Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1992 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: October 16, 1992 1. Attached is the Report from the Governor's Commission on Canterbury Downs. 2 . Attached is a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding NBZ Appeals. 3 . Attached is correspondence from MnDOT thanking the City of Shakopee for supporting the timely completion of the interim third land project on I-35W. 4 . Attached is correspondence from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission regarding 1993 SAC Rates. 5. Attached are the Revenue and Expenditure Reports as of September 30, 1992 . 6. Attached are the Program Costs by Department as of 10/7/92 . 7 . Attached is correspondence from the Bossardt Corporation regarding Shakopee City Hall Renovation Recommendations for Contract Awards. 8 . Attached is the Building Activity Report for September, 1992. 9 . Attached is the Police Newsletter for Council review. 10. Attached are the August 3, and 31, 1992 minutes of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. I1. On October 2nd, the City of Shakopee received a check from the Secretary of State's Office ins-the amount of $1, 332 . 57. This is reimbursement for the City's cost for the April 7th Presidential Primary. 12 . Attached are the recommendations for the 1993 Legislative Policy program from AMM. Please review for action at the Membership meeting scheduled for November 5th. 13 . Attached are the minutes of the October 8th meetings of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment & Appeals. 14 . On October 6, 1992 discussion was held on the status of the moratorium area South of the Senior High School. In reviewing this issue, staff has discovered that the moratorium expired on July 4 , 1992 . The City Attorney will be preparing the appropriate documentation to extend the moratorium for an additional 12 months on the subject property. The issue will be presented to City Council for their consideration in November. 15. The Shakopee Cable Commission will be meeting on October 26, 1992 to review the Cable Company' s request to amend the Cable Franchise Ordinance. The amendment would allow the Cable Company to consolidate head end facilities with the City of Chaska. The City has obtained the legal services of Moss and Barnett to review the Cable Company' s request. Moss and Barnett have prepared the appropriate ordinance amendment that will protect the City' s interest and accommodate the Cable Company' s request. A public hearing to review this issue has been scheduled for November 3 , 1992 . Staff does not expect that this item will receive any attention from Shakopee residents. 16 . Attached is correspondence from the Assistant City Administrator regarding staffing in the Building Department. 17 . Attached is a memorandum from the City Planner regarding the proposed 10th Avenue vacation. GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON CANTERBURY DOWNS RICHARD L. PEMBERTON, CHAIR CHAIRMAN MINNESOTA RACING COMMISSION CYNTHIA S. PIPER, VICE CHAIR MEMBER AT LARGE MINNESOTA RACING COMbIISSION HARRY W. B_ LTZER DIRECTOR MINNESOTA GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD HENRY M. BUFFALO, JR. MINNESOTA INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION DAVID A. LECKEY DEPUTY COMMIISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SENATOR PATRICK D. MCGOWAN RICHARD MCNA` ARA MEMBER OF THE BUSLNESS COMMUNITY DAVID L. MONA MEMBER OF THE BUSLNESS COMMUNITY RANDY SAMPSON MEMBER OF THE BUSLNESS COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SIIVIONEAU MARY B. MAGNUSON, REPORTER SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT. 1 II. OVERVIEW OF THE MINNESOTA GAMBLING INDUSTRY. 3 III. THE MINNESOTA RACING LNDUSTRY AND ITS I.MPACT 6 ON THE STATE'S ECONOMY. IV. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COMIMISSION TO 10 IMPROVE THE POSITION OF HORSE RACING. A. OFF-TRACK BETTING. 11 B. ESTABLISH1MENT OF A REGIONAL RACING 14 CIRCUIT. C. PURCHASE OF CANTERBURY DOWNS BY 17 ONE OR MORE INDIAN TRIBES. D. INSTALLATION OF VIDEO GAMBLING DEVICES 19 AT CANTERBURY DOWNS. E. STATE PURCHASE OR SUBSIDIZATION BY 21 OTHER GAMBLING INTERESTS. F. ALTERNATIVE USES FOR CANTERBURY DOWNS 22 COMPATIBLE WITH HORSE RACING. V. RECOMMENDATIONS. 23 I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT. In June, 1985 Minnesota gave birth to a new industry, one that combined the thrill of professional sports with the root of the Minnesota economy--agriculture. Canterbury Downs Racetrack opened amid great fanfare and optimism. Seven years later, however, the fanfare has been silenced and the optimism has given way to despair. Today, Minnesota's horse racing industry is perilously close to complete collapse. The cause of the decline is perhaps not as important as the effect of the decline on Minnesotans and the Minnesota economy. Thousands of people are employed in the horse racing industry and millions of dollars are pumped annually into the State's economy directly as a result of horse racing. Indeed, the Department of Trade and Economic Development estimates that as much as $100 million of the state's total annual economy is attributable to the horse racing industry. In an attempt to assess the effect of the horse racing industry on the Minnesota economy and what efforts, if any, could be made to prevent the industry's demise, Governor Carlson issued an Executive Order establishing the Governor's Commission on Canterbury Downs.' The Commission is comprised of eleven individuals, drawn from the public and private sectors, who were given the responsibility to: (1) review and make recommendations to the Governor relating to the current economic condition of horse racing in Minnesota, its future viability as a stand-alone business and the economic and social impact on the state, and various communities of the state, in the event of the economic failure of Canterbury Downs Racetrack; (2) review and make recommendations relating_ to the social and economic impact on the state and various communities of the state of a business relationship between Canterbury Downs Racetrack and a Minnesota Indian 1 A copy of the Executive Order is attached to this Report. tribe including but not limited to the purchase and operation of the track by a Minnesota Indian tribe; and (3) prepare and submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor no later than September 15, 1992. This report is in response to the Governor's Executive Order and is the product of the collective deliberations of the Commission members. The conclusions reached and recommendations contained in the report are the result of several meetings during which the members of the racing industry presented their views on the industry, its decline and the prospects for its revival in the future. Specifically, the Commission heard from: • Ladbroke Racing Corporation • The Minnesota Thoroughbred Association • The Minnesota Quarterhorse Racing Association • The Minnesota Harness Racing Association • The Minnesota Arabian Association • The Minnesota Festival of Champions • Various individual horsemen and women In addition, the Commission consulted with the Minnesota Racing Commission, Minnesota Planning and the Department of Trade and Economic Development to determine the impact of horse racing on the state's economy. The Commission also met with representatives of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association and Little Six, Inc., to explore the feasibility and likelihood of a purchase of Canterbury Downs by one or more Minnesota Indian tribes. The Commission also gathered and processed a considerable amount of written information pertaining to the gambling industry generally and the racing industry in particular. Finally, the Commission looked to other states to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken in those states to stimulate their declining racing industries. While many questions were raised, no easy answers emerged. However, one common theme surfaced in all of the discussions--horse racing simply cannot survive in this state in its current form. If horse racing, is to have any continued viability, a significant restructuring of the way horse racing is marketed and distributed is necessary. Such a restructuring will require the governor, the legislature, and indeed, the people of Minnesota, to make significant public policy decisions. As a result, the Commission viewed its role to consider and evaluate possible courses of action and to make recommendations that hopefully will form the basis for productive debate and discussion in the upcoming 1993 Legislative Session. IL OVERVIEW OF THE MINNESOTA GAMBLING INDUS 1•RY. Pari-mutuel betting on horse racing is only a tiny fraction of the nearly $2.5 billion gambling industry in Minnesota. According to a recent study conducted by Minnesota Planning, the amount of money legally wagered in Minnesota has increased by more than ten fold since 1985. In 1991, approximately S1.2 billion was wagered on lawful (charitable) gambling, approximately $300 million was spent on lottery tickets, and about $900 million was wagered at the Indian gaming, casinos operating in Minnesota. By comparison, only $87 million, or 3.5% of the total, was wagered at Canterbury Downs on horse racing.2 DOLLARS WAGERED IN MINNESOTA BY TYPE(1991) /rrrr -- . /.;:'! 5'.0j//(5A/// / /.'//• g///%//%// o 'J • t . 2 Minnesota Planning, High Stater: Gainhline in Minnesota, 1992. 3 It has been suggested that competition from other forms of legalized gambling has caused or at least significantly contributed to the decline of horse racing. In 1985 when Canterbury Downs opened, approximately $111.3 million was wagered on lawful gambling, primarily on bingo and pull-tabs. The lottery did not exist and Indian gaming was in the early stages of its development. By 1989, the gambling terrain in Minnesota had been radically altered. Lawful gambling gross receipts topped $1 billion for the first time in the state's history. As required by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act passed by Congress in 1988, the state negotiated Tribal-State compacts with nine of the eleven Minnesota Indian tribes governing the operation of video gambling devices on Indian lands.3 Moreover, in response to a constitutional amendment adopted in November of 1988, the state legislature passed legislation authorizing the establishment of the Minnesota State Lottery. By 1990, an estimated $2 billion was wagered in Minnesota. While the total dollars wagered on lawful gambling, Indian gambling and the lottery increased, or at least remained relatively stable, the total betting handle at Canterbury Downs began a downward spiral. In 1985, $84.2 million was wagered at Canterbury Downs during 83 days of live racing. In 1986 the betting handle at Canterbury Downs increased to $133 million, then leveled off in 1987 and 1988 at approximately $120 million. By 1989 the total amount wagered at Canterbury Downs dropped to $102.2 million. In 1990, the handle, consisting of both on-track and simulcast betting, reached only $101 million. By 1991, the handle had plummeted to only $87 million. The total handle for 1992 is expected to be approximately $56 million, nearly 40% below the amounts wagered in 1991. 3 Compacts governing video gambling were signed with the two remaining tribes in the spring of 1991. In addition, compacts governing blackjack were signed with all eleven Minnesota Indian tribes in May, 1991. 4 THE GROWTH OF LEGALIZED GAMBLING IN MINNESOTA 1400- CHARITABLE 1400- SAMSUNG 1000- INDIAN CASINOS 0 O 800- J 2 2 CC G W W 600- V Q 3 ' S 400 J LOTTERY 200- RS E.?ACING C , t 1985 1986 1387 1988 1989 1990 1991 YEAR THE DECLINE OF HORSE RACING IN MINNESOTA 140- 130- 12C- z O J_ z 1.0- C W W C7 3 100- 4 J J O O 90- 80 70 1985 1386 1387 1988 1989 1990 199' 1992 YEAR C 5 556 MILLON (ESTIMATED) These figures seem to indicate that horse racing has been adversely affected by the growth of other forms of gambling in this State. The effect, however, is perhaps due less to the existence of these other forms of gambling than to the ability of these other forms of gambling to operate on a more competitive basis. The lottery sells its product at approximately 3,800 retail locations around the state. Lawful gambling is sponsored by 1,750 organizations at 2,731 different bars and clubs. The eleven Minnesota Indian tribes operate 15 separate gaming casinos throughout Minnesota. Horse racing, on the other hand, is limited to a single facility and has little opportunity for expansion or development of competitive retail techniques. Pari- mutuel betting on horse racing cannot survive in its current form. If the industry is to survive at all, steps must be taken to allow the racing industry to more effectively market its product within the highly competitive Minnesota gambling industry. III. THE MINNESOTA RACING INDUSTRY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE STATE'S ECONOMY. Before discussing the considerable impact the horse racing industry has on the state's economy, we believe it is necessary to clarify what appears to be a popular misconception. The State of Minnesota has never subsidized the operation of Canterbury Downs Racetrack or the horse racing industry. In fact, in the seven years since Canterbury Downs opened, the state has received nearly S25 million in state sales and pari-mutuel taxes and unredeemed ticket proceeds. Canterbury Downs was built in 1985 at an initial cost of about S70 million. In 1986, the owners, Minnesota Racetrack, Inc.. completed a S10 million expansion bringing the total cost of the facility to about S80 million. Canterbury Downs operated at a profit in 1985, but mounted successive losses in following years. By December 31, 1988, Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. had accumulated a deficit of$37.6 million. In April, 1990, Canterbury Downs was purchased by a partnership, New Canterbury Downs, comprised of two corporate entities, Racing Corporation of America, owned by Detroit b businessmen Herbert Tyner and Bernard Hartman, and Ladbroke Racing Minnesota, Inc., a subsidiary of Ladbroke Group PLC, a London-based corporation. Canterbury Downs was purchased for $21 million by the partnership and Ladbroke Racing Canterbury, (LRC) another Ladbroke subsidiary was installed as the operator of the facility. The following chart outlines the ownership structure of Canterbury Downs. NEW CANTERBURY DOWNS ORGANIZATION CHART AND OPERATING ENTITIES LADBROKE GROUP HARTMAN&TYNER, PLC INC LADBROKE RACING RACING CORPORATION IO` CORPORATION OF AMERICA LADBROKE RACING RACING MINNESOTA.INC. CORPORATION OF MINNESOTA NEW LADBROKE RACING CANTERBURY DOWNS CANTERBC RY,INC. PARTNERSHIP (CLASS B LICENSE) CLASS A LICENSE) SOCRCE GRANT THORNTON,ACCOUNTANTS AND>LANAGEME\T CONSLLTANTS. In 1990, LRC posted a $1.1 million profit. However, in 1991 and 1992 LRC lost and is expected to lose $4.3 million and $6.1 million, respectively. In addition, LRC has overpaid purses by about $2 million since it purchased Canterbury Downs in 1990. Given the substantial losses incurred by LRC, the corporation has publicly stated its desire to sell Canterbury Downs. In addition, it has not committed to any live racing at Canterbury Downs for 1993 and beyond.4 4 Legal and economic circunutances may make it difficult for LRC not to offer at least a 78 day live race meet. The lease between LRC and New Canterbury Downs Partnership currently requires LRC to conduct pari-mutuel horse racing on no fewer than 78 days during each year unless New Canterbury Downs Partnership agrees otherwise. 7 1009 people earned wages of approximately $17 million. In 1991, the State received $3,822,732 in pari-mutuel taxes, sales and use taxes, income tax withholding from Canterbury Downs employees, unredeemed tickets, license fees and fines. The City of Shakopee and Scott County received an additional $2.6 million in real estate and admission taxes. Thus, nearly $6.5 million was generated directly to state and local government from horse racing at Canterbury Downs. This figure does not include the approximately $1.3 million in personal income taxes generated that year from the persons employed on the backside of the track or on the breeding farms located throughout the state. Overall, the Department of Trade and Economic Development estimates that approximately 2,400 direct and indirect jobs are related to the Minnesota racing industry. These 2,400 jobs generate annual salaries and wages of approximately $38.3 million with an increase in annual personal income estimated at $43.5 million. In total, the Department of Trade and Economic Development estimates that horse racing attributes $100 million to the state's economy.8 Notwithstanding this considerable economic impact, these figures represent racing at its lowest level since 1985. A healthy racing industry with a strong breeding component would further enhance the state's economy. What effect will the closure of Canterbury Downs have on the state's economy? The state would stand to lose much of the $3.8 million generated in taxes by Canterbury Downs. Scott County and the City of Shakopee would lose all of the admission taxes. The state would lose a considerable portion of the $19.5 million expended annually by Ladbroke for operations and wages.9 In addition, at least a portion of the direct, and perhaps even indirect, employment attributable to the racing industry will be permanently lost to the state.1° The 8 By comparison. the 1990 Racing Commission Study revealed 7,657 direct and indirect jobs generating 532 million in salaries and wages. The Racing Commission estimated that in 1990, the horse racing industry generated$223 million into the state's economy. 9 This figure is a combination of the $6.5 million expended in wages by Ladbroke and the estimated $13 million industrial sector expenditures identified in the 1990 Racing Commission Study. 10 It is difficult to pinpoint the number of jobs likely to be lost to the state economy. The Racing Commission Study identified a state population loss of 1.687 people, but this was based on 1990 data and is significantly higher than what the Department of Trade and Economic Development would estimate today. 9 closure of Canterbury Downs would also result in the loss of a significant number of breeding farms in this state, further impacting the state's agricultural and agribusiness communities. Hence, while it is not possible to assess the total economic effect of the closure of Canterbury Downs, we are confident that the state's economy would suffer. W. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION TO IMPROVE THE POSITION OF HORSE RACING IN MINNESOTA. A number of options were presented to the Commission for improving the position of the horse racing industry in Minnesota. Some of these options were widely supported, some were not. In evaluating the various options discussed in this report we employed a series of fundamental principles. (1) Although the Commission strongly believes that horse racing makes a significant contribution to the state's economy and is an industry worth preserving, our charter is not simply to promote the continuation of horse racing or the survival of Canterbury Downs at all costs and by whatever means. (2) Canterbury Downs and the racing industry must continue to be self-supporting without any state subsidization. (3) The backbone of the racing industry is live horse racing. In evaluating the various options, the preservation of live horse racing was of paramount concern. (4) While the success of Canterbury Downs is critical to a healthy racing industry in this state, any efforts made to preserve horse racing must include the entire racing industry not just Canterbury Downs Racetrack. (5) Horse racing is driven by the amounts wagered on the races, commonly called the "handle." A portion of the handle is kept by the racetrack to cover operating costs, a portion is devoted to purses and the rest is paid to the state in taxes and to supplement the state's Breeder's Fund. The continued viability of horse racing depends upon developing a mechanism to increase the total pari-mutuel handle. The recommendations made at the close of this report are consistent with these core principles. We are, however, mindful that pari-mutuel betting on horse racing is only a small portion of the total gambling industry in this state and that political pressure may be exerted to alter our current menu of legalized gambling. We recognize that our recommendations may 10 need alteration should state policy makers elect to change the state's landscape of gambling opportunity. A. Off-Track Betting. The complexion of the gambling industry has changed dramatically in the past decade, both in Minnesota and nationally. Canterbury Downs is not the only racetrack to face significantly declining revenues. Nationally, on-track betting handles decreased substantially between 1988 and 1991 and many states have been forced to grapple with the same issues we face today. Christiansen/Cummings Associates, Inc., a consulting firm specializing in the commercial gambling industry, attributed the decline in horse racing to essentially two factors.11 First, the dramatic increase in the number of"easy games" on the market, especially lotteries and slot machines, has drawn people away from horse racing. According to Christiansen/Cummings, "(m)ost people are intimidated by the complexities of handicapping. The racing industry, in our opinion, should devote much greater effort to making its product . . . intellectually more accessible to a broader segment of the population."12 Second, in conjunction with horse racing's relative "invisibility" compared with other gambling activities, Christiansen/Cummings concludes that horse racing has become relatively more "inconvenient" to patronize in the context of greater convenience for other activities. "By not moving in this regard, racing has fallen behind. . . [r]acing must reach out to its fans, and potential new fans, by adopting a more widespread distribution system in order to remain competitive." The way to accomplish these goals is through off-track betting. Of the 43 states that have some type of pari-mutuel horse racing, only eight states do not permit some form of satellite or off-track wagering.13 11 The conclusions of Christiansen/Cununings Associates, Inc. are taken from a published study the company conducted for the Ohio State Racing Commission on the status of the Ohio horse racing industry and the means for improving its position 12 Christiansen/Cummings Associates, Inc. The Ohio Horse Racing Industry: Current Status and Means for Improving Its Position, Sept. 19, 1991. 13 Minnesota law curretuly permits wagering on races nm in other states but televised only to Canterbury Downs for betting purposes. 11 Off-track betting has been used successfully in several states to stabilize or reverse declining pari-mutuel handles. Illinois, for example, introduced off-track betting in 1988. Each of Illinois' seven racetracks was given the authority to develop two off-track facilities. In 1991, the law was amended to permit the establishment of 14 more. Despite a slumping economy and competition from other forms of gambling (including riverboats in Iowa and Illinois) the total pari-mutuel handle in Illinois decreased by less than one percent between 1990 and 1991. While the on-track handle decreased by 8%, the off-track handle increased by nearly 21%. State revenue increased and revenue to cities and counties from the 11 operating off-track betting facilities increased by 20.65%, to $7,162,710. Illinois is not the only state that has used off-track betting to successfully combat declining pari-mutuel revenues. Arizona permitted off-track betting in 1987 by allowing each race track to establish one additional wagering facility. Initially, only Phoenix Greyhound Park took advantage of the law by sending a signal to another greyhound track located outside the Phoenix metropolitan area. In 1990, the law was amended to remove the cap on the number of permitted off-track betting outlets. The 1990 legislation paved the way for the development of a successful off-track betting system. Instead of developing telethreatre facilities as in Illinois, the race tracks in Arizona elected to place a minimal number of pari-mutuel betting terminals in a variety of sites, primarily sports bars and large country western bars. Implementation of the off-track betting system had a positive impact on the state's pari- mutuel handle. Between calendar year 1990 and 1991, the on-track betting handle decreased by nearly 21%. However, in just three months of off-track betting in 1991, $7,164,978 had been generated from off-track betting, reducing the total decrease in the pari-mutuel handle for 1991 to only 9.2%. While on-track betting, handles continued to decline in 1992 (January-April), the money generated by off-track betting reached nearly $14 million. Overall, the total betting handle for the 1991-1992 racing season increased by $3.4 million over the 1990-1991 racing season. It is important to note that the Arizona off-track betting system has not yet reached maturity in the number of facilities or in the betting, handle. In addition, Arizona permits off- 12 track betting only on races run in Arizona and therefore, only during authorized race meets. Permitting off-track betting on races run in other states and permitting off-track betting outside the nine-month Arizona racing season would increase the total betting handle even more significantly. The Minnesota legislature legalized off-track betting in 1991. The bill, codified in Minn. Stat. S 240.01-.25 (1991), permitted a holder of a Class B (race track operator's) license to build up to four "telethreatre" wagering facilities. The legislation, modelled after the laws in Illinois and Pennsylvania, contemplated the establishment of up-scale facilities offering wagering on races televised from Canterbury Downs and other tracks located throughout the country.14 The plan envisioned under the Minnesota off-track betting statute never became a reality because, in a decision filed July 31, 1992, the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down the statute as violating the 1982 amendment to the state constitution permitting "on-track" pari-mutuel betting on horse races.15 As a result, plans to implement off-track betting in Minnesota have been put on hold until such time as the legislature and citizens of Minnesota elect to amend the state constitution. In our opinion, development of an off-track betting system is critical to the continued survival of horse racing in this state. Off-track betting expands the market area for horse racing and addresses the need to make pari-mutuel wagering more accessible to the public. Off-track betting also pumps substantial revenues into the total betting handle, generating, significant amounts of money for purses and breeders awards. It is well-established in the racing industry that better purses attract better horses, and better horses attract more people. More people betting on the horses means an increased betting handle--the key `to a successful and healthy racing industry in any state, including Minnesota. 14 Once the state legalized off-track betting, the eleven Indian tribes in Minnesota obtained the right to request compact negotiations to permit off-track betting on Indian lands in the state. However, the tribes agreed to limit their request to the same number of facilities permitted by state law. 15 Rice v. Connolly, et al., _N.W.2d_, No. C6-92-3(Minn.July 31, 1992). 13 We are mindful of the constitutional prohibition to off-track betting, as well as the political controversy likely to be caused by the development of an off-track betting system. However, since the passage of the constitutional amendment and the original horse racing laws in Minnesota, the horse racing industry throughout the United States has changed drastically in the technology and manner of the presentation and marketing of its product. Previously non- existent forms of wagering that compete with the horse racing industry have grown rapidly in the past few years and are available in thousands of outlets throughout the state. Because of this competition, and due to the fact that the horse racing industry is effectively restrained from marketing its product under existing law, the establishment of off-track betting is essential. To allow off-track betting the legislature would have to propose and the citizens of Minnesota would have to adopt a constitutional amendment removing the "on-track" limitation that presently exists in the state constitution.i6 However, in our view, development of an off-track betting system is the best hope for continued viability of the Minnesota horse racing industry. B. Establishment Of A Regional Racing Circuit. As mentioned previously, Canterbury Downs is not the only racetrack suffering from declining pari-mutuel revenues. Minnesota's neighbor to the south began its experiment in horse racing in 1989 with the opening of Prairie Meadows Racetrack near Des Moines. Live race meetings were held in 1989, 1990 and 1991, but the track was quickly overcome by debt and closed after the 1991 season. In 1992, Prairie Meadows began simulcasting races from out-of-state and will generate perhaps as much as S40 million in total betting handle by the end of the year.17 By the spring of 1993, a 65-90 day live meet may occur at Prairie Meadows, using the money generated from simulcasting to fund purses. While Prairie Meadows was without live racing in 1992, Iowa 16 The Governor need not sign and nzay not veto a bill proposing a constitutional amendment. 17 This projection is from Mick Lura, Administrator for the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission. Lura's comments are jiom an article on Prairie Meadows that appeared in The Blood Horse on August 1, 1992. 14 horse breeders were racing horses at Canterbury Downs. In all, over 200 Iowa-bred horses raced at Canterbury Downs this summer. Given the possibility that there may not be a live race meeting at Canterbury Downs in 1993, and that the Minnesota Constitution cannot be amended, if at all, until 1994, it is in our opinion, critical to begin looking for alternative ways to preserve live racing in our state. One proposal presented to us was the concept of exploring with Prairie Meadows the possibility of sharing or alternating live racing meets every year or every other year as the circumstances dictate. While such a proposal is in need of refinement, it may be economically advantageous to both states to develop such a cooperative arrangement. It is conceivable that simulcasting at Canterbury Downs throughout 1993 and the winter of 1994 could generate a purse fund substantial enough to support a live race meeting in the summer of 1994. During 1993, Minnesota horsemen and women could race their horses at Prairie Meadows with those races simulcast to Minnesota for wagering purposes. Conversely, in 1994, a live race meeting could be held at Canterbury Downs with all races simulcast to Prairie Meadows for wagering purposes. By increasing the total betting handle through interstate simulcasting and by limiting live racing to alternate years, the Minnesota racing industry could be sustained at a minimal level until each track is financially capable of supporting a live race meeting each year. This concept is not necessarily limited to Iowa and could be expanded to include Kansas, North Dakota and Oklahoma. The development of a regional racing circuit makes sense from an economic perspective. If no two tracks are running live race meetings at the same time, it is possible that a cooperative arrangement for the sharing of racing and regulatory staff, stewards, testing facilities and the like could be established. This could dramatically reduce the enormous costs associated with sponsoring a live race meeting and could enhance the economic viability of each participating track. 15 A regional racing circuit could be equally beneficial to the state's breeding industry. To be viable, the state's breeding industry needs a healthy Breeder's Fund to provide financial incentives to owners and breeders of Minnesota-bred horses and there must be a sufficient number of live racing days to give these horsemen and women the opportunity to earn the incentives. States like Minnesota, Iowa and Kansas, which have only one race track and no off-track betting outlets, have a difficult time sustaining healthy breeding industries. The race tracks in these states simply cannot generate sufficient betting handles and offer a sufficient number of live race days to remain profitable. A regional racing circuit, with no overlapping live racing days, could give Minnesota horsemen and women additional opportunities to earn breeder's awards as well as open new markets for Minnesota-bred horses. To further enhance the breeding industry, Minnesota Breeder's Fund monies would be used to fund breeder's awards and supplement purses for Minnesota horses racing at the participating regional tracks.18 Ak-Sar-Ben Racetrack in Omaha, Nebraska experimented with regional simulcasting this summer with great success. Ak-Sar-Ben simulcast its races to Prairie Meadows and to the Woodlands in Kansas City, Kansas. During the 77 day live race meet that concluded in early August, Ak-Sar-Ben saw a 12.7% increase in its total betting handle. This increase occurred notwithstanding a decline in on-track attendance of 5.3% and a decline in the on-track betting handle of 2%. What is significant about these figures is that at Prairie Meadows fans bet an average of $39,771 per day on Ak-Sar-Ben races. At the Woodlands, $76,890 per day was wagered. The addition of simulcasting increased the average daily handle at Ak-Sar-Ben from $444,501 to $728,568. We recommend that the establishment of a regional racing circuit be explored. A regional circuit could include the establishment of cooperative arrangements for live racing programs as well as increased opportunities for simulcasting among the participating race 18 Legislation would be required to allow the expenditure of Minnesota Breeder's Fund money on Minnesota-bred horses running in Iowa. 16 tracks. In addition, we believe that the law should be amended to permit the expenditure of Breeder's Fund monies on races held in Iowa or any other midwestern racetrack for Minnesota-bred horses to attempt to sustain racing and breeding in Minnesota. C. Purchase of Canterbury Downs By One Or More Indian Tribes. Last June, it was proposed that a possible solution to the worsening financial situation at Canterbury Downs might be the purchase of the racetrack by one or more Minnesota Indian tribes. The Shakopee Mdewankanton Sioux Community, which owns and operates the Mystic Lake and Little Six Casinos just four miles from Canterbury Downs, was suggested as an interested and obvious buyer. Implicit in the proposal was the notion that the land on which Canterbury Downs is located would be designated as Indian land and thereby entitle the community to offer pari-mutuel betting on horse races in addition to the full range of gambling activity permitted on the Community's reservation by federal law and Tribal-State compact. Presumably, the proponents of the proposal believed that the availability of other forms of gambling at the racetrack would increase attendance as well as stimulate betting on the horse races. Or in the alternative, that at least a portion of the money generated from the other forms of gambling could be used to subsidize the purses or the betting handle. The proposal received a considerable amount of attention by the media, prompting the Governor to direct this Commission to evaluate the efficacy of such a proposal. After considerable discussion, both within the Commission and with representatives from the Shakopee Sioux Community and the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, we have concluded that such a proposal would be impractical. First of all, and perhaps most importantly, the Shakopee Sioux Community has indicated publicly and to the Commission that it is not interested in purchasing Canterbury Downs at this time. However, while improbable, it is possible that another Indian tribe might express an interest in purchasing Canterbury Downs for the purpose of conducting casino gambling on the 17 premises. As a result, we elected to evaluate the proposal further in the event such a situation should occur. In order for the proposal to become reality, Canterbury Downs would have to be purchased by an Indian tribe and the land would have to be designated as "Indian land" by the Secretary of the Interior. Generally, the Secretary of the Interior has significant authority to take land into trust for the benefit of Indian tribes. However, if the land is to be used for gaming purposes, the Secretary must adhere to certain specified procedures.19 The Secretary must determine, after consultation with the Indian tribe, appropriate state and local officials and officials of nearby Indian tribes, that gaming on the newly acquired land would be in the best interests of the Indian tribe and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. After such a determination is made, the land may be taken into trust and used for gaming purposes only if the Governor concurs in the Secretary's determination. The complexity of this process makes it unlikely that any such land acquisition could be completed in less than several months. Moreover, Secretary Lujan has made it quite clear that no lands will be taken into trust for gaming purposes unless all of the affected parties, including the state, the local community and other Indian tribes, support the new land acquisition. At least one potentially affected party, the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, has voiced its opposition to any new land acquisitions for gaming purposes in Minnesota. Unless that position were to change, it is unlikely that the Secretary would exercise his authority to take Canterbury Downs into trust for gaming purposes. As a result, we believe that the purchase of Canterbury Downs by an Indian tribe for pari-mutuel wagering and other forms of gambling is not a proposal likely to succeed. Therefore, we do not recommend further consideration of the proposal.20 19 These procedures are prescribed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,25 U.S.C. S 2701-2721 (1988)and by policy of the Department of the Interior. 20 This is not to say, however, that we would discourage the sale of Canterbury Downs to any person or entity, including an Indian tribe, if the purchaser committed to operate the track solely for horse racing under Minnesota law and the authority of the Minnesota Racing Commission. 18 D. Installation of Video Gambling Devices at Canterbury Downs. It has been suggested that the horse racing industry may benefit from the installation of video gambling devices at Canterbury Downs. This proposal also presumes increased attendance and betting as a result of the installation of the video devices. Two states have implemented video gambling at racetracks, West Virginia in 1990 and Louisiana most recently this summer. In West Virginia, 150 video gambling devices were installed at Mountaineer Park Racetrack--the only location in the state allowed to operate such devices. The net revenue from the machines is divided among the track (70%), the West Virginia Lottery (20%) and the horsemen (10%). In 1991, the horsemen received approximately $159,913 from the operation of the video devices.21 The West Virginia Racing Commission projects that a total of $300,000 will be paid to the Horsemen's Association from the video gaming net revenues in 1992. By comparison, Mountaineer Park is expected to receive approximately $1.9 million in video gambling net revenues in 1992. Notwithstanding the installation of the video devices, during 1991, on-track attendance decreased, the on-track wagering handle decreased, and the total wagering handle decreased. In fact, the total wagering handle fell by approximately $5 million between 1990 and 1991, even though Mountaineer Park opened an off-track betting facility generating slightly more than $9 million into the handle from simulcasting. Thus, while the video gambling devices generate substantial amounts of money for Mountaineer Park, the horsemen, at least under the current agreement, do not appear to significantly benefit from the devices. In fact, if the West Virginia figures were applied to Minnesota, the projected 1992 video lottery purse supplements would not make up for the $420,000 loss in available purse money from the decrease in the pari- mutuel betting handle. In Louisiana, a video lottery system was implemented at the racetracks on June 1, 1992 as part of a state-wide video lottery network. Louisiana legalized video lottery in 1991, generally 21 The horsemen's share of the net revenue is subject to renegotiation after three years. 19 limiting non-racetrack facilities to three devices but allowing racetracks and off-track betting outlets to have an unlimited number of devices. During the month of July, the only month for which data is available, the video lottery system generated net revenues of $2,319,000. Louisiana horsemen received $384,563 for purses. While the video lottery machines indicate some initial success, it is important to bear in mind that during the month of July 1,404 video devices were operated at the racetracks and off- track betting outlets, while about 1,800 were operating in other facilities around the state. By 1994, the Louisiana State Police expect 20,000 gambling devices to be in operation in the state. Of those 20,000, perhaps 10% will be located at racetracks and off-track betting facilities. The success of the video devices for the racing industry will be severely tested once these additional devices are in operation and once the State of Louisiana completes negotiations for three Tribal-State compacts and Governor Edwin Edward's proposed New Orleans casino becomes operational. In our view, the experiences of West Virginia and Louisiana are not sufficient to support the installation of video gambling devices at Canterbury Downs at this time. Even though Mountaineer Park is the only location in West Virginia permitted to operate video gambling devices, the total revenues generated for purses are not significant compared to the substantial decreases in the betting handle. While the amount of the net revenues devoted to purses may change with a newly negotiated contract, it is not clear that the horsemen will receive enough money to compensate them for the significant decreases in betting handle. Louisiana horsemen, by comparison, have seen greater benefits. However, we believe these initial benefits may be artificial in light of the anticipated increase in gambling activity in Louisiana in the up-coming months. With more than 7,500 video gambling devices at Indian reservation casinos in Minnesota, it is questionable whether video gambling at Canterbury Downs would attract sufficient patrons to significantly impact the betting handle or the purse structure. Moreover, whether the legislature could pass legislation permitting video gambling devices at Canterbury Downs 20 without permitting the operation of at least a limited number of the devices by the Minnesota hospitality industry remains unknown. A state-wide "video lottery" system would likely exacerbate the decline of the pari-mutuel industry. We agree with the assessment of the Minnesota Thoroughbred Association that it is simply too early to determine whether the use of video gambling devices at racetracks will help or hinder the racing industry. Therefore, we do not recommend further consideration of video gambling at Canterbury Downs at the present time. E. State Purchase or Subsidization By Other Gambling Interests. Several people suggested that because of the competitive effects of the other legal forms of gambling in this state, Canterbury Downs should be purchased and operated by the State Lottery or, in the alternative, the Lottery, lawful gambling organizations and the Minnesota Indian tribes should be required to subsidize the purses at the racetrack. We agree with George Andersen, the State Lottery Director, that the purchase of Canterbury Downs by the State Lottery would, in addition to violating state law and perhaps the state constitution, be contrary to the best interests of the state. Therefore, we do not support such a proposal. Nor do we support the required subsidization of purses by the other components of the state's gambling industry. Our goal is to attempt to create an environment where pari-mutuel betting on horse races can survive as a viable stand-alone enterprise in the competitive Minnesota market. In our view, required subsidization will have the effect of contributing to the competition and undermining any efforts to achieve successful co-existence. Subsidization may provide a short-term benefit, but it may also create serious long-term difficulties. 21 We are supportive, however, of any efforts by Canterbury Downs, the horse racing industry or the other legalized gambling interests to create partnerships beneficial to horse racing. For example, both the Lottery and Mystic Lake Casino have voluntarily supplemented purses for races held at Canterbury Downs. We hope the Lottery, Mystic Lake and others will see the benefits of working cooperatively with the racing industry to sponsor live horse racing and we encourage involvement with Canterbury Downs by the state's non-gambling business community. F. Alternative Uses For Canterbury Downs Compatible With Horse Racing. A number of ideas were brought to our attention regarding the conversion of Canterbury Downs from a race track to some other type of facility. In our view, the continued viability of the racing industry would be seriously jeopardized if Canterbury Downs is not maintained as a race track capable of operating live horse racing. We understand that it may be necessary for the owners of Canterbury Downs to consider alternative or concurrent uses for the facility to generate additional revenue to meet operating expenses. We are generally supportive of any alternative or concurrent use that is consistent with horse racing and which does not alter the fundamental structure of Canterbury Downs as a horse racing facility. One proposal that makes considerable sense and does not require structural alteration, is the continued operation of simulcasting at Canterbury Downs through the winter of 1993 and beyond if no live racing occurs. Simulcasting generates revenue to LRC, to purses, and to the state in the form of pari-mutuel taxes. In addition, simulcasting helps to maintain a level of interest in horse racing necessary to ensure adequate support for continued live racing in this state. There are currently 1,500-2,000 regular simulcasting fans at Canterbury Downs. Many of these individuals have contacted the Racing Commission to urge the continuation of simulcasting throughout the winter of 1993. V. RECOMMENDATIONS Off-track betting is critical to the continued survival of the horse racing industry in this state. We recognize, however, that implementation of any off-track betting system will require that the legislature pass and the citizens of Minnesota adopt an amendment removing the words "on-track"from Article X, section 8 of the Minnesota Constitution. Therefore: we recommend that the Legislature, with the Governor's support, place a constitutional amendment on the 1994 general election ballot removing the words "on-track" from the Minnesota Constitution. We recognize that the adoption of a constitutional amendment and passage of any necessary enabling legislation is, at a minimum, more than two years away. We believe that in the meantime it is critical to explore alternative options for maintaining live horse racing in this state. The Racing Commission, with its expertise in the horse racing industry, is perhaps best suited to evaluate and develop those options with the greatest likelihood of success. Therefore: we recommend that the Racing Commission be encouraged to take all reasonable steps to preserve live horse racing in Minnesota, including but not limited to: (1) pursuing the development of a cooperative arrangement with one or more midwestern racetracks to alternate race meetings and implement simulcasting systems among the participating race tracks; (2) exploring alternative ways of supplementing purses, including the development of voluntary partnerships between Canterbury Downs, the Minnesota business community and other gambling and non-gambling interests; and (3) encouraging continued simulcasting at Canterbury Downs to generate purse monies and contribute to the economic viability of Canterbury Downs as a live racing facility. We believe that these recommendations must be addressed with some urgency. Therefore, we propose that the Racing Commission be encouraged to establish an Advisory Committee comprised of interested and knowledgeable individuals willing to pursue and implement the recommendations contained in this report. ,3 • RECEIVED` co : �. i^' z'� $ .'�il�'. k .� .�,��:- - ter:.' -�.� -�: .�c�. =,�= a VIVI:. th SECRETARY OF STATE i ;, . k.....(101.: . ------� 1 `�� ELECTION DIVISION + 1. -e) ' - -4,sng.%?4,, e.., • 4.3: _._ ...i,-.:ii:,.1-i.,,ci. ,-,,,Ig 12,1„4. 1 .1'4•,‘ .,:<,-,<-:z: :-LAtir:jtlilfj tj/I z.ii,,1 i,j- .'..4 . . :v��r jg5gx� . t�` . ws - , EXECUTIVE ORDER 92-6 PROVIDING FOR THE GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION :-' ON CANTERBURY DOWNS "° :a ;.:*) '1%;41 • I, ARtiE H. CARLSON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. by `-;' ., virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and applicable statutes, do `j ,` hereby issue this Executive Order: . ,_,.:., WHEREAS, the parimutuel horse racing industry makes important contributions i. I «.: Si to the Minnesota economy; and : ,', WHEREAS, Canterbury Downs Race Track is a facility vital to the horse race industry in Minnesota: and ; <, r ; } WHEREAS, the track and horse race industry is responsible for several thousand . ' ! - , \:. jobs in Minnesota; and , 1 ln ) . WHEREAS, Canterbury Downs is currently confronted with serious financial K' problems and is searching for alternatives to improve its economic viability; ; I >9 - \ NOW, THEREFORE, I hereby order that: s 9�---- . -} - --• — -- ---'te----: --� /,-(- ����- -� a �- J;.102iC.bQ 1. The Governor's Commission on Canterbury Downs be established. The Commission shall review and make recommendations to the Governor relating to the current economic condition of horse racing in Minnesota, its future viability as a stand-alone business and the economic and social impact on the State, and various communities of the State, in the event of the economic failure of Canterbury Downs Race Track. ?. The Commission shall review and make recommendations relating to the social and economic impact on the State and various communities of the State of a business relationship between Canterbury Downs Race Track and a Minnesota Indian tribe including. but not limited to the purchase and operation of the track by a Minnesota Indian tribe. 3. The Commission shall consist of the following individuals: • Chairman: Richard L. Pemberton, Chairman of the Minnesota Racing Commission • Harry W. Baltzer, Executive Director of the Minnesota Gambling. Control Board • Cynthia S. Piper, member at large of the Minnesota Racing Commission • Henry M. Buffalo Jr., a representative of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association • David A. Leckey, Deputy Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development • Representative Wayne Simoneau, a member of the Minnesota House • Senator Patrick D. McGowan, a member of the Minnesota Senate • Richard "Pinky" McNamara, a member of the business community • David L. Mona, a member of the business community • Randy Sampson, a member of the business community • Mary Magnuson, Office of the Attorney General, Reporter 4. The order and proceedings of the Commission shall at all times be under the direction of the Commission's Chairman. who shall report the Commission findings and recommendations to the Governor by September 15, 1992. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 4.035, subd. 2, this Order shall be effective fifteen (15) days after publication in the State Register and filing with the Secretary of State and shall remain in effect until rescinded by proper authority or it expires in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 4.035, subd. 3. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand this third day of June, 1992. i ''t)`'`'.--\'\— \ ARNS H. CARLSON Governor Filed According to Law: STATE OF i tIN,NEO ' DEPARTMENT OF Mit o--c+.,� Cc FlLED JO ANDERSON GROWE JUN 3 1Q':? Sec ary of State vv bil ato(14.4"1 iurve-, - 3 - 4 i MEMORANDUM *6;4 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney DATE: October 8, 1992 RE: NBZ Appeals Attached is the final Order of the Supreme Court denying NBZ 's petition for review. This ends the NBZ saga relating to the ready mix plant. I did receive word on September 30, 1992, from our staff that the ready mix plant was finally off site. This is FYI. Signed - Karen Marty, City' Attorney KEM:bjm [8MEMO) cc: Dennis Kraft HOFF s2, ALLEN F. A. 612 941 9220 P. 01 HOF & ALLEN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION GeoRGc C.Horn Ten A.ALLEN TLLEnIo. (612)941.9220 THOMAS G.BARRY, JR. 1$00-9$9-9220 PATRICIA E.KUDERER FAX(612)941-7968 PAULA A.CALLi[9 PETER M.SCHAUS wwAction•oc+vL iwww.n+ October 6, 1992 MB. Karen Marty Shakopee City Attorney 129 E. First Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 RE2 NBZ Enterprises v. City of Shakopee Court File No: 91-09739 GAB File No: 56527-21797 Our File No: 2266-040 Dear Karen: Please find with this the Order of the Minnesota Supreme court denying NBZ's petition for discretionary review. While I suppose it is theoretically possible for them to seek reconsideration or review elsewhere, this, in reality, brings to a successful conclusion the issues involving the ready mix facility on their site. In my last conversation with Jack Perry he indicated that the disassemble ready mix plant was going to be moved from the premises. Apparently the owner, (other than NBZ) is waiting for a different site to be ready for his ready mix plant. Please advise me if the plant has in fact been moved, or if enforcement of the trial court's removal order is necessary. I again want to thank you for your assistance and cooperation in the successful appeal efforts in this case. Sincerely;2' �G efsr C. off... HOFF & ALLEN, P.A. Enclosures cc: Mr. Doug Gronli Mr. Bob Weisbrod G:\WPDATA\2266-040\MART23l6.LTR 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,#260•EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344 kw WING OIR7cE•120 BROAD STRRRT•RED WING,MINNESOTA S5066.(612)388-3867 HOFF & ALLEN, P. A. 612 941 9220 P. 02 o°r 0 992 OFFICE OF APPEU ATE COURTS SEP 3 0 1992 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT FILED . D C0-91-2455 NBZ Enterprises, Inc., the successor in interest of Scott County Lumber Company, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Shakopee, Respondent. ORDER Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of NBZ Enterprises, Inc, et al, for further review be, and the same is, denied. Dated: September 30, 1992 BY THE COURT: 1 f/' a Chief Justice ((DI iMinnesota Department of Tragi -4 3Metropolitan District Transportation Building 4fr St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to 296-3005 Telephone No. October 9, 1992 Mayor Laurent City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 Dear Mayor Laurent: This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the City of Shakopee's resolution supporting the timely completion of the interim third lane project on I-35W. Thank-you for your support. Sincerely, 404 14/241 — Wiliam . Crawford, P.E. Metro-Division Engineer An Equal Opportunity Employer 44 Li + !!5P Metropolitan Waste Control Commission • Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1633 -- -- - - _ - - - - - - 612 222-8423 Date: October 6, 1992 To: ALL CITY MANAGERS Subject: 1993 SAC RATES This is to inform you that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has found it necessary to increase the Sewer Service Availability Charge (SAC) rate by $50 to $750, effective January 1, 1993 (Resolution Number 92-178) . The SAC rate for the communities that do not have interceptor sewers (those shared by two or more communities) was increased by $65 to $625, also effective January 1, 1993 . These communities are Chaska, Cottage Grove, Hastings and Stillwater. SAC is collected by your community as users connect to the Metropolitan Disposal System or as a user's potential or peak sewage discharge increases. The SAC funds collected pay for the debt incurred to expand and improve sewer facilities. These facilities provide the sewer collection and treatment service stipulated for your community in the Metropolitan Council 's comprehensive sewer plan. Please note: All SAC fees collected by the community in 1993 are to be remitted to the Commission at the 1993 rate regardless of when the permitting process began. The rate to be charged is the rate in effect at the time of payment. If you have any questions, please contact Teri Keegan at 229-2196 or Sandra Selby at 229-2118. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, a , 0004- Gordon O. Voss Chief Administrator GOV:SLS:kme CTYMGRS.SLS cc: Building Inspections Department S. Selby, MWCC D. Bluhm, MWCC T. Keegan, MWCC Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Ill is W W W W W W W W W W W W W W * W W W W W W W W W >r W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W * W O W0 D C W 00000000000000 1r WWWWWWWWW )r *NNNNrrrrrrr000 )1 0AWWWNNNN * )C1)WWWWWWWrrrr000 * NNr OZ W AW1--0-4WAWNrOW,IM * 0rVWNAWNr * r O0o0.4C)UTAWNANr0000' * UiNr 00 N (J)3'C(N77>'MND'vmmD< r( OD3(nN-vv2r— r 30X0MOZX'CWO071-0-00 -i r-,10 C C) -triCzmmr>OrZZOD Z M00-1-10000 I-+ ►401••1-irmmmrc►•+m,-4> >> D OI-4m ZO 1-+ mww --irDroDC)C)3r -i DOWDDrr30 C) NOwmmfrC)Cr+OmOC>C C x Ow= --4r -4 mC)rZDm-ImmZ• r+r(r m zzr+-4-40-4r+m> m C) OmOmr23rD70CrCrr m 00• -c m. 1-4 rr>N N zzm z .4mr-mmC)C)Nr Z • r• m-ia DWO7:0 0rn7r*1R1 N rrD V -1 DC)73ZU) 10NC)C)rnrr-< C) NL)rn mm-4 N r-1 Xm -zr•Ir•Irnrm zrr mC) 0 W m mm70-n3270 mU',1 0 i > SZ m0 m ZOW MQ'•mr Zz-4- '1-1>m 0 m Nm '11 77• ZXD m mm>70-43> < 0-4=ZX-407.0 N OrnCOC) 70C)CC-IOrmm00 0< Oz rnZ00 ONOZO0rr77H m -4m0-<•<70•I0< zZNv> X> mmr-IDDC)C -o+< mm N mX7)<�1m00-Ixmz>m Z m 3• • DD -4 f. IU). mrDrlr-u ZC)zzm-i DN 1-473 2 DO7Dm ZC) 0-4 X m-im 31-4•4 Wm Z -4-4 mmrUm000m x-v 1 m> D 1-1• NrmO I CN-T1" H m m> C)Dzm D •v CNmr(mmOmmmrrrnZ220 D --4rO 70O Nm<3mrn(*1N< Z x 0-- r( m0 mZm,3 m33C)NNr(r( X m= <>mDrnmmm -I C) zzzD v 70 • mOm mi--m m0Wm> r+C 0rn m mm 7027, m > 0 U)-ICra N X X X v 3-4-4Z Nrnmmr( V7D zC I <2 DI -40 <-f1 r < -•(• 0 r( r r.•Ur+m r•(NNN mZ mm v m r•(1 000= 1-4171 -4 -4 r•( --(m-Im -4 rn O-4 OD m0 m Om D N C) N 70 N 3 N N U)Z mr mZ N Cl,mDr( X-1 -i ON mo N C r+0 -i N Z 0 X• C ri N ZN V -im N m N -i m m m Z C mcD C xi r r W N r r x) r C) ow .4 N NV W W tJ m m C)N01.4 A0)W V AWWr(Or00 r W W m m co WC)0)(40000or W 0 1NW0)rWI-r N A N N DZ 0 0UIVONWO)0 0 0 000NWN.4 N N 0 0 0V < 0000000A000.400 0 000000000 W 00000000N00000.400 W 0000 C m 000000000000300 0 000000000 0 00000000000000000 0 000 >-3 Z 1 0 C Z m _4 <2 a D m m r- D -v Z 0 0 m m -4 C) 1 -4 1 N r rn r 0) Ai- N 0 r.4 U) A U1Nr W r .4AA C) r 1..t0 C)NA 0 .4V0 ••'4 N N 0).WON U100 W -4 OO OOA W N .4 rAN CO C)UI A000 0 0C40 • O OA 00000000 V 4:$0 N00rW W (04_4000 0000).4000 r- 0010) m 0 00 00000000 CO 00 00001N 0 00000 00000000 co 0 O W m 0 00 00000000 0 00 00000 0 00000 00000000 0 000 < 00000000000000 0 000000000 0 00000000000000000 0 000 Z 00000000000000 0 000000000 0 00000000000000000 0 000 C m W r N r CO V D r C) -4N4-- .4 r 0000.4 O) r r r C)FJ r CO WWW Ut ONWWr AOr A 001 0) WC)rr r I-UiN C)NA AAVIN W Or_r = MAW NWC)Cr(OOON CO 0V W WWA V NAUWCJIC)AWN (DrWW W (JNr D WAN 00A0)rWC)NOr W --Jr A C000) V OrNrN.4(4.4NC).4A(4C 0 AJNA D-( N MOW 0(.300AUI00A 0 WW 00 UIOON W WOW FJOU100W0AVC)(0 V A00 00 O OWOU100WN000VC)0 00 OW00010000 CO 00000000)ON00000N00 N tAiNA C •71 Or-0V0000000.4000 V 0-40000000 r 0000000x000000000 01 040• r0 1 W D 1 4- r W -1 0 W N r 0 1 N CO A r r Ul.4 r N N CO N (Ti (D W r A W 00r CO Or x00 UI0)r C) r rWW A .4 r (D.40 Fs) C)AC)AN(0000)r WON 00 01,00 0004.01.04:. r r W 0)U10N UINrW0) 00 00\30 D WAV000A(..)r WWVOr 00 .4000 U1000AM N CrN1-N.4C)WNA.4AW0 CO CA-4A 70 COC)OOWWOA)WOA W WO)0 r0U10)N C) .4OWNOUIWOWOA.4O)O N (3((D OWOAOO(DV000NC)W r OW000000I0 1- 0000000(J0N000000000 .4 AODUI Z 'C 01-0W0000000W000 W 0(40000000 (D 0000000W000000000 0 1•30(4 C) D �,( 1 1 I 11 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 ( ( (Ti m ! 1 ' N r r r r r r r r r r r 4-4-4- U 1t CO r 00.4N01(DAOr UI 0o 00 NA U1 (D C)W000 OOOONr000( A MVIA r C) NC)0.4W,ION A r W ONO V V0)r(DO Or00010)Wr A .4rr CO N A O W 00 W 00 0 r 0 Cr) 00 00 N O V V.4 U1 A 00 A r(J 0 00 W.4 0 r r r 0) C) r wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww T r ' O m m 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 cn O 0 0 0 0 N O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O Da co OOOCDCOCOcomc0cD000o0o0o0ovVVV-IVVOimmmmmmmm fcno ncncncoAAAAAAAWWwwNNN C7z co WNo-.4m owNr0c000vmrc0000WNr0c00ov0)NAWNrOCDooVCAOW(OVOwNr000WNr00v0) 00 N O maomZ-t-<<-c<0«� -c-c-G-c-<•<•<-<v>DDDDDDDDmfnmomo-izv3V)Dv)ZTvX00-n C 0 mrnmOr00002.000000000000,2000000000rOr mrvmmrr ZOmDriOry00r+ zo r •••IC)TZzcccc<cccccccccccc>cccccccccCTC)0Dmm>2.0r3D-•4=C0Zzm --Ir -4 z<C I <-I-i-a-4 --t-4-41-1-t-4-1V-4-4-4 rrrrrrrrrzlzE<C) z<CI (/)mmzC)C)Crti '- -< DC)V)m x=xx0SS=2S22SSSS2xl1111-I1111r-4coro -1 (oG)• zoom 0• mrnz 0 4-mrn-4 > rr 0>C)> >>> I-'U)Z C) 00c MG) 0 or 0O00<X31TODSNWNCAV)F1mm1(n)<mc -4wm r cfOrrrOmz •c oX.Tvfnf) v)m T mzor11<v0I vm0>OOvm>0mm0 mvo00Dmv07CrcmC rrc0001rrmOr,r m OZ M01-10 30r0 zO00TOrticnC)mr-4CV)ZOTrOcnr+Ocr•I x zm z0 zI-+r+rmrOOD mm o < u m zmr0 z1m7c10 mOomC)Ozm-Ir-i7C-0C)--4Tm 0< 0rr0000u)rZZZ r+m I rim- z 2.1rnC rCACAmCO3C)rnm10D tr-4commtmoi> rr m m i 7Cm OC/)o0 yD > 0mO1 NN<Z NDD<DtWrizr 10cn(D<D1 Oo1mrn1 NZ mr omm Q'Q•m I m 1r m m<u 1 W1 rr r>CC70 rr -D I rooro D-I•nrm v1 <ZN01 v r-I 0 m>T rrC)Dm rr rrw> z Oz 3rDr> rOz0= ON mC)OOcn ')TN 0 0m v C)zrm C)Dr< ror 0 zC) rI r r rz1 m z0zr I - nI 0 ZC m OC m Cd)Ir r m v) r r Dm= -4 13tH v Dzm r z m Cm - M C) rmm N (I)m 0 Zm< 0 N N Z -Ir0 co O 1 0 z 3,3:- < m N rr N -n m m M N 1 m m Z C MO C M W M CO w r w r W PC - - - m A O W W 0) N V W r r r Oo rn CD OArrNC A N 0 OW CD Wm V00WUV DZ N 00000000 0 W 0 0000 0 ON l 0)VCDVr C) < -4-4 O 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 V O C m 0 0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 > I I r3 z 0 c z rn 1 <I m > m m N > v z 0 0 m m 1 v C) 1 m A Cd, CO r N NrrN r 1 0Nrrrr WArW A rN Aa) r A W rW (000)A0r r A0000OON v00rrN000 4COr OAcoAWW0vv0 ON W 000000 0 M 0000000 O O O O 0 V N 0 0 0 0 0 0 OCC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 000000 O m 0000000 0000000000000 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 < . . . . . rn 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 z 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 C M < M N D CD N rr r W V 0)rr0or r r0 W Wrr yr A W rr (0000000rWry M Wr0)rWVWW MvM0mrr0A NAV rWOA WrNAVWWNO)OOCD (AVANArN- D VWA0W0)000o Om ANOCDO)CD00 CDOOA OWVA MNOOWWW 0NrMCorrrr0r000V0) D1 N 00WOOWA0 rA00o0o0(00o CJ NAN 00000 N 00)0000WArANO)A 0)VrA(CAA 0 C) 000000000000000000W0V000000000000000000oo0N0000000rooA0 CO O A 0)O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oo 0 V 0 > 1-0 W D I W 1 0 r I 0o r W m CD V Wr N r r rr A N WO r rr rNAA WrW N Wr00wANAANO) WON r 000rNrrC0000WW WANNWWv0000) AONOVArNv > -JWO(WWooNOOW0)NCD(0OVr-O(0C»cn00Wv00 CD00)vrvwW0v000)(0rro3r AmO0VW M UICD ON OC). 0OrA0mNO0)00VONA0000(00000300A0000w0)0OAN 0)AAV(00)00AA C0 rC 0 0 A 0 Ooto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 00 0 0 Z v O A A 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0o O W 0 C) > I I I le I I i II I I 1111 III I I I II I m L") r r r r r r Ar r r r W 1- r r m 0)ANV(JN 00Nv00)rr vr00 rN OWACDO NO W 0Wr0AA a) rAWWNr AANANr00 0AV AN 0rOr0 NO 0 ANWV00 V vNrv(r 0VCb0(DOOV ANr CON r VvvAv AA CO ArA 0000o 0 A 1 N t WW r W W W W W W W W s W x W T r * (DW * 0o 0o C"m 000000 C)0 s 0) * O) DC (D * r0 > (0NNNNN Nr * 0) * N nZ (0 * 00 x 0(J)A C.)Nr00 * 0 * A n0 N 0 -i N- I I- mmomo4-I n m n n c n 7373 M 400m0m>z 0 r+ 2 1-4 z0 r, > CD N U) CnZZr---1 C z > -4 --(1- -1 Z nz n nzi-im-1-1mm m m 70 -< -< U) U) m mo-mm A -1 N G) 0 T nT r r233>r4 Om m z mo O m Om r r1-(m-4m T(I) T Q, Cl) m Nm T m z70 > D-ZrC --1 r( n nZ T Cl) -4v) Z Z -i0- n Z T T -< mm Cl) c 7o m m n z r, r+ m 0 0 n 1-4X S z r, 0 000 0 -4 N A = r vD D V w C CZOCZ < m Cl) -Z -+ 0 C N N-4ZON -4 -( 70-4 Z v ri m 0 OM -D O r-( 1-473-1 73 --4 z z C m -I 0 03r73 0 C < z z m > z -IcC m m 73 n < 0 I-- N H-ic z N m rn Z O -1-(-( -< C N z O z N Cl, M Cl) 70 M M z C mn C ✓ C 70 0) 0N (D 0 0 r r rn Q1 CO 70 ✓ 0 0 A A r r 00 m V W W 0) 0) U7 U1 V AZ W N N 0 0 0 0 CD n < - • -1V A 0 00 0 00000000 0 0 V 0 C m V 0 00 0 00000000 r r r 0 D I-1 Z O C z rn -I <2 70 D M m rd D -V Z n 0 m m -I v n -i 0 m 0 (0 NM N CD Cl) 0 0 VN 0 N V (D O) 0) r -I W A A(0 0) N W o0 0) V U1 U1 0 ✓ r WV A OWO - 0 0 0 O) MI 0 0 00N (0 000 (D 0 0 0 W m ✓ 0) AN 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 < . . . . . . . . m 0 0 00 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 Z 0 0 00 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 C m < N m A 4 r- rn D ✓ Q) 0) A A W W A V 0 0 (0 W A C bo C :O O N N M 00 0 0 0 0 M D A 0 (T (D (0 ,IW (0 r r 0 >-I Cl) CO v) v) co v Ui O 0) 0o 00 w —40 O N 0 00 W 000000000 W W 0 O C 11 A 0 00 N (00000 C.)00 r r 00 0 A0 CD D ( N W -I 0 0) V r 0) r N I W A .--N U) r W W. N N Q) m (D a) W A(D 0) 00(4.4 r v 0) 0) N N 0 W 4—v v 4,W0U1 U1 O A A 0 D U1 Ui N N co 00 N C.) (D O 0o C (^) 70 N O Co N r N O U)0 W 0 r r r 1--4 • . . • . D V 0 00 0 1-.0000000 0) O) (D 0 Z .D Cn 0 00 D 4-0000.400 (D (D N O n D t ) 1 ( 1 ( ) ) ) ( 1 I m G) m A r U1 N r r U1 4.71 U7 v V V w A 0) N CA CD CO r T 07 V A r A N U) W W N n -4 W * A * AA * A * A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A * A A A A A A A A A A A A 'T) r * <0 * (O60 * U) * AWWWww(W(WWWWWNNNNNN * DC 6O * <O * 0000 * r * <C 60(0<000 V C)<nWNNrrrA CJW£rr * UI N U)U)A A AA W(Jrc oz <0 * r * Nr * r * 6O6nr0O0O00rOW0)0NNONU)0 * WNr0WNrc10P0 C)0 N C) C) M -IN C) C) N 33OCMCM-0-i�� orvvrc3<n<n 'v C)CZIMM-0vO000 C C) 0 0 m DD D D C mMCOM-IZOD=rnOMMMD.00OCC n OzOmrnmmm<D<D z0 M Z z X xr v v v <nvmzzM0MDrUOCO<cM-4mm m 3rnm>zzzmmrrnr -41 -4 1 1 M mm M M v 000-n1rcz<m1Z>-nmMroTv N v37Cr000>77Dz> \ -< M M -4 U)0) -i -4 r m= m )- -<m•vDOrmI-OmDr 0 mmx-iMMM -im-m 0 Z z -< D D M r>Q.m -l>1-4r2C)-4 Nm M C)M z zrm=000 MMMM m0 0 G) G) D -4 r r m rz m Mzz Om'- 'UZ1z-TImm > 00z ZZz 3m3m (nm -n m m z A I 0 >00z mC)C)!?.z Orr-<DOC N r D-COP.04.40 mUr<n OZ -n z z C) x m m Z4C0 <nm m Zr0 r+ mX -41 6 1 6 I 41 mm N C C) C) m x .0 P. mo Om 9.0 U'Mz v z3r> N mm C)I-Irnm -i I '1 1-im x Z < < v) v C 0M00 C ZDv1DU1 n 0ZOi-+r MM M CC MD D 0 m M N C C) -CA G)rnl M m = 11MOMC) 1.-Ir-I- -<r 7 1 0 3 v N '-I CD'- -nom r Dm C)• 0mD v mrr M 0 0 M m < vN r0 mmxia• rD C) N0Mr•<D 7)11 ZC m 1 1 Z M 1C7 M-•< MW<rn Cr n m3ZZM MM Z M A C 1 A M= Nm U<Dv WO N ZMOOM r m m 00 =Z 1 1-4-1D = O. CC mm 0 N n Cl) Z0 r+C) nC)MM M rn 73,0 N Or ZM 1MO= C) N DD N C) 00Z D ZZ Z 00 -I mm N D v v P:1 0 v M M D 1 M 0 ZC7 C M W N r x V 00 CO A AO) N r A r N r r V 70 r W W in 1-.W0)0)1-rr V 0 00- N r owr 0W0 v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m 00 00 00 (4 (4 P4 00 WOO)Ur0<O cn 00 VVVV00 A 60 ArO<0 ArN rn A r r A A 0 r00rrr OW A C)WP4 V V N i0V0 00 0)A<C0)0) NOON DZ 60 co 6O 0) m W CJU)C)- (UIVO)rAAVV 0rU)Or 0 V<Or6UI MVW C) Z _.4-4 00 0 0 W 0W O) 0) UI 0)6000 VNON0 A UI A UI V 0CJr600 A W 000wrW600ON0000 C 0 V 0 0 <0 O<0 0 0 N W0)OOW00 V AW60N 00)Orr A 0)60 0) 0000)VW i0)OWV60 D 1 1 I I r-3 M 0 1 z C -I 70 <= rn D M M D 77 Z C) rn m v 0 v O m 1 1 VI 1- N N D 0 0 in O 0)r N r CO r r r N 0 v 0) U) in UI UI 0 0 A rrNWNWWrN WV00AWN0 0 r 00..4 WrU) WAA v N 0) 0) 0 0 N N V 60000W0)r0w A W<O A 60 Ui(wi JA UI r0)W UI A 0 U)rr0)N A 7) 00 60 <O UI UI N N 0) ACn0)<OW0)000)-100AOV0)ON0)00<CV UI <OO6060000r0)OV0060 M 0 r r 0 0 N N 0) 00v1-00V0A0)UO00)0incic( r V0W0000)000600W m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) OOU0O0i0O00O0000O000 0 0O000O044000O M O 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00000000000000000000 0 000000000000 1 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00000000000000000000 0 000000000000 M 0 z< W N r n W N N CO W r r 0 r r r 0 D A W CO Cn rrN0Nr r VrANrN UI 00 O)O NVO 0)N0 N 0 rw 0) 0) 0) C)V0r0)Ai<OVAUI U1A000)O)A<O A C)0)AU)60VrA<nN N 0 0A 0) 0) UI 0)O-00N0 400V6000V1N0)<0Wi0000N 0 N000-4rW0)rN000 D A 0 160 00 00 N AVO0i00WV<O<DUIVVWoorWrVN W r-0)U)W(010)0)0)WA D1 N 00 N r0 A A W <Ov0)VrWWN00<OrAr000)rWAVN 00 OVV01-AAr00rr C) 0) 0 0 in v00 A A A A0Nrir60<O<DAC)AU)000060000)6n6 r 0O000rWA0ri0000 CO O O O A AO A A 00 0)VVWrA0AVr00N00WA60A6060 A OiO(AWOON1WV D r-0 CO D I r W -1 0 v N N In N CO 0 1 N 1.0 <n A A 0 0 W rrC) r 0)0)Wrr A N r I-C) WA VrA rn <O 0 0) 0) UI 00W UI 0 r 14(400N0 V UIW0)00WW A0A00<OW UI r r0)vW0 AU)W N'')N N <n 60 60 A MA <n UI r V A 6n 0O UrV(0 o0 U)A A 0060000 Cn A <ONWO 000000r0-J0 D UI r r <0 0060 W W W 0NOAArAVA06ONNNrW0WNO V v000)(00)OWN0N000 M r 0 0 V 000 <n N 0 OP00N000)-v0)O00000C)W000U)NV r 0(0WV<O00irrr0000 M D A 0 0 A N00 UI <n 0 U(0V00A00r00owooPr0rwAC) 00 060x000))0-Arr Z v O 0 0 0) 0)0 0) 0) N AWWv6O0)00W60N0000-40r0rr O) oior0)vO0N60-4( C) > 1 I rn G) r m 0) <n UI 0) v0IAV0W00 )0)1WVNi6n A00U) V v0)(0000)Vr0)0V 0) (0 W <0 CO r OvA<DNVC)(ONNrA00W000000)<D0) r W60000Acor0)60WW v O CO O r r m VAr-0)<JOrr<O<060A00W000<ON0 V NWVUIO<OrrAiU) C) 1 r F. r r r 0 CN r Z C N (^) Z 0 r 0 H 0 H m H M D 0 0 (0 m m -4 -0 -4 v -< m > v O v z 0 r m 0 m 0 00 0 Re .-(or .. A 0 m -( X -4 3 (-. --� 0 -� D M D M > A m C1 0 D C D z r O Zrn r z r r r F-( C -4 Z 0 N y Z m VRI -4 A = I- r-1 D 0 > r r ♦a O M M C Z C (D(0(0(Orr 0(O000rrrrr (O(O(O(0(Orrr (O(OWWW Orrrr r (0(Ot0000)0) (O(O(O(Do00N(!)(,))(!) fOWtOWooWWW WWWWW0oNNNN r WNr VWr mWNrVNNWNr 00(4t' (4 r WOWNr V00CNr r 0vC) ODOVDC) OrrnC) A 0v30D 3 -173m -10CDA(n -4t41-m D --4m--1D0 D 2OZ 200<AZ 20P*)Z 73 27000X -< MOM ,im C)z O(T1 MMOM ) mu) YrM 0 mmm ,00m0Cm mz-am > 730 mz z AD U)-irzD (A-D r Z M -Cr mX r-4r v)-(0r r -oZN Re v 3>-i >m r( Dzz 7..m -I v „0,3 -<r v A 0 �pm .l-4 0> ) D ) ) >O G0 ) m o> 0U) Z fm11 D D (HT1 M Z D Ar' M C) 73 C) N =1 0 A 3 D D m > RI 2 D z M V) 3 3 r m m m m m m m X 7) X Z XZ X m -i m -4 m v X C) v -0 0 M v a m > a 3 '4 rr A N (4 N N r W 2N C) 0 I-F+ Nr r 1-iv Nr(($U 0) rr A00 N rNA N r rr 00 a-(A NNrW 00V 01-.0D0)V 1.-..OWN O ArW x000 M rNA r000r WW CZ -40 ())NNW 0)r r(nCVN A(0(Or00 O(OONr NNW rN (0 A(0 W0000 NN Nr -.CO O)NO0)000 WAVO00.4U)000 (OV01000000(0 co(O000w000Or 0)0) Off) m Co z IO-C < .2 M D0 A 7 ill F., OM 0 a 0) WW (O Ar U) A W r W 00 NN 00 MD (O ).)WN00 V rG)m NANv000) (O rNr WW (O WNNNr rrr AA r 11173 (JINANWNV NNO)VWWMAA0OV VrU(O000-.W00 W 00v1.-,00NNAr 00 rA Tfl-( (0(000.4000 NV(OWOVNWCCA CNV00VVV00 (ON(O(OWNAV00M NN D0 3 (0WCWWrr NO)NONWA(DCO)A rWArW00(00(0 r00-4N00NAOWN (0(0 MO NO M 0NAVNW00 000rN AN(NWW(0 U)V(OCWNG10Or OCNO)NVCWVOr 0000 N -I O N(Ow ANA NNN003ArVr(0r NNWOW(J(1)NN U0)N.40)00AN0000 0000 m NW r r N r►- rr 00 V V 0) 0)N O) 0) 0) 00 N r r N r r 0-1 O (0 0 N 0171,1 (0 AA 0 WAWA 0 0 0= A A 00 0 1-.00 0 ANO N ANWO (0(O -lm N N r 00 r00W (O 0AV 0 (0(01(O 00 NM W000000 000000N0rn1-A A00000000 r000000(0N00r WW '400000( (D00000N0r(0 N0000000)N 00000001-1-000 (n()) r r V W W O) r•-.11.11 V 0) 0) r (4I- (O WW V N'40000 W rWC)NANWrW 0) 1-.Nr WO) V WNNNrNN(W NN 0-1 UNANWNC CNO)VWW00A(AA O)1--U'000N00N A OCJ�rCoCvNN rr 00 A(OONV000) WV(OWOVNWVV(O VNV(ONVNN(O AU(00WNAN000V NN 0-1 NWCW(rA WC000WN(0VA0 OWArW00.AM rQ0VN0NA(Ar 00 Nr WN(O'4A0V ANNOo0A0)VNNr ANWOWNN0000 NN(i) .4COCNO)CC (4(4 D-< r Nr r r N r 'V-4 ✓ N00 A r(Or r r0 W NANW C)0) v0 ✓ ON N W(O m O)V r Or r A O(ONA WW .'V 0 A0) v 000Or. M OM A 0 CVvr (O(0 0 D O) AN A rrWNO) V V0 O 00 VO)WO) 0000 V 4::1 O 00 0 00000 O 00 O O 0000 0 0 0000000 00000000000 000000000 00000000000 00 Z 0000000 00000000000 000000000 00000000000 00 .0 RI r ►_ 0) OA O NO)OO AA O WN -4 v NUiNN AA .0 CO COM V V OVA V( OO --40 N N Ni N OO(O A A A in *-- 000000AV AOOOOONWrWA M00000OWN WOW0000MvAV 0000 -Z1 W W r r 0 N r co V Z ."O C _ Z m M m 0 m 0 0 r O 0 V z v r M < M > m D -4 m -1 1-( -i I -•1 Z o -I 0 M Z D rn . -1 -1 m -♦ Z -1 14 MO O 0 0 3 0 z -11.- -A rr-i -4 -1 m -I C) X r D D D Z D m0 0 r r r -1 r z m -(Z 0 CO m V C m \ 1.1- > (0 r r N 0 1-r -) Z C 0 z N 0 wW C(0(0(0(0(00WWWWWWWWW (D(0(0(0(01-1-1-1-1- (0(0(0(0 CO(0 NN (O(0(0(0(D00000)V)....... CO(0(0(0000000000000 (0(0(0(000W VVV,IV 1-0 000)WN 1-00Vrr VO)V1 CJ Nr 0 0OWNrV0AWNr 00(4N 1-00 V 000)(f1Ar MO 00>01-00P-1-000 O W N rn r C) 00 P-41-00 MC -I-4Z1•1>00ZDmC -12.23Di•-111 -I-4 C)Orm ZN ==r<Z=C<-1Z0 SZ• G)C0-1 == C)ZDZ M-1 mm31-r OzmMm-i mxC)ra< mm C)zm AO M=Drrn0-400,00 >0 1-.r > za ZM DO r Zr -1rD0 -i 70S Mr> 1-1-( -M N O' -0. 1-$.4 M 1-40-<> M-0 D Z r -0 > DD MO 1-.G) D D NM r DD ZC) ao 3Z « mM 3D 3z < mm r <-< G) X 0 D 1 1-nC) rn-I D I ZtnI MODG) z v zm 1-4 Z v = v OZ M > m 03 0 D m C) m MX> D rn D MM z m D zo D Dam X f;(1 m m m -IX m z1m Z X Z X M X 1-r-iZ -1 m -1 m = m zG)-1 v 3 3 D 3 O. z - V r •0 0 V A m D W r z 3 AA 0 r N WO)00 I- A 1-N 20 C) V01r NO) N000 A1-(0(0NV) A 1-r 00 V 1-r NN-4N 00 1-10 OAO) I-A1-1J0V VAOAN0V UrOr0 N 1-00 (0rA0)N VOAO CZ -40 VNU 000)000(0 AVrN1....)A00 VNWNO0 O) 0)00 r(DN00V (OOWO)U1 ZD -(0 . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . OM -I (0(00 NA 00000)OOOOV)VIr(VNO V)000000000U VV00V000OV)0)N ON N .11 m 0 xi o-c < x Ir >0 C) 7m V car Om Ov 0)0) 001- rrW W 0o0(0 N (0 WA 00 MD (0Vr AW VV(0 V) N(0 .0A(n0 0 1-r 1-1- O)00 (0 WN N V1.7)0)0 r mM 0)0000 0Q)r0..00 r NNNV)WVW Vr1-N0. OO N(0 rNOOrr WNuN(000 1-C) m-4 AW1- O1-00rAAN rWr00Ar0) OWWNV0 W 1-0 (0001-0)Wr..410AVA DO X V)WN 000V(DNAWV) (DN(1)0A(00) 001-1-(00)0) 1- (O1- 0000(ONOOVWO)(0V0p0 MV) m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-1 Z 000)1- r O)000WC1-r00rV00V00AN O)O0NCAO)00)OAO) NWAW00N(D00(.f000 N -I V)(00) V(OA 00 V1r A(000NN 0(ON 0)0) VNNOAN0r0WW AOA 1-0)0),0 V)(n 0 V)0o NN W AM W r 0) V) C)0 V)VI 0 Wr (OV--J 0 0)N VW 0) V V 0-1 V0) V) (OA (OWN0 A (0NVNN 1- 000 V 02 O)V 00 0 Ow Mr-4M V 0)V N 00 W 0 WW A -AM Ir V)0 V OW 00000) A OW01-00 V) 0V N 0= A V)(0 C000000000000000(0V V V (000000WA0000 V) 0000000(N 0000,0 VAW W0000000V1-000AC1-1- V00000WrN0)V) 000000001-(00000 1-r (0 AN 1- (O(D 1-r rrW W (000) V) 1-N O) O) WA ()W1- AW VV(0 0Wr0(0 .001-00) 1- rrr1-OW WN Ut WN N AV)0)00 C)-I 4.000 00)1-0,000 1-(D A NN NII O)(D(0 1-r1-NOr(01-V0r WN001-r W00(0N(O0 00 00(0 rr000OrAANO00r(r)0(OW coWWN-(00)ONOA 0)0r0)WrV0AAV(0 0-1 V(Om (400V(DNAW00W(DN0A00)N (41-1-00)0)0001-0 W00(ONODVWNr1V0r -ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Or WN0 Orn 000w(0rr0000r V00 V 0).(O 0)00N(0A 0)W000Nr 00(4AWV)0)N r V VI(flW NW(D 0(0A 00(Tr A C V1-NNOWr V V ANNOANWNN(000 N)OArO)0)A 0)A 0 V)0) r 2.-< AA N 1-VW 1- N -v-1 WW 0) 1- (001-'- A (O Nr W 00(4 0 A MO V)NN A 00-4 OON0000) 1- 00 NV 0 0000 VI00 .'0 M 00(0 A WO (0r00(ON (0 VIAA0OV -4 Nr000 0 D N N(D V 00 0)0 A(000 0 V)0 1-0(0 0) w A W r V G) 000 0 00 00000 0 00000 0 0000 m 000 00000000000000000 00000000000 000000000000 Z 000 00000000000000000 00000000000 000000000000 0 -0 r r r m AAO) -4 A A0000A W V)-I(J)N V 01-0)0 XI A A W N Moo V r 0)A N 0) '.4-,V)(0 . 1- (4(20)0 C) M N WVW (20000000(0V000W0)00 000000NV100NA 0)00000000VN1- Z -( A A W 0 N F. W Z 77 C ti Z 00 r^ 0 11 ,4 m z m Z 0 0 M -0 O v V) m D m 1 4-1 -4 -u v 1 MZrn D frl 1 1 -•1 C) AO .. m 0 -I 3 r I-' 01 r-4 -4 O MO O D > r 0Z r Z .zi Z O r r 0 m �+ mr a '.4.< C7 D m G) r av 3 I D -o rn I . r C Z Z -4 O 0 AAAA (O(O(0(D(D(OVIVIUf UIVIUt VIVIUIV1V1Vf Vf Uf Uf UfAAAAAA 0(00(0(OWWWWW( NNNN (060(0(00000(0(040(000000 CO 00VVLOWNO (0(0(0(0 COWWWWWW AN,-.0 00(4Nr CO VONr0(00V0 UIWNON A 1OV UI AWNr 00WNrVOVIAWNr Z10C) OO<r>0<•4--(mNc-401-1-.0C000-0000) 003-000 vC mmmC 1-1. N-Ot/.4>>DZD-100N-0-1-1-1>1-4rm -4001Crm rnmzU SSI-4--1Cr1M3300021-00'V ><-4DZ SOC3►(Dz Omrn1 mrn• x> -0-u1 x mmmm-1M<L)m mmv)OrZm MO MM-0 MX1-->> 2.0>CO0ExZImrn3 XI M 1.100 M C)ftrDO • D 1-41•(33I-(<0«z> -1 MMV> MZ• I-I > 0 r11 -vV <C)ZZ OIZ mmr<I-+ DZmmr -FGA Zmr M Zr D >>m -400E(nm(nm>0x>320--10= D< 9.C< M 11-412 «X(nx Dm •VXI-.NC) rm 0 OXX -0-em 1-43 0 =1D I --(m I m0-I -yr>rcnmf)I- > M=1-4D I mZSI-IF> 0 (DMZ -umZr0zml-(DZ oX I OrOr MO-4Z uZ(n-4zZZ A r D rnZm(nO zZMOMO C.Z«r MOOD m m00 > > mG) MOM-(r1XXXM CO m (n"\O z m• V G) 3 \rn Dr( VDr zvm Z-40 -c rn1r.m D C)I-im m Cl OP* I mMM\O C)MM MDZ1 -IZO 3 -um MZ -.(Zmrzz-i -ICD 3 <mcnm m MO-4 m Z X Z NOD 0 I-IC)r-I D DNMZ X Ovr•( Z .4 M > G)CV) 0-4Z I♦ 1 m1 m Zm0 -I v 3 1 X--13 Zr.> Z r-( C) 3 OZ 70 m x > 00 -4 0 1 -0 1y 0 v a M D X/ I A 0) r N A r SV) 0 00VW 0) 1-.NW 1I- U) W r Nr (D 0 N1-.C.) A000.cu 00 0-'(C) r0)VI(D 00rNC)A VV10(0 CI 0) UI (71 r0AA0 N ONW rA0(710)60 CZ -40 D U1 W V V O V1 000 OO Vf(O V 00 0)Ui r(D N N W O)(0 U'Vf U)N(..n(D A A (401- r 0 N V W W 73> <LI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N r 1 CV0V AON00000000N000U0000ooO000000N W00(000)000OU1U)Ui flv) (n -*I m CO M 10< < 3 1-4 >0 c) =(n 1-. OM OM W W r N Uf V r rrN 00 '0a VWMA 0 NVIV W 1.-WN1 V r r 0 WN (D 00 rNWr VA00) r ((9.73 CONOW U1 r WA CON NN 17)C41--r N N r0r(ONAMACO W ANOVr00IAWW rC) f'11 A0)r00 r0O0NrC)AVrNO)001NWrAVIO W0rWOAA rr(DUUOOV(OO)OWN >0 3 VVIAV NrNWWrWrW0WAUrVI000(OUr0)(0(0Wr UWNV CNViC0)O)(0(0O00)N 700 4') . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . (n 1 Z 0UV0 A(DVA0Wr C0)VIACAWr(00)O)ANO)(OrAWO)NU(D 64rVOVVIW VI 0)W0(D N -4 A oO r N A oO W 0 A 0(0 00 A A 00 V 0(0 U7 0 r N O O O 00 00 O O V 00 Uf 0 V W 0)(D 00 A r 00 0(W A N) 0 N N r r 00 (0 V V CO CO 0-1 WN 0) CO N N 03 N NO 00 CO U) N -1M (D Woo W W 0 UI OM MOWN A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1- 00000000001- 001-60 00000000000000000000000000000 -40000000000""J N r A O) r N 00 (D r 1-1-A V(00)A W NVIV W rWNr V r 1- 0 WN V 0) rNWr VADA C)1 CNWVI rrWAWNNNOWrr N N r0r0NADA0W VI ANOVrCOVIAWU 00 VMA0 (0(00VI N 1CIAVrN O(D0rNWr A 001W(0rWO AW Vr(D 0000V(00)0(.JV 01 V VIWVI UIrNWWrWrW VIW A UfrV)000)(OVIr0(0(OWr 0WNr WN 0 CO 0)0)60(00(00 CO --1D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N r VO UI00 0060V A OWrC 0)O A 00 AWr6000 AN 01(0rA WONU(.) 4-flrV UIVOW U70)W 001 A00Nr A C W0 A 0(00 A A 00 V0(0 to 01N U 0)00000 VI 0400 U10 A W0)601OO Ar000Wr 1 D< N N r r M-1 001— W A 00 W rWrUf u0 (OAAN VI O rrNAO A OOV000N .X1 M OW0)0 (0 CO U)0)rV0 r COWNO N0) 0 D 0 00 r 0) 0) 0 00 V VI r U1 0 W V V W N r .0 IG) 0000 0 0 00000 0 000 000 4') 0000 00000000000000000000000000000 000000000000 z 0000 00000000000000000000000000000 000000000000 0 v N N r r m 00r0W O r NrrNO V NrAW VI00 X Vr0)00 60 A 0)VrON r 04(00)A C) rn UnUnUI1 r 0000000000000000000000000VV001 (0000000)VV1-V4 Z 1 0) 0) A 0 N r A Z z C ._ Z v 0 0 0 Cl) 0 D PI m x m 0 0 z v 1-1 v 0 v -i N -1 V m O O Z O 0 -41- -4 44-T 0 > 2. m C) o D D D r 70 r r zm � O -•I z 0 0 m -) r z D (0 r N m C z 0 0)00)00) (00)0)0)0)0)0)0) (0(0(0(0(0AAAAAAA (0(0(0(0(0(0(0AAAAAAAAA NNNNN WWWW00AAAAAAA (0(0(0(0(00000WWWWWNNNN AWNr0 0000 V0)UNAN4- 0OW Nr 00000)U)AWNr 00AWNr00 VAWN 4-0(000 V0) Dv30C) OE3vVC)r0 033333VC) 00000070000m -4DDrC -4DD0001.-Im -1DDDDD>m -4-44CD2HD1.m-4-0 =zrrZN 2-4 -(00Zf1Z S1-4NNNI-170Z 22EZQ01-4-1DAOC 1-7:Zm-4 mmzrrC)mr*1 mzzzzZ-4r*1 mmzO ZZCrm'-I m -IMO 7270-4 m070 73-4-1-)-i-I073 7073-41-4 0-IX MM -l3mD0 mC)DNCD D 0Zzt-40--IXr13 I-+ Zrrr MOZD'•INDr v 0-41- vv C)n1 CnzO m v OXD D DrD004-70 DP*9•9^2.9'Z >>Z 3 --4O12.R.Z v zIz -<I-+z=0O03 < <1 <-< v)O mC-I -4 0 '*194-07 004-4- 20> zzzzzm> 10-i< 4-40 > 0 r mz mmm N Z mm mm m zZ v-1.707 70 4-3 z 0-1 D z D vvvvvVD mmmr 1-10 4-D D z 0 U) G) >>>>>QC) 70mm Z-I mrr 3 31.i m m MMMMNzm DM-I 077 <z 707777703 -IN m -I 4-7.13 m m .70 <V I I I m 1-13(I) 1/1 3m Z Z Z ND70v0 Z xC -i DZ --1 -i -1 MOOD-I --4 MD I-1D v C31-7/70 370 z ZZ z C) 0.-11--s7 m MM m -40 0 v 70 m D r• r z 3 1-NA 0 N U)4- r N r 20 C) 0)N NOr UI Atn(0 NA aD rN(0 N V tJ)W Q) rW010)N(0 N0 00 4--40 rJVUO)0) W NrA NW 0NrAV NWWrWr00 WWN)NU1 AWr0)(0A(0(0r CZ -40 rf0000)N A 4--sir WO rWVON U10)00)0)r0 WVA0C400 V(J0)OONN4-r zD <U7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (/)1- -4 V001-.0 C)00V4-N0WV 00000000000N00 000(000)000A(00000VV ON N 'Ti m 0 z 0.< < _ 4-1 D0 C) 7:m r Om Om rrr 0) r Nr W r 0) r 4-r r N ON 70> (0i0000r UI U)WN WA 0 r NWA 0 0)r VU)06) NU700AUI4-4-0 r ma 00W00..4 0) .-.4N4- OW WANV1-WA0rAW4-0 UUW0000)0�INA1-'VO)r0)00 r0 m-4 A000O(0 O) or00 (0r AV00000)0)r(0rA000r (0ACO0)AACVNN 0oc0)VCn00N DO 3 (00000004- 00 00o(0 A0 (0A0NA0)VO(0V(0AN N1-4,J00ArU)(0W00r010000UV 7o&i m 00(000(00 AV000iU0NW 0)00VN000AUiWr0)WU1 OUiWU14-A00(0WN(000W .400) N -1 0A0ON 4-(06) .0)0 U)0 V(0 UTA 0 N Nrr W N V 00A V(0 U10roN 0)00)0000WW U100W N N W N r 4- V 4-N1-. 00 W 0o 0 A 4-r Ut 0) 0) 0) 0 A r Ui V r 0-4 4- W A (0 ow N V O 0 UI W N W fJ 00 A OX V r r A 0) Mw W (0 U1 0 UI 00 r U1 0)A N -gm A rrN 0 AO V V A A W N U)A V0)0 Cl)70 WOVNO 0000N00V0r W00000000000(0 000000000w00r 00)0)0) (00(00)0 004-0000000) W00000000000W U)00000001V000)00000(0 r A r r N W O r N A A r N W r 4-r 4-,-A r W00)(0r 0 rVWNU1(0r 0 r NWA r Vr VU10W 0)UON UI U10)00(0 0--4 0(00(000 0) U10NrNU-1 AANV4-WAU1rA(0rO 4UW0000)OVO)Ar00r(0WA 00 NON4-W N 0)004-000)(0O 0V00000)0)r(0rA00o0) AA 000)AA 00VON0orrVrl.JA 0-4 A000(0W 00 4:•000)(0VAV AAONAO)V0(0VWAV 0rN00ArU1(00100rN00000N00 -•ID r(0000 AV0OW U)Ui-4NA 0)00 VN 000A U)Wr0)WA (CU'W U)4-AOON GJNrW(0WNW WA(00)N 4-Wr4-A0)U1 U10) O(00AONN4-WN V00V NJWU)O4-U)N 0)N 0)00AWW 00)N D-< r r 0) 70-I NrN0) r O 0) N W 0 rA4-rN(ID(0A 700 AV00W N 00 W (0 4- A.-Jr N O UVNVN0000A z 70 NO(000 O U1 A V V0)U'00(0U10 O 0N00A0N0000 U1 0 D 014-(0Nr 0) V (0 00 (0WAN(0(0A V NW00rWW0Wr 70 C) 00000 vt U) 0 0 0000000 UI000000000 M 00000 000000000 0000000000000 00000000000000000 z 00000 000000000 0000000000000 00000000000000000 0 v 4- r m U)(000)U1 0o 00 A 0) N(0AA0)6)0) 0) rWN0)A U)rU)A .70 WWWAN (0 N 0 0) WW0)AVrU1 0) (0rW0)0W00WW C) V(04--WN V000)0000W 0000006) 0)000NV N00000000)0vW0')(0000) Z --1 (0 V O) 0 r N A Z M C '� Z 0 m CO m D m m mm 0 0 '1 m > m m v C) v m D c -i r -i oo -4 a -I v -i Z Or > m > 1r1 0 0 <) 0 m O T. -4 mo -1 -4 > -4 -4 1-4 --1 3 1"' 0 D -1 D 0 D 0 D MO 0 -1 r (*I r 0 r Z r Zm D 0 r -4Z 0 r r m V M MI C) D m -1 r N 1-4 O 'TI Z C Z 0 CO V (0(0(0(0(00)0) (0(0(0(0(0(0(00)0)0)0)0) 1- N (0(0(0(0(AA (0(0(0(0(0000oNNNNN r 1- 00WNrvr0 0)AWNr 00 V(D0 V 0)U1 C G) 03() 00-I00mm z m -4>c -1--Imr 2140 > Z mZN mmm0QZ0 D-4 r m mmmmc) 7:1-4 r m =0)0 mm-...\ Om 0 D m0 rD C) r m11-4 m o>0 < m -1 3 <Zz -3 c2 0> Z 0 m D 1 -4 10M 1-4 C) O z "7 mO> 0 m C)) m m m2.-4 c m 3 m > >m y) 3 m m rn Z X X -1 m m '0 3 3 70 -0 v 0 0 'o m r m D r r m 3 00 (o co 0 I- S N C) N N rW AN Vr NrA Ar 0)r 00 '-i ) 0 AA (OrA0)1- A(0 WOrr(Or U10)NNN CZ --10 ✓ VV 00(0000 V(0 WN0)00NV 00 UiW N0) MD <t/) . . . . . or. -4 (0 00 UI(i r0(0Or00)Ut 000(00000(D(DU100 00 N RI m W < I 1•r DO N C) iTd'1 0 r r r Orn OM CO N 0 N r ON MD A NN rr A NAN(OW Or WNO)Wr.4.4 Or r 17170 O -4-4 W W N r 00 0)(O W o0 N Oo 0)N A(O A A r N r W-I(O r-0 T11-1 W AA VV rmVVAV0)(0 UIWAr(000A000N(WV DO 3 0o 00 VV A00NV0)WOU1 0NNv004t.0)OUI0AO mV) m . • • . . . . . . . N--1 Z ✓ (0(0 4:.J=. U1000U1AN0)00 VV0W(DUI000)(ONN0N N "4 A 0)0) (0(O (OIW0(0 . . WW 0)r(O(OrNWNOVA 1 r NJ W W 0 NN 00 N N 0 r 00 00 --1-.1 00o0 r r 0 NO NN 0-1 N i•-i-- N N CO 0o A (OW WOO NI I- 00 NN 0 VIA 00 -1UI A0) -IM 0 C.343 00 0 ,P-4 0 WA 00(0 OM A 0000 WW IJ0000000 W0000000A0)0r0) 0) WW WW 000000N00 r0000000(0001-r W W W W r r r A NN 00 A W -4 r N r N AA (0(D CO NANrW rr WN0)Wr0-4 NA 0-1 N WW 0)0) rr000(OWVW W0NA(OAArrAW000 00 A 00 00 rooVVAvrA AWArWm A00.4.40000CJ 0-1 CO --.1-.1 N N (0 00 N.4 0)W oo W . N N.4 0 0 A 0)A(0 U1 N(0 -42. 0) 0000 0000 .4000UTANr0 0.40W(00000)AcoN.400 0 --4-4 N N 00 UI W 0(D A 0)N A W 0)r W(O r N N oo 0 00 U1 ('I D-< 0 rr AA r r N -0-1 0) 00 0000 (0 (0 W r N r r W 170 NJ (0(0 00 U1 Wr r 0)00 C.)r0 A m co A . . A -4-4 00 Ui N A W(0 0 D 0 rr 0(0 CO AW 00 (Doo 0)A(J 0 0 00 00 O U)U1 O 00000 t'7 O op O O 00000000 0000000000000 Z O O O O O 00000000 0000000000000 0 m r r m 0) NN MM V 0)(0 V MID Or M 0) NN AA A VN W 1--.4NO)U1 () M 0 0 NN AA .400000(0.4 0000000004.)rCoU10) Z Y7 oil pri Boss Akin'CORI'OR.\nos.. /'r.to.urnrul('‘vr'n-rrrtirnr.Llcrucrr' October 5, 1992 City Of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ATTENTION: Mr. Dennis Kraft RE: SHAKOPEE CITY HALL RENOVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTRACT AWARDS Dear Mr. Kraft: Based on the bid results, the results of our pre-award conferences with the apparent low bidders and our telephone conversation of October 5, 1992, we are proceeding with the award of the following contracts. We have enclosed bid results for each contract awarded. A summary of the awards is as follows. Each of these contractors was the low bidder in their category, unless otherwise noted. 2 . CAST-IN PLACE-CONCRETE & UNIT MASONRY - Northland Concrete & Masonry Company Base Bid $ 22,200. 00 Alternate 4 $ 600.00 Performance/Payment Bond $ 320. 00 Contract Sum $ 23, 120.00 7. METAL ROOFING & WALL PANELS - Valley Building Products Company Base Bid $ 6, 690. 00 Bond $ NJA Contract Sum $ 6, 690.00 740‘)mema itoulecard • .Suite' x4011 • Edina..It.\55439 • (612):131-54U8 • Fax x612)S31-I268 Shakopee City Hall Recommendations for Award October 5, 1992 Page 2 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS - Nardini Fire Equipment Company Base Bid $ 489 . 34 Bond $ N/A Contract Sum $ 489. 34 Trade Contract 8 will be rebid since the apparent low bid (from Dalbec Roofing) was not responsive to the Work Scope. We will forward our recommendation for Contract 8 as soon as we receive new bids. Thank you, and please call if we can be of further service. Yours very truly, if" /1* Wane R. B adl-_ illiProject Manager WRB: sat CC: City Council (5) Sherrie Consoer Judy Cox Tammy Eaglebull Barry Stock Project File f PROJECT: SHAKOPEE CITY HALL BID ANALYSIS SHEET PREPARED BY: BOSSARDT CORPORATION SECTION: #2 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE/MASONRY DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 1 2 3 4 5 NORTHLAND KM BUILDING HALLENBACK CONCRETE COMPANY & NELSON BASE BID $22,200 $24,616 $29,225 LABOR ONLY INCL. INCL. INCL. MATERIAL ONLY INCL. INCL. INCL. I BOND COST $320 $368 NO BID TAX INCL. INCL. INCL. BID BOND N/A N/A N/A ADDENDUM 1,2 1,2 1,2 TOTAL $22,520 $24,984 $29,225 ALTERNATES 1 - County Prosec. N/A N/A N/A 2 - Pwr Asst Doors N/A N/A N/A 3 - Cond. Unit N/A j N/A N/A 4 - Column Reloc. $600 I $400 $1,100 5 - Paint N/A N/A N/A 6 - Fire Alarm N/A N/A N/A GENERAL I INCLUSIONS I I GENERAL , EXCLUSIONS NOTES PROJECT: SHAKOPEE CITY HALL BID ANALYSIS SHEET PREPARED BY: BOSSARDT CORPORATION SECTION: #7 ROOFING &WALL PANELS DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 1 2 3 4 5 VALLEY J.P. ALBERT DANNY'S BLDG. PROD. I CONST. BASE BID $6,690 $8,200 $8,850 LABOR ONLY INCL. INCL. INCL. MATERIAL ONLY INCL. INCL. INCL. BOND COST N/A N/A N/A TAX INCL. INCL. INCL. BID BOND N/A N/A N/A ADDENDUM 1,2 1,2 1,2 TOTAL $6,690 $8,200 $8,850 ALTERNATES 1 - County Prosec. N/A N/A N/A 2 - Pwr Asst Doors N/A N/A I N/A 3 - Cond. Unit N/A N/A N/A 4 - Column Reloc. N/A N/A N/A 5 - Paint N/A N/A N/A 6 - Fire Alarm N/A N/A N/A GENERAL INCLUSIONS I I I GENERAL EXCLUSIONS NOTES PROJECT: SHAKOPEE CITY HALL. BID ANALYSIS SHEET FIRE EXTINGUISHERS DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 SECTION: 10522 PREPARED BY: BOSSARDT CORPORATION 1 I 2 ( 3 4 5 NARDINI tSPECIALTY I I SALES I I + BASE BID 489.34 I 740. 00 LABOR ONLY NOT INCL . NOT INCL. MATERIAL ONLY INCL. INCL. BOND COST N/A N/A TAX INCL. INCL . BID BOND N/A N/A I I ADDENDUM 1 & 2 1 & 2 TOTAL 489.34 740.00 ALTERNATES 1 -County Prosec. N/A N/A 2- Pwr Asst Doors N/A N/A 3-Cond. Unit N/A i N/A 4 - Column Reloc. N/A I N/A 5- Paint N/A N/A 6 - Fre Alarm N/A N/A I I GENERAL I I INCLUSIONS I I I I ( GENERAL EXCLUSIONS NOTES , . 14- 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1992 September 1992 September 1991 No. No. Valuation No. No. Valuation Month Y.T.D. Y.T.D. Month Y.T.D. Y.T.D. Single Family-Sewered 18 95 7 , 650, 918 5 83 5, 967, 850 Single Family-Septic 2 16 2 , 235, 424 1 12 1, 945, 600 Multiple Dwellings 3 13 1, 541, 060 - 7 779, 600 (# Units) (YTD Units) (8) (28) - (-) (14) - Dwelling Additions 5 68 260, 536 7 65 321,470 Other 2 12 63 , 550 3 15 114 , 380 New Comm. Bldgs - 3 1, 359, 000 1 5 2, 611, 800 Comm. Bldg. Addns. 1 2 365, 000 - 1 40, 000 New Industrial-Sewered 1 1 4 , 500, 000 - - - Ind. Sewered Addns. - - - - 1 16, 400 New Industrial-Septic - - - - - - Ind. Septic Addns. - - - - - - Accessory/Garages 7 31 285, 881 4 32 257, 290 Signs & Fences 1 45 80, 145 3 53 136, 067 Fireplaces/Wood Stoves 2 4 6, 205 1 2 5,800 Grading/Foundation 1 10 614 , 160 - 3 202 , 500 Moving 1 1 - - - - Razing - 3 47, 213 - 1 1, 500 Remodeling (Res. ) 3 26 89 , 633 1 26 188, 209 Remodeling (Inst. ) - - - - 1 30, 000 Remodeling (Comm/Ind. ) 6 32 2 , 529 , 670 2 38 2, 489, 397 TOTAL TAXABLE 53 362 21, 628 , 395 28 343 15, 076, 363 TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - - 1 30, 000 GRAND TOTAL 53 362 21, 628 , 395 28 344 15, 106, 363 No. YTD. No. YTD. Variances 1 3 2 5 Conditional Use - 8 2 8 Rezoning - 5 - 2 Electric 41 349 44 263 Plumbing & Heating 58 418 49 364 Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date 4 , 752 Jeanette Shaner Building Department Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER, 1992 9621 Novak Fleck 1017 Aster Lane House 72, 892 L 5 B 1, Meadows 7th 9622 Novak Fleck 997 Aster Lane House 82, 666 L 4 B 1, Meadows 7th 9623 Novak Fleck 977 Aster Lane House 84,770 L 3 B 1, Meadows 7th 9624 Michael Menke 1240 East 3rd Avenue Remodel 7, 500 9625 Michael Menke 1240 East 3rd Avenue Remodel 15, 000 9626 Timothy Stark 1263 Tyler Street Fence 140 9627 Monnens Custom Bldrs. 439 Market Street House 89, 000 Outlot A, Macey Second 9628 Void 9629 Sauter & Sons, Inc. 240 Shumway Street Tank Removal 5, 400 9630 Mark Huge 1110 Quincy Street Deck 1, 000 9631 Dale Dahlke Dalles Properties Grading 2 , 000 9632 Richard Sames 932 South Clay Addition 12 , 900 9633 Pat Gustafson 1821 Ruby Circle Storage Bldg. 2, 000 9634 Jeff Graham 926 Dakota Street Garage Addn. 1, 700 9635 McGough Construction 738 East 1st Avenue Canopy 170, 000 9636 John Turnbull Const. 2457 Emerald Lane Fireplace 3 , 550 9637 Logeais Homes 1108 Goldenrod Lane House 72, 469 L 1 B 3 , Meadows 6th 9638 City of Shakopee 129 So. Holmes Street Remodel 500, 000 9639 Void 9640 Monty Raben 2063 Heritage Drive Chimney 500 9641 New Century Const. 957 Aster Lane House 66, 000 L 2 B 1, Meadows 7th 9642 Gerold Bros. Const. 926 Carriage Circle House 132, 000 L 6 B 7 , Beckrich Park Estates 9643 Novak Fleck 1255 Sage Lane House 60, 000 L 11 B 1 , Meadows 7th 9644 Novak Fleck 1258 Sage Lane House 65,939 L 5 B 2, Meadows 7th 9645 Ron Rymer 1108 Dakota Street Deck 2, 500 9646 Ronald Pallansch 706 So. Sommerville Porch 4 ,739 9647 Mark Miller 585 Main Street Remodel/deck 11, 920 9648 Monnens Custom Bldrs. 1206 Prairie Lane House 120, 000 L 1 B 1, Prairie Estates 2nd 9649 Dale Dahlke 1852-1864 E. Vierling Dr 4-unit 304, 000 L 1-4 B 1, Dalles Townhome 9650 Irene Stocker 2075 W. Vierling Dr. Window 1, 500 9651 Novak Fleck 748 Dakota Circle House 70, 000 L 5 B 6, Meadows 7th 9652 Timothy Stark 1263 Tyler Street Remodel 500 9653 ChemRex 889 Valley Park Drive Demo 38 , 000 9654 Greystone Const. 300 East 1st Avenue Addn. 285, 000 9655 Leslie Crowley 725 Atwood Street Garage 12 , 000 9656 Novak Fleck 956 Aster Lane House 73 , 000 L 2 B 2 , Meadows 7th 9657 Novak Fleck 758 Dakota Circle House 75,735 L 6 B 6, Meadows 7th 9658 B & D Development 1852-1864 Vierling Dr. Sewer & Water 15, 000 9659 C. I . Realty 1520-1524 R'house Cir. Twinhome 103 , 369 L 10 B 2 , Eagle Creek Junction 3rd 9660 C. I . Realty 1533-1537 R'house Cir. Twinhome 103 , 369 L 7 B 1, Eagle Creek Junction 3rd 9661 Robert Jasper 124 Sommerville Street Roof 500 9662 Rice Lake Contracting 6957 Hwy 101 Storage Bldg. 30, 000 9663 New Century Const. 1073 Primrose Lane House 56, 475 L 2 B 5, Meadows 7th 9664 Novak Fleck 1093 Primrose Lane House 59, 000 L 1 B 5, Meadows 7th 9665 James Fox 1204 Tumbleweed Circle House 141, 261 L 6 B 3 , Prairie Estates 2nd 9666 Novak Fleck 993 Primrose Lane House 80, 000 L 6 B 5, Meadows 7th 9667 Novak Fleck 1037 Aster Lane House 77,490 L 6 B 1, Meadows 7th 9668 Chuck Boeke 2027 Hilldale Drive Garage 15, 000 9669 T. E. Ibberson Co. 800 West 1st Avenue Malt Tower 4, 500, 000 9670 Eric Swenson 2136 Foothill Trail Garage 5,760 9671 Otting House Movers 3240 Marschall Road Move House 9672 Logeais Homes 964 E. 11th Avenue House 79, 400 L 6 B 2 , Meadows 5th 9673 LaVern Johnson 1141 Naumkeag Street Storage Shed 960 9674 Dale Straw 1286 Jasper Road Deck 2, 000 9675 Laurent Builders 2684 Lakeview Drive House 135, 000 L 5 B 2 , Stonebrooke 1st Total: $7, 850, 904 4 lo MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on August 3 , 1992 at 4 : 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kirchmeier, Cook and O'Toole . Also Manager Van Hout and Secretary Menden. Liaison Sweeney was absent . BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20 ,032 . 00 ARA/Cory Refreshment Service 156 . 00 American Safety Utility Corp 423 . 34 Aqua Engineering Inc . 26 . 94 Bauer Built Tire and Service 199 . 39 R.W. Beck and Associates 25,287 . 11 Mark Breeggemann 80 . 09 Bills Toggery 47 . 49 Border States Electric Supply Co. 24 ,155 . 78 Burmeister Electric Co. 1 ,762 . 47 Champion, Inc . 423 . 88 Chanhassen Lawn and Sport 29 . 06 City of Shakopee 824 . 11 City of Shakopee 329 . 52 City of Shakopee 93 . 35 Cooperative Power 37 , 948 . 99 Crown Marketing, Inc . 25 . 75 General Office Products Co. 60 . 34 Glenwood Inglewood 21 . 06 Gopher State One-Call, Inc . 554 . 64 Graybar Electric Co. , Inc . 3,166 . 34 H D R 3 ,052 . 28 Hance Cable Testing and Locating 593 . 70 , Hennen ' s ICO 200 . 00 Jerry' s Lawn Service 871 . 17 Kar Products 287 . 17 Leef Bros . , Inc . 48. 29 Ray LeMeiux 76 . 08 M-V Gas Company 8. 79 MVA Company 522 . 66 McGrann Shea Franzen Carnival Straughn and Lamb Chartered 7 ,257 . 76 Minnesota Valley Electric Coop 39 ,243 . 50 Minnegasco 19 . 99 Minn. Municipal Utilities Assoc . 310 . 00 Minn. Valley Testing Laboratories , Inc . 70 . 00 Motor Parts of Shakopee 121 . 64 Northern States Power Co. 441 ,104 . 27 Northern States Power Co. 1,222 .21 Northern States Power Co. 332. 32 Parkside Printing, Inc . 223 . 50 Reynolds Welding Supply Co . 4. 47 River Electric Association 596 . 92 Rollins Oil Company 624 . 58 Schilz Ornamental Iron 155 . 00 Schoell and Madson, Inc . 3 ,010. 78 Shakopee Chev Olds Pont Geo, Inc . 554 . 43 Shakopee Public Utilities Comm. 114 . 72 Shakopee Sevices , Inc . 43 . 67 Al Smith Excavating 137 . 50 Southwest Suburban Publishing 221 . 65 Starks Cleaning Services , Inc . 72 . 42 Dean Struck 72 . 00 T & R Service 34 . 00 Total Tool 28 .44 Louis Van Hout 874 . 36 Water Products 1 ,300 . 59 Westinghouse Electric Co. , Inc . 2,609 . 15 Yarusso ' s Hardware 47 . 59 Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by O'Toole that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park , Bill Engelhardt and Dennis Saari of Engelhardt and Associateswas were present to discuss a communication regarding the 12th Avenue Watermain and Bypass Crossings dated July 24 , 1992 . Ken Adolf, Schoell and Madson was also present and• joined in the discussion. Motion by Cook, seconded by O'Toole that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission authorize the payment for oversizing costs for the 12th Avenue watermain in the amount of $67 ,699 . 00 with the addition of air release valves to be put in at .Shakopee Public Utilities Commission cost . Motion carried. Motion by O' Toole, seconded by Kirchmeier to request staff to put together a Resolution defining the benefited property for application of trunk water charges. The benefited property area being defined as those in the shaded area of Alternate #2 Drawing #2 of the 12th Avenue Sanitary Sewer and Watermain feasibility study as provided by William R. Engelhardt and Associates dated 3/2/92 . Motion carried. Motion by Cook, seconded by O'Toole to delete the County Road 83 bypass watermain project with the stipulation that it may be reconsidered after review by the Shakopee Public Utilities consulting Engineer and Manager. Motion carried. Motion by O' Toole , seconded by Kirchmeier that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission approve the watermain crossing at Valley Park Drive extension at the estimated cost of $60 ,068 . 20 . Motion carried. Motion by Cook, seconded by O'Toole that a hydrant be added to the Valley Park Drive extension project at a location specified by Schoell and Madson, Engineers at Shakopee Public Utilities Commission cost . Motion carried. A discussion was held on an update of the tank site. Various posibilities were discussed. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kirchmeier to request the City Council to pursue their normal procedures for obtaining a site for a dual purpose water tank and an electrical sub- station located on the southern location as pinpointed by Schoell and Madson in their study of the tank sitings . Motion carried. Manager Van Hout reported to the Commission that Marvin Athmann donated his time to operate the SPUC truck to install the batters eye at Tahpah Park. 12 hours of truck time and man hours were donated. A Council agenda item regarding Roberts Rules of Order was discussed by the Commission. The Commission directed the Manager to get clarification on the agenda item. • Secretary Menden reported on a recent bankruptcy of a SPUC customer. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kirchmeier to offer Resolution #382 A Resolution Designating Official Depositories of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Funds. Ayes : Commissioners Cook and Kirchmeier. Nayes: none. Commissioner O'Toole abstained. Motion carried. Motion by O'Toole, seconded by Cook to direct staff to prepare a Resolution designating Greg Voxland as our investment officer and also incorporating the current investment policy of the City of Shakopee. Motion carried. A communication from Pete Malamen, HDR Engineering regarding the downtown undergrounding and various cost estimates was presented to the Commission. A discussion followed. Motion by O'Toole, seconded by Kirchmeier to offer Resolution #388 A Resolution Adopting a Medical and Day Care Expense Retirement Plan for Employees of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. Ayes : Commissioners Cook, O'Toole and Kirchmeier. Nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. A Resolution will be drafted in regard to a change in meter deposit requirements by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to become effective 1/1/93 . There were no problem areas in plats received by the Shakopee Public utilities staff. There was one fire call for a total of 15 minutes labor. There were no lost time accidents for the month of July, 1992 . There will be a special meeting on August 31 , 1992 in the Utilities meeting room. The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be held on Sept. 14, 1992 at 4: 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Motion by Cook, seconded by O'Toole that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. i i /1� ti Da bara Menden, Co ission Secretary • MINUTES • OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special session on August 31 , 1992 at 4: 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kirchmeier and Cook. Also Liaison Sweeney, Manager Van Hout and Secretary Menden. Commissioner O' Toole was absent . BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20 ,032 . 00 ARA/Cory Refreshment Service 78 . 00 A T & T 45 . 40 ABM Equipment and Supply, Inc . 72. 01 All-American Glove Co. 417 . 56 Auto Central Supply 59 . 31 R W Beck and Associates 1 ,245 . 36 Bentz Construction, Inc . 720 . 00 Berens Market 298. 90 Border States Electric Supply 5 , 343 . 96 C & NW Transportation Co. 180 . 00 Champion Auto of Shakopee 6 . 38 Chanhassen Lawn and Sports 30 . 27 City of Shakopee 66 , 202 . 00 City of Shakopee 333 . 00 City of Shakopee 141 . 70 City of Shakopee 1 ,093 . 54 Cooperative Power Dorcon, Inc . 39 . 19 Feed-Rite Controls, Inc . 1 ,875 . 36 General Office Products Co. 126 . 38 Glenwood Inglewood 10 .09 Gopher State One-Call, Inc . 559 . 64 Graybar Electric Co. , Inc . 3 ,289 . 38 HDR 4 , 967 . 54 Hance Cable Testing and Locating • 214. 20 Hennen' s ICO 133 . 00 Jerry' s Lawn Service 871 . 17 Leef Bros . , Inc. 24 . 15 McGrann Shea Franzen Carnival Straughn and Lamb 4, 502 . 79 Ray LeMieux 66 . 00 MV Gas Company 26 . 37 Minn. Dept . of Public Service 619. 71 Minn. Valley Testing Laboratories 70. 00 Motor Parts Service Co. , Inc. 122.86 Nebraska Municipal Power Pool 300. 00 Northern States Power Co. Northern States Power Co. 1 ,043. 03 Northern States Power Co. 332. 32 Pitney Bowes 210. 87 Power Manager Users Group 100. 00 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 4. 62 Schoell and Madson, Inc . 2,093. 39 Schonstedt Instrument Company 154 . 26 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 184. 58 Shakopee Services , Inc . 70. 30 Southwest Suburban Publishing 337. 41 Starks Cleaning Services , Inc . 72. 42 Dean Struck 76. 08 Total Tool 119. 91 T & R Service 17 . 00 U. S . West Communications 82 . 39 United Compucred Collections, Inc . 239. 62 Lou Van Hout 59 . 80 Walden Bros Lumber 316 . 68 Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. 15,243 . 20 Widmer, Inc . 755 . 00 Yarusso ' s Hardware Co. 68 . 79 Schmader Electric Co. , Inc . 53,497 .80 Motion by Cook, seconded by Kirchmeier that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Approval is given to Schmader Electric Co. , Inc . with the provision staff Manager Van Hout brought up a complaint for Liaison Sweeney regarding signs on street light poles. Liaison Sweeney will bring it to staff to see if something can be done. A communication from Attorney Karen Marty regarding Roberts Rules of Order was given to the Commission for discussion. Liaison Sweeney gave the background on the request and a discussion followed. A recommendation will be taken back to the Council by Liaison Sweeney. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Cook that the meeting be adjourned to September 11 , 1992 . Motion carried. tiAi ki\Z ()I1Z_ I,, Barbara Menden, Co fission Secretary association of metropolitan municipalitiesp Oct. 15, 1992 AMM MEMBER LOCAL OFFICALS: Attached are the recommendations for the 1993 Legislative Policy program from the AMM's five standing committees and the AMM Board of Directors. Please review the policies with your Council for action at the Membership meeting scheduled for Thursday evening Nov. 5 at the Decathlon Club in Bloomington. A notice on the specifics of the meeting will follow, but an insider's tour of the Mall of America is part of the pre-dinner program. Note the section on Endorsed Policies. These are LMC or other organizations' policies in which the AMM concurs but will not lobby actively. This is in keeping with the goal of focusing AMM effort on major concerns to metropolitan area officials and cities that are not being address by other groups. // 40' Think?WhatDo You Please review the policies and list your top five priorities by policy number. Your participation is important because the policy priorities help ,Sliinncerely, determine how staff time and resources are allocated. /I c _ r,e7,,,,A....,„e,______) Karen Anderson, President, AMM TOP POLICY PRIORITIES, BY POLICY NUMBER 1. 4 . 2 . 5. 3 . City Name (Optional) : Please bring your response to the Membership meeting on Nov. 5. If you are unable to attend, please mail your response to Roger Peterson, ANN, 3490 Lexington Ave. N. , St. Paul , MN 55126 3490 lexington avenue north,st.paul,minnesota 55126(612)490-3301 PROPOSED AMM POLICIES AND LEGISLTIVE PROPOSALS 1993 Recommend by the AMM Board of Directors on October 1, 1992 for Membership consideration. THIS DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER INDEX PART ONE MUNICIPAL REVENUES AND TAXATION PAGE NUMBER I. MUNICIPAL REVENUES 1 - 8 A. LEVY LIMITS 1 B. MANDATED STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS 1 C. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID 2 D. PROPERTY TAX 3 1. Homestead Class Rates 3 2. Non-Governmental Tax Exempt Property 3 3. State and Metropolitan Owned Tax Exempt 3 Property 4. Property Tax Reform 4 E. GENERAL FISCAL IMPACT POLICIES 5 1. Fiscal Note Continuation 5 2. Funding Shifts 6 3. State Revenue Stability 6 4. City Fund Balances 7 F. SALES TAX DEDICATION GUARANTEE 8 PART TWO GENERAL LEGISLATION II. GENERAL LEGISLATION 9 - 16 A. OPPOSE REDUCTION OF AUTHORITY OR LOCAL CONTROL 9 B. TORT LIABILITY 9 C. DATA PRACTICES 10 1. Open Meeting 10 -i- 2. Liquor License Application 11 3 . General Public Data 11 D. POLICE AND FIRE PENSION PROVISIONS 12 1. Amortization Aid 13 2. Employee Contribution Amount 13 3 . Benefit Increases 13 4. Assumption Changes 13 E. CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE BONDS 13 F. CONCURRENT DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION 13 G. TORT LIABILITY/MTC SECURITY 15 H. 911 TELEPHONE TAX 15 I. COOPERATION, COLLABORATION, AND CONSOLIDATION 16 PART THREE HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE III. HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS 17 - 34 A. HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS 17 1. Examine Local Requirements 17 2. Practices Which Affect Housing Costs 17 3 . Mandatory Land Use Standards 18 4. State Housing Policies 18 5. Local Housing Policy 19 6. Metropolitan Area Housing Needs 20 7. Neighborhood Liveability 21 8. State and/or County Licensed Residential 24 Facilities 9. Licensed Residential Facilities Inspections 25 -ii- B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 26 1. Cities Development, Re-development and 28 Economic Development Responsibilities 2. Equal Treatment of Cities 30 3. Tax Increment Financing 30 4. Local Option for Development Organization 31 Structure 5. County Economic Development Authorities 32 (EDA's) 6. Development of Polluted Lands 32 7. Building Permit Fee Surcharge 33 C. LAND USE PLANNING 33 PART FOUR METROPOLITAN AGENCIES IV. PHILOSOPHY WITH RESPECT TO METROPOLITAN 35 - 52 GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES A. PURPOSE OF METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 35 B. CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION OF METROPOLITAN 35 ORGANIZATION POWERS -iii- C. STRUCTURES, PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION AND 36 FUNDING OF METROPOLITAN SERVICES AND PROGRAMS 1. Policy Planning - Implementation 36 2. Funding for Regionally Provided Services 36 3. Regional Tax Rates and User Fees 37 D. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - LOCAL AND REGIONAL 37 INTERACTION E. COMBINED SEWERS - SEPARATION 38 F. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL BUDGET/WORK PROGRAM PROCESS 38 1. Budget Detail and Specificity 38 2 . Reliance on Property Taxes 39 3. Program Evaluation 39 G. METROPOLITAN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUNDING 40 1. Operation and Maintenance (0 & M) Funding 40 2. Regional Bonding For Regional Parks 40 H. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 41 1. Water Supply. 41 2. Surface and Groundwater Water Management 42 3. Wetlands Conservation 43 4 . Regional Wastewater Treatment System 44 5. Water Testing Connection Fee 44 I. WASTE STREAM MANAGEMENT 45 1. Integrated Waste Stream Planning 45 2 . Hazardous and Dangerous Waste Management 47 3 . Metropolitan/County Responsibilities 48 -iv- 4. Local Solid Waste Management 49 Responsibilities 5. Funding 49 6. Organized Collection 50 7. Host Cities and Cleanup Responsibilities 51 PART FIVE TRANSPORTATION V. TRANSPORTATION POLICY STATEMENT 53 - 63 A. STREET AND HIGHWAY GENERAL FUNDING 54 B. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM GENERAL FUNDING 54 C. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 55 D. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALTERNATIVES 55 E. HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT INTEGRATION PLANNING 55 F. HIGHWAY JURISDICTION REASSIGNMENT, TURNBACKS, 56 AND FUNDING G. TRANSPORTATION UTILITY 57 H. '3C' TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS - ROLE 57 OF ELECTED OFFICIALS I. PRESERVATION OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 58 J. CITY SPEED LIMITS 58 K. TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES/DISINCENTIVES 59 L. REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM 59 M. MSA SCREENING COMMITTEE 60 N. METROPOLITAN TAX 60 O. AIRPORT POLICY 61 -v- P. BIKEWAY GRANTS PROGRAM 62 Q. OPTOUT 63 PART SIX ENDORSEMENT POLICIES VI. ENDORSEMENT POLICIES 64 - 74 A. TAXATION HEARING AND NOTIFICATION LAW 64 B. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 65 C. REFERENDUM LEVIES 65 D. COMPARABLE WORTH 66 E. LIQUOR ISSUES 67 F. PELRA 68 G. MSA MILEAGE LIMIT 69 H. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES 69 I. MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICTS 70 J. HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP 71 K. PORTABILITY OF SECTION 8 HOUSING CERTIFICATES 72 AND VOUCHERS L. REMOVAL OF REGULATORY BARRIERS 73 M. SITING OF GROUP HOME RESIDENTIAL FACILIITES 73 -vi- I MUNICIPAL REVENUES PAGE 1 THROUGH 8 LEGISLATIVE POLICIES 1992 I MUNICIPAL REVENUE AND TAXATION I-A LEVY LIMITS The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities commends the 1992 Legislature for removing artifical Levy Limitations from cities for 1993 and beyond. The AMM has consistently opposed the levy limit laws in that they apply uniform statewide restrictions to cities and are too inflexible to accommodate inflation , uncertanties in state and federal financial aids, and the diverse problems and circumstances faced by cities throughout the state. Such laws are inconsistent with principles of local self-government and accountability. Neither do they recognize changing local conditions as to either expenditure needs or revenue sources. Levy limits ultimately work against the interests of local taxpayers because the law creates an incentive for cities to take maximum advantage of the opportunity to make general or special levies. THE AMM STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE LEGISLATURE'S DECISION TO END LEVY LIMITATIONS FOR CITIES AND FURTHER URGES THAT LEVY LIMITS NOT BE REINSTATED IN THE FUTURE. I-B MANDATED STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS The cost of local government is being influenced more and more by both state and federal legislatively mandated programs and increased mandated benefits or costs for in place programs. At the same time the legislature and administration are suggesting that expenditures are far too great at the local level and that cutbacks are needed. Cities cannot provide additional mandated programs without seriously impacting the ability of cities to provide the traditional services of public safety , street maintenance, snowplowing , etc. Mandated programs such as pay equity, binding arbitration, PELRA, certain Data Practice requirements, expensive election rules, waste recycling, and truth in taxation cost money. These costs must be recovered through levy , state payment, or reduction of current service . There is no other way. THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT MANDATED INCREASED EXPENDITURES IN ONE PROGRAM WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING INFUSION OF FUNDS MANDATES A NEW PROPERTY TAX OR A DECREASED EXPENDITURE IN THE OTHER SERVICE AREAS SUCH AS PUBLIC SAFETY ETC. THEREFORE, WHEN NEW PROGRAMS OR INCREASES TO EXISTING PROGRAMS ARE MANDATED, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL STATE FUNDING ASSISTANCE. -1- I-C LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID State Aid to cities has been a much debated legislative issue for two decades. Over that time the formula (s) have ranged from pure per capita, to need based on value and service, to a distribution based on location and past spending. Homestead Credit has changed to Homestead Aid and is no longer a direct taxpayer subsidy. New gimmicks such as Disparity Reduction Aid (Mill rate equalization) and Tax Base Equalization Aid, have been invented to target money to various regions when the general aid formula could not be politically designed to work. With few exceptions, cities across the nation have access to more than one form of municipal revenue . The dedicated Local Government Trust Fund recognizes that and provides Minnesota cities with a second source, sales tax, in addition to the traditional small share of the property tax. The advent of the dedicated Local Government Trust Fund (LGTF) made up of 1 1/2 cent current sales tax revenue and 1/2 cent locally enacted sales tax revenue provides the opportunity to return to the basics and to develop a rational redistribution formula. That formula should recognize the sales tax as 1) a second source of city revenue to fund general city services as well as 2) a source of funds to help eliminate some of the disparities caused by unique municipal overburden and for low property wealth. THE AMM WILL SUPPORT THE EFFORT OF THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES (LMC) TO DEVELOP A STATEWIDE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND PLEDGES ITS HELP IN THAT EFFORT, PROVIDING THE AID DISTRIBUTION FORMULA CONSIDERS AND SUBSTANTIALLY INCORPORATES THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: .THE SALES TAX IS A GENERAL REVENUE SOURCE FOR CITY EXPENDITURES AND THUS SOME DISTRIBUTION TO EACH COMMUNITY MUST BE PROVIDED TO UPHOLD THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT TO ALL OF THE STATES TAXPAYERS; .RECOGNITION OF BURDENS CAUSED BY RAPID POPULATION GROWTH; .RECOGNITION OF BURDENS CAUSED BY POPULATION LOSS IN MEETING THE DEMANDS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES; .RECOGNITION OF NEEDS BASED ON CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS SUCH AS AGING POPULATION, HOUSING STOCK, AND INFRASTRUCTURE; .RECOGNITION OF WEALTH OR TAX CAPACITY; .RECOGNITION OF BASIC NEEDED SERVICES WHICH SHOULD BE SUPPORTED AT AN APPROPRIATE SUPPORT LEVEL; AND -2- .RECOGNITION OF PROPERTY TAX BURDEN RELATIVE TO INDIVIDUAL WEALTH. UNTIL SUCH A FORMULA IS DEVELOPED WHICH ADEQUATELY SUPPORTS THE ABOVE CRITERIA, THE AMM SUGGESTS THAT 1) THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION AND CLASS RATE CHANGE BUY DOWN IN LAW THROUGH 1994 BE MAINTAINED , AND 2) THE GROWTH IN THE 2 CENTS SALES TAX RECEIPTS DEDICATED TO PROPERTY TAX RELIEF BE DESIGNATED AS EACH CITY'S SHARE OF THE SALES TAX AND DISTRIBUTED BASED ON A PER HOUSEHOLD AND/OR PER CAPITA BASIS. I-D PROPERTY TAX D-1 HOMESTEAD CLASS RATES The 1991 Legislature modified the Homestead Class Rate system to eliminate the third and highest rate tier over a two year period. The 1992 Legislature continued the modification so that for taxes payable 1993 there will be two tiers of 1% on the first $72 , 000 market value and 2% on the value in excess of $72 , 000 market value. The elimination of the third tier is significant in achieving more fairness and equity in the property tax system, especially for homestead property. THE AMM COMMENDS THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE PHASED ELIMINATION OF THE THIRD TIER HOMESTEAD CLASS RATE AND FOR NOT SHIFTING THE RESULTING TAX INCREASE ONTO OTHER PROPERTY. THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO CONTINUE NO MORE THAN A TWO TIER HOMESTEAD CLASS RATE IN THE FUTURE. D-2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY One of the glaring inequities in the Minnesota tax system involves the free local services that are provided to tax exempt property owned by certain non-governmental organizations. It is widely acknowledged that such property benefits directly from governmental services such as police and fire protection and street services provided by cities and counties. However, since there is not legal basis for claiming reimbursement for the cost of such services , they are borne by the local taxpayers . Furthermore, such property is concentrated in certain cities and counties resulting in a heavy cost burden in certain parts of the state. THE ASSOCIATION BELIEVES THIS PROBLEM SHOULD BE CORRECTED BY ENACTING LEGISLATION, REQUIRING OWNERS OF TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY, EXCEPT FOR CHURCHES, HOUSES OF WORSHIP, AND PROPERTY USED SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES BY ACADEMIES, COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES AND SEMINARIES OF LEARNING, TO REIMBURSE CITIES AND COUNTIES FOR THE COST OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES. D-3 STATE, CITY AND METROPOLITAN AGENCY OWNED TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY -3- The State of Minnesota, some cities and Metropolitan Agencies owns a significant amount of property within the metropolitan area. Cities provide a range of services that benefit these properties. However, since the they are exempt from paying property taxes, municipalities are not reimbursed for the cost of these services. This places an unreasonable burden on cities. The State of Wisconsin established a program called "Payment for Municipal Services" in 1973 . The program provides a mechanism for municipalities to be reimbursed by the state for services they provide to state-owned properties. Through a formula based on the value of state-owned buildings within a city, the Wisconsin system reimburses cities for police, fire, and solid waste services. THE AMM ENCOURAGES THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM FOR REIMBURSING MUNICIPALITIES FOR SERVICES TO STATE, OTHER CITY AND METROPOLITAN AGENCY FACILITIES. THE PROGRAM SHOULD (1) ENSURE THAT THESE AGENCIES PAY ASSESSMENTS FOR SERVICES THAT BENEFIT THEIR PROPERTY, AND (2) ALLOW CITIES TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES THAT ARE FUNDED THROUGH GENERAL REVENUE, SUCH AS POLICE AND FIRE, WHICH ARE VALUABLE TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, ANOTHER CITY AND METROPOLITAN AGENCIES. D-4 PROPERTY TAX REFORM Many significant changes in the property tax system have been made since the 1988 Session. The AMM believes it is critical that any future proposals be evaluated on the basis of their impact on individual communities. A proposal that may appear balanced on a statewide basis can have very disparate effects on individual cities. The difference in property tax burdens among taxpayers living in neighboring tax jurisdictions which provide similar services must also be kept within reasonable limits. Any significant tax burden disparities would adversely affect cities' abilities to compete on a fair basis for residents and economic development. Tax increment districts are dependent on tax rates and assessment ratios of the current property tax system. The financial viability of those projects should not be jeopardized by state-imposed changes in the tax structure. Likewise, enterprise zone businesses have been recruited based on a commitment that they would receive a preferential classification ratio in the calculation of their property tax obligations. These development districts should be protected from any negative consequences of tax reform. The tax increment financing plan in effect at the time legislation is passed should be the basis for determining remedies. -4- In enacting any major reforms of the Minnesota property tax system, including the complementary system of property tax relief through aids to local government, the AMM recommends that the Legislature pursue policies which meet the following conditions: THE IMPACT OF ANY PROPOSAL SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY ANALYZED, FOR ITS IMPACT STATEWIDE AND ON INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES. MAJOR SHIFTS THAT INCREASE DISPARITIES IN TAX BURDENS AMONG TAXING JURISDICTIONS OR REGIONS WITHIN THE STATE SHOULD NOT OCCUR. ALL SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SHOULD BE PHASED IN SO THAT CITIES CAN ADEQUATELY PLAN FOR ANY NEEDED ADJUSTMENTS. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID, OR AN EQUIVALENT PROGRAM OF PROPERTY TAX RELIEF SHOULD REMAIN AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM. CATEGORICAL AID PROGRAMS SHOULD NOT BECOME A SUBSTITUTE FOR LGA AND RELATED PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PROGRAMS. PROPERTY TAX REFORM SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE TAX/CASH FLOW NEEDS OF AND NOT JEOPARDIZE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICTS OR ENTERPRISE ZONES. THE CHANGES IN TAX STATEMENTS MADE BY THE 1988 LEGISLATURE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO MISLEAD TAXPAYERS ABOUT THE VALUE OF HOMESTEAD AND AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AID (HACA) PAYMENTS MADE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED. ANY FUTURE REDUCTION IN PROPERTY TAX CLASSIFICATION RATES SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED BY TAX SHIFTS TO OTHER PROPERTY OR FROM THE CURRENT 2 CENT SALES TAX IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRUST FUND BUT SHOULD BE FUNDED FROM THE STATES GENERAL FUND. AN INCOME-ADJUSTED CIRCUIT BREAKER AND RENTERS' CREDIT SHOULD CONTINUE. SIMPLIFICATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE DESIRABLE GOALS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE ABOVE TENETS. I-E GENERAL FISCAL IMPACT POLICIES E-1 FISCAL NOTE CONTINUATION Many laws are passed each year by the legislature which have a substantial effect on the financial viability of cities. Some of these, such as revenue and tax measures , have an obvious and direct effect which is often calculated and reported during the hearing process . Many others , such as worker' s compensation benefit increases, mandated activities, binding arbitration and other labor related legislation, social programs , etc . , have costs which are not as obvious but which will now be known due to -5- a fiscal note requirement. Cities and others will now be able to determine the real cost of a program or suggestion and be able to use this data in determining the merits. THE STATE SHOULD CONTINUE A POLICY OF "DELIBERATE RESTRAINT" ON ITS MANDATED PROGRAMS AND UTILIZE EXTENSIVELY THE RECENTLY ADOPTED FISCAL NOTE STATUTE IDENTIFYING LOCAL GOVERNMENT COSTS ON ANY NEW MANDATED PROGRAMS. E-2 FUNDING SHIFTS The Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department annually prepares 'Major State Aids and Taxes: A Comparative Analysis' . The statistics for 1985 through 1990 show an imbalance of state revenues collected and aids and credits distributed between the metropolitan and outstate areas . Over 65% of the State Revenue is collected in the Metropolitan Area while only about 45% of the aids and credits are redistributed in the metro area. In 1990 there was $. 59 returned in aids and credits for each dollar collected in the metro area (up 6 cents from 1989) whereas, there was $1. 32 returned per $1. 00 collected in greater Minnesota (up 7 cents from 1989) . The trend in the past two to three years has been very slightly in favor of the metro area but there is still a vast imbalance in favor of outstate distribution per amount collected. If the imbalance is allowed to grow , state tax and aid policies may jeopardize the future economic growth of the metro area to the detriment of the whole state. STATISTICS COMPILED BY THE HOUSE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT SHOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE STATE REVENUE IS RAISED IN THE METRO AREA WHILE ONLY A MINORITY OF THE STATE AIDS AND CREDITS ARE ALLOCATED TO THE METRO AREA. THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO REDUCE THE IMBALANCE AND TO CONSIDER HOW THIS DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES EFFECTS THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND VITALITY OF THE METRO AREA AND THUS THE ENTIRE STATE. E-3 STATE REVENUE STABILITY The AMM has in the past supported a state budget reserve of a sufficient size to allow the state to overcome unexpected Revenue shortfalls in a given year. This supporting position was adopted to prevent a repeat of the 1980 disaster where cities did not receive certified State Aids that had become an integral part of the budget. However, when faced with a similar shortfall in 1990, the state legislature and administration again withheld needed already budgeted State Aids. The state acted as if use of the budget reserve for its stated purpose would somehow be bad and that it was better to take away service resources from citizens and blame local government. THE AMM SUPPORTS A CONTINUED STATE BUDGET RESERVE ONLY IF THE -6- STATE IS WILLING TO USE THE RESERVE IN TIMES OF REVENUE SHORTFALL IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE BUDGETED COMMITMENTS MADE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT. MAINTAINING A BUDGET RESERVE MERELY FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING MONEY IN THE BANK WHILE ARBITRARILY CUTTING PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED LOCAL EXPENDITURES IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY AND IS DECEIVING TO THE CITIZENS OF MINNESOTA. E-4 CITY FUND BALANCES There are several reasons why cities must carry adequate fund balances. First, cities need substantial cash balances at the beginning of their fiscal year to finance expenditures for the first six months of the year. (By statute, cities' fiscal year is on a calendar year basis, running from January 1 through December 31 . ) The main sources of city revenue are property taxes and state aid; property tax payments are not made to cities until June and state aid is not provided until late July -- six to seven months into the city fiscal year. Without the necessary cash balance at the beginning of the year cities do not have funds to operate for the first half of the fiscal year. The alternative would be for the city to engage in costly borrowing which is not in the interest of local taxpayers or the state. The office of the state auditor has recommended that to be prudent, cities should carry an end-of-the-year dedicated cash balance sufficient to fund city expenditures for the first half of the year. Second, many cities, in order to save taxpayer dollars and avoid paying costly interest on debt, accumulate funds for major capital purchases and infrastructure. A common example is saving over a period of years to purchase an expensive fire engine or public works vehicle. In some cities, it may appear as if a city has a large reserve compared to its annual expenditures, but in reality it is "saving" for a major purchase. Confusion over this practice has lead cities to more prudently "designate" their fund balances to clarify the intended future use of such funds. Because of the vast differences in the size of the 856 cities of Minnesota and the various local preferences in financing purchases, it would be bad public policy for the Legislature to restrict or eliminate cities' abilities to accumulate fund balances. Third, cities need to maintain some fund balance to meet emergency or unanticipated expenditures created by situations such as cuts in aid, natural disasters, lawsuits, and premature breakdown of vital equipment. Cities are not given the necessary revenue raising authority to be able to address these issues in the middle of a budget year. And finally , bond rating firms require liquidity and a demonstrated ability to pay debt in order to receive a favorable -7- bond rating. Bond rating firms scrutinize city fund balances when rating bonds. The better the bond rating of a city, the lower the interest cost of borrowing are to the taxpayer. Therefore, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO CONTROL OR RESTRICT CITY FUND BALANCES. THESE FUNDS ARE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE FISCAL VIABILITY TO MEET UNEXPECTED OR EMERGENCY RESOURCE NEEDS OF CITY GOVERNMENTS, TO PURCHASE CAPITAL GOODS AND INFRASTRUCTURE,PROVIDE ADEQUATE CASH FLOW AND TO MAINTAIN HIGH LEVEL BOND RATINGS. I-F SALES TAX DEDICATION GUARANTEE The AMM commends the Legislature for the creation of the Local government Trust Fund (LGTF) consisting of 2 cents sales tax dedication to city/county property tax relief. City governmental officials have long needed a stable source of funding to augment the property tax for provisions of municipal services. THE AMM SUPPORTS CONTINUATION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRUST FUND BASED ON 2 CENTS SALES TAX AND MVET TO BE USED ONLY FOR PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PROGRAMS CURRENTLY PAID BY THE TRUST FUND BUT NOT TO INCLUDE FUTURE PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION CHANGES AFTER 1994. THE AMM SUPPORTS AN IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION OF 2 CENTS SALES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE TAX TO THE TRUST FUND WHICH INCLUDES SUPPORT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL DEDICATION. -8- II GENERAL LEGISLATION PAGE 9 THROUGH 16 II GENERAL LEGISLATION II-A OPPOSE REDUCTION OF AUTHORITY OR LOCAL CONTROL The AMM has for many years opposed certain statutory changes that erode local authority or mandate activities which cost money to implement unless there is a provision to recover those costs . Rather than adopt a separate policy for each issue, the AMM believes that as general policy the legislature should not decrease current authority or mandate activities creating added costs to cities without providing the necessary funding or unless there is overwhelming obvious demonstration of obvious need. Included in this general policy is opposition to mandates such as; mandating wards for elections, setting city employee salaries, state or metropolitan licensing of tree treatment contractors, plumbing inspections by licensed plumbers only, and requiring competitive bidding for land sales. THE AMM OPPOSES STATUTORY CHANGES WHICH ERODE LOCAL CONTROL AND AUTHORITY OR CREATE ADDITIONAL TASKS REQUIRING NEW OR ADDED LOCAL COSTS WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING FUNDING MECHANISM. THIS INCLUDES MANDATING ELECTION BY WARDS AND INTRUSION IN SETTING LOCAL SALARIES. II-B TORT LIABILITY The Municipal Tort Liability Act was enacted to protect the public treasury while giving the citizen relief from the arbitrary, confusing, and administratively expensive prior doctrine of sovereign immunity with its inconsistent and irrational distinctions between governmental and proprietary activities. The act has served that purpose well in the past, however, courts frequently forget or ignore the positive benefits secured to citizens damaged by public servants as a result of enactment of the comprehensive act which includes some limitations on liability and some qualifications of normal tort claims procedure. The special vulnerability of far-flung government operations to debilitating tort suits continues to require the existence of a tort claims act applicable to local governments or local governments and the state. The need for some type of limitations is evidenced by recent experiences with the insurance market. Cities in Minnesota are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain insurance at an affordable rate, if at all . Amendments in 1983 to increase the dollar amounts recoverable by plaintiffs should be adequate to satisfy any reasonable claim. Further changes in limits beyond the current $200, 000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence should not be made. Joint and several liability provisions have been modified to lessen the deep pockets effect some. The current limit of payment -9- is times two for liability of 35% or less (i.e. if the city is 30% liable, they may be required to pay 60% of the damage award) or total responsibility if liability is over 35% (i.e. if the city is 40% liable, they may be required to pay 100% of the damage award) . This still seems onerous especially when this comes out of taxpayers pockets. Payment liability should definitely not be increased. THE AMM SUPPORTS THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY ACT AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE CURRENT LIMITS OF LIABILITY REMAIN INTACT. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENT LIMITS SHOULD NOT BE INCREASED FROM CURRENT LAW SO THAT TAXPAYERS ARE NOT MORE UNFAIRLY SUBJECTED TO DEEP POCKET AWARDS. II-C DATA PRACTICES C-1 OPEN MEETING Data privacy laws protect individuals from the release of information to the public which the legislature has deemed to be private or which could be unnecessarily harmful to the individual. On the other hand, the open meeting law prohibits local government units from holding closed sessions except when discussing pending or actual lawsuits with an attorney or labor negotiations . Unfortunately, many occasions have arisen in past years where local units in dealing with individuals or employee disciplinary matters have been forced to either violate the Data Privacy Statutes or the Open Meeting Statute in order to fairly resolve the issue. The Minnesota Supreme Court in early 1989 apparently resolved the conflict between the two laws and did so by establishing a clear rule that when 'not public data ' comes before public bodies, either the data must not be released or the meeting must be closed. However, the 1990 legislature overturned that decision, but in its clarification, raised more questions than existed prior to that 1989 Annandale decision. The new law allows an initial hearing to be closed, unless an individual being accused requests a public hearing, but does not provide for notice to the individual. It does not say whether the name can be released. The new law provides that the data which is a basis for firing or suspension is public after final determination and that cities must use 'reasonable efforts' to protect private data. However, the law is unclear as to whether final determination is upon council action or upon completion of grievance and arbitration of the action. The time gap between council action and filing of grievance is a problem for determining what data is public or private. It does not define ' reasonable efforts' nor does it provide a method to discuss multiple charges, some of which may not be included as part of the ultimate basis for action. -10- Local officials appear to be just as much or more at risk under the new law than the old law prior to the Annandale decision, and thus , because of the severity of punishment should probably err by closing meetings rather than err by inadvertently violating the Data Practices Act and violating an employees right. THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE THE DATA PRIVACY AND OPEN MEETING LAWS CONSISTENT SO THAT TO COMPLY WITH ONE LAW A CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO VIOLATE THE OTHER. FURTHER, THE AMM STRONGLY SUPPORTS LEGISLATION FAVORING DATA PRIVACY OVER OPEN MEETING WHERE CONFLICTS ARISE TO PROTECT THE EMPLOYEES RIGHT OF CONFIDENTIALITY FOR PERSONAL AND PRIVATE DATA. ALSO, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD CREATE A PROCESS WHICH WOULD ALLOW CITIES TO FORWARD DISSEMINATION REQUESTS FROM THE PUBLIC TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR BOARD AT THE STATE FOR AN OPINION ON THE PROPER RESPONSE. THE AMM WOULD SUPPORT THIS PROCESS ONLY IF ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECEIVING THE OPINION WOULD ALSO RECEIVE PROTECTION FROM ANY CLAIMS BROUGHT AS A RESULT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN RELIANCE ON THE OPINION. C-2 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION The definition of 'licensing agency' in Minn. State 13 . 41 is not clear as to the inclusion of cities , therefore , it is unclear whether all or part of the information on license issuance is public. This can be a real problem when issuing liquor licenses, since part of the data concerns sensitive business and personal finances. THE AMM ENCOURAGES THE LEGISLATURE TO CLARIFY THAT POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE INCLUDING CITIES ARE LICENSING AGENCIES IN MINN. STATUTES 13.41 AND THAT FINANCIAL DATA OF A PERSON OR BUSINESS SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE OR OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF AN INVESTIGATION OF THE APPLICANT OR LICENSEE SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PRIVATE. C-3 GENERAL PUBLIC DATA The Government Data Practices Act allows municipalities to charge the actual costs of searching for, retrieving, and copying public data if copies of the data are requested. The law prohibits municipalities from charging the costs of searching for and retrieving data if a person asks only to inspect it . In many cases, the searching and retrieving are the most time-consuming aspects of supplying data. Making a copy is frequently only a small portion of the time required and should not be the standard for determining whether a charge is appropriate. Profit-making enterprises have used this free service to augment their businesses . For example , individuals have established -11- businesses for preparing special assessment searches. Personnel from these businesses use city facilities, including expensive computer equipment, to obtain the special assessment data. The personnel may also take significant amounts of staff time for explanations of the data collected. They then dominate the publicly provided telephone for lengthly periods to transmit the information obtained. These businesses use city facilities and personnel as part of a profit-making enterprise, solely at taxpayer expense. Municipalities should be allowed to charge for retrieving and explaining public data whether or not the request includes copying. The law also prohibits municipalities from charging for separating public from non-public data. This task may be very time-comsuming and is necessary to protect the non-public data. Municipalities should be allowed to charge for this service. To preserve the Act's spirit and intent of keeping government records open to inspection for public purposes, the new charges proposed would not apply to the media or to private citizens requesting information about themselves or their own properties. THE AMM ENCOURAGES THE LEGISLATURE TO AMEND MINN. STAT. 13.03, SUBD. 3 TO ALLOW MUNICIPALITIES TO CHARGE FOR RETRIEVING AND EXPLAINING PUBLIC DATA AND FOR SEPARATING PUBLIC FROM NON-PUBLIC DATA. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT APPLY, HOWEVER, TO THE MEDIA OR TO PRIVATE CITIZENS REQUESTING INFORMATION ABOUT THEMSELVES OR THEIR OWN PROPERTIES. II-D POLICE AND FIRE PENSION PROVISIONS Local police and full-time fire relief associations were phased out by the 1980 legislature, unless the local council opts to keep the relief association. All new employees will become part of the state police and fire PERA fund and the state will reimburse local units for a portion of the unfunded liability remaining in the local fund. The unfunded liability was projected to be paid by the year 2011 but during the 1980 's, investment earnings were in excess of 10% and thus could, at that continued rate, reduce the time to year 2005. Past earnings are not an indication of what happens in the future. The legislature considered siphoning earnings in excess of that needed for 2011 amortization to reduce state payments and property tax levy for unfunded liability as well as provide a bonus . (13th. paycheck) to retirees. If investment increase drops below 10%, the local property taxpayers in future years will pay more, not only to pick up the property tax reduction but the state reimbursement reduction. It would be better public policy to wait until the unfunded liability is funded. Also, 1979 Law set employee contributions at 8% and the Legislative Retirement Commission has in the past established a general policy requiring public safety employees to pay 40% of the -12- normal pension costs. D-1 AMORTIZATION AID THE AMM OPPOSES LEGISLATION THAT PROVIDES FOR REDUCTIONS OF STATE AMORTIZATION AID TO LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIONS. D-2 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT WAS SET AT 8%, IN MANY FUNDS THIS IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO 40% OF THE NORMAL COSTS. THE AMM URGES THAT THE CONTRIBUTION LEVEL BE SET AT 40% OF THE NORMAL COST OF FINANCING THE BENEFITS EVEN IF THIS AMOUNT EXCEEDS 8% OF BASE SALARY. D-3 BENEFIT INCREASES THE AMM OPPOSES ANY BENEFIT INCREASES FOR LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIONS UNLESS AN INCREASE, INCLUDING ANY RESULTING DEFICIT, IS FINANCED 50% BY THE EMPLOYING CITY AND 50% BY EMPLOYEES ON A CURRENT BASIS. D-4 ASSUMPTION CHANGES THE AMM SUPPORTS CHANGES IN ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS RELATING TO SALARIES AND INVESTMENT RETURN TO MORE TRULY REFLECT EXPERIENCES. THE AMM OPPOSES PAYMENT OF ANY TYPE OF BONUS TO ACTIVE OR RETIRED MEMBERS (13TH. CHECK) AS A PART OF ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTION CHANGES. II-E CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE BONDS The 1989 legislature modified Minnesota Statutes 574 . 26 to allow contractors to provide a letter of credit instead of a performance bond for contracts of less than $50, 000 . Although an improvement at the time, this still will create significant hardship with many reputable minority and small contractors . In todays market , projects in excess of $50, 000 are very common and are not really large jobs. Experience also shows that letters of credit are safer for the public and easier to collect than Bonds. The emphasis should be on protecting the public. THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN CONTRACTOR GUARANTEES FOR CITIES BY ALLOWING IN ADDITION TO BONDS, OTHER RELIABLE FINANCIAL SECURITY GUARANTEES, SUCH AS LETTERS OF CREDIT, WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO PROJECT COSTS TO THEREBY ENHANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY AND OTHER SMALL CONTRACTORS. II-F CONCURRENT DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION Prior to 1985 the changing of municipal boundaries initiated by -13- property owners was limited to the single case where their property was totally surrounded by another community. The 1985 legislation opened the possibility up to all property owners to initiate such action. This broad based allowance is problematic in some instances because of the City expense and intercity divisiveness that it causes. IT IS THE POLICY OF THE AMM THAT THE PROVISION ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW PETITIONING UNDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. -THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN DENIED A REASONABLE USE OF THEIR LAND WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH AND ALLOWED UNDER THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE. THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED A REASONABLE USE IF THE PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN DEFERRED PURSUANT TO A PHASING OR STAGING PLAN. -THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS SEPARATING THIS LAND FROM SERVICE FROM THE CURRENT COMMUNITY INCLUDING ANY ABILITY TO ACCESS ITS STREET SYSTEM. -PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE PAID FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SERVICE BUT DUE TO ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNING BODY ARE PROHIBITED FROM ANY CONNECTION TO THAT SYSTEM. BEFORE PROPERTY OWNERS INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THESE CONDITIONS THEY MUST UNDERTAKE A PROFESSIONAL PLANNING FEASIBILITY STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED BY A CONSULTANT TO BE SELECTED AND PAID FOR BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS. THE CURRENT COMMUNITY MUST APPROVE THE SELECTION OF THE CONSULTANT OR OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE CONSULTANT ACCEPTABLE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. IF AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD SHALL APPROVE A CONSULTANT. THE STUDY SHOULD EXAMINE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION. THE STUDY SHOULD ADDRESS PHYSICAL PLANNING ISSUES, DELIVERY OF SERVICE AND ANY FINANCIAL RAMIFICATIONS TOGETHER WITH ANY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE CURRENT COMMUNITY. IF REJECTED BY THE CURRENT COMMUNITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL PRESENT THE PLAN TO THE OTHER COMMUNITY. PRIOR TO A HEARING IN FRONT OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, AFTER THE PETITION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, THERE SHALL BE A PERIOD TO ALLOW FOR MEDIATION BY THE CITIES. FAILING A MEDIATED RESULT, A REVIEW SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION(S) OR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHERE THE CITIES ARE LOCATED. COMMENTS WILL THEN BE FORWARDED TO THE MUNICIPAL BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD'S DECISION MUST BE BASED ON A BALANCING OF THE INTERESTS OF BOTH MUNICIPALITIES AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS. FACTORS -14- TO CONSIDER SHOULD INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO: -THE EXTENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES THAT CAN BE PROVIDED BY EACH MUNICIPALITY; -THE FINDINGS OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REGARDING THE IMPACT ON THE REGIONAL SYSTEMS; -THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON EACH COMMUNITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS; -THE EXISTENCE OF PHYSICAL BARRIERS WHICH SEPARATE THE PROPERTY FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE CURRENT MUNICIPALITY BUT NOT THE PROPOSED MUNICIPALITY; AND -ADDITIONAL CRITERIA INCLUDED IN MS 414.041, SUBDIVISION 5 II-G TORT LIABILITY/MTC SECURITY State law allows the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) to hire off-duty policy officers to provide security for its bus routes. The law does not allow the MTC to have its own police department. The duties and scope of the work have changed significantly as the MTC security problems have become worse . The MTC security division now functions almost like a police department, with a hierarchy of ranks and marked patrols . Employees of many metropolitan area policy departments are employed by the MTC in this capacity. Member communities have become increasingly concerned about their potential liability because of this expanded scope of operations. A plaintiff could easily sue the employing city, alleging that the city negligently hired and trained an officer, even though the incident occurred while the officer was working for the MTC. The cities obtain no significant benefit from the officers' work for the MTC and should not be exposed to any risk as a result. THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE LEGISLATURE ADOPT A LAW REQUIRING THE MTC TO COMPLETELY INDEMNIFY GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WHICH ALLOW THEIR POLICE OFFICERS TO WORK AS SECURITY OFFICERS FOR THE MTC. II-H 911 TELEPHONE TAX Since 1985, Minnesota has had the authority to impose a fee of up to 30 cents per month on every telephone bill in the state . Currently, the fee is set at 18 cents per phone bill per month. The funds generated by this fee amount to several millions of dollars per year. The Department of Administration uses these funds to pay the recurring monthly costs to the 90+ phone companies in the state for the costs of the dedicated phone circuits. -15- In a previous legislative session, legislation was introduced which would have allowed the surcharge to grow to $1 . 00. The excess fee was intended to develop capital in those outstate counties to implement enhanced 911 service over and above the basic 911 service they already have. THE AMM SUPPORTS EXPANSION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CURRENT 911 ACCESS FEE ON TELEPHONE BILIS TO BE USED FOR COSTS OTHER THAN JUST ENHANCED UPGRADE FROM BASIC SERVICE AND THAT ANY FEE IN EXCESS OF 30 CENTS BE RETURNED TO THE JURISDICTION WHERE IT WAS COLLECTED. II-I COOPERATION, COLLABORATION, AND CONSOLIDATION Many studies and surveys of cities in Minnesota have shown that cooperative agreements and shared services are very common. The AMM supports the extensive efforts which have been made by cities across the state to provide services through cooperative agreements, collaboration, consolidated programs, and in some cases consolidation of governments. We encourage the Legislature to offer incentives to foster the creation of additional agreements, but not at the expense of currently funded programs such as LGA or HACA. It should be acknowledged that city officials are most qualified to determine where shared or consolidated services are most appropriate and will be most effective. Cities across the state are continuing to make efforts to increase the number and extent of programs provided, and/or to reduce the costs of public services. Therefore, THE AMM SUGGESTS THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT MANDATE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS OR CONSOLIDATION FOR ANY CITY SERVICES OR THE FORM OF CITY GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, THE AMM WOULD SUPPORT FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE PROVIDED THAT INCENTIVE FUNDING WAS FROM A NEW SOURCE OTHER THAN FROM EXISTING CITY AID PROGRAMS. -16- III HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE PAGE 17 THROUGH 34 III HOUSING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE III-A. HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS The housing problem for persons currently unable to afford market rate housing can best be mitigated if all levels of government and the private sector, including non-profit groups, work together and if each contributes a fair share to the solution. Each level of government should contribute to help solve the problem and each level's contributions should be of the kind it is best suited to make. The Federal and/or State Levels should provide direct financial subsidies for housing for low and moderate income persons. The Federal and State Governments also have the responsibility to provide a tax climate in which the private sector can produce and maintain rental units that are affordable to low and moderate income households. The State should also grant local units of government the authority and flexibility to conduct the kind of housing programs that best meets their diverse needs. The Metropolitan Council should continue to place high priority on housing planning for the Metropolitan Area and provide specific guidance to the public and private sectors so that both can make rational decisions relative to future housing needs. The Council should continue to be aggressive in seeking innovative ways to create housing opportunities for low income persons. Local units of government also have a major role to play. Local controls constitute but a small portion of the total cost of housing but local units should not establish requirements which go beyond what is necessary for the protection of health, safety and welfare. Local units should also work with the private and non-profit sectors to make the best use of existing tools to produce affordable housing which is more affordable. Decision makers at all levels must become more cognizant of their actions, policies, and decisions which have an undesirable impact on housing costs. A-1. EXAMINE LOCAL REQUIREMENTS. Local requirements, if excessive, can add to the cost of producing • affordable housing. COMMUNITIES SHOULD EXAMINE THEIR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS (LAND USE REGULATIONS, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES, ETC. ) TO ASSURE THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE, AND INHIBIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. MODIFICATIONS SHOULD BE MADE WHEN APPROPRIATE. NO LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE NEEDED. A-2. PRACTICES WHICH AFFECT HOUSING COSTS. -17- Decision makers at all levels of government must become more cognizant of actions they take which have an impact on housing costs. These actions in themselves may be worthwhile and beneficial , but when implemented result in increased housing costs. Examples of this type of action would include such things as the sewer availability charge, restricted growth policies, building and energy codes, environmental rules, etc. ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXAMINE THEIR PRACTICES AND POLICIES TO DETERMINE POSSIBLE UNNECESSARY IMPACTS ON HOUSING COSTS. CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE AS NECESSARY. A-3. MANDATORY LAND USE STANDARDS. Uniform standards for housing style, type and size are not appropriate because of the great diversity among cities and differences within cities relative to density of development, topography, age of housing stock, the mix of housing values, and the level of municipal services which are provided. Land use regulation is one of the tools used by city officials to protect the health, safety, welfare, and interests of the city's residents. THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT PASS LEGISLATION WHICH MANDATES UNIFORM ZONING AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS OR WHICH REMOVES ADDITIONAL LAND USE REGULATION AUTHORITY FROM LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. CITIES SHOULD RETAIN THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE LOCATION, SIZE, AMOUNT, AND TYPE OF HOUSING WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES . NO LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE NEEDED. A-4. STATE HOUSING POLICIES. The state should be a more active participant in providing funding for housing needs. It is expected that allocation of state resources would be based on an overall state housing policy which would provide the necessary tools for implementation. The Legislature needs to provide for financing strategies which will carry out the long range goals for providing and maintaining affordable housing opportunities. The state housing policy should enable and assist local governments, private and non-profit developers to initiate affordable housing. Local governments should participate in the formulation of a state housing policy which will be used to support local housing goals. THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE PROVIDE DIRECT FUNDING AND FINANCIAL INCENTIVES NEEDED TO ASSIST CITIES IN MEETING LONG TERM HOUSING NEEDS IN THE STATE. DIRECT FUNDING SHOULD COME IN THE FORM OF GRANTS AND LOANS FROM -18- STATE FINANCING SOURCES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: - STATE APPROPRIATIONS - STATE BONDING - STATE GAMBLING REVENUE - MORTGAGE DEED TAX REVENUE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES PROVIDED THROUGH THE STATE TAX POLICY SHOULD BE USED TO BENEFIT THE MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. INCENTIVES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BUT NOT LIMITED TO: - STATE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT - SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF LOW INCOME HOUSING BY PUBLIC AGENCIES THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN ALLOCATING RESOURCES FOR HOUSING SHOULD NOT SPECIFICALLY TARGET AN ACTIVITY AND THEREBY SET ASIDE SMALL AMOUNTS OF FUNDS FOR MANY DIFFERENT SMALL PROGRAMS. THIS JUST INCREASES STATE AND LOCAL COST IN ESTABLISHING RULES, AND APPLYING FOR AND ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAMS. INSTEAD THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD SET GENERAL POLICY PRIORITIES FOR THE USE OF STATE FUNDS AND ALLOW FOR LARGER POOLS OF FUNDS BY WHICH LOCAL, NON-PROFIT AND FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPERS CAN APPLY BASED ON THEIR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES. A PORTION OF ANY NEW REGIONAL TAX OR FUNDING SOURCE SHOULD BE USED TO ALSO FUND HOUSING ACTIVITIES IN COOPERATION WITH LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENTS. THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM NOT BE USED AS A SOURCE OF NEW HOUSING FUNDS TO MEET STATE AND METROPOLITAN GOALS. A-5 LOCAL HOUSING POLICY There is a great diversity among cities in the metropolitan area. Some cities need more housing for low income persons while other cities need housing for moderate to upper income persons. Cities should have the authority to promote whichever kind of housing is in the public purpose and best interest of a particular city while attempting to provide housing opportunities to households of all income levels. Cities need to have a greater flexibility in financing their housing goals if they are to meet the intent of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. CITIES SHOULD BE GRANTED SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY AND FLEXIBILITY BY THE LEGISLATURE TO CONDUCT AND FINANCE HOUSING PROGRAMS THAT MEET THEIR INDIVIDUAL HOUSING NEEDS. LOCAL FUNDS CAN BE USED TO LEVERAGE FEDERAL, STATE AND METROPOLITAN RESOURCES WHEN THEY CAN MEET COMMON POLICY GOALS. -19- IT IS NECESSARY TO EXPAND FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. WE REQUEST: -REMOVAL OF THE LGA/HACA PENALTY ON THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FOR HOUSING -REMOVAL OF HOUSING AUTHORITY LEVY LIMITS -REINSTATING THE STATE DEED AND MORTGAGE TRANSFER TAX EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES -ALLOWING CITIES TO IMPOSE IMPACT FEES A-6 METROPOLITAN AREA HOUSING NEEDS The 1991 Metropolitan Council through a specially appointed regional housing task force completed a thorough study of housing needs in the seven-county area . The study concluded that the region is facing critical challenges to its ability to provide decent affordable housing for its population. Demographic shifts, market forces and aging of the regional housing stock will combine in the 1990s to jeopardize many people's opportunity for housing of their choice. Those findings have not been addressed in a comprehensive manner at either the state and/or federal level in the past year, therefore the AMM continues to support most of the task force's final report conclusions and is still very concerned with the problems identified in said report. And, it is still the case that individual cities do not have the financial resources to adequately deal with said problems which continue to cause unmet human needs for a good number of citizens in this Metropolitan area. TO BEGIN ADDRESSING THE REGION'S ON-GOING HOUSING PROBLEMS, THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT: A. ALL CITIES AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL UNDERTAKE COORDINATED PLANNING WITH RESPECT TO CITY AND REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS INVOLVING BOTH THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS. B. A METROPOLITAN HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION FUND BE ESTABLISHED. A SURCHARGE ON THE DEED TAX OR OTHER NON-PROPERTY REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCE COULD BE USED TO PROVIDE THE FINANCING TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES AS ADEQUATE AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING, PRESERVATION OF AGING HOUSING STOCK, SHELTER FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, ETC. ON A METROPOLITAN WIDE BASIS. C. ADDITIONAL FUNDING BE PROVIDED TO ASSIST CITIES WITH COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLANNING AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION. THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING COULD BE CONDITIONED ON A CITY UNDERTAKING, IF IT HAS NOT ALREADY DONE SO, THE SPECIFIED COMPREHENSIVE AND COORDINATED PLANNING AND ANY METROPOLITAN ALLOCATION OF FUNDING COULD BE BASED ON CONFORMANCE WITH REASONABLE -20- STANDARDS. A-7 NEIGHBORHOOD LIVEABILITY Rapidly evolving social , demographic, economic and behavorial changes are converging on many cities creating new challenges that exceed their capacity to deal effectively with their new environments. The challenges cities face, such as deteriorating neighborhoods, crime, and drugs, need the cooperative efforts of public, private and business interests to solve. Cities have expanded public safety, inspection, and health programs ; have aggressively repaired and replaced infrastructure; i.e. , replaced streets and public utility lines; have removed diseased trees, redeveloped parks, refurbished or replaced neighborhood civic facilities; and have developed programs to assist low and moderate income families, yet problems continue to grow. Cities should take the lead in developing local and regional strategies that will assist them in dealing with growing neighborhood problems. These strategies should include the following major categories: 1. Physical and structural deterioration of the neighborhood. 2. Social welfare of the neighborhood. 3. Educational opportunities. PHYSICAL AND STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: a. Cities need to evaluate the demographic impact on their housing stock and plan for future rehabilitation or reuse. The demographic impacts may include declining home values, delayed or non-maintenance of housing stock, foreclosed or abandoned housing and the changing of neighborhood character (i.e. An owner-base to a tenant-base) . In a metropolitan area these forces go beyond a city's boundary and may require a more metropolitan view to try to resolve the causes of the problems. b. Cities need to plan for continued upgrading of public facilities (i.e. streets, utilities, parks) even in the face of declining values. This may require statutory authority beyond existing authority. c. Cities need to plan for regulatory enforcement at levels needed to maintain neighborhood quality. If a strong level of enforcement is provided up front it can be an effective relatively low cost long term -21- strategy for maintaining neighborhood quality. d. Cities need to plan for and encourage neighborhood residents' participation in the preservation of the city's neighborhoods. Neighborhood pride can become one of the strongest tools that cities can tap into, provided that other resources are in place that can provide the means by which this energy can focus. e. Cities need to expand their resource base and plan for the targeting of resources to accomplish their long-term strategy for neighborhood preservations. Expanding this resource base will require coordinated efforts at the federal, state, regional and local level. f. Cities need to strengthen their ability to take appropriate legal actions in a swift manner to eliminate deteriorating structures in a neighborhood. Lengthy procedures accelerate damaging impacts blighted structures have on a neighborhood. This should include the expanding use of the housing court to allow for action on single family dwellings and for City code enforcement. g. Cities need to plan for and encourage neighborhood resident's participation in recreational pursuits and activities. Along with the appropriate public facilities for recreation and leisure, there needs to be organized programs and activities to make the best use of these facilities. h. Cities should actively encourage apartment owners and managers to formally organize to create a forum by which owners, managers, city officials, and other interested parties may work cooperatively to establish a climate that would achieve an ongoing relationship among all participants and encourage livable apartment environment. SOCIAL WELFARE OF NEIGHBORHOODS: a. Cities need to evaluate those social issues that directly impact the liveability in a neighborhood (aging, child care, transportation, job training, domestic abuse, etc. ) and plan for long-range systems that will strengthen the liveability of neighborhoods. b. Cities need to become more familiar with the social welfare system and work closely with state and county -22- agencies to emphasize the need of stabilizing neighborhoods and the family units within those neighborhoods. c. Cities need to strengthen the cooperation of individuals and families within the neighborhood to support city initiatives dealing with crime and drug awareness, public health issues (i.e. garbage houses, animal infestation, etc. ) and domestic abuse. d. Cities need to plan for services to neighborhoods that will allow for affordable day care, transportation and job opportunities. The impact of lack of these services has the greatest impact on the low income and elderly households within any neighborhood. e. Cities need to develop programs and/or participate in the development of state and regional programs to lessen the impact that poverty has on the destabilization of a neighborhood. These programs are needed to deal with the broad range of issues rather than one specific activity and can be tailor-made to address a problem by linking activities together (i.e. rent, mortgage assistance or tax breaks tied to rehabilitation loans; rent assistance tied to child care; job training and transportation assistance, etc. ) . EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES: a. Cities need to encourage, participate in and strengthen the school systems community education outreach programs. These programs provide an opportunity to coordinate school and city efforts to strengthen the liveability of neighborhoods. b. Cities need to work within the education process by providing early childhood education on problems cities face in dealing with social impact on neighborhood liveability. c. Cities need to work closely with secondary and post secondary education systems to encourage job training programs. Such programs can help solve neighborhood problems (i.e. work study with forestry, rehabilitation, maintenance, etc. which will give work experience by providing opportunities in the neighborhoods) . THE AMM RECOMMENDS: -23- 1. WHERE LEGISLATION IS DIRECTED TO ASSIST LOW INCOME PERSONS AND CHILDREN IN POVERTY, LEGISLATORS RECOGNIZE THE LINKAGE BETWEEN HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES, JOBS AND TRAINING, HEALTH CARE AND TRANSPORTATION. WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CONSIDERS LOW INCOME PROGRAMS, IT SHOULD TREAT THESE ACTIVITIES IN A COMPREHENSIVE MANNER. 2. THAT THE LEGISLATURE ENACT NECESSARY LEGISLATION TO IDENTIFY AND ELIMINATE ANY BARRIERS THAT WOULD ACT TO DETER PERSONS FROM ACHIEVING THEIR GOAL OF ECONOMIC AND PERSONAL SUCCESS FOR THEM AND/OR THEIR FAMILY. 3. THAT THE GOVERNOR, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, DIRECT HIS DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO ARE INVOLVED WITH ANY ASPECT OF HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES TO: A. COORDINATE THEIR OPERATIONS SO THAT THEY IDENTIFY AND REMOVE ANY CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS. B. ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHERE POSSIBLE IDENTIFY AND REMOVE THOSE BARRIERS THAT ARE FELT TO RESTRICT A PERSON'S ABILITY TO ACHIEVE ECONOMIC AND PERSONAL SUCCESS. 4. THAT THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR ALSO SEEK ANY FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF IN IDENTIFYING AND ELIMINATING THOSE BARRIERS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL THAT THWART ECONOMIC AND PERSONAL SUCCESS. A-8 STATE AND OR COUNTY LICENSED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES (GROUP HOMES) The AMM believes that persons with disabilities are entitled to live in the least restrictive possible environment and should have a range of residential choices throughout the state. The AMM also believes that residential based facilities ( i . e . Group Homes) should not be concentrated. Over-concentration of such facilities • could have a negative impact on the community and on the facility residents. The AMM believes that the principles contained in this policy are very appropriate and any state legislation pursued should not conflict with the AMM principles. The residents of residential based facilities come from our communities and the AMM believes that cities as one of the major institutions of our society have a responsibility to be a part of the solution by welcoming such facilities on a fair share and rational basis . The AMM believes that cities have a responsibility to be part of the solution, but it also believes that the state has the major responsibility to assure that the residents living in residential based facilities receive care and supervision appropriate to the extent of their disability or their -24- need to be housed in a group facility. The state's deinstitutionalization policy is directly linked to the need for more residential based care facilities in our cities and the state has the responsibility to provide sufficient funding to assure adequate care and supervision of the residents placed in such facilities. The AMM also believes that the state has an obligation to screen clients , particularly in the corrections area , so that persons placed in residential based facilities are not a danger to themselves, fellow residents, or the community. THE AMM BELIEVES THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE IN LAW OR RULE TO REGULATE RESIDENTIAL BASED FACILITIES: -STATE AND COUNTY AGENCIES MUST PROVIDE TIMELY NOTIFICATION TO CITIES WHEN A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY LICENSE IS REQUESTED TO BE ISSUED OR RENEWED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE CITY ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. CITIES ALSO NEED TO BE AWARE OF SUCH FACILITIES TO KNOW WHAT SPECIAL CARE IS BEING GIVEN RESIDENTS IN CASE OF PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCIES. -STEPS MUST BE TAKEN TO AVOID THE CLUSTERING OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO ECONOMIC, GEOGRAPHIC OR PROGRAMMATIC EXPEDIENCE. STANDARDS OF NONCONCENTRATION FOR THE STATE OR FOR COUNTY-ISSUED RFP'S SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED. ALL CITIES SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN GROUP HOMES IN A CONSISTENT MANNER. -THERE MUST BE A REALISTIC ONGOING SCREENING PROCESS TO ASSURE THAT PERSONS PLACED IN A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY WILL BENEFIT FROM SUCH LIVING ENVIRONMENT AND WILL NOT BE A DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ANY PERSONS FOUND INCAPABLE OF CONTINUING IN SUCH ENVIRONMENT. -FACILITIES LICENSED BY THE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPT FROM REASONABLE LOCAL LAND USE REGULATIONS. -A FAIR SHARE CONCEPT AND FORMULA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN AREA, BUT SUCH CONCEPT AND FORMULA MUST BE COGNIZANT OF OTHER FACTORS INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, JOBS AVAILABILITY, AND OTHER NEEDED SUPPORT SERVICES. -THE LICENSING AUTHORITY AND/OR THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD PROVIDE SOME LATITUDE TO CITIES IN SITING SUCH FACILITIES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE LOCATIONAL SETTINGS THAT WILL BEST MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PROVIDERS, FACILITY RESIDENTS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. A-9 LICENSED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES (GROUP HOMES) INSPECTIONS -25- Cities are frequently requested by the state fire marshal to inspect group homes and day care facilities, which the state has the responsibility for. Also, there are inspections made by the county and/or state for health and licensing purposes. Cities do not care to provide this service since they 1) do not get compensation for performing the inspection, and 2) expose themselves to liability if the city is involved in the inspection. THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT: THE STATE AND/OR COUNTIES PROVIDE ALL THE INSPECTION REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. IF THE STATE AND/OR COUNTIES WISH TO HAVE CITIES PROVIDE THE INSPECTION ON THEIR BEHALF, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST APPLY: CITIES WOULD BE FAIRLY COMPENSATED FOR THEIR WORK. CITIES WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER COMPLIANCE AND/OR PROHIBIT THE FACILITY FROM OPENING UNTIL THERE IS COMPLIANCE. THE STATE AND COUNTIES WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISK MANAGEMENT CONCERNS AND THE CITIES WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM LITIGATION THAT MAY OCCUR. III-B ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Cities have an interest in the maintenance of and appropriate enhancements to the economic base of their respective communities. It is the community's economic base which provides; a. ) the tax base and other revenue sources which support the general operations of cities, counties and school districts; b. ) the employment of some or a substantial number of residents and, c. ) the means by which the populus is housed. All metropolitan communities address economic development when it's translated to physical development through their local land use regulations with the individual communities striving for "orderly development" . As a group however , metropolitan communities differ as to development needs and view points, with each community's needs subject to a number of variables. A municipality's ability to both regulate and promote economic development is based on authority established by other -26- organizations and regulations. It is this ability that is of general interest to all Metropolitan communities. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) is the principal policy action group acting on behalf of its member cities. As such it is appropriate that AMM present the policy issues and concerns to those organizations that set the rules. Because of divergent economies, differing needs and diverging viewpoints between Metropolitan Minnesota and Greater Minnesota there is a need to ensure that the means of economic development available to AMM member cities are appropriate to their needs and that economic development efforts of others are complementary to and not at the expense of member cities. As noted economic development for local governments is not just a matter of more tax base for the community but entails tools to promote, regulate and service the development. Promotional means include Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, Economic Development Authorities, Port Authorities, tax increment financing, revenue and general obligation bonds , condemnation and the Star Cities Program. Regulation includes its comprehensive planning and land use functions. Servicing include water, sewer, streets and other municipal services. TRANSPORTATION AS A KEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Transportation, not only streets and highways but mass transit, rail and air, is a key element in the economic development picture of a community. While infrastructive issues such as water and sewer are to some degree issues for one or two governmental entities, transportation systems involves the entire gamut from the local municipality through the federal government. Additionally it is more than just an infrastructure issue. Concerns as to where highways were to be planned was a significant issue raised in the formation of the Metropolitan Council and a rationale for passing the Fiscal Disparities Act in 1973 . The transportation issue has come to the forefront in the last few years as . major highways and interstate links have aged, existing routes have volumes exceeding capacity and federal and state . funding has not kept pace with needs . This has been further highlighted by using a previous highway funding source, the sales tax/MVET, to help balance the state general fund. This has resulted in cuts and delays in projects throughout the state. With economically depressed areas demanding more funding to improve their economic attractiveness to businesses and economically successful areas needing funding to keep pace with expansion, the issue of funding has become very divisive between Metro and Greater Minnesota. A balanced and an efficient, well maintained transportation system, including the before mentioned -27- components , is a necessity so as not to retard economic development. BUSINESS FACTORS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT While governmental entities can provide inducements, services and infrastructure there are a number of other factors that influence a business' economic development decisions. Factors such as in place resources and costs, human resources (availability that matches the needs) , regulations and attendant costs, governmental costs such as taxes, services etc. While only some of these are under the control or influence of the governmental sector in the state and therefore the mission of AMM, these entities should make efforts to ensure that state and local governments are competitive. GENERAL ISSUES IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Apart from direct business factors other items influence locational and expansional considerations including "Quality of Life" factors such as the educational systems, arts, theater and professional sports teams. In addition governmental concerns relate to housing, environmental impacts and economic security among others. B-1 CITIES DEVELOPMENT, RE-DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITIES: The Twin City Metropolitan Area represents over 50% of the population of the State of Minnesota and is the major source of the economic vitality of this state. At the same time, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, along with the older suburbs are facing the ongoing need for providing economic development opportunities for the lower income residents of their respective communities. There is also the need for the redevelopment of neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas to revitalize the decaying areas of these cities , which is causing disinvestment. In view of the fact that cities have the primary responsibility for economic development and to accomplish the above goals, cities need fiscal tools so they can address these issues on a timely and effective basis. The recent riots in Los Angeles and the infrastructure collapse in Chicago has brought a flurry of activity at the federal level. The so called Urban Aid Plan proposes as one of its -28- cornerstones -ENTERPRISE ZONES . An examination of this proposal appears to be a proposal that the central cities could be eligible for, but even though cities over 20, 000 could apply, those suburbs in this Metropolitan Area would only possibly meet some of the criteria by certain census tracts, not the city as a whole. The administrative burden of this proposal would be something that any city wishing to participate should examine very carefully. The State Legislature in the last session considered a proposal by the City of St . Paul titled "THE NEW MANUFACTURING AND TARGETED JOBS BILL" . The purpose of this legislation was to provide incentives to encourage new manufacturing jobs to be created by business to be located in the City of St. Paul. These would be jobs that would pay $8-$10/hr. The incentives could be used to retain employment in St. Paul by corporations that had facilities in the city, but were contemplating locating them in another state. The most effective program that the central cities have had at the state level has been the U.R.A.P. program. This was very easy to administer and the legislature made the designation of who was eligible. Many suburban communities asked for similar legislation in the past and feel that it would work well to address their housing and related economic development needs - including a targeted jobs program also. THE AMM URGES APPROVAL OF A NEW WORKABLE STATE ENTERPRISE ZONE OR A MANUFACTURING JOB OPPORTUNITY ZONE INCENTIVE PROGRAM. THE AMM ALSO URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT A NEW VERSION OF THE URAP PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES ALL CITIES WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS AND DEMOGRAPHICS THAT MEET DEFINED CRITERIA. SUCH CRITERIA SHOULD INCLUDE FACTORS SUCH AS POVERTY RATES, AGE OF HOUSING, UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, INCOME LEVELS, ETC. WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT ONCE A CITY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED A URAP ELIGIBLE COMMUNITY, IT BECOMES AUTOMATICALLY ELIGIBLE FOR ANY BENEFITS THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE UNDER ANY ENTERPRISE ZONE LEGISLATION AND/OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM TARGETED TO CITIES WHOSE CHARACTERISTICS AND DEMOGRAPHICS INDICATE THERE ARE NEEDS THAT CANNOT BE MET WITHOUT STATE AND FEDERAL ASSISTANCE. -29- THE AMM ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVISE ITS ECONOMIC BLUEPRINT FOR MINNESOTA TO INCLUDE CITIES IN THE PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THE GOALS WHICH WILL RESULT IN A HEALTHY, GROWING AND COMPETITIVE MINNESOTA ECONOMY. AS PART OF THE BLUEPRINT, A WORK PLAN THAT INCLUDES CITIES' INPUT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. B-2 EQUAL TREATMENT OF CITIES. The AMM believes that all cities irrespective of size or location should be treated fairly with respect to the availability and use of state authorized development and redevelopment tools, and programs and state funding. THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ASSESS NEW PROGRAMS THAT CAN BE EFFECTIVELY USED BY ALL CITIES. NEW PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN CITIES OR COUNTIES SHOULD USE PROBLEM DEFINITION AS THE CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL PARTICIPATION AS OPPOSED TO GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, SIZE OR CITY CLASS, ETC. B-3 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. Tax Increment Finance (TIF) has enabled cities to plan and carry out housing, economic development, and redevelopment projects on their own initiative. TIF represented, prior to 1990, the most feasible and effective strategy or tool exercised by cities to preserve and improve their own physical and economic environments. TIF was virtually the only tool available to most cities for positive self intervention to curb the spread of blight and to encourage and manage sound economic development which is so vital to provide jobs and to maintain a healthy tax base. Unfortunately, the many restrictive amendments placed on TIF during the 1990 Legislative Session virtually eliminated TIF as a viable tool for most cities. One of the 'sore spots' which led to the restrictive amendments was the Legislative concern with the way some cities were using economic development districts. While some changes mostly technical, were made during the 1991 session, TIF remains as virtually unworkable for most metropolitan area cities. Since cities are the level of government mostly responsible for economic development and redevelopment (which includes but is not limited to job creation) , TIF should be restored as a workable tool. Economic development districts can be eliminated as a tradeoff for restoration of TIF as noted in the following. THE AMM STRONGLY ADVOCATES THAT TIF BE RESTORED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: A. THERE SHOULD BE TIF DISTRICTS FOR: REDEVELOPMENT -30- - RENEWAL AND RENOVATION - HOUSING - POLLUTION CLEAN-UP - MANUFACTURING - SOILS CONDITIONS B. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (LGA) AND HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AID (HACA) DEDUCTIONS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. C. THE LENGTH (TERM) OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DISTRICTS COULD BE REDUCED PROVIDED THE CITY ESTABLISHING THE DISTRICT CAN RECEIVE THE FIRST INCREMENT WHEN THE DISTRICT'S CAPTURED VALUE APPROXIMATES THE CAPTURED VALUE AMOUNT IDENTIFIED IN THE TIF PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. D. A MANUFACTURING DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE A 12-YEAR TERM AND THE AMOUNT OF OFFICE AND RETAIL SPACE SHOULD ALSO BE INCREASED. E. POOLING WILL BE PERMITTED FROM DISTRICTS ONLY IF THE DISTRICT IS LOCATED IN A PROJECT AREA THAT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR RENEWAL AND RENOVATION DISTRICTS AND REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. F. A PORTION OF A DISTRICT'S CAPTURED VALUE CAN BE USED TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE CITY THE DISTRICT IS LOCATED IF THE CITY HAS A LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. G. A REDEVELOPMENT OR RENEWAL DISTRICT CAN BE REDESIGNATED A POLLUTION DISTRICT IF POLLUTION REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT CLEAN-UP COSTS ARE FOUND IN THE DISTRICT. B-4 LOCAL OPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE. There have been previous legislative initiatives which would have the effect of forcing cities to have a combined , single development authority for housing and economic development and redevelopment activities. The proponents argue that the intent of such legislation is not to restrict local development activities but to help assure coordination and cooperation at the local level. We believe cities ought to have the maximum flexibility in determining which type or types of local agencies are the most appropriate to meet the desires and unique needs of different cities. There is a possibility that a bill similar to the previous bill will be introduced again. THE AMM SUPPORTS LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD ENABLE CITIES TO HAVE A SINGLE, COMBINED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS LONG AS IT IS OPTIONAL. IF THE LEGISLATURE BELIEVES THAT IT IS IN THE `PUBLIC INTEREST' TO HAVE A SINGLE, COMBINED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, IT SHOULD PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE CITIES TO ADOPT THAT OPTION. SUCH ACTION SHOULD NOT BE MANDATED NOR SHOULD A CITY BE PENALIZED IF IT DOES NOT -31- CHOOSE SUCH OPTION. THE AMM ALSO SUPPORTS ENABLING LEGISLATION TO ALLOW CITIES TO CREATE AN AREA (TWO OR MORE CITIES) DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. B-5 COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES (EDA'S) Some county officials have suggested that Counties be given EDA authority similar to Cities. A bill was introduced in the 1989 Session to grant such authority and may be introduced again. There may be areas of the state , particularly in Greater Minnesota, where it makes sense to do economic development projects on a larger geographic basis such as a County. Such rationale does not exist in the seven-county area in the AMM's judgement. THE AMM DOES NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSE THE GRANTING OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO COUNTIES IN GREATER MINNESOTA BUT OPPOSES SUCH AUTHORITY FOR COUNTIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA SINCE IT WOULD BE DUPLICATION OF AUTHORITY PRESENTLY EXERCISED BY CITIES. B-6 DEVELOPMENT OF POLLUTED LANDS Every Minnesota city has contaminated sites within its boundaries that remain undeveloped and polluted because of the number of obstacles that prevent local government action. Among the roadblocks are liability issues and financing of up-front costs for clean-up. Developers are reluctant to expose themselves to liability. Clean-up costs often exceed the value of the land precluding incentive for private sector intervention. Public sector subsidy is critical. Recent changes in tax increment law have rendered hazardous substance subdistricts useless in providing assistance with clean-up costs, and Superfund dollars are not sufficient to address the need. In addition, there is some question as to whether Superfund assistance to clean up a site has negative ramifications for later development. The Legislature did pass the Land Recycling Act of 1992 which should be of some help. The law is designed to promote the transfer and reuse of contaminated land by offering an exemption from liability to those who are not otherwise liable and who voluntarily cleanup a site. The new law also provides that once a response action is satisfactorily completed, the PCA Commissioner will issue a certificate of completion. The protection from Superfund liability will then extend to lenders and successors and future property owners. While this new law should help, other action is still needed to solve this problem and remove the blighting influence these -32- polluted lands have on our communities. THE AMM SUPPORTS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD: -PROVIDE A SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR A STATE-WIDE REVOLVING LOAN OR GRANT FUND FOR ASSESSMENT AND CLEAN-UP OF CONTAMINATED SITES THAT HAVE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL; -RESTORE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING WITH RESPECT TO HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUBDISTRICTS; -CREATE AND ENFORCE A DEVELOPMENT ACTION RESPONSE TIMELINE; AND -REQUIRE THAT CONDEMNATION COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER THE COST OF CORRECTING POLLUTION PROBLEMS IN DETERMINING THE FINAL AWARD VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. B-7 BUILDING PERMIT FEE SURCHARGE Local units of government levy a one half percent surcharge on building permits which is paid to the State to operate the State Building Codes and Standards Division. Until the 1991 Legislature changed the law at the request of the Governor, any excess fees over actual operating costs were proportionately rebated to local units to help pay for Building Officials training and continuing education costs. Local units of government are facing tough financial times and need every available resource, especially that which could be considered local money. THE AMM RECOMMENDS REINSTATING THE LANGUAGE PROVIDING THAT UNUSED BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE FEES IN EXCESS OF STATE BUILDING CODE DIVISION COSTS BE RETURNED TO LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. III-C LAND USE PLANNING Land use regulation by cities in the Metropolitan Area has been governed by the Municipal Planning Act (MS 462 ) and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MS 473 ) . While not a perfect framework, these acts have worked well for the vast majority of cities in the metropolitan area. Land use control is more than just one of the many powers exercised by cities and occupies a significant part of the work of city councils and their staff. It has a significant impact on other community regulations, tax base, economic development and redevelopment. It is a driving force for creating service needs . Land use regulation is the common thread which runs through most of a city's functions and operations. Proposed legislation, which would have superceded existing law and created a uniform land planning law for cities , towns and -33- counties was introduced in the 1987 through 1990 legislative sessions under the sponsorship of the Governor' s Advisory Committee on State-Local Relations (ACSLR) . The AMM successfully opposed those proposals because they would have diluted the authority of local elected officials; established a new legal framework which could have rendered moot much of the existing case law and existing codes and ordinances; created conflict with some provisions of the metropolitan land planning act; and reduced the flexibility and discretion of local officials to manage development within cities. A special AMM task force worked for over two years in developing a compromise proposal which would be beneficial to metro cities as well as to the counties, townships and outstate cities. The task force's work was completed in late 1991 and a bill was introduced in the 1992 session which embodied the task force's work. THE AMM WILL SUPPORT A UNIFORM LAND PLANNING ACT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BY THE AMM LAND USE PLANNING TASK FORCE. THE KEY PRINCIPLES WHICH MUST BE CONTAINED IN A NEW LAW ARE AS FOLLOWS: A. THE LEGISLATION MUST NOT CONFLICT WITH THE METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT, AND B. THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS TO MAKE LAND USE DECISIONS MUST NOT BE REDUCED FROM EXISTING LAW, AND C. THE FLEXIBILITY IN MANAGING LAND USE PLANNING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL MUST NOT BE REDUCED, FROM EXISTING LAW, AND D. SUFFICIENT TIME MUST BE GRANTED IN IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED LAW TO MINIMIZE THE COSTS TO CITIES OF UPDATING LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES. -34- IV METROPOLITAN AGENCIES PAGE 35 THROUGH 52 IV METROPOLITAN AGENCIES IV. PHILOSOPHY WITH RESPECT TO METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Many challenges AMM cities face in the 1990s are beyond the financial and staff resources of a single city. Therefore, it is recognized by the AMM that when such questions arise, it is in the organization's interest that all concerned units of government cooperate and work together in reaching solutions. There are a few issues which because of their complexity or cost encompass the concerns of the entire metropolitan area . The region may need to deal with these issues through a metropolitan governance system. The AMM strongly believes that this system must act in cooperation with local governing bodies. The theme of this effort is that the metropolitan agencies and local government officials are partners , with each respecting the roles of the other when addressing metropolitan wide problems and issues. IV-A PURPOSE OF METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES The diversity and political differences in our metropolitan area results in the need for a regional service delivery system to provide certain services or portions of services to most effectively and efficiently address the needs of the residents. There is also a need for planning on a metropolitan basis which must be done in cooperation with local government. THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES AFFIRMS IT SUPPORT FOR THE CONCEPT OF A METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE SYSTEM WHEN APPROPRIATE. THE PRIMARY AND PREDOMINATE PURPOSES OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE SYSTEM SHOULD BE TO FACILITATE THE COORDINATED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA; TO PROVIDE REGION-WIDE SERVICES, WITHOUT DUPLICATING THOSE PROVIDED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THAT ARE BEYOND THE CAPABILITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS TO CARRY OUT INDIVIDUALLY OR JOINTLY; TO PROVIDE REGION-WIDE PLANNING AS NECESSARY AND WITH THE COOPERATION OF AFFECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS AND TO FULFILL OTHER SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AS DELEGATED BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS. IV-B CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION OF METROPOLITAN ORGANIZATION POWERS Any efforts by Metropolitan Agencies to expand their powers or authority must be carefully considered and limited in focus with in-depth review by all those impacted by the proposed changes. THE LEGISLATURE, WHEN GRANTING THE METROPOLITAN AGENCIES ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY, SHOULD CAREFULLY STATE THE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY BEING GRANTED. ANY EXPANSION OR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED -35- ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST: -THE SERVICE, FUNCTION, OR ACTIVITY HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE NEEDED AND IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT IT CANNOT OR IS NOT BEING EFFECTIVELY OR EFFICIENTLY PROVIDED THROUGH EXISTING GENERAL PURPOSE UNITS OF GOVERNMENT; -INTERVENTION ON A REGIONAL BASIS IS NEEDED FOR PROTECTION OF THE REGION'S INVESTMENT IN AN EXISTING METROPOLITAN SYSTEM. IV-C STRUCTURES, PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF METROPOLITAN SERVICES AND PROGRAMS. The Metropolitan Council was created by the Legislature in 1967 to coordinate "the planning and development" of the Metropolitan Area . The Council was mostly advisory , but was given responsibility for regional policy development and coordination in the areas of wastewater treatment and disposal , land transportation and airports . The Council was given limited approval authority for development proposals which were of metropolitan (regional) significance. The Council was not given direct operational authority and instead the Legislature created two new Metropolitan Commissions (MWCC and MTC) and restructured the MAC to operate and provide regional services. The Metropolitan Council ' s responsibility has expanded subsequently to include regional parks and open space, solid waste, approval authority for controlled access highways and for certain elements (airports, transportation, parks and open space, and sewers) of local comprehensive plans. C-1 POLICY PLANNING - POLICY IMPLEMENTATION The historic legislative intent concerning separation of responsibility for metropolitan policy planning and policy implementation should be continued. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MUST BE A PLANNING AND COORDINATING BODY. REGIONAL POLICY AND PROGRAMS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AND/OR OPERATED BY EXISTING METROPOLITAN OPERATING AGENCIES AND/OR GENERAL PURPOSE UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHEN PRACTICAL. NEW METROPOLITAN OPERATING AGENCIES OR COMMISSIONS SHOULD ONLY BE CREATED WHEN THE SERVICE OR FUNCTION TO BE PROVIDED HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE NEEDED AND IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT IT COULD BE MORE EFFECTIVELY PROVIDED THROUGH A NEW STRUCTURE RATHER THAN THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. C-2 FUNDING FOR REGIONALLY PROVIDED SERVICES The Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Agencies funding has changed over time and is a mixture of property taxes, user fees and federal and state revenues. Occasionally there has been some -36- discussion to replace these multiple sources with a single new revenue source. THE AMM BELIEVES IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE REGIONAL AGENCIES AND ACTIVITIES BY THE EXISTING COMBINATION OF USER FEES, PROPERTY TAXES, STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS. THE AMM BELIEVES THIS METHOD PROVIDES BETTER OVERSIGHT OF EXPENDITURES BY THE `PAYERS' AND THEREFORE OPPOSES THE IMPOSITION OF A SINGLE NEW REVENUE SOURCE TO REPLACE THE PRESENT FUNDING SOURCES. C-3 REGIONAL TAX RATES AND USER FEES The Legislature controls the tax levies of the Metropolitan Council and the other Metropolitan Agencies. We believe it should continue to do so. User fees are generally controlled by the Metropolitan Agency collecting the fees (MWCC, MTC and MAC) . The setting of user fees and the process for setting fees has generally not been considered a problem by local officials except for isolated cases. The AMM believes that: USER FEES FOR REGIONAL SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE DICTATED BY THE LEGISLATURE BUT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE OPERATING AGENCY PROVIDING THE SERVICE. ALL FEES SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ON A PERIODIC BASIS TO ENSURE THAT SUCH FEES ARE CONSISTENT WITH REGIONAL SYSTEM PLANS AND GOALS. AN OPEN VISIBLE PROCESS/PROCEDURE SHOULD BE EMPLOYED FOR USER FEE CHANGES UNDER GUIDANCE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEN CHANGES ARE NECESSARY AND IN CLOSE COOPERATION WITH THOSE IMPACTED BY THE FEE CHANGES. IV-D COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - LOCAL AND REGIONAL INTERACTION Planning is an ongoing process, and several precepts should be kept in mind by Local Units of Government, Metropolitan Agencies and the State as this metropolitan planning process continues. METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS MUST CONTINUE TO BE SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF LOCATIONS, CAPACITIES, AND TIMING TO ALLOW FOR CONSIDERATION IN LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING. THE REGIONAL INVESTMENT IN METROPOLITAN PHYSICAL SERVICE SYSTEMS (TRANSPORTATION, WASTEWATER TREATMENT, AIRPORTS, AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE) SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE PROTECTED BY PREVENTING ADVERSE IMPACT ON THESE SYSTEMS DUE TO LACK OF INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION BETWEEN REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING. LOCAL OFFICIALS MUST HAVE EFFECTIVE INPUT INTO THE REGIONAL PLANNING PROCESS ON AN ONGOING BASIS. DESIGNATION OF OTHER REGIONAL PLANS AS METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS PLANS SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNLESS THERE IS A COMPELLING METROPOLITAN AREA -37- WIDE PROBLEM OR CONCERN THAT CAN BEST BE ADDRESSED THROUGH A REGIONAL SYSTEM DESIGNATION. IV-E COMBINED SEWERS - SEPARATION The three communities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul still have some combined waste water and storm water sewers which create overflows of untreated waste water in the Mississippi River during heavy rains and storm water runoff periods. These cities have over many years been progressing with sewer separation projects paid for primarily through local tax levies. The Federal and State governments are pressing the issue of meeting certain water quality standards in the Mississippi River which apparently cannot be done until separation is complete . The state has provided additional funding since the 1985 Legislative session to help pay for the speed up. For the first five years of the program Federal funds were also available to assist in the program. Since 1990, however, there have been no Federal funds. IT HAS BEEN AMM POLICY THAT IF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO PURSUE THE ACCELERATED COMBINED SEWER SEPARATION PROGRAM IN THE THREE CITIES, THAT IT ALSO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO ENSURE THAT NEITHER LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES NOR METROPOLITAN SANITARY SEWER COSTS ARE INCREASED DUE TO THE ACCELERATED BUILD EFFORT. THE PROGRAM TO DATE HAS PROCEEDED ACCORDING TO THAT POLICY. AS THE CSO ISSUE HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS, BOTH FOR STATE FINANCES AND FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA, THE AMM REQUESTS THAT ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE FINANCING OR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR THE SEPARATION PROJECT. SINCE PART OF THE REASON FOR THE ACCELERATED PROGRAM IS TO MEET FEDERAL STANDARDS , AMM SUPPORTS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CSO FUNDING PROGRAM AND THE ADDRESSING OF THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNER AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK WHEN THE CONGRESS CONSIDERS THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT. IV-F METROPOLITAN COUNCIL BUDGET/WORK PROGRAM PROCESS The Metropolitan Council has an annual budget over 15 million dollars and its programs impact the two million plus people living in the metropolitan area . The budget document should convey sufficient information so that the residents can determine what `product' is being produced and how much the `product' costs and the benefits. The budget process should commence early enough in the annual adoption cycle so that the residents can provide meaningful input as to goals and priorities. F-1 BUDGET DETAIL AND SPECIFICITY -38- The annual budget and work program document has been improved in recent years and contains more detail and specificity which enables public interest groups to make more reasoned recommendations but further improvements can be made. MANDATED OR NON-DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED. PROJECTS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE DISCRETIONARY BUT ARE TOTALLY OR MOSTLY FUNDED BY A FEDERAL OR STATE GRANT SHOULD ALSO BE IDENTIFIED. INFORMATION SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED AS TO PREVIOUS YEARS, EXPENDITURES AND PROGRESS FOR ON-GOING PROGRAMS, PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES. F-2 RELIANCE ON PROPERTY TAXES There is a trend of increased reliance on the property tax to support Council activities. Federal grants formerly funded about two/thirds of the Council Budget and the local property tax about one/third. The federal portion has now shrunk to about 20 percent and the property tax has increased to over 60 percent. THE COUNCIL SHOULD MAKE A THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE PROGRAMS FORMERLY FUNDED BY FEDERAL GRANTS OR NON-LOCAL FUNDS TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE STILL NECESSARY AND WORTHWHILE WHEN ONLY LOCAL DOLLARS ARE INVOLVED. ADDITIONALLY THE COUNCIL SHOULD SEEK TO DIVEST ITSELF OF SERVICES THAT IT PERFORMS FOR THIS AREA, IF SUCH SERVICES ARE PERFORMED BY STATE AGENCIES FOR THE BALANCE OF THE STATE, OR SEEK STATE FUNDING FOR THOSE SERVICES. SOME AREAS WHICH NEED TO BE EXAMINED INCLUDE SOLID WASTE, HEALTH CARE, HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING, ETC. F-3 PROGRAM EVALUATION The Council usually levies the maximum or close to the maximum tax levy allowed. It is difficult for `outsiders' to determine if internal evaluation is being performed to ascertain the effectiveness or necessity of council programs or if they are being continued because `they have always been done. ' THE AMM BELIEVES THAT EVERY MAJOR COUNCIL PROGRAM/PRIORITY SHOULD MEET FOUR TESTS: -THE ISSUE OR PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED IS IMPORTANT TO THE WELL BEING OF THE REGION. -COUNCIL INTERVENTION OR ACTIVITY WILL PRODUCE A POSITIVE RESULT. -COUNCIL EFFORT OR ACTIVITY DOES NOT DUPLICATE OR SERVE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A STATE LEVEL PROGRAM OR EFFORT OR WHAT SHOULD BE A STATE LEVEL ACTIVITY. -COUNCIL IS MOST APPROPRIATE AGENCY TO INTERVENE OR PERFORM ACTIVITY. -39- IV-G METROPOLITAN PARK AND OPEN SPACE FUNDING The Legislature established the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space System in 1974 and provided state/regional fiscal support for the acquisition and development of the Parks System and provided a payment in lieu of taxes to local units of government on a decreasing basis for land removed from the tax rolls. Since the establishment of the system, the State and the Metropolitan area have failed to establish a permanent partnership relative to the status of the Regional Park System both within the region and state. Failure to clearly define the role of regional parks has led to long term instability relative to the acquisition and development of regional parks and created significant funding concerns for implementing agencies as they relate to the operation and maintenance of those regional facilities. G-1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING Regional parks within the Metropolitan area provide the same basic function as state parks provide in Greater Minnesota. The State has consistently refused to acknowledge this situation and has never provided an adequate amount of funding for the operation and maintenance of regional parks while covering 100 percent of the cost of state parks in Greater Minnesota. AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOGNIZE THE ROLE OF REGIONAL PARKS WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN AREA AND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE FUNDING TO IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES TO ASSIST THEM IN THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE REGIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SHOULD PROVIDE 40 percent OF THE FUNDING TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THESE FACILITIES. G-2 REGIONAL BONDING FOR REGIONAL PARKS The Legislature for the past several years has provided less than 25 percent of the funding requested for acquisition and development by the Metropolitan Council and the MPOSC on an annual basis. To allow for the orderly and planned development schedule for the regional parks and open space system, the Metropolitan Council is considering to use previously granted authority and issue regional bonds to make up part of the shortage. THE AMM BELIEVES THIS ACTION CREATES A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT AND COULD TAKE THE `STATE OFF THE HOOK' IN FUTURE APPROPRIATION CYCLES. THE AMM BELIEVES THAT THE REGIONAL PARKS ARE ESSENTIALLY A SUBSTITUTE FOR STATE PARKS IN THE METRO AREA AND SHOULD BE FUNDED ACCORDINGLY. IN ESSENCE, METRO AREA TAXPAYERS WILL BE PAYING TWICE AND THIS IS NOT EQUITABLE. THE AMM URGES THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO REDOUBLE ITS EFFORTS TO OBTAIN AN EQUITABLE SHARE OF STATE FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE REGIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEMS. -40- IV-H WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT The AMM recognizes that water is a critical resource for this metropolitan area and it is necessary to plan and manage this resource to assure adequate supply, safeguard the public health, provide recreational opportunities and enhance economic opportunities. Many levels of government have a vested interest in protecting and managing water resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner. Since many levels of government are involved in water management, it is in the public interest to clearly delineate each level ' s responsibility to prevent duplication, overlap, and conflicting requirements. This delineation is particularly important to cities since they are the level that ultimately has the most "hands on" responsibility. The aspects of water resources which have received the most attention in recent years are surface water runoff, groundwater quality, water supply and water recharge areas (wetlands) . There is an interrelationship among all of these systems and there is need for coordination in managing them effectively. The AMM believes that local units of government should retain the basic responsibility for water resources management because they are the level closest to the problems. However, local units need the financial resources, tools and technical expertise to implement this responsibility and may need to look to the state and metro for financial support and technical assistance. H-1 WATER SUPPLY Some measures of water conservation need to be considered for both the short and long term. The AMM acknowledges that extended periods of drought could alter the quality and quantity of this necessary element of life. The AMM believes that most local units of government do a good job of dealing with surface and groundwater management issues and as such should retain the basic responsibility for water supply management. They could do even a better job if they had a better data base. The AMM believes that the Metropolitan Council has a legitimate interest in assuring a good supply of clean potable water for the metropolitan area and recommends that it develop a regional water supply plan to provide a framework for local water supply planning. THE AMM SUPPORTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN AND DATA BASE BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. THE REGIONAL PLAN AND DATA BASE COULD BE USED AS A GUIDE AND RESOURCE BY CITIES. CITIES SHOULD PREPARE A WATER SUPPLY PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF A CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A LOCAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN SHOULD CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: 1. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING/NEW SYSTEMS; 2. OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS; 3 . CONSERVATION AND EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND 6. PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS. -41- THE PLANS WOULD BE COMPLETED TWO YEARS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE COUNCIL'S COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL PLAN AND LOCAL PLAN CONTENT GUIDELINES AND WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT BUT NOT APPROVAL. THE AMM BELIEVES FUNDING FOR THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S REGIONAL PLAN COULD COME FROM THE COUNCIL'S INTERNAL OPERATING FUNDS OR THROUGH A DIRECT APPROPRIATION FROM A STATE SOURCE. THE AMM BELIEVES THAT STATE AGENCIES SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO LOCAL AND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANS WHEN DEVELOPING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AFFECT WATER SUPPLY FOR THE METROPOLITAN AREA. REGULATIONS SHOULD NOT ADD TO LOCAL COSTS AND WHENEVER POSSIBLE SHOULD REDUCE AND/OR MINIMIZE TIME CONSUMING DELAYS AND DUPLICATIVE REVIEWS. A STUDY OF A POTENTIAL SUDDEN RELEASE OF NOXIOUS MATERIALS INTO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER THAT COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE WATER SUPPLY OF THOSE CITIES WHO DEPEND ON THE MISSISSIPPI FOR WATER SUPPLY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED BY THE MOST APPROPRIATE STATE OR METROPOLITAN AGENCY. H-2 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER WATER MANAGEMENT The AMM supports as a given that no one has the right to pollute either ground or surface water resources and in order to safeguard the public health and environment, it is necessary to preserve our water resources as critical state resources . Most Water Management organizations (WMO) and local units of government have done a good job of dealing with surface and groundwater management issues and have the authority and ability to continue to do so in a cost effective manner . These existing mechanisms should continue to be used to the greatest extent possible to address surface and groundwater management problems; instead of creating a new system or a new organization, but they need the financial resources and tools to meet this responsibility. The AMM supports the overall thrust of current law pertaining to surface and groundwater management issues and does not believe that major changes to existing law are necessary for the metropolitan area. WHILE MAJOR CHANGE IN STATE STATUTE IS NOT NEEDED, THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS WHICH SHOULD BE ADDRESSED: -THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SHOULD COMPLETE ITS RESPONSIBILITIES AS DEFINED IN MS 473. 157 SO THAT WMO'S AND CITIES CAN FULFILL THEIR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES. -THE BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES (BWSR) SHOULD BE EXPANDED -42- TO INCLUDE SOME METROPOLITAN AREA CITY OFFICIALS. -WMO'S AND CITIES SHOULD COMPLETE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING AS DEFINED IN MS 103 B. 225-235 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THE WATER QUALITY ISSUES PLAGUING THE MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI AND ST. CROIX RIVERS. -LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT IN OUTSTATE MINNESOTA SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE SAME STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AS THOSE IMPOSED ON LOCAL UNITS WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN AREA. IF ANY LEGISLATION IS CONSIDERED FOR WATER MANAGEMENT IT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: -THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD PROVIDE FUNDS IF IT MANDATES ANY ADDITIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING OR IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITIES BY LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. THE CSO PROGRAM SHOULD BE VIEWED AS THE PRECEDENT FOR THE STATE HAVING A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN PROVIDING FUNDS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS RELATED TO STORM WATER RUNOFF. -LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD RETAIN THE BASIC RESPONSIBILITY FOR SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AS THEY ARE THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THE PROBLEM. -BWSR SHOULD REMAIN THE APPROVAL AGENCY FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS. H-3 WETLANDS CONSERVATION Passage of the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act was a step forward in sound environmental land management and natural resources protection. However, experience gained by administrations of the interim program and in the rule drafting process, indicates a need for additional legislative action. THE AMM SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES: - REMOVAL OF THE $75 LIMITATION ON REPLACEMENT PLAN REVIEWS. SINCE ALL PROPOSALS TO ALTER, DRAIN, OR FILL A WETLAND INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE OF LOCAL STAFF TIME, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OR HYDROLOGISTS, AND LIMITATION ON COST RECOVERY LESS THAN ACTUAL EXPENSES MEANS THAT THE GENERAL TAXPAYER IS SUBSIDIZING THE PROPONENT OF AN ACTIVITY WHICH BY DEFINITION IS POTENTIALLY ADVERSE TO THE ENVIRONMENT. - CLARIFICATION THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PANEL CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE LAW IS ADVISORY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT ADMINISTERING THE DETERMINANTACT AND NOT THE SOLE DELINEATION, PUBLIC ALU S, ANDHE ADEQUACY OF RE LACEMENTTINGPPLANS. -43- - FURTHER AMENDMENTS STREAMLINING THE GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT PROCESS SO LANDOWNERS CAN CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHICH GOVERNMENTAL UNIT NEEDS TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL, AND REFINEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM TO ENSURE EXPEDITED REVIEWS OF PROPOSALS CONSISTENT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS OF THE PROGRAM. - A PROVISION FOR STATE DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ADMINISTERING STATE LAWS FOR ANY "TAKING" CLAIMS WHICH PROPERTY OWNERS MIGHT ALLEGE. H-4 REGIONAL WASTEWATER (SEWER) TREATMENT SYSTEM A bill was introduced in the 1992 session which would have changed the methodology for allocating the costs of the metropolitan wastewater collection and treatment system. The alleged intent of the bill was to slowdown and reverse the decay and blight which has and is occurring in some of the older, developed parts of this metropolitan area. The AMM is concerned with the problem but does not believe that changing the way the metropolitan sewer system is financed has any relevance with respect to the problems identified and opposed the before mentioned bill . The bill as eventually passed mandated a study of the treatment systems costs and how the cost would have been allocated if the bill had passed. The study is being paid for by the MWCC out of user charges. The AMM was part of a major study effort in 1985, that resulted in the uniform cost system that is currently in place for the metropolitan sewer system. THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM HAS BEEN A MAJOR COMPONENT OF AN INTERGRATED LOCAL-REGIONAL SYSTEM WHICH HAS HELPED IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE WATER IN MANY OF THE MAJOR WATER RESOURCES OF THIS AREA SUCH AS LAKE MINNETONKA, THE MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI AND ST. CROIX RIVERS, WHITE BEAR LAKE, ETC. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT CHANGE NOT BE MADE TO THIS REGIONAL SYSTEM THAT COULD LEAD TO ITS BREAKUP OR TO A DIMISHMENT OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS. SINCE ALL `USERS' BENEFIT EQUALLY THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM THE REGIONAL RATES SHOULD BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM AND A SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEM OF ALLOCATING THE REGIONAL SYSTEM COSTS SHOULD NOT BE REINSTITUTED. H-5 WATER TESTING CONNECTION FEE The States' Safe Drinking Water Act contains a per hook up fee of $5. 21 passed in Laws of Minnesota 1992 , Chapter 513 , Article 6, Section 2 which is to be used to pay for water supply testing as mandated by Federal Law. This per user fee creates an inequitable and unfair service fee compared to testing cost for large communities with only a few supply points that need testing. In addition, there are many non-community and private water supply users such as trailor courts being tested which are not paying the -44- connection fee imposed by the Department of Health. This fee should be re-examined by the legislature and the law changed so that each community and user pays only its fair share. This may necessitate the state to provide some financial assistance to smaller communities with multiple supply sources. THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE THE WATER SUPPLY TESTING CONNECTION FEE TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST OF SUPPLY TESTING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. ALSO, NON COMMUNITY AND PRIVATE SYSTEMS SHOULD PAY ALL OR PART OF THEIR TESTING COST. IV-I WASTE STREAM MANAGEMENT The problem of managing the waste stream (for all types of waste) is and will continue to be one of the major social environmental problems during this decade. We are rapidly running out of space ( capacity for land disposal ) in the metropolitan area and there are no general disposal facilities in this state for Hazardous Waste. We are also learning that for many materials incineration may not be a good environmental alternative to landfill disposal. The existing waste management system centralizes responsibility at the state level for hazardous waste but requires the cooperation and support of all levels of government and the private sector. The solid waste system for the metropolitan area is essentially a three-tiered system: cities control and regulate collection; counties are responsible for `siting' new landfills, developing abatement plans, developing processing facilities and regulating existing landfills; and the Metropolitan Council provides grants and has regional planning and coordinating responsibilities. The systems were intended to foster and encourage abatement, recycling and resource recovery for as much of the waste stream as possible and then to assure environmentally sound disposal for the remaining waste. In spite of a great deal of cooperation and coordination among and between the various levels and units of government and the private sector, some major problems appear on the horizon. Much has been accomplished during the past decade in improving the waste stream management system. Much remains to be done and any future legislation should take into account the following precepts. I-1 INTEGRATED WASTE STREAM PLANNING The disposal of solid waste is a multifaceted problem which will require the cooperation and participation of all levels of government and the private sector to effectively develop a solid waste system which is cost effective and environmentally sound. -45- To achieve such a system, all elements of the waste management hierarchy (reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, incineration, landfilling) must be utilized. In the area of packaging, the system should make the distinction between transport packaging, primary or necessary packaging and secondary or excess packaging. Further, it must be realized that an effective "system" begins before materials become "waste" and, as such, a comprehensive view of the entire life cycle of products is needed in order to succeed. -THE AMM ENDORSES THE CONCEPT THAT THE "GENERATORS" OF WASTE MUST BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNDING ITS DISPOSAL. "GENERATOR" INCLUDES THE MANUFACTURERS OF PRODUCTS WHICH BECOME WASTE, THE SELLERS OF PRODUCTS WHICH BECOME WASTE AND THE CONSUMER OF PRODUCTS WHICH BECOME WASTE. -THE AMM ENDORSES THE CONCEPT THAT SINCE GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, IT HAS A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN BEING INVOLVED IN OVERALL WASTE STREAM MANAGEMENT. THIS MEANS THAT GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST BEGINS BEFORE MATERIALS BECOME "WASTE. " -THE AMM ENDORSES A WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY WHICH INCLUDES REDUCTION, REUSE, RECYCLING, COMPOSTING, INCINERATION AND LANDFILLING. FURTHER, A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM MUST INCLUDE A MIXTURE OF ALL THESE ELEMENTS AND SHOULD NOT RELY SOLELY ON ANY ONE ELEMENT. -THE AMM ENCOURAGES MORE ATTENTION BE GIVEN TO THE ALTERNATIVES OF REDUCTION, REUSE AND RECYCLING BY ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. +THE STATE SHOULD FUND THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EDUCATION PROGRAM, WHICH ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES CITIZENS TO RECYCLE, COMPOST, REUSE AND REDUCE WASTE GENERATION. +LEGISLATION SHOULD BE INITIATED TO REQUIRE PACKAGING TO MEET RECYCLED CONTENT STANDARDS AND/OR RECYLABILITY, DEFINED AS RECOVERY RATES, STANDARDS. +ESTABLISH STATE REGULATIONS WHICH ENCOURAGES BEVERAGE AND FOOD RETAILERS TO HAVE A DEPOSIT AND RETURN PROCESS IN PLACE FOR REUSABLE AND RETURNABLE CONTAINERS. +LEGISLATION SHOULD BE INITIATED TO REGULATE THE SALE, DISTRIBUTION, AND DISPOSAL OF NON-RECYCLABLE, NON-RETURNABLE, AND NON DEGRADABLE PACKAGING MATERIALS. FEES OR DEPOSITS ON THESE ITEMS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. THE CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE RETURNABILITY TO THE POINT OF SALE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND IMPLEMENTED. -THE AMM OPPOSES ANY LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD LIMIT LOCAL INITIATIVES IN WASTE STREAM MANAGEMENT UNLESS AN OVERALL STATE OR METROPOLITAN WIDE SYSTEM IS ESTABLISHED WHICH ACCOMPLISHES THE -46- SAME GOAL OR OBJECTIVE. -THE AMM SUPPORTS COMPOSTING AS A TECHNIQUE FOR REUSE OF YARDWASTES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE COMPONENTS OF THE SOLID WASTE STREAM. GIVEN THE PROHIBITION ON LANDFILLING YARDWASTE, RESIDENTS AND REFUSE HAULERS NEED TO BE IMMEDIATELY PROVIDED WITH CONVENIENT LOCATIONS TO DEPOSIT BRUSH AND OTHER YARDWASTES FOR PROCESSING. COUNTIES WITH ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE OR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND OPERATING COMPOSTING FACILITIES AND MUST NOT DELEGATE THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO CITIES WHICH DO NOT WISH TO OPERATE SUCH FACILITIES. MINOR CHANGES MAY BE NEEDED IN THE EXISTING OVERIDE PROCESS TO ENABLE COUNTIES TO SITE THESE TYPES OF FACILIITES. I-2 HAZARDOUS AND DANGEROUS WASTE MANAGEMENT The improper disposal of hazardous wastes, through landfilling or incineration, poses a major risk of water and air pollution. Much has been done to monitor the generation and proper disposal of hazardous waste by business and industry, and these efforts should continue. However, the reduction, control and proper disposal of household hazardous wastes is a significant concern which needs to be addressed. (A. ) HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE. THE AMM SUPPORTS A STATE-WIDE PROGRAM TARGETED TO THE REDUCTION AND PROPER MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES, INCLUDING: -PERMANENT DROP OFF OR DISPOSAL SITES - STRATEGICALLY AND CONVENIENTLY LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE STATE WHERE ALL TYPES OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES CAN BE TAKEN FOR PROPER HANDLING, PROCESSING, OR DISPOSAL. -EDUCATIONAL AND POINT-OF-SALE INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS NOTIFYING THEM OF THE HAZARDOUS NATURE OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPER HANDLING. -INVOLVEMENT OF THE GENERATORS (RETAILERS) IN THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES TO HELP ASSURE PROPER HANDLING AND PROCESSING. -INFORMATION TO CONSUMERS ALERTING THEM TO NON-HAZARDOUS SUBSTITUTES FOR HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS . -ENCOURAGEMENT WHICH COULD INCLUDE INCENTIVES TO MANUFACTURES TO PRODUCE LESS HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS FOR USE IN HOUSEHOLDS. THE TOP PRIORITY OF THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT PRODUCED. (B. ) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE. THE AMM SUPPORTS CONTINUED EFFORTS AT THE STATE LEVEL TO PROPERLY MANAGE INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTES, INCLUDING THE RE-USE, RECOVERY AND RECYCLING OF AS MUCH HAZARDOUS WASTE AS POSSIBLE. THAT WHICH CANNOT BE RE-USED OR REPROCESSED MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN AN -47- ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANNER. MANUFACTURERS SHOULD ALSO BE ENCOURAGED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USED IN THEIR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES. (C.) DANGEROUS AND OTHER WASTES WHICH POSE AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM. Re: Scrapping of automobiles, with air conditioning systems, refrigerators, home air conditioners and building insulation containing Ozone-Depleting Compounds. Chlorofluorcarbons (CFC's) and Halons when discharged into the environment deplete the earth's protective ozone layer, allowing increased ultra-violet radiation causing such harms as skin cancer, cataracts, supressions of the immune systems and damage to crops and aquatic life. CFC's in a form commonly known as Freon are widely used in air conditioning and refrigeration systems. Fire extinguishers are the primary source of Halons released into the earth's atmosphere. CFC's are often a propellent used in the manufacture of foam board insulation. CFC's are a solvent in the manufacture of electronic equipment. The recapturing and recycling of freon from auto air conditioning units could eliminate approximately 20 percent of all CFC's nationally. AMM STRONGLY SUPPORTS LEGISLATION THAT REQUIRES RESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL OF CFC'S (FREON) AND HALONS. THE AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION SERVICE OPERATORS AND THE WASTE MANAGEMENT/DISPOSAL INDUSTRY MUST RECAPTURE AND RECYCLE WASTE PRODUCTS. ELIMINATING CFC'S (FREON) AND HALON FROM THE WASTE STREAM SHOULD BE THE GOAL. I-3 METROPOLITAN/COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES. As noted previously, the cities have the responsibility for waste collection including implementing and managing most recycling type programs . The other waste stream management responsibilities are basically split between the Metropolitan Council and the Counties. Considerable progress has been made in recent years in certain parts of the waste stream management system particularly those aspects for which cities are responsible. But several significant problems beyond the control of cities are becoming evident including: the inability of the counties to site needed waste facilities (landfills, transfer stations, compost sites, etc. ) , fluctuating and/or lack of markets for some recyclables, uneven funding among counties to run the low tech systems , and the radical variance in disposal costs throughout the metropolitan area . Some of these problems are urgent and significant changes may need to be made in the waste stream management system in the metropolitan area. Some of the current waste stream management concerns are similar to the -48- concerns which precipitated the formation of other regional commissions. WHILE NOT RULING OUT ADDRESSING THESE CONCERNS WITHIN THE EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK, SERIOUS CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE FORMATION OF A REGIONAL SOLID WASTE COMMISSION. SUCH COMMISSION SHOULD INCLUDE LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS . MORE ANALYSIS AND STUDY IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE TOTAL LIST OF FUNCTIONS TO BE ASSIGNED TO SUCH COMMISSION BUT MOST FUNCTIONS NOW PERFORMED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE COUNTIES SHOULD BE GIVEN STRONG CONSIDERATION INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: -OWNERSHIP (INCLUDING THE ASSUMPTION OF DEBT) OF THE CURRENT MAJOR PUBLIC DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING FACILITIES. -RESPONSIBILITY FOR SITING CERTAIN TYPES OF WASTE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES. -REGULATION OF DISPOSAL CHARGES (TIPPING/FEE) TO PROVIDE MORE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY. -DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE LOCAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS. -DISTRIBUTION OF OTHER GRANT FUNDS NOW MANAGED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. -MOST OTHER FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY THE COUNCIL EXCEPT FOR THE PLANNING FUNCTIONS (LONG RANGE POLICY PLANS, ETC. ) . -COORDINATION OF MARKETING EFFORTS FOR RECYCLABLES. I-4 LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Cities have