD CJD co CJD CD 00 Co 0) H
\O CD -tel C)\ON \n 1- w N H 0 0 NO OD 1 ON N F I-U w LU N
0
•
'D 'Ti CD = X a 3 C) 3 7O = 0 a CJd 'd b C] : _ = 3 C
LTJ L'J 0 4v 0 2' 2 r• (D 0 H LTJ LTJ 0 11) • CD
7J 77 B K H. 0) 'CI 9 7J bo B K cn
9 . 3 .0 < 'd 0 C7 a a s Cr) 3 .1D • A.
0 ID cD P) 7c1 CD K C) 0
O t Ro H OR 'd '1 cD K 0 O 0 W '-d '1
'-h P) H O c+ P 04 n Cl) Hb 4) 0
7z1c+ Ro o x m w Cl) XI x cI-
cD cn H. H) ) c+ H CO CD 3
< Cr) r• O C '1 H < Cn 4v
CD a' c+ x cI- P1 v o
• P> 0 cD Cl) K cn CO : 4) c+
C x K a 4v o 'Ti C x cD
rn 'C0 I `n 0
H P) CD TS K
(D CO '1 3 Nn c+ 0. (D
K 0 C)
H C.)
y x
C)
� a
-tt
-F' H H \0 \n W H O\ N Cl-
-64-
N H 4' ON H N H 0 N n\ \J i H 4 w 0 0 .
LA) w N \n ON —4 NA NA ON w ON ON 0 N CO N 0
N O\ —4 H 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 N 0 (.11v1 N 0
•
V O O 0\ N H O O O O v, N 4 CO H N O 4 0
0 10 \n vi H 0 0 0 0 0 0) H O \n NO 0 OD 0
17_2) (:).
CONSEI\IT
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Surplus Vehicles
DATE: May 29, 1991 •
Introduction
Council action is required to declare property surplus in order to dispose
of equipment that is not needed.
Background
The City has been selling (auction) of most of its surplus vehicles through
the Hennepin County Purchasing Cooperative auctions. Shakopee has three auction
slots reserved for this summer. It is requested that Council declare the
following vehicles surplus;
1976 Dodge Van #81776
1986 Ford LTD #169129
The Dodge van in the Engineering Dept. has been replaced through the purchase
of a 1991 S-10 pickup. The 1986 Ford LTD (old squad) has been replaced through
the purchase of a 1990 Dodge Dynasty in the Police Dept.
Last year we ended up with more vehicles for disposal than we had auction
slots reserved. Council decided to let the custodians use one of the old squads
as long as it was not going in the auction. The custodians haul tools and
supplies around to the several buildings they work in and the use of this vehicle
seems to work well for them. Therefore staff is proposing to continue the use
of that car.
A 1985 Ford LTD #130989 is the Recreation Dept. car. It is in worse shape
than the 1985 Ford LTD in the Street Dept. It was discussed at a staff meeting
to sell the Recreation Dept. car and then transfer the Street Dept. car to the
Recreation Dept. . The Street Dept. car was the car used by the former Street
Supervisor. The City Administrator and the School Superintendent were going to
meet to review the disposition of the Community Recreation assets including the
car. This meeting apparently has not taken place and therefore it is not clear
whether the City can declare the Recreation car surplus and sell it. Also, the
Public Works Director has requested to keep the Street car for miscellaneous use,
estimating that it accumulated 350 - 400 miles per month.
Attached for Council information is the list of vehicles currently insured
by the City. Note that SPUC vehicles are included on the list.
Action Requested
Move to declare the following vehicles surplus property; 1976 Dodge Van
#81776, 1986 Ford LTD #169129, that they be sold at auction.
City of Shakopee / 3°
Schedule of Vehicles
May 1991
Bldg Cost
Description VIN Dept. Garaged New
1 1976 Dodge van 1/2T 81776 ENGIN City Hall 4,500
2 1982 Chev S-10 PU + cap, radio 39659 ENGIN City Hall
3 1983 Ford Ranger PU + cap, radio 33076 ENGIN City Hall
4 1987 Chev Nova 103626 ENGIN Employee
5 1989 Chev S10 PU 1924 ENGIN City Hall 9,000
6 1991 Chev S10 89495 ENGIN City Hall 10,000
7 1934 Ford Fire trk - storage 1870656 Fire Rehr warhse 3,600
8 1962 Ford Fire trk 211077 Fire Fire 16,225
9 1968 Chev Fire trk 157059 Fire Fire 4,900
10 1974 Chev 3/4T 4x4 + grass pak 6732 Fire Fire 5,386
11 1974 Mack fire trk 1588 Fire Fire 53,918
12 1975 Rend. Aerial fire trk 7512608 Fire Fire 168,860
13 1976 boat trailer 160179 Fire Fire
14 1989 Trailer - Hoovercraft 35989 Fire Fire 1,000
15 1976 Hend. fire trk 2612625 Fire Fire 66,149
16 1983 Chev 3/4T 4x4 + grass pak 151763 Fire Fire 10,206
17 1985 Hend. Fire trk 16384 Fire Fire 160,000
18 1986 Spartan fire rescue 185961 Fire Fire 150,000
19 1988 Mack fire tanker M001298 Fire Fire 107,000
20 1990 Ford 1T 4x4 + grass pak 7493 Fire Fire 31,000
21 1986 Ford Ltd Cr.Vic. (old squad) 169130 Fire Fire 13,500
22 1991 Chev Step Van 3501 Fire Fire Station 35,000
23 1984 GMC 1/2t PU 514580 INSP. City Hall 6,700
24 1989 Chev S10 PU 3083 INSP. City Hall 9,000
25 1987 Chev Caprice (old squad) 200707 Gvt Bld City Hall 13,500
26 1974 Chev step van + equip 317352 Park Public Works 5,976
27 1984 Iveco 1.5T. garbage trk 201194 Park Public Works
28 1988 GMC 1T PU + Equip 530360 Park Public Works
29 1979 Homemade trailer 045 Park Public Works
30 1983 Ford 1T trk 41545 Park Public Works 10,559
31 1988 Pont Grand Am 12962 PLAN City Hall
32 1990 Ford LTD Cr Vic Squad 1764 Police Public Works 13,500
33 1990 Ford LTD Cr Vic Squad 1765 Police Public Works 13,500
34 1990 Ford LTD Cr Vic Squad 1766 Police Public Works 13,500
35 1988 Ply Caravelle 222304 Police Public Works 9,133
36 1988 Subaru 5653 Police Public Works
37 1986 Ford Ltd Cr.Vic.(old sq blu) 169129 Police Public Works 13,500
38 1987 Chev Caprice 200159 Police Public Works 13,500
39 1987 Chev Caprice (old squad) 200703 Police Public Works 13,500
40 1987 Chev Suburban (squad) 149645 Police Public Works 13,500
41 1989 Ford LTD Cr Vic Squad 76247 Police Public Works 13,500
42 1989 Ford LTD Cr Vic Squad 76248 Police Public Works 13,500
43 1991 Ford LTD CR VIC 72515 Police Public Works 18,000
44 1990 Dodge Dynasty 3364 Police Employee
45 1985 Ford LTD 130989 REC. Comm Rec
46 1952 GMC + sewer jet equip 458 Sewer Public Works 10,486
47 1958 Dodge 3/4 PU + rodder 50075 Sewer Public Works
48 1974 Int'l 1600 step van + TV equip 10235 Sewer Public Works
49 1983 Jeep CJ5 + equip 51133 Sewer Public Works 8,427
50 1990 Chev 1T 4x4 dump + equip 3858 Sewer Public Works 23,000
51 1984 IME sewer cleaner trailer 16384 Sewer Public Works 23,495
52 1954 Dodge 3/4 PU 61118 SPUC Utilities
53 1957 pole tr. 607054 SPUC Utilities
54 1966 HM woodbox tr. 607048 SPUC Utilities
55 1972 Home made trailer 607050 SPUC Utilities
56 1978 Chev trk +eq. 105343 SPUC Utilities 48,927
57 1980 Chev It truck 130069 SPUC Utilities 11,415
58 1980 Ditch witch trailer 501108 SPUC Utilities 3,951
59 1983 Ford 3/4 PU + cap, radio A30418 SPUC Utilities 10,419
60 1983 Ford bucket trk A40012 SPUC Utilities 24,463
61 1984 Ford 3/4 van 76029 SPUC Utilities 9,500
62 1986 Ford 3/4 PU 36086 SPUC Utilities 10,714
63 1986 Ford F800 digger derick 37006 SPUC Utilities 91,689
64 1986 Olds Cutlass Cierra+ 336536 SPUC Employee 11,539
65 1988 Chev S10 4x4 + Equip 66285 SPUC Employee
66 1988 Trailer Bobcat Mdl Z6000 7121 SPUC Utilities 4,950
67 1990 Ford F350 bucket truck 24766 SPUC Utilities 40,457
68 1989 Ford F350 (Kenny) 7493 SPUC Utilities 40,457
69 1952 Amphibious trailer 1/4T 380359 Street Public Works
70 1952 Amphibious trailer 1/4T 382368 Street Public Works
71 1953 Dodge 3/4 PU 90851 Street Public Works
72 1954 Dodge 3/4 PU 61605 Street Public Works
73 1954 Dodge 3/4 PU 60686 Street Public Works
74 1978 Chev dump truck + equip 50985 Street Public Works 16,143
75 1988 GMC 1T PU 4x4 + Equip 533277 Street Public Works
76 1980 Ford dump trk + equip JA7106 Street Public Works 45,000
77 1982 Ford dump trk + equip VA47413 Street Public Works 28,000
78 1985 Ford dump truck + equip 68473 Street Public Works 36,864
79 1986 GMC TB 700 Flusher 3200737 Street Public Works 44,000
80 1987 Ford dump truck + equip 41924 Street Public Works 41,220
81 1990 Felling Trailer 72086 Street Public Works 2,795
82 1985 Ford LTD 175662 Street Public Works
83 1989 Ford dump truck + equip 9287 Street Public Works 41,220
�. ONSENT
MEMO TO: DENNIS KRAFT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DAVE HUTTON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
DATE: MAY 28, 1991
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting authorization to purchase a rear-mounted
mower attachment for an existing Ford tractor for a net cost of
$850 .00
BACKGROUND
The Parks Division of the Public Works Department is requesting
permission to purchase a Woods mower attachment ( rear-mounted)
for an existing Ford tractor.
The Department currently has 2 Ford tractors . These Ford
tractors replaced 2 International tractors several years ago.
The International tractors came equipped with mid-mounted mowers
and when the new Ford tractors were purchased, a decision was
made to keep the mid-mounted mowers and retrofit them onto the
Ford tractors.
Unfortunately, the mid-mounted mowers do not work well on the
Ford tractors due to the Ford tractors being a much lower profile
tractor than the Internationals. There is no room to raise the
mid-mount mowers on the Ford tractors , resulting in more pressure
on the belts during mowing operations . As a result, the belts
are constantly breaking resulting in excessive maintenance costs
and excessive downtime to the point where the mid-mounted mowers
cannot be used with any degree of reliability.
In addition, the Department has one rear-mounted snow blower for
the Ford tractors, which is no longer needed due to the purchase
of the bobcat in 1990, which has a snow blower attached.
Staff has contacted 3 equipment suppliers in an effort to trade
the two mid-mounted mowers and snow blower for a rear-mounted
mower. The low quote received was from Lano Equipment, Inc. of
Shakopee, as follows :
New Woods rear-mounted mower - $2950. 00
Less trade in for mid-mounted mowers - 1200 .00
Less trade in for snow blower - 900 .00
Total Price $ 850 .00
/3R
The Park Division has $8 , 000 budgeted in the 1991 Capital
Equipment Budget, consisting of $5 ,000 for a slit seeder and
$3,000 for a leaf loader. The slit seeder has been purchased for
$3,996.00 and the leaf loader has been purchased for $1 , 448. 00,
for a total expended to date of $5 ,444 . 00 . There is a balance
left in this budget of $2 , 556 .00.
Since the rear-mounted mower was not included in the 1991 Capital
Equipment Budget, staff is requesting authorization to expend
$850.00 for the rear-mounted mower. There are no other
anticipated equipment purchases scheduled for 1991 .
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Approve the request.
2. Deny the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
The Department has an opportunity to exchange 3 pieces of
basically useless equipment for a new piece of equipment that is
needed to provide efficient maintenance of our Park system.
ACTION REQUESTED
1 . Move to declare the 2 mid-mounted Woods mower and rear-
mounted snow blower as surplus equipment and authorize the
City Administrator to sell them.
2. Authorize staff to purchase a new Woods rear-mounted mower
from Lano Equipment, Inc. for a net cost of $850.00 (after
trade-in of 2 mid-mounted mowers and snow blower) out of the
Capital Equipment Budget.
park/mower
1 '3 Q
Memo To: Mayor & City Council
Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
From: Marilyn Remer, Personnel Coordinator
Re: Close City Hall July 5th
Date: May 30, 1991
Introduction
The City Administrator has directed staff prepare a memo
addressing city hall staffing needs for July 5th.
Background
This year the Fourth of July falls on a Thursday and presents
a situation similar to the 1990 Christmas holiday. You will
recall, Christmas Eve fell on a Monday and city hall was
closed allowing employee to utilize the long holiday weekend.
Many employees are requesting Friday, July 5th off for out-of-
town long weekend travel plans. It is city policy that at
least one person in each department at city hall be present at
all times and that at least two department heads be present.
Productivity for Friday would undoubtedly be low. Typically
this is a long holiday weekend for many metro area firms, and
it is anticipated, based on past practices, public business
conducted that day would be negligible. Staff is requesting
city hall be closed to the public on Friday, July 5th. An
Engineering Tech has agreed to cover that day if there is any
need for inspections, although many contractors customarily
shut down for the entire weekend. The building inspection
department will accommodate any contractors requesting
inspections for July 5th. Any employee desiring to work, may
do so. However, employees taking the day off could use
vacation leave or comp time. If they have no vacation time
coming, they could take time off without pay.
Alternatives
1. Keep regular hours on July 5th.
2 . Close city hall on July 5th.
3 . Other
Recommendation
Alternative number 2 , close city hall on July 5th. Employees
shall use a vacation day, comp time, take time off without pay
if leave is exhausted, or work.
Action Requested
Authorize the closing of city hall on July 5, 1991 with the
stipulation that employees use vacation or comp time, take the
day off without pay if leave time is exhausted, or that
employees may work if they chose to do so.