certain responsibilities in helping to manage and implement an effective solid waste management system including recycling programs and the collection systems. The AMM believes that to date cities, utilizing a variety of collection systems, are doing a good job of managing Local Recycling and Waste Collection. THE RESPONSIBILITIES NOW ASSIGNED TO CITIES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SHOULD REMAIN WITH THE CITIES. THE AMM BELIEVES THAT THE SYSTEM OUGHT TO BE FLEXIBLE AND BASED ON PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND/OR GOALS RATHER THAN MANDATED TECHNIQUES. TO HELP ACHIEVE RECYCLING AND ABATEMENT GOALS, THE AMM WOULD SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A DISPOSAL SYSTEM WHERE INCENTIVES ARE PROVIDED TO RESIDENTS WHO REDUCE THEIR VOLUME OF WASTE THROUGH ABATEMENT, RE-USE AND SOURCE SEPARATION ACTIVITIES. I-5 FUNDING The current funding system for solid waste has a number of drawbacks: It does not encourage maximum utilization of the waste disposal hierarchy; it often gives no incentive to individual residents to participate in recycling; it does not differentiate between generators of `clean' waste and `problem' waste; and it -49- has given no assurances that the main sources of funding are related to the entities incurring expenses. -AMM BELIEVES THAT THE FUNDING SYSTEM SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT ALL METHODS OF DISPOSAL, INCLUDING RECYCLING HAVE A COST. ALSO THE TRUE AND FULL COST OF THE ENTIRE DISPOSAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED. -AMM BELIEVES THAT IN GENERAL FUNDING FOR THE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM SHOULD COME FROM THE GENERATORS OF SOLID WASTE. -AMM BELIEVES A FEE SYSTEM AT THE MANUFACTURES AND/OR RETAIL LEVEL SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND THE CONCEPT OF RETURNABILITY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND EXPANDED. -IN GENERAL, THE FUNDING SYSTEM SHOULD ENCOURAGE MAXIMUM USE OF THE WASTE HIERARCHY. FOR EXAMPLE IT SHOULD COST MORE TO DISPOSE OF WASTE IN LANDFILLS THAN IN RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES. -AMM SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT THAT MATERIALS WHICH CAUSE SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN THE WASTE STREAM SHOULD BEAR THE COSTS (THROUGH THE COST OF PURCHASING THE MATERIALS) ASSOCIATED WITH THESE PROBLEMS. -AMM ENCOURAGES PROVIDING FINANCIAL INCENTIVES SUCH AS VARIABLE AND DIFFERENTIAL FEES TO RESIDENTS WHO PARTICIPATE IN RECYCLING WHILE MAKING IT CLEAR THAT EVEN RECYCLING HAS A COST. -AMM BELIEVES THAT ANY FUNDING SYSTEM MUST GUARANTEE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MONIES TO ALL ENTITIES INVOLVED IN THE SYSTEM AND RECOGNIZE ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SYSTEM. THIS MEANS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE FUNDS RAISED THROUGH THE SALES TAX SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO CITIES WHICH OPERATE RECYCLING PROGRAMS. THE AMM ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS OF TAX ON SOLID WASTE SHOULD BE DEDICATED TO SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES. I-6 ORGANIZED COTJ.FCTION Organized collection serves as a viable and important method for municipalities to achieve solid waste abatement. It is a type of service agreement that allows cities proper regulatory power over their solid waste collection system . It provides municipalities the opportunity to choose the type of solid waste collection that would best serve their residents. ' Just Compensation ' legislation is designed to limit municipalities regulatory power in the area of solid waste collection . In placing severe financial penalties on municipalities that undertake organized collection , 'Just Compensation' legislation infringes on municipalities rights to establish intangible service agreements for municipal services. -50- -THE AMM ENDORSES THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZED COT.T.FCTION AS A VIABLE METHOD FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO ASSERT REGULATORY POWER OVER THEIR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEMS. -THE AMM BELIEVES THAT ORGANIZED COLLECTION MUST CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE TO CITIES AS THEY CHOOSE A TYPE OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM THAT WOULD BEST SERVE THE NEEDS OF THEIR RESIDENTS. -THE AMM OPPOSES ANY LEGISLATION THAT WOULD IMPOSE COMPENSATION PENALTIES ON MUNICIPALITIES WHO CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT A SOLID WASTE COT.T.F.CTION SYSTEM. I-7 HOST CITIES AND CLEANUP RESPONSIBILITIES While solid waste facilities are components of county and regional solid waste management systems, they must be located in individual cities. Because the number of facilities is limited, the effects of hosting these facilities is not equally shared among cities. Most of these effects are negative - an increased likelihood and incidence of water, soil, air, and noise pollution; and increased amount of litter and offensive odors; a greater likelihood of adverse impacts on values of neighboring properties; a need for increased maintenance on public streets and highways ; and potential threats to public health and welfare in areas immediate to and along access routes to these facilities . Longer-term impacts may affect cities if the organizations responsible for facility operations cease as financially viable entities . Safeguards need to be enacted for host cities for the operations and clean up responsibilities associated with solid waste facilities. The trend within the metropolitan area has been to internalize present and future costs of solid waste management on current generators of solid waste. These costs should include the extra and adverse financial impacts borne by host communities. Cities host these regional facilities because of accidents of geography. Liabilities for these facilities should be shared across the region. -THE AMM SUPPORTS THE CURRENT COMPENSATION LEVEL ALLOWED THROUGH SURCHARGE FEES AS A MINIMUM LEVEL; THIS COMPENSATION SHOULD BE CONTINUED OR INCREASED. THIS FORM OF COMPENSATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL TYPES OF SOLID WASTE FACILITIES. -THE AMM BELIEVES THE HOST COMMUNITIES SHOULD NOT BEAR A FINANCIAL LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH SOLID WASTE FACILITIES. COSTS INCURRED FOR MONITORING OPERATIONS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS SHOULD BE BORNE BY FACILITY OPERATORS OR, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH REGULATIONS, BE ASSUMED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LEGISLATION NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED SO AS TO EXEMPT CITIES FROM ANY PRESENT -51- AND FUTURE LIABILITY ARISING FROM OPERATIONS OF SOLID WASTE FACILITIES. LEGISLATION SHOULD FURTHER ESTABLISH THAT PROCEEDS FOR FUTURE REMEDIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS BE IN A TRUST FUND. -THE AMM WILL SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH CLEARLY ARTICULATES THAT REMEDIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY ONLY ON THE PERMITTED OPERATOR AND/OR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. -THE AMM BELIEVES THAT LOCAL PROPERTY TAXING AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO LEVY HIGHER PROPERTY TAX RATES BECAUSE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES MAY DEPRESS PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN PARTS OF THE TAXING JURISDICTION. OPERATORS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY ADDITIONAL FEES COMMENSURATE WITH THE ADVERSE TAX REVENUE IMPACT RESULTING FROM LOWER VALUES ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. -THE AMM WILL SUPPORT MEASURES WHICH REQUIRE THAT OPERATORS OF SOLID WASTE FACILITIES GUARANTEE THE PURCHASE VALUE OF PROPERTIES WHICH ARE INFLUENCED BY THEIR PROXIMITY TO THOSE FACILITIES. -THE AMM WILL SUPPORT STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT CLARIFIES THAT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IS NOT A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, THAT ENABLES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED IN CLEANUPS TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SETTLE THEIR POTENTIAL LIABILITY QUICKLY AND SAFELY , AND THAT EMPOWERS ONLY THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS THE ABILITY TO ASSESS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THEIR FAIR SHARE OF CLEANUP COSTS. -52- V TRANSPORTATION PAGE 53 THROUGH 63 V TRANSPORTATION AMM TRANSPORTATION POLICY STATEMENT The AMM believes that the recent passage of the Federal Transportation Bill (ISTEA) provides the Metropolitan area with a unique opportunity, to rethink Transportation, Transit and Development Plans. It is imperative that as we prepare to move into the next century, our transportation network become multi-modal, offer flexibility, invest significantly in transit, and be designed to manage traffic. Within the last two decades, the number of miles driven per day has doubled. Traffic congestion is expected to increase by 35% by the year 2000, creating nearly 200 miles of severely congested highways. Ridership by bus, car and van pool, continues to decline and the Regional Transit System continues to be inadequately funded. There is a growing awareness that the true cost of driving an automobile, when factoring in energy use, pollution productivity loss due to congestion, and the resulting cost of motor vehicle accidents, are born by the general public at large not solely the driving public. The majority of peak hour traffic is workers commuting to or from work. Achieving a balance between workers and jobs in a geographic area can reduce the volume of intra-area commuting and balance the directional use of the interconnecting roads. Economic stratification and an aging population is creating a larger pool of transit dependent individuals. Our current transit system is not capable of providing adequate transit services in the entire metropolitan area. Government cannot build its way out of congestion. Local governmental units are facing funding shortfalls which prevent them from adequately maintaining the current transportation network. AMM calls upon the Legislature, MNDOT, RTB, and the Metropolitan Council to develop a more comprehensive transportation program that more closely integrates transit and highways. This coordinated approach at the minimum must be designed to increase accessibility, improve air quality, and serve the transit dependent and handicapped. The AMM supports a comprehensive transportation policy that; 1. Incorporates traffic management into local and regional zoning and planning actions; 2. Encourages traffic management plans by all employers; 3. Creates a series of incentives aimed at increasing vehicle occupancy levels; 4. Discourages the use of development incentives for any project that does not contain a comprehensive traffic management plan; 5. Studies the concept of jobs to workers balance in the metropolitan area; and -53- 6. Establishes an adequate dedicated funding source for transit. In addition, local units of government must be provided with adequate funding or authorizing legislation that will allow them to maintain their current investments in the local transportation infrastructure. The following recommended legislative proposals are designed to meet this overall goal. V-A STREET AND HIGHWAY GENERAL FUNDING An efficient transportation system is a vital element in planning for physical, economic, and social development at the state, regional, and local levels. Funding for current roadway maintenance reconstruction, and construction of new streets and highways in developing areas is a significant major element of a competitive and safe transportation system. Due to past declining state revenues there has been a tendency by the Legislature to divert much needed roadway funds to state general expenditure. This trend must be reversed, especially in light of the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) . Funding needs to be expanded to not only keep up with inflation and modest program growth, but to provide necessary funds for matching 80/20 projects included in the ISTEA legislation for quality standards will have impact on future project costs. THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF FUNDS SO THAT NEEDED STREET AND HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE MAY BE CONTINUED, NECESSARY NEW STREET AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION MAY OCCUR, THE MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUND LEVEL CONTINUES GROWTH, AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENY ACT OF 1991 (ISTEA) CAN BE MET. V-B METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM GENERAL FUNDING Because of the large economically diverse and spreadout population of the Twin City Metropolitan Area, it is an absolute necessity to provide an effective and efficient public mass transit service augmented by a variety of programs,such as Rideshare and Project Mobility. Without a good transit system, many elderly and handicapped persons residing in the area primarily because of access to unique services would be almost totally immobile. The new Federal legislation (ISTEA) has established a modern trend by providing over 20% of its total 5 year funding for Transit and allowing a shift of highway funds to transit on a project by project basis. The Americans Disability Act and new air and noise quality standards will impact both the way we do transit as well as the cost. In order to obtain ISTEA funds and to continue providing reasonable transportation opportunities, the legislature must increase transit funding priority. THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER THE METROPOLITAN -54- TRANSIT PROGRAMS AS HIGH PRIORITY AND FUND THEM SUFFICIENTLY TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF FEDERAL ISTEA FUNDING AS WELL AS MEET THE DEMANDS OF ADA AND AIR AND NOISE STANDARDS. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES SHOULD INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO THE STATE GENERAL FUND, MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE TAX OR OTHER SALES TAX, THE FARE BOX, PROPERTY TAX, AND SERVICE EFFICIENCIES. V-C TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND. A Transportation Services Fund was created for minimal activities and with minimal funding in 1991. The Legislature should adopt the recommendations of the Transportation Study Board and Minnesota Transportation Alliance which suggests using MVET to fund statewide transit needs and related non highway construction activities currently funded from the Users Fund. These are Dept. of Public Safety, Tourism, River Parkway, Safety Council and several others which are at best questionable gas tax expenditures. THE AMM ENDORSES THE CONCEPT OF REMOVING NON HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FROM THE STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY FUND AND THE EXPANSION OF A TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND FOR THESE ACTIVITIES. V-D TRANSPORTATION (HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT) FUNDING ALTERNATIVES The need for both Highway and transit funding has been increasing significantly in the past several years while the resources dedicated or generally used for these purposes have either not kept pace or been diverted for other state priorities. The new Federal Transportation Act (ISTEA) has shifted emphasis by providing significant funds for Transit and also placed increased burden on states by increasing the local match to 20% . Transit needs in the Metropolitan Area have become critical since in some cases Highway expansion is physically or financially prohibitive, therefore capacity expansion can best be solved by transit alternatives implementation in these cases. Funding should be multi source with growth capability. Therefore, the AMM believes it is time to solve the problem on a permanent basis. THE AMM SUPPORTS A COMBINED STRATEGY OF GAS TAX INCREASES TO KEEP PACE WITH HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION NEEDS AND A DEDICATED MVET OR OTHER TAX SOURCE FOR TRANSIT FUNDING EXPANSION. IF THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT ASSURE STATUTORY DEDICATION OF SOME FUNDING MECHANISM THEN A CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. V-E HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT INTEGRATION PLANNING An efficient Transportation System consists of both high quality roadway and high quality multimodal transit opportunities. These -55- two elements must be considered together from early planning through implementation in Metropolitan areas. The AMM understands that to some degree this is done in planning and that transit is considered somewhat when determining funding priorities for highway construction. Although, there has been improvement it is felt that more integration of highway and transit planning is needed. THE AMM URGES EXISTING AGENCIES INVOLVED IN MAJOR HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION TO INTEGRATE THESE ACTIVITIES TO ENSURE AN EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE HIGHWAY FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND UPDATED TO REQUIRE INCLUSION OF MULTIMODEL TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES AND INTEGRATED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WHEN APPROPRIATE. V-F HIGHWAY JURISDICTIONAL REASSIGNMENT, TURNBACKS, AND FUNDING Many commissions, boards, organizations, and now the legislatively reconstituted Transportation Study Board have studied or are to study the possibility of reclassifying many roadways in the state as to appropriate use classifications and jurisdiction. This reassignment in the metropolitan area is estimated to shift $6. 1 million annually from the state and $1. 2 million annually from the counties to the cities for an increase of $7 . 3 million annually for general maintenance and life cycle treatment (i.e. sealcoat, overlays, etc. ) . Current state law provides that the state and/or county may declassify a trunk highway and turn it back to a local unit of government. The only provision is that it must be in good condition. The unit receiving the highway does not have the option to refuse title and must, thereafter, maintain the turned back road. Although reassignments or turnbacks may be added to the MSA system, there may not be enough maintenance funds for the new mileage, and the receiving city will lose the opportunity of new MSA road designation until its mileage allocation catches up to the turnback mileage. Reassignment may be appropriate, but will have a profound effect on city finances and future ability to maintain good road systems, especially if certain criteria are not met and finance alternatives established. Therefore, the AMM offers the following as a guide to continuing discussion and ongoing studies. THE AMM SUPPORTS JURISDICTIONAL REASSIGNMENT OR TURNBACK OF ROADS ON A PHASED BASIS BASED ON FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND OTHER APPROPRIATE CRITERIA SUBJECT TO A CORRESPONDING MECHANISM FOR FUNDING OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND CONTINUING MAINTENANCE SINCE CITIES DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OTHER THAN SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY TAX INCREASE TO ABSORB THE ADDITIONAL ROADWAY RESPONSIBILITIES WITHOUT NEW FUNDING SOURCES. THE EXISTING MUNICIPAL TURNBACK FUND IS NOT ADEQUATE BASED ON CONTEMPLATED TURNBACKS. -56- V-G TRANSPORTATION UTILITY Many cities are experiencing aging infrastructure, especially streets which are in need of replacement but because of few funding options continue to deteriorate. Chapter 429 bonds issued without election require a minimum of 20 percent assessment. However, the courts require a benefit proof that the assessment has actually increased the property value by the assessment value. For street replacement this is nearly impossible. Strict levy limits have prohibited full levy for the cost but further a general levy for full cost of street replacement might be very unfair to non benefiting property as well as higher valued classes of property. A general referendum to replace streets in one aging neighborhood would undoubtedly not pass in an entire city. The only remaining option is to legislatively establish a new funding mechanism that creates fairness. The best model available is a utility district similar to one the created for stormsewers which allows assessment annually for shared use on a volumn basis. THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTATION UTILITY AUTHORITY FOR CITIES TO USE FOR STREET MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING STORM SEWER UTILITY. V-H '3C' TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS - ROLE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS The transportation planning process in the Twin City Metropolitan Area has been developed in response to a variety of federal and state laws and regulations. The Metropolitan Council (MC) was formally designated by the Legislature in 1974 (1974 MRA) as the agency responsible for the administration and coordination of said planning process. Included within this designation is the responsibility for long range comprehensive transportation planning commonly referred to as the '3C' process (continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative) . Federal law and regulations required that principal elected officials of general purpose local governments be part of the planning process. When the Legislature designated the MC as the transportation planning agency for the metropolitan area, it also mandated the establishment of an "advisory body" to assist the MC, and Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) , and the Regional Transit Board, in carrying out their responsibilities. This advisory body is the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and contains 17 local elected officials among • its membership of about 30 officials. The Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 again establishes the need for local elected officials in the 3C planning process. The current elected official participation and '3C' process has worked reasonably well in this Metropolitan Area. -57- THE AMM SUPPORTS THE CONTINUATION OF THE CURRENT LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS INVOLVEMENT IN THE '3C' PROCESS THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1991. V-I PRESERVATION OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Minnesota's system of railroad grades is rapidly shifting to a national trunk-line carrier with few branch lines as one line after another is abandoned. Minnesota has witnessed the abandonment of over one-half its rail system since the 1930 peak of 9, 360 miles. Two thousand miles have been abandoned in the past 15 years. These railroads played an important part in our transportation history. The abandonments now represent an equally significant opportunity for future generations. Light rail usage, vegetation reserves of scientific interest, transmission corridors, bicycle and snowmobile trails, access roads to remote natural resources, future highways, pipeline corridors are just a few roles for these abandoned grades. Because some of the most desirable abandonments are no longer available to the public, vigilance is needed regarding the remaining opportunities. THE AMM STRONGLY URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ENSURE THAT ALL ABANDONED RAILROAD GRADES BE EXPEDIENTLY PRESERVED UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE FUTURE PUBLIC USE CAN BE DETERMINED. V-J CITY SPEED LIMITS A bill has been introduced which would grant cities the authority to set speed limits on city roads and streets. This policy of local authority for free standing rural or out state cities may be feasible but could be extremely dangerous and confusing in the metropolitan area. The seven county metropolitan area is made up of 140 contiguous cities and a number of townships. Because of the compactness of cities in this area, it is often impossible to determine when one has crossed a boundary from one city to the next. If one city changes its limits, its neighbor would either have to also change or post many additional signs on each street crossing a boundary. This system would be costly, extremely confusing to individuals, and might cause some legal problems in case of accidents. Therefore, THE AMM SUPPORTS SPEED LIMIT CONTROL OF CITY ROADS AND STREETS AS CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY LAW AND OPPOSES CHANGES TO GRANT GENERAL SPEED LIMIT CONTROL TO INDIVIDUAL CITIES. -58- V-K TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES/DISINCENTIVES The AMM supports the development of a comprehensive system which will facilitate an increase in the occupancy level of cars and enhance the use of transit within the Metropolitan area. The state legislature is encouraged to consider exclusion from gross income the value of commuter transportation benefits provided by an employer and provide a tax deduction and tax credit for employers who provide commutor transportation benefits to employees. AMM SUGGESTS THE DEVELOPMENT AND PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION THAT INCLUDES A COMMUTER TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM AND CREATES A SERIES OF TAX INCENTIVES AND/OR IMPACT FEES THAT ENCOURAGES MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY TRANSIT USE. V-L REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM The purpose of a Transportation System is to provide mobility for people and accessibility to and for economic development and services. The most effective system will make maximum use of all transportation alternatives and strategies where they are most appropriate, thus, creating a truly integrated system. Exclusive reliance on only freeways is imprudent and possibly cost prohibitive primarily due to social and economic upheaval of established neighborhoods for right of way acquisition. Transit improvements are imperative, but even with implementation of various load increasing strategies, the capacity is finite and will reach unacceptable saturation limits within the forseeable future. The AMM supports more coordination and integration of Transit and Highway planning and implementation. THE REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM SHOULD BE A COMBINATION OF INTEGRATED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND BE INCLUDED IN ALL PLANNING DOCUMENTS AT ALL LEVELS INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT STUDIES. THE SYSTEM COMPONENTS SHOULD INCLUDE HOV LANES, EXPRESS BUSES, AND THE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM WHICH SHOULD BE BUILT WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE AND FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE IN EACH CORRIDOR OF THE AREA TO CONNECT RESIDENTS TO JOB, RETAIL, AND COMMERCIAL CENTERS. THE SYSTEM SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A VARIETY OF TRANSIT MODES, INCLUDING A TAXI SYSTEM, BUSES, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES, AND PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES, ADEQUATE TO CONNECT THE REGIONAL CENTERS, MAJOR TRIP GENERATORS AND COMMUNITIES, BOTH URBAN AND SUBURBAN. BUS SYSTEMS AND ESPECIALLY LRT SYSTEMS SHOULD INCLUDE AMPLE REGIONAL PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES FOR AUTOMOBILES, MOTORCYCLES AND BICYCLES, WITH EASY ACCESS, CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING OF A -59- REGIONAL ENTITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC. FEEDER SYSTEMS SHOULD BE A MAJOR CONSIDERATION FOR BUS PARK AND RIDE AND LRT STATIONS. PLANS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO USE VAN POOLS AND BICYCLES AS WELL AS WALKING TO FEED THE PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES FOR EXPRESS BUSES AND LRT. ALL TRANSIT MODES AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT POLICIES SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL CONSIDERATION NOW AND IN THE FUTURE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE BEST TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM POSSIBLE TO THE METROPOLITAN AREA. THE FINANCING FOR THE REGIONAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE BORNE IN PROPORTION TO THE BENEFIT OR SERVICES RECEIVED. V-M MSA SCREENING COMMITTEE The Metropolitan Highway Districts 5 and 9 were combined in 1989/90 administratively to form one Metropolitan Highway District within the MNDOT structure. By law the MSA screening committee consists of one member from each Highway District and first class city. Technically, the combining of Districts 5 and 9 reduces the membership by one from the metro area. This was not intended by MNDOT. Therefore; THE AMM REQUESTS THAT THE STATUTES BE MODIFIED TO PRESERVE TWO SEATS ON THE MSA SCREENING COMMITTEE FROM THE METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY DISTRICT. V-N METROPOLITAN TAX N-1 REGIONAL TAX A number of agencies have suggested the use of a special Metropolitan Tax for various purposes. The AMM membership has had extensive discussion on this issue, and given the reality that a metro tax will continue to be considered, the AMM offers the following position: THE AMM MEMBERSHIP FEELS THAT ANY NEW METROPOLITAN TAX SHOULD BE RELATED TO A SPECIFIC NEED THAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS CRITICAL TO THE METROPOLITAN AREA AND THAT CURRENT FINANCIAL OR TAX RESOURCES CANNOT BE USED OR DIVERTED FROM LESSOR PRIORITY ACTIVITIES. N-2 REGIONAL TAX PRINICIPLES If it is shown that an activity is in critical need of funding and that there is no current source that can be used, then certain principles should be applied. ANY NEW METRO GENERATED TAX OR REVENUE SOURCE SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A REASON TO REDUCE CURRENT OR FUTURE STATE ALLOCATIONS FOR ANY -60- ACTIVITY OR REDIRECT METRO TARGETED STATE AGENCY FUNDS TO OTHER REGIONS. A NEW TAX AND ITS SOURCE, TO THE DEGREE POSSIBLE, SHOULD BE RELATED TO THE USE. A NEW TAX SHOULD BE IMPOSED AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE AND TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE ON THE USER OR LARGEST BENEFICIARY OF THE ACTIVITY FUNDED. THE TAX OR REVENUE SOURCE SHOULD BE STABLE. THE FUNDS SHOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE STATED PURPOSE, NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN OR THROUGH THE STATE GENERAL FUND, AND SPENT ONLY ON METROPOLITAN PROJECTS. THE TAX OR REVENUE SOURCE CHOSEN SHOULD BE ONE THAT WILL NOT RESTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE OPTIONS OR IMPACT LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS FOR FUTURE CRITICAL ACTIVITIES. N-3 TRANSPORTATION TAX The AMM does feel that Transportation needs are becoming critical in the Metropolitan Area and that LRT must be examined within the context of the total Transportation system. A proposal has been brought forward by the Regional Transit Board to fund LRT AMM SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF A METROPOLITAN TAX FOR METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION NEEDS, INCLUDING LRT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION: (1) TAXES SUCH AS THE MOTOR FUELS, MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE TAX, SALES TAX, AND PAYROLL TAX SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED; AND (2) THE PROPERTY TAX AND GENERAL INCOME TAX SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. V-O AIRPORT POLICY In 1987 , the Minnesota State Legislature adopted the "Dual-Track" strategy for airport planning. One track focuses on a new airport option; the other on improvements at the existing airport. The choice will be made when economic, operational , environmental and cost benefits studies are completed by 1996. The Metropolitan Council has identified a search area in Northern Dakota County within which a major airport could be located. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Airport Commission must develop a long range plan to ensure capacity at the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport. By the end of 1995, the Metropolitan Airports Commission must also identify a specific airport site within the search area identified by the Metropolitan Council . In 1996, both the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission must prepare recommendations on major airport long-term development for consideration by the Minnesota State Legislature. -61- THE AMM RECOMMENDS AND SUPPORTS THE CONTINUATION OF THE DUAL TRACK PROCESS TO ASSURE THAT ALL OPTIONS ARE PROPERLY REVIEWED, AS AIRPORT ISSUES ARE BEING CONSIDERED. THE AMM ENCOURAGES THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION, WHETHER CONSIDERING A NEW SITE OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING SITE, TO THOROUGHLY STUDY THE SOCIETAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BOTH SITES IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: ENVIRONMENT, SOCIAL, SITE AREA, GENERAL LAND USE AND COST. THE AMM ALSO ENCOURAGES THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AT BOTH SITES AS WELL AS THE COST-BENEFITS RATIO OF ALL CLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTY FOR THE AREAS SURROUNDING BOTH SITES , AS STUDIES ARE COMPLETED ON POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL AIRPORT AND/OR RELOCATION OF THE AIRPORT TO A NEW SITE. V-P BIKEWAY GRANTS PROGRAM Increased support needs to be provided for innovative and inter modal transportation programs. Dependency on the single occupant automobile must be lessened. All Minnesota governments should continue to encourage increased energy conservation, travel-demand management, ride-share programs, bicycle facilities, alternative fuels, and research and education for such options. The attractiveness of bicycle transportation is maximized in urban areas. Traffic calming projects have been shown to reduce the severity and number of accidents, reduce air and noise pollution and improve urban streets for non-motorized users. With the increased awareness of health and fitness, the environmental benefits and cost effectiveness of bicycling, more and more Minnesotans are demanding safe and convenient bicycle facilities. Local governments have expressed interest in enhancing bicycle safety by planning for and adding off road trails, paved shoulders and bicycle storage facilities and safety programs in their communities. The National Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) states that improvements necessary to accommodate other transportation modes are eligible uses of both National Highway system and Surface Transportation Program funds. ISTEA also requires each state to set aside 10 percent of its surface transportation program funds for safety construction activities, (ie, hazard elimination and rail-highway crossings) and 10 percent for transportation enhancements which encompass a broad range of environmentally-related activities. IN KEEPING WITH THE NATIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE NEED TO DECREASE DEPENDANCE ON SINGLE OCCUPANCY AUTOMOBILES, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD RESTORE FUNDING FOR THE BIKEWAY GRANTS PROGRAM. THE MINNESOTA COMPREHENSIVE BICYCLE PLAN RECOMMENDS THAT "A GRANT PROGRAM BE -62- ESTABLISHED AND IMPLEMENTED TO DEVELOP BICYCLE FRIENDLY ZONES IN URBAN AREAS."BICYCLE FRIENDLY ZONES WOULD INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH ON AND OFF ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES, PUBLIC EDUCATION, PROMOTION AND MONITORING. ON ROAD FACILITIES COULD VARY FROM STRIPPED PAVED SHOULDERS TO DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANES. V-Q OPTOUT In 1981, the Minnesota Legislature established the Transit Service Demonstration Program under Statute 174.265 (which was repealed in 1984 as a demonstration program) . Opt-out transit systems operate under Statute 473.388 under which they qualify for transit funds equivalent to 90 percent of the property taxes levied for transit in their communities. The legislature recognized that little of the transit monies collected from the suburbs were actually providing those areas with transit services. With changing demographics caused by suburban growth, not only was transit needed, but suburban legislative support was becoming more and more critical for continued transit funding. Opt-out was designed to fill this void by allowing suburbs at the end of efficient transit services in their areas. The Regional Transit Board (RTB) is responsible for overseeing the opt-out program. The opt-out program includes five transit systems serving 12 metro-area communities. Some issues of regional significance have been identified as areas of concern by the opt-out systems. The regional fare structure should be reviewed annually so that it is realistic. The opt-out systems should have the flexibility of diverging from the metropolitan fare structure, particularly if their services offer features not typically found in regular route or para transit systems. The RTB should encourage the concept of "opt-in" whereby communities otherwise ineligible for opt out may have a greater say in the type of transit service they receive from the MTC instead of "taking what they get. " Such a program would foster the involvement of other municipalities which will benefit the Regional Transit System through services better matched to community needs and increased ridership. THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO DIRECT THE RTB TO ANNUALLY REVIEW THE REGIONAL FARE STRUCTURE AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO SET FARES COMMENSURATE WITH SERVICE LEVELS, AND ENCOURAGE THE CONCEPT OF "OPT-IN" PROVIDING GREATER MUNICIPAL INVOLVEMENT IN TRANSIT SERVICES. -63- VI ENDORSEMENT POLICIES PAGE 64 THROUGH 74 VI-A TAXATION HEARING AND NOTIFICATION LAW The League supports the improvements which have been made to the taxation hearing law, which is incorrectly referred to as "truth in taxation." The title should be changed. "Truth in taxation" is a misleading title for these hearing requirements. The process should be renamed the "taxation hearing and notification law." The League believes that the state government should set an example and be required to follow similar requirements for public hearings and notification processes on tax and budget issues. The League urges the Legislature to make the following changes: A. Local governments should be allowed to amend the levy that they preliminarily propose to the county auditor on September 15. Many cities will have a difficult time realistically assessing their budget needs to be able to certify a proposed levy and budget by September 15 -- far in advance of the beginning of the next budget year. This early date, combined with the restriction that prevents the city's final levy from exceeding its preliminary estimate, works against responsible budgeting and forces cities to overestimate their budget needs in order to avoid potential revenue shortfalls; B. As a state mandate, the costs of this requirement should be fully funded by the state. The appropriation made for the process for Pay 1991 taxes has not been renewed. Local governments must now find additional funds to finance this state-mandated process from their tight or shrinking local budgets; C. The League commends the Legislature for its 1992 action to reduce the size requirement for newspaper advertising and eliminating unnecessary data from the advertisement. The Legislature should consider eliminating the newspaper advertisement requirement. Notices are sent to each property owner and the notice required to be posted in each apartment building effectively notifies citizens of the hearings and proposed levies. The costs of publishing advertisements consumes tax dollars which could be better spent on city services for taxpayers; D. The requirement for parcel-specific notices should continue to be required. Every effort should be made by the Legislature and the Department of Revenue to ensure that the notice accurately estimate proposed property taxes; and E. The title of the requirement should be changed to the "taxation hearing and notification law. " The current title infers that there was and would be a lack of accuracy and accountability without this process. In addition, the calculations used in the process are frequently misleading and confusing, and challenge the "truthfulness" and accuracy of the information provided. -64- VI-B STATE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS The League opposes the policy of deducting state agency administrative costs from funds which are appropriated for property tax relief. If the state continues this inappropriate policy, the costs should be more equitably borne by the full local government trust fund, rather than only from funding for local government aid. The League believes that all state government expenses should be subject to the standard appropriation review process and be funded directly by specific state appropriation, not by blanket deductions from property tax relief programs and from state grants. Where a state agency is required to recover costs through a state charge-back for services to local units, the state should be required to hold administrative hearings to justify the charges on the basis of the services provided to the individual local units of government. City local government aid (LGA) provides financing for administrative costs for: the Office of the State Auditor, the Department of Administration (IISAC) , the State Demographer, and the Department of Employee Relations. For 1993 LGA, $487, 549 was deducted for these state agencies. In addition, LGA funds, distributed primarily to cities, have been used to finance operations by the state auditor and Department of Administration which are not caused by cities alone. VI-C REFERENDUM LEVIES The League supports repeal of requirement that referendum levies, unlike general property tax levies, apply to property market value. In addition, it is inaccurate for referendum ballot to state that "By voting YES on this ballot question, you are voting for a property tax increase." The League urges the Legislature to repeal a flawed policy which requires city referendum levies to be applied to market values, rather than tax capacity. The state has deliberately designed a system of property classes based on property use, which creates varying tax burdens. The method by which a property tax is adopted should not influence this class rate system . This law makes an inappropriate distinction between capital expenditures and operating expenditures only for city governments. Both spendinc; items are components of total city spending and should impact taxpayers comparably. If the Legislature wants to adjust tax burdens, changes should be made in the classification system, rather than through the tax base. -65- In addition, the simple statement that taxes will rise as a result of a referendum levy may well be false. In cases where the city has reduced their general levy or previous debt is retired, a city's property tax levy will actually decline when compared to the previous year. VI-D COMPARABLE WORTH The League supports efforts to eliminate any sex-based differences in compensation of public employees but asks the legislature to revise the pay equity statute to allow local governments sufficient time to comply with newly proposed (adopted) administrative rules regarding compliance determinations. Additionally, the League urges the legislature to amend the statute to limit the laws applicability to only full-time employees and to clarify that separately established governmental entities must file separate compliance reports. To be considered separately established, the governmental entities may have separate personnel systems, separate facilities, separate bookkeeping and payroll systems, and no interrelationships other than budget approval and/or financial assistance. In addition, these existing governmental entities must be separately established prior to 1984. The local government pay equity act, first adopted in 1984, has been frequently amended by the legislature . Significant amendments were adopted in 1990, and in 1991 the legislature authorized the Department of Employee Relations to promulgate rules to assist the Department in determining local government compliance with the statute. These rules, which include several new tests, necessitate many changes to local government compliance efforts, will take effect almost a full year after cities and other public employers were required by the statute to submit compliance reports. Cities must be granted additional time to comply with these new standards prior to facing imposition of state sanctions which include 5% reductions in financial assistance and $100 per day penalties. Though the rules and the current statute contemplate an automatic extension, the League supports legislative action to delay the implementation deadline to December 1994 . At the very least, the legislature should act to delay imposition of new statistical tests of health insurance contributions, salary range differences, and exceptional service pay programs until December 1994. The rules address other significant issues not previously dealt with by the legislation, including the definitions of employees and employers covered by the Act. -66- For the definition of employees, the rules propose using the same definition as in the Public Employees Labor Relations Act (PELRA) . Use of this definition causes two significant problems. First, because local governments use a great number of part-time and seasonal employees in order to effectively and efficiently provide important services, many more jobs will have to be included in compensation systems than is the current practice. This will require much more administrative work in establishing job descriptions and ranking jobs which by their very nature are often impossible accurately describe or value. Second, because benefits, including health insurance programs, are often limited to full-time employees, cities run the risk of being found out of compliance with the pay equity act not because of gender based discrimination, but rather because of valid distinctions between full-time and part-time employment. The League proposes adopting a definition of employee which would not include any employee working less than twenty hours per week on average or which is employed in a position which is filled less than six months in any year. For the definition of employers covered by the Act, the problem is slightly different. The law clearly requires all cities and other political subdivisions of the state to comply. The problem is determining who is the employing agency for a particular group of employees. Historically, employees of certain enterprises such as public utilities, hospitals, nursing homes, and libraries have been considered as separate and distinct from employees of the city. Often, the only connection is that the city council acts somewhat pro forma to ratify the annual budget proposed by the separate entity prior to certification of the tax levy . Unfortunately, it is this feature of formal budget adoption on which the rules focus, regardless of separate payroll systems, personnel rules, salary and benefit systems, etc. The League supports statutory clarification that other aspects of the government structure be considered when making a determination of which governing body is the employer of a group of employees. Finally, because the tests proposed for initial compliance determinations do not take into account factors which the statute specifies as justifying compensation difference, it is improper for public statements of noncompliance to be released by the Department of Employee Relations prior to final compliance determinations . The statute should be amended to allow local governments to present all information justifying departures from the mathematically prescribed standard prior to public statements from a state agency that a jurisdiction is "not in compliance" with the law. VI-E LIQUOR ISSUES (C) The League opposes the establishment of one class of beer and the -67- off-sale of wine in other than liquor stores. The establishment of one class of beer in Minnesota would cause substantial problems in controlling the sale of beer in filling stations, grocery stores, drug stores, and elsewhere where 3.2 beer is sold. Also, with regard to a proposal for only one class of beer in Minnesota, current 3.2 on-sale establishments could be selling strong beer without the supervision and controls imposed upon on-sale liquor establishments and municipal liquor stores, or would be forced to meet most if not all the restrictions on intoxicating liquor establishments. Cities should be fully authorized to establish hours of sale and be expressly authorized to establish differing license fees for establishments having different hours of operation. VI-F MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT LABOR RELATIONS ACT (PELRA) 1. The League supports legislation which modifies the existing interest arbitration process to require arbitrators to give primary consideration to internal equity comparisons and the impact that any arbitration award might have on the personnel compensation systems of the city involved in the arbitration. Further, the League opposes considering any additional employee groups as essential employees. City and other governmental experience with the arbitration process has shown that arbitrated awards generally exceed negotiated settlements. Unlike the state, local governments do not have the authority to reject these arbitrated awards. The legislature should re-examine binding arbitration as a means of determining pay and benefit issues. The goal of any modification to the process should be to ensure that arbitrations do not interfere with other state programs such as pay equity. There should not be any additional employee groups placed in the category of "essential employees. " 2 . The League recommends that the Legislature reinstate the previous definition of employees covered by PELRA to people employed for more than 100 working days in a calendar year. The 1983 Legislature reduced the time period that part-time employees must be employed before they are considered employees covered by PELRA. This has resulted in higher wages for some part-time employees, and more significantly, has resulted in cities hiring fewer part-time employees. 1991 legislative action in this area has caused further confusion, which may also result in a lessening of job opportunities, particularly for students and the disadvantaged. Additionally, many employees who view their work as temporary or transitory in nature, have been asked to pay their fair share of union dues, even though they receive no -68- benefit from union membership. Recent legislative interest in cost-saving initiatives at the local level could be substantially promoted by a statutory amendment to enable local governments to effectively utilize seasonal employees. VI-G MSA MILEAGE LIMIT 1. In order to more adequately represent the current eligible miles of city streets, the League supports raising the municipal state aid system (MSAS) limit to 3, 000 miles. This would be an administrative change and would not affect the actual distribution of M.S.A. funding. Existing law limits the system to 2 , 500 miles ; total mileage currently in the system is approximately 2 , 300 . This mileage increase for the system is necessary to accommodate cities reaching the eligible 5, 000 population threshold and mileage being added by currently eligible cities. 2 . The population factor of the municipal state aid system should be changed to reflect annual population updates based on estimates from the state demographer or Metropolitan Council, rather than reliance on federal or special census counts. 3 . In spite of the consolidation of the two metropolitan state construction districts, 5 and 9, in 1989-90, the League supports legislation which continues the previous metropolitan membership on MnDOT committees to ensure that adequate statewide representation continues. By law the MSA Screening Committee consists of one member from each highway district and from each first class city. The unintended effect of combining the metropolitan districts reduces metropolitan representation on this body. 4 . Modify the existing system for municipal comment on fund apportionment and design standards on county state aid roads. Representatives from cities, counties, and the Department of Transportation Office of State Aid should review and make recommendations for a mechanism to mediate municipal approval of these county projects. IV-H ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES (DS- ) The League supports legislation which would provide city economic development authorities with the same power and authority as those given for port authorities. The League believes that it is unfair and unreasonable to grant greater authority and power to some cities in the economic development field and requests the following changes: -69- 1. Authorize all cities to designate economic development areas anywhere within their jurisdiction, or in joint powers agreements with other cities to designate area development authorities . Present law seriously restricts the use of these authorities by requiring that economic development areas be contiguous and meet the tax increment finance (TIF) redevelopment/blighted area test; 2. authorize debt to be issued for projects activities within economic development districts without a referendum; and 3 . authorize the economic development authority to build buildings or structures on land owned by the authority. VI-I MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICTS (B) The League supports legislation allowing cities to create municipal service districts. Cities should have authority to finance the types of improvements listed in Minn. Stat. 429. 021 (relating to the construction, replacement, and maintenance of such things as streets, sidewalks, gutters, storm and sanitary sewers, waterworks systems, street lights and public lights, and public malls, parks, or courtyards) without having to obtain specific authorizing legislation. Current law already includes the necessary safeguards to ensure the local participation and support of affected taxpayers . Both service charges and ad valorem property taxes should be available to finance services or capital improvements in the district. Court decisions concerning special assessments have made it even more difficult for cities to use special assessments to finance public services and improvements. The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted the Minnesota Constitution to require not only that a special assessment project "specially benefit" affected parcels or property, but also that the city be able to prove that the market value of a property will increase in direct relations to the amount of the special assessment applied to that property. This interpretation has made it more difficult to assess all (or even part) of a capital improvement project to repair or replace, as opposed to newly built improvements. In addition, cities abilities to finance annual operating and maintenance costs of some service to property through the use of special service charges is unclear under current law. The only current financing alternative to special assessments or services charges, the general property tax, is not appropriate to finance some capital or operating expenses. -70- IV-J HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP The League strongly supports full funding of the HOME Investment Partnership program to provide housing block grants to cities and states to develop and rehabilitate affordable housing units. In order to provide sufficient federal housing assistance in future years, Congress should provide at least $2 billion for HOME per year. City officials are eager to take advantage of increased flexibility to address local needs through this program. It is also equally important for Congress to identify new revenues for this program and maintain funding for on-going federal housing assistance and community development programs , particularly for Community Block Grants and public housing operating assistance and modernization. Congress needs to address city concerns regarding local match provisions . The League supports a relaxation of those requirements . Efforts should be made to provide greater flexibility for providing the local match. Congress should also allow local tax-exempt financing to be used to meet such requirements. A 20 percent uniform match is acceptable to cities if full value of public debt contributed to a HOME project is recognized. It is necessary for the program to allow for a waiver of such match requirements for cities experiencing fiscal distress. Cities must also be assured that at least 10 percent of HOME allocations may be used to cover administrative costs. It is important to maintain at least a $2 billion level of funding for the program in order to provide more cities with direct assistance. Reducing the threshold allocation needed for additional cities to qualify for direct funding would make such assistance available to cities that currently receive direct CDBG entitlements. The set-aside for community housing development organizations (CHDOS) must be funded to make it possible for new CHDOs to receive capacity building and technical assistance. It is also important that low income housing tax credit rent and income targeting rules apply to projects in which HOME funds and tax benefits are combined to finance costs. Cities also experience difficulty trying to use HOME for rental -71- rehabilitation. HOME funds cannot be used for costs of improving housing not occupied by low income households. In addition, HOME can only cover limited costs of rehabilitating common areas of such buildings (those include the heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems as well as electricity and plumbing) . The amount covered is restricted to no more than a percentage of the total cost based on the proportion of units in the building which are occupied by low income tenants. Cities also object to requirements to guarantee that rents will remain affordable in order to obtain HOME funds to rehabilitate deteriorating rental properties. Officials object to federal mandates that require cities to maintain rent affordability during a 5-15 year period if HOME funds are used. It should be sufficient to require developers or property owners to provide such assurances. VI-K PORTABILITY OF SECTION 8 HOUSING CERTIFICATES AND VOUCHERS The League urges congress to modify Section 8 tenant assistance requirements to relieve problems caused by the demands placed on the availability of Section 8 units at the local level as well as on the capacity of local PHAs to meet the needs of families with Section 8 certificates who have moved from another city and must be serviced in their new location. The League recommends the following changes in federal rules to ease difficulties for housing agencies adversely affected by loss of income and tenant assistance as a result of portability: * require that certificates and vouchers be used in the jurisdiction in which they have been issued for a minimum 12-month period; * compensate agencies experiencing losses because of housing adjustment payments (HAP) to agencies in other cities for the added administrative and financial charges incurred; * make federal funding available to assist smaller local HRAs (outside MSMAs) to deal with additional record-keeping and accounting required as a result of experience with portability; * examine the feasibility of setting limits on the number of portable certificates that will be available from the originating PHA or make it possible for agencies to adopt a more flexible method of adjusting for the loss of Section 8 units. City officials recognize that mobility of low income persons seeking rental housing necessitates portability of Section 8 assistance, but the impact on communities and neighborhoods must also be addressed. Officials are duly alarmed by indications that Section 8 units may become concentrated in certain localities, which, in turn, contributes to a loss of a mix of housing and income diversity. -72- VI-L REMOVAL OF REGULATORY BARRIERS The League opposes recommendations by the HUD Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing to withhold federal housing assistance from cities which do not ease local housing code and zoning requirements. City officials are alarmed by recommendations that would pre-empt local housing and zoning ordinances and regulations. Congress should not authorize the Department of Housing and Urban Development to enforce standards that would impel cities to take such actions under the threat of the loss of federal housing assistance. City officials favor permanent authorization and extension of expiring federal tax provisions including mortgage revenue bonds (MRBs) and low-income housing tax credit to finance affordable housing. Regulatory reform will not supply sufficient units of affordable housing if federal funds for low income subsidized housing are not available. HUD has no direct experience in the review of local building code and zoning requirements. Granting such review authority to federal officials would be an unacceptable intrusion into the authority of local government to adopt land-use and community development policies to assure neighborhood stability and orderly growth of residential areas. VI-M SITING OF GROUP HOME RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES The League urges Congress to modify the Fair Housing Act to permit cities to exercise reasonable dispersal and spacing requirements residential care facilities that serve persons with disabilities to prevent over-concentration and to provide the benefit of normal residential surroundings to persons with mental illness, the homeless, battered women and children as well as for those with developmental disabilities. Cities must be authorized to establish appropriate dispersal and spacing requirements while protecting the rights of the disabled to assure that they are not denied access to housing in residential zones. It is also clear that those who license and purchase services from residential providers must exercise responsibility to make available to disabled citizens the benefits of normal residential surroundings. Access must not be denied through improper application of local zoning codes. Cities must be clearly authorized to exercise such local controls to prevent over-concentration of such residences within neighborhoods and to enhance the opportunity for disabled residents to receive needed health and social services as well as -73- access to public transportation, education and recreation to help sustain a quality of life for them and for the community in which such facilities are located. The efforts of advocates for the disabled to mainstream persons requiring special care is of direct interest to cities . Such persons must not be forced to reside in areas that threaten to become defacto institutional zones. This not only defeats the purpose of fair housing legislation designed to scatter such uses in a variety of settings, but also pits social service providers against neighborhood residents who become fearful and resentful about the influx of such facilities into the local area. -74- OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular session Shakopee, Minnesota October 8 , 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Madigan, Spurrier, Zak, Joos, Mars, Kelly MEMBERS ABSENT : Christensen STAFF PRESENT Lindberg Ekola, City Planner Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant Planner Nancy Deziel, Recording Secretary I. ROLL CALL Chrmn. Mars called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda No. 8 .A, was altered to add "Adoption of Roberts Rules of Order" . The revised agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1992, MEETING MINUTES The meeting minutes were approved as presented. IV. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Chrmn. Mars recognized anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. V. PUBLIC HEARING: SIDE AND REAR YARD VARIANCEJSTREHLOW Chrmn. Mars opened the public hearing to consider two 3 ' variances from the side and rear yard setbacks at 211 S. Fillmore Street. The Assistant Planner stated that the City Code requires that detached accessory structures be located at least 5 ' from both rear and side lot lines. Mr. Strehlow is requesting a variance to this requirement so that he may remove an existing shed and replace it with a new detached accessory structure. Mr. Strehlow is proposing to remove the existing shed and construct a 16 ' by 24 ' accessory structure. He is requesting 3 ' variances from the 5 ' setback requirements from side and rear property lines so that he may construct the new structure in the northeast corner of his property, 2 ' from the north and east property lines. She also stated that staff found that, in addition to the requested variance, the applicant would also need a variance to the 10% lot coverage restriction. Mr. Strehlow's lot Minutes of the Page-2 Board of Adjustment and Appeals October 8,1992 measures only 3, 000 square feet in size, and the proposed accessory structure would result in a lot coverage of over 12%. There are currently no drainage and utility easements on the site. Shakopee Public Utilities is requesting a 2 ' wide easement along both the north and east property lines to allow them to relocate the existing electrical lines and install a utility pole. She added that staff is recommending approval of the variances to allow construction of the proposed accessory structure, subject to the dedication of the utility easement along the north and east property lines. Chrmn. Mars asked if there were any questions of staff. A discussion was held about alternative locations for the proposed structure. Chrmn. Mars asked that Mr. Strehlow come forward for questioning from the Commissioners. Comm. Spurrier asked the age of the house. Mr. Strehlow, 211 S. Fillmore, stated that the house is about 50 or 60 years old but that he has done a complete renovation of the house. Chrmn. Mars asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Motion: Zak/Joos moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Zak/Madigan moved to adopt Variance Resolution No. PC-645, A Resolution Approving a 3 Foot Variance to the Required 5 foot Minimum Setback for Accessory Structures from the Side Lot Line, Approving a 3 Foot Variance to the Required 5 Foot Minimum Setback for Detached Accessory Structures from the Rear Lot Line, and Approving a Variance to Section 11. 03 , Subd. 6 (C) to allow the accessory structure to exceed ten percent (12 .8%) of the lot area, subject to the dedication of a 2 ' drainage and utility easement along the north and east lot lines. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Chrmn. Mars informed the audience of the 7-day appeal period whereby the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may be appealed to the City Council. Motion: Joos/Spurrier moved that this item be brought up again with the street width study. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Page-3 Board of Adjustment and Appeals October 8,1992 VI. PUBLIC HEARING:VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MUST BE USED WITHIN 1 YEAR OF APPROVAL/RAYMOND AMES Chrmn. Mars opened the public hearing to consider a variance from the requirement that a conditional use permit must be used within one year of approval. The City Planner stated that the applicant, Raymond Ames, received approval for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit (MELRP) on October 30, 1991. The applicant is requesting that the deadline for the mining operation be extended by one year due to the delays in the bid letting process. MNDOT has revised their bid letting schedule. The most recent bid letting date established by MNDOT for Phase 3 of the Shakopee Bypass construction is May, 1993 . Condition #2 from Resolution No. PC-624 states that if MNDOT extends the construction of the bypass, the applicant may apply for a renewal. The applicant has also submitted an application to renew and amend Resolution No. PC-624 which the Planning Commission will hear later during the meeting. Staff is recommending denial of this application, but he stated that if the Planning Commission approves the variance, approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The time frame to use the CUP and MELRP permit be extended one year from October 30, 1992 to October 30, 1993 . 2 . That resolution No. PC-624 be amended and renewed with the appropriate conditions as approved by the Planning Commission. Chrmn. Mars asked for questions from staff. Discussion was held on the time frame and the use of the Conditional Use Permit. Chrmn. Mars asked if Mr. Ames or his representative would like to step forward. Mr. James Hill Jr. of the consulting firm of James Earl Hill Inc. , stated that Mr. Ames would like to go ahead with the operation as it was approved under the Conditional Use Permit. He also stated the need for the variance because of MNDOT setting back the construction time line. Chrmn. Mars asked if there has been any start to the use of the land as far as any tracks or digging. Minutes of the Page-4 Board of Adjustment and Appeals October 8,1992 Mr. Hill replied, no, there has not due to the waiting for the revised MNDOT schedule. Comm. Kelly stated that someone had mentioned before that if Ames Construction was not a primary contractor, the site would not be utilized. He questioned if this was the case or if they would be supplying material as a subcontractor or at some other capacity. Mr. Hill stated as a subcontractor perhaps. He added that prior to any extraction they are required to come before the Planning Commission and show where the material extracted is going to be going, and even at that stage the Commission would have veto power over its use. Chrmn. Mars asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Hill. There were none. Chrmn. Mars asked if anyone in the audience would like to come forward and speak. There was no response. Motion: Joos/Madigan moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Joos/Zak moved to approve a variance to the time frame requirement of one year to utilize an approved conditional use permit. Discussion was held about the use of a variance and the one year time frame requirement. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Chrmn. Mars informed the applicant and the audience of the 7- day appeal period whereby the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may be appealed to the City Council. VII. PUBLIC HEARING: FRONT YARD VARIANCE/BREEGGEMANN The Assistant Planner stated that the Breeggemanns have withdrawn their application for the variance and she requested a motion for the acceptance of their withdrawal. Chrmn. Mars asked if anyone in the audience would like to respond. There was no response. Motion: Spurrier/Joos moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Page-5 Board of Adjustment and Appeals October 8,1992 Motion: Spurrier/Zak moved to accept the withdrawal of the variance. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. VIII.OTHER BUSINESS The City Planner stated that at the September 1, 1992, meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 340, which requires that City Boards and Commissions adopt Roberts Rules of Order. Motion: Joos/Madigan moved to adopt Roberts Rules of Order. Discussion was held about the need to vote on the use of Roberts Rules of Order since staff is obligated to use them anyway. Vote: Motion fails. Chrmn. Mars noted that the meetings start at 7 : 30 p.m. , but the work sessions for the Planning Commission start at 7 : 00 p.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Adjustment and Appeals adjourned at 8: 10 p.m. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota October 8, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Madigan, Spurrier, Zak, Joos, Mars, Kelly MEMBERS ABSENT : Christensen STAFF PRESENT : Lindberg Ekola, City Planner Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant Planner Dave Hutton, Public Works Director Nancy Deziel, Recording Secretary I. ROLL CALL Chrmn. Joos called the meeting to order at 8: 10 p.m. The role call was taken as noted above. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. III. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1992, MEETING MINUTES The minutes were approved as presented. IV. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Chrmn. Joos recognized anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. V. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT. ) : PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MILWAUKEE MANOR - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/LEROY MENKE Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider a Planned Unit Development consisting of two, three, and four unit townhomes, to be located south of the Clifton Townhomes. The City Planner started out by stating that it is staff's opinion that the basic development concept for this project is a good one for this particular parcel of land, and that staff is recommending approval, subject to a number of conditions. The City Planner stated that the project is located south of 4th Avenue along Dakota Street, near the abandoned railroad line. He stated that the proposed development is a 3-phase project with an estimated time frame of 1992-1996. He stated that staff has met with the applicant on several occasions to review the proposed project. He stated that Metates of the Page- 2 Shakopee Manning Commission October 8,1992 staff is recommending that Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Lane be developed as private drives and not as public streets. He stated that the basic ordinance requirement is that within a residential PUD, at least 20% of the area should be usable open space. Open space cannot include land devoted to streets, alleys, parking, and private yards. Staff is suggesting the Dakota Street right of way and the R-2 area along Market Street be excluded from the open space requirement. The Planning Commission should review this and make a recommendation to the City Council. In reference to park dedication and proposed trail, if land is dedicated for park dedication, it is important that the Planning Commission keep the open space calculations, and the park dedication requirements or trail dedications separate. Staff has identified in one of the conditions that the applicant shall provide additional information on the open space areas, and their design. The City Planner mentioned the importance of keeping the zoning lines and property lines consistent and for this reason staff is recommending the property line follow the recommended zoning line in the northwest corner of the proposed development. The City Planner talked about the traffic analysis in terms of volume. The City Planner turned the discussion over to the Public Works Director to discuss the storm water management plan. The Public Works Director stated there were only two options available for outlets for storm sewers. One, have the City run a new storm line up Dakota Street. Two, use the existing storm outlet at Market Street which borders the applicant' s property. He stated the storm water management plan looks like it can be worked out with some fine tuning on the engineering details. The City Planner ended the staff report stating the applicant needs to provide more information to insure the proposal will meet the City's codes and ordinances. He stated staff has recommended a series of conditions in the recommendation for the preliminary development plan for the PUD in working toward the final PUD process. Chrmn. Joos asked for questions for staff from the Commissioners. Discussion about the time frame and traffic count was held. Chrmn. Joos asked if Mr. Menke would like to come forward. Wombs of the Page- 3 Shakopee planning Commission October 8,1992 Mr. LeRoy Menke, 1185 Shumway, talked about and showed plans regarding landscaping and parking. He stated he would like to have public streets throughout the development because they have public sewer and public water. Mr. Menke stated that it is his understanding that some of the plans and things that staff is waiting for are things that do not have to be discussed until the final PUD rather than at the preliminary PUD. Comm. Spurrier stated that, from what he heard, the only objection to the 17 conditions from Mr. Menke is the issue of the private vs. public roads. He asked if Mr. Menke was prepared to meet the other conditions. Chrmn. Joos stated to Mr. Menke that staff's recommendation was to approve the preliminary PUD with the items that they thought they needed to clarify for the final PUD. Mr. Menke stated he felt a lot of those items in there are not necessary until the final PUD. Chrmn. Joos explained to Mr. Menke that staff 's recommendation was saying that these items are fine. These are items that we found on the preliminary that we need to have more clarification for on the final development plan. Mr. Menke questioned who would bear the burden of liability on the parcel of land should he deed it over to the City for a City trail. The City Planner stated that if a City trail were to go through Mr. Menke's property, the City would bear the liability on that property. Discussions about the requirements of a PUD and open space were held. Chrmn. Joos went through the list of recommended conditions 1- 17 with Mr. Menke to determine which ones Mr. Menke was opposed to so they could be discussed by the Commissioners. Chrmn. Joos asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Menke. There were none. Chrmn. Joos asked if anyone in the audience would like to come forward and speak. Al Appenzeller, 837 E. 7th Avenue, stated that he had a little problem with the drainage. He questioned the Public Works Director's comments about the proposed alley improvements between Minnesota and Dakota for improving drainage. Minutes of the Page- 4 Shakopee Planning Commission October 8,ma The Public Works Director informed Mr. Appenzeller that the City is going to be doing a feasibility report on that alley as far as putting in any storm sewers or possibly paving it in order to provide better drainage. He stated that is a City responsibility, not a developer responsibility. Mr. Appenzeller stated that he would be in favor of putting the water underground rather than have it in a ditch or in a holding pond. He stated he did not understand the concept of a holding pond. He said that at every place else it goes in a storm sewer. The Public Works Director explained that the City Of Shakopee is under strict guidelines from the Metropolitan Council to try to reduce the runoff into the Minnesota River and try to clean up the storm water that runs into it. Using retention/detention ponds helps accomplish that. It is an accepted practice on all new subdivisions being built in Shakopee. Mr. Appenzeller suggested putting the storm sewer in right away and expressed concern for children if a settling pond were to be used. He questioned if it was a settling pond or a holding pond. The Public Works Director explained that it was a retention pond. It would retain water during the storm, but it would slowly drain. He explained that it would not have water in it at all times so as far as children and safety are concerned, it should drain within 24 hours after the storm. Mr. Donald Tech, 919 E. 7th Avenue, stated that he was also concerned with the storm water. He expressed a preference to run the water underground through a pipe rather than have another holding pond. He stated he did not feel it was necessary to have another holding pond in the area. He also stated the trail was proposed to go through at the railroad track location and stated that is where he would like to see it go. He stated he does not want to see it run next to his property. Discussion by staff was held on the recommended conditions 1- 17. Motion: Zak/Mars moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Spurrier/Mars moved to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary development plan for Milwaukee Manor subject to 17 conditions and amend Condition Number 6, Minutes of the Page- 5 Shakopee Planning Commission October 8,1992 requiring that the developer grant a utility and drainage easement for that part of the open space which is to remain zoned R-2 and accept the lot line as it is proposed by the applicant. Discussion by staff was held on private drives. Vote: Motion carries unanimously. The Planning Commission recessed at 9: 34 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:44 p.m. VI. VACATION: PORTION OF MINNESOTA STREET NORTH OF THE ALLEY NORTH OF 7TH AVENUE AND SOUTH OF THE ABANDONED RAILROAD LINES The City Planner stated that state law requires the Planning Commission review all proposed vacations. He stated the right-of-way, for the portion of Minnesota Street proposed for vacation, will no longer be needed for access if the proposed Milwaukee Manor development is approved. He stated the retention of a 20 ' wide easement for utility and drainage purposes for an existing water main would need to be retained. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the vacation, subject to three conditions. Discussion was held about the traffic analysis and the importance of recording the vacation with the approval of phase three of the proposed development. Chrmn. Joos asked Mr. Menke if he would like to address the vacation issue. Mr. Menke stated he did not feel it was necessary for him to address the issue. Motion: Spurrier/Zak moved to recommend that City Council vacate the portion of Minnesota Street north of the alley located north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line, subject to the recording of the final plat for Phase 3 of the Milwaukee Manor Planned Unit Development. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. VI. PUBLIC HEARING:AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #624 Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider an amendment to, and renewal of, Conditional Use Permit No. PC-624 and the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation permit approved for the property located on the north side of Valley View Rd. , approximately midway between CR 17 and CR 83 . Minutes of the Page- 6 Shakopee Planning commission October 8,1992 The City Planner stated the applicant is requesting that the time frame be extended by one year. He stated the staff is also recommending a sentence be added to Condition #1 of the original permit to clarify the maximum volume of material to be removed. He stated the updated number of 5, 052 cubic yards should be identified in the conditions to help clarify the agreement between the Planning Commission and the applicant. Chrmn. Joos asked if the applicant or a representative would like to step forward and speak to the Commission. James Hill Jr. of James Earl Hill, Inc. stated that he is a consultant for the applicant and doing engineering and operational work on his behalf. He stated he would like to reiterate that the necessity of the time change is the direct result of the construction schedule change from MNDOT. He stated they have no problem with the volume being stipulated specifically in Condition No. 1 of the Conditional Use Permit. Comm. Mars questioned the time frame being pushed back 1 year. The City Planner affirmed the 1 year delay in bid letting for the construction of the bypass. Discussion was held about whether or not 6 months would be enough time. Mr. Hill stated that it would not be workable. Chrmn. Joos asked if anyone else from the audience would like to step forward and speak on the issue. There was no response. Motion: Zak/Mars moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously Motion: Mars/Zak moved to approve Amendment #1 to the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit and Conditional Use Permit Resolution PC-624 . Vote: Motion carried unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11.36, SUBD. 2, TO EXPAND THE PERMITTED USES IN THE RTD/LADBRORE CO. Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider a request to amend City Code, Section 11. 36, Subd. 2 , to expand the permitted uses in the RTD district. The City Planner stated that the City has received a request from the Ladbroke Co. to amend the Racetrack District (RTD) regulations to add 4 proposed commercial uses to the district. The first would be commercial storage. The second would be Minutes of the Page- 7 Shakopee Pbnning Comnission October 8,1992 antique, craft, flea and bargain markets. Third; product shows for cars, boats, and home. Fourth; other entertainment including summer concerts, winter sports, drive-in movies, etc. The City Planner stated that because of increased economic pressures in the gambling industry in Minnesota, Ladbroke is being forced to pursue alternative uses for their facility. The City Planner stated that in staff 's opinion the proposed commercial uses generally would have a limited impact on adjacent properties from a land use perspective, but that the entertainment uses should not be allowed at this time due to the need for further study. The City Planner stated that noise and other considerations need to be looked at. He stated staff believes that the conditional use permit process would provide adequate regulations to control the first three of the four proposals and also to guide the use of the undeveloped land parcels. Chrmn. Joos asked if there were any questions for staff. Comm. Mars inquired about the time frame. The City Planner answered that he does not have a specific time for any of the proposed uses to begin. Chrmn. Joos asked if there were any further questions of staff. There were none. Chrmn. Joos asked if the representative for Ladbroke Company would step forward. Mr. Rick Reichow, Chief Financial Officer, 1100 Canterbury Road, stated that they have no problem at this time leaving that fourth item off of the list of uses within the RTD. He stated they are currently more concerned with the concepts of storage, such as boats and RV's, and would like to get moving on that. He also wanted to remind the Commission that they are not talking about any new construction, but making use of what they already have. Discussion was held about where racing is at currently. Chrmn. Joos asked if the barns that they are planning to use for storage of recreational vehicles are paved. Mr. Reichow replied that they are all dirt floors. Discussion was held about the pollution aspect due to engine oil and transmission fluid, etc. Ninths of the Page- 8 SWAmmenimminCommWmion October 8,1992 Mr. Reichow stated that he believed it was common practice to drain all the petroleum products from the motor before they are put into storage. He stated that there would probably be more boat storage than anything else. Chrmn. Joos reminded everyone that it was a public hearing and asked if anyone else would like to come forward. John Albinson, 5276 Valley Industry Boulevard, stated that he believed the industrial zones do provide for outside storage on a Class 5 base in almost all instances. Comm. Mars asked John Albinson's opinion on opening up some of the proposed uses. John Albinson replied that he thinks it would be okay as long as the storage be maintained in an unobtrusive way, keeping things back away from County Road 83 . Comm. Mars asked Mr. Albinson if he thought opening it up for antique shows, etc. would enhance the land. Mr. Albinson replied that if it can help Canterbury Downs keep their heads above water, he is all for it. A discussion was held about the storage of RV's and the impact on the surrounding areas in the RTD. Mr. Reichow stated concern about the time frame they would have before they would be able to store boats and RV's. He expressed concern about being able to get a permit in time to avoid missing an opportunity to use the facility for storage this winter. Comm. Spurrier stated that he felt adding conditional uses where existing rules adequately regulate would be unnecessary. Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Motion: Mars/Spurrier moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carries unanimously. Motion: Zak/Spurrier moved to recommend to the City Council amending of the RTD regulations to include commercial storage of boats and recreational vehicles, antique, craft, bargain, and flea markets, and product shows for boats, cars, and homes as permitted uses. Vote: Motion denied unanimously. Mmatcs of the Page- 9 Shakopee Phnning Commission October 8,1992 Motion: Spurrier/Mars moved to recommend that City Council amend section 11. 36 subdivision 2A adding conditions 16, 17, and 18 making commercial storage of boats and recreational vehicles, antique, craft, bargain, and flea markets, and product shows for boats, cars, and homes as permitted uses. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. VIII.VACATION OF A 20' DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT The Assistant Planner stated that the City has received a petition from Jon Albinson of Valley Green Business park Limited Partnership to vacate the 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements located adjacent to the interior lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 , and between Lots 3 and 4 , block 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition. The applicant is requesting the vacation of these easements to that he may process a Minor Subdivision to reconfigure the current lot lines within these three lots. This procedure is approved administratively by staff. New drainage and utility easements would be established along the proposed lot lines. The Assistant Planner stated that staff is recommending approval of the vacation of the drainage and utility easements subject to the approval of the minor subdivision process and the dedication of the additional drainage and utility easements. Chrmn. Joos asked for questions for staff. Comm. Mars asked if the applicant was taking two lots and making one big lot. The Assistant Planner replied that he is taking three lots and combining them into two lots. Motion: Spurrier/Zak moved to recommend the City Council approve the vacation subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision process and the dedication of additional drainage and utility easements. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. IB. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner stated that the City Council made it effective on November 7, 1991, to delete mineral extraction as Minutes of the Page-10 Shakopee Planning Commission October 8,1992 a conditional use in the Agricultural (Ag) and the Rural Residential (R-2) zoning districts. He stated that the comprehensive plan has received approval by the City Council but not the Metropolitan Council and, therefore, has not received final adoption. The City Planner stated that in the comprehensive plan it was stated that mineral extraction could be utilized as a conditional use in the Ag district. He stated that text needs to be changed to reflect the City Council policy decision as does the map. He stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission offer a motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed amendment to the draft 1990 comprehensive plan delete mineral extraction from the land use plan and the text. Chrmn. Joos asked for questions of staff. There were none. Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Motion: Spurrier/Zak moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Zak/Spurrier offered a motion which recommends to the City Council that the proposed amendment to the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan, which deletes mineral extraction from the Agricultural land use areas by deleting its reference on the Rural Land Use Plan and Land Use text. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. XI. REVIEWS:BERNARD JEURISSEN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PC-622 The Assistant Planner stated that in September of last year, the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit to Rick Kenneth Jeurissen to move a mobile home into the R-1 Zoning District at 2967 Marschall Road. The permit was approved subject to 5 conditions. No complaints have been received at City Hall or the Shakopee Police Department, and photographs of the site have been provided in the staff report. She added that staff has determined that the applicant is operating in compliance with the conditions of the permit. She stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the annual review of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC-622 . NGnutes of the Page-11 Shakopee Planning Commission October 8,1992 Chrmn. Joos asked for questions for staff. Chrmn. Joos asked if there is a requirement that the person must be a member of the family. The Assistant Planner answered yes. Motion: Mars/Zak offered a motion approving the annual review for Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC-622 . Vote: Motion carried unanimously. XII. REVIEW: ONE-WAY SWEEPING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC-608 The Assistant Planner stated that staff scheduled a review of the Conditional Use Permit issued to One-Way Sweeping for the October meeting. However, the information required for this review has not been provided by the applicant. Staff has contacted the applicant about the review requirement, and will schedule another review of this permit for the November 5th meeting. Chrmn. Joos requested that a letter be directed from the Planning Commission to One-Way Sweeping stating that this is a required review and that this information needs to be provided to staff in a timely fashion. XIII.OTHER BUSINESS: ADOPTION OF ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER Chrmn. Joos stated that Roberts Rules of Order is a guide that he uses to help the meetings progress and to keep things in order. Motion: Comm. Mars moved that Roberts Rules of Order be adopted. Motion fails due to lack of a second. XIV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10 : 55 p.m. MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Temporary Building Inspector Position (Non-agenda Info) DATE: October 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: This past April the City hired a temporary building inspector to assist us with inspections during the peak building season. This year due to the large number of lots platted and available for a development combined with attractive interest rates, it does not appear that we will experience a slow down in activity. This being the case, staff intends to keep the temporary building inspector on board in a temporary capacity until budgeted funds are exhausted. Staff is taking the necessary steps to reduce expenditures in other areas in an effort to keep the temporary building inspector position filled through the remainder of this year. In 1993 , funds were allocated to retain the services of a temporary building inspector for six calendar months. If building activity continues at current levels, it may be necessary for us to address continuing the temporary building inspector position in a more permanent capacity. This would necessitate a potential budget amendment in 1993 . While we do have an agreement with Scott County to provide back-up building inspection support, if we in fact are in need of more permanent inspection services, the agreement with Scott County does not become cost effective. I will keep you advised of building activity, budget issues and the need for personnel services in this area. IA7 MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: 10th Avenue Vacation - Update DATE: October 15, 1992 BACKGROUND & INFORMATION: Staff has received responses from all of the property owners along the north side of 10th Avenue, where a vacation of a portion of the right-of-way has been proposed. Exhibit A illustrates the location of those property owners willing to deed the 17 foot strip of land on the south side of 10th Avenue to those adjacent property owners. These property owners are all located east of Sibley St. The location of Maplewood Townhomes and Mr. Vohnoutka's residence are also shown on Exhibit A. All of the property owners (7) , east of Sibley Street, and north of 10th Avenue have indicated a willingness to deed the 17 foot strip of land on the south side of 10th Avenue to their appropriate neighbor. The following is a list of these property owners: 1. Mrs. Evelyn Eames 967 Sibley Street 2. Mr. and Mrs. Harlan Lindgren 972 Ramsey Street 3 . Mr. and Mrs. Greg Bardon 971 Ramsey Street 4 . Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Allen 970 Swift Street 5. Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Unseth 971 Swift Street 6. Alois and David Beckman 970 Miller Street 7. Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Boldt 971 Miller Street Maplewood Townhouses The residents of Maplewood 1st Addition Townhouses have indicated that they are not willing to deed over the 17 ' strip of land. The Maplewood Townhouses are located at the northeast corner of 10th Avenue and CR 17 (Marschall Road) . Mr. Fran Vohnoutka Staff recently met with Mr. Fran Vohnoutka at his residence to review his comments on the 10th Avenue vacation. Mr. Vohnoutka, 1431 East 10th Avenue, resides east of the Maplewood Townhouses and west of Sibley Street. He has indicated to staff that he would be willing to deed the 17 foot strip of land with three conditions as follows: 1. Receive a variance to allow an attached garage to be constructed in the side yard setback. 2 . If the vacated right-of-way were ever re-condemned by the City, payment for both sides of the condemned right-of- way along his property would be made to Mr. Vohnoutka. 3 . Receive $1, 000 from the City for the cost he incurred in the late 1970s for errors involved with the construction of a garage on his property he claims were made by staff at that time. He claims that he was directed by City staff at that time to construct his garage so that it faced the west property line. Access to the garage was to come from the alley west of his property. After he constructed the garage facing the west, the adjacent property owner informed Mr. Vohnoutka that the alley was only a drainage and utility easement. Vehicle access could not longer occur in this fashion. Mr. Vohnoutka stated that the cost to reconstruct the garage so that it could face 10th Avenue cost $1, 000. Since the Zoning Ordinance requires that all variances must meet the required criteria, the merits of Mr. Vohnoutka's request will need to be processed separately. Staff will work with Mr. Vohnoutka on his variance request. Staff will send him a copy of the variance application packet and a copy of the 10th Avenue street construction plan illustrating his site for use in the variance review process. PROPERTY TAX IMPACTS: One of the concerns raised in the review of the vacation was the impacts on property taxes. Staff has contacted Mr. Bob Schmitt of the Scott County Assessors Office. He stated that land values used in the property tax process are calculated in one of several methods including: 1. Front foot basis 2 . Square footage basis 3 . Site value method Mr. Schmitt identified an estimate based on a nearby property. He estimated that a tax increase of approximately $48 . 00 may result with the proposed vacation and increased lot size for those properties along the 10th Avenue corridor. Staff also researched the current property taxes in the area in relation to lot size. Exhibit B illustrates the individual lot size and corresponding land valuation made by the County Assessor. Based on this research the relationship between the lot size and the land valuation has some variability. Property taxes are not a black and white determination. Some basic assumptions need to be made in the determination of a land value assessment. In staff's opinion, the property taxes for the parcels receiving additional land from the 10th Avenue vacation will likely go up but that amount should be minimal and reflective of the increased land value. Because of the land area added will not allow for significant increases of development on these properties, staff feels that the property tax impacts should be minimal. ALTERNATIVES: Seven alternatives were presented to the City council in the July 10, 1992 staff report on the proposed 10th Avenue vacation. One alternative discussed in the staff report proposed to vacate the excessive right-of-way east of Sibley St. only. Since the 10th Avenue/CR 17 intersection carries a large volume of traffic, it may be appropriate to retain the 100 foot right-of-way width on 10th Avenue from CR 17 to Sibley St. This would allow for turn lanes to be constructed on 10th Avenue east of CR 17 in the future if they are needed. Please note that 10th Avenue east of CR 17 is designated as a local street and west of CR 17 it is a collector street. CR 17 is designated as a minor arterial street. STAFF ACTIONS: Staff will begin preparing the deeds for the seven (7) property owners east of Sibley St. After completing the deeds, staff will then distribute the deeds to the appropriate property owners for their signature. The City Attorney has advised that no vacation should be approved by the City Council for a part of the 10th Avenue right-of-way until the appropriate property owners have signed the necessary deeds. Staff will return the proposed vacation to the City Council for approval after the necessary deeds have been signed. If the City Council wishes to place this item on a formal Council agenda, please contact City staff . Thank you. r '._;_-i P I , , 1`1M�/l 1 I-11Sr 1 1 • 11 I I 1 11 1, ‘' 1 I s',,4ifN's 1 PT- 1 . . j -> \' \\ .�:�,+ I MAIN 1 $T•11 _ _. ..IERL'^.i 3'`• \ �, N1 I•I 1 � ��-vf �,`• i : � 1 w ., x=1, \-32, _ ; _ • - —_ =t, z MARKET I V) i NI . r � , ET - E -[ a _ I �C� F k i - N 1 - r c a �'►--M ( s / i A N 1ST. �COUH& • . -----�•` • . I • / � • ' I I I __-,� _ • LkL i Ic90 UST N O ALTirA1 ST. '1 Ili . J N �Q � o a m =, i li i I I I V hyl a s o riff s ;Li0 11 y_ _ & , Goal m TT0 23 IP A NAdA(Key AGI ST. Mr - _ ltAIA z X In o I. _ p I 0 O CO r r xo i VI -a W D W - J N - r I ` / N e ��. MA - -._ _ 111 ' � _-._ �r r � I 1 wl I -A a -- �• 1 I 5/��'`�-w/ LCGIQ'1_• r I , L�/� I 15 T. 0 j7 01101119 ___, .11 , . e- . s. ..... I , . ,. ....,,, . _ . . A., , . f (k••'.'",l' \,.../ . • , tirAi - — •" diS) — age • 54.1•1/S ,. eti, IV l / , _,,, , , , „„R• - L'; .. al<g 1 • W I I I ' ‘Elle. A aN''7 --- •. i " o S /F/. y' ;I , - • \ 4 0 . tYO alikih C, - . Mil ` ` • 4P pi, _ . , 11 mr..7ff I. *. -.-.-. .. .4,L............, • „,„ . ,,,,,,, , , , ...,-- 14,7‘ A.7461 -)":' •°;R r o 161 ::,./. 0 . 4......„. O411"iiii..... e< 1:16P IRE 6 ) 6 is NEE J ,t�I• :R•lT , ligil Ak� I ri,E N NiV . ' d I -N .3 rS $n c Ys 1 > R o .i q - 'O r `J a >o • I\ UI. covA1 ! 1 ?' iiminVil ILI"ill 171Z1er O�v ����.Al Ar ip !E.i ....,,,, 0 il FE r "1"11Q1 tAPit � � � m= 7PR C.1/ N ' ''° !I! rin. g'3*.rt 1 1 * IMO gi .n_ I I I k.......) " • m > imme< E. 1' .I 7 1 i i iI P/ I ; Y:I Z .5y . ,, I 1 .I rs>m j 7 c•• :e.....°...e .�tI!'�� `eN Oil , :f 1 7. fry ri"li— . fp% zip Y ( il f < A 6e� lioI ... *4.1 A 1 o 2. jAll : y r.t >iv 34i! • 41P. ( ' 1 12: kii) a3. 7f^• n t;s' illfAllair ::: , :: ;i:-.: ' libih. CI5 ..4r/ _ ,:‘, . ,T*. . .... 7.14 P • 1-• r ,O 1.1.1110 4 N - Iff7HA •� 12. MER'r / L �► S-7: . w r i En Vft > *r tri Z • y TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 20, 1992 Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2] Reading by Mayor Laurent of City' s Non-Discrimination Policy 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] Mayor's Report 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 7] 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. ) *8] Approval of Minutes of October 6th and 9th, 1992 9] Communications: a] Dana Doherty, MN. Thoroughbred Association, regarding amending Shakopee's gambling ordinance 10] Public Hearings: a] Continuation of public hearing on the vacation of Minnesota Street North of the alley located North of 7th Avenue b] Public hearing on the vacation of drainage and utility easements within Canterbury Park 1st Addition - Res. 3680 11] Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission: a] Rezoning of Property East of Market and North of 7th Avenue From R-4 and R-2 to R-3 - Ord. No. 341 b] Preliminary Development Plan for Milwaukee Manor PUD, Resolution No. 3681 *c] Amendment to Draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan, Deletion of the Gravel Pit Designation d] Adding Commercial Uses for the Race Track District - Ord. No. 342 d-1 ] Canterbury Downs Assessment Agreement TENTATIVE AGENDA October 20, 1992 Page -2- 12] Reports from Staff: a] Valley Ice Arena - Request for Proposals b] Valley Ice Arena Insurance cJ City Hall Renovation - Award Contracts on Bid Package #3 , Furnishings - memo on table d] Amending the 1992 Pay Plan for the Recreation Assistant Position - Res. No. 3689 *e] Scott County/City of Shakopee Personnel Services Agreement *f] Authorizing Execution of St. Francis EAW Report *g] Approve Bills in the Amount of $637,793 . 69 *h] Authorizing Release of Petition for Public Improvements 13] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 3683 - Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Setting Public Hearing for 2nd Avenue Improvement Project No. 1991-3 bJ Res. No. 3684 - Accepting Report and Setting Public Hear- ing on Foothill Trail, Project 1993-2 *c] Res. No. 3685 - Authorizing Execution of Cooperative Agreement No. TS 92-83/16 With Scott County for Traffic Signal at CR16 & 83 *d] Res. No. 3686 - Ordering Report on Webster Street from 6th Avenue to 3rd Avenue *e] Res. No. 3687 - Ordering Report on Alley Between Market Street and Outlot A of Eastview Addition *f] Res. No. 3688 - Apportioning Assessments for Parcel No. 27-907015 *g] Res. No. 3690 - Apportioning Assessments for Dalles Townhome Addition *h] Res. No. 3682 - Certifying Delinquent Storm Drainage Utility Bills *i] Ord. No. 343 - Amending City Code to Allow Bow Hunting at the NSP Blue Lake Generating Plant 14] Other Business: a] NBZ litigation update - report by City Attorney b] c] d] 15] Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OCTOBER 26, 1992 at 7 : 00 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 6, 1992 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 P.M. with Councilmembers Lynch, Sweeney, Vierling, and Beard present. Also present were: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Ass 't. City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; and Dave Hutton, Public Works Director/City Engineer. Beard/Vierling moved to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting of the Shakopee City Council recessed for the meeting of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority at 7 : 04 p.m. The Shakopee City Council reconvened its meeting at 8: 01 p.m. The liaison reports were given by the Councilmembers. Mayor Laurent gave the Mayor ' s report at the September 29, 1992 Committee of the Whole meeting and had nothing further to add at this time. Mayor Laurent recognized anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Vierling/Lynch moved to approve the consent business with the addition of: 13g, authorizing sale of 1992 bonds, and 131, update on the highway 18 interchange, added to consent approval; and with the deletion of: 13m, City Council Chambers Audio/Video bid award from the consent approval. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Sweeney moved to approve the meeting minutes for September 1, 1992 ; September 8 , 1992 ; and September 15, 1992 . Motion carried unanimously. Dave Hutton reviewed the need of Rahr Malting for increased sewer flows as a result of the construction of pumphouse number 5. He stated that there were a number of options discussed on June 23rd and as a result a feasibility study has been prepared by Mr. Dan Boxrud of Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. for a lift station and a force main to handle the additional sewer flow. Mr. Boxrud reviewed Option B, selected by City Council earlier, which would take the sewer flow from Rahr out of the current system going to the North and pump it South. This option would alleviate the city over flow to the river interceptor. A lift station would be located on Rahr property and would pump the sewage from 3rd and Webster South to Sixth Avenue, West to Adams, and South to the gravity system South of the swimming pool to Vierling Drive on to the VIP Trunk Sanitary Sewer. He explained that the schedule for construction and financing were important issues. Official Proceedings of the October 6, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -2- In regards to the capital improvement costs for this improvement, Mr. Hutton explained the three options identified by staff. He stated that staff feels the third option, Rahr and the City share the costs, was appropriate and explained why. Discussion ensued on whether or not the lift station should be private and the cost sharing. Sweeney/Lynch moved to direct staff to prepare a formal agreement with Rahr for the cost sharing for the lift station and force main for sanitary sewer flow from Rahr Malting. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Beard moved that the agreement with Rahr Malting be based on Rahr owning, operating and constructing the lift station and the City owning, operating and constructing the force main. Mr. John Alsup, Rahr Malting, explained the proposed construction of pumphouse number 5 and the unexpected additional costs. He explained that 18 1/2% of their costs go to taxes and sanitary sewer costs. He stated that anything that the City can do would be helpful. He would like to continue discussions with staff on the cost sharing. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Vierling offered Resolution No. 3674 , A Resolution Receiving A Report and Ordering An Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Rahr Malting Lift Station and Forcemain, Project No. 1993-1, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. There was a consensus among Councilmembers that the cost sharing agreement with Rahr Malting be signed prior to going out for bids on the project. Sweeney/Lynch moved that the City finance their costs for the Rahr Malting Lift Station and Forcemain Project from the Sewer Enterprise Fund. Discussion followed. Motion carried unanimously. City Council recessed from 8 : 58 P.M. until 9 : 09 P.M. Sweeney/Vierling moved to receive and file the request from property owners along Dean' s Lake Drive asking the City to pay for one homeowner ' s share of the cost to repair the pavement. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch moved to appoint Officer Craig A. Robson to the full-time permanent position of police patrol officer. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Official Proceedings of the October 6, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Barry Stock reported on the costs he has received from other communities on running an ice facility. He explained that the difference in the costs for hiring an architect for an ice facility seem to be based upon whether or not there is architectural insurance. Mr. Stock went on to say that he has verified some of the projected construction costs for an ice facility submitted by Valley Ice Arena. He stated that their costs did not include handicapped accessibility. He asked Council for direction. Discussion followed. Consensus of Councilmembers that additional information is needed relative to an ice arena addressing: operational feasibility based on projected income, condition of existing equipment, etc. Sweeney/Beard directed staff to prepare a Request For Proposals for the next Council meeting in order to obtain additional information to make a decision about building an ice facility. Motion carried unanimously. Dave Kaufenberg advised Council that the liability insurance for the ice facility would be expiring on November 15th and asked if the City could assume the liability coverage under its own policy. Consensus was to have staff research options in regard to this issue. Sweeney/Vierling moved to direct the appropriate City officials to execute a contract with Total Weather, Inc. of Wayzata, Minnesota to provide weather forecasting services for $150. 00 per month for the period from November 1, 1992 - March 31, 1993 , or a portion thereof, all to be funded from the 1992 budget. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch moved to reject all bids submitted for the Tahpah Park Concession Stand Improvement Project and directed staff to revise the bid specifications for a spring 1993 bid letting. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3678 , A Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of $1, 665, 000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 1992 A, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3679, A Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992 B, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Official Proceedings of the October 6, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -4- There was a consensus among Councilmembers to hold the upcoming special assessment Public Hearings on November 3 , 1992 ; and that the public hearing on the 2nd Avenue Improvements shall be held on November 10, 1992 . Vierling/Lynch moved to accept the proposal of Deloitte & Touche for the provision of Audit Services for the 1992 fiscal year in the amount of $14 , 800. 00. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Vierling/Lynch move to approve the bills in the amount of $185, 333 . 04 . (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Vierling/Lynch moved to accept the bid from Larry Ruff in the amount of $1, 685 . 00 for the 1962 Fire Truck. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) In a memo to the City Council, Mr. Kraft explained that the Met Council, at the urging of its staff, is continuing to denying direct access between the City of Prior Lake and the new Shakopee By-Pass via CSAH 18 . He also explained that they are concerned that there will be additional growth as a result of such an access in Shakopee because of Shakopee ' s current zoning ordinance allowing minimum lot sizes of 2 1/2 acres in the R-1 (Rural Residential) zone. Vierling/Lynch moved that no changes be made in Shakopee' s zoning pattern or minimum lot sizes without further study. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Lynch/Sweeney moved to accept the bid submitted by Audio/Visual Wholesalers, Inc. for the Council Chambers audio/video system in the amount of $41, 774 .41 and authorized the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement to provide said equipment and installation. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3666 , A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving an Application for a One Day Off-Site Lawful Gambling License for the Lion' s Club of Shakopee and moved its adoption (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3667 , A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 3496 Adopting the 1992 Budget, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3668 , A Resolution Approving Plans and Specs for the County Road 78 Project No. CP 89-78-81, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Official Proceedings of the October 6, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3669, A Resolution Relating to Parking Restrictions on County Road 78, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Sweeney/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3670, A Resolution Declaring the Costs to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for Jefferson Street Watermain from 12th Avenue South to Tahpah Park, Project No. 1991-8 , and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3671, A Resolution Accepting Work on 5th Avenue, Spencer Street to Naumkeag Street; Market Street, 7th Avenue to 4th Avenue and Main Street, 6th Avenue to 5th Avenue, Project No. 1989-4 ; and, Bluff Avenue, Marschall Road to Naumkeag Street, Project No. 1990-7 , and moved its adoption. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Vierling/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 3672 , A Resolution Declaring the Costs to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for the 1992 Sidewalk Replacement Program, Project No. 1992-7 , and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3673 , A Resolution Declaring the Costs to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for Vierling Drive, between County Road 17 and County Road 79, Project No. 1992-3 , and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3675, A Resolution Concerning a Constitutional Amendment to Create a New Property Tax Payers Trust Fund in Minnesota, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3676, A Resolution Accepting Work on the JEJ Parking Lot, Basketball Court, and Bike Trail, Project No. 1991-5, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3677 , A Resolution Appointing Judges of Election and Establishing Compensation, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried unanimously under consent business. ) Consensus of City Council was to meet on Tuesday, October 13 , 1992 at 8 : 00 p.m. , for the next Committee of the Whole to discuss budget revenues for 1993 . Sweeney/Lynch moved to direct staff to order an appraisal of the property still within the moratorium area lying south of the Senior High School. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the October 6, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, October 20, 1992 at 7 : 00 p.m. The meeting adjourned 10: 34 p.m. P "144 J . eiX- i ,dith S. Cox y Clerk - - cording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 9 , 1992 Mayor Gary Laurent called the emergency session of the City Council to order at 7 : 40 A.M. with Councilmembers Joan Lynch, Robert Sweeney, Gloria Vierling, and Mike Beard present. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Dave Hutton, Public Works Director/City Engineer; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Mayor Laurent stated that this is an emergency meeting that he called and that Council believes that an emergency does exist. Vierling/Beard moved to accept the special call of the Mayor for an emergency session. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kraft explained that the problem is that at the current time the water level in Prior Lake is within a few tenths of a foot of flooding adjacent properties. It is raining and is expected to continue today and into tomorrow so the amount of water going into the lake is such that the lake level is going up. Also, there is an outlet facility from Prior Lake that allows water to flow down through a drainage channel into the City of Shakopee through the Hanson property into Dean' s Lake. There is also an agreement in place between the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District, the City of Shakopee, and the City of Prior Lake which amongst other things stipulates that if the amount of water in the drainage channel in Shakopee goes over the banks of that channel that the Watershed District would then retard or stop the flow of water coming out of Prior Lake. This would then mitigate the downstream flooding problem which would result in added flooding in Prior Lake. At the current time the level of the lake is close to inundating structures in the City. He explained that it is believed that there is fair likelihood that there would be considerable property damage if this matter was not dealt with. Mr. Kraft explained that the Agreement stipulates that the Watershed District will slow down the flow of water and in order for them to not do that (to continue to allow more flooding down stream in Shakopee) , they need some relief from the Agreement that is in place. Mr. Kraft explained that there is some concern among Councilmembers about any property damage and that the Watershed District is responsible for mitigating any damages, which is provided for in the Agreement. He stated that we need to deal with Article 4 of the Agreement dealing with "Operation of the Lake Outlet" . He said that the Agreement could be amended or there could be a temporary waiver of the Article. Mr. Bryce Huemoeller, Attorney for the Watershed District, stated that the situation is not critical at the moment but that it is moving in this direction. He explained that the sewer system is Official Proceedings of October 9 , 1992 the Shakopee City Council Page -2- affected as the high water level approaches 904 and some roads are affected which result in inconvenience as a result of damage. He explained that the Watershed is trying to balance the problem. They have kept the flow from the channel at 25 cfs which is one- half of its maximum. The water is approaching 904 , which is the high water line of Prior Lake, and homeowners are getting nervous. He stated that there is the short term problem today and the long term problem of the outlet which is the weak link in the project. He said that they want to continue to run the water at the reduced flow of 25 cubic ft. per second and that they will be liable for damages per the Agreement. Mr. Bill Dilks, Director for the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District, showed the direction of the channel through Shakopee on the Shakopee ' s aerial map. Mr. Pete Frier, District Engineer for the PLSL Watershed District, explained that the channel is at maximum capacity and if the 25 cfs flow is increased, water will back up on Mr. Hanson' s property. If the outlet is closed, it could have an impact on homes in Prior Lake. Mr. Terry Hanson stated that the ditch from Mr. Shutrup ' s property to Dean' s Lake has not been maintained over the past six years and believes that if it had been maintained, the water would not be backing up onto his property. He stated that he is not experiencing any financial damage but his land is flat and five acres are now flooded where he runs his horses through. Mr. Pete Frier stated that he came on board last January and it looks like the channel hasn 't been cleaned out for some time. Mr. Dilks stated that all concerns need to be addressed and the current problem needs to be looked at first. He stated that he wants to work cooperatively with the Watershed District and the land owners. Jon Albinson, Project Director for Valley Green Business Park, identified the flooding occurring on their property. He stated that Scottland gave easements for the area North of Deans Lake and feels that the water should be contained within the easements. Mayor Laurent explained the potential problem created when flooding occurs as it relates to the new wetland act. He explained that flooding could create a wetland which is a taking of land. Mr. Huemoeller stated that the Watershed has certain maintenance responsibilities and pursuant to an agreement a year ago with the City of Shakopee, Shakopee has responsibilities for maintenance North of Dean ' s Lake where Mr. Albinson is experiencing flooding. This was a result of an arbitration between the Watershed District and the City of Shakopee. Official Proceedings of October 9, 1992 the Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mr. Hutton explained that the arbitration ruling required PLSL Watershed to do certain items before Shakopee would take over maintenance of the ditch and that the Watershed has not completed these items. Mr. Hutton stated that Shakopee has not taken over the maintenance because the conditions of the arbitration have not been met. He stated that the City has never notified the PLSL Watershed District that the City has accepted the ditch and has taken over the maintenance. Discussion followed among Councilmembers. Sweeney/Vierling moved that the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District be allowed to exceed the provisions of the contract between them and the City of Shakopee, subject to Mr. Hutton's continued determination that the drainage into Shakopee is manageable. (The inlet is allowed to continue running at 25 cfs as long as Mr. Hutton is convinced that the damage is not getting unmanageable. ) Discussion ensued on when the overall needed repairs would be made. Ms. Betty Erickson, President of the Board of the PLSL Watershed District, stated that all members on the Board are new as well as the engineer. She said that they haven't been able to do much this summer because of all of the water this summer. She thanked everyone on the City Council for coming to such an early morning meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Tom Watkins, Prior Lake resident, expressed his appreciation for the sensitivity of the City Council to meet at the crack of dawn on a Friday morning. Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 8 : 42 A.M. (kletilk C/ • (:)' "Jtydith S. Cox amity Clerk Recording Secretary 94LI MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Letter from Mr. Dana Doherty, Minnesota Thoroughbred Association Regarding Shakopee Gambling Regulations DATE: October 7, 1992 INTRODUCTION: I have received a letter from Mr. Dana Doherty, Executive Director, Minnesota Thoroughbred Association asking that the City consider amending its current gambling regulations. BACKGROUND: Mr. Doherty is requesting that the city code be amended so that the money raised by way of conducting a raffle, by Minnesota Thoroughbred Association at Canterbury Downs, does not have to be spent within the City of Shakopee's trade area. For many years, gambling in Minnesota was limited to veterans and fraternal organizations. The American Legion, VFW and Knights of Columbus were the only licensees in Shakopee until new legislation was adopted in the early 1980 ' s expanding the kinds of organizations who could obtain licenses. Wanting to keep the proceeds from gambling within the community, Shakopee then adopted an ordinance which limited licenses to organizations which are located and based within the City. In 1990, the city code was amended to be consistent with new legislation which allowed a city to put restrictions on the spending of proceeds from charitable gambling. Rather than limit licensing to local organizations the new legislation provided that a city could require that the proceeds be spent within the city's trade area. Shakopee' s current city code provides one exception to the requirement that 75% of expenditures for lawful purposes be within the city's trade area. The trade area is the City of Shakopee and any municipality contiguous to the City of Shakopee. This exemption allows an organization, holding a State organization gambling license, regardless of where it is based or located, to conduct not more than one raffle in any given calendar year if it is held in conjunction with a banquet and/or a dance. Over the years, this exception has been utilized by Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Inc. and All Saints Catholic Church. Minnesota Thoroughbred Association does not hold a State organization gambling license. According to Mr. Doherty, the money raised for the Association would be used to continue the promotion, education and development of the Minnesota Thoroughbred industry. Although promotion and education for the development of the Minnesota Thoroughbred industry directly effects Canterbury Downs which is a major business in Shakopee, 75% of the money raised - 2 - would not be spent within the city's trade area. Because of the restriction that 75% of the money raised be spent within the city's trade area, the Minnesota Thoroughbred Association is asking that the city code be amended. ALTERNATIVES: 1] The current exception in the city code which allows one raffle per year could be amended so that: 1] applicant is not required to have a State organization gambling license, 2] applicant is not required to hold the raffle in conjunction with a banquet and/or dance. This would allow any organization (meeting the gambling control guidelines) and the Minnesota Thoroughbred Association to hold one raffle per year in Shakopee without 75% of its expenditures being within the city's trade area. 2] Same as alternative #2 and allow more than one raffle per year. The money generated and allowed to leave the city's trade area would be more than if an applicant was limited to one raffle per year. 3] Maintain the status quo which would insure that 75% of expenditures from raffles be within the city's trade area (with one exception already adopted) . The window would not be opened a little farther. NOTE: It goes without saying that any applicant must meet all state requirements before the Gambling Control Board will issue a license. The City of Shakopee does not check applicants for compliance, but relies on the Gambling Control Board. The City of Shakopee only monitors that the proceeds are spent within the trade area through reports filed with the city monthly. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative No. 3, maintain the status quo. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Determine whether or not it is in the best interest of the City of Shakopee to amend the city code to allow raffles to be conducted within the community and the expenditures be outside the city's trade area. Direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance to incorporate a desired amendment. MINNESOTA THOROUGHBRED ASSOCIATION I die• A Unified Voice for the Thoroughbred Industry in Minnesota. August 25, 1992 Judy Cox City of Shakopee 129 1st Ave E Administration Bldg. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Judy, The Minnesota Thoroughbred Association had planned to hold a Breeders Cup Raffle this summer at Canterbury Downs and throughout Minnesota to raise money for the Association in order to continue the promotion, education and development of the Minnesota Thoroughbred industry. We obtained the necessary guidance from the Attorney General's office and the forms from the State of Minnesota. Our member, Jim McCarthy, contacted the City of Shakopee to obtain your approval and found that a City Ordinance prohibits a raffle unless 75% of the proceeds are spent within the City of Shakopee. The Minnesota Thoroughbred Association is not located in the City of Shakopee but our entire efforts to foster and continue the development of the Thoroughbred industry directly effect Canterbury Downs which is a major business located within your city. Could you have your ordinance modified to extend permission to the Minnesota Thoroughbred Association to conduct a raffle through it's members throughout the State of Minnesota and at Canterbury Downs for the purposes of raising money to continue the promotion, education and development of the Thoroughbred industry? The opportunity is lost for this year, but if we could have the ordinance amended it will help us for next year. Thank you, t /n& t `'7k k Dana Doherty Executive Director DD/mh 13755 Nicollet Ave. S. Suite 105 • Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 • (612) 892-6200 Daytime FAX (612) 435-3827 • Nighttime FAX (612) 892-0241 • ORDINANCE NO. 297, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, REPEALING SECTION 10. 61 OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE, GAMBLING, AND ENACTING ONE NEW SECTION IN LIEU THEREOF, RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1 - That Section 10. 61 of the Shakopee City Code, Gambling, is hereby repealed in its entirety, and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, relating to the same subject, which shall read as follows: "Sec. 10.61. Gambling. Subd. 1. Definitions. A. "Lawful gambling" , "lawful purposes" , and "licensed organization" shall be defined as set forth in Minn. Stat. Chapter 349. ["Lawful Gambling" as used in this Section is the operation, conduct or sale of bingo. raffles, paddle wheels, tipboards, and pull-tabs, either licensed by the Charitable Gambling Control Board, or specifically exempt from such licensing by statute. ] B. "Trade area" shall mean the City of Shakopee and each city contiguous to the City of Shakopee. Subd. 2 . Lawful purposes. [Unlawful Act. ] Each licensed organization conducting lawful gambling within the City shall expend 75% of its expenditures for lawful purposes on lawful purposes conducted or located within the city's trade area. [It is unlawful to operate, conduct or sell gambling unless it is lawful gambling,and then only if it is operated, conducted, or sold by any fraternal, religious veterans or other non-profit organization, which carries on its activities in and is located and based in the City. ] Subd. 3 . Exception. Any [such] organization [ ,however, ] holding a State organization gambling license [regardless of where based or located] may conduct not more than one raffle in any given calendar year if it is held in conjunction with a banquet and/or a dance, without complying with Subd. 2 . Subd. 4. Application. An organization seeking to obtain a State gambling premise permit shall file in the office of the City Clerk an executed, complete duplicate application, together with all exhibits and documents accompanying the application to be filed with the State board, prior to Council approving a premise permit. Subd. 5. Records and reports. Organizations with a premise permit in Shakopee shall file with the City Clerk one (1) copy of all records and reports required to be filed with the State board, pursuant to state law, rules and regulations. Such records and reports shall be Filed on or before the day they and required to be filed with the State board. " 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 10.99, Violation a Petty 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 regular session of the City Counci,1 of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 46(2"day of A6,41:,41 , , 1990. Mayor o Oft of Shak pee . , Attest: �� , / n a �� , City Clerk Approved a to form: _� /L2; City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News this day of , 1990. i I 1 /0. 0- VACATION OF MINNESOTA STREET NORTH OF 7TH AVENUE MILWAUKEE MANOR LEROY MENKE OCTOBER 20, 1992 AMENDED ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to support the future vacation of the portion of Minnesota Street north of the alley between Block 309 and Block 314 of Wermerskirchen' s Addition, subject to the approval of the final plat for Phase 3 of the proposed Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor and the City retaining a 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement for the existing water main in the Minnesota Street right-of-way proposed for vacation, and move its adoption. l 0&, MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner RE: Vacation of Minnesota Street North of 7th Avenue DATE: October 9, 1992 INTRODUCTION: City Staff has received a petition from LeRoy Menke to vacate the portion of Minnesota Street north of the alley located north of 7th Avenue, and south of the abandoned railroad line. The City Council opened the public hearing to consider this vacation request at their meeting on September 15, 1992, and continued the public hearing to the October 20, 1992, meeting of the City Council. At their October 8, 1992, meeting, the Shakopee Planning Commission recommended that the proposed vacation be approved, subject to three conditions. BACKGROUND: The Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Milwaukee Manor is being proposed concurrent with the proposed vacation. A request to rezone the PUD site to Mid-Density Residential (R-3) from Multi- family Residential (R-4) and Urban Residential (R-2) is also on the October 20th City Council agenda. The City Council may want to review the staff reports regarding the proposed Milwaukee Manor PUD and the rezoning proposal for this proposed development in conjunction with this application for the vacation of Minnesota Street. DISCUSSION: The grid system of streets in the urban Shakopee area has generally been constructed in a consistent pattern to allow for an efficient transportation network. There are a few areas where the grid pattern is broken, including the area bounded by 4th Avenue, Market Street, 7th Avenue, and C.R. 17. The proposed Menke Planned Unit Development (PUD) is located within this area. Promoting a safe and efficient public street system is one of the goals established in the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Continuation of the existing grid system in the urban area will generally help promote a desired transportation system. There are four alternatives for developing the future local street patterns in this area. They are as follows: 1. Extend both Minnesota and Dakota Streets from 4th Avenue to 7th Avenue. 2 . Extend Dakota Street only and retain the cul-de-sac street for Minnesota Street. 3 . Extend Minnesota Street only and require the developer to install a cul-de-sac on Dakota Street. 4 . Do not extend either street through from 4th Avenue to 7th Avenue. Exhibit C illustrates the draft 1990 transportation plan for the urban area of Shakopee and the street functional classification system (arterial, collector, and local streets) . With the opening of a railroad crossing at Market Street, and the reconstruction of Market Street to 10th Avenue, staff would recommend that Market Street be designated as a collector street. It should be noted that the 1980 transportation plan designated Market Street as a collector street. Exhibit D is a copy of the 1980 transportation plan. In both the adopted 1980 and draft 1990 Comprehensive Plans, Minnesota and Dakota Streets south of 4th Avenue have been classified as local streets. As shown on Exhibit B, the rights-of-way for Dakota Street were extended north of 7th Avenue for the purpose of future connections. A cul-de-sac bulb has been constructed on Minnesota Street, whereas Dakota Street does not have a cul-de-sac. Both streets exceed the 500 foot cul-de-sac length limit in the urban area (Minnesota Street - 600 feet and Dakota Street - 850 feet) . Will the connection of public streets create traffic problems in areas already developed? The Comprehensive Plan designates a range of traffic volume capacities that should be attributed to each street type. The following table identifies those volumes in average daily trips (ADT) : STREET TYPE URBAN AREA Principal Arterial 12 , 000 - 24 , 000 Minor Arterial 5, 000 - 12 , 000 Collector 1, 000 - 5, 000 Local Up to 1, 000 Exhibit E is a copy of the area traffic volume counts. Market Street and Spencer Street are two north - south collector streets between the downtown area and C.R. 17 . These streets provide a connection from 1st Avenue to 10th Avenue. Their volumes just exceed 1, 000 trips per day. Currently Minnesota Street provides access from 1st Avenue to 4th Avenue by crossing the railroad line within 2nd Avenue. With the designation of Market Street as a collector street, the opening of Minnesota Street may diminish Market Street' s role as a collector, especially since the two streets are one block apart. The developer of the PUD is proposing to extend Dakota Street and not extend Minnesota Street in this area. This alternative would not result in access from 1st to 10th Avenue since there is no railroad crossing in Dakota Street alignment. Please refer to the staff report for the proposed Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor for information on the proposed street layout. Based on this discussion, staff would recommend approval of the proposed vacation for the small portion of Minnesota Street with the proposed PUD development. As proposed with this PUD, the Minnesota Street right-of-way would no longer provide a public benefit. Although the Shakopee Planning Commission was informed that it was staff 's opinion that with the construction of this proposed development, traffic volumes on Dakota Street would not exceed the volumes established for local streets in the Comprehensive Plan (up to 1, 000 trips per day) , the Planning Commission requested that a traffic analysis be performed in order to obtain a more accurate estimation of the potential impact of traffic on the surrounding neighborhoods. A traffic analysis was prepared by Strgar-Roscoe- Fausch, Inc. for the proposed PUD. Results from the traffic analysis indicate that if the proposed PUD development is constructed as proposed and Dakota Street is constructed as a through street, the number of vehicles traveling north on Dakota Street would average approximately 620 trips per day, while the number of vehicles traveling south would average 222 trips per day. The developer has proposed that this PUD will be constructed in three phases. The area west of Dakota Street would be developed in the last phase. The estimated construction date for Phase 3 is 1996. Since the proposed vacation is necessary for the PUD, but not required until Phase 3 develops, the Planning Commission has recommended that the vacation be approved concurrent with the approval of the final PUD plan, but not recorded until approval of the final plat for the lots within Phase 3 is received from the City Council. This would allow Minnesota Street to be constructed if Phase 3 does not develop and is needed for another development proposal. A water main has been constructed in the area within the dedicated portion of Minnesota Street. Shakopee Public Utilities is requesting that the public utility rights be retained for the area to be vacated, and that a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement be dedicated and recorded with the Scott County Recorder's Office. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Vacate the portion of Minnesota Street north of the alley located north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line, subject to the conditions listed in the recommendation from the Planning Commission below. 2 . Deny the vacation of the portion of Minnesota Street north of the alley located north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line. 3 . Continue the public hearing to allow staff or the applicant to provide additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the vacation of the portion of Minnesota Street north of the alley located north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line, subject to the following conditions: 1. City Council approval of the final development plan for the Planned Unit Development. 2 . The City shall retain a 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement for the existing water main in that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way proposed for vacation. 3 . The City agrees to vacate the subject right-of-way with the approval of the final plat for Phase 3 of the proposed development for Milwaukee Manor. If the entire Planned Unit Development proposal for Milwaukee Manor is not approved, the vacation should not be recorded. It could be reconsidered at a future date. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution vacating the portion of Minnesota Street north of the alley between Block 309 and Block 314 of Wemerskirchen's Addition, subject to the approval of the final plat for Phase 3 of the proposed Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor. EDIT A t r • • 1= • + . r.`a' _.. • 1 -__ .� I� . • 'T ''...1.--4..-404.-.• : _Z .yt _ - '- ✓•l. 'rte. _ t_-_ . __—�- _. •- t b' _ .t • AG AGRICULTURE .. : _. - R1 ' cIAL RESIDENTIAL - R2 N RESIDENTIAL —= . -.. .. - •-. R3 I. 'DENSITY RES. .._-.-:. R4 Iv 1 FAMILY RES. -::_: .. -- • .• - _ - B1 I-'GI--�WAY BUSINESS - _ = B2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS -' '- - _: _ r- --.. :-- - ,-- B3 CENTRAL BUSINESS • T= - - b- - 11 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ; , 49 �L 11` - •` wY 12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL vV —:. i^(� ` \- -iii S SHORELAND ,zIi , , „ ; :�.eif ` 1 ,a -..E FLOODPLAIN DISTRIC vii`A.may I�•�f 4 :----•--`---- ----------::—. gi ;2 . , -•-•• MANDATORY PUD RTD RACETRACK DISTRIC • _ _- _ - Zoning Map City of SHAKOPEE -.--\---1;- `\, 1 _-1 I ' 1 \6 1' ti 5,-_ 1 l -1 "--1---\ ---t � 1 1 Q ' • �� --.T ; 1 i tit I HEK �' ,Q�, o `,, g 17 Z0� EXHIBIT B , 208\- �6 .E...1— , SCy -- \ .L r a - OUTLOT I 2 3' 1 A GELHnYE 5 __ a 43 2 ______1.23 0 5 N I�--- Z 5 I 7 5a 3 N 1 SSI.\ I- 72050 8 7 . CO -` N ;t;Y �,. �' t N 9 2 • 8 — t --{ L O �` 9 a :IT Y OF SHAKOFEEI I IO 10 , I I - (--- �� \, II 0 MY DEAN SMITH 5 Q 1 i -.-`80 • /?pc 0 ^Op' N 2 140109 I F- I i \� �9 1 • Q ED. R. SIEBENALER M CERT. 8257 2 tSLJECT SITE -6,,,f, 6.. •II 6 1 4 C,T\ 5 0 2 ---5 -- =J - - 7 I 6 .........- _ ---- l 1s3 —3016 • �T 131 I ARK 3 ouTLOT A 1 a 5 1 2 1 : c 5 I 2 3 c 5 I I 1 �t i j 1 ; 2 1V 7TH ST. 3103 1 I Ito I Q 8 I 2 3 _ I I I ° 7 5 10 ° i 8 7 6 2 8 7 I6 10 f � 8 , NQS i3I , 318 a 3 05 N 31 Q .4; ' E I fs •4 of I l`° Q! li- a 1 2 3 4 1 5 I 2 3 ! 4 1 2 ` �j 4.1 I,- 1 1 2 13 f �L ! U N I I I I �\ / 3 3TH ST. '•I v a - F-74 I CERT ei o ' - ICERT7 �` ,.. _ o ! I 13822 W 17413 5 6 7 8 - ` CC 15- 10 4 _1.0 - I F 1 ---'----0 15 — , 5 __ a N ° 9 4 2 -.9----- Y 1 7 3 1 1 9 �C "" .- c I�----- -—.- . 8 i_______ 8 C 8 s Z 18 g I oL -_ 319-- - a C 1 ICERT Z C I 7 _. _ 3 3 - 19 , 1 15649 , g : i -_7 n _. - --- 4 e _. = _ a • \• 541 . :� ! _ _ _ § a _ • } ill X • 1 3 tQ I pCZ imm� s 3 • 9 I � e � � - I------ _ _ I FI .t- E--ii ..- am} —•l" . � • • = _.1k:- j II — - 1. . . 1• I • � � 1 . \-- -1' `� - --. 1 _ O p • 1,e _ e < S e- v uS o o • _. - - II e • . ..,C**-- --- ../".."-- / A—s-i A ' I l�-1 1• %%I c ��33x1 r�saW a ; F1TT JJJJZ4 % �,. �a� 7iTx�� W \�� • /—Ian]IIs-r I '. �.. ,rsmell \ i % .AJC —�aa1 7,4 It % a a .. uoTB1 • ) . ing* :'p \ \,41 �1�......�a7 ue�u.,o9i : f—A, . 0. \ A pv4_1..' Jq JI JL_____ _ 4 ....,. n. �` �QQ ll� I N 1.u.to 1 cc ~ J W 5 W l Z J�. `\��\ C. 1: \ k4 .111-11 Mimi ill Hai 11.111.1:.;:: i.- 1 o) , k 0 , .� • errIii 1\,• \[_--\___7_': w i s■ 8— I. ----d .• •,:.11Mitlitt" \ ' vourt �t 1E.., ittt I.:. :11111 . .. 0-0 !C�� 3 . 11\ : P 1 i';',' i* L '.',.'..'.11., 1— 1 -1 (......,...„.' . a''C 011it;'.1 la:Jis-A, , ::::.::---,1 111..',,::,:il I L . ,,,..., .. ,.,.: . .. x::.., L. - instili sincessaisas 111Q t.\ � . �7'{al$ 6an,� laaa slajaf - ,a.J7S wasp-41j S LLI i \NT 1a1S aolu l _ W �'F*+ ',..1 IRIS uos_Jel• ° I n. a ' '�� hI� r �� r�a�p�trm�r�rrrl f r / -- _ daa1S ..1.11Alir Q '''• \ =Oi er 1 4.. 1'l \ 1 O 0 � Db MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner RE: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements lying adjacent to the lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 , and between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition DATE: October 9, 1992 INTRODUCTION: City Staff has received a petition from Jon Albinson of Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership to vacate the 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements located adjacent to the interior lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 , and between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition. The City Council will hold a public hearing on October 20, 1992, to consider this vacation request. BACKGROUND: Canterbury Park 1st Addition is a replat of a portion of Valley Park 1st Addition, and was approved in October of 1985. Attached is a copy of the zoning map which provides the location of the plat. (See Exhibit A. ) Also attached is a copy of a portion of the plat for Canterbury Park 1st Addition which provides the location of the easements proposed for vacation. (See Exhibit B. ) The portion of the easements that are being considered for vacation are located adjacent to the interior lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 , and between Lots 3 and 4, of Block 1. The drainage and utility easements being considered for vacation are 20 in width, for a total of 40 feet of drainage and utility easement along the interior lot lines. The portion of the easements being considered for vacation and located along the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 are approximately 274 feet in length. The portion of the easements proposed for vacation and located along the lot line between Lots 3 and 4 are approximately 310 feet in length. DISCUSSION: Subdivision plats currently require 10 ' drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the plat and along the perimeters of lots that are adjacent to streets. A 5 ' drainage and utility easement is required along interior lot lines (for a total of 10 ' of easements between lots) . However, 20 foot wide easements were dedicated along the interior lot lines for the lots within Canterbury Park 1st Addition. The applicant is requesting the vacation of these easements so that he may process a Minor Subdivision to reconfigure the current lot lines within these three lots. This procedure is approved administratively by staff. New drainage and utility easements would be established along the proposed lot lines. With the approval of this Minor Subdivision and the dedication of new drainage and utility easements along the new lot lines, existing drainage and utility easements will no longer serve a public need. Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) currently has a transformer located on the property line between Lots 3 and 4, and within the 10 foot perimeter easement on the west side of the lots. (See Exhibit B for location. ) SPUC has commented that the developer should be responsible for any costs that may be associated with the relocation of this transformer if the development plans require its relocation. This issue will be addressed during the Minor Subdivision process and the building permit process. No sanitary or storm sewers are located within the portion of the easements proposed for vacation. Staff has informed various utility companies of the vacation request and has received no objections to the proposed vacation. City staff and the appropriate governmental agencies have recommended approval of the vacation request. The 1990 draft Comprehensive Plan has designated the area for Heavy Industrial (I-2 zoning) use. Vacating these drainage and utility easements to allow for the industrial development of the lots will not conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Vacate the drainage and utility easements adjacent to the interior lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 , and adjacent to the interior lot lines between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition, subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision process and the dedication of additional drainage and utility easements along the new lot lines. 2 . Deny the application for the vacation of the drainage and utility easements adjacent to the interior lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 , and adjacent to the interior lot lines between Lots 3 and 4 , Block 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition. 3 . Continue the public hearing and request additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the vacation of the drainage and utility easements adjacent to the interior lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 , and adjacent to the interior lot lines between Lots 3 and 4 , Block 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition, subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision process and the dedication of additional drainage and utility easements. The applicant has received approval for the Minor Subdivision and submitted the necessary documentation for the dedication of the new drainage and utility easements along the new lot line. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3680, A Resolution Vacating the Drainage and Utility Easements Adjacent to the Interior Lot Lines between Lots 2 and 3 , and between Lots 3 and 4 , Block 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition, and move its approval. RESOLUTION NO. 3680 A RESOLUTION VACATING THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE INTERIOR LOT LINES BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, AND BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, CANTERBURY PARK 1ST ADDITION WHEREAS, 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements have been dedicated along the interior lot lines between Lots 2 and 3, and between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition; and WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the aforementioned easements serve no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, the public hearing to consider the action to vacate was held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Shakopee at 7 : 00 P.M. on the 20th of October, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, two weeks published notice has been given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice has been given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U.S. Post Office, the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall; and WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing in the Council Chambers in the City of Shakopee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. ) That it finds and determines that the vacation hereinafter described is in the public interest; 2. ) That the drainage and utility easements serve no further public need; 3 . ) That the 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement lying adjacent to the southern interior lot line of Lot 2 , Block 1, except the east 20 feet and the west 20 feet of the easement, Canterbury Park 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, be, and the same hereby are vacated; 4 . ) That the 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements lying adjacent to both the northern lot line and the southern lot line of Lot 3 , Block 1, except the east 20 feet and the west 20 feet of the easements, Canterbury Park 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, be, and the same hereby are vacated; 5. ) That the 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement lying adjacent to the northern lot line of Lot 4, Block 1, except the east 20 feet and the west 20 feet of the easement, Canterbury Park 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, be, and the same hereby are vacated; 6. ) After the adoption of the Resolution, the City Clerk shall file certified copies hereof with the County Auditor and County Recorder of Scott County. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1992. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney EXHIBIT A NOTE: FLOODWAY AND FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICTS ARE DESIGNATED ON MAPS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY OF SHAKOPEE. . i �rAG ~`_ - '`I --` ... 12 Vii �.,.. 4 - `.i .0 3 v ` i , 7.. .-. .. -, G !,..j. _ , -- . _._._._._,_.i . . - -,SUBJECT _ - '�;• SITE 12 12 - ,. • - RTD <-- .: i i I. AG AGRICULTURE .... ' R1 RURAL RESIDENTIAL - _:.:_::,w,.. - R2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL R3 MID-DENSITY RES. -- . R4 MULTI FAMILY RES. - B1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS B2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS - B3 CENTRAL BUSINESS 11 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL - S SHORELAND - FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT- - . -.