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Admi strator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk;/ i l 5 .1)
RE: Youth Employment Program Worksite Agreement
DATE: May 31, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a Youth Employment Program Worksite Agreement
between Scott County and the City of Shakopee for Council 's
consideration.
BACKGROUND:
As you are aware, Hazel Ecklund has been working in my office
for approximately 4 years. She has been working under the Senior
Services Employment Program, at no cost to the City. She has
purged records in Administration and Community Development
according to the City' s Records Retention Schedule. She is
currently preparing records for microfilming as well as beginning
the microfilming. To date she has microfilmed fourteen rolls of
film. Because of health reasons, she is unable to continue with
the microfilming; however, she is still available to continue
preparing the records for the microfilming and any other tasks that
we may have for her.
I have become aware that there may be one or two individuals
who might be interested in continuing with the microfilming through
the Minnesota Youth Program being administered through Scott
County. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, the City
must approve the Scott County Youth Employment Program Worksite
Agreement. The cost for an individual to perform this work through
this program would be born by Scott County. This program would be
administered similar to the program Hazel is working under, the
Senior Services Employment Program.
The individual would be working during the summer, probably
for 20 hours per week. She will continue with the microfilming of
the City' s minutes, ordinances, resolutions, and agenda packets for
the City Council and Boards and Commissions.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve execution of the agreement - no cost to the City.
2 . Send the microfilming out to be done - approximate cost
$2500. 00.
3 . Do not complete the microfilming.
4 . Utilize current staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Alternative #1, enter into am agreement with the County for
the Youth Employment Program.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the Scott
County Youth Employment Program Worksite Agreement.
JSC/tiv
13N
AGREEMENT *
SCCT:' COUNTY
YC(7T? FMP-T.OYM2NT PRCGRAZ
WCRXS T.r. AG? .=2/T
THIS AGIFIT mace between Scot:. County
HUM= Services, G^z='. 300,Shwa t e• Minnesota 55379 hereinafterer ed as t" by an
l
thr ugh the Scot_ County H=en Se*7icPetAr r lwreinafter refer to as
"Countr and
referred to as icyer 'etha-t..a
W=ESSc. T,..:
WEaRMS, funds are available to the Cot.mty fcr the purse of Vii.,,steriT.q and
operating employment and =thing T n; pry for the Scow Cmxzty yeuth under the
Jab '!'- ' ; Pte,-nersh j Act, Pt,n t ;r- Law 97-311, hereinafter refe=ed to as
.7=°A or t, Mir=esota Youth Pr-.man, Minnesota Stat rtes Sect:cn 258.31 to
268.36 1, rei a_fter referred to as MEP.
WEMR '3 S, the County is desirous of entering into an a semen
-�.. t with the Emplcyer
wtereby the Employer w.u?d mY
eligible youth fat Sob Training Per=ersh pAct (JTPA) or Minnesota Youth PZ am
(1wva)
The County and the nolcyer agree as follows:
1. =RM CF TEE AGREMENTx AND PAM aDMCRIZA rCa
A. Me tAv?-a of this is JUNE 10, 1991 through
A GUST 23, 199 , t date of sigrbv net
aTTrQC i the �
aTZ , unless ess arl 'wr tATnfi n7[t.Ed as provided d_e herein.
.
B The Emplayer a yes to acerata a worksite teaidi ng employment and
=Lining services to eligible recipients in ,2e-^'-r-+..ance with applicable
r-abt e
Federal and State laws and regular:rr c dur_ing the term -of this
agreemeat` Me program is to be administered and mated in
accordance with Swt... Couarrs =A and Azrrnla 1 Plans and policy
statements promulgated by the Scat: County Aman Services Board.
C. The County Shall 1 1 not teic u:se the Employer far costs inau=ed by the
eppicyer wizich are net in ac=cdar a with this age.
2. CML1 '4 LAWS AND RESCIATICUS
A. The Employer shah comoly. with all applicable Federal, State and local
Laws, rules and regulations which h deal with or relate to the
employment of persons who pert at ;sic ar are in t - i n i rq ter this
ae roamed
`
H. Me Employer states that it has fully reviewed the rrcr�gram. The
;c+t
by these r?T'"rS and candit i ens.
C. The Meyer will comely with all at-n 1 ;r-a h t e A f=„tet ive ?c can, Fair
• Labor, F.ea,Lth, Safety and awi=trentai Standards.
- 1 -
D. The Employer will comply with Title Vi of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(P.L. 88-352) and in accordance with Title VI of that Act no person in
the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, sex, age,
national origin, or political affiliation or beliefs, be excluded fpnn
parricioat_cn be denied benefits of or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under any Federal program.
E. The Employer will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 USC 2000d) , prohibiting employment di sc--i mi nation where (1)the
primary purpose of the grant is to provide employment or (2)
discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatments
of persons who are or shauld be benefiting Luis the program.
F. The Employer will u uwly with the provisions of the Hatch Act which
Limits the political activity of the participant.
G. The Employer will comply with the Child Labor i cr Stardrd Act Statutes
181.01 to 181.12 and regulations (CIS 1-22) . Copies of the Child
Labor Laws can be obtained through the Department.
H. In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilltration ALL of 1973 as
amended, and regulations issued pursuant to said Act, the Employer
will not discriminate on the basis of handicap in providing employment
optor unities and services.
I. The Employer shall comply fully with the provisions of the
Cc.^.mpational Safety and Health Act of 1973, Minnesota Statutes Chapter
182, and all applicable regulations and safety standards promulgated
thereunder in order to assure the safety of all participants in the
employment and training p rams.
S. The Employer shall comply fully with the Right-to-Know Act. The
Employer is required to inform participants of hazardous substance,
harmful physical agents or infectious agents t'zey may be exposed to in
tivair workplace. The Employer must provide training n;ng and written
material available to the participants and have all hazardous
substances, equipment or work areas labeled properly.
K. The Employer cer+i fi eg that the youth participant pant will tot participate
in activit i p or training far any church religious affiliated agencies
or businesses.
L. Employer certifies that they will not hire a person for a youth
position if a member of the person's immediate ate family is engaged in an
adminis=ative or ' supervisory capacity for the Employer or the
Department. ianlAdiate family means wife, husband, daughter, son,
mother, father, sister, brother, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, aunt,
uncle, niece, nephew, stepparent or stepchild.
M. Employer certifies that it has completed and submitted a Maintenance
of Effort form stating that it will not hire a participant with funds
available under this aunt if any other person is on layoff L--ua
the same or substantially equivalent job or the same or substantially
equivalent position is vacant due to a hiring freeze, termination of
an employee or where an employee has resigned. The Employer must
inform the Department if one of these conditions exist.
- 2 -
13dPL
N.
Emplayet certifies that each job will not result in the disalacerment
of qtly employed workers, including partial displacement such as
reduction of hours of non- vertime wank, wages, or employment
benefits; and will not impair i r exist;ng con me s for services or
result in the substir.,it .cn of grogram funds for other funds in
connection with wank that would otherwise be performed.
0. Employes certifies es that no employee hired under this Agreement shall
be placed or remain on a job affected by a labor dispute involving a
wank stoppage.
P. Employes cern;f;p, that he has obtained cone. nce L-uu all
aputcu4.j.ate collective bargaining agents and unions with respect to
jab duties of persons employed under this Amt. Said union
ccr u e -e shall be at Cached to this Agreement.
Q. Employer cer-;f4that all data collected, created, received,
maintained or disseminated nated for any purposes in the course of the
Employer's performance of this agreement is governed by the Minnesota
Data Practices Act., Minnesota Statutes 13.01 - 13.89, or any other
arpc i cable state or federal regulations ations on data privacy. The Employer
agrees to phi sae strictly by these statutes, riles and regulations.
3. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
A. The Employes will piavide employment for the participant to gain good
work habits and increase their future employability.7 i ty. The Employer
. agrees to provide sufficient equipment ent and mater:a 1 s to complete the
assigned job. Whenever applicable, the participants will receive
academic =edit for their work expenisence.
B. The Employer is participating in the program checked below:
1. ;_; In-School Rank r B ence. The employment caacrt unities
trust be in public sector, 20 hours per week maximum, and
not to exceed 500 hours per participant.
2. ;_; Tryout Employment. The employment opportunity is in the
private sector, 20 hours per week maxim=mm during the school
term or full-time during the summer months and not to
exceed 250 hours per participant.pant. The Employer must
=time the employment of the participant for the same
salary and amount of hours upon successful completion of
this agreement. Vacancies will not be refilled if the
previous participant completed the Tryout Employment but
was not hired by the Employer.
3. ;X Stmaer Youth Employment Program. The employment
opporo.mities are in the public r and private sector, 40
hours maximum and not to exceed 400 hours per participant.
This program starts in June and ends in August.
C. Employer certifies es that it has submitted a Job SDel'4 fir- tion to the
County which describes the duties of each participant purposed to be
hired under the program. The Job Specification cation is attached hereto and
made a part of this agreement.
- 3 -
D. The Emolcver agr✓eo to interview all potential employees refers i. to
the Moyer by the Department pursuant to this agreement. The
Employer agrees to notify the Department of all individuals hired
pursuant to this aunt (hereina±ta refer to as youth
participant) at least one (1) working day prior to the start of
employment with said. slayer.
E. The Emolcyer's personnel procedures shall be followed for each youth
participant including the provision of an initial job or entation, a
jab description, employee rights and responsibilities, the name of the
immediate supervisor, the ohcne number to c 1 1 in case of an absence
a:= work, and az; .;p4.iate accident prevention training.
4. F@IDIIM OF THE AL -'1r
A. The furls under this agreement will be the payment of wages directly
tly
to the participant.
B. It is understood and agreed that if there is a deduction in funding to
the County, the funding obligations as recited herein shall be
renegotiated. The obligation of each party he e nn er may thereupon be
cancelled, upon receipt of written notice.
5. PAR'IriCEPANr CrWDE.*1SATICN/PA`Crra •_•.roc
A. The Scott Ccunty Youth Program will. pay the Federal or State minim=
i m,m,
wage, whichever is higher, for every hour the youth works. The
. procedures are detadained by Scott County po l ;r-i,es. If wage i Wises
are granted over and above the allowed miithm wage, the Employe` is
responsible for the difference.
B. Youth are paid for every hour worked. The participant is not paid for
holidays, lurch hcurs, or vacation/sick leave. The length of the
lunch hour is deteanined by the worksite policy.
C. Scott County processes the payroll for the dam participants. The
Etaployer verifies and signs the time sheets. The employer submits
time sheets according to the payroll schedule to the Scott County
Emp1cyment and T ai n i ng Program. The Employer will maintain a copy of
the time sheet in the business records.
D. The County shall review the accuracy of the time sheets and no payment
aha,1 i be madewithout
6. 'CCN CF PARTICIPANT
A. The Emplcyer will notify the Department of plans to te=nirate a
participant 71.4c17- to the date of to minatian.
B. The Tryout Employment program states that the term nation must bbe. for
ca
a good cause or the vacancy will not filled for 12 ill.ut..hs. A
voluntary termination by an individual shall be treated the same as a
good cause dismissal.
- 4 -
7. ICITICN
A. Any changes required by the F i-al or State regulations are
automatically incorporated into this agreement without written
amendment and shall go into effect on the data designated by the law
or regulation.
B. Any changes in wages, tern of acTM nt, or job specification cation s ii
require a modification`ication of the agreement.
8. AITLRIZ2I) AMNT CF SCOTT COUNTY
Scott County shall appoint an authorized agent for the prise of
actn;n i st rain of this Aunt. The Employer is notified the authorized
agent for Scott County is:
Jean M. Sine'', Employment and Training Supervisor
Scott County Human Services
Courthouse 300
428 South Holmes Stroot
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1375
(612) 496-8273
9. Iii
The Employer does hereby agree that it will defend, indemnify and hold
harmigxs Scott County against any and all 1iahility, loss, damages, costs,
and exoenses which. the Dewarment of Scott County may hereafter sustain,
n,
incur or be required to pay:
A. By reason of any applicant cant or participant suffering bodily or personal
injury, death, or property loss or damage either while partic ter=rg
in or receiving the care and services to be furnished under this
Aunt, or while on premises owned leased, or operated by the
Employer, or while being ansaorted to or from said premises in any
vehicle owned, operated, leased, chartered, or otherwise cont. ted
for by the Employer or any officer, agent or employee thereof; or
B. By reason of any applicant or participant cm,sirq injury to, or damage
to the y of another person darn any time when the Toyer or
any officer, agent, or employee thereof has undertake or is fern;shi ng
the care and services calledfor ter this Aunt; of
C. By reason of any person employed by the 'Employer or alleged to be
employed by the Employer, for any claim or cause of action in equity
or for damages arising out of the amoloyment or alleged employment, or
discrimination by the employer; or
D. By reason of any negligent act or omission or intentional act of the
Employer, its agents, offirprs, or employees which causes bodily
injury, death, personal injury, property loss or damage to another
during the tern of this Agreenent.
- 5 -
10. RECORDS - AVAILABILITY Y AND RE'D5ZTI'ICN
A. The Employer shall prepare and submit reports to the County when and
as requested by the County. The County shall provide a minimum of
five (5) working days for preparation of requested report by the
Employer.
B. The Employer shall retain records relating to participants for a
period of three (3) years from the date of the participant's
enrollment. Records on any applicant aaist retained for a period of
one (1) year from the date of application.
11. BIDING
A. The Employer, if not a gove=rrental unit, shall maintain at all times
during the term of this Agement a -F;Hgo ity bond in the amount of
$100,000.00 covering the activities of each person authrIT.+Ted to
receive or distribute monies under the terms of this Agreement.
B. Prior to the Payment of any funds under this Agreement, the Employer
shall furnish the County with proof of coverage if applicable.
The bonding requirement has been waived for this Agreement.
12. ACRER'S CCNTICN
- A. All participants c=pants are? covered by Scott County's Xrs' CC enation
insurance Plan during the term of this Agreement.
B. First Report Of Injury:
Scott County requires the following procedures to be observed in case
of an accident:
1. Take the injured youth to the doctor or hospital of their choice.
2. Report the injury immediately to the Employment and Training
staff.
3. Inform the hospital or clinic that the participant is an employee
of Scott County and all billings are forwarded to: Scott County
Employment and Training, Court House 300, 428 South Solves,
Shakopee, MN 55379, Attention: Beth M. Olson.
4. Complete a First Report of Injury form and submit within 24 hours
of the occurrence. Complete and submit these forms for arty
accident, even those that did not need medical attention.
C. For the Tryout Employment program, the Employer shall have, at the end
of this Agreement, obtained at its own cost and exrense the statutory
W 'Ss' cca:censaticn i nmmarre and employer's , i a hi 1 i ty insurance as
required under the laws of the State of Minnesota to continue
employment of the participant.
- 6 -
13. FAIR REARING AND GRIEVANCE PRO=ZE
A. The Employer shat establish a system through which participants may
present grievances about the operation of the program, and the
Employer shall advise par- pants of this right.
B. The County shall advise applicants and particitants of all of their
rights to a fair hearing and the appeal process including, but not
limited to, the right to appeal a denial or exclusion of a service and
of the right to a fair hearing in these respects. The County shall
make a=zngemesrts to provide such lvaari ngs
14. PROGRAM LIAISCN
The County shall T provide liaison i son the State and the Moyer
relative to the provisions of this AgpMEEEMt. The County shall notify the
Employer of changes or aaendnts to rules and regulations which govern the
r1 •very of the program.
15. INDEPENDENT
A. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is interriPei or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship
of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the
Employer as the agent, repzesent'.ative, or employee of the County for
any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The Employer is to be and
shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services
performed under this Agreement.
B. The Employer represents that it has, or shall secure at its own
expense, all personnel required in performing services under this
Agreement. Any and all personnel of the Employer or ocher persons,
while engaged in the performance of any work or services wired by
the Employes under this Agreement, shall have no contractual
relationship with the County, and any and all claims that may or may
not tri<e under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Worker's
Campensati cn Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel
arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without
1 imi taticn, claims of disci urination against the Employes, its
officers, agents, , or employees shall in no way be the
responsibility of the County; and the Employer shall defend,
indemnify, and hold the County, its officers, agents and employees
harmless lira t any and all such claims it respec five of any
determination of any pertinent tr2 ma 1 , agenoy, board, commission, or
court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require Te nor be
entitled to any coarensation, rights, or benefits of any kind
whatsoever frau the County, including without limitation, tenure
rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers'
Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability, severance pay, and
PEA.
- 7 -
• 16. TERMINATICN AND FINALIZATIM OF AGREEMENT
A. This Agreement or portion thereof, may be terminated by either party
at any time, with or without cause, unon thirty (30) days' written
notice, cP1 vered by mai1 or in person.
B. If it is discovered that the Employer is not in compliance with the
teras of this Agreement, the County may terminate nate the Agreement
effective upan receipt of written notice of such termination to the
Employer.
C. After receipt of the notice of tern;nation, and except as otherwise
provided, the Employer shall:
1. Discontinue _provision of services under the Aunt on the date
and to the extent specified in the Notice of Termination;
2. Complete performance of such services as shall not have been
terminated by the Notice of Terni nation;
3. Submit the final time sheet of the participant, signed by the
participant and the Employer, to the staff of the Employment and
Training Deparanent for final wages;
4. Maintain all records relating to the performance of the
ri=mninated po=tion of the A m Ment as may be required red b_y the
County; and
S. Notify all participants of the termination of the Aunt.
MERGER
It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties
is contained herein and that this Agreement pedes all oral agents
and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter
hereof. All domments referred to in this Agreement are i n crocratei or
attached herein and are deemed to be part of the int. Any
inconsistencies between the terms of the Agreement and any attached or
incorporated documents shall be resolved in favor of the Agreement.
18. SEPARABILITY
In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and
unenforceable, the remaining n i ng provisions shall be valid and binding upon the
parties unless such invalidity or non-enforceability would cause the
agreement to fail its purpose. One or more waivers by either party of any
provision, tern, condition or covenant shall not be construed by the other
party as a waiver of a subsequent breach of same by the other party.
19. NOTICES
Any notices to be given under this Agreement shall be given by enclosing
the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid,d, and depositing the same in
the United States Postal Service, addressed to Moyer at its address
stated herein, and to the County at the address stated herein.
- 8 -
1.1
20. ccurnamiNG LAW
This Agreetent is to be governed by the Laws of the State of 2i nr esota.
21. •••a. 0- AND ASSIS
The County and Eamlcyer, respectively, bind them selves, their pa 'ers,
successors,
s assigns, and legalparty tatives to either with respect
to all Agreement. Neither the County not Employer chA 11
assign, sublet, or t ansfer any interest in this Agreement without the
i`r'rrr writ-Pan consent of the other.
Bayer's Signature Date Employer/Wcmktsite
Title Address
Phone Number Address
- 9 - E&T #101
11/30/89
CONSENT /YCL
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director �'`{1 Y�4,d1�
SUBJECT: Shakopee Bypass ��``''
DATE: May 29, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
Staff has received a request from Mn/DOT for City Council approval
of the plans and specifications for the next phase of construction
for the Shakopee Bypass.
BACKGROUND:
The Shakopee Bypass is being constructed in 5 phases. The first
phase, Phase IA, was let last year and construction has started on
that portion of the project.
Staff has been notified by Mn/DOT that the plans and specifications
for the second phase, Phase IB, are now complete and a bid letting
for this phase has been scheduled for June 14, 1991.
Phase IB consists of constructing two additional bridges at the far
east end of the bypass near C.R. 18. One bridge will go over the
C & NW tracks and the second will be to cross existing T.H. 101.
The proposed contract calls for a starting date of July 29, 1991
and a final completion date of no later than August 27, 1991.
Prior to letting the contract, Mn/DOT requires City Council
approval of the plans and specifications by resolution. Attached
is Resolution No. 3409, approving the plans and specifications for
this project for Council consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 3409.
2 . Deny Resolution No. 3409.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3409, A Resolution Approving Plans and
Specifications for Phase IB of the Shakopee Bypass from 0.24 Miles
West of the C & NW Railroad to the East Corporate Limits, State
Project No. 7005-63 (101=187) and move its adoption.
�o� HES°r4 Minnesota Department of Transportation /c f "
i Metropolitan District
'; Transportation Building
Fy dc° St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
T OF
1-014 Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Reply to
Telephone No. CW-444
5/; Z/'9
/ S.P. 7G'oS- G 'S T.A. /0 /
01/4kpPLc., /yl.v .5"›- 37y City.
Attention: 49/9/,'
Attached is a final plan and proposal, along with a resolution, for
your council's approval. If further information is required, please
contact ir'. /7v jw''Sry at 593 - ? 5 " 3
We must have one certified copy bearing the city's seal prior to
J4sAIE / 0 , 19 9/ .
Kindly return the certified and sealed resolution to:
teonan C. eucko
Agreements Specialist
Minnesota Department of Transportation
5801 Duluth Street
Golden Valley, MN 55422
f MINNESOTA
1990
An Equal Opportunity Employer
141w
RESOLUTION NO. 3409
A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications
For Phase IB Of The Shakopee Bypass
From 0.24 Miles West Of The C. & NW Railroad
To The East Corporate Limits
State Project No. 7005-63 (101=187)
At a meeting of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, held on
the day of 1991, the following Resolution was
offered by ; seconded by
, to wit:
WHEREAS the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of
Minnesota has prepared: plans, special provisions, and
specifications for the improvement of Trunk Highway No. 187 ,
renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 101, within the corporate limits of
the City of Shakopee, from 0 . 24 miles west of the C. & NW Railroad
to the East corporate limits; and seeks the approval thereof;
NOW, THEN BE IT RESOLVED that said plans and special
provisions for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within said
corporate limits of the City, be and hereby are approved including
the elevations and grades as shown and consent is hereby given to
any and all changes in grade occasioned by said construction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City does hereby agree to
require the parking of all vehicles, if such parking is permitted
within the corporate limits of said City, on said Trunk Highway, to
be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway, and at least 20
feet from any crosswalks on all public streets intersecting said
Trunk Highway.
Upon the call of the roll, the following Council members voted in
favor of the Resolution:
and, the following Council members voted against the adoption of
the Resolution:
whereupon the mayor and/or the presiding officer declared the
Resolution adopted.
) ti av
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,
1991.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
CITY OF SHAKOPEE )
I do hereby certify that at said meeting (of which due and legal
notice was given) of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, on the day of ,
1991; at which a majority of the members of said Council were
present, the foregoing Resolution was adopted.
Given under my hand and seal this day of , 1991.
City Clerk
1 SENT
® Iq)
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Valley View Road (7- 7►2 `��
DATE: May 29, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 3411, a resolution establishing Valley
View Road from County Road 83 to County State Aid Highway 21 as a
municipal state aid highway.
BACKGROUND:
On January 22, 1991 the City Council of Shakopee discussed the
proposal to add Valley View Road, from County Road 83 to County
State Aid Highway 21, to the municipal state aid system. The
existing Valley View Road from County State Aid Highway 17 to
County Road 83 is already on the municipal state aid system.
The City Council approved of the preliminary request to add this
portion of Valley View Road to the municipal state aid system and
directed staff to submit a formal request to Mn/DOT for this
designation. Staff has submitted this request and has received a
preliminary approval for adding this street to the municipal state
aid system.
The next step in the process is to submit a formal resolution
requesting that this road be designated as a municipal state aid
street. Attached is Resolution No. 3411, which formally makes that
request.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 3411.
2 . Deny Resolution No. 3411.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3411, A Resolution Establishing Valley View
Road, Between County Road 83 and County State Aid Highway 21, as a
Municipal State Aid Highway and move its adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM3411
//to
cv
it 1
11-_4_,/ N&I), kil— re111:74-1 -- - V
,. 1 .. piiim...., , •-...
"-- 1 r,J -•;i 1=4" -_i r I
Wildietk 1 /
, ��
ft ., . ________ - / Trao.‘ ; ,... I*. r- .c
• " 17 I /
).),Lii_. L.,/ _I :, r P ' � PL' o
it f 9,111110e,--.._:=a1 FE W
((.1r� // I1 t ,c) _;. `NI ,. ,t-- ;15-
0/ F-
1,1 �/-/11 i - •_� yArA ���` i li l j.
IIMI Illirr . NM % < =
s- r6 ,
s z
-m - J dLtZ - JiT
Lu
O N
_�_ / t
O.
6,, ‘;.•;1' "
1:: - y 1 1r'' ' fir �� ° `- �'
% :yAIp,
30 is ,,,,,,..w.,.....,„„,,its. ,
.. ,
, ,....,,....„,
, ii, g
1•A Ad.. MN
1 le1 W alimillitILI -
k ;1410
Mi
((( 1 '41 .4 IMP lm'llill''TI , , .
• --- _,--- -. a 4,15
4 1111114 mi_.
1\1 ,wel . t.. ... , iiivucu
viVirraraa,
• . --" wow- - - - I"/-lir NIL li il
\ .111. elleirg,\ 1,11se„v, '1Fr 1 !Vviliiilia ,
,,rrv
01,1311fra • .1, 1M. f s• `�-. 411001w.....„
1.?.47 I i :,' - ‘‘L.„ p. I, ei
,,
Alk I
ab
A . _ III. . _ , i
K. 111 '8. • : .• J
• ,,,, /J . ,j,.�
v.
\.
,,,,\\_....„. . i‘,...\iRopHvviniipo
...._" !_f:
=11
4‘6 111:11:6111111M-�ii�
SEPTEIBER, 1984 STATE AID MANUAL FIG. A 5-892.008� #
N
w
F-
N
3W 1 ®1
oltZ
to 0
03 >CO
1- CC
LU 2 a0¢ J<
> wm co QUO i-00
-I ¢N
-I LL W
Cl)V)
Q~ ¢OC
¢m F- I®I
U.cn0 1—
IB) z
2
F
<
N Z2
2 0O
W N~
1- 0<
N
>-
U)
W ` � !-
LU
e I
Cl) \
CI 2 \
Z 0 \ v)
Q V)r \ w v
} Z - m
Q W \ 1N U a> ?
o v� IIr"'"---.) Z > E o
CC = w i 1 - ¢w c E
o
Q _ ¢0 1 '.cw 1 a¢ < i
I I I oL o 1 <0 cNi :
U p I c "2 1 C x
a IC221
0 .2-
cn
0 w 1 y d a 1 a m U
J I- I i • Fo c c
u_ < 1ii) -y 1i H �- o
H 1 C > 1 Z o m
Lu cn i to U.Q O 1 a) � c
i 1 1 r_ -_1 Q 73 O g
O.
ca 3
Z C
\ c
E
Cl) v, \ c E
Z w \ eOo ' �
O_ u u c
_N F < `Z N
0 v 2 Cl, o
LU Z a n 2 S Q
O Y
1r 2 i LLE N 12 O
w
J N I
<y< ie
Z
cc 0 fell
CILL O N
W W
_- Cl)
2 2 as 00-
C_ WRQ >�
wow
E cc
wa¢
¢<O
•
CCLL
LU ¢ 0 00
2 w
CC LL 0C V o
Z z VZt Ow 0Q 0 Z > z0 Lu ZQ
wccC7 WW2 Uw } gyp Zw < 0O
r 0 Z ►- .--I-- I- 1- 0 0 D w 0 N a
LL, cn<0 u. Q
1 ONw Ocn 0 U ONft m O<
0 U U F-
JL
RESOLUTION NO. 3411
A Resolution Establishing Valley View Road,
Between County 83 And County State Aid Highway 21,
As A Municipal State Aid Highway
WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of
Shakopee that the road hereinafter described should be designated
State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota Law.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Shakopee that
the road described as follows, to-wit:
Valley View Road, Between County Road 83 and County State Aid
Highway 21.
be, and hereby is established, located, and designated a Municipal
State Aid Street of said City, subject to the approval of the
Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this
resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his
consideration, and that upon his approval of the designation of
said road or portion thereof, that same be constructed, improved
and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of
Shakopee.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1991.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
CONSENT
EXPLANATION TO ORDINANCE 311, FOURTH SERIES
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Law Department
PURPOSE: To decrease the membership on the Park and
Recreation Advisory Board from eight to seven.
REMARKS : At its meeting on May 21, 1991, the City Council
directed staff to prepare an ordinance reducing membership on the
Park and Recreation Advisory Board from eight to the original
seven. The attached ordinance accomplishes this.
ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 311, an ordinance
amending Sec. 2 . 57 of the City Code, Park and Recreation Advisory
Board, by amending Subd. 2 , Composition of Commission, to
decrease the membership on the Board from eight to seven, and
move its adoption.
Submitted by: Approved by:
/
City Attorney City Administrator
Attachment
[2 . 57M]
EXPLANATION TO ORDINANCE 311, FOURTH SERIES
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Law Department
PURPOSE: To decrease the membership on the Park and
Recreation Advisory Board from eight to seven.