- MANDATORY PUD RTD RACETRACK DISTRICT - Zoning Map City of SHAKOPEE , : - ;-- r EXHIBIT B ! V.i1 , I I, JV l_._. 1 L.I\IV r ` EASEMENTS PROPOSED FOR a i 5" E plat z i , , f-, VACATION i `� LO 5 82x1,3$,E mss , E .- -- 1 — 5 --194.58-- O 7713 • 6000 ' 4 10 09 - .3091 DRAINAGE EASEMENT i I 60 . `O O 1 O • Q PPO o io OO W I pa " cOtiAo > 1"; ; N O -- N • / (0 „ I / 4H � r) Q , Q� I I ' vv � cc W W l____ _______ C No 00 292 29 CD O �;'. O� �N N74°56'54'w O N0) L'_ _J 1 .,�,� u [` -- -- 301.00 Z Z I ;( J NN- N74°53'57*W 0 r_ - I u - -- -- - - 2 4� o: 1 � , a ! 0 34 77, \ `n O Z ‘ 0- v 2 Ic 0 a \ U. --- -- - -1 301.00 Q n OG+ -_ N74°53'S7'W - -- Nl - � 3 - 0 'N 0 17, 41=4°O9p0� OO LOCATION OF SPDC -Z -\'- -\\ 3 TRANSFORMER > \N 5 4' 9`\-`\�- 4333 °CS-)00113 �9 \ O �, 8 -.' . \\ I 181.00 — _ 50 20. o�8 02 00 °5357 E 6.2 a t''' la - 1 0 • °53'57'E �,2 \0:)0.16°3 T 4- 302 00 • DSA \N \ + 0\ ..../:\ N Q 142.00 60D0 _ v,� O I \ I N.4`3:90 e'3 s. /`O -`n a O 1 tiro$ Na.s>., ti N o i N fel \ N. , \ / 71 O N Q I 1 `',),--°°' \ ,.,.1 N SD \ � \ \ . N. 'N/ Q ~ r <r). i �' ii I \ \ \> 0 0 -.../I \` j 2 2 O. i .� A l/a_. MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner RE: Application for Rezoning from Multi-Family Residential (R-4) and Urban Residential (R-2) to Mid-Density Residential (R-3) DATE: October 9 , 1992 INTRODUCTION: Mr. LeRoy Menke has requested the rezoning of 9 . 6 acres of property located along Dakota Street, south of 4th Avenue. The applicant is proposing to rezone the site to Mid-Density Residential (R-3) . The northeast portion of the subject site is currently zoned Multi- family residential (R-4) , and the remainder of the site is currently zoned Urban Residential (R-2) . Please refer to Exhibit A. The application from Mr. Menke requesting the rezoning of this property was submitted on May 29, 1992 , and the public hearing for the rezoning proposal was originally scheduled for the July 9, 1992, meeting of the Planning Commission. However, on June 29, 1992 , the applicant submitted a written request that the public hearing regarding this proposal be continued to the August 6, 1992, meeting of the Planning Commission. He stated in this request that more property had been acquired and the additional property would also be included in the rezoning request. At their meeting on August 6th, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of the majority of the subject site. BACKGROUND: Along with this rezoning request, the applicant is proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a residential development on the subject site. This proposal was introduced to the Planning Commission at their August 6, 1992, meeting. At their September 3 , 1992 , meeting, the Planning Commission tabled their recommendation regarding the preliminary PUD, as well as their recommendation regarding the vacation of a portion of Minnesota Street, to their October 8, 1992 , meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both the preliminary Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor and the vacation of a portion of Minnesota Street at their October meeting. The following is a list of approvals that the applicant will need to receive from the City Council for the proposed project: 1. Rezoning from R-2 and R-4 to R-3 . 2 . Vacation of a portion of Minnesota Street. 3 . Preliminary PUD. 4 . Final PUD. 5. Preliminary plat. 6. Final plat(s) . In order to present this complex development in a more comprehensive manner, staff felt it was important to present the proposed rezoning, vacation, and preliminary PUD at the same City Council meeting. Since the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the vacation and the preliminary PUD were tabled to their October meeting, staff delayed placing the rezoning application on the City Council agenda until these recommendations had been made. During discussions on the rezoning request, the Planning Commission requested additional information on how the rezoning request relates to the Comprehensive Plan, and additional information for the area bordered by 10th Avenue on the south, T.H. 169 and 101 on the west and the north, and Marschall Road to the east. The information items requested include land use, transportation, utilities, and pedestrian facilities. Land Use Within the designed study are or core City area, there are five general land uses including the following: 1. Downtown - retail, office, multi-family residential. 2 . Institutional area - institutional, office, mixed residential. 3 . Core residential neighborhoods - primarily single family residential. 4 . First Avenue corridor - retail, mixed residential. 5. Marschall Road corridor - retail, multi family residential. Exhibit B is a copy of the approved land use plan from the draft Comprehensive Plan. The plan illustrates the locations of these five general land uses in the core City area. The downtown is surrounded by the institutional area which is then surrounded by the core residential neighborhoods. Along the major streets, First Avenue and Marschall Road, are various commercial and multi-family residential land uses. Transportation The draft Comprehensive Plan has established a system for classifying streets within the core City area. Exhibit C is a copy of the transportation plan from the approved draft Comprehensive Plan. Four street types (Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector and Local) were designated throughout the core area. The intent of classifying streets into these four types - also known as the street functional classification system - is to create a safe and efficient street system. Each street type serves a defined purpose and is designed accordingly. Several characteristics such as traffic volume, traffic speed, right-of-way and street widths, spacings and several other characteristics are developed for each street type. Exhibit D lists these characteristics in more detail. By comparing the land use and transportation plans a relationship between the two systems can be established. More active or intense land uses (commercial, multi-family residential, etc. ) tend to occur closer to the busier streets. Less intense land uses (single family residential) tend to be located away from streets with higher traffic volumes. Utilities A majority of the core City area is currently served by public water and sewer facilities. There are a few properties which have onsite water and/or sewer but are being connected as redevelopment or street reconstruction occurs. Exhibit E is a copy of the approved sewer plan from the draft Comprehensive Plan. The City has hired a consultant to prepare a detailed sewer plan. This plan will provide greater detail on sewer services in the core area as well as City wide. The basic sewer system is in place in the core area. Connections to the existing lines will be required for future development. Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) administers the water and electric utilities. Similar to sewer services, SPUC is providing connections with water as redevelopment occurs. Pedestrian Facilities The draft Comprehensive Plan provided a park and trail plan for the urban core area. (See Exhibit F) . This plan shows the location of City parks, schools, and trails (existing and proposed) . Over the past six months staff has been developing the Citywide Sidewalk and Trail Plan. This plan is building from the previous Comprehensive Plan effort. In response to various discussions by the Planning Commission, staff has developed a plan providing a more extensive network of sidewalks and trails including the core City area where the greatest amount of pedestrian activities occur. The sidewalk and trail plans have been developed in conjunction with the land use and transportation plans. Housing Several goals and policies were developed in the draft Comprehensive Plan relating to housing. Four goals listed in the housing element include: o Promote safe, decent housing in a suitable living environment at a reasonable cost for all families and individuals. o Preserve and improve existing residential neighborhoods by encouraging housing maintenance and rehabilitation. o Increase housing opportunities available to low and moderate income households. o Provide a variety of housing types which will meet the needs of City residents. One of the major tasks identified in the Comprehensive Plan is to prepare the Zoning Ordinance update. Staff has incorporated into the 1993 budget a proposal to hire a consultant to assist in this effort. The updated Zoning Ordinance will be critical in preserving and promoting quality housing throughout the City. Several other area studies or specific plans are being proposed in the upcoming budgets which will provide further guidance to the development of quality housing in the City. Staff will continue to advocate the preparation of these planning efforts in the future. DISCUSSION: Between the commercial districts along First Avenue and Marschall Road and the core R-2 zoned areas are the Mid-Density Residential (R-3) and Multi Family Residential (R-4) districts. The R-3 and R- 4 zoned areas tend to be located between the downtown and Marschall Road. There is also a large area zoned R-4 east of Marschall Road. The applicant's site is located between the downtown and the Marschall Road corridor. The site is currently vacant and is bisected by the former Chicago Milwaukee Railroad. North of the railroad there is a mix of single family and multi family uses (1 to 8 dwelling units per lot) . Only where lots have been consolidated into larger parcels or originally platted into larger lots have multi family units been constructed. Generally the multi family projects do not exceed 6 to 8 dwelling units within a structure. There are 56 dwelling units in the Clifton Apartments adjacent to the north edge of the proposed site. On the east side of the site is the City' s Public Works yard. This parcel is zoned B-2, Community Commercial. To the west is single family residential zoned R-2 . The existing land uses south of the abandoned railroad line are primarily single family residential uses. The R-2 zoning district allows duplexes, provided the lot is of adequate width (70 feet) and area (11, 000 square feet) . There are some duplexes in the area south of the railroad line. Exhibit G locates the subject site on the land use plan from the draft Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land uses in the subject site include multi family residential, mid-density residential and single family residential. As shown on the land use plan the railroad line was envisioned as a divider of area land uses. The development of properties along the railroad line was not analyzed in detail at the Comprehensive Plan level. Instead, the effort was aimed at a more general or City wide level. The development of the applicant's site, (with respect to the surface bedrock, triangular shaped parcels, and lack of through streets) was not addressed specifically in the 1990 draft plan. The applicant is proposing to develop a planned unit development (PUD) consisting of 57 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting that the assembled property be rezoned from R-4 and R-2 to the R-3 , Mid-Density Residential District. The R-3 zoning district regulations would allow single family, duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes as permitted uses. Rezoning the assembled property would provide one uniform zoning district over the applicant' s site. The proposed zoning is shown on Exhibit H. As proposed, the R-3 zoning would be adjacent to R-4 and B-2 zoning on the east and north and R-2 zoning on the south and west. Promoting a variety of housing types and to provide a greater opportunity for residential development are two goals of the City which are identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan. This rezoning proposal can help meet these goals. FINDINGS: Section 11 . 04 , Subd. 7 of the City Code states that amendments changing the boundaries or regulations of any existing district shall not be issued indiscriminately, but shall be based on findings or criteria including, but not limited, the criteria listed below: Criteria #1 The original zoning ordinance was in error. Finding #1 The zoning ordinance has not been found to be in error. Criteria #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. Finding #2 The goals and policies for the R-2 , R-3, and R-4 Zoning Districts within the City of Shakopee have not changed. Criteria #3 Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred. Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred due to the changes in the transportation system. The railroad line no longer bisects this area of the City and Marschall Road has become a major street since the original residential zoning was put in place. Fourth Avenue now serves as a collector street. Dakota Street is currently an overlength cul-de-sac street (900 feet-existing, 500 feet-maximum) . The street should be connected to the portion of Dakota Street to the south to improve neighborhood circulation and emergency access. Criteria #4 The amendment is necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan' s growth management program. Finding #4 The rezoning of the assembled properties from R-4 and R-2 to R-3 would result in implementation of several of the goals and policies established in the Housing, Land Use and Transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Rezone the subject site from R-4 (Multi-family Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential) to R-3 (Mid-Density Residential) , except for the northwest portion of the site, west of a line drawn south of the western boundary of Macey 2nd Addition. This area should remain R-2 (Urban Residential) , to provide a more even zoning district. 2 . Rezone the entire subject site from R-4 (Multi-family Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential) to R-3 (Mid-Density Residential) . 3 . Do not rezone the subject site from R-4 (Multi-family Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential) , to R-3 (Mid-Density Residential) . Leave the zoning as it currently exists. 4 . Table the decision until after a recommendation on the proposed vacation and preliminary PUD have been made for the proposal by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends Alternative #1. (See Exhibit I. ) Allowing the triangular shaped section in the northwest portion of the subject site to remain zoned R-2 (Urban Residential) will provide a more even zoning line for the zoning district. The rezoning of this property will encourage the development of the vacant undeveloped properties along the railroad line. A greater variety of housing types could be provided to the residents of Shakopee if the property were rezoned as the Planning Commission has recommended. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 341, An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Rezone an 8.75 acre site from R-4 (Multi-family Residential) and R- 2 (Urban Residential) to R-3 (Mid-Density Residential) . ORDINANCE NO. 341, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AN 8.75 ACRE SITE FROM R-4 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (MID-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) . WHEREAS, on May 29, 1992 , Mr. LeRoy Menke, Mr. Ted Jasper, and Mr. Edward Effertz submitted an application requesting rezoning from R-4 (Multi-family Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential) to R-3 (Mid-Density Residential) of land owned by them described on Attachment 1; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled for August 6, 1992, and notices duly sent and posted, and all persons appearing at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this request at their public hearing on August 6, 1992, and voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request for approximately 8 .75 acres of the subject site. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted by reference in City Code Sec. 11. 21 is hereby amended by rezoning the property described on Attachment 1 from R-4 (Multi-family Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential) to R-3 (Mid-Density Residential) . Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1992 . ATTACHMENT 1 That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6 , Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: - Commencing at the southwest corner of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds East along the south line of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 1008.50 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 197.61 feet; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 231.23 feet; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 192.67 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 3, MACEYS SECOND ADDITION, according to the record plat .thereof; thence South 65 degrees, 20 minutes, 50 seconds East .along the south . line of the record plats of MACEY SECOND ADDITION and MACEY PLAT a distance of 581.44 feet to the/ centerline of Dakota Street according to said MACEY FLAT; thence South 00 degrees, 42 minutes, 33 seconds West a distance of 36. 11 feet; thence South 02 degrees 47 minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 182.21 feet to the south line of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West along said south line to the point of beginning. AND Lots 6 & 7, Block 314 and Lot 6, Block 309, all in WERMERSKIRCHENS ADDITION, according to the record pier thereof, Excepting therefrom that area lying west of the west line of Lot 10, Block 3 of Macey 2nd Addition extended southerly a distance of 150 feet. -=ND- That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 115 , Rage 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds East along the south line of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 1008.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 197.61 feet; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 231.23 feet; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 192.67 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 3, MACEYS SECOND ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof; thence South 02 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds East along the southerly extension of the west line of Block 3 of said MACEYS SECOND A D:= ON a distance of 35.72 feet; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 582.42 feet co the southerly extension of the centerline of Dakota Street according to the record plat of MACEY PLAT and the point of beginning; thence continue South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 360.85 feet; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 36. 19 feet to the south line of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West along said south line a distance of 336.61 fee: to a line which bears South 02 degrees =7 minutes 32 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 02 degrees 47 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 182.21 fee: to the point of beginning. Lot j Block 317, WERMERSKIRC:ENS ADDITION , according co the record plat thereof. That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said NorthHalf of the SouthwestQuter; thence hence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees East minutes 51 secondsalong line of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 1008.30 feet; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence North S9 degreees 11 minutes 51 seconds West ' a distance of 197.61 feet; thence North 00 degrees minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 231.23 feet ; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 192.67 fee: to :he southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 3, :LACEYS SECOND ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof; thence South 02 degrees 08 minutes •30 seconds East along the southerly extension of the west line of Block 3 of said MACEYS SECOND ADDITION a distance of 35.72 feet; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 582.42 feet co the southerly extension of the centerline of Dakota Street according to the record plat of .ACEY ?LAT and the point of beginning; thence continue South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 360.85 feet; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 36. 19 feet to the south line of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West along said south line a distance of 41.38 feet to the northeasterly line of Outlot A, EAST- VIEW FIRST ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof; thence South 65 degrees 16 minutes 39 seconds East along said line a distance of 126. 16 feet to the southerly extension of the east line of Lot 2, Block 1, CLIFTON FIRST ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 35 seconds East along said extended line a distance of 90.70 feet to the southerly line of Lot 2, Block 1 , of said CLIFTON FIRST ADDITION; thence North 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds West along said southerly line, and the northeasterly extension thereof, a distance of 441.84 feet to the centerline of Dakota Street, according co the record plat of MACEY ?LAT; thence South 00 degrees 42 minutes 33 seconds West along the southerly extension of said centerline a distance of 36. 11 feet to the point of beginning. -AND- Lot 2, Block 1 , CLIFTON FIRST ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof. -AND- That Street thata:c of Dakota Street lying North of the North Thal part of Minnesotare L and ? y . �i extensionsof thealley running through line, and the Easterly and Westerly thereof , Blocks 309 , 31 and 317 as platted .ER.`:_RSI::RC:ENS ADDIT:O`. . _ _ _ -- -- - - EXHIBIT A -Jo , , , , ... , „.., . k 4 '\ \-----..---P-t,-,--A ,...2„,, ...._. _ , ,.., „„, ‘i...._ _....,...„, , , , ,. , ,.: „\, - \ , „ c.:-..... i_....: ins swr-i- - , wit .. , , ..., - i\v, .4 ismi , , • i :__, , , ,,--„, ,t..-4,-, i .1.‘__.._.-6. \ t; . ,..,, ,• 646 , %.1\ \ • 114 .%\ 1 I. \I.\ . 1 . I SO •*1 ..1'1,\"1:- ., 7 k. , - i C:.-‘7',,1,•I''.: % ‘ ' 1 1 \ ' : • .. IL; 1* 1. ' .. i , MO' \•‘• '.7 ' r'4, ' .. . 032 1 9 ...,, I .,..,........ SO"- . I mem i \"6( --.1 ;j7: , 3 a‘%11-1 1 6ii E—C,. r Fi , • V\\ . .' • :. 1-\ ' ---• ._.- '.'" •:-.= I r'.7.'.rr? 1.. 1... i. -' ! ; 1 a -- "1 . .*%,....,. RI 611:21C"7 ...'''''\.I I :CCI 3s ..no ... e....1.---1,,s .v.:•;.•._:::._, T i"i 111 ::' ..:.s..' -.' ..."3/4.............. , \ .:::„,,A • , ...--,A ,2_,.......,_e___. ..., .., ...., ....... ..,.... r, - - . -. t :.......... . .,,,.. .>. 3 ..... ----... ., . --...". OS \ I •i 1 ' r..,...../-....., r...... i ..7-rl, 1-rr-7.71 OHL r.r WM . i ! I> .._ '‘ A l'I ' / / ... .%, ' ••71:;\ ' ', ..JJ . 14.46i 6..t. e.,.:7'..,•.2>„, . .-....."...". '-' "-..... ........7•111.,. i Oa c7:7-71 W—STIBJECT SITE . 7 - WO 1...:' • —............... —....._, ..i.L.1.2.1 .i i El /,•e tInr:::;33 \\ 4 i !II ‘, ! .11 '1. '..4 1 ,.„ . 1 L. . ,'-7--:1 i . _ ._ -, r.7.7.77•:\ ,,,,,.;t\\, u... . \ ....4 . • :, ...- . iir._••:1•.. !.....3r;--..; _r ..A's•-: \ , 1 ;• \ "..—L--=•--- • i i , • --\ \ -•'...-. ::..1.1.„...; . . . , ...,,,_, 1 .._2_,,_j , , , N ) , ,, 2 . r-:"-______-•--1 \ • _ \ \ : . • : . C.L.:_-_-_,I tt \\•• -.n i.i - FITITI rg...7.•,,,It.,‘,--.0 1,1 i : : : , • I 1.71774 kill . t.....::!: , 1:4,„, __,L;at BM i I •1 tr-1 Fmr._1 11 . nr. - .• •&••••,..• : G•wc. i , --_]_ i-L--2. -.-------.-E----,,,.74 1---='-b- -1"--' i___71.--7-4, i• ' ._., . , 1 ---1 t • A PE WM. 30.02 , . • ' •33.6 1' • I 2 CS\\ j : !--:!_i E_-_-`7:4 , n it. .3\7eit'4 .7::7:1.41r::1-1 P;b77:7:-X' 1 ("7":1:71 L_I—H.-_i.Z-J.4;"--1 r:.-gi.".-A- ' \ 4;r•i r Lit • • • • .-• 1.... % \---7 ----1 ET r---i--\ ' ':--.9 .. '' — ..4 l'^-:• -"A' 1 -----1 14640 6.6.6 I r.r:7_.4 J • ___, . f--- .1 ri t____71_1 r_4---N --J. , -I . V 3 7 4 ''" 6- -..-•••••• . / I 1-- / ..71-(i-1, 7 ...4 Hpi -71 * '''-i r3 -----4 1.-----:- . ;----,-- h. .-.-.-- 'F--i i•\ - : LAI: - ' ' • ... ._i __ AG AGRICULTURE • _.: • R 2 1 i ! • , r7-7-71 r- 7-1 ----j. ; 4,1 1 R1 RURAL RESIDENTIAL ., ,. , ., ,:....v, i---" , ___, : : : , R2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL ___-____.,: v , :....., st .,,, „ ' ''." --s i R3 MID—DENSITY RES. :. it '.e.4- R4 MULTI FAMILY RES. tr,„..,... H-....1. ,,;\ . 2 i•1 1--.F.7 N....sr-\,...... . 1111•1 B1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS ______. .........1 .. ..1..........:. B2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS c.-...,- . B3 CENTRAL BUSINESS `.•-, ,._., II LIGHT INDUSTRIAL i •-____ ._ __ c...., c 12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL --------:'-. -...,, . S SHORELAND .' . FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT •-•-•• MANDATORY PUD ,,, • , c..i RTD RACETRACK DISTRICIL Zoning Map City of SHAKOPEE iii----aii- iii it git------_---____; it _ ___- __ ......_______. .._ ..... . _ c „_--, I F. c----' a ( ( I I s /�"•---1—, , \ 0 .� \\ _ II //�/c7 �1 l t / 1 ll } 11 Ii Jj ll \ o �� \\ \ 1 „;► ,..°.�...,.� r� �� ,; ; L. a) I fi i - II :%i/ �/ N 11 12 l Cl. JJ 1 - ,- / II ¢ Jj y iy,/ z"�� 11 I 0 i / 1L, ‘\ (i 1 SII II I► l/ __ �j 1 r. m .�co D tQ _ U _ ,ic ( a 11 l 1 - t1 j1i ��=5, I(i // f�, -ii _ i 1 _a� 2 >_ F- \ N 11"1 \ \ I J, l`-6 I (IL i/// w rJ�---- - rl LL �1 t v I u_II \r7v \ II �! // �g IL-- uL- / C1n 1-�L__J. // �/ ftp',- —�:-,r-1-,,.....j j—? ----Qt... I ��I ,� L`- c�[_�J/,b�.(-.,�^u1 II g �\ i � , 1 II 1�' �I �D1 �L �_J tSt�1 b.......),_____-.1 t- l 1 I; II J `_2 - 1 ll Il C1-72 / . lQ 4'97%^ z \ \,t;ri1 \\ 11 =1m , _ ``' I __ /iJl „7 \ rl H \\ \`EI,llj 11 j�111 z �/i sol . . .-. -11 .._ �` ; \1 u ��,all1 11 /i � 1 1 �-3 1111 1111./�\ i 1( 1 :'cl Tr--\ \ 1,\ i \ \ - -lir-A..)4---=-------i1.- - - I •\ \ lm ^�1 U �1g i ) ,w. . �,�JI \:� I u u U u 1'\ o r�W s 1 �� \ I Imo/ / \ j�. J . . 1 L .__._)\_---J it( 1' - 77. .-75..+o w°:.--1 f-----� ( 1 1I �1,� - r I � I 1 � = II I 1 )1\ul� � L J r=--� yTo I I ; a m u_i 0 m I / L-.\)\,‘ 0, ►j € 1,----,_-.-2 ..-2) Y U m m a I\ I o - ^,,�� JI ��= ii-ter--- If / \ 11�\ �l I I W j� IL JLC EE c z o '--1 -7 �� \\ 1`1ir�,! a iln . L a I uuuu \ -Jw, H ... I I \ vi--,\ \ II F I II c72 3 \ \\\\ \ti� \�\ II1 J/ t To •\ \\\ C. . i E a E \\ ` U \\\\ i LL Oma U \�---1 \\ ��� m O i > C__�\��'"_� C 9 C d CP 2 2 = nnnn ��---J�_ I 612Jv u e C./..: = .•••—••\ -. \ U € • ci) cu g: . ..... 5 .__. ,----4- 1/0Y0 onsf3mnrofhot 52 — - Iacs c „= 20 CZ r-- .` i 117L c� Q EI iI ,KW TI,, ,,, I - --I -- ,,,A, __ �/ _- . . • I-� I I i--- t _ :• _ - I _ � - - - I 1. • = - -. il - __ :._ _ _ZI = I _ _ ---- _ -.__ '-- - ..- .I - f - - • _ _ 1 _ s 4,e ,imT4 0- �� �• ` �"" t = r. —. --- — - t. . - - . • I • i1. _ I it • I •- -• -- - - - t—— 7L M.Ti;.)DI f,..C. • - I • \ - I 1 To ',r-- tri 1- dr.f C. Q 0.) . `p m s < < O "...r: _._ I I e f ? . 1 f _ � s - I -, ' 0 C o 0 0 0 C p1 i 1.4 • rt 0 fG 4.) 4-) PC) C U) 0 4) .Q 0 V) Q\ t.0 -� = 3 -r1 y rl 1.) U1 0fv E O w 0 U) 0 O m 0 •-I •ato 0 .-tI 30-1 U S•t to v.t to C 0 H O >, 0 0 0 w 01 0 ti0 m E• S-tU oG. a C) N C C 0 C to > r- N .4• U) 4 C) 0 > '0 t0 $a Sa l0 0 y 1 4 0 y U C Z 10.+ 0 0 UI ,-i g l0 f0 t0 •C •• q s� • 0 U E •_ 4▪ > '4 --4 .0 0 a a a $4 • o • to W -••t •.i = N Z 0 0 •v v v W .•a C cn c0 0 w c0 C - C) i) $t • • • 0 a+H 4-) to 4-) C) >, o 0 'O $.4 H C) CO w O C) C) C) > C c!) 3.1 0 > 0 N Sa C O U 3 H S.t C) 0 > > > < -•-1 >, 0 S.t U) ,C 01 r4 Ln F 0 M t:a s) 0 O si 0 4 iC 4 r-I 0 N O 0 C) $a U) >, •r•1 w 0 0 C3 •C S-1 H E C •H C •C 0 3 I 0 H PCS ..^. .0 s) 0 H ft3 0 ••i C .0 4) C U C r � Sa H S.a o-ro a t f0 ' C -7( N s.) %. 0 0 0 •� •30 CD CU y to to UehvtCrt » QCI) t-^EH0 m 0) E4 CO 0 C -•-t O •C N ••-1 C > ,- 0r•1 - 4X2 • A 0 r•1 13 s) Sa • P0ft ccs C) • 0 C >, > C Sa-•-1 S.; 4.) r-{ H • c 0 s) E..� 0 0 'o to 0 0 0 'O E U 4.)i :� O E N co 4.) -> ,� 0 0 H PO0 x ., 0) 0) PP c0 U S, U H 4.) 0 >, 0 -r+ Sa C >, 0 -•-1 a C U 0 3.4rd • • a E 0 howlI .1, s) s) 4) •r•1 0 ti H 4.) 0 Sa 0 0 M 4 •,.i C UI CO a «3 O U1 > U S7 N In < U r-•1 • _ U H -,.i ---1 V1 N Sa 3d U U) 0 0 g H H w E N CA H Y4 r•1 PO 0 0 0 a WO a) tll E F-1 •--1 " "" I I 4: •r1 0 r1 W 0 .r. 3.1 s) >, C s.) W04) 01 C •C •C f0 C U H f0 U C )-) N «•i 1•4f0 'c3 O f0 f0 C CO to 0 tJ Sa •.1 O O 4-) cC -r1 cC E4CEQr1W000U CO e'-f E-EZ4 Z •.•1 C E Sa 4.) 0 4 .i.) •� 0 ft " 03-1 .- r a a) a`) U) C) � -o $a v 4 o N 0 N • C) N 0 til U 0 $a C U) C U) 4) Ei E 0 H H Sa 0 sJ 0 4) •r1 a-) C to C) > $.4>>4i 0 U) 1J 0 C 000 10 e0 0 --1 _ o E 0 Oa 0..E004.4 0 0 � Z b rl 0 U � c0 w w to �2 C 0H a .;C 01 r1 Cld1 Com) 4-1 E N W 0) • >,•rt H 0 0 al E 1-I 0 H o -r1 w -r1 0 E 0 0 '• to CC > Sa C) 0) rt •� 0 .- RS C U to 0 0 0 N U H H C LI .' C ^ 0 0H4 CA fliS W w H4FH 0 > HZ4 .uxS4U N C H . o 'o —C -.•1 to C fa• S-1 tO c7 H CisC cn = -•-+ os ECO a 4C f0 U )0 .4.) C) •• C) Crot ••••1U) C 0 0 Sa >a 4-) H a 0E' C0� U • > 3 O 4J 0 -r1 CO0 • 0M0 O to 0) •C ••-I Z s) > 0 rf 0 0 0 0 nC -0 v I 4-) E• 0U) 0.4- -) 4- E-+ s) CA 0 O 0 •• w I ......• •0 0)•C t4 ,;.a 0 N N O w C 110.) 3 0 II 4 z g a o - 0 0 0 E-4 44 0CnC C C tock Cl) H 1 tn 0 F.-1 • U) 0 N U) 0 0 'O 'LS 0 0) --4 4.) aU •-I - -i1 f6 0 .a 0 W - • O a .y y 0 U) 11 0 34 al •-I a) .^. C7' 0 4.) --I ti) CA WI 14 CD --1 0 > 0 O O J.) C 3.1 a) a) O O C C O as C U zUC CI) 0H0. -.34 en en p > 1 .0 O 0V) O -1 C 1, 0 I74 C -4 O C c 'C I.1 U \ 0 -0 '� •-1 U CU C 0 0 -•I 0 0 3-1 1.) U) CT E CU C3a NOO 'W Lrl 4 0 a) I4-1 ECF-40 (07.1 crit44.) U) --I 'CS •� H 0 --I cC 0 . O '4 I N a) la -•-I 1 co U Z •-I C U) .0 co •-1 er C 4.J U) U) 3.4 3.1 3a•••I U) a ca \ • 0 1 0 un CA a) W I CU z C) 1.� O Tr' c �I a) 0 et of a) C) --I a) 1-3 1 ' ,-I.) 1.) C 3.4.,.I 0 I 0 O I I 3•1 73C C •-1 3.4 0 0 C is --1 1) --I -0 0 O C.. 0 IC H O H3 4 O (C Z Ci) CO IC Z H In C r) N LC > 1 U) CU A 'O • I m in U) 0 0 0 'CS --I C U) H U) 0 0 U) 1.) (1) rf O C it O 0 O ' �, U •-I >, O -I E U - - • :� C) 1.1 WI C .;.o •0 •••I •-1 0 N 0 H --I C O CU •-( •rI W •I-) O C < '••I H 0CV U ,a1 0 C 3a C U -•-I a) Z O I I N ^. --I U H < 0 C -i U) N 4 3a •.-4 ••.i E 3.4 U --'I M )-1 \ • c'3 0 0 In 0 U) al I a) Ca) .0 Ca) --Ia) > OO Wa) H �) 0 y J.) y ' J.) CT 4.) •-( •-4 0 0 I C C O C) ,-I C C --I IC C --a •*I C 13 •,I 34 Lf) u) 5 O C C W 3 O H 3•., C 3 UH ICZa t -� gun Z z O O 1 $a N 00 00 ms 00 --1 0 O O IC >, C Zr O CU < u1 S.) ••..) •-1 '1j a) < -{ N -1 -4-1IC1 U >i0.7Z 'CSZ Cs I I .,c•1 0 3.1 a) •-•1 a) 3•+ .1.) + -•-i-I 0 0 In .0 -•) a) --1 tic C--I --I -i 0 O O in a) a) a) a) 4) CT1-) 3+ 4- C • E 0 -0 I C C C C -••I a) C IC 0 0 C -1 .0 a N •• ICI IC) 0 0 0 0 L" H > E-+ Uw ►-] cCCr) Hun r) In Z z z 4.) -1 E a C o '0� /C) 'U >1 O. C < •• r I W C •P"Irz) a r--1 •. C ^{ Io 4.) E 0 >1.0 14 va) .00 •• � 3`0 CO M.4 .S4 •Ca W •--1 Cl) C (C 4.) la c sa 3 is 1.4 c --I 4 c (C C CA a •-I = Z "ZZ -CSC 3z C U --t .,.1 U) Cn 0 yCj X a) •-i W.. It, S.) a) 3.1 '0 a.,.I a) C O C ti U) (C --1 ?. 3a H 0 < (C U C.. w U) E"' �, H U CA El • Mt 1H, 44°—••.-...:-%.;•••,./ ...,‘•i'l•:•"- • _... .."1`• ;•••r C......1:.4'...:A .17- C .., .; ••,. p,, X., }--• . . .•••••"-••• — .4.? - C ...::a. .1 • .i . 4 • f 1. .(7\ i . C2- D.7 r•-•,. • ... i4•8.-1a3•-•-t 411..... t ,44C'A) r.' 7cE,p5 44.. . .. 3- :,-,:, ,___fi- ›•• .) i- 1 • 5- 1 = - ......, . .4 r•-- . i'il 7:: -1 :.. . I ; -.•-\A' : • •-•.. -15'*•.. ••-)-‹ ' i • n ------- -----ia_ii , c • _ 74•: 3" ,, it •••••••••:,•••-... ; Is (1.) 0 'x i. r • ,i.• • - ON i / I iie 3- lz.-. .- i -_ I. - --- S -11 ,,.- I .... .?• -- • .•- _ ri - - -----..4.,_ ... .....; I a ,. • -r- . cn . ,....,.....----..-\ . Er. 0,_ • ac .7 I; U. ..c ow- - - _ ....i C'' CD •., 3 ...... ,... / iteLtal• la 7 0.7. 7 •E '5 ....• .... .1 \ •.• i - _ CD CD • 0 . 0 • -,.. \ ., L \ / p -7_7- - -_• rin 1 ,.-...- --_:- 1 ••..;'i.••A•-'"'13 :5 3 1 Hf 1 • - II 'en it- i • :•"1 ipb _,• • .; = e .:11 g 0.- ---4.:: • -'1 le t 'Pa I a' 4'. • i : -,.._ ,r._ ,i. .- - •.,2 7... ,..,,i. : :: ___ k _ s_____a „ r-- / /fr .• . . ..,!,./=,_, „.....„ ,,: t ..., 5,..., -.: ‘'.•. 1,4 4 0. 0 • / r k kfi I =i . i • -- .. , , __ r., % ..!. \\ i: ..-- L ... . . _ ....... . ..„,. -____ ___5,..- . . 0 2 _ • E.( ., \ : . ..t., __- 0,7%. ,_• , ...e< _co. . __ , . a- 3 e • a •• • I, t'ff,-.;., .se• % —-.- .= 1 3 a • a . ... , •a, g t.,,,--... . : , : 7----- :1 0 r-- e4 ct *ml i' i : ••:: it i! , 1 .• /j,./ ,it._-:"...-... -7 8 !.: c. ::-- .. '01 < . , 1 . . r,-97 ,Aer Alr • 3 73 P. IS; i 'L am. fitZeridr".-4:040J/44.7 / ri.••7...:-::-..-...1--1-..:. 7i z ;74- 12 ,1111011. .• / . s,: . = E 2 It /3/ ( ..- . . - . I; -a la . , , a r r....- I ::',.,-. : 7 -.m!, i . , .\---•:., ..-:.;:i\ • . . tfl a -.--fa- —41/ ; „. : .,.. ..... . :• ! ... ...... - I O. . _ . 8 irs 13' , t°.".IPI"=P.m/gm,i, tt6N,... .,...._ , .:„.3 . ". '--*".•-:'' • •, ,r - •-• . . • :•-1 411.--"'"-- • i''' N: . . .... 1 . - <'' 1 • - '' ..\,, _ .•. :.1 7: i • , . r' e/N.,. "ris V• _ „VA. L. - - - 1 70. - ..- i. f; 3 1 ,T, .11- ----s. • ,•,. _a....,..• ''''''''' . ..""" -""'"2.• i . • 0 I •\‘'....-. . .. -MI.!— .0. . • . -‘3 ilk a ; . ;,..u...a....r,,-..._ . c . ! I o : o • - . 1 0., 4.__ - _ •arge,.... . ,— •-• . )".c' 0 .. ›. 1 -- 0 0 . 0 CO ...3 Q• . I • .13.5 03 .1 ... 0 3. • i%,' %,::,:' i I . . . 1 03 E • •• ': \L'n\ .4•'.116—— t I 01 03 . 03 C 5 = •''' . • • ••.e.t• 13 .• .., '.----17 ......:::-•••-•,..:---N-7-..... ,z..:0„. .I . .. ... 3 , - I..\ \I`14•N i‘s* _2 ••• 3 c 3 ;Load; 5 cn t- cn a •.....7... di .• ••••,:-...... tn ... ' :r, .): `<i3 ?:* 1.7- ----:—........ - • -"v.,- I -.- • - • • =2.3 5., , •-. 0 = 0 z• . :: .....1,•-"'"... .- . cn .• Ot • , ••••••.. . .,,. e C. • ...-k..., .. .......- es S 0 S• (4) 41 x ......".7f. :, • „ . , .. •• . la —n 1 : 4 ! —LJ I : _. r— r • - .....__- (........... ,.... . Illor re--/, 11,- ••• I I lilt / - -a t a/ - pW / � W w Sc�c� V / C 0 € ««- i o o p E i. i / 2. Y mvia� ci i RS I •.. [::L. \: °I ITiP • '/ _ Y . - -- __ I Wo I - < 1.- WJVJ W4 � C fSWo — O2• Fz__ _ - - - _ 5 Ey.`..• --- - �••�'v IK'Y'71 13'1143 1111116 • o VWQJL C g. W ,, 11. W t•,:A - J• . r . y� a_ - Te, . z E'" G • < s i\ C w58 • �•\•• WW2)- i NNG s W a I .1( ILI. .• ...... > Z 1 i 25 iO 0 — Y C ; O dr - r 4 N m > GC • i 8 E o . 1I m 1 — . ..a. ‘•:- ..,.- - ,It.A.'z,-. .-*i _ CNICA 6° .....-r.:. r•rA*- -*. livERsioE PARK Ild I H P4' Oil '' .:007.1.?"x•-k" ! _ _ - - -- Mg k ' 74t ,. .1.- • --- _- • - - - . , -4:- . - •00....." ‘.. .4c-4045's . _ •-••4'.••-.- .., - :;:-....\.•:.•7.-• 4...„ ,, - .\ 4 '-'.• .4•_gfe. 7,:".. E)CHIBIT G - . - ie: ;P-3...4._, . tk ••,..j : , .....-..:.:..i . ..... '...1: _''-'4I...:'7'.:-:•;7.7.- - .,. 8 ''' -.ir..., ..i -• .•0;_,..„_;;-' - ,.%'.. -•_ ...:. -,1., . ••• ' .t....;,_:.-:,, ,.;••••,;:' - . -;..., • -';-••••••-.2 ...ii•li-4-••••!-7,;.:4* _....---- •--.--- 4, '"••--,..4.'v.- '',. .... - . _-_-.. .... ,„-:. „c-..--/-ft- •••---Ar- -;;*•-sit•:,;;.;.• --.1;te :,4,:Z:?..-.,.,• •41CaVI-5,,A ....se-,Ir:7- • ,•-•--- -: ..fi..-P -;•;``..r-: •.•.i.1-.7.;-':‘...., . .. ..r". ..-. ; ...r...:-• •..A „.;.....y•.. -; .114:42S1:12'. • . ' .46 ... ;..-_`_:%.•;•.,.. "-:•:•••',c...4.:•1--••-_-••-'..-, . ;.:..7r,_•,:•.:..•.; ...."-', ..-A--"" _ ,• • 1:-.,•;• . ‘1" I yaw.Ar...0000111.. ..""illial....--Nt, ;•.- -- .: -".-" :••":"---:.'...---•-•••!..: • ;-.1 ,..;.•:-.-7.-....,."- •••.• t4,5...-.-_,I...:-.7.-:....r.;• ' • 10°1• •: ". .,.,7 , ..7...1.•:...,,Pt. •:,-_--... - ....:, _.<,...r.;"A, X.,..-A17-'a..-•.e. •,*-..-,..,-.. t'‘* PI • 11.0 l'• . ill 1 4f.,.....tA- '',F-- --i0e-- .4 ... ..,2* .••......, • ''A ., I, ...;,,.,' ........7-',.. i..1.e*':077:!f..0..P•e• rl..-.. 0 C.311.111,• t.. iii. -.04,110 Alli-... ... --:27:7,;..,:,-.- :...7...;'-':1-7.4 1 Z..>- ':'. '''-'''..... -7.1.4-1::''',,:....7,4-i-1-.-,4 -1. 42,•••••• "".'' ._,...a.;:i.- tisoiesiv.,0_114 4..„..,„"'-:•mi&-ielif,Oil, ;.., :,,..,.:•,.-:....:-.,• ,,. .---,....-:,.r.:-..:,e,..1.,--,-;.:.%;....,,,.•:--21:•! .. ..."41-.•dk_-•r.... ' ...„...{.........3..... :-_-- 11.-.:. --,‘ ----- .. ...-. . ,..--. .4--,---- • -....-: . -4,-r.., ./-4''t:: ..=:kze%.-- " v 74" - .4.111 TIA rals" -051. ',II. .--=-.;::-.-.4.r.r.,---.• .. 5-f,-.;-,., -.--;-,:-..• ......,?..„::;,;-_,---.1',. " 7.....;•-•,,,.1---•. - , zvt%,_,,•-•, ..-_-,.:,_,.:.:!•'*;:',... .:.-..*.?;X,17, i...14-,-;:r, ::.;;;i1.4.-,:.kV,.„-ii,o ..-::'"-.' 4.7,-..r.,,e.i••_IQ--• US railiti.% as..,:r..,&AV -•:779cf1C .., _-- .-.... .T..-7."..4:-...;:"...:‘,7 - .....r.p--....-.,--... ..:••,.....c.- 4. 1.-......,.. ....,24...,0%••••..... „. -,:‘..„,i,..;..... - 111•147. 7;...41 it rh...::VA*.. -1111' "..-V2:-. -'.*' • 1 _,,,..,„,;;;;-..,.......,,..: ..:.•_-..:-. . . - •-,,-..t.c-,.:%.,-,:::,..;:.-.t .cit_So.,.f-;•.;•:. ..•-..;,-.-.,,W,-;-,.......-,..-..,.,. „.'!;%. -+- -,-,-, - -1":.? "-.'7:!--,?••f-'.17`-'-' - .-..•!--':..:-,..7•A;:-.-..,-,„,,,,- - --1-- -:- ---4.. ...... -- ' -'' ', fa -fi .,,.,', Coisb:.:'-4...1.4".i....3.7.L.4. 17%,:!",-.X.-t•f•-is ,i.",• ....*- ;*--'7=i,-4T .;,... v ., - ,_ , ...,„...-_-., •,,,.....„4„,--„-.„ , _-___,. ..„.. .. mt_,...„ .. IMI::::A.'''' 111/11114514- .:4.....,,-;•dci7":..;',r..-'0.1.--'11.10.:101. ....... ,4titi ..: ' Willyow. •"-"" • "f.1- - - '-'1,r--", -,' 1 . - • .... - •,.. i 41131 '... I 110°.-6 l'.. ,,r-.4.1211111 • - -. .;• •-. . , _ .i.111101 •. ..--- ili :INOSID 10."1.... — laili .. _. ... . . . .. C . - - „.... ..... . . moo tint_ ali ........ ., • _ . ..a •... . . . • •. • • •• - - •. • • • . . • ...... - . ., . S IPA 1111€1110Y16411111 • . . . . ..- -. • • ..... .• s. ; . . :"4 Vali ri k is• .. i k ' • LS1111404 101 ott.-.-. ...• . alit • - , • ... Do, i • fl9ig 0 ikribi"..7.11%11%.:-.1 430 1111111 . .• . 7. ' 's., :.".• :_.• -,:.- • • • 51 t :set .- . • • ... . .. - - .61... col ow- cstiotc'' . SUR 11100-Likil sA`' scsc°- V k - - \ ' '• . ,. -. . . , . . .. • le 1 I I I I I rilai 111 1110 %... . • . • • - • - • - ........- I it'll I I i 111011 1 I 11 g lei U....?0 . . 1 111 0 tila ili \ I. *SI tiginit i _... , . . • . .. iLl . . . . -• - .....--... . • . . . _ INNS laltit 1125,'Llyill..,,"11-s s ilt wijilli 1 'r^44111 1111111 . , . • . eei i, ) 1 s su I a a I 1 I 1111 I itill 11111 I a Via gil 111 II - . 4111111111111.4111111.;6 - . Slill 2 h . • . 32 Iran 6 . 1 -• . . , ,. . — . ,..t_ =NE — =morm. mi.....t.. —4,, .4• 1 1 .. mai,...#t*.A.• 1pr ' MEM lb t, 1111.k IIII,-, ME III . . • • ...., _ .--..... ......., - . . .. . . rt•% I --Eh" NMI ‘—'• .111701 Eno bk. , -,- .-- , .. ... ,. ass 1111112 milb• # ... • a , ."1 —... -is .1111111 -. . . . .,.. _ . . . • . Land Use Plan ________7_ . nxmmt-ispme dim ,-.7 . ,:-•-,.•.71..,,r:-'''', ( MI :•. -.,' ;•-,' '":".,':.,.•-.,•.!.-., , , .:' .. - . __. i 1 , 9 MI L.--; --- _ ' .. IMF :::-1 -,. . • - -.. • : -.: ,--•,1::- -- - H Shakopee .... ___,..„___ .., i . • -.-... ..- -•.,_.-,..•,....v,.. :-: • ,. 1..... s-:..?: .:.. .-.:- ••,....-...,,... :,.-..„.......:.,.:-.77, -2- ; — -...-••••--.-4... -..,.:4:;•••!:•'.-44:.;,4%::(,--.• - • •-•--,- - .1. . Comprehensive Plan S !!'14 Oty of ShakoDee.Mir.re72 19 --...•' :• „ - .— "•• —........., .... 11iir f.rT) .i../ of . •7,- re -- . . .. .-: 4 ....7. .-0•.• . ...... '-_-,7 C: 1 ,4- i • 1 EXHIBIT H PROPOSED REZONING t As Requested by Applicant ti z�. / . 3. +--- — - ' is a /^-_ � ',Lt ,�--�_ .x '�" _• =� _ ^ '.-• ^ i" •• -. '^.�'-_'-^'r I�t':".4;;;‘,.:.. .--`''''t....te ..,/�,rymac/ _ - -y -, '.fir. '��"= ,_ !V~• 4 • — . - • ♦ i . t _ 3 • - •` c � l i + •s � lr- -f rte'y-w£' ly��'..._... -- s .1.'1 i..a t ••'` ;•'rr -..; -.—` ! 1 ++ _�.�-��r-^ 1 _'s t+ ! „��- lam' "1 .. • •,1,.-�- •'Fs. y `a - t �'� • L........1.....• -- 132 fl sf1l�- _ .—+ L 1 , -'r^' •;� y-` ••! 1.4 , rrte , • i' . ` = -� • " ! •�.�.�.• ,i !t :7i4'{'- V 7$0t: :.may. 'fir ',..43..C.4•4,...-..-,..... \ -D'- 1 - •�� �r� ! ,36] , 'i fes. .....-----!•"., ;+.; : :.! �.A tr•--. • t•---i• ., �-- so_j s' t a+` 2 — —.<. - -'T 1 ; = -- ._ „ s I. r- -.r — •_________ i'•- r ,........1:1:,' --1 _-5--� - t ....,•••i —•-r,' •- - --*E i - ' '1 - - .- ^_'T..... �.. 1_....: - —'---_-__...— ...--_....� .- r____,,.......„ C•-_^"^tea _-- :..........,...,__T„ .----rte, --,� ---- .._ _ ....-. A f. V _ _ r_!Y 1-._-•_-'- - 7 . ., ..L. - .. K•a.. .-c- r ••••j1..' --_w • • Rc�1Ji"AG - . , 12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL I 1 1 1 S SHORELAND FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT EXHIBIT I —•• MANDATORY PUD RTD RACETRACK DISTRICT - - PROPOSED REZONING Y D"a..•lu....:�s - _ As Recommended by Planning Commission • -- "M -r 4 . t r"�lv , Q xs 1 S ,� • -ro � S a • � �^ 1 - -- s^ c: • • - ,-•-. 1-•••••---_-•i•VVL-7-.* " r Au-, . ,..•.., ..: .•..1,6,.... ii ie ' 4-.:„.- --*--.0-7.1 _ CHI. • '....7,-,,..,•••s_,M,...4...... •..c.,.. iut /A K A ',',,,....\........--.................. .,p4 I.. . • or.de ....-, A., ....?4...„, . . . _ _.- 1 1 • • - •,-- •=4-.-;.••------...- --".••• 0011511.16". \1 ''••1.. . ..L7.4 "-..-..• a • • . - - ..-..7 ''- __.....-• ..$ ..1g4(IF•••^ .!'e "'..• .....•-• . ; -.- • :•.4;:.• Ec,___ ,.I. x.....!:....-oh. _.. ., o•a, \ •••-i•••••<"';'•"; k: f•"••;•::72 . dr. . .......4••.:7•••• . . . , 1:371•Z*:e . ••• A4 kU• • --.1.,47.. -. . •.• ...-.....f7":1:•-•:".:•...:•.. .• :: EXIIIBIT G ‘• • _ z----'ler-- - .`N.- "i•II:. . -. '.7. / „"•.:-s...„1-:.::.•-•i - .-.P. .:.'Di; .."7-?'i'.. • vst3 - k •..-.':-•...--, ."i -••.:'7 .. •-• .:-...:--:. '''':' ::',.::::.• •t",-.V.L..t.'re..""4":„. •T, •.;,'•-..,,,i- ,•,:,,'.'T. 'JOT- 1-1:.., .,•,141."-- ^'Ll.* :'. ':-....- .. r•••-:,-..-..: -•-• --• • -. --, -- -. -v-,-S-a",4...x- --?""'":":•••- . . emicselp I I W.-. 'f!.'t-::"'-,:..-..:...t-.'f :::-. ..f ' - '''z'' '- ,---F- ::"*.; 7::::f, '.:--:•'-:::---' ,..c;i1#?`4,::4. 7...;,-..-_,.. - • _S;7-7'......_:*•4.0-7.. •-.•••••••;Lr...:^..-.•••....•'7%4.:•• ^ -:?•••-•••-•.- r. -:..':':.' •-•i•••••;"1:17...if'•••••••:.%‘:!........&.. -.--• ...•'- 40111-74,2-_i .... '1".• ......... --,ellaan Alli-7.111,L-1...1;:z....- - illit ., \ -•--,....7.,-..:-.7:- -,.---7.-,..:.-L..- -, -_-._-.. . •,-.-.: 1.::.......,:-.._=,-;:;-„,...-_ -,..,,..4,-...,72-. .... _ voi .„...t•r"...,,,, 0 .__. ',.. 111111......." • r -'-.. _. : ..,-,'!,,-;'-:::.--..E ,1- . .7-->.":.- -.7-,:--.'et.r.-.Z--"'S.t. i....-;,.'r . " ;.-;''• :.•2(..:.--.'....7.'•'*.-..-:•-••f-i:'-- - -1:-?C.-.:.: '4.:::.2 t*::- :.11'...•:rAl."=..:-;,10_-:A.,.-2e--. z.-- -..... • --stc- , . ..--•7.4*-9 •" .•••• "7^4.ar• ••••"1.4.7. old...Se ?S./ ' t',..•a.:-..:Tree"'-• •r•-•'''...... •S..."7..•4'k.• •.'"•n7..•'•••.-7 t.y.•••,'•'...• . .'r.•,;*.e.',..2.....*- 4,1111111 _.;,,•••-....".. . _• ... a . ': :'''''. :0 S/ \ Ai.,4'7;•-;;;:;:.•••••••,_• ::-.': ••..t1):4-..:7;^••• :.'"••..'Al:‘.....;..7-n .••'.41"'";.5. 7.7.••••5.-...f.e... ......:2a•4-::."..7 • -- i.-.:?,,- ••••.- .- -•- --:-.•#,-:-.....--..s.--3.4-:,:z..-.-- -- .-- s.:7,;-:- ---;---tz-_:- --,-- v.,...- liti•st.tri. :•%%•••.4•0!"---.--;-.1.''''z z.,•4••••;*, .:-I•,t.a.•-:;1.:.:ir—n• 1.*:::.__.••t-:'•":::;,• .. -s-•-'3.--..- '.;• --- ,..4...- rift . - — .:,.....„,:i.i.,....,......;,--.-...,..t..,-,... ....e.,-.7;1...e.:•,*": !-,:.,,,--:::,-.7,-..... . '•::7.,..er:•. ..7:":"••••• •••?'"••••••r... ..e...*.::747..,Z4::•'-U_F•7 -....t. s.-.•:•••••:......... 7,•.--.,:tt::: - .1.1;71;'•C.••••''....,Y.7.......4`,..i.'Ir.d,c:::::!"... „Ze•••••., - 7. • • ...7:.•;,r...{.""- ' -X-7,-- .". -1.••• . e...I: -.",....:_t.,•.i...'•- •.7-.••.:;..LA.?•-T...7,..•':••••••. ( 4:I..-'..r..:..-...:r ...,--,...L:-_,...4T .1 -v . - =L ...... . ......t. ;'.. '"7''''.or' -, 7-"---::::77-77-2- . .. - 1 . VW. ':. moil II . \ \• _ ii.: .°111710....At • IIINT 111111111111rellii° rim It .-,-, . •- - ,•. - - . . . -:. INIP ;-L. .--.:'.:-.-. •.:-----i .: --• • --- - :7, . - --- •••,7'.. C IVA _---Ti WI. _---__ .. _. ....:,.::...;:....:i,.._.,„.: .:...:%.:_.,:f,_.... ... ......,..,„ .......... --- • ...._. . _ . • .. . .. L•ileLe "4.... t • _ ...... . .._. • . __. . _ ..._ . . ., . • -.- . .. _. .5, .• .. : - -:_,.., -__-• ..- •-.. • ..:7-' ...-: --. -.-t'' i::::.7.7:%=;P.,,t.71:::f: . : ....• - to 1111 . Marrs • - - • - \ ' 1111111111 ciml_t"L p•a sc4C" CsuaCm 5040°- V - • . . . - . . :_. .: :. f,.. .:.:-_-_-_-::::::::-.:--:.-..„.-..._- • . --I-: V. 4....%...1.. ." :..'..Z......---:7•I. - • i \ . ' .. ... • '... - • :.r.- •----. .4 . .• .-_-- -.... . • - - VW to Ira • - • ._ - . la . - . i t,k. i lit - _ _ • : . -_ - .• A i '' \ ' • . . k . . . ,..s .. . - - . • • . .. • " - . . • s 1 JT•4" , ie, . . - .•:_ i 1 rill SU ,..u•ae . - •.... - . , • • • 4 ., . .. ill.s id s $ ILO 111 I g I i 11 1 II I 111 . . .._ 111111616 lett S 111.111.11111.1111111 a ,.1 1 - --: a"5'4412 - - , d NE Ili" os uw . 'a`..• 4 , I- - * ' . t 44......, . I 10 It .---...._4. .---4 ... ,_...71._i 1.--1 s ' a t ----1 l. ", Il l ,+ , d! r... A • , • . i 1 =NB Mil 1 • Nei, a 1 a . 1 . . SI t-, , .... 1 . i • - . .- • .--1,74.7.:: s %pag: •-..-.-;.--7_ .- i I hi r .....N.' 401IP . ._ , . - • 4 = ___. . ..__1, ..), IN • - R.-L. • 17.7...7771 . 1 ... 11 ^, ., 7-1. a 1' I 1 - atiommi.m.,- i Land Use Plan > ._..„ .., ' " -E7--"_i •, lc' <----7 e.,..,..,... ,r--,7:-.. : . - - ;:-....1 ,, .........-..„-„,.....,. • ••---: : - , -: -_.....--..7:-7::3;.:te...-:•-;:-..„:::•7...;-::-"..:;-.-• t_.--4 .7_:•••• :---••".,.:'.._ -. .--•_-:,,_,.-:Z - ;. i--- < 1 1.•.-i .....• ' ..--•---..-,,--.-_:. ..,-..i: -..: 1___ Shakopee --4 , ..- . i I ----I -:." '- '-''- ;, .--'..';-".:•:;.'-.7I-7.,"....!."'-'_,'•--* I— -...„---.2--3.nsiw a __L....._. . s . PI n > ,....— —--•, " •,_::-.:„,:;,..,•:-.:„...-.,..--•.:-. _ .._ . --• , t..- ...., -....--...7.,J-T—%.7.,-, - — . . ...-. .____ !-.17..e..• ---••4: 4.-.2, .., .v.i, rumnimiff so.......4.71--iiik-• - ____ . T,) •L _..•_. _ .3. f.....1......... AIM .' 1C1,1317 - .-- &.. .i:....^'.4.•1 MIIIMIN ..... - —r i 9. . „KC• —a..- ......--. 1 • Ilb MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner RE: Planned Unit Development: Preliminary Development Plan for Milwaukee Manor DATE: October 9, 1992 INTRODUCTION: At their meeting on October 8, 1992, the Shakopee Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary development plan for the Milwaukee Manor Planned Unit Development (PUD) , subject to seventeen conditions. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission was introduced to this proposal at their August 6th meeting, and the public hearing was continued to the September 3 , 1992 meeting. At the September 3rd meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the October 8, 1992, meeting to allow the applicant time to submit additional information for their review. The applicant submitted one copy of a proposed phasing plan on September 18 . This plan proposes that the project be constructed in three phases. Phasing of the proposed development would consist of the following: Phase 1-1992 Outlot E (proposed open space) Outlot K and Block 15 (Zoned R-2) Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 10 (and adjacent outlots) Dedication and construction of the entire length of Dakota Street Construction of northern portion of Milwaukee Road Phase 2-1994 Outlot C (holding pond) Outlot D (proposed open space) Blocks 5, 6, 7, and 9 (and adjacent outlots) Construction of southern portion of Milwaukee Road Phase 3-1996 Outlot H (proposed open space) Outlot I (proposed open space) Blocks 11, 12 , 13, 14, 16, and 17 (and adjacent outlots) Construction of Milwaukee Court On the phasing plan, the applicant has indicated that a new four- plex design would be used on Blocks 2 , 3 , 5, 6, and 13 . The submitted plan will be presented at the October 20th meeting of the City Council. Along with this application for preliminary approval of the PUD, the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned from Multi-family Residential (R-4) and Urban Residential (R-2) to Mid- Density Residential (R-3) , and the vacation of the portion of Minnesota Street north of the alley north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line. All three of these requests will be heard at the October 20, 1992 , meeting of the City Council. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning request, the proposed vacation, and the preliminary PUD, subject to conditions. DISCUSSION: There are many factors to consider in the review of the PUD. Since the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance provides flexibility in the design of the development, additional information such as a landscape concept, building elevations, architectural plans, and phasing plans are required early in the review process. The additional information associated with a PUD can make the process more time consuming for the developer and staff in forms of preparation and review. City staff has met with the applicant on numerous occasions to resolve issues in conjunction with the review of this proposal. Staff has prepared the following list of design issues to facilitate the City Council 's review of this proposal. 1. Public vs Private Streets Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Lane: Initially when staff met with the applicant, a clear position in regard to the public vs private street design was not taken by staff. Staff stated that if the streets met City standards the streets could be dedicated as public streets. The preliminary development plan did not illustrate driveways from Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Lane to the individual lots. In their review of this plan the Planning Commission identified maintenance and parking concerns with these two streets. The proposed driveways intersecting with Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Lane will cover a large portion of the street curbs. As a result, there will be limited areas for snow storage and on-street parking. With these points in mind, the Planning Commission felt that Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Lane tended to function more like private drives. Other developments in the City with similar private drive designs include Dallas Townhomes, Longview Estates, and Evergreen First Addition. The Planning Commission has therefore recommended that Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Lane be developed as private drives and not as public streets. Since private drives are narrower (24 to 28 feet) , more open space would likely result if these two streets were developed as private drives. The recommendation to require private drives is one that the City Council has discretion to decide given the fact that the proposed street design does meet the City's street design standards. 2 . Open Space The amount of open space required and provided is not clear partly due to the public/private street issue and lack of information. The ordinance requires the following open space requirement: "Within a residential PUD at least 20% of the area shall be usable open space. Such space shall not include land devoted to streets, alleys, parking and private yards. " Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Dakota Street right- of-way should not be included in the total area of the PUD used to calculate the 20% of open space requirement. However, staff feels that the two interior streets should be included in the total area calculation. The area along Market Street (that was recommended by the Planning Commission not to be rezoned) should not be included in the total area if the area is not included with the homeowners association. In addition to meeting the area requirement of 20 percent, the applicant needs to verify that the proposed open spaces are "usable" . Staff has informed the applicant that an individual plan of each area illustrating all proposed amenities and/or landscaping needs to be provided. By estimating the area of the portion of the proposed PUD that was not included in the rezoning recommendation by the Planning Commission and the 60 feet of right-of-way proposed for Dakota Street, staff has calculated the following areas that may be used in determining the total area to be used to calculate the required 20% of open space: (The calculations marked with an asterisk (*) were determined by scaling the preliminary development plan provided by the applicant, or by using such a number in the calculation. ) Total Area of proposed PUD 9 91 Acres Less Area for Dakota Street 0 569 Acres* Less Area not Rezoned 0 769 Acres* Total Area to be used in Open Space calculation 8 57 Acres* Multiplied by 20% requirement 20% Total Open Space Requirement 1 714 Acres* The applicant provided outlots on the preliminary development plan submitted for review: Outlot A - No area provided. Outlot B - No area provided. Outlot C - 0. 17 Acre Outlot D (Park) - 0.23 Acre Outlot E (Park) - No area provided. Outlot F - No area provided. Outlot G - No area provided. Outlot H (Park) - 0.36 Acres Outlot I (Park) - 1. 16 Acres (less .229* acre not included in rezoning recommendation results in .931* acre) . Outlot J - No area provided (not included in rezoning recommendation) . Outlot K - No area provided (not included in rezoning recommendation) . Those areas labeled "Park" on the preliminary development plan result in approximately 1. 65* acres of open space. Subtracting the 1. 65* acres of open space provided on the preliminary development plan from the required 1.714 acres leaves 0. 064 acres of open space that is still required. A portion of Outlots I and H appear to overlap proposed driveways. As noted in the Zoning Ordinance, parking and other vehicle areas are not to be included as open space. Excluding these areas will reduce the proposed open space areas. Private yard spaces must also be excluded from the required open space. 3 . Park Dedication/Proposed Trail Staff has researched the park dedication requirements for the proposal. The lots in Wermerskirchen Addition, which are a part of this PUD, will not be required to make park dedication requirements since the requirements for this subdivision have already been met. The remaining areas in the project, including Lot 5, Block 1, Macy Plat; Lot 2, Block 1, Clifton 1st Addition; and the unplatted land will be required to meet the park dedication requirements. A public trail has been proposed to cross in the general area of the PUD. It is not clear if the trail can be constructed across the site as proposed due to the slopes of the retention areas. The Citywide Sidewalk/Trail Plan proposes a trail from CR 17 to the downtown in this area. The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation to the City Council on the specific alignment with this trail at their October meeting. 4 . R-2 Zoning Along Market Street The Planning Commission has recommended that the property within the proposal located along Market Street remain within the Urban Residential (R-2) district. The recommended zoning line is a southerly extension of the western boundary of Macy 2nd Addition. The applicant has proposed that the future property line for the lots along Market Street be 60 feet west of the recommended zoning line. The proposed single family lots would be approximately 115 feet deep. Staff has recommended that the single family lots be platted to conform with the recommended R-2 zoning line (approximately 175 feet deep) . However, the Planning Commission has recommended that the lot line remain as the developer has proposed, and that a drainage and utility easement be dedicated for that part of the open space that will remain zoned R-2 to ensure that open space is maintained. 5. Proposed Building Shape Changes As shown on the Phasing Plan submitted on September 18, 1992, the applicant has proposed to change the layout of three structures to better fit their location on the site and to protect existing trees. The proposed single family uses along Market Street are not shown on the phasing plan or any other submittal. 6. Traffic Analysis Based on the Planning Commission's concerns for possible traffic impacts created by this development proposal and the lack of information submitted, the City hired a traffic consultant to prepare a traffic analysis. As noted in the fee schedule, consultant fees may be charged to an applicant as a part of the cost in the development review process. Staff informed the developer that a bill for this analysis would be forwarded to him to cover the cost of its preparation. The cost for the traffic analysis is $782 . The results of the traffic analysis indicate that if the proposed development is constructed as proposed, and Dakota Street becomes a through street, the estimated number of vehicles traveling on Dakota Street to the north of the proposed development will average 620 trips per day, while the estimated number of vehicles traveling on Dakota Street to the south of the proposed development will average 222 trips per day. 7 . Existing Trees To Be Preserved / Landscape Plan The submitted plan does not clearly identify which trees will be preserved. The developer has proposed changes to the two corner structures on the east side of Dakota Street since the submittal of the preliminary development plan attached to this memo. The developer is proposing changes on the locations of these structures to protect existing trees on the site. The submitted plan does generally locate the edge of the existing wooded area. A landscape concept has not been provided with this application. However, one copy of a proposed landscape plan was submitted at the October 8th meeting of the Planning Commission. This copy will be provided at the October 20, 1992 , meeting of the City Council. 8. Stormwater Management Plan The proposed Stormwater Management Plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the City's Stormwater Management Consultant, Pete Willenbring (OSM and Associates) . Three improvements to the plan were recommended. These recommended improvements included: a. Grade Outlot C and remove the berm in the northwest corner of the existing City pond (Eastview Addition) so that they are combined into one pond. The outlot pipe from this combined pond should be lower to around elevation 759 to minimize storage. b. Utilize two stage outlet structures from both poinding areas to provide both low frequency storm discharge and 100 year discharge capacities. c. Additional information is needed on the emergency overflow system from the ponds. In addition, building pod elevations should be shown in relation to the overflow systems and the buildings should be a minimum of one foot above the overflows for flood protection. Staff requested that the developer arrange for a meeting with the City Engineer to discuss these items and to discuss submitting a revised Stormwater Management Plan. As of the writing of the staff report, a revised plan had not yet been submitted for review. On October 12, 1992, a letter was written to Mr. Menke advising him that the proposed Stormwater Management Plan for the proposed subdivision, as submitted by Mr. Al Nuhn of Otto & Associates, is unacceptable. The City Engineer requested that the following items be addressed in a revised stormwater management plan in order to resolve these issues prior to the applicant' s request for final PUD approval: a. Staff informed the applicant that the proposed holding pond labeled Outlet C is unacceptable. Staff would prefer that the outlet from the City' s pond be connected directly to the proposed storm sewer in Dakota Street, via a storm sewer pipe. b. In order to be able to evaluate the proposed stormwater system, staff requested that the applicant submit a profile view of the entire system on a single drawing, all the way from the outlet on the City's pond to the existing storm sewer at Market Street. c. The Engineering Department apparently does not have the most current grading plan. The grading plan reviewed by the Engineering Department is not the same one that was provided by the applicant at the October Planning Commission meeting. Staff requests the most current grading plan submitted, and, if possible, on one drawing. d. The applicant has not submitted any information on the proposed pond in the northeast corner of the proposed plat. Staff requested that the applicant submit information on this pond such as outlet type, size, discharge rates, storage volumes, cross sections, etc. e. Staff requested additional information on the proposed detention pond labeled Outlet I, such as cross sections and the design of the trail adjacent to the slopes of the pond. f. Staff requested outlet velocities for the 30" storm sewer outlet and the second storm sewer outlet into Pond I. g. Staff informed the applicant that a two stage outlet structure is needed from both the existing City pond in the Eastview Addition and also the proposed pond (Outlet I) . Staff requested that the applicant submit the design requirements for these outlet structures. 9. Building Massing - Architectural Design A typical building footprint/lot detail has been provided on the submitted preliminary PUD plan. Elevations were presented at one Planning Commission meeting, but never submitted by the applicant. Further information on the building design is required with the final development plan. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the preliminary development plan for the Milwaukee Manor Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions. 2 . Deny the application for approval of the preliminary development plan for the Milwaukee Manor Planned Unit Development, stating the reasons for denial. 3 . Table the decision and request additional information from the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council thoroughly review the information provided by the applicant and in the staff report due to the complexity of the proposed project. The PUD approval process involves two steps - the preliminary approval and the final approval. The final PUD plan has not been submitted. Exhibit D identifies the requirements for final development plan submittals. Architectural plans should be included (building elevations illustrating building massing and exterior materials proposed) with the submittal for the final PUD approval. Separate drawings which illustrate specific items would be helpful in the applicant's presentation of the final development plan to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff has suggested separate plan sheets such as: 1. Development Plan (illustrating buildings, drawings, property lines, setbacks) . 2. Utilities Plan. 3 . Landscape, Site Lighting, and Signage Plan. 4. Open Space Plan. 5. Drainage Plan. When all the required information is placed on one sheet it is difficult to review. This is a complex project to review and separate plans would be most beneficial. Fifteen (15) full size copies and one 11" X 17" reduced copy of all plans and documents needs to be submitted for the final PUD approval. Both staff and the Planning Commission are of the opinion that the basic development concept is a good one for this parcel of land and the Planning Commission has recommended its approval. However, due to the lack of documentation to support the development proposal, the Planning Commission recommends that this approval be subject to a number of conditions: 1. The two interior streets (Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Road) shall be private driveways. 2 . The entire segment of the Dakota Street right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed with Phase 1 (60 ' width) so as to connect the two ends of the street. 3 . The developer shall dedicate a 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement in that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way proposed for vacation (north of the alley and north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line) for the existing water main. 4 . The City agrees to vacate that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way north of the alley and north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line with the City Council 's approval of the final plat for Phase 3 of the development. 5. A minimum of 20 percent of the total useable area of the PUD excluding the Dakota Street right-of-way shall be provided for open space. 6. The open space area that will remain zoned R-2 (between the east property line of the proposed single family development along Market Street and a southerly extension of the west boundary of Macy 2nd Addition) shall be dedicated as a drainage and utility easement to ensure that open space is maintained. 7. With the application for approval of the final development plan, the developer shall submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan which reflects the following: a. Grading of Outlot C and remove the berm in the northwest corner of the existing City pond (Eastview Addition) so that they are combined into one pond. The outlot pipe from this combined pond should be lower to around elevation 759 to minimize storage. b. Utilize two stage outlet structures from both poinding areas to provide both low frequency storm discharge and 100 year discharge capacities. c. Additional information is needed on the emergency overflow system from the ponds. In addition, building pod elevations should be shown in relation to the overflow systems and the buildings should be a minimum of one foot above the overflows for flood protection. 8. The applicant shall reimburse the City for $782 to cover the costs of the traffic analysis prepared by Stgar, Roscoe and Fausch for this proposal. 9. Park dedication requirements for the proposed development will be required. The lots in Wermerskirchen Addition, which are a part of this PUD, will not be required to make park dedication requirements since the requirements for this subdivision have already been met. However, the remaining areas in the project, including Lot 5, Block 1, Macy Plat; Lot 2, Block 1, Clifton 1st Addition; and the unplatted land will be required to meet the park dedication requirements. 10. With the application for approval of the final development plan, the developer shall submit fifteen (15) copies of the final development plan and fifteen copies of all other supporting informational items. With this application, the developer shall also submit one reduced 11"x17" copy of the final development plan and one reduced 11"x17" copy of all other drawing submittals for review by the Planning Commission and City Council by the adopted application deadline dates. The submittal for the final PUD approval must include the following additional items: a. The location and dimensions of all driveways and buildings in the proposed PUD. b. The revised four plex structures. c. The revised single family uses along Market Street. d. The applicant must designate the location, dimensions, and sizes of these areas, as well as provide information as will be provided for the residents, and information regarding its relationship to either a sidewalk or trail access system. The applicant shall verify that the proposed open spaces are "usable" . An individual plan of each area illustrating all proposed amenities and/or landscaping shall be provided with the application for approval of the final development plan. The reference to "park" must be deleted in areas proposed for open space, as these areas will not become public parks. e. Information on the design of private yards must be provided on the required landscape plan. f. The location and type of all existing trees to be preserved shall be shown on the required landscape plan. 11. Approval of the title opinion by the City Attorney. 12 . Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of required improvements: a. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. b. Electrical system shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. c. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. d. Storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. e. Local streets within the plat will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. f. Street signs will be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $250. 00 each per sign pole. g. Cash payment in lieu of park dedication shall be required. 13 . The developer must provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer for the areas where native soils are displaced or where the building sites are filled. 14. Prior to approval of the final plat, final construction plans for all public improvements must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 15. The developer shall be responsible for grading as approved by the City Engineer. 16. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon the applicant receiving a Certificate of Exemption (Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991) or receiving approval by the City with appropriate minimization / replacement measures. 17 . The developer shall dedicate an easement for the existing riser pole and underground distribution lines as required by Shakopee Public Utilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since the recommendation by the Planning Commission, additional information regarding the need for revisions to the applicant's Storm Water Management Plan have been determined. In addition to the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission, staff recommends that the following requirements be added to Condition No. 7 : 7 . d. The outlet from the City's pond shall be connected directly to the proposed storm sewer in Dakota Street, via a storm sewer pipe. e. The applicant shall submit a profile view of the entire proposed stormwater system on a single drawing, all the way from the outlet on the City's pond to the existing storm sewer at Market Street. f. The applicant shall submit a copies of the most current grading plan, if possible showing only grading on the drawing. g. The applicant shall submit information on the proposed pond in the northeast corner of the plat, including such information as outlet type, size, discharge rates, storage volumes, cross sections, etc. h. The applicant shall submit additional information on the proposed detention pond labeled Outlet I, such as cross sections and the design of the trail adjacent to the slopes of the pond. i. The applicant shall submit outlet velocities for the 30" storm sewer outlet and the second storm sewer outlet into Pond I. j . The applicant shall submit design requirements for the two stage outlet structures needed for both the existing City pond in the Eastview Addition and the proposed pond (Outlet I) . ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3681, A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor, subject to conditions, and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 3681 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MILWAUKEE MANOR. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did recommend approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor on October 8, 1992, and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor, described on Attachment 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The two interior streets (Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Road) shall be private driveways. 2 . The entire segment of the Dakota Street right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed with Phase 1 (60 ' width) so as to connect the two ends of the street. 3 . The developer shall dedicate a 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement in that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way proposed for vacation (north of the alley and north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line) for the existing water main. 4. The City agrees to vacate that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way north of the alley and north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line with the City Council' s approval of the final plat for Phase 3 of the development. 5. A minimum of 20 percent of the total useable area of the PUD excluding the Dakota Street right-of-way shall be provided for open space. 6. The open space area that will remain zoned R-2 (between the east property line of the proposed single family development along Market Street and a southerly extension of the west boundary of Macy 2nd Addition) shall be dedicated as a drainage and utility easement to ensure that open space is maintained. 7. With the application for approval of the final development plan, the developer shall submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan which reflects the following: a. Grading of Outlot C and remove the berm in the northwest corner of the existing City pond (Eastview Addition) so that they are combined into one pond. The outlot pipe from this combined pond should be lower to around elevation 759 to minimize storage. b. Utilize two stage outlet structures from both poinding areas to provide both low frequency storm discharge and 100 year discharge capacities. c. Additional information is needed on the emergency overflow system from the ponds. In addition, building pod elevations should be shown in relation to the overflow systems and the buildings should be a minimum of one foot above the overflows for flood protection. d. The outlet from the City' s pond shall be connected directly to the proposed storm sewer in Dakota Street, via a storm sewer pipe. e. The applicant shall submit a profile view of the entire proposed stormwater system on a single drawing, all the way from the outlet on the City's pond to the existing storm sewer at Market Street. f. The applicant shall submit a copies of the most current grading plan, if possible showing only grading on the drawing. g. The applicant shall submit information on the proposed pond in the northeast corner of the plat, including such information as outlet type, size, discharge rates, storage volumes, cross sections, etc. h. The applicant shall submit additional information on the proposed detention pond labeled Outlet I, such as cross sections and the design of the trail adjacent to the slopes of the pond. i. The applicant shall submit outlet velocities for the 30" storm sewer outlet and the second storm sewer outlet into Pond I. j . The applicant shall submit design requirements for the two stage outlet structures needed for both the existing City pond in the Eastview Addition and the proposed pond (Outlet I) . 8. The applicant shall reimburse the City for $782 to cover the costs of the traffic analysis prepared by Stgar, Roscoe and Fausch for this proposal. 9. Park dedication requirements for the proposed development will be required. The lots in Wermerskirchen Addition, which are a part of this PUD, will not be required to make park dedication requirements since the requirements for this subdivision have already been met. However, the remaining areas in the project, including Lot 5, Block 1, Macy Plat; Lot 2, Block 1, Clifton 1st Addition; and the unplatted land will be required to meet the park dedication requirements. 10. With the application for approval of the final development plan, the developer shall submit fifteen (15) copies of the final development plan and fifteen copies of all other supporting informational items. With this application, the developer shall also submit one reduced 11"x17" copy of the final development plan and one reduced 11"x17" copy of all other drawing submittals for review by the Planning Commission and City Council by the adopted application deadline dates. The submittal for the final PUD approval must include the following additional items: a. The location and dimensions of all driveways and buildings in the proposed PUD. b. The revised four plex structures. c. The revised single family uses along Market Street. d. The applicant must designate the location, dimensions, and sizes of these areas, as well as provide information as will be provided for the residents, and information regarding its relationship to either a sidewalk or trail access system. The applicant shall verify that the proposed open spaces are "usable" . An individual plan of each area illustrating all proposed amenities and/or landscaping shall be provided with the application for approval of the final development plan. The reference to "park" must be deleted in areas proposed for open space, as these areas will not become public parks. e. Information on the design of private yards must be provided on the required landscape plan. f. The location and type of all existing trees to be preserved shall be shown on the required landscape plan. 11. Approval of the title opinion by the City Attorney. 12. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of required improvements: a. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. b. Electrical system shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. c. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. d. Storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. e. Local streets within the plat will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. f. Street signs will be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $250. 00 each per sign pole. g. Cash payment in lieu of park dedication shall be required. 13 . The developer must provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer for the areas where native soils are displaced or where the building sites are filled. 14. Prior to approval of the final plat, final construction plans for all public improvements must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 15. The developer shall be responsible for grading as approved by the City Engineer. 16. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon the applicant receiving a Certificate of Exemption (Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991) or receiving approval by the City with appropriate minimization / replacement measures. 17. The developer shall dedicate an easement for the existing riser pole and underground distribution lines as required by Shakopee Public Utilities. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney ATTACHMENT 1 That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds East along the south line of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 1008.50 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 197.61 feet; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 231.23 feet; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 192.67 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 3, MACEYS SECOND ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof; thence South 65 degrees, 20 minutes, 50 seconds East along the south line of the record plats of MACEY SECOND ADDITION and MACEY PLAT a distance of 581.44 feet to the centerline of Dakota Street according to said MACEY PLAT; thence South 00 degrees, 42 minutes, 33 seconds West a distance of 36. 11 feet; thence South 02 degrees 47 minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 182.21 feet to the south line of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West along said south line to the point of beginning. AND Lots 6 & 7, Block 314 and Lot 6, Block 309, all in ;ERMERSKIRCHENS ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof. -AN:- That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds East along the south line of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 1008.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 197.61 feet; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 231.23 feet; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 192.67 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 3, MACEYS SECOND ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof; thence South 02 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds East along the southerly extension of the west line of Block 3 of said MACEYS SECOND ADDITION a distance of 35.72 feet; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 582.42 feet to the southerly extension of the centerline of Dakota Street according to the record plat of MACEY PLAT and the point of beginning; thence continue South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 360.85 feet; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 36. 19 feet to the south line of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West along said south line a distance of 336.61 feet to a line which bears South 02 degrees 47 minutes 32 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 02 degrees =47 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 182.21 feet to the point of beginning. AND Lot 4, Block 317, WERMERSKIRCHENS ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof. -AND- That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds East along the south line of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 1008.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence North 89 degreees 11 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 197.61 feet; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 231.23 feet; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 192.67 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 3, MACEYS SECOND ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof; thence South 02 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds East along the southerly extension of the west line of Block 3 of said MACEYS SECOND ADDITION a distance of 35.72 feet; thence South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 582.42 feet to the southerly extension of the centerline of Dakota Street according to the record plat of MACEY PLAT and the point of beginning; thence continue South 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 360.85 feet; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 36. 19 feet to the south line of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West along said south line a distance of 41.38 feet to the northeasterly line of Outlot A, EAST— VIEW FIRST ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof; thence South 65 degrees 16 minutes 39 seconds East along said line a distance of 126. 16 feet to the southerly extension of the east line of Lot 2, Block 1 , CLIFTON FIRST ADDITION, according to the record plat thereof; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 35 seconds East along said extended line a distance of 90.70 feet to the southerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, of said CLIFTON FIRST ADDITION; thence North 65 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds West along said southerly line, and the northeasterly extension thereof, a distance of 441 .84 feet to the centerline of Dakota Street, according to the record plat on MACEY PLAT; thence South 00 degrees 4.2 minutes 33 seconds West along the southerly extension of said centerline a distance of 36. 11 feet to the point of beginning. Lot 2,2, Block 1 , CLIFTON FIRST ADDITION, according to the record plat thereon. That part of Minnesota Street and that par: of Dakota Street lying North of the North line, and the Easterly and Westerly extensions thereof, of the alley running through Blocks 309, 314 and 317 as platted in WERMERSKIRCHENS ADDITION. EXHIBIT A • r- V _8 : „ .3 . - • .BR - ;.s- 7 :-w• :39.t• ::�<�icNc }::: . - •,...........v.''.. -- - ;" i M "-'—""--.. - �=-' r -4. t .• .__ .1._-w+- - X.*,. ..-...%..c..=0 - = — • i. i AG AGRICULTURE - ..... - •---_ ,L.'-.-.. __x:-: . ._.: - .. -1. '?• R1 RURAL RESIDENTIAL i � . R2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL R3 MID-DENSITY RES. R4 MULTI FAMILY RES. N B1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS _ _ -...-: B2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS -�- --- - """ - - ,:;_r•'' ' B3 CENTRAL BUSINESS ; , ;.�,• II LIGHT INDUSTRIAL _ ;_,�, !°}` ` �� 12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL i . 5 cl Q la, • -- . - ; S SHORELAND -� f--�I" ,,. =�" x -.• • ".....4,• �' 2i C n . _� _ i> I dam./ 1 �l FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT = __ 1 I z �'- .. •-•• MANDATORY PUD r — ;` �- y�r� RTD RACETRACK DISTRICT .,N45 Zoning Map City of SHAKOPEE 6\ \i1\ ' \ ? \:3i. pU , f JEYCK A EXHIBIT B _. - GELHAYE 11-- — 2- 2 35 - N 4 z 5 7 6 ; 1 S1 72050 a. 3 0 �i (f)' 8 -- 2 D 7 1 Ck-IF N GELHAYE 9 - 9 CITY OF SHAKOF'EEI .. .� I0 - }. 4 10 W • I1 x DEAN SMITH • # 18 >7 D Q ....... 3 0I ••• � e 1 2 : I 14 0109 0 W 1 S ... ..... ....... G ::..:EI3._: f?; SE€BE:K$AL : :::>:;;;;:.::::-;::::<.;>:::-::;: ;;•:_;.:. •:.::;:;.:;: :: >: . : ::: > CERT. 8257 — 7 6 —.,. 6 4 - 302 _ - -- _ . T .ARK VU •zc5I2I 2 3 45 I 2 3 CUT LOT A ' N I 1 i - A. - -� 7TH ST. 3103 I lI I 2 L............ I 2 8 7 6 10 19 8 7 6 101 1 8 7 6 10 9 8 CP0 ' � __1 31 ° ''.E,.1411313 31 7 v v 'I cr o I 2 1 3 1 4 5 I 2 3 4 15 I •I 1 2 m :h M1 w ti I I �,_o I V N �i I N I I I 1 • s - 1 ' 8TH ST. .A. -I i o m CERT r� CERT. I r 5 6 8 7 , 13822 W ,413 :� cn ! W I _ � _� - 6 10 I610I C i --1---6 9 ►a- I A� 9954 - _ 3II o - — - _._ 18 9 W 18 9 o --8 3 is _ -.— 4 -304-- I CERT z 19 - 31-27 • Q -- 7 --- 3 7 19 15649 n 3 z ' ---k T%41-1-- -- 6- 2 0 J 20 - -6 -- L --- _ --- ---F- 1 -- _-- Tn �--T -- _2 I p I I Q N i I tv a 2 3 a 5 co i , 5 w 5 N I I I I1 I. I --• - -- -- -"---'- L--moi Lit- U N l I .v W / �,a / � .0 I L.i r I O+ I AI83dOHJ A113 j i /7j°//j// /z/...--." / ir? a = 1 iN l I'I t .N .r /oi ////�/ //` /.,%f•:_' ... o -r 'k. / / ter' -r/ „ /4.1 , --_-___ ___-.M.. b m r ^a ; - l'' �.-�. 4.-36/.a --lL_ ii / 1, /I//r= �•�: 1�. ivol . Z — ---."----no-- -- —` "tea erg _= / /� ) /// \a�iQr, a ; l —1t \♦ 197U� 11 V/ - ////I/ �� i Y z 4. ;1111 ii, / . 4 44,',4/- •\,' ?//,/, / , it a 1ill 1� x / I r I I1,E Wal.. u �Z'" _ • 1 I— ...— 1t. �� * � i / . Illg rtt d+,}'/ / ��tir N a `t . . SiC s Z2: 1 ... ST ' . . ".." 'fat ' / I 1 ?11 1 r"II,P --e.. .eljigiilt & `fi e a..--',..7 e , --•-‘.- - LL• �{ :t- ` ' f i ¢{I \- _ N I / /- e--/--n14 i.x: �r tk 1 ! � t 11 S SL N, 7i 31 G // _ /1f ' _ _ •:`' ''` t" tiJ y s1;` ,7. r. LU las: >,--- « !I ►r /� 1! • / /;• }7� - - W W 12•• A I f N r/r I Q • .- .71•., . f Ir, 0 Y ii ,, ii:: !pi Ili, a }i ,i :iv) ',Ali // ••✓ A i . :..-r; -'\,s1 / I (II, /".._ ". .11 D 1f,— r-- -- - �_ ►,� _ ;,/ ,V' ;tea. � -• r: —- Ili 1_____22:2•44‘,3-1,; .J_..;5.';-'7 "!-,,ar, 44411°1:71 ' 1 1- - t -1 s 1 '1°UN tI a • Q . - -- 1— --' la R ,i - 1 - i / r /. 4 -I ' ,.. - z — 1 -`.• lii ilia Olt /• /,,' lip 1 I _ilI ;1111 - v. 2 1 ..., ( - • :/)///ill 1- T r I v. , . k• • isl; 'l':. __J ; - 1-. : . i ,,, 1 - . \. //47 Pi/ 1....1•__;, NI 1: Alt ,/, :1 . t_ l t / �i / 5 / _ / t �`" — — — / 3101 $'I'//I/iii 1 ' ii !' . r/ i L/ il•; � -__ ' // —I "1�/ ,�'"; ,il Pt atx�2: IC, (_E 1 , ' I ' !/i �, ' /,, '9_,A1/ .IL-2=•` i i1` i 1' 0 ��1 r4r3 1 ry 1•t�l s .Iiv lA� �I 111:,/ 1 .1_ . 4 —4 - -..:— ;dill; Phil I 11 / / Mh 3_ P a:: 1 I u i I 1 �� 1I •j /wi . -\ r \. 1 1/�/ 1(Ili 1 • / /' 1 �- ••[SQL' -��` - 4•. .i•1. ,7i _ --:13 / / .. "NM o 1 731115 —'-4-- ! j /-7-- f •_ u.oTTi7 w _ - -.e• q. rs' /-_/__S{-___.._ n r — — V1OS3NNIW~I / /%/11 `\ 1 11 ; l l c I/ / •f. ,`n t a N J � t 41 / a / // Vin/ •///I I <'"�,v, ___ / / 1 ~ 1 .S� (� / ij=. ,, ,l -�f r ' ///�/i//�//II I t _ ___ -/114 — Ohl • _ W / I I tY'r ///% `- - '/ /—/ po. S'/,i/I// I mo°. _ • N a —.L —� J - �i: / 1-,..„--",• — // /// 4/////II /�/ -- _..1..._ „ . •u r llr //r�f// / ;-Ll /� // //// // �1 7 \ yell/ k //. I 1 1' // — / I - -, \ •(Y i i la A 3 irn ; •. to t' \ .4.1-0 ——— — -- _ _ _ ——' _ �+ • • _ - .. , .,..tom > . -.-17 ;. •L:. I 1-- Z Z4 .. - 1 3 H a .v w _ -- / -_ - _ __ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ Int « fii• - _ - _ T---- .""-..._ 1 14 BUILDING /LOT DETAIL .0 0 5 ,(, c, ..22\ \N., •fir, 1 , I GARAGE . n N I 1 .n "' L .J0.,' (Lot No) 2220 sit. ft. N • 0 - n n 4 > )>)) ) ) )))� )� 9 ; N \ N < <q- 1 \ ' 22' " �` 5 r o_ 1 r - -'j' � I GARAGE tNi a r 1800 sq. ft. 1 10 N I 1 o ' r a o M 2 M M 1- - - \ ,.♦ M ,, I GARAGE o L • (Lot No.) 12 10 (Lot No.) I • ,\\ 2220 sq. fl. v / ° ( t ,� N) 1 r� I (©lock No.) 1 ` i (Block No.) – ' o ( v o 0 t'. GARAGE . i 1800 so. II 22"-7/ – o \ {Lot No.) ( — – S.�0,: o in -' e) 2 GARAGE 6 J IBoaco. is ILoI No.) 1 a 14;) ))) j� t�E< < < < k/ « ( /10 / N , \ \ co _ _N / 4/ — - ,/ \ 2220 sq. ft, f (0' \\ rn �M (Lot No.) / co 3/ i 2220 sq. H. i GARAGE N (Lot No.)• GARAGE ON 5 / I / 5 \ ''./ ./ ./ / / / / / Ill 22/ /.//i 9 N.\- \ » >1‘ \ 22,\N.. \ i 5 50ut n 46 GO 60 TYPICAL 4 UNIT LAYOUT TYPICAL 3 UNIT LAYOUT 9 \ \ 0 \ , 10 N `n `0 1 N. M ,n (Lot No.) • I GARAGE \ 2100 sq. ft. , N I N 46 . 0 ) ) )3) > ,i> >-.> >> > � 0 r� 1 r / . (Block No.) 1 6 , 1 GARAGE N 2 "' 0 L -(Lot No.) –0 . 5 0 O / 2100 i so. '1. /0 i in n 60 TYPICAL 2 UNIT LAYOUT Scale: I"=20' • EXHIBIT D S 11 . 40 Each proposed Final Development Plan phase shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Development Plan. G. Lapse and Extension. If within one (1) yes: aster the approval of a Final Development Plan, a building permit has not been issued and a request in writing for an extension ha not been received by the City, said clan shall become null and void. If an extension is petitioned for by the proponent within one (1 ) Year , the Council may extend the approval of the Final Development Plan without a public hearing for one (1) additional year upon findingthat 1) a good faith effort has been made to use the ?UD, 2) there is reasonable expectation that the ?'JD will be used, and 3) the facts upon which the original PUD was issued are essentially unchanged . H. Building Permits. At the time o building permit approval, the building plans shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and Building Official to establish their compliance with the approved Preliminary and Final Development Plans. I° they dO not comply, the plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Commis- sion and the Council and a public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission, all in accordance with the above established procedures . Subd . 7 . Submission Re i roe er i /� the A. Preliminary Development = -an. 74 ; "'n (1 3) co conies of following plans and information shallll accompany -he application fee . Such information shall be stapled tcgethm_ o: o r_^.e- .. s= a ached to provide a n== - and o_ an_Lec en and -' graphic package . 1. Project Information including site size , ownership, Leve:Over , development timing and such other informa- tion as will be helpful in understanding the proposal. 2. Area Information including boundary condi- tions , adjacent ownerships and property lines , surrounding land use, existing transportation, existing zoning, compliance with the City' s Comprehensive Plan, etc. 3. Existing Site Information including soils, veg=.,=- ion, topography, slope conditions , wa-Ar =An- i-A= , drainage , wildlife existing land use , etc. 4. The ?reliminary Development Plan Proposal illustrating the proposed use of land, acreages, proposes: den i— i =s or s••uare fooraces, building nelc^t, st:eet heed walkway locations , recreation and open space areas , proposed utilities , landscaping concepts, mass grading, project phasing , anticipated � and any other .=o_m_tion that will be helpful in variances , - - understanding and evaluating the proposal . 312-Il (9-1-S S 1'- . 40 5. Final Development Plan Proposal for Phase I if Preliminary and Final Development Plans are to be prepared simultaneously. Source : Ordinance No. 206 , 4th Series Effective Date: 9-11-96 3. Final Development Plan. Fifteen (15) copies of the following plans and information shall accompany the apo1icaticn and fee. Such information shall be stapled together or ozher^.se attached to provide a neat and organized written and grail is package . Source : Ordinance No . 219 , 4th Series Effective Date : 7-2-87 1. Project Information, Area Information and Existing Site information as required for a Preliminary Development Plan . 2. The Final Development Plan Proposal including the following : (a) A Site Plan which illustrates the following : (1) Location and dimensions of lot, building, driveways, curb cuts and off-street parking spaces and loading areas; (2) Distances between building and front, side and rear lot lines; _principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots and requested variances; (3) Site grading including existing t000gr phy and proposed grading at two (2) foot contour intervals ; (4) Location of easements and utilities ; (5) Location and design of signs ; (6) Building heights ; and , (7) A tabulation of density , land use intensity, lot coverage, and acreages and percentages of land devoted to building , park_ng and open space . (b) Preliminary architectural drawings illustrating schematic floor plans, building massing and elevations and exterior materials of construction. (c) A landscape plan prepared by or under the supervision of a landscape architect showing material types, common and botanical names , sizes , number and location . + - (d) A lighting plan showing the type , height and location of parking lot, driveway and security lighting . (e) A drainage and erosion control plan as appropriate to satisfy the requirements of the watershed district having jurisdiction. (f) Any additional written or graphic information as may reasonably be required by the Administrator and applicable Sections of the Zoning Chapter , including , but not limited to , the following : 317-' 2 (9-1-B7 ) § '_1 . 40 (1) Type of business and proposed number of employees by shift, land use and housing profiles , etc . (2) Estimated use Der day of the sanitary sewer and public water systems. (3) Proposed private covenants o: other legal instruments . ( 4 ) Phasing and construction schedule . (5) Proposed variances and rat'.onale . Source: Ordinance No . 206 , 4th Series Ef=�^' ivp Date: 9-11-86 C. Administrative Waiver. The Administrator shall have the discretion to waive the Planning Unit Development (PUD) approval process or information required for either adoption of a PUD or amendment of an approved PUD when the following conditions are met: 1. Properties Located Within a Mandatory PUD Area. Properties which have not previously gone through the PUD platting process will not be required to submit a . PUD when it functions as an existing agricultural operation or when the following conditions are met: (a) The changes in the building location or size do not affect more than 10% of the site area and/or floor space . (b) The changes in landscaping , _"a_ .._. , and drive arrangement, or site improvements do not affect more than 10% of the site area . with all(c) The changes complyrequire- ments __ placed on the zone in which the property is located . 2. Prop= - i os For Which a ?UD Has Been Approved. - � (a) The changes in building location or size do not affect more than 10% of the site and/or floor space, not to exceed 10 ,000 square feet. (b) The changes in landscaping , parking and drive arrangement, or site improvements do not affect more than 10% of the site area , not to exceed 10 ,000feet. square (c) The changes comply with all require- ments of this Chapter and conditions attached to the att.ova_ of the PUD. (d) The changes do not alter the overall design, uses , or intent of the project. Source : Ordinance No . 2' 9 , 4th Series Effective Date : 7-2-S7 (Sections 11.41 through 11.59 , inclusive, reserved for future expansion. ) 312-13 (9-1-37 ) CI TY OF SHAKOPEEN INCORPORATED 1870 �' N., 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445-3650 77f October 12 , 1992 Mr. LeRoy Menke 1185 South Shumway Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Milwaukee Manor Dear Mr. Menke: The proposed stormwater management plan for the above referenced subdivision as submitted by Mr. Al Nuhn, Otto & Associates is unacceptable. The following items need to be addressed: 1. The proposed holding pond labeled Outlet C is unacceptable. We would prefer that the outlet from the City' s pond be connected directly to the proposed storm sewer in Dakota Street, via a storm sewer pipe. 2 . In order to be able to evaluate your proposed stormwater system, I would like you to submit a profile view of the entire system on a single drawing, all the way from the outlet on the City' s pond to the existing storm sewer at Market Street. 3 . The Engineering Department apparently does not have the most current grading plan. The grading plan reviewed by myself is not the same one that was shown at the last Planning Commission meeting. I would like the most current grading plan submitted, and, if possible, on one drawing. 4. You have not submitted any information on the proposed pond in the northeast corner of your plat. Please submit all information on this pond such as outlet type, size, discharge rates, storage volumes, cross sections, etc. 5. Additional information as needed on the proposed detention pond labeled Outlet I, such as cross sections and the design of the trail adjacent to the slopes of the pond. 6. Outlet velocities for the 30" storm sewer outlet and the second storm sewer outlet into Pond I are needed. 7 . A two stage outlet structure is needed from both the existing City pond in the Eastview Addition and also the proposed pond (Outlet I) . Please submit the design requirements for these The Heart Of Progress Valley AN EOL-_oPaOP-JNITY E,MP.OYEa Please submit a revised stormwater management plan to my office at your earliest convenience in order that this item can be resolved prior to the final PUD submittal. Sincerely, i David E. Hutton, P.E. Public Works Director DEH/pmp cc: Lindberg Ekola Al Nuhn, Otto & Assoc. 1/ 13. REVISED RESOLUTION October 20, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 3681 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MILWAUKEE MANOR. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did recommend approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor on October 8, 1992 , and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor, described on Attachment 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The two interior streets (Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Road) shall be private driveways. 2 . The entire segment of the Dakota Street right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed with Phase 1 (60 ' width) so as to connect the two ends of the street. [3 . The developer shall dedicate a 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement in that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way proposed for vacation (north of the alley and north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line) for the existing water main. ] 3 [4] .The City agrees to vacate that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way north of the alley and north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line with the City Council ' s approval of the final plat for Phase 3 of the development. The City shall retain a 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement in that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way proposed for vacation (north of the alley and north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line) for the existing water main. 4 [5] .A minimum of 20 percent of the total useable area of the PUD excluding the Dakota Street right-of-way shall be provided for open space. 5 [6] .The open space area that will remain zoned R-2 (between the east property line of the proposed single family development along Market Street and a southerly extension of the west boundary of Macy 2nd Addition) shall be dedicated as a drainage and utility easement to ensure that open space is maintained. 6[7] .With the application for approval of the final development plan, the developer shall submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan which reflects the following: Grading of Outlot C and remove the berm in the •rthwest corner of the existing City pond (Ea •iew Ad• 'on) so that they are combined into o - •ond. The outlot . ' •e from this combined pond sho • be lowered to [around • evation 759 to minimi - storage. ] [b. Utilize two stage o• et str - res from both ponding areas to provide both equency storm discharge and 100 year discharge ca• iti ] [c. Additional inf• ation is needed o e emergency overflow s - em from the ponds. In a• • '- ion, building pad el- - ions should be shown in relation • the ove ow systems and the buildings should be a - 'nimum - one foot above the overflows for flood protecti• - a[d] .The outlet from the City's pond shall be connected directly to the proposed storm sewer in Dakota Street, via a storm sewer pipe. b[e] .The applicant shall submit a profile view of the entire proposed stormwater system on a single drawing, all the way from the outlet on the City' s pond to the existing storm sewer at Market Street. c[f] .The applicant shall submit copies of the most current grading plan_[ , if possible showing only grading on the drawing. ] d[g] .The applicant shall submit information on the proposed pond in the northeast corner of the plat, including such information as outlet type, size, discharge rates, storage volumes, cross sections, etc. e[h] .The applicant shall submit additional information on the proposed detention pond labeled Outlet I, including [such as] cross sections and the design of the trail adjacent to the slopes of the pond. f[i] .The applicant shall submit outlet velocities for the 30" storm sewer outlet and the second storm sewer outlet into Pond I. g[j ] .The applicant shall submit design requirements for the two stage outlet structures [needed] for both the existing City pond in the Eastview Addition and the proposed pond (Outlet I) . 7 [8] .The applicant shall reimburse the City for $782 to cover the costs of the traffic analysis prepared by Stgar, Roscoe and Fausch for this proposal. 8 [9] .Park dedication requirements for the proposed development will be required. The lots in Wermerskirchen Addition, which are a part of this PUD, will not be required to make park dedication requirements since the requirements for this subdivision have already been met. However, the remaining areas in the project, including Lot 5, Block 1, Macy Plat; Lot 2, Block 1, Clifton 1st Addition; and the unplatted land will be required to meet the park dedication requirements. 9 [10]With the application for approval of the final development plan, the developer shall submit fifteen (15) copies of the final development plan and fifteen copies of all other supporting informational items. With this application, the developer shall also submit one reduced 11"x17" copy of the final development plan and one reduced 11"x17" copy of all other drawing submittals for review by the Planning Commission and City Council by the adopted application deadline dates. The submittal for the final PUD approval must include the following additional items: a. The location and dimensions of all driveways and buildings in the proposed PUD. b. The proposed revision to the design of the [revised] four plex structures, showing the angled 4-plexes to be located on Blocks 2 , 3 , 5, 6, and 13 . c. The proposed revision changing from a tri-plex to [revised] single family homes in Block 16 [uses along Market Street] . d. The applicant must designate the location, dimensions, and sizes of the open space [these] areas [ , as well as provide information as will be provided for the residents, and information regarding its relationship to either a sidewalk or trail access system] . The applicant shall verify that the open spaces are "usable" by providing [ . ] an individual plan of each area illustrating all proposed amenities and/or landscaping [shall be provided with the application for approval of the final development plan] . The reference to "park" must be deleted in areas proposed for open space, as these areas will not become public parks. e. Proposed landscaping products and information on the design of private yards, including their location and dimensions, must be provided on the required landscape plan. f. The location and type of all existing trees to be preserved shall be shown on the required landscape plan. 11[0]Approval of the title opinion by the City Attorney. 12 [1]Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of required improvements: a. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. b. Electrical system to [shall] be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. c. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. d. Storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems to [shall] be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. e. Local streets within the plat will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. f. Street signs will be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $250. 00 each per sign pole. g. Cash payment in lieu of park dedication shall be required. 13 [2]The developer must provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer for the areas where native soils are displaced or where the building sites are filled. 14 [3 ]Prior to approval of the final plat, final construction plans for all public improvements must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 15[4]The developer shall be responsible for grading as approved by the City Engineer. 16[5]Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon the applicant receiving a Certificate of Exemption (Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991) or receiving approval by the City with appropriate minimization / replacement measures. 17 [6)The developer shall dedicate an easement for the existing riser pole and underground distribution lines as required by Shakopee Public Utilities. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney COi\ SNLllc� MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: Amendment to the Draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan Deletion of the Gravel Pit Designation DATE: October 16, 1992 INTRODUCTION: At their meeting, on October 8, 1992 , the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan, which deletes mineral extraction from the agricultural land use area in the text of the plan and deletes the gravel pit designation from the Rural Land Use Plan. BACKGROUND: The draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan has not been amended to reflect the policy decision made by the City Council to delete mineral extraction as a conditional use from the Agricultural (Ag) and the Rural Residential (R-1) zoning districts. On September 17 , 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 304, which deleted mineral extraction as a conditional use in the Ag and R-1 districts. Attached to this memo is a copy of the staff report that went to the City Council on this item and Ordinance No. 304 (Exhibit A) . The draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan was completed in 1990. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft plan and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council for approval. On February 19, 1991, the City Council approved the draft plan and directed staff to take the appropriate steps to forward the plan to the Metropolitan Council. The draft plan was submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review but the review has been put on hold until the County Road 18 issue has been resolved. DISCUSSION: Several months after the City Council ' s approval of the draft Comprehensive Plan, the policy decision to delete mineral extraction as a conditional use in the Ag and R-1 districts was made by the Council. This proposed amendment would update the draft plan to match this policy. Attached is a copy of the Rural Land Use Plan from the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit B) . The plan indicates the existing gravel pit located south of County Road 16 and west of County Road 83 . The proposed end use of this mine is agricultural. Based on the City Council policy decision to delete mineral extraction as a conditional use in the Ag and R-1 districts, and the proposed end use of the mine as agricultural, the land use map should be amended to reflect agricultural designation. The text of the draft plan includes a reference to gravel mining in the Agricultural areas. On page 18. 12 , under the Agricultural Land Use description, the plan states, "gravel mining is currently allowed by conditional use permit only" . This text reference should also be deleted to reflect the policy decision made by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the proposed amendment to the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan, deleting mineral extraction from the agricultural land use areas. 2 . Do not approve the proposed amendment. 3 . Request additional information and table the decision on the proposed amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to delete mineral extraction from the agricultural land use areas in the text of the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan and delete the gravel pit designation from the Rural Land Use Plan and replace it with the agricultural land use designation, and move its approval. EXHIBIT A MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola RE: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Deletion of Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in the Agricultural (Ag) And Rural Residential (R-1) Districts DATE: September 13 , 1991 INTRODUCTION: At their meeting on August 20, 1991, the City Council directed to staff to schedule another public hearing to reconsider the proposed ordinance amendment to delete mineral extraction as a conditional use in the Ag and R-1 zoning districts. BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the Explanation To Ordinance 304, which reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment for the deletion of mineral extraction in the Ag and R-1 districts. DISCUSSION: The formal mediation process with the Metropolitan Council for the proposed McKenna Mine is scheduled to be completed by October 7, 1991. The Planning Commission has rescheduled their continued public hearing for proposed conditional use permit for Thursday, October 17, 1991. Staff received a second mineral extraction proposal recently. This proposal will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their October 3 , 1991 meeting. The Planning Commission will consider the merits of a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposal prior to their review of the conditional use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their September 5, 1991 meeting the Planning Commission reaffirmed their January 10, 1991 recommendation to delete mineral extraction as a conditional use in the Ag and the R-1 districts. The Planning Commission requested that a strong message be sent to the City Council to take action on the enactment of the proposed ordinance amendment. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Ordinance No. 304 as drafted. 2 . Amend Ordinance No. 304 to specify an effective date and adopt the amended ordinance. Staff notes that an effective date after October 17 would allow the Planning Commission to take action on the McKenna mine proposal ; an effective date after November 5 would allow final action by the City Council on any appeal relating to the McKenna mine proposal, based on current time schedules. 3 . Table Ordinance No. 304 . 4 . Take no action. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Ordinance No. 304 , an Ordinance of the City of Shakopee amending City Code, Chapter 11 Zoning Ordinance by amending Section 11. 24, Agricultural Preservation District (AG) , and Section 11. 25, Rural Residential District (R-1) , to delete mineral extraction as a conditional use. EXPLANATION TO ORDINANCE 304 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Shakopee Planning Department PURPOSE: To delete mineral extraction as a conditional use from the Agricultural (AG) and Rural Residential (R-1) zoning districts. REMARKS : At their January 10, 1991 meeting the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council that mineral extraction as a conditional use be deleted from the Agricultural (Ag) and Rural Residential (R-1) districts . At the January 15 , 1991 City Council/Planning Commission joint work session on the Comprehensive Plan it was determined that further study will be undertaken to address the concept of creating a new zoning district for mineral extraction. BACKGROUND: Mineral extraction or mining and excavation activities are currently allowed with a conditional use permit in Ag, R-1, I-1 and I-2 zoning districts. With the conditional use permit process a mining permit is also required for all commercial mining operations . Attached is a copy of the requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance for mining permits. Three maps illustrating existing, operational, and end use conditions must be submitted for review and approval . In addition the ordinance lists nine performance standards and requirements for land rehabilitation. In granting a conditional use permit the Planning Commission can impose additional conditions beyond requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance which the Commission considers necessary to protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. The additional conditions can include: (a) Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension. (b) Limiting the height, size, or location of buildings . (c) Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points . (d) Increasing the street width. (e) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces . (f) Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of • signs . (g) Requiring diking, fencing, screening, landscaping, or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby property. (h) Designated sites for open spaces . (i) Requiring the execution of a developer' s agreement and providing financial guarantee of cash deposit, certified check or performance bond to insure compliance with conditional use permit provisions. DISCUSSION: In 1985 an advisory committee to the Minnesota legislature studied aggregate resources - sand, gravel and crushed rock - in Twin Cities metropolitan area. Their conclusion was there is not a need for broad scale protection of aggregate resources. The aggregate industry has been able to maintain a ten year supply of reserves and there is a wide distribution of these resources. The mapping of aggregate resources has been developed at a regional level and is not available on local or City maps. Based on discussions with the Engineering staff, aggregate resources are well distributed in Shakopee as well as the southwestern metropolitan area. Attached is a map illustrating the general distribution of major sand and gravel deposits in the metropolitan area. The map identifies a wide distribution of aggregate resources . Two conditional use permits for mining of aggregate resources have been approved in Shakopee. One site is located in an I-2 district south of the Blue Lake Treatment Plant and Highway 101. A second site is located in an Ag district west of County Road 83 and south of County Road 16 in Section 16. Both sites are currently in operation. Land use compatibility is a primary issue with respect to mining operations . From the City's experiences with the two existing mining operations promoting compatibility with adjacent residential properties has proven less successful. City staff has received numerous complaints on the mine located in the Ag district. Some of the complaints resulting from operation of the mine include increased levels of noise, dust, odors, track traffic and safety of neighborhood children. Enforcement of the numerous conditions from the conditional use permit for this mine has taken considerable staff time. In contrast only one complaint was made against the mining operation located in the industrial area. This complaint was in response to the effects of water pumping out of the pit area. Residential land use areas are more sensitive in nature as illustrated by complaints. Based on the 1985 legislative report and discussions with • Engineering staff, adequate aggregate resources would be available if limited to the I-1 and I-2 districts in Shakopee. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 304 , an ordinance of the City of Shakopee amending City Code, Chapter 11 Zoning Ordinance by repealing Section 11 . 24 , Subd. 3 Conditional Use H and Section 11 . 25 , Subd. 3 Conditional Use I and move its adoption. Submitted by: Approved by: City Attorney City Administrator ORDINANCE NO. 304 , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE, LAND USE REGULATION (ZONING) , BY AMENDING SECTION 11. 24 , AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT (AG) , AND SECTION 11. 25, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1) , TO DELETE MINERAL EXTRACTION AS A CONDITIONAL USE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS : Section 1 - That Chapter 11 of the Shakopee City Code, Land Use Regulation (Zoning) , Sec. 11. 24, Agricultural Preservation District (AG) , Subd. 3 , Conditional Uses, is hereby amended by repealing paragraph H, which provided: "H. Mining, sand and gravel extraction. " Section 2 - That Chapter 11 of the Shakopee City Code, Land Use Regulation (Zoning) , Sec. 11. 25, Rural Residential (R-1) , Subd. 3 , Conditional Uses, is hereby amended by repealing paragraph I, which provided: "I . Mining and extraction. " Section 3 - General Provisions. City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty For Violation, and Section 11. 99 , Violation A Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4 - 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 November 7, 1991. Passed in ^�;, " �� �c session of the .City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this /yt` day of , 1991. r Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: J ,�c./ City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News this day of , 1991. [11. 24] /wiNNeso4- vPaAE=a �, L. Qe C N - - - PM 4MINIImmilMII. in0=111.1 ) EXHIBIT B - L ---.._ __... .,. /. v�A�.NG OpwE i to' �� \\\�J! 1 1 . ....• • . . . . ... sJ -E rw0un0 S'. 1 I— _ _ �� ....0 `� = -E SAND S'- `fir;,-�� Y�'.^f / 'R^'r ..••• ...•! .r Dean Lake - - �a • SFR I -- .:..-- --- ----- I . [..C.. 1;' Mp NTECtTO • ... . 1 0 1 _` �r►TECi,, tiE!GHTS Cr) I L ammtiostms eillij .4 :.-i;...'77;'----..S..c....'•ir.',.s;--.7--. .... 0rm.. 25 Ac. -19 =r . �K, . - ��- _ SFR .• • i'S- t1......e..1......1"1."tJ.� :?�c p• '.vr•-.. d. r-�"r r.:�>. 12 6TH S �'t'*^' r te ',..N.V.V"; ,cam:`'- c` ice:: • --... i "__\;.�c " .•may �L='-+�•�...r�=�'• �3.`�`t =K �L+- -,,,7C.._ .�..s-r -`�: . moi. _OW*. -.z; r, • imaj .. • _`: ?.E• t ;4^.`-'i: tiC -_•-• - ....r.^rt7- -etc-'; - -�.. ��� - ''`�.' ' ,..._ - ----! -!tee[+` -;-ri%..,Try 5,,��-,ice.- ,.; ("M. 4".11M.M. IIIIM111.1.1". - '...,"0. 4-..--.500.'..;4.••••••17,-V0- ...4.7.1 .t.M.::....-20,:i c7....r.--..•-•:-..../....- .0.7'70.. .• ..•••••-;'.--,''''......... try f 7 :,c '!.yj1.-T 7-..� '1�'�t.{:r y''''':-.-7- .-•''''.." /.. .'. fT D. V . . tt — :}i+,.y., +f` .1->•-.Tc •-- .4 :. _ �: „ •..�^. • ...r ittI -•••-•••••••1_0m i0:.,.r �1+. :‘,.......?......"• amv , } -. .:c �4 ae,,w _ - -wCOR ___� :-1a TS , ! � c .. � ..� .= �r a .KF ^� �iS .' . : :4•3::_.%...:41,.'-'P'....14: .*1-" ,•.-- .......:::::::t.:7,_i.' . ..,j•".. a •4........-1A:71.7",.------- • -Jy, . • -...:„ -:- .:-:47 ;y_.0 `,ti<rF --e - '' 0 , .. 7:•..,. i'.ESc.SC� I I ~ Land Use Plan ` ..:. - - ___ Shakopee.-41_ E� Si Comprehensive Plan --� a" EJ M City of Shakopee.Minnesota 1989 � _ _-. i CD 0 HN' SM +!^C 1 -'4"11-104:)0 _. . MS (13 f{ - 2 J29TH AVE+ 1�— CI MEMO MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Additional Commercial Uses for the Racetrack District Ladbroke Company DATE: October 12 , 1992 INTRODUCTION: The Ladbroke Company has submitted a request to amend the Racetrack District (RTD) regulations in order to allow for additional commercial uses to occur in this zoning district. At their meeting on October 8, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council amend the RTD regulations (Section 11. 36, Subd. 2 .A. ) by adding to the list of the fifteen customary accessory uses to a licensed Class A race track the following commercial uses 16. Commercial storage of boats and recreational vehicles - both interior and exterior. 17. Antique, Craft, Flea, and Bargain markets. 18 . Product Shows for cars, boats and home. BACKGROUND: A copy of the letter from Mr. Terence McWilliams of the Ladbroke Company has been attached to this memo as Exhibit A. Ladbroke Company is requesting that four commercial uses be added to the RTD district regulations. The proposed commercial uses to be added include: 1. Commercial storage of boats and recreational vehicles - both interior and exterior. 2 . Antique, Craft, Flea, and Bargain markets. 3 . Product Shows for cars, boats and home. 4 . Other entertainment including summer concerts, winter sports, drive-in movies, etc. Exhibit B is a copy of the RTD regulations (Section 11. 36) . There are fourteen (14) permitted uses (A through N) listed in Subdivision 2 . The proposed commercial activities are not currently a part of the permitted RTD uses. Canterbury Downs covers a majority of the RTD district. There are approximately 515 acres within the RTD district. The racetrack site covers approximately 390 acres. Exhibit C illustrates the RTD zoned area and the property owned by Ladbroke Company. DISCUSSION: Two studies for the racetrack area were prepared for the City in the 1980s. Neither the Shakopee Racetrack Area Planning and Zoning Study (1984) , nor the Racetrack District Land Use Study (1986) addressed the type of limited commercial activities proposed by Ladbroke Company. Rather, the two studies focused on the more closely associated commercial uses to a racetrack, such as restaurants, convenience retail, office, hotels, conference centers, etc. As a result of the second study, the RTD zoning district was created with the previously described uses. With the increased economic pressures in the gambling industry in Minnesota, Ladbroke is being forced to pursue alternative uses for their property. The uses proposed are intended to have an appropriate relationship with the racetrack operation. In staff's opinion, the proposed commercial uses would generally have a limited impact on adjacent properties from a land use perspective, except for the entertainment uses. The impacts of concerts and other special events may have additional impacts, such as noise and traffic, beyond the racetrack's original design intent. The issues relating to entertainment merit further study beyond the time frame of this amendment. It was stated in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the racetrack that broadcasting of musical entertainment through the PA system for the racetrack could exceed Minnesota Pollution Control Agencies (MPGA) night time noise standards in residential neighborhoods. Both the Planning Commission and staff are of the opinion that the inclusion of entertainment uses such as summer concerts, winter sports and drive-in movies should not be allowed at this time. Further study is needed if the Planning Commission is to consider adding these uses to the zoning ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission work program includes the restudying of the RTD area after the completion of several other planning studies. In the past two years, the City has received other requests for this restudy. Further review of the entertainment uses should be studied at the time this planning effort is undertaken. The racetrack facility has numerous buildings and areas which could be utilized for a variety of uses beyond the horse racing activities. Exhibit D is a copy of the site plan for the racetrack. Staff recommended to the Planning Commission the application of the conditional use permit process for the three commercial uses (commercial storage, markets and product shows) . The Planning Commission felt that adequate performance standards in the RTD ordinance (Section 11. 36) would adequately control the three recommended commercial uses and that the conditional use permit process was not appropriate in this situation. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council add the three commercial uses to the fifteen accessory uses listed under the licensed Class A racetrack (Section 11. 36, Subd. 2 .A. ) . After further review of the Planning Commission recommendation, staff is recommending that City Council add the three commercial uses as separate permitted uses in the RTD regulations rather than having them added as customary accessory uses listed under a licensed Class A racetrack (Section 11. 36, Subd. 2.A. ) . Since the three proposed commercial uses are not necessarily accessory to a racetrack, it would be more appropriate to list them as separate permitted uses in the RTD regulations. Although the racetrack is located in the mandatory Planned Unit Development (PUD) area, a PUD has not been developed for this project. The requirements for a PUD were developed three years after the construction of the racetrack. As constructed, the racetrack facility is essentially complete. There have been no significant construction activities on the racetrack site to initiate the development of a PUD. Ladbroke is not proposing to construct new buildings with this proposal but would rather utilize existing facilities. Section 11.40, Subd. 7.C. grants the City Administrator the authority to waive the PUD process for properties which have not gone through the PUD approval process when the following conditions are met: 1. The changes in the building location or size do not affect more than 10% of the site area and/or floor space. 2 . The changes in landscaping, parking and drive arrangement, or site improvements do not affect more than 10% of the site area. 3 . The changes comply with all requirements placed on the zone in which the property is located. The applicants for the text amendment would need to receive approval from the City Administrator for a waiver under these criteria in order to operate the proposed uses. Staff would review the proposed uses with their compliance to the performance standards established in the RTD regulations at the time of the administrative waiver request. Proposals beyond the established criteria for a waiver would represent a significant change or expansion in the use of a property in the RTD and would be required to process a PUD. The land remaining in the RTD, other than the racetrack site (125 acres) is largely undeveloped. The proposed limited commercial uses would be available to these parcels. Through the administrative waiver or the PUD process adequate controls are in place to guide development in the RTD area. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Add commercial storage, markets, and product shows as permitted uses to the RTD regulations. (Separate from the licensed Class A racetrack use. ) 2 . Add commercial storage, markets, and product shows as permitted uses accessory to a licensed Class A racetrack. 3 . Deny the request to add the proposed commercial uses to the RTD district. 6 . Table the proposed text amendment for further study. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended Alternative No. 2 , to amend Section 11. 36, Subd. 2 .A, by adding the following to the list of fifteen customary accessory uses to a licensed Class A racetrack: 16 . Commercial storage of boats and recreational vehicles - both interior and exterior. 17 . Antique, Craft, Flea, and Bargain markets. 18 . Product Shows for cars, boats and home. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 342 , Fourth Series, An Ordinance Amending Section 11. 36 , Race Track District, to Include Commercial Storage of Boats and Recreational Vehicles; Antique, Craft, Bargain and Flea Markets; and Product Shows for Boats, Cars and Homes as Permitted Uses, and move its adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 342 , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SEC. 11. 36, RACE TRACK DISTRICT (RTD) , BY REPEALING SUBD. 2, USES PERMITTED BY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) , AND ADOPTING A NEW SUBD. 2 RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Sec. 11. 36, Race Track District (RTD) , is hereby amended by repealing Subd. 2 , Uses Permitted by Planned Unit Development (PUD) , and adopting a new Subd. 2 which shall read as follows: "Subd. 2 . Uses Permitted by Planned Unit Development (PUD) . Within the Race Track District, no structures or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses, which uses shall be permitted only PUD and subject to all stated conditions: A. A licensed Class A race track which includes the following customary accessory uses, activities and facilities: 1. Commercial recreation. 2 . Employee housing and dormitories. 3 . Food and drink concessions, program sales, etc. 4. Horse auctions. 5. Horse barns. 6. Horse racing. 7. Horse training, grooming and exercise facilities. 8. Maintenance facilities and equipment. 9. Off-street parking facilities. 10. Paramutual wagering. 11. Private clubs. 12 . Printing and publishing facilities for race track related purposes. 13 . Race track administrative offices. 14. Signage. 15. Class I day care facility with an approved PUD Class II day care facility not allowed. B. Clubs and lodges including fraternal organizations, YMCA' s and YWCA' s. C. Minor commercial recreation including but not limited to the following: 1. Bowling alleys. 2 . Golf courses. 3. Miniature golf courses. 4. Roller skating rinks. 5. Water slides. D. Community park, recreation and open space uses which do not conflict with race track operations. E. Essential services. F. Health and athletic clubs. G. Horse care uses including boarding, training, showing, grooming and veterinary clinic facilities. H. Hotels, motels and conference centers including such customary accessory uses as internalized retail and entertainment facilities provided such uses: 1. Are an integral part of the principal use; 2 . Have no entrance except from within the principal building; 3. Display all internal signage on the ground floor level of the building; and, 4. Occupy not more than 25% of the ground floor area. I. Light industrial uses but specifically limited to office-showroom, corporate offices, research and development laboratories, warehousing and light assembly type maintenance. J. Offices: Business, corporate and professional. K. Public buildings. L. Restaurants: Class I and II but excluding fast-food and drive-in restaurants. M. Signage as permitted by Section 4. 30 of the City Code. N. Customary Accessory Uses. O. Commercial storage of boats and recreational vehicles - both interior and exterior. P. Antique, craft, flea, and bargain markets. Q_ Product shows for cars, boats and home. " 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 11.99, Violation a Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: : ,1 , /City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News o{i the day of , 1992 . Ladbroke EXHIBIT A 411fOr* , aff Canterbury Downs September 14 , 1992 Mr. Lindberg Ekola City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Ekola : We are pleased to submit this report for consideration by the City of Shakopee to increase the range of uses to which Canterbury Downs can be put. These "ideas" could be added to current RTD uses ; most of which would take place September thru April. We believe they have an appropriate relationship with existing usage and would facilitate the financial viability of the racetrack. We propose the following additional uses : Storage - Interior and exterior. We had considered specifically boat and RV storage within the barns and between the buildings . We believe this area would lend itself to storage, which would be well screened by the buildings themselves and not visible from public roads . Markets - Antique, Craft , Flea/Bargain. Activities to take place inside the grandstand during the winter months and possibly the Shire Square area in the summer. Shows - Car. Boat and Home. Shows of these types could be held both inside and outside the grandstand. Other Entertainment . Summer concerts, winter sports, drive-in movies, commercial recreation, etc. With extensive parking and an existing road system that maintains maximum traffic efficiency and safety, there should be no physical barriers to holding any of these activities . We request an amendment to the existing ordinance rather than a rezoning of the areas so as to implement the additional proposed usages as soon as possible, if approved. Ladbroke at Canterbury Downs 1100 Ccnreroury Road Snckopee, Minnesota 55_79 Phone (:,12) 12) 445-7223 FAX .4 Ladbroke Groep Company Mr . Lindberg Ekola Page Two September 14 , 1992 If you are in need of any further information in this regard, please don' t hesitate to contact me . Your consideration is appreciated. Sincerely, Nr-Ae" Teren.- J. McWilliams General Manager /khs cc: Mayor Gary Laurent Robert Decker 4820L EXHJJ3IT B _ topography , ..i -•' 4 _e wa : a _ supply or sewage m t e capabilities , or any other feature eato harmful to _..L _ likely to be _ health , safety or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. 3. Copies of all plats within the Shoreland District shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Natural e within ten (10) days of final aoproval by the City . Resources Source : Ordinance No . 149 , 4th Series Effective Date : 8-30-34 C. Planned Unit Development (PUD) . Altered zoning standards may be allowed as exceptions to this. S`ti^n or - ?y es provided t e th _ preliminary ?UD plans are approved by the Comm s=_on _ DrOJ_d � the - of Natural Resources. Source : Ordinance No . 219 , 4th Series Effective Date : 7-2-87 Subd . 12. Notification Procedures . A. A copy of the notice of a public hearing to consider a variance to the provisions of the Shoreland District or a conditional use in the Shoreland District shall be sent to the Commissioner of Natural Resources such that the notice is received (10) days prior to such hearings . by the Commissioner at least ten B. A copy of all amendments to this Section and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses within the Shoreline District shall be sent to the Commis sioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of the amendment or final action . Source : Ordinance No . 149 , 4th Series Effective Date : 8-30-84 SEC. 11.36. RACE TRACK DISTRICT (RTD) . Subd. 1. Purpose. This mixed use district was created lands adjacent to the Canterbury Downs specifically for within andof 7a . itthe intent the district to create a high Race Track and is i te ' � - use compatibility with a ' : - degree of land duality environment n- - •and public street efficiency. It is further urther the intent nten t of the district to protect existing landscape features , to preserve open space , integrate development withthe natural landscape , to appropriately space accesses to the public street system and to require the planning of entire land ownerships as a unit rather than permit piecemeal or scattered development on a lot by lot basis . Subd. 2. Uses Permitted by Planned Unit Development (POD) • the Within Race Track District, no structures or land shall i uses, used except for one or more ofc the following uses, which uses shall be permitted only PUD and subject to all stated conditions : j -- . - A. A licensed Class A race track w..i :h inc=..des the following customary accessory uses , activities and facilities : 1 . Commercial recreation . 2. Employee housing and dormitories . 3 . Food and drink concessions, program sales , etc . 4 . Horse auctions . 5. Horse barns . 6 . Horse racing . 7 . Horse training , grooming and exercise facilities . 8 . Maintenance facilities and equipment . 9 . Off-street pa:king facilities . 10 . paramutual wagering . 11 . Private clubs . 12. Printing and publishing facilities for race track related purposes . 13 . Race track administrative offices . 14 . Signage . Source: Ordinance No. 204, 4th Series Effective Date : 7-31-86 15. Class I day care facility with an approved PUD Class II day care facility not allowed . Source: Ordinance No. 264 , 4th Series Effective Date: 5-26-89 B. Clubs and lodges including fraternal organiza- tions , YMCA' s and YWCA' s . C. Minor commercial recreation including but not limited to the following : 1 . Bowling alleys . 2 . Golf courses . 3 . Miniature golf courses . 4 . Roller skating rinks . 5 . Water slides . D. Community park,rk, recreation and open space uses . which do not conflict with race track operations . E. Essential se-vices . F . Health and athletic clubs . G. Horse care uses including boarding , training , showing , grooming and veterinary clinic facilities . H. Hotels, motels and conference centers including such customary accessory uses as internalized retail and entertain- ment facilities provided such uses : 1' -15 r2-1-39 ) § 11 . 36 1 . Are an integral part of the principal use ; 2. Have no entrance except from within the principal building ; 3. Disolay all internal signage on the ground floor level of the building ; and , 4 . Occupy not more tnan 25 % of the ground floor area. I. Lige:t industrial uses ✓ut Sped= ir.r.-1y limited to office-showroom, corporate O ^mss, research and develoomenz laboratories , warehousing and light assembly type maintenance . J . Offices : 3usiness , corporate and professional. K . Public buildings . L. Restaurants : Class _ and _: but excluding fast- food and drive-in restaurants . M. Signage as permitted by Section 4.30 of the City Code . N. Customary Accessory Uses . Subd. 3. Lot Area, Width and Coverage; Building Height, Yard and Access Spacing Reo ircnents . A. Minimum Lot Size : One (1) acre . B . Minimum Lot Width : 300 feet . C . Minimum Yards : 1 . front : 33 feet . .��. . Sid=: 2; 7===t . 3 . Rear : 30 Test (50 feet wh=n abutting a residential area) . D. Maximum Hard Surface Lot Cove_ = e : 60% . E. Maximum Building Height : 35 feet . F. Minimum Access S acing No street or driveway entrance to a major street shall be located close_ ther 'O another street or driveway on the same side of the street than as follows : 1. County Roads 83 and 16 : Access limited to public and private streets only having a minimum spacing of 600 =oo- _�_ _ . �. Shenandoah Dive and any continuation thereof to and including Secretariat Drive; and Fourth Avenue: 300 feet . A. Acceptable _u_lding Materials . NtNI 1. --All portions or sides - ic . _ ings which age visible from a public s '-=- o_ d3"•• r cental or i_nsti _u- �f tion,al uses or Zones or places of-.e=s=mbly such as public =arks or 7_17' k'k recreationfac _ li lies shS.1— = constructed with durable , low maintenance , �' ---'-� (9-1-37 ) ORDINANCE NO. 328 , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, LAND USE REGULATION (ZONING) , BY REPEALING SEC. 11. 36, RACE TRACK DISTRICT (RTD) , SUBD. 4 , PERFORMANCE STANDARDS , AND ADOPTING ONE NEW SUBDIVISION IN LIEU THEREOF, RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning) , is hereby amended by repealing Sec. 11. 36, Race Track District (RTD) , Subd. 4, Performance Standards, and adopting one new Subdivision in lieu thereof, relating to the same subject. "Subd. 4 . Performance Standards. A. Acceptable Building Materials. 1. All portions or sides of buildings and all fences which are visible from a public street or abut • residential or institutional uses or zones or places of assembly such as public parks or recreation facilities shall be constructed with durable, low maintenance, quality building materials. 2 . The following exterior building materials shall be deemed acceptable for the required portions or sides of the building and fences, if [it is) incorporated into an architectural design which is consistent with the standards established within the District: face brick, stone, glass, wood, architecturally treated concrete, decorative block, cast in place or precast concrete panels. B. Minimum Landscape Requirements. 1. All plant materials used in the required landscaping of the Race Track District shall comply with the following minimum sizes: 2 inch diameter 2-1 Major Deciduous / Ornamental 1-1/2 inch diameter Coniferous 6 feet in height Major Shrub 5 gallon 2 . Landscaping shall be required in an amount equal to one (1) caliper inch per 500 square feet of building gross floor area. Credit may be given for existing quality trees using the same formula. 3 . Landscape plans shall be required and shall be prepared by or under the supervision of a landscape architect. They shall show types, common and botanical names, sizes, number and location of all plant materials. 4 . No building permit shall be issued until the applicant shall file with the Building Official, a performance bond, or other guarantee acceptable to the City, in the amount of one and one-half • (1-1/2) times the cost of completing the required landscaping, said cost to be determined by the Administrator. The bond or other guarantee shall cover one calendar year and two complete growing seasons. C. Screening. The following must be screened: (1) roof-top facilities; (2) parking areas; [and] (3) loading and service areas; and (4) outdoor storage. One or any combination of the following elements may be used to meet the screening requirements: site design, building design, grade separation, berming, landscaping, fences, walls or other landscape features. 1. Roof-Top Facilities. (a) All roof-top facilities shall be either: (1) Totally screened from the eye level view from adjacent parcels and existing and planned public streets; (2) Painted to match or complement; (3) Incorporated into an architectural design which is aesthetically compatible with the principal structure. (b) All materials used to screen roof-top facilities shall be aesthetically compatible with the exterior building materials of the principal structure. 2 . Parking Areas. All parking which occurs within the required front yard shall be screened to at least the height of the headlights of the parked vehicles or three feet. The use of screening shall require at least two types of screening materials used proportionately at 60%/40% . One 2 type of screening material may not be used for more than 60% of the required screening. 3 . Loading and Service Areas. Loading and service areas shall not face directly on a public street. Maneuvering and truck loading areas shall be at least 50% screened, to a height of four feet from the eye level from all roadways. 4 . Outdoor Storage. All outdoor storage shall be screened to a height of six feet on the entire perimeter of the storage area by fully (100%) opaque fencing, berms, and/or continuous vegetation as approved by the Planning Commission. This screening must be maintained in a neat and attractive condition. 5(4) All required screening shall comply with the performance bonding requirements established for Landscaping, Subparagraph B of this Subdivision. D. Storage. The storage of all materials; semi-finished or finished products ; trucks, business vehicles and equipment and waste products shall be within a completely enclosed building, except as follows: Outdoor storace of materials , semi-finished or finished products , trucks , business vehicles, and equipment as a customary accessory use may be allowed, provided that (1) no outdoor storace will be permitted within the required front yard setback; (2) no storage may exceed fifteen feet in heichz: (3) all outdoor storage items must be neatly placed , in an orderly and attractive manner; and (4) all outdoor storage must be reviewed and approved by the Plannina Commission in the PUD approval process as in conformance with the language and intent of this Section. E. Existing Landscape Features. No tree removal of any kind shall be permitted in the Race Track District until a Final Development Plan has been approved by the Council. Grading shall be permitted only upon issuance of a Grading or Building Permit by the Building i'u"T Official. " Subd. 5. Variances. Variances may be negotiated within this District except as sp ^i ' tally restricted by Section 11.40, Subd. 4 , A through F. Variances shall be allowed for access spacing (Subd. 3 F, above) only if the PUD proposal provides for a lesser number of accesses than would be permitted by strict application of this Sec. -ion. variances from Subd. 4, A through of this Section, shall not be negotiated. Source : Ordinance No . 204 , 4th Series =-_-- . vim Daz=- . 7-31-S5 , ........,, ...... •.............. 4 is' • , . . ,• • ... •:. . , , .. . • •• • . 1. . .• . . • • .., • i, .• • , ...;i. . ..... . ...... - .• .., - 1 P:1 • • . 11 . •• .. . :' - ; • ••• ; . •- ,. li . . : .: :/..... _...... .. . . .. , •• )--4 .... . .. . . . .. . - z ---..i.----------.• -- .;•.-- - •, - . ,, • ...... , ' -.4..'!,/ , •, I:!•., . .. .. i. ,, : .. - •;7'-•-•.....,.... %._______......... i • .W I • 1"' 1 • ' • 1. or:• • *••si ri". M- *!: N•15...,...., pi..,,.•,..,..1 ,. •I • /,i: ... , , . •• :..-k:4 Af:.,:•4*AX.,,,51 . -.....,-- . . •.•:1 iki<:-.- , !,!.. ..'..:044%.,i, ."'••1; ....... . . . • 5..W.,`";,.;•-.;.eyyjs,..1'1:44.40. . • .. i i.. „ :..,:: !.;,. .,r,...,,.."..F.A.-.:"..;::•-.5; .. . . • i• • ,.,..:.,- :,.:ii• O,, i',,,e..-- - • .,. , . 41*3 . . • 41.T.Sv: '''1.:2-:..4 • i. :•!."-......_ . •- • •c ...._ ' •: ......4.• . ,_ .., 4,..'..!,•0.•?..,e-,Ikfj 3'''.. "--.:' ' i'. :.• • •1.• •:•4' . - .I : i.A'), i • .. r . ., • I •i •...-.'.......;;;;; ;:r.,1.....:.':•:', ; . .,.•••'"7 .'.':••'. ....I . I. • • ! 1: " ' " . '''.,::.,1'"...'. .st:-',I..'.;. • • . i, swot,: ,•••••••.. • . • ,.;Fs.y.:•$.1.. :A i W:•., 1.•! . ... ... -• '-------------- ..... ' --------N-, 1 1-••• .!:::.,* •1••:.it!,.•:',VP.. ' .."•-....":6......."4 . .. ...• . I . •i .• Ca_................--....-. . .. • • • . . • • .,, t '' - • ' I I• ..-• I I• • - • -- - -- •:.• • -•••••- ., :: t? - • • • - ' " • ' • • , --•'•••••••--t••I''' i • ..• • ' .I-___i_.._,. _,....•...• /. •. :••.,.. ... ..••'.-.i•••. 1......,-. ...—..;.II;1I1!I t!•.•...•-.1 1I.I i,1.•... • ........ .. .1,,..- ..• M.:!. I-NNll I ' 1 5••g,4P`::: *.-- ...4•.l1i:...•e.."..i:'i.',.r:•r‘•. .....•-‘. ..• •%:.';1• •.0c• %c.1• .\,..1. I, •NI...••• . ••- •••., ./ '.1 T 1 .:_•. -.- •- ..•. ... `••, .-•.• • • ...... . I . . . . • .. .6 - • r • , t g 1 6'4"A" ...... . 1 X . • •/' : 1 1 I 0 ' • ,,•• : . •i..' : . • 1 . • . ., ii,...:.4 t 1 .., • C4 ....• 1 ., • : . \ . ! .'• i - •I • ;. .1'1 4.4ftemie 1 gag 74N•dibb" c I • . .. .• 411 '1L. ' I1/.-;. . 7:i • , . - • ‘,-/-:'..;--1W6..,.• . • • • 1 .:".:::•,:s1::.'. • ; '‘. . . . . . i ' j i • •••••••••••;:-....../- •:.•, . :I I— a ,• • .. ,, .. ,,.,..,,..- 1 • • • :I CC t 1./ ,,, •"--'17.././„ ,.:.....10, • , , . ! \ P / i••..... e....;.:• . •-‘01.1--- :. - , ; . .. . 1., 7.- •-;,-- .4 •-: '. , • :I j . / . -..... ••• ZY,....1".1. f.•-• ' ••• • I"31,, "*. • -4 , • • I ,.' : •-•-.," •••,...•/,......--.•-•••••---:...; . . ' .• •••• i..k...••.1* . . . I • • • ' • • '-'''---:•.'....1!;••••••. .. -!---.•---, t. ' . • \‘11400iminimaa , / ,•4-.....'•• •• ..`f, -1 .; • L. /•••,..:-__; "••-• - i i ; I/`..-7-<:'••:-. .--.......'':.......'...Ai.:Lz_..7=7------.;' ' • • . , • •••... ..• .."!..-1.•••'.. . r--.....--- - , r .•••••• 1 - .. ., • e it. i A. ' %`:." . 'il...."..../ • 1..... *1 I • • .......;•' 1 A • tiC .. ,.., . . ••••,---••-..-;:••,..%!-:::.,-.).•;:,.:.;=--,,•:.--,:•-'1.1.:*:_._ ,• "- ::.. ..:.• .- :--...._ •-- . if . .. •-, • ,.. .:,-,..• . ••••••• •... . • 1 ..-.•. ..••••• --1 —• -, A, j : • ' •••••.e.. ! :••:„..., '''..•''' • . ..-• ,.... .l• • . I .1 '•••. •• " ?:: ..;...:"r r''' .....'...' :'- • •.../."•-..., •-....' ....,...y...1:1-r t....'". .is ..••••;•••.CC;- . I •tr.;.•:•.' •:-'-. ..::-...•'...- - , 1 ii.:•...-. :•••••-4-'-"•ta;i: -Z1 ta.....e"":.,-• 0-.11!•0... r•^.....•-•• . . •-• • • . I• ''...--.11."-.'",4 i•••ti fliAl.1-I .•••••••••:'!...... . .- : :. .i • •• ••• • ..-.^.I.?.. • " -.- ' '••••' A...4nm: ' . .. I . • t..i .• •'' . -•. : -" 1-7: .l'il •• ::•$.. ..._ ...___1.. -7 . ... I • • 3 ' I ._.•.....=..-.1'. ...‘"•.Z.,' ..---.-.....:1 C-iti.•••. ..L..; ..*.7 . ! . • . ' * ! I ibir t -i . Lti I I . t.; • • • t :1/4......;',.z•I ,i1-rl.',Itigir.,. .-. -P10....e014 ti. .• I .... •-• • i. 4.,-;... ,..--.--..--.-;1...IAgetti. . d , . 1 , •• ... 1 /- ,.!,,( 1-1 • .. ,.. . • •, . • • ••••• : ! . : • . . Tr , .•• - . • . • . N . I ; Ca T ..— gi I ••••-) . •• • , Ca • --....-..... . ..... ........ .:.•-'-'1"-NNI . I • Tr % • i , • I • CC'.. ' \*---....0. • I I •\i-,1,..,,_'•------- • • • ,cr Ii. Ii.. •i ". . . • -, • .- •"-— •-• • - . .. . • . -i - •. • ... . . 1 I Q W V $E H W Om CC 11 W8 il : g I < .s.rij 0 F. � � el ( ) cc [ Y B o 6 i . IJ T AV Yx° y 't 5 ` _ N A U ,a N II--JL---- _. JI ._.Jl__.._JL_._.._Jt_ I L. —-..... 1.— --- :.,_1:=1 l _— —=—JL—_ "0-907. � I ti •i • \a A v !� (. 1• • • 1 e: i i i -: •F-. '..., -z, cfe..41, •"44-270.1 i I I \ s s x 8 fi.• J 4 i \ ) • ..'• .�I Jeri. ii/Si)) - . J i; 1.._" _...i. _,_.,__,...37i : rt'LC It 4 . „s, /.. 0 . .r::),. . . ^S\ 4 0-)?- ;:.: • --.- F.sem :...�..-.. .�.:..:i ( �i -... �� ��" �c: Ai yff i%7 / :•- :-•- • . -.-Z • 7'`1',..-:-•-1:-‘:.. -.): V:•N' I ( ( .,.. ..)7,\ i• .i.i.,,'.• 'iI4X% ', • (.6_: ':', .\44:c \ .... ,,,,,,,,„. , , .. „ ... ,,< . ( ....k .: . ts.,..,„, ., .. 0,./ ......,, ,,), i i sk‘'.40 ../ _ ) . i,' 1 ..__.____._i / \, : k,\ ! \ A k:464,1,41 : . . .._...:1- . ._ 0 lilir -1?-,^) -',.11- / i� ci. . ,• , PF #1; \ '•4, ill .-/. '•...n_..,, ,: ''...6\\........:•••,. '''.. • j F 1,s, ' •� + �` `�. .'y I r .). i.•-„: 1.;;.,-,...k. •"\� •\''i�i1' /.I r_ 'r'4117 ,r r' //.•.I, G CIF '� :.J" )\'•.:h1 :•Sfy�-.• ; �•�•, ....,..,...../. : (�. '�; L... r •,_-,...-. 1 TI '. -1(')-. • •-1 fil .: .),.,--,./.-7, f-P111-3.M.) \e'''. ..4§s'e• 0 . -N h,'`I's -----'. -1(':‘ "•`'', ../ ( .i.h0:ii.."7\\ %. 4,43:•, Iiii.w . ,, .,"'.. 1..L. !--7 '-.(5.!,..'4%-. : .....,' " ' '..1 1 ' /VC? '' ':. .:\‘....' . .-• —.—ti k - - J.101b 0 .— ) .V I — •, ,,...: e1) III \� 11 4 / I - 1 " / 0 v FII.-.. ...... . .111 ...._ .FI � � r} c 0-.. .. Di .. II ID - h1 U 1 •Fn 111 0 F FII 111 11 0. ... of 0 r a � -r,wv-C u - -: . 01 /`' ,r:fir•: _ •i�_I Y.ErI-la+J'1 F C_^--_---�f---- -• ---F /C Y .• uF, .r -11 .,.ii.1),3 2 R 1, 1 Lacibrokemomewcoffi Canterbury Downs Dear Members of the Shakopee HRA: A question has arisen as to the effectiveness of the Second Amendment to the Assessment Agreement and Assessor' s Certification (the "Second Amendment") to allow the assessor to reduce the assessor ' s estimated market value of the subject property to the new agreed market values provided therein, or such higher actual market values as may be determined by the Scott County Assessor ' s Office or the Tax Court, in the event of a trial to the Tax Court. We have discussed this issue with your Special Counsel in this matter, Tom Hay of Dorsey & Whitney, who has expressed his opinion to us that in the event that the Second Amendment would not allow such reduction in the assessor ' s estimated market values for the assessment dates referred to in the Second Amendment, then the Payment Assurance and Security Agreement dated October 13, 1992 (the "Payment Agreement") , would effectively be null and void and that we would be entitled to a return of the Letter of Credit that we provided to you pursuant to the terms of said Payment Agreement. Although we are generally comfortable with Mr. Hay' s opinion, we feel we should have an express amendment to the Payment Agreement providing for a return of the Letter of Credit to us in the event that the Second Amendment is determined by a court of proper jurisdiction to be ineffective to allow the appropriate reduction in the assessor ' s estimated market values . Accordingly, we are delivering to you the Letter of Credit called for under the terms of the Payment Agreement on the condition that we enter into an amendment to that Agreement. The amendment should provide for the return of the Letter of Credit to us in the event that the court of proper jursidiction determines that the Second Amendment does not allow a reduction in the assessor ' s estimated market value in 1992 and subsequent years as comtemplated by the Payment Agreement to the new agreed minimum market values provided for in the Second Amendment or such higher actual market values as might be determined by the Scott County Assessor' s Office or the Tax Court in the event of a trial to the Tax Court. If this Ladbroke at Canterbury Downs 1100 Canterbury Road, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone (612) 445-7223 FAX (612) 496-7741 Au A Ladbroke Group Company Members of the Shakopee HRA October 20, 1992 Page 2 condition is not acceptable to you, please let us know immediately, so that we may determine whether or not to deliver the Letter of Credit called for under the terms of the Agreement. Thank you for your consideration of this concern. Si e e .• Richard Reichow leo MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Valley Ice Arena - Request for Proposals DATE: October 14, 1992 INTRODUCTION: On October 6, 1992, Council directed staff to prepare requests for proposals specifications for a market and operational analysis for the Valley Ice Arena in Shakopee. BACKGROUND: For the past six months the Shakopee City Council has entertained the possibility of working with Valley Ice Arena, Inc. and the Shakopee/Prior Lake Hockey Association to construct a permanent shell to enclose the existing ice facility in Lion's Park. In an attempt to obtain an objective analysis of the issues relating to the proposed project, City Council directed staff to prepare a request for proposal (RFP) for a market and operational analysis of the Valley Ice Arena facility in Shakopee. Staff has attempted to draft the RFP to address the major issues that have surfaced over the past several months including the following: 1. Mechanical system analysis. 2 . Market analysis. 3 . Construction cost projections. 4. Operational analysis/Pro forma It is likely that one major consulting firm would take on the project and sublet various components of the analysis. To date, cost projections have not been obtained for the services outlined in the RFP, however, staff believes that costs for the report could range between $5, 000-$15, 000. Staff would like City Council to review the proposal specifications and determine if additional factors should be added or deleted. Upon receiving input from Council, it would be appropriate to authorize the appropriate City officials to solicit proposals for a market and operational analysis of the Valley Ice Arena in Shakopee. Upon receipt of the proposals, a recommendation would be forwarded to City Council in terms of the preferred consultant. At that time, Council could select to continue with the process or terminate it. A budget funding source would also be addressed at that time. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to proceed with an RFP for a market and operational analysis for the Valley Ice Arena in Shakopee. 2 . Amend the proposal specifications and authorize the appropriate City officials to proceed with the RFP for a market and operational analysis for the Valley Ice Arena in Shakopee. 3 . Table action pending further information from staff. 4 . Do not proceed with the RFP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 or Alternative #2 . ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to solicit proposals for a market and operational analysis of the Valley Ice Arena in Shakopee. TAMI\ADMIN\ICEMEMO VALLEY ICE ARENA REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL MARKET AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS The City of Shakopee is seeking proposals to determine the financial feasibility for refurbishing and operating the Valley Ice Arena in Shakopee. The existing facility consists of the following: A. 120 feet wide by 250 long deflated bubble type arena and associated equipment. B. Coil type refrigeration system and accompanying equipment. C. 50 feet x 50 feet concrete block building consisting of mechanical room, office area, storage and restrooms. The site occupied by Valley Ice Arena is owned by the City of Shakopee. The deflated bubble, block building and associated equipment is owned by Valley Ice Arena, Inc. The analysis being requested by the City should address each of the following components: 1. Mechanical systems - Determine operating condition of existing equipment. Report should identify equipment by make and model. Each piece of equipment should be evaluated to determine approximate age, condition, projected life expectancy and replacement cost. 2 . Market analysis - compete a two tiered analysis to determine market potential for an ice facility in Shakopee. Analysis should determine market potential under the following two scenarios: a. Assuming construction of the Mdwakanton Dakota Community ice facility in 1993 . b. Assuming no other ice facilities are constructed in Scott County in 1993 . 3 . Construction estimate - Based upon the mechanical systems analysis complete a construction estimate for a pre- fabricated wall system and Behlen style convex roof system ice facility. Construction estimate should break out each major cost component of the facility. Cost estimate should look at three different levels of facility in terms of building improvements. The building facility levels shall be mutually determined by the consultant and the City. 4 . Operational analysis - Complete a two teired analysis to determine potential operating costs of an ice facility. The analysis should determine operational cost projections under the following two management scenarios: a. Non-profit organization. b. Municipal ownership. The operational analysis should also address potential revenue and expenditures associated with the different levels of construction. Questions regarding the request for proposal should be forwarded to Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator at (612) 445-3650. The proposal submission deadline is Friday, November 20, 1992 . The proposal should include a cost quotation for said services. Upon receipt and review of the proposals, the City may select to interview the top three candidates prior to making a formal recommendation to City Council for their consideration in December. BAS/tiv 1z MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Valley Ice Arena Insurance DATE: October 14, 1992 INTRODUCTION: On October 6, 1992, Mr. Dave Kaufenberg representing Valley Ice Arena, Inc. , informed City Council that the property and liability insurance for the Valley Ice Arena facility expired on November 15, 1992 . Mr. Kaufenberg requested City Council to evaluate whether or not it would be possible for the City to carry coverage on the facility under their blanket coverage until such time that the facility is operating. BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee presently has a lease with Valley Ice Arena, Inc. , for the land on which the Valley Ice Arena facility is located. The present lease expires in May of 1995 unless otherwise terminated in accordance with the provisions set forth in the lease agreement. I have contacted the City's insurance provider to determine if it would be advisable to put the Valley Ice Arena facility on the City' s blanket policy. In order to effectuate such coverage, it would be necessary for Valley Ice Arena, Inc. , to deed their facility and equipment to the City of Shakopee. Given the status of the existing equipment and the uncertainty surrounding the future operation of the facility, staff believes that it would be premature for the City to obtain ownership of said equipment. Our insurance provider suggested that Valley Ice Arena, Inc. , should contact their insurance provider and request a reclassification of the property. Our insurance provider also stated that they felt the premium associated with the change in coverage would drop dramatically as a result of the reclassification. The City's insurance provider stated that they could not recommend the City taking over an additional liability given the current status of the facility. Based upon the comments from our insurance provider, it appears that if Valley Ice Arena does not continue coverage, the City's loss control specialists would require that the liability exposure be removed. The loss control specialists would report the liability exposure to our insurance carrier. Our insurance carrier would then evaluate the exposure to determine risk and associated insurance cost ramifications. The exposure in this case might be so great that our insurance might refuse to cover the exposure or drop our coverage if the exposure is not mitigated. I have shared this information with Mr. Dave Kaufenberg. He has informed me that they have been in contact with their insurance provider to determine the cost of coverage on said facility. Staff suggested to Mr. Kaufenberg that coverage be obtained on the facility for a one year period. Hopefully within the next 12 months a final decision can be made relative to the future operation capacity of the existing Valley Ice Arena. Mr. Kaufenberg will be in attendance at our meeting next Tuesday. If Valley Ice Arena, Inc. does not obtain the basic liability coverage suggested by the City's insurance provider, I believe they would be in default of their agreement with the City. The City Attorney will be prepared to discuss remedies available to the City should Valley Ice Arena, Inc. select to default on their agreement. ACTION REQUESTED: No action is necessary providing Valley Ice Arena, Inc. selects to insure the ice arena facility and name the City as an additional insured consistent with the terms of the lease agreement. TAMI\ADMIN\INSURANC. ICE INTRA ESIGN October 20, 1992 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota .55379 Attention: Mr. Dennis Kraft Re: SHAKOPEE CITY HALL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURNISHINGS CONTRACT AWARD Dear Mr. Kraft: Based on the bid results and the results of our pre-award telephone conferences with the bidders, we are making recommendations for award of the following Furnishings Contract(s), Alternate # 1 or Alternate # 2 and review of the budget. We are pleased to report that the bids are very favorable and competitive. The bids and proposals are now totaling a budget of Approx. $ 135,000. We have enclosed bid results, with a copy of the bid form from each bidder. Also, we have enclosed a summary of the budget including proposals being considered for signage, electrostatic painting,window treatments, art & accessories, etc. Our recommendation for award of the furnishings contract(s) is as follows: Institutional Environment's,Inc. dba P.M. Johnson's, Inc. 1481 Marshall Ave St. Paul, MN 55104 Base Bid ( incl. sales tax ) $ 40,133.25 ADD Alt. # 1 ( incl. sales tax) 2,241.35 (1) Sofa, (1) Chair, (1) End table ADD Alt. # 2 (incl. sales tax ) $ 1,925.90 (3) Chairs (1) End table ADD for performance bond 417.65 .!_RRicIELD�vV SHAKOPEE M NHESOTA 55379 E'.2 435.3894 Shakopee City Hall Recommendation for Bid Award October 20, 1992 Page 2 Budget Review Cost Bids and Gov't Contract Furnishings bid package #1- Base Bid 40,133.25 ( incl. sales tax ) Alternate * 1 Alternate #2 Panel Systems Furniture( Gov't contract) 50,000 Proposals Window Treatments/installation 3,450 Interior Signage/installation 8,675 Art/framing 4,800 Electostatic painting 5,180 Accessories( Entry rugs, lamps, coat 6,000 racks & hooks. Misc.) 22 Guest chairs - Fabric 1,320 22 Guest chairs - labor to recover/touch,up 1,870 Touch up (3) conference tables 1,500 Furniture,safe door,microwave,refrigerator, purchased from Marquette Bank 9,500 Total $ 135,000 Shakopee City Hall Recommendation for Bid Awards October 20, 1992 Page 3 Council approval of the above referenced bid(s) at their October 20,1992 meeting will allow the project to proceed on schedule. Thank you, and please call if we can be of further service. Sincerely, Ccivo-stu<__ Sherrie Consoer Ginger O'Brien Intra-Design CC: City Council Project File 1/ MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Recreation Assistant Position - Resolution #3689 DATE: October 14, 1992 INTRODUCTION: The temporary Recreation Assistant's contract will expire on November 1, 1992. I would like to request that the Recreation Assistant's position become permanent part-time effective November 1, 1992 . A Resolution amending the 1992 pay plan would be in order if Council is supportive of staff's recommendation. BACKGROUND: In June of 1991, the Shakopee City Council selected to hire a temporary Recreation Assistant to assist in administering community recreation activities. The temporary Recreation Assistant's position was subsequently extended several times over the past sixteen months. The position was last extended this past May and expires on November 1, 1992 . In the 1993 budget, staff is proposing that the Recreation Assistant position be made permanent part-time (32 hours per week) . Staff would like to request that Council take the appropriate action to facilitate the recommendation set forth in the 1993 budget at this time. There are adequate funds within the 1992 budget to cover the costs associated with staff 's recommendation. Keep in mind that the 1992 budget included funding for a full-time Recreation Assistant. To date, Ms. Dvorak has remained in a temporary employment status (no employment benefits extended) . Staff is proposing to place Ms. Dvorak at Step 2 of the proposed pay plan (12 month service credit) . Our labor consultant is recommending that the position be defined as exempt. They are also recommending that the position be assigned a comparable worth point value of 70 points. I believe that it is crucial for the City of Shakopee to retain the Recreation Assistant position. With the other reductions proposed in recreation staffing for 1993 I believe that the Recreation Department will be at a bare bones minimum. In order to facilitate the recommendation of staff, two separate actions from Council are necessary. First, It would be appropriate to adopt Resolution No. 3689, amending the 1992 pay plan to include the Recreation Assistant position. Second, to appoint Ms. Sherry Dvorak to fill the Recreation Assistant position classification at Step #2 of the 1992 pay plan effective November 1, 1992 in a permanent part-time capacity effective November 1, 1992 . ALTERNATIVES: 1992 PAY PLAN: 1. Offer Resolution No. 3689, Amending Resolution No. 3525 adopting 1992 pay schedule. 2. Do not approve Resolution No. 3689. 3 . Table action pending further information from staff. APPOINTMENT TO FILL RECREATION ASSISTANT POSITION 1. Appoint Ms. Sherry Dvorak to fill the Recreation Assistant employment classification at Step 2 of the 1992 pay plan effective November 1, 1992 in a permanent part-time capacity (32 hours per week) . 2 . Appoint Ms. Sherry Dvorak to fill the Recreation Assistant employment classification at Step 1 (no service credit) of the 1992 pay plan effective November 1, 1992 in a permanent part- time capacity (32 hours per week) . 3 . Extend the temporary Recreation Assistant's employment through December 31, 1992 . 4 . Do not fill the Recreation Assistant' s position. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1992 PAY PLAN: Staff recommends Alternative #1. APPOINTMENT TO FILL RECREATION ASSISTANT POSITION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: PAY PLAN Offer Resolution No. 3689, Amending Resolution No. adopting 1992 pay schedule. APPOINTMENT TO FILL RECREATION ASSISTANT POSITION Appoint Ms. Sherry Dvorak to fill the Recreation Assistant employment classification at Step 2 of the 1992 pay plan effective November 1, 1992 in a permanent part-time capacity (32 hours per week) . TAMI\ADMIN\DVORAK RESOLUTION NO. 3689 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 3525, ADOPTING THE 1992 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS AND NON UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, on January 21, 1992 , the Shakopee City Council adopted Resolution No. 3525 approving the 1992 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non Union Employees of the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, certain conditions and circumstances have changed to make it desirous to amend the 1992 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non Union Employees of the City of Shakopee at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the Recreation Assistant position classification is hereby added to the Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non Union Employees of the City of Shakopee at the following pay steps: Step I Step II Step III Step IV Step V Step VI 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% $26, 954 $28, 750 $30, 547 $32 , 344 $34 , 141 $35, 938 Adopted in session of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form. City Attorney " P: \Fi \id1+� 6 l :� MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Karen Marty, City AttorneL " DATE: October 15, 1992 RE: Personnel Services Agreement with the County City staff has been working with Scott County to develop an agreement whereby Scott County would provide personnel services to the City. We could ask them to advertise for job applicants, and screen applicants, for example, or allow the City to review some applications they have received. The County and City attorneys have reviewed and approved the attached Letter of Agreement. We recommend it for adoption. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the Letter of Agreement for personnel services with Scott County. LETTER OF AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, (the "City") , has indicated a desire to receive from the County of Scott (the "County") referrals of applicants for employment and other services related to personnel recruitment; and WHEREAS, the County has instituted the Scott County Merit Personnel System subject to Federal and State Merit Personnel System Rules and has indicated the willingness to assist the City in identifying potential applicants for employment; NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed this 1st day of September, 1992, by and between the City and the County as follows: 1. Scope of Services. Upon the receipt of authorization from applicants for employment with the County, the County shall make available to the City its eligibility lists of job applicants for job classifications considered by the County Personnel Director to be similar to the employment position the City seeks to fill. The County shall screen applications and provide other personnel services as mutually agreed upon between the County and the City from time to time. Specific services to be provided and estimated expenses associated therewith shall be set forth in addendums to this Agreement at such time as they are requested by the City, and such addendums shall be binding upon the parties when formally executed by the City Administrator and the County Administrator. 2. Pay. The City shall reimburse the County a portion of the County' s actual costs at such time as the City utilizes County eligibility lists in filling a City position. The City also agrees to reimburse the County for all direct expenses and actual costs incurred by the County for other personnel services provided by the County and as agreed to by the parties as provided for in Section 1 . 3. Confidentiality. Both the City and the County acknowledge that personnel data provided and/or generated pursuant to this agreement is protected in accordance with Minn. Stat. 6'13. 43, and any other applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Any use or release of data provided and/or generated pursuant hereto by the County or the City shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 4. Indemnification. City shall save and protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the County, its commissioners , officers, agents, employees and volunteer workers against any and all liability, causes of action, claims, loss, damages or cost and expense arising from, allegedly arising from, or resulting directly or indirectly from any professional errors and omissions and/or negligent acts and omissions of City in the performance of this contract. CONSENT TO THE RELEASE OF EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION INFORMATION 1 . I , have been informed that the (applicant) position for which I am applying is a position of employment with the County of Scott. I have also been informed that I have the opportunity for my application to be forwarded to the City of Shakopee for consideration for a position of relatively similar character and compensation as that associated with the position for which I am applying with the County. 2. I have been informed that my application for employment with the County of Scott is subject to the various provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. '713. 43, which restrict the dissemination of the data I have provided as a part of my application for employment. 3 . By signing this Release, I hereby authorize the County of Scott to release the information provided in my application for employment for the position of to the City of Shakopee solely for the purpose of the consideration by the City of my employment with the City of Shakopee. This release shall be effective for a period of one (1) year from the date of execution hereof. 4 . I understand that the selection of my application for employment consideration by the City of Shakopee shall in no way be construed as an offer of employment by either the County on the City and shall not preclude the consideration of my application for employment by either entity. Dated: Applicant County shall save and protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteer workers against any and all liability, causes of action, claims, loss, damages or cost and expense arising from, allegedly arising from, or resulting directly or indirectly from any professional errors and omissions and/or negligent acts and omissions of County in the performance of this contract. 5 . Termination. The County or the City may, with or without cause, terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice addressed to the respective administrator at the public office of the City or the County. SCOTT COUNTY CITY OF SHAKOPEE JJ ) C � . i Chairman, ' Scott County Board Mayor of Commissioners ( :/2;:( )) City Administrator Active/ County dministrator / / City Clerk �� � ) )-1- MEMO 2MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: Authorization for City Administrator to Sign St. Francis EAW Report Allowing Initiation of the Environmental Review Process DATE: October 16, 1992 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: Staff has prepared the required Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed St. Francis Regional Medical Center. In order for the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to accept the EAW allowing for the initiation of the review process, the report must be signed by an authorized official of the City. The signature certifies that the report has been properly prepared, that all project components are described in the EAW as required by the EQB, and will be distributed to the appropriate review agencies. Staff has taken the appropriate actions to meet all three certification requirements. A copy of the EAW report for the proposed St. Francis Regional Medical Center is available in the Planning Department for further review. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion authorizing the City Administrator to sign the St. Francis EAW report as required. I , G CO1\1SET There are no anticipated "budget versus actual expenditure" problems within division totals apparent at this point (9/30/92) . N * N * N * N N * N * NNNNNPON N * N * NNNN * NN r Co * Co * Co * co Co * CO * Co W 0o OD 00 OO 00 00 * Co * Co 00 00 0o * Co 00 A (0 Co * CO * *00 * 0 0 * Co Co 0o 0o 0o 0o 00 0o 0o * CO * Co oO 00 00 * Co 00 2 CO 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 00000000 * 0 * 0000 * 00 m N Co * V * C) * 0) C) * A * (9(4(4(4(4(4(4(4 * N * NNNN * 00 C) r YeN * O) * N p.. * oo N. NU)U)U)U)UIU)U) * CO * C)C)C)C) * AA 7C 0 z —.4 O < 0 O '*1 i F.. rrrr I—r D 00 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0000 0 0 —1 N \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \ \\\\ \\ m 2 r F•. r r r r r 1—.1—.P..1+ r)+ D A A A A A A 4.4.4.Z.4:14.414. A 4.414.4. 41.4:.(O W 0 (0 \ (0 (0 (0 (O(O(O(0(0 CO(O(O (0 (0(0(0(0 (0 '0 10 (0 t0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNN N N m D 3 0 C (o z rr -.IV W W C) r rr r Nr -I W NN AA AA V V U)U) C)COACAo000OoC) (0(0 O(0 AMC., 0 AA WW 0000 0000 WW U)WrWrWWW C) WW VrWWO) 00000 0 AA WW AA AA rr WIr U1rUlrrrW 0000 VU)VNN C)NA 0 (0(O rr (0(D AA C)C) WVC VOOVVVN WW 0)Nr0)V 00Vr * * * * * * * * * CO (0 CO CO CO D DDDDaDDD m DDDD DD D 0 0 C A 04)000000 CCCC 0 0 A < CO -4 -< -I NNV)U)NNNC -4I -1-4-1-4 DD .1 M cn -I DOgqOpOpOOOpOO 0000 33 O A D m z 9. OhAOOOAA = 0000 NN m z 0 A 0 E A < 11111111 0 mmmm mm Z < mm m m m m m m m Z Z Z 2 N C < 0 CO) 0C)0C)C) )C)0 A -1-4-4-( NU) 0 Z O = X 22222222 NO MIXIMM DDDD -4-4 A C) O A -0 00000000 Z rrrr OO m 0 O 00000000 12.1 NNNN ZZ Z XS 0 < ii- <- -1-i CCCC -4 A A A A A A A A D M M M M r r( CO C) CO MMMM ZZ A -4 NMMMMMMN 0 rr-rr C)0 RI CO ZZZZZZZZ C) «« C) 00000000N < m A C m v 0 U) -I 200000(C N mmmm MM 4-4 -4 0 A C C m rrrrrrrr C .0000 AA < 1..4 C 0 m A r 00000000 = CCCC 0000 m I- 1'-( 'l CO T1 m 00000000D 4M�M M 3 m 90 CD ) 2 33333333 C) NN C7 m 0 DDDDDDDD m 3333 mm m Z NMI-IF-IMMNM DDDD AA N m D A CO m ZZZZZZZZ 3 f4- 1-4,-44-1 Z CO Z C C D -1-4...--1-1-1 D Z Z Z Z Z N -4 -4 -4-4-1-4 0-4 O < A ).y 1••( 0 v z 0 0 N 0 0 0 00000000 0 0000 0 0 n 1 . r r r r r 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 O AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAAA A A 0 W NJ W W N W N N N N N N N N N NNNN W W C V W r CO r N (4(9(4(4(9(4(9(9 r (4(4(4(4 rr Z 0 N 0 r (SI r 00000000 CO NNNN 00 < 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I A A N r A W 010 W W r r r r A A A A r W r Z N A I- C) N r ANNrWWWW N A Nr V MOO 0 V r N r V r rrrrAWNr V r0)1.-r rN • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 A A N r A W 0)AWwrrrr A AAAr Wr )"4 N A r 0) N NNr x0000000 N ANr V r00 Z rrrr W W (4(4(9(4(4(9(9(9 rrrr V 0) r) I-r r r N N N N N N N N NNNN r 0 A A A A A A P A 0000 . r 1 V 0 A 1 CO U N ; 3 mm 0D * * * * * * * ND* * * * * ** * * C) » * * * * 1 1 1 m 1 1 i 1 1 C7 C) C7 CO w w N CO N CO 1"' N N CON 00000000 * 0000 * co 00 * 00 0000 * N N N * NNNNN * N N 00000000 * 0000 * 00 00 * 00 0000 * ao DD 00 * 00 00 00 00 00 * 0000 * (') (O 00 * AAAA * WW * N N * r rr * IFF. F. * 00000 * 0000 m N VVVV * AA * m V0 * V1 AA * NN r * (0(0(0(0(0 * Vv * C) 7C A H 2 1 O < O 0 1-.1-.1-.1... F . f F f.). ).). f 1...,... D0000 00 O0 0 00 0 00000 pp CO\\\\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\\\\ \\ m 2rrrr p.p,. r r r rr r rr DAAAA AA A A A AA AA A AAAAA AA 00 -4 M 40(0(0(O (0(0 W W (O WW \\ \ \\\\\ \\ (NNN NN N N N NN (0(O (0 NO (O (0(0 0 N N N N((NNN N N NNM m D r r r r 0 WO C 0 0 WO VV N r NON ANNr 1-.NA ON 00 NN A0)00 N N 00 rrA 000)r /FA/FF. (0(0(0 0000 0)0) W0 0)rA AWr (0(0 Dor A000)V (CON 0 0 W AAr 000A 00 00 (O(0 OWV ...INV' AA 0(11 r00NV NV0 0 A0000) 000 00 VV 00 (01-00 0)00) 0000 (OA0)00AC) W00 0 ( * * * * * * * * * * MMMM 00 DDDR A0 0 00 (7 0044 C) 0000000 000() mm 0 < 2 i3 00 = DDDDD0 ac 32. xxxxx 00 -34-(<-+ ON 1 3 H►-( r DDDDD �� DXXI mm D m NCnNN!/f Z Z Z Z m ZZ = < A DD 1= 0 D DDD D Z N D CC 0 D DDD D Z Z Z 0 00 02 00 AC) C)(7 Z 00 -4 °°°°°°°°°° 0 00 0000 MMMM MM m V -4-4 XX a 00000 M • CCCC • 1-r o..400Q0A 0 0000 c)n m r- W a n 00 C NN -4 00000M a m a 0 -4-4-4-i-4 c) mmzm 0 m 1 m m i G) 1-r N -4 m CCCC m3 m m m 1-110 000)0)07 C)m 4-4 CCCC C0 0 0 O Dr I-1m .0 1 MMMMmmmm CQ C a C CO ND C 00000 M1-4 m rrrr C) C)< F-( 0G)0G)G) (-(Z v� v m -4-4 4-41-41-41..4 3 r 0000 9. D M/-iM--I- r� m Nmmn, DC D D D 1> N Mm M r M M2 M ZZZZZ m'9 t7 Zr Z Z Z Z-4 0 2 -4-4-4-4-4 OC M -4 1 1 1 -4 C W H 07 M 0 m 1 H 1.4 cr, 0 1 O Z 0000 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 O 00000 O O > rrrr 1-4- r � ( 1 ( 1- r 1-r 1-r r 1 1 ( I 1-r (') AAAA 11 ( 1 ( 1 1 0 ( ( NNN N N N A A A AA AA A AAAAA A A 0 N N N NN AW N NNNNN 411(•J C 0000 N N W W W WW WW co W W W W W 4- 0 11 i N N N NO (p0 N 00000 1-0 Z WWrr A(0 (J GJ ( I I 11111 -4 W1VN Ar r A WA 1-r A ANAWr 1-(0 Z r WNr F.F. r r N NA 1-W A ANNr00 Nr � ( ( � ( � I ►1' a) 1-r 1-r r OWOOr 1-r 0 W W r r I I i ( 1 1 1 1 1 Ar p0) W A WA 1—r A AW0 1-(0 N W r v N N NA 1-W A AA NN N r M Nr Z 0) ( r < V W N 0 r r AAAAA 0) 00 00 00 (0(0(0(0(0 * r A A (0 0 NNNNN O N N N V 00000 -0 1 • r 0 A I (0 it N • 3 ` m v * * * * V) D * * * * * * * N G) ( * * * * * * * * 0 m (7 C7 C) I 1 1 m C) 0 0 C) C) C) C) N N W 0 0 0 N N * N * NNN * NNNNNN * N * N * N * NNNNN * N * NN r * 00 * 000000 * 000000000000 * CO * co * 00 * 03**** * 00 * 0000 C) CO * 00 * 000000 * 000000000000 * 00 * DO * 00 * 0000000000 * CO II 1..1.. m N . * N * NNN * NNNNNN * r * r * r * m00000000 * 1.11 * AA (7 * r * rrr * 000000 * A * COco * * N * V V 0 C) * �„� * rrr * AAAAAA * * A * 4-1 Z -4 0 -C 0 v 'e1 a. r r D 0 000 000000 0 0 0 00000 0 00 -4 V) \ \\\ \\\\\\ \ \ \ \\\\\ I- \ m W ✓ rrr r r r A A A A A AAAA A A A A A AAA A A AA 7: (0 0(0(0 000000 (0 O (0 00000 (0 00 'C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N N NN T M n r r 3 0...,-. 0 VV ..4-4 C MM . . Z r r r moo r -4 AA Ar r V rW r 00 r AA rNAAON rr A 0)0) NVO0 00(110DrAVN VV NN NN (71ArraoN WW O0000 NN 0000 A0A001-S AA 0110 00 0o(VWWV00 1"r 43-4r 00 0000 (O0rSVNV 00 00 VV UCONNWA 00 0V0 * * * * * * * * * W WWW xxxxxx 4 G) G) 00000 T mm Se mmm >>>>>> ar N m mmrn(nrn 77 DD 70 ZZZ >3oAXIMAA3 3 0 Z ZZZZZ (--( NN 20 ZZZ 00000 G) n . 00000 N xx < 14 zzz zzzzzZ >, H m mm�.m 0 zZ m m m N N N N N N N N N 3 A z 0 (/) r45-45-( xxSxxx . -° 00000 C) 00 0 C)0C) 000000 7D T 0 CC C) Z 000 EEEEEE m Z V mmmmm Z 00 C) 0 7,Mm70m W m 00000 C) c) 00000 O 00(0000 a'( Z 70 00000 C) m 00000 0 a-1 N • -.1 M 7a O MMM 00)0)000000 -4 - m NNNNN 0 MO s-4 -A 010.0 .0(-1-CCC a 70 .0 CCCCC -I XIC -I X CCC C00--0 D 0 C MMM--v m O'MC 3 rn vMV a•(AL7r-'9r < 1-1-r-1-r- 70 Nar•( 0 ��� rrr m a.( 333 3>Dmmm r m ; mmrnmm ar mm m X DDD >1.41-1000 Re >' D 00000 X CN 0 V 0-4o-4,-41-(ZZ < ay ZZZ Z-4-4 0 Z 70 70 0 -1-4-4 -4 a _I 0 1-4 < W < 'fl Cl) H N C/) 0 -4 Z W 000 000000 0 0 0 00000 W 00 D CO r r r r r r 00 r r C) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C) A A A A A AAAA A A A A A AAA A A AA 0 0 N N N N N N N N N W W N N NNN N Uir r Z r WWWW W W r r r W r N 00000 r 00 Z (0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 C) . (!1 W O) Z (0 AAA MMOa)AW W A A rA 0 (0 A N r N N r N N W W N A ANN,-.4 W r r ✓ r0)r V1oo Vr0r r r r1 1 • ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A AAA 000)0)0)AW W A A 0)AAAr A WO 5-4 ✓ A N r N N r N N W W N A A N N r-1 r r A Z WWW V A AAA A 0)0 0 000000 O A AAA A r AAA N N N N N N A 00000 0 000 WWWWWW V WWWWW 0)000)0)0 V 1 00000 • r O A 1 (0 * N 3 i m m N > * * * * * * * ** D m * * * * * * * * * 0 X * w * * * I 1 1 I 1 1 m A C) A C) C) C) 0 C) 7: 7C 7C 7: 7: 7C 7C N N N wN 0 Cl) 0 0 0 * N N N N N N N * N N N N N * N * N * N N * N x N * N N N * CO CO CO 03030000 * 00 000000 00 x CO * 00 * CO Co * 00 * r * 00000000000000 x 0000000000 x 00 * co 00 x00 * 000000 X (0 * WWWWWWW * WWWWW x W * N * N N x 00 x 00 * 000000 m 00 * W WWWWW W * W WWW W x 0 * 00 * (0 (0 * N N * N N N m N * ..4,1`..4.,1,1%,./....1x 1-.1.+1...1-.1-. * 0 y 0 * N A x f0 * V * 00000 A ..4,1`..4.,1,1%,./....1 O * to * CO ao 0 X n ►r Z -1 0 < 0 '" r r 0 ?1 0000000 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0\\\\ \ \ \ \ 0 0 000 1 X r r F. 1-• \\\ m > A A A A A A A A AAA A r r AAA D 0000\\\ 0000\ A A A A A. A A A A 00(0(00000(0 (0(000(0(0W \ \ \ \ \ M (0 f0 t0 CO CD \\\ 0 N N N N N N N N NNN N N N N NCC M N N N N N f*I m D 3 0 )-. C A r V V A A N N r r MO (Ar U)(0 z 1 A N0(0(0 U) 0-.4....4A 0000 rr WW 00 VV 00 Co 00 V(.JV (003W N)0)00W U) WAAVVV WO) AA VIN 00 WW rr rrWr N0VVANN(O 0000(0(0(000 0)0) 00 0(0 VV • • • WNWU1r 000V NAAA(0(0 AA 00 00 W00)0 00 WW 00 00 00 N(ornp I * * * * * * * * * 3333333 33333 r- r F-(MNMMy MN MMMMM 0 0 > M Mm ZZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZZZZ > A U)U)U) ZZZZZZZ rrn mZZZZZ 0 D O Z 0 A 111 0000000 OC•)C)C)C) r r•( m < m N>NN>NN 3303300000 D 0 r- I m m 0000000 33Z3z rn m 0 0 0 mmm 0 0000000 < O m 0 N N N 0 H-n 0 C Z 0 000 m 0 v Z M C) D C) I"' 1•'I 1.41-4/-4 X < 1 ZZZ I•'0 000 A M m V) 0 N to 1 M A CCCCCCC --A-v- m A Z 00 0 - - 0- I-( -IV-(-1-(-(V AXIMMM0 g3 0r. C = XIzM 00000 0 A 0 0 N 0 000 m T1 TI I f( -11-11-0 ; H HF/MFIMM -i1-1-4-4-4-1 N0nNNW S N0O 0 Hu-(r Mrr MN mmmmm D C)) T > 90 I mmm m mm mmmmrn AAAXIA 00303003003 ««< I-i A m 1-4 in M MMX1 Z C < <<< 0 z '1 r- 1 ( A -( 0 Cl) 1-4 0 A 1 M H M 0 1 Z 0000000 00000 0 do rrrrrrr I,,. A r 0 0 0 Wwt A 0 r r 1 1 ) 1 1 1 ) ) 1 I I r ao00r n I I I I I I I A A A A A A A A AAA A A N A N A. A AAA A 0 0 W W W W W W W WWWWW -4-.4-4-4-4,1-4 N w N N W W O N W W W W C 0000000 00000 N N N 0 0 000 Z 111 111V 11 111 I O r 0 000 -4 0)0)0)AWrr I I I 0 I I I I WWWrr A 0 r Of r W V)V)A 0 ANrNrt000 rrrNN A 0 A N p) r00r rrNr0 I I I I I It Illii rrr0)r r 0 W 00 r FW+ r(0Gr O)O)O)AWrr wW Wrr I I I I I I Ili AN1Nr0000 rrrNN A 00)0 r 0 W AAA Z A N of W rrr Z r (0 0 r < v w 0 LSI A V 0 w r 0ut I • F., 0 A I CO * N 3 m * * * * * x * * * * N fin * ) * s * * * * > m I I I I * * * 0 C) 0I I I I 0m Cl) 0 0 0 o N A N x N N * N * N * NNN * N * 00 N * N N N N N NN r' DD * DD * oD * CO * W * W OO 00 * ao * 00 00 * CO a0 ao 00 OO WW 0 CO A * CO * 00 * t)0 * C x W W W * W * W W * W WWW W WW O N A * W * W * N * CO * VVV * O) * 0 A * AAAAA AA C) 0 * 00 * 0 * UI * 0 * r r r * A * 0 CO * VVVVV O)0) 7; C) Z - 4 O -< 0 0 -11 ✓ r r r r rrr r r r rr D O 0 0 0 0 000 O 0 O 00000 00 -4 Cl) A \\\ \ \ \ \\\\\ r r m D \ \ \ \\ rrr r r r ✓ r r A A A A A A A A AAA A A A 7C A A A A \\\ \ \ \ \\\\\ \\ O \ \ \ \ \ CO CO(0 (0 CO (0 CO CO(0 C0 CO (O CO M CO CO CO CO CO N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N NN P D 3 0 r r C z N rr WW rr 0 x000 AA VV rr "'( A UI UI rr rr VV COO)rr C)0) VV 00 COWA 00Vr (0 AA (0(0 VV rr COWO)CO WW 0)0) 00 AACJWCOW OAr 0) 00 rr NN VV WA-4W 0)0) NN 00 VNVCN0) 00AA A 0)0) VV UI UI 00 NVAr 00 00 00 OCN0)rN 0)U1r x * * * * * * * * * 33333 33 M 73 m 0 0 ZZZ Z 1 0 vvvvv 00 W > M n 000 1 M Z ZZ 0-40 1-4 Cl)0 v MMM rn c 7o CANNON 7070 m rn I MMV D m 1 CANNON "I 1-4-4 3 r 11-4--41 DD v 0 r Z m r N m CX 0o W m o0 00 >7o 0 - m TO v0 0 000 P1 m D ccccC -4-4 m 70 r NNNNN NN 0 -1 D 7o Z m Z 0 $.4 mmm ~ pp70m7070 0 0 —4 00 mmm w 0 m 00000 Z N 700 CCC O Cl) m NNNNN 70 (7 mmm P1 A )..1 0 N -4 M a M Cl) 3 0o A =ma 7o Cl) m 000(010 NCA I.4 mm(n O C 7o CCCCC Or —4 O C u) 0 0 33(*I 3 7o 0 vvomv co m 3 TI C7 C7 NN N m m v Vmmm F-1 C) 3 x111 -4 1. n N 4-44-44-u-44-4 rtv 3 0 O m G) C)Nx c m m mmmmm 3D m 0 m m NNNNN Hz r DD Z '1 mm> 0 4-4 D < Z1 m N D -4 H -4 0 NN> Z -4m -4-4m 0 -4 >>r c r1 xxm m 0 Cl) Z ✓ O O O 0o 000 0o O O 00000 00 > A r r r A r r r r r r r rrr r rr C) I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 11 I I I I I C7 A A A A N A A N A A A A AAA A AA 0 W N A N W C(0N CO N W NNNNN NN C oo00w N 4- r 1-4-4-4-4- W W Z W U1 CO O N rrr A U1 O 00000 NO —4 I I I I i 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I WNrnrrr AO) z F-. N r A 0NA0 0 N r rAV UIW Ar 0 A N r A 0 N V r r 0 r r 0 0 V r r rrr r r-.4 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I -.400 0 A W CO O)r r r AM 1-1 I-. A r A 0 A N r A O NAO 0 N r rAV UiW Ar C A A (0 A W 00 00 0 N it O WCO A W WA I • r 0 A I (O * N 3 M v N D * * * * * * * * D C) * * * * * * * * C:1 * * * * x * i m I 0 C) C) C) I 0 C) 0 0 x x x x 7; 7C x x CJI N Cl) N Cl) N C/) Cl) Cl) A CO N NN * NNN N * N * NN N * N N * N * N * N CO CO0CO CO ** CO CO03 O CO CCo * CO * CO CO CO II CO CO * CO CO*CO * CO COao * Co00 * C) CCO O U) VI UI * U)U1 UI 0 * U) * AA A * A A * CO * CO * Co * m N 0 00 * 000 0 * 0 * CO CO CO * CO CO * '"•1 * m N * CO V V It N U1 U1 A ItN * CA CA UI * N r * CO V * CO * n O * r * X n I-4 Z -/ 0 < r rr rrr r r rr r r r 0 0 00 000 0 0 00 00 0 ) 0 \ \\ \\\ \ 0 0 -i N I-. rr \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ m S rrr r r rr r r r r r A AA AAA A A AA A A A A D \ \\ \\\ \ �' A A \ \ \ \ -0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO \\ \ \ 0 N NN NNN N CO CO CO W 10 -0N NN N Na NJ N N NJ N NJ N m m D VN W O)U1I- C V NN WWOW rr WWU) WW NN N -I O 00 010000) WW NN CWU) WW WOO AA rr A A WOW rW000 WW WW COUIr AA AA UIN rr CO CO 0000 CO UI 0OWA UiWON rr CO CO WOW 00 WW 00 VV OO) WW 0) CO NO)O) 0CJ0W CO CO U)UI VO)r 00 NN 00 AA AA rr A * * * * * * * * * * * * N 00 NNN N N NN N V 00 XI DD DDD D D mm 0 m n m D m -4 XX XXX X X 0 A r m r < i 00 000 0 0 SS r N w 0 �� 0 v rn N m - m m m m m m m m ht I.4 C) 0 m Z 0 m Cl) mm mmm m m ZZ -I Cl) 0 v-4Z 1-1 >>> A rn 00 < D Mt 0 M0 N M N C)C)C) S 0 Z -1 rn m .� C m73 C)C)A m m m CO rta 0 e 1 m RI r S S CO mm mmm < 0 RI m 70 c) M m Roe* U)N W I- 0 f7 O ZCO M 7C Z CZ)) 7C z cc 000 ni ` -4-I 73M73 MI rn m i 00 MMM 0 t r1 t w -4 m m 00m mDD m m mm r '-I Cl) r1 00W C 0 MM m XI M m Z t-4 4-4,I M-414- 4-4 M 00 G) < 0 0 D C m -I vv m to v mm > m rn v < r 3 24. 33 mmD NCA I- N r' o-1 0 DD mm> D D am m70 r a m 3 m '9 rr <<C) M N C< i''' N Sty (/) Cl) C ZZ rnZ N C) CO -4-4 Cl) -4 -4 Z N pi U) 0 C V C M N co13 m-11 m C r 0 um) I" 'i —4 z 0 00 000 0 0 V�1 0 0 0 0 0 0 D r rr F.F.F. r r rr r F. r r I I I 1 1 1 I I1... r 0 A AA AAW A 1 1 I I I I I I f7 W NN WWr N A N AA A A A 0 N WW W CO W A A O NN rr0 W W rr r W I,,, W N Z 0000 N N 00 O) 0 0 N 0 0 Z 1 I I I I I I 1 II I I I -4 r C.)C.) rr0 A A VU) r r 1 1 W rr NNO A N rCO W V NJ W r A 0 r Nr UI U)0 r O) r00 r r N N A 0 1 11 I I I IN fI N r I 1 1 I 11 I r WW rr0 A A VA r r Of W r Ar W rr N N 0 A N rr W V N N V) A Z A < A r 4* r A 0 I • r 0 A Co it N 1 v x• * 34 * 0 D * * * * * * * * Cl) G) * 1* * * * * * 3* D m n I 1 1 I I m C) 0 0 C) C) C) C ) A 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 CO CO N * NN N * N * NN * NNNNNNNNNNN * NNNNNNNNN NNN r 00 * 0000 00 * 00 * 0000 * 0000000000 OO 00 00 00 00 00 * 0000000000 00 000000 MMM C) (0 00 * 0000 CO * 00 * 0000 * 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 * 000000000000000000 00 00 M S (0 0 * UI UI UI * UI * Ul UI * 00000000000 * 000000000 000 m N W * WW W * N * r-r * * 000000000 000 A U) * WW N * A * (0(O * VVVVVVVVVVV * (0(0(000(0(0(0(0(0 000000 7C 1A. Z -1 0 0 OT t ✓ rr r r rr rrr D • 0 00 0 0 00 00000000000 000000000 000 -1 N \ \\ \ \ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\ r r- m D ✓ rr r r rr A AA A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 7C W WO CO (0 WW (0 000(000 0(0(0(0(0 0 00(0(000(0(0(0(0(0 00(0(0 M N NN N N NN NNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNN m X. r C r r A r r Z AA NN NAOr0)WO NAACO UI N (0 -I 00 Nrr AA WW 000r COO 10A 1. 0000 (OAOMAAArAA NrU10) NN ANN AA 0)0) WOW W000)N000)O lWVrN AWNWWWWNWW WUiNI'. UI UI 00000 00 WW 000 W 00000 010(0 UI VA 0 N 0)0).(00)0)0)(00)0) WWr'W VV 00000 AA rr 000 4.mrwtowmNmNmm NVN0VVVOOVV AWrr * * * * * * * * U) WO U) CO -1-4 000000000000000000 0000000000000000 U)V)C/) S DD --4 1QO mmm-ammmm-a- ====== 000 m 7,a, 70 3 s 3 CCCCCCCCCCC DDDDD>DDD C C C 73 mA 0.1 m 000C)000000C) 77C7C 7CT7C7C7C7C -1-I-I 1-1COU) 000000000 Z Z < C) -4 I-I « 0 -i mmmmmmmmm m Z 00 m S MM mm m m m m m m m co m m z .-I .1 13 m MM mmmmmr' mrin 0000 M C)0 U) ZZ _I-i4 0 I- 7070 �m ZZ mmmmmmmmm NNN C) X17:1=73,3==== CCC 2 I..( m m ««««< 0,00 f*1 D M XI= 1.41.40-11..41-11-4M1-1'.4 C C C C) .0)0)0)00000) mm= 7t N 0 mmmmmmmmm WWW (O0U)0U)0000 >>> .73 C) ZZZ F • O —4 1' CA M 7a (0 ..1.1 m N 0-1 CCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCC -13'flM I.4 C Toa 0 C CD M -IV-C-4-(--1-1-4-C-(-1 -I-1-4-1-i--4-I-4 W7,>, --I MM1-I M F.MMM MMM R1 � << I—I -a U)< rrrrrrrr-rrr- rrrl-rrrrr ZZZ 3 m M MMM....... I* r C- M fe r -(-C V-1-1-I-1-C-1-1-1 V-4-1-i-4-I-I-I-I 0 ; M MMMNMMMI-(NMI-1 MMM.MMMr(I 4 RSReQS m Q.Q. n N NQe mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm CO C 70 CC M C 00000000000 000000000 MMM 0 D 00Z 0)(0 CCC ►-I C0 C)00 W W -171 .-1 WO 70 N r( MM MU) 0 NN -41 Z 0 00 0 0 00 00000000000 000000000 C4 N I CD) ✓ rr r r rr I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 . 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 0 A AA A A AA AAAA.....AA A A A A A A A A A A A A 0 N WW N N WW W W W W W W W W W W W 0000(40000000000(4 WWW C ✓ WW W I- (OW Vr1VVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV UIUIUI Z UI 00 N 0 1-.0 00000000000 000000000 000 -1 I 11 I I ti III I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A rr A W WW 0)0)0)0AAWWWrr 0)0)0)AWWrrr 01%10 Z N VN N r rr NNNrNNU1Nr0000 NNrNNr000000 (O0-.(0 0 V 0)r 0) r rr 00ANrVrrrr Nr CON1-.5-.1-.1ANr 0-.NU1 • I II I I 1 I 1 1 . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I A rr A W WW 0)0)0)0AAWWWrr 0)0)0)AWWr I-r ANA I--1 N VN N r rr NNN1-.NN1-.N1-.0000 NNrNN1-.000000 rrr Z MI r 0 -a 1 r 0 A 1 CO * NJ i 3 L . m v U) D * * * * * * * * * D m * * * * * 0 I 1 I 1 1 m C) 0 C) C) CO U) U) 7C N v N coN N co N * N * N * NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN * N * N * NNNNNNNN r 00 * 00 * 00 * 0000 0000000000000007000000000000 * 00 * CO * 0004,00000000 C) 0 CO * 00 * 00 * 03000000000000000030,00003m * 00 * 00 * 0000000000000000 X 0 0) * 0 * 0 * 0000000000000000 * UI * UI * 00000000 m N 0 * (O * 00 * 00000000300000000000000 * V * A * W W W W W W W W C) 0 * V * (0 * * V * U) * 00)0)000)00 X C) N Z -1 0 -< I-. r r r 0 Om O 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 00000000 -I Wr 1"' F., r \\\\\\\\ m = A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A r D (0 (0 co (O(0(p(p(O((p(p(O(0(O0J(0(0((0 (p \ \\\\\\\\ 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NJ W W W W W W W c000pcpcooDwW N N N N N N N N N m m D (4(4 r W N r C C AA Co r r r-44- r rr V Nrr0 rr -Z( WW AA NN A r C)0)0000AIrQNAWAN(Or AA 0)0) ANrrOWA00 00 00 VV ArVOAAVV(p UINNWAVOW 00 UIUI ANUIOWWANO UI I 00 00 AOUCVVW000UiVA0(O00W0 00 rr NmWVOWWNV VV 0)0) 0000 VNW(pr V(OAWON)WN000 00 0000 00AUIVAW(N * * * * * * * 0 < 0 CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC C CO C)C)C)C)CC)C)C r Z M M M4-44-44-41-4 m m 0 U)000000(A(N000V 000 N D -(-(--1-IV-I_I--I o a M X tXtZXXXZCEEEE 9 <-c< «-c c� < D (*ImmrnMMMMmm(n(Ilm(nmm M 0 00000000 m 0 C 1<i "1-1-1-1--1-1-1-1-1-1.1-1-(-1-I N Z m'*I'�1mmT m'If 0 r23 m C)C)C)C)C)C)A0C)A0C)C)C)C)C) 1 S-I V (AtnNN(nN(/fN 0 0 1-- ~ i33ilififfliffif 000000000000000 n CO 00000000 m Zm m m m m m-om m A G) = A mmmmmmmm M 0mmmmmmmm 0 xi v m C) 4-4 N m XI V3 V 3-1-a-(_I-1-i-1-41-i-i-i-1-I-1 CCCCCCCC M = .mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0 N D . D U)I 1 t I rrrrrrrrrrr N C -1�� 1-( � i-( lu m0 m Cmmmmmmre)mmmmmmmm- m �,,„„ 9 ,„„,„ D r MMMMMMMM r r =_____________= 0 M -l-1-4-i-4-1V-1 0 9* c 000000000000000 m m M M M M M M N M m �” Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N mmmmmmmm (n m mm mm mm mm mm mm mmm 000000)0U) C) N r U) C C23 W W M U) N -0 M 11 —I N N M -i 0 Z O 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 -0000000 > I- r I- - r C) A p A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I 1 n W N A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 0 W N W A W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N WWWWWWWW C W (O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r V V V V V V V V Z I O I N 0 (0 00000000 -1 1 r f0 F� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 I 0 /-.0)0)0)4.AWWW Z UI r F. Ut4.NF-NrWNr00V0UIWNr r A (prNrNN0000 0 r r r r ►' ......------£9- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I- W I-. 0-.0)0)0)AAW(WW W A l-(000AWrr M U) 1-. r NANrNrWNr 00V0)UIWNr r A (OrNrNN0000 Z W < r (0 * r I... 0 13 1 • I-• O A CO St N X v * * * (n > * * * * * * N 0 * * * * * * > m I 1 1 * * * a 0 0 A I CI) 0 m �j N N () N N cn N o0 N N N N N N N N N N * NNNNN * N * N * N * A I 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 Co Co 00 * 00 OO 00 m m * 00 * Co * 00 00 00 CO 00 Co CO 00 00 00 00 * 0000 00 00 00 * 00 * 00 * 00 * 2 CO 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO * W W W W W * W * N * N * C) N (0 0O 0o Ov 0) N A w N 0 0 O * -.0.4-.1-4-.1 * 0 * co * 0) * 7: C) 0-4 Z • 1 0 -< 0 0 f1 r r r r r r r r r r r r r D O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 m 0 \\.\\\.. 2 r r r r r r r r r r A A A A A A A A A A AAAAA A A A \"-\\\ \ \ \ 0 (0 (0 0 (0 (0 (0 (0 CO 0 (O 00000 (0 (0 (O m N N N NJ N N N N N N NNNNN N N N m D X wt..) rr WW rr 0 AA 00 r r W W 0000 0000 C AA Vv 0000 rr 00 00 r cow 0)0) rr —4 UI AA VIUI rt.. NN (O(O 0000 U1 UI 00 W0) CO 4-.43 W CO N vv 00 wC.) v NN 00 00 00 0000 0000 00 vow Vv COVIN CAW 0 AA a00o ww (71 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o00 co(00)r0r vv (0(0 00 r 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 UINO)UINO 0000 AA vim) * * * * * * * * * * * * * C) 0 C) -1 C) W 00 00 D D -<-C-<-<-< Z Z Z O 2 rn M ►+ m > 0 W D DDDDD D m )"'I Z D >, 0 --1 70 70 D H > MOOM7770 N N r 0CCCCC r r P 3 20 -< X M -1 0 NNNNN P < M C) r W 0 D a W C) -4 NNNNN Cl) D Z Z 0 -1 3 Z > Z 0� t-4 ) G) Z I-+ 00000 Z > N 00 O Z m M r 0 0 !• Cl) w 22222 D Cl) = Z v 0 3 0 Cl) Z 00000 r D c) c) m 0C m = Cl) 0 N4-I 0 ZZZZZ -4 Z 0 Z 3•I CZ) C) O <0 ► 0 Cl) 00000 Z W r 7C W Z 0 0 O z < m C0 m O Z Cl) m Cl)) Z C) C) C) i Cl) 0 Cl)N -4 rn 00 C) m C) N 0 C) Cl) v NNNNN C 0 Cl) . m -1 0 C a CCCCC '-C -4 C rn a m 0 m 0 D 2 z m 0 vv- v-a rr2 '*1 Cl) c) m r m m m T MIav-- r m v 3 C) m R� CD) Cl) rrrrr ' = mO m Q' 2 m 0 RIrn rn m m m m 1•+ 1-4 m m m Cl) O 7, N -4 3 Cl) 7) NNNNN m 1 Cl) C..) 1 C W 3 C) 4 0 C) 1 < Cl) v 7, 70 --I C/)) 0 -4 0 0 Z) 0 0 -4 0 m C) 0 < 0 7, XI r r _(-1 - m N Cl) 0-v 0 Z -4 0 0 co 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 00000 0 NJ 00 n ✓ r A r r r W r r r 1 C) $ I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 A A N W A A A 4 A A AAAAA A A A 0 N w W r W N 0 W N W NNNNN W U) N C ✓ (C 0 C.) (G A r (O r r rrrrr V cr- C Z U 1 r N V 0 N (0 0 U1 0 00000 0 I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 i 1 I I I A r 0 0 r A 0 w A A O)0)A A W v 0 A Z N v 0 0 0 N (0 r N W ANNNr N W N 0 v r 0 0 w co A N v 0 rrrrr r A 0) I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I A r 0 0 r A A W A A 0)0)A A w v A A 1••( N v 0 0 0 N r r N N ANNN4 N r N C W 00 U) 0 0Ca ss r A v 00 OW) w 0 r 0 A CO It N X N D * * * * * N C) * * * * * D m * * * * * C) I m I 1 t 1 0 2 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ N N NJ F-- 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 03 COCO CO 00 00 00 Oo 00 CO CO 03 CO CO 0�0 CO� CO00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 co Co � � CO 03cc co co co CO = CO V N) N1 N w NJ NJ NJ rs.1 N NJ h-. I- c- )- cor00 Co CO m NJ 0 (0 Co V O) 0 A (4 NJ 4- 0 7C 0 H Z -1 O < 0 • N F.• F- F.. F- F. F. F. /- F- F. F. F. F. F. IF IF F. 0 T O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 v) ;- 1- F. /-- F- F. F. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m F. F- A F- A A A F. F. A = A A A A A A A A D A A A A A A A A A \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - - \ \ \ \ \ (D CO (D CO CO (D (0 CO (0 CO CO CO CO CO (D CO (0 (0 0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ N NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ N NJ N) NJ M M m > 0 1-.- C coca I-/' t-1-.. I"F- AA i--.I- AA AA NF-- AA AA - COW NN ....1.-.4 V V AA (OW F+F-. 00 NN NN NN NN F-/- Ui U) U)U1 4". A F--1-- -4.-4 V O)O) U) 0000 VV AA (n cn 00 VV 00 00 F-F- (n(n 0000 00 00 (O(0 AA Vv 00 v 00 00 COW 0000 AA 00 00 00 00 0)O) 00 NN 00 00 OO V'-I F-I-- 00 U0 00 (nut 0000 (0(0 (aw 00 00 00 00 00 00 ( u' 00 00 corn vv 0)O) 00 F- • * ) * s * * * * * s * * * A 1 k s Y 13 v C 0 Z Z 0 3 3 I 3 3 7C G) G) CO 0 0 r 0 m r 0 0 D m z Z Z z > 77 0 O > M /-I 73 0 7s > A -1 = Z a -1 > -< A 0 0 0 N For m 0 CO 171 C) r- > -4 -< 0 = 0 Fa m m -1 I- n v 0 v) Z V) -0 v > D C r m < 0 -a \ -1 -I -( rn 0 i C) m C > CO r > 1 D -0 0 1 D CO D N 0 0 m Z G) N CO1-1 73 73 ON '0 0 0 0 mC '-i (i) m T -1 --1 Z Z CA) N ZM 73 7C 0 0 0---I A m m C) c C7 )--1 C) A z rn Z V) CO 1 I m C) CO C rn 0 < < (D D C) m 0 -<XI M C) 0 N c i C) -11 m m 0 0X I...1 C )--1 0 Z Z 1-4 Z 71 Z I Z 1 C 0 m -NI v ') m D C) r H N -4m xi (n (n v) m m 0 -1 C) 0 I 0r-0 0 C) C) N -( N -a 1-1 m C C 0 0 C xJ D v v C C rn C 0 z -1 0 v 0 0 v D C 0 m I" v v F-1 F-( 0 0 rn - 0 < � Q 3 C) r r v v m- _ 73 Z r C) C) r m > O F-1 F-( rA. 9. /--0 r C) N 0 D m m N F' I I - to v) D V) Qa G) C m rn G) G) m m m rn F"1 F-( I--I C .73 C) C m W N 73 A Z Z 1 03 N m T N << 0 -4 -I (n C 0 0 r m m m C) 03 0 C --1 )--1 A v) r CO v C N U N -4 -1 -4 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 co 0o 0 0 0 0 D F- r F- H F- r F- A F• F- F- H A A I-- F- r0 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 II ~ A A A A IA A A NJ A A A A NJ NJ 1 I I I 0 NJ N) NJ NJ NJ (4 w W 4.) N W N A A N A. C A h- F-- W W CO W0 CO N W NJ W C NJ 0 O N N F- 0 N (D 0 0 0 0 0 F- 0 N 0 O N r 0 NJ NJ Z I II 0 0 -� 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 A 1-- CO A O) 4- (4 0 F- A A W 0 0 O) (4 0) G) NJ U) )-- NJ NJ O) 4. 0 NJ N NJ I- 0 0 A F- NJ w 1 co I- F- O) U) i-. NJ 0 Of 4- F+ N 0 0 F- N0 I i I I 1 1 1 I 1 I i (O 4-. A I-- CO A 0) /- (4 0 F- A A W 0 0 C) W 0) C) M NJ 0 F- NJ NJ O) F- 0 NJ N N N 0 0 AF-- NJ Cd) F- NI O O) 0 CO N W (O co < NJ U) Of O) V NJ W A. V1 A CO NJ c0 CO0V (4 CD # F- LI F- O 0 V F- O A I CD # N 3 M v N D Cil C) D m G) m i- 0 0 * N N N.) N.) N N N NNNNNNNNN N NN N N r 1r co 00 00 00 00 00 00 000000000000000000 00 0000 00 CO C) W t 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000000000000000000 00 0000 00 00 2 W x 00 CO CO 00 00 CO 00 000000000000000000 00 0000 00 00 m N s W W CO W G) W W W W W W W W W W W W WW N N C) y W 0o V C) LI, A W NNNNNNNNN r 00 W CO X H Z -4 0 -< 0 0 T ✓ r r r r r- r r r r r..... r r r r r > O 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 0 00 0 0 --I N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \ m 2 ✓ r r r r r r rrrrr---- r rr r r D A A A A A A A AAAAAAAAA A AA A A T. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \ 0 (D W W W W (O CO CO W W(0(0(O W W W CO W(D CO W •v N NJ N.) N.) NJ N N NNNNNNNNN N NN N N m M > r 3 r 0 CO N NA N r r O)AN00 00V NN VrONN C . - _ _ _ . Z 000)WA AMI- NN AA WW rAA.W O)r CO C)O) O)C) r VIVI -'4 0300AONo3WW U1 U1 UI U7 AA VV rr 0000 00 00 V0A00 WWWWA UI UI AVV (SIN VV O)AWAN UI1100 00 00 UIN 0141 0000 (DW 00 x00(0 C)WAAA00 VI U7 Wrr WW 00 WU1AW0oU'WC 00 00 O)O) 00 00 00 00 U'0OA00AAAQ) AA V0000 VV 00 V00ACUI�4NC) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 WOOAr0000o000 VV CWC 11tH 00 1 a M * a * a ) x ra x U N W -i r N U) (n U)U NNN(I)N NN 73 7373 73 :(7 A 73 = > D 7: 0 2222S22S2 DD 0 m -71-T1-mm-rim 0 M m 73 r- M C >>>>>>>>> > 00 -4 D CCCCCCCC -4 D r v r r' -4 7:77:7 7 7c7 7:7c 00 0 I-- < ZZZZZZZZ -4 Z m -< r- z 000000000 7: 00000000 Z 1-4 v Z v v v v v v v v v 00 70 m m 4 1 -i Z > m mm mm(*l m m r*1(n MM 0 N Z �IWWNrrr0 Z m CO S N -1 N mm m m m m mmrn M rr 0 -4 0 r00r r UI A Al -4 Z C m --I 2 1 Z -4 > 0 0 M M M MMvMMv0'CM 0 Q.Q. m M M _.41-11-4-4-4-4 M 70 r N -4 M X CCCCCCCCC C 70 m 0 00000000 v m 0 C z m C)CCCC) CCW N 00 S -411111-4M 0 m -4 0 -4 i-r r r r r r rr -4 7000 4 m >>>>>>>> N 70 m 73 4-41-4 H M r M M M H 23 0 0 rrrrrrrr (A 0 000000000 11 00 C X > m 00 C U) A CCCCCCCCC N Z N -4-1-4M-4M-4-4-4 D m Z H H M M M M M M M r 0 rrr r rrr rr N 1 M M Nrr02-4v C) v C) 0 70 N 0 3 ££004-IU)NNN N NN (A v r m(DWDvv>m z m C 0 1-1 D1.1-41CCCC C CC r = -( £(O W737>D731 0 0 0 Z v Z N -4-4=20vvvv v My 0 0 m m Nrr z7:m 71 -4 v m C) mm mmC Uv'vv v vv C) -T- 3 >, -4 N v 1 n N r 23737323v1-rrr r rr 0 HMD M7JD N 1 2 H R. DMMHr M HH 1 -4 m22r -4mr m C) L') m IC)1-4r-(zmmmm m mm > M m C v v N A N N m0110 Cl)NNN N NV) M 0 N Z0M mm < 70 >J Zv Mm M Z 70 0001 MC m m 2 2 MzvM <<v <z 0 0 0 vm00 4-4 mma m0 0 0<< v r -4 1 MC )<< '1 N U) O Z• m C Z —4v3 Z • m 0 m Z C 1 Z 0 T1 0 C) v 0 00 CO 0 0 0 0 000004r00000 0 00 0 0 > r A A r r r r WWrWrr-r rr r rr 1- r 0 1 I I I i I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I C) A NJ N A A A A WWAAAAAAA A AA A A 0 W W C.) C.) NJ W A 0000 U1 U1WNNNN N NN N W C ✓ 0 0 CO r CO W WWrr-Crrrr r Mt-. W r Z 0 NJ NJ 0 0 0 CO No-0000000 0 00 0 W -4 t 1 1 I 11 1 I I I I I I i I 1 1 ✓ 0 0 O) A r W 00 N0 CO A AAA A 0)A r r Z O) 0 0 NJ NJ V r 00VOr WWWN N N N 00 V 0 W 0 0 A r r W 00NOrAAAV r 1'10) r C I 1 I i 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 I I I i 1 ✓ 0 0 C) A r W 000000000000 A. A C)A r r F-4 401 0 0 N NJ V r O 0 r 0 I N,I N N NN W V 11 CO W r AA r A (.fl V AA CO r A W WW W IL I-- 1-. r A O) NN 0 0 CO 00 V 'v I r O A I CO 3L N I m v N > C) r N D rn a C) m 0 r S. r N C) to x co • m N 0 7C C) N z - 0 < 0 C7 -1, V N m 0 rn m m D A N 1- o A (.4 1.•• z V W Co Co -4 N CO V to N r+OW o> to O of 1/1 0 0 0 V O -71-71 -4 CCC D zzz < r 0 m z 000000 O W r 0 -I-4 0 000 -+-1- m 31. C) rrr m C) 11 N -4 m a mC-o F-1 N-ia -4 ()w-< m Ar4. a -IO <r m N V-i C) a A a C C Cif N 1-1 --1 H 0 • z C) C) 0 C z z 0 z * r 0 I • 0 A CO N 3 m V) D to C) a m G) N H -4 O O \Co OD 0 i Co - -3 0 0 H w Co Co Co Co CO Co CO Co d 3g w H H H H H W Hi-, H H w H' H H H H H H H H (9 O A - Vii \O b N w vii \ten NO \.O \.O \O \O \O\O\O e LA) w w w \O \O -J Co CO CO N N H N W H H N H H N N N W N) N N 0 0 0 0 Q\ vi H NO w H \n 0 \O NO w -4 -I w H Co N) 0 a H - H H 0 O W 0 O -3 " H NJ-3 \n O O O O O O O O CAi -F-- Wn \n\ O O N) 0 O H N W COO7 -3 O O O O O O O O 0. 0 N) H• W N O O H O O H -1 H O\ N O O O O O O O O H -41-' H O Ow 00 -3 4- I-, -P-- O 0 0 0 0 000 O 0 \n \n O O N O O H N W H H O O O O O O O O CD K CD CO- -3 w H F-' 0 '=J H - O O CO CO 0 CO -3 -3 0 0 H W CO CO CO CO Co CO CO CO C) W HJ w H H w H' C -P- w H H H H H w HH H H W H H H H H H H1-, H .% 1 I I CHHHHH HHHH' O 000 O O O O OO O O O O O O O OO0a C b CA C) H F-3 b 0 H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH n c+ P) c+ (D \D ,-I P (D p • O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r W " H << O t \O i Z '3 '0 N 0 3 K H co x K C' a C+ � n < H i3 H C 1-3 �• K P. O K C - H c+ c+Qq •En En p N -69- WH \n H H \xi - CO CO N) N H H - N - OD\p 3 (D C] G „ „ .. .. - O • p - 1 CO H N W O \O O ON W O \xi O -P -1 N N) N -3 4-•V1 c+- '-d p. 3- -P' Co N) NO Co -3 0 0 H l 1 0 1 0 NO N W 0 W •F' 0 \n Z H • H 0\ O -I w -3 OD 0 OD Co\xi 1 0 ) 0 H NO 0 NO - H 7 \n c. H 0 H d\ \n•fi'-1 0 0 Q\ 0 0 \O 0 ON 0 CO \O CD 0 H •P- N)\O H. c+ . - \n NOD-1 O O O O O O -3 O -3 O N N •' O H OCD H VI'G , W tt C) a n 0 0 c C : : C� CA C) CA b : O 2 �1 �7 21 ✓1 B Cyn ' c+ - (D (D (D P (D a C C 0 c+ (D (D (D lD (D (D (D H D 3 3 3 C] K K CO 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 H c+ r• r• r• r• K c+ • (D r• r- r• r• r• r• r• bl W ••P- N) C\H \Hn N NO f,. to c+ c+ c+ c+ fD P P K c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ a O\O N -4 C\0 \n W F`t, C) C N CD cC+ N (�D H d CA co X '7 a O a\CO\O 0 NO P r• C 3 cmcil O H 1-1 R CH] �3cci H Co\n O w O ON 17\O CO (D .0.o CCn F. a C" K a, K C m O O\--� C\O O JH1 C\N K H r D (D c+ 0 P O �N O O\n � N < p H' K H H EEn 0Ka 8 3 m C7 C (1) QR .s AP n H L C H W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W n C\ ON ON ON CCC\ C\ C\O\ C\ 0\ C\ Cn C\ O\ C\ C\ C\ C\C\C\ x \ \ N W WWW W W W W W w W W W N N N N N N N N N \O CD OD OD --3 C\ \n . W w N) H 0 NO CO -3 ON \n a=' w W W OZ W : : C' 3 '1 0 3 = 3 rD 0 C 4- 00 Croy CD O 3 fCD O 2 H• N c+ 3 Cl) c+ P = DJ C 3 '� = `- H e c+ Cn K 3 C Z a U) a 3 .0 a H CO n r• 3 P 0 K O t• C)O C7 '30 0� nr P r to P 3 C c+ C X C c+ K '1 C P COO < (<D H CO c+ ,a P CO CD 7 c+ PS CO �- K '1 0 CO PZ 0 b CD 0 HCO H 'O (D C+ H H C) C 11 0 (3 C) X' H wHH N H \n - C\ N N) H 0 4 N W - c+ pI. 4'- CDN W O NO ON W O \n O N N N - 0 0 0 NO .1 O -4 0 \O N W 0 W 0 OD 0 CD w -3 0 ) 0 H NO 0 NO .'• .-- \n O O O\ O \O O \ O CO \O OD O H \nwO 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 -3 0 N N 4 0 H \O CO1\ SE1 1 � MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Karen Marty, City AttorneA DATE: October 15, 1992 RE: Request for Release of Petition for Public Improvements We have recently received a request from Jon Albinson for a release of a Petition for Public Improvements. In 1989, Northern American Life and Casualty Company and Scottland, Inc. petitioned for improvement of Valley Industrial Blvd. North from County Road 83 to Valley Park Drive by reconstructing the road to a 9 or 10 ton road, and waived their rights to public hearings and to appeal the assessments. This project has long since been completed, and by Resolution No. 3375, passed in March of 1991, the City adopted the assessments. Any appeal period has expired. Since the public improvement project is complete, we no longer need to keep the Petition on file. Therefore, in order to clear up the title to the property, I recommend that we release it. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a Release of the Petition for Public Improvements. Cn H�_ MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director 1j SUBJECT: 2nd Avenue Project DATE: October 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3683 , which declares the cost to be assessed and sets the public hearing for the 2nd Avenue Project. BACKGROUND: The 2nd Avenue Project is basically completed and all assessable project costs have been identified. The railroad crossings at Market Street and Minnesota Street still needs to be completed, but any remaining costs for these crossings are non-assessable. The final project costs (excluding the railroad crossings) are $1, 370, 255. 05 which consists of construction costs of $1, 098, 590. 12 and engineering/administrative costs of $271, 664 . 93 . The railroad crossing costs are $156, 608. 55, which will be funded out of State Aid and TIF Funds. The breakdown of the costs and funding sources are summarized in Attachment No. 1. Prior to levying any assessments on this project a public hearing must be held. Attached is Resolution No. 3683 , which declares the costs to be assessed and sets the date for the public hearing for November 10, 1992 at 7: 00 P.M. The public hearing will be held in the Assembly Room at the Scott County Courthouse. At the public hearing, staff will give a detailed presentation on the assessment calculations and policies used on this project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3683 . 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3683 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3683 , A Resolution Declaring the cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for 2nd Avenue, Between Sommerville Street and Naumkeag Street and Various Abutting Cross Streets, Project No. 1991-3 and move its adoption. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUMMARY OF 2ND AVENUE PROJECT COSTS TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1,526,863.60 BREAKDOWN Construction Costs $1, 098, 590. 12 Engr. /Admin. Costs 271, 664 .93 Railroad Crossing Cost 156, 608. 55 TOTAL $1,526,863.60 FUNDING BREAKDOWN Total Assessed Costs $ 684, 566.43 Non-Assessed City Costs 164,705. 04 * SPDC 225, 262 . 66 Sanitary Sewer Fund 158, 130.08 * Storm Sewer Utility Fund 137, 590.83 * Railroad Crossings 156, 608.55 * TOTAL $1,526,863.60 * City of Shakopee Costs = $617 , 034. 51 RESOLUTION NO. 3683 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments For 2nd Avenue, Between Sommerville Street And Naumkeag Street And Various Abutting Cross Streets Project No. 1991-3 WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of: 2nd Avenue, between Sommerville Street and Naumkeag Street and various abutting cross streets and the contract price for such improvements is $1, 098 , 590 . 12 , the railroad crossing construction costs amount to $156, 608 . 55 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amounts to $271, 664 . 93 , so that the total cost of the improvements will be $1, 526, 863 . 60. Of this cost the City of Shakopee will pay $617 , 034 . 51 as its share of the cost and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will pay $225, 262 . 66 as its share of the cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be $684 , 566. 43 . 2 . The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and keep a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3 . That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That a hearing shall be held on the 10th day of November, 1992 in the Assembly Room at the Scott County Courthouse at 7 : 00 P.M. or thereafter, to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2 . That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. She also shall cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney / SJ MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director K..--461\1 SUBJECT: Foothill Trail Storm Sewer Project DATE: October 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is the completed feasibility report for the Foothill Trail Storm Sewer Project for City Council consideration and Resolution No. 3684, which accepts the feasibility report and calls for a public hearing on the improvements. BACKGROUND: Based on a drainage problem in the vicinity of Foothill Trail and Horizon Drive, staff had proposed to construct additional ditches and culverts to correct the problem. On July 21, 1992 the City Council discussed this project and determined that an area wide drainage study should be done to evaluate drainage improvements all the way to County Road 16. Staff was directed to explore alternatives, prepare cost estimates and identify all possible funding sources, including the Storm Sewer Utility Fund and possibly Special Assessments. The City Council authorized the use of the City's Water Resources Consultant, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates (OSM) to complete this drainage study. The feasibility report has been completed and is attached for City Council consideration. Four alternatives were identified in the report. Two of them completely eliminate the existing ditch by installing storm sewer pipe and the other two alternatives utilize ditches. The costs of these alternatives range from $92 , 000 - $100, 000. The City Council directed staff to explore all funding options, including the Storm Sewer Utility and any Special Assessments. Staff would like to provide some additional background information on the Storm Sewer Utility in order to enable the City Council to determine the most appropriate funding mechanism for this project. Storm Sewer Utility In 1986, Shakopee implemented a Storm Sewer Utility. Basically, all developed properties within Shakopee pay a storm sewer utility bill. The amount paid is dependent on the property type (i.e. single family residential, commercial, etc. ) and the amount of impervious area on the property. In other words, the more runoff a property generates, the higher the storm sewer utility bill is. The utility is utilized to fund all maintenance of the existing storm sewers, (including ditches, ponds, etc. ) , construction of new facilities and reconstruction of existing facilities. When the utility was established, a total of nine projects were identified as storm drainage needs and were used to establish the City wide user fees. The Storm Sewer Utility indicates that all maintenance and reconstruction costs will be funded out of the City wide fees. In addition, new drainage improvements will be funded 50% by the City wide cost and 50% by a special benefit fee to those properties within the drainage basin where the improvements were made. The Council also elected to reduce the special benefit charge to 25% on certain projects by utilizing 25% T. I.F. funding. The Upper Valley Drainage Project is an example of this type of project. Once an improvement is completed, the special benefit charge is added to the regular storm sewer utility bill for 10 years at which time it is paid off and removed from the bill. Attached is the public information handout for the Storm Sewer Utility along with the map showing the original nine projects that generated this utility. Also attached is the complete Storm Sewer Utility Policy. The Foothill Trail Project is not one of the original projects identified, but the use of the Storm Sewer Utility Fund for this project is totally appropriate. If any special benefit charges are to be utilized to fund this project, the City Attorney has indicated that a public hearing must be held. ALTERNATIVES: In reviewing the Storm Sewer Utility Policy, a number of alternatives have been identified as follows: 1. If this project is considered a reconstruction of existing storm drainage facilities, then the City Wide Storm Sewer Utility should fund this project 100%. 2 . If this project is considered as new construction, which is defined in the Storm Drainage Utility Policy as drainage improvements to an area not previously served with lateral or trunk service, the City Wide Utility should fund 50% of the project and the special benefit charge to the immediate drainage basin would fund 50% of the project. 3 . A third alternative would be to reduce the 50% special benefit fee to 25% and use T.I.F. surplus for 25% of the project. RECOMMENDATION: The feasibility report recommended Alternative No. 2 . Staff feels that the City Council should discuss this project to determine if it should be considered a new drainage improvement (Alternative No. 2) or reconstructing an existing drainage improvement (Alternative No. 1) . If a special benefit fee is to be utilized, attached is Resolution No. 3684 , which orders a public hearing for the project. If no special benefit fee is utilized, but rather 100% of the project is to be funded by the City wide utility, then a public hearing is not necessary and Resolution No. 3684 should not be adopted. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3684 , A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on Foothill Trail Drainage Improvements, Project No. 1993-2 and move its adoption. DEH/pmp MEM3684 Shakopee plans to use a "new" technique to ?ay for the costs WHEN of managing storm water runoff — a Storm Drainage Utility . This leaflet is prepared to introduce you to this new utility iTRAINSand answer your questions. • QUESTiONS999• s • & ANSWERS!!! WHAT IS A STORM WHY DO WE HAVE A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM? pRAIS UT A storm drainage utility AG Before people settled important to control in Shakopee, the natural the story water. Store is similar to the state of the land was drainage facilities familiar sanitarysever utility. The rolling prairie and had to be built,maintained, fee is based on the river valley covered and renewed in order amount of water that with grass and trees. to: is discharged into Whenit rained, the the system. For instance, water soaked into the o PROTECT PEOPLE a parking lot creates ground or flowed naturally o PROTECT PROPERTY . to the rivers and streams. o REDUCE INSURANCE more runof f than a When people came to grass area the same . Shakopee, they built o IMPROVE PROPERTY size, so it pays a ;, t lawoffices, VALUES higher rate. Similarly, x ..• ,: , homes, stores, a large parcel creates ` ' churches, and paved o ENHANCE TEEENVIROMIF_T the land with streets, o PROVIDE FOR SAFE more runoff that a . parking lots, and drive- TRAFFIC FLOW small parcel, so it ;;i- vat's. Nov, when it • too pays a higher rains, the ground cannot To control storm waters . . amount. In this way, the citizens of Shakopee absorb the water as and receive these benefits, for themanagement easily, and more water there is a cost. The will pay flows off. As the proposed storm drainage of storm water in development of the utility will spread • proportion too the it these costs to those amount of water they land continued, - "contribute", not became increasingly who "create" the storm water runoff. • : . on the value of their property. UTILITY NEEDED? r • WHAT'S MY SHARE OF THE COST? . ............., WHY. ISA . . .. . Recent State legislation The expected quarterly fees in 1986 to various now requires Shakopee types of properties are shoi2 below: to take greater and earlier • r ,� or QUARTERLY RATES actions to protect water PROPER` TYPE Q $ 6.64/lotATE quality in our community " . Single Family Rome $33.20/lot • than ever before. These Commercial $99.60/acre actions will include• • Industrial S16.60/lot • forming a new water manage- - $49.80/acre went organization (Who) - - "" Dndeveloped $ 0.00/lot and developing regional $ 0.00/acre - � - and local plans to identify Schools $16.60/lot problems. $4°.80/acre Parking Lot $33.20/lot Storm water costs are $99.60/acre now paid for with property _ taxes. The City has . an unfunded obligation __ .. . ... . . Your initial storm drainage fee will be billed q= $3.6 million in new .- ._-_ _. -_ ultimately the fee will be included sewer costs. These newon the same electric, garbage, water and sever costs, when combined bill you receive each month. The City provides men- vita storm eater $30,000 - ----- -- -- - separately, a credit system that reduces your fee if you improve ante eosts of $30,000 water Quality or reduce tahee flow rate withs onsOfficeite per year, represents facilities. Please call tCity Engineer'a major obligation ofat 445-3650 if you wish to discuss a reduction. property taxes. Shakopee must find a way to meet these obligations in �► a fair and equitable '��: : �4001100M10.: i. manner, without adding �as�"�+�� ��•••��s�.�� additional burden to a� �� v����e� � a�s�a' property taxes. 11 a t WHAT PORTION HOW WILL MY MONEY OF THE COSTS : . Property with more BE USED? ARE PAID bard cover and more runoff will share more BY RESIDENTIAL of the storm sever Shakopee is a c ar.F.ag cost. community, and planning PROPERTY OWNERS? 2. Tax exempt properties for the future as will now pay part of well as the present Current Policy: A the cit viae is extremely important. y portion. citwiae portion equal These properties did A storm drainage master to 50: of the total not contribute to the pinn will be developed construction coat is citywide portion because and kept eup: to date paid through citywide they payno to determine: g Y ' Property property taxes. The taxes. remaining 5C' is paid o Where changes ng through special assessments The remaining 50: that teas its to existing to the benefited property. was assessed to the facilities need to This formula applies benefited properties be made. to both lateral and under the old formula trunk storm sewer facilities will be financed in o Where and when in all cases except a similar way, except future facilities , • for new platted subdivisions that Tax Increment will be needed. • which pay 100: of the Financing will be used storm sewer costs . • to cut the special o What must the City Proposed Policy: Under benefit in half. This do to protect t h e the proposed policy reduction was made quality of water in storm drainage costs • to bring the policy our lakes and streams would be funded like into conformance with Ftoe nee; State and the sanitary sewer State Supreme Court Federal guidelines. utility. The citywide • decisions. The remaining portion would remain special benefit equal o Cted nagemen; �a at 50: of the total to 251 of the total of storm water flowing ' construction cost , cost, would be paid townsrcca icsonandLhrough • but itwould be collected as a User Fee because townships through as a utility fee and of equity reasons noted Shakopee to the Minnesota it would be based on above. Fiver. • use. This results .. " . _ _ ____ o Part of City sewer _• �� • _n an equitable financing • formula in two important for City storm sever assessments. ways. I . I WANT MORE INFORMATION. The City Council plans to bola a public hearing on the Storm Drainage Utility on May 28, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. at the Shakopee Senior High Auditorium. • i��� are invited to attend. Also, further s You ft 11 •�. er info mation can be obtained by • • " tae Engineering Department at 445-3650. `y„�,,i. ♦•��`•• City of Shakopee 129 E. 1st Avenue Presorted Shakopee, MN 55379 Bulk Rate U.S. Postage . . PAID• - Shakopee, MN Permit No.190 Zio Code 5537E. • _- 1 f- //. A.-- -rte- '__ �'-1 \ -, '(�...`1 L 1 .f, L 4 ��1 i L_• __,� } f co 0 J :~' - , . -.J /• CO G = - F- m W W C i r w F- h- < C >- Y < rt < < m J W -i • a. CJ J W m Z \ i ,7 J J v O \ -°+ F- W V) U) < < n. Q i' / z Cl) - cn 1- > J X m r .s- 1 Q W W W m W W L'"; � r" Lr H- 2 Y w Z J F- W' J _-- _0 C co J Q n_ W Q � >- c O C D 0 > 0 m w m Q ,�, .,, 1 ; CD O 0 N 0 w c0 w r _ U o 0 0 0 0 Z o CD o o CC 2 , � • _ r co 0 0 0 0 -- F-- o (N, CO 0 0 0 0 0 ;' ', U • o 0 - - o c‘.100 00 ,^ U c7 c0 -- c0 O O 0 N to V ;.:•._ t' ii-') N N - N M p i It O 64 64 64 69 64 Ei3 ER to Efl a .- N M tf) cfl N- C0 0) + 'r. 1 I . �- -;-.: i 1 o .. \_ ___ I_ = _ ,-�" • V STORM WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY POLICY I. INTRODUCTION. The municipal storm water drainage utility utilizes a fee structure based on the anticipated relative contribution of storm drainage runoff volumes to the storm water drainage system. A parcels contribution is determined by that parcels size and its land use, under the principal that more intensively developed land uses typically have a larger percentage of impervious surface and contribute a much greater volume of water and/or sedi- ment/nutrient loadings to the system. It is recognized that some parcels, due either to their unique topographic, vegetative, geologic and other characteristics, or the existance and maintenance of onsite storm drainage control, detention, or retention facilities have a hydrologic and sediment/nutrient loading response substantially different • from that of similarly sized parcels of the same land use. To provide for an equitable assessment of storm drainage fees, based on reasonably expected contribution of flows and sediment/nutrients, provisions need to be made to permit adjustments or credits to the storm drainage fees for those parcels with unique or unusual characteristics. II. PURPOSE OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE. The storm water drainage utility has been established for the purpose of managing and funding maintenance, construction and reconstruction of the storm water drainage system in the City of Shakopee. The City of Shakopee shall riot expect nor receive any return on investment in the storm water drainage system. A. MAINTENANCE. Maintenance shall mean the direct and indirect costs as well as equipment replacement costs for repairs and cleaning which include street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, jetting pipes, thawing pipes, and any other operation which assures the dependable operation of the drainage system. B. CONSTRUCTION. Construct ion shall mean improvements to the storm water drainage system made in an area not previously served with lateral or with trunk service. C. RECONSTRUCTION. Reconstruction shall mean improvements made to the storm water drainage system in a area previously served with lateral or with trunk service. III. CREDITS AND/OR SPECIAL BENEFIT USER FEES AND CITY MATCHING COST USER FEES. The basis of the City of Shakopee' s storm water drainage fees is the anticipated relative contribution of storm water volumes and sediment/nutrient loadings to the storm drainage system from a give parcel. Where unique or unusual conditions exist where the actual contributions of water volume and sediment/nutrient loadings from a given parcel are substantially different form those anticipated by the storm drainage fee structure, the City Engineer or designate may adjust or credit the storm drainage fee for said parcel to an appropriate level in accordance with the guidelines specified herein. A. PROCEDURE 1. Property Owner To Provide Detailed Information. It is the responsi- bility of the property owner or his agent to present to the City Engineer or his designate, sufficient information concerning a parcels hydrologic characteristics to permit an accurate assessment of the conditions that exist. This information may include, but is not limited to: a. Site plan showing locations of all buildings and other develop- ment relative to lot lines. b. The total lot area and area of impervious surfaces. c. Site topography or contours of sufficient detail to ascertain flow directions, rates and volumes. d. Size, details and/or volumetric characteristics of any drainage control facilities. e. Hydraulic calculations specifying outflow volumes and rates for various rainfall events. 2. Adjustments Where Parcel Runoff Is Significantly Different From Land Use Standard. Where the unit runoff generated by a parcel differs from the assigned amount for that land use cateoory by more than 20%, the City Enoineer may adjust the parcels storm water drainage fee in accordance with the following procedure: a. Calculation of unit runoff for the parcel shall be determined by the methods outlined in the Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 55, utilizing an Initial Storm and Major Storm as specified in the City of Shakopee' s Design Criteria and antecedant moisture condition II. b. If calculated unit runoff is shown to differ from the assigned amount for that land use category by 20% or more, the number of assigned REF' s for that parcel shall be adjusted by multi- plying by the ratio of the calculated unit runoff to the standard unit runoff. c. A parcels storm water drainage fee shall be subject to increases as well as decreases by this procedure. d. Because single family and duplex and improved agricultural fees are not based upon actual parcel acreaoe, no adjustment for unit runoff differences will be made for those land uses. i 3. Procedure For Calculation Of Credits For Wet Ponds. P parcel ._. may be credited for up to fifty (50%) percent of the storm water drainage fee for onsite measures which are owned and maintained by the applicant which effectively reduce the outflow of sediment/nutrients from the site. Credit percentage shall be based on one-half of the actual percentage of sediment removal efficiency, as determined by the following procedure, rounded to the nearest 5%; except that no credit will be given for sediment removal efficiencies of less than 20%. a. Determine total site acreage and percent of site that has improved or impervious surface. b. Calculate the annual depth of runoff from the following equation: Dr, = P(. 75 'm . 15> -5.234 (.25-. 1875 41) . 597 Where Dr. = annual depth of runoff in inches. Im = percent of site impervious area, expressed as a decimal. P = annual depth of precipitation = 29 inches. c. Calculate annual volume of runoff in acre-feet: Vannual = acreage x Dr/12 d. Determine pond capacity below outlet elevation in acre-feet. e. Calculate capacity inflow ratio (CIR), where: CIR = pondin:, capacity /Vannual f. Read sediment removal efficiency from following graph: . 00.... • i z .o� � i WZ I � • • . I L.W • • W IQ W 30L • _I O W 20.- N • • i0 I CAPACITY INFLOW RATIO , ocre-tt/ocre-ft/pr — 0i 1 . . I I I . . - 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 (0 ,,,__, . . BRUNE1.S TRAP EFFICIENCY CURVE - - 3 g. Credit = % sediment removal efficiency/2 x storm drainage fee. 4. Credits for Storm Water Detention. A parcel may be credited for up to 25% of the storm water drainage fee for onsite measures which limit storm water outflow rates from the site_ in accordance with the following procedure: a. Initial and major storm storm runoff calculated using procedure specified in (2) a. above. b. 10% credit for parcels which limit peak outflow rates during a 5-year rainfall event to predevelopment rates. c. Additional 15% credit for parcels which limit peak outflow rates during a 100-year rainfall event to predevelopment rates. d. No detention credits will be given for parcels which do not limit initial storm outflow rates to predevelopment levels. 5. Cumulative Credit. Credit for sediment/nutrient control in Paragraph 3. above and credit for detent ion in Paragraph 4. above may be cumulat ive. 6. Periodic Inspection and Credit Adjustments. The City Engineer reserves the right to inspect periodically all storm drainage control facilities to ascertain that they are operating properly. If such a system, due to improper maintenance or other reason, fails ti: detain or cleanse storm water runoff in an effective manner, the City Engineer may eliminate or reduce water quality or detention credits to an appro- priate level. Any such facility shall not be eligible to apply for storm drainage fee adjustments for a period of 12 months following any credit adjustment. Credit adjustments shall not be made retroactively. The issuance of any building permit or other action which changes or intensifies an existing land use shall be cause for an adjustment of storm water drainage fees to an appropriate level. IV. STORM WATER DRAINAGE USER FEES. This section specifies the procedure used to establish the Storm Water Drainage User Fees. The User Fees have three components: Maintenance cost, Special Benefit cost, and Cirty Matching cost. Except for exempt property, all property shall have a Maintenance cost and City Matching cost component. Only property that is specially benefited by storm water drainage system improvements shall have a Special Benefit Component. A. MAINTENANCE COST. Maintenance cost shall be the budgeted division costs and equipment depreciation and/or replacement cost. 4 • • B. SPECIAL BENEFIT COST. Special Benefit cost shall be 25% of the accumulated total cost less any credit - for cost specially assessed, prorated, based on existing and proposed REF units within the basin served. C. CITY MATCHING COST. City Matching Cost shall be 50 percent of all approved storm water drainage costs, prorated, based on existing and propc' ri REF units City-wide. D. DEFERRED COSTS. The City recognizes that part of new systems serve proposed improvements. In order to provide for orderly development which does not penalize property that does not develop, the City will use Tax Increment Financing to pay Special Benefit cost and City Matching cos components until the proposed development occurs. Maintenance cost sha) l not be charged nor accumulated. The City will collect the proportional Special Benefit cost and City