REMARKS: At its meeting on May 21, 1991, the City Council
directed staff to prepare an ordinance reducing membership on the
Park and Recreation Advisory Board from eight to the original
seven. The attached ordinance accomplishes this.
ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 311, an ordinance
amending Sec. 2 . 57 of the City Code, Park and Recreation Advisory
Board, by amending Subd. 2 , Composition of Commission, to
decrease the membership on the Board from eight to seven, and
move its adoption.
Submitted by: Approved by:
City Attorn y City Administrator
Attachment
[2 . 57M]
ORDINANCE NO. 311, FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING SEC.
2 . 57 OF THE CITY CODE, PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD, BY
AMENDING SUED. 2 , COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION, TO DECREASE THE
MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD FROM EIGHT TO SEVEN.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS :
Section 1 - That Sec. 2 . 57 of the Shakopee City Code, Park
and Recreation Advisory Board, is hereby amended by deleting
Subd. 2 , Composition of Commission, and adopting one new
subdivision in lieu thereof, which shall read as follows:
"Subd. 2. Composition of Commission. The Park and
Recreation Advisory Board shall consist of seven [eight] members
appointed by the Council having staggered terms of three years
each. Appointment shall be made by resolution naming the Board
members and setting the term of office. Vacancies occurring
thereafter shall be filled for the unexpired term of the vacant
office and shall be by resolution adopted by a majority vote of
the Council. The composition of the Board may include citizens
from the community representing the following interests in the
community:
A. School.
B. Community Organization(s) .
C. General Public.
D. Senior Citizens.
E. Neighboring Townships. "
Note: The bracketed language [thus] is deleted; the underlined
language is inserted.
Section 2 - General Provisions. City Code Chapter 1,
General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City
Code Including Penalty For Violation, and Section 2 . 99 , Violation
a Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3 - Effective Date. After adoption, signing and
attestation of this ordinance, it shall be published once in the
official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full
force and effect on and after the day following such publication.
Passed in session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
, 1991.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
lac-
Attest: City Clerk
Approved as to form: --,/tii City Attorney
Published in the Shakopee Valley News is day of
, 1991.
[2.57M]
-2-
4415x ,
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
06114-'1
SUBJECT: Tahpah Park Sprinklers
DATE: June 4, 1991
On June 3, 1991, Mayor Laurent, yourself and I attended the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission meeting to discuss the Tahpah
Park Sprinkler Project and specifically the Commission's policies
that would apply to this type of project.
The policies were outlined in a memo from Lou VanHout, Utilities
Manager, and submitted to the City Council previously (copy
attached) . In summary, the policies that were outlined in this
memo were as follows:
1. A 10 inch main in the east-west direction and a 10-inch main
in the north-south direction would be required.
2 . A connection fee of $28, 000 - $55, 000 would be charged to the
City.
3 . A trunk water fee of $24, 000 would be charged to the City.
4 . The City would be required to pay the monthly water bill.
The City Council tabled any further action on this project until
staff could review these policies with the Commission.
At last nights meeting, the Commission reached a consensus on their
policies and have proposed to modify them since this is a park not
a development. The Commission indicated that they would agree to
the following modifications:
1. The watermain would be treated as a service line to the park
only and would not be available for future development south
and west of the park. Therefore, the 10 inch watermains would
not be required.
2 . The connection fee would be reduced to $9, 000. 00.
3 . The trunk water fee would be waived entirely.
4. The City would still be responsible for paying the monthly
water bill.
The City would also agree to set up the sprinklers to operate when
demand is lowest (at night) and to establish multiple zones to
minimize the demand on the existing sprinkler systems.
The Commission indicated that the $9, 000. 00 connection fee could
either be paid directly to them or credited to their account.
The Commission asked staff to submit this proposal to City Council
for discussion purposes and if agreeable, specific details could be
worked out by the respective staffs.
Attached is my original memo to Council discussing the feasibility
report prepared for Council for additional background information.
ACTION REQUESTED:
If the City Council concurs with the conditions as outlined by the
Commission the following motion would be in order:
Move to direct staff to notify Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
that the City Council agrees to a connection charge of $9, 000. 00
for the Tahpah Park Sprinkler System and agrees to pay the monthly
water bill and that it is understood that no trunk water charges
would be levied against the City.
In addition, if the City Council concurs with the recommendation of
as outlined in the feasibility report and in staff's April 30, 1991
memo, it would be appropriate to take the action requested in
staff's memo (Adopt Resolution No. 3390) .
DH/pmp
SPRINKLER
/(Z/9 I
TO: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
FROM: Lou Van Hout , Utilities Manage//'
RE : Tahpah Park Sprinkler System,
Comments on Feasibility Study by OSM
DATE : 4/30/91
This project raises several interesting issues because it ' s water
needs are different from a standard subdivision project , yet some
of the standard requirements are just as applicable to a park as
to any other use .
The issues raised by the sprinkler project involve considerations
beyond the project itself.
In the past , city policy was to treat itself the same as other
property owners/developers when determining assessments ,
construction requirements , fees , etc . But exceptions are made
for unique circumstances .
Last year the SPUC authorized a long term water system study to
continue from the data developed in the City Comprehensive Plan.
With the recent adoption of the Comprehensive Plan the study is
nearing completion. A draft is expected in May of 1991 .
I believe it would be of benefit to everyone involved to have
some issues raised by the sprinkler project discussed in
conjunction with the long term water system study, to determine
whether any unique circumstances would apply to this project .
If today' s standard policies are applied to this project
directly, the results would be as indicated below. If any
exemption is warranted, reasons for it should be clear.
Standard Design Criteria Requirements :
One standard requirement of long standing is for a property to
have a watermain crossing at least one complete side before
getting water service . The standard water system Design Criteria
requires a basic amount of watermain equivalent to having a 6"
pipe every 400 feet both East-West and North-South. A 1/4 mile
square of land like Tahpah Park would need 1 - 10 inch pipe
North/South, and have another one East/West .
But if a watermain in a location is clearly going to be useless
to the water system, then we don' t require it ' s construction, so
it is possible that there could be an exception granted to the
park if some other alternative routing appears likely.
Connection Charge:
A Connection Charge is collected at the time a plumbing permit is
taken out and is determined by the expected water usage.
New wells and tanks built to meet the increased water demand are
funded by these Connection Charges , not by water rates .
The theory is : if a customer uses enough water to require the
construction of 1/4 of a new well , their connection charge should
generate 1/4 of the estimated cost to construct a new well and
pumphouse . The same goes for watertanks .
The connection charge can be reduced by cycling the sprinkler
heads to reduce the demand. Based on the expected water usage,
if the sprinkler system is built with 4 equal zones, the
connection charge is estimated at approximately $55 ,000 , if 8
equal zones are built , the connection charge is estimated at
approximately $28, 000 , assuming the sprinkling is set by timer to
be evenly spread out over 8 hours to reduce the demand.
Trunk Water Charge :
The standard Trunk Water Charge is approximately $600/Acre, is
applied when water service is made available, and does not vary
by land use. The charge is to recover, on an average basis ,
costs to oversize trunk mains as new development calls for it .
For a 40 acre parcel like Tahpah Park, the charge would be
$24 ,000 . Although Tahpah Park had some water service from the
small plastic temporary service line, this obviously was not
service to the entire park.
Standard Water Bill :
A sprinkler system will use a significant amount of water and the
cost to produce it will have to be recovered somewhere. In the
absence of other arrangement , I would assume that standard water
rates would apply. Using preliminary numbers for expected water
use as you and I discussed, the bills would be about $800 . 00 per
month at today' s standard rates .
Sprinkling restriction :
The 1988 sprinkling restrictions did not ban sprinkling outright ,
but only restricted it between the hours of 12 Noon and 9 PM.
The park could probably live with those restrictions as it will
have an automatic timer control , and one would hope that there
would always be some way to allow some sprinkling, but the
likelihood of future sprinkling restrictions should be
acknowledged as a possibility. (At this time we do not foresee
sprinkling restrictions this Summer. )
JSm
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Tahpah Park Sprinkler System
DATE: April 30, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
The feasibility report for installing underground sprinklers at
Tahpah Park has been completed and is attached for City Council
review. Staff is requesting permission to set a public hearing to
consider the proposed improvements, since the report recommends
that a portion of the project be assessed.
BACKGROUND:
On November 20, 1991 the City Council ordered the preparation of a
feasibility report for the installation of an underground sprinkler
system in Tahpah Park, by Resolution No. 3311. This report was
requested by the Shakopee Jaycees, who have indicated a willingness
to pay for all or part of this project.
The feasibility report has been completed and a copy of the entire
report is attached. Staff would like to give a brief summary of
the report.
The report explored two options. The first option is to provide
City watermain to Tahpah Park. The second is to install a well
system.
The cost to install City watermain from 12th Avenue to the
concession area of Tahpah Park is estimated at $43, 000. 00. Of this
amount, approximately $27,850. 00 could be assessed to the platted
lands just north of Tahpah (South Parkview First Addition) . The
remaining $15, 150. 00 would be for installing watermain located
within Tahpah Park.
The estimated cost to install a well is $24,750. 00. A well would
only be available for the sprinkler system as the source cannot be
guaranteed to be potable for use for the concession area.
Due to the cost difference and the ability to use the water source
for the concession area, restrooms, drinking fountains, etc. the
report recommends installing City water rather than the well.
Staff agrees with that recommendation.
The cost to install the sprinkler system within Tahpah Park is
$97, 550. 00. This would provide 146 sprinkler heads and provide
it..OncGL...
coverage to all 10 baseball/softball fields, the football field and
the common areas.
The total cost of the entire project is estimated at $140,550. 00.
This includes the construction costs, contingency and all
engineering/administration fees.
Staff has discussed the feasibility of this project with the
Shakopee Jaycees and they have preliminarily indicated that if
water were available in the park, they would be willing to provide
funding for the entire sprinkler system.
If the Jaycees offer were accepted, the net cost to the City of
this entire project would be approximately $15, 150. 00. The sources
of funding available for this money would be either the Park
Reserve Fund or the City's Capital Improvement Fund.
If the Council desires to proceed with this project, the first step
would be to hold a public hearing to consider the improvements.
Attached is Resolution No. 3390, which accepts the feasibility
report and orders a public hearing for June 4, 1991.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 3390.
2 . Determine that this project is not necessary and reject the
Jaycees offer.
3 . Determine that this project is necessary, but do not assess
any of it therefore eliminating the need for a public hearing.
4 . Table the request for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
The lack of water in Tahpah Park severely hampers the Public Works
Department's ability to adequately maintain this park. Any
landscaping, seeding, sodding, transplanting, etc. , requires water
to be hauled down to the parking in a tanker truck. During dry
periods it is almost impossible to provide proper athletic field
maintenance with no water available.
It is difficult to estimate the increased maintenance costs
associated with the lack of water in this park. Most of the costs
are for additional labor to haul water down to the park, re-seeding
or resodding costs, compacting infields, etc. But it is estimated
that the additional maintenance costs due to inadequate water is
around $10, 000. 00 to $20, 000.00 annually.
In addition, the lack of water makes it impossible to adequately
groom the fields for activities. The condition of the outfield
grass is a constant source of criticism during the summer months.
Also, many other improvement projects planned by the Jaycees, such
as tree planting, cannot be completed without adequate water.
The City of Shakopee has an opportunity to provide adequate water
and sprinkler systems for a total cost of $15, 150. 00 or about 11%
of the total project costs.
The Public Works Department strongly supports the installation of
a sprinkler system in Tahpah Park.
Staff also recommends that the funding for the City's portion
($15, 150. 00) come out of the Capital Improvement Fund for two
reasons. First, City watermain is mainly associated with a public
improvement rather than a park improvement, such as playgrounds,
hockey rinks, etc. Second, several years ago a small 4" plastic
water line was installed along County Road 15 to serve the
concession stand and funded by the Jaycees. This water line is
inadequate for sprinkler systems. If a standard size watermain had
been installed (6" or 8") it would have been adequate for the
sprinklers and since it was located in a street it probably would
have been funded out of the Capital Improvement Fund at that time.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board discussed this project on
April 29, 1991 and recommends that the City accept this generous
offer from the Jaycees and proceed with this project as
recommended. The Advisory Board also recommends utilizing the
Capital Improvement Fund to fund the City's portion of the project.
The Utility Manager is still reviewing the feasibility report and
hopefully his comments and recommendation will be available at the
Council meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3390, A Resolution Receiving a Report and
Calling a Hearing on an Improvement to Tahpah Park by Watermain and
Underground Sprinkler System, Project No. 1991-4, and move its
adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM3390
/5rwigiw
RESOLUTION NO. 3390
A Resolution Receiving A Report
And Calling A Hearing On An Improvement
To Tahpah Park By Watermain
And Underground Sprinkler System
Project 1991-4
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 3311 of the City Council
adopted November 20, 1990, a report has been prepared by Bob
Frigaard, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. , Inc. , with reference to the
improvements of the Tahpah Park watermain and underground sprinkler
system, and this report was received by the Council on May 7, 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. The Council will consider the improvement of Tahpah Park
watermain and underground sprinkler system in accordance with the
report and the assessment of abutting and benefitted property for
all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the
improvement of $43 , 000. 00.
2 . A public hearing shall be held on such proposed
improvements on the 4th day of June, 1991, at 7: 30 P.M. , or
thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 129 East 1st
Avenue and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such
hearing and improvement as required by law.
3. The work of this project is hereby designated as the
1991-4 Public Improvement Program.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
-C411?
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney
DATE: June 4 , 1991
RE: Fire Department Discrimination Case
The Minnesota Department of Human Rights has now dismissed
the charge that we discriminated in hiring a male as a fire
fighter, when a female had applied. As you may recall, several
months ago we received notice from the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights that they were reviewing allegations that we had
rejected an applicant for fire fighter solely because she was
female. It is true that we did not hire the applicant, but our
standard procedure was to hire the applicant who applied first,
if he or she qualified. In this particular case, a man had
applied first, qualified, and was hired. The woman will be
considered for the next opening; she has not been rejected.
We may be open to new claims if we fail to follow non-
discriminatory procedures in hiring other applicants. However,
the Minnesota Department of Human Rights has found no
discrimination in this case.
� 7
Signed _�- l/�1K/1.1'/
n Mart , City Attorney
KEM:bjm
[DSCFIRE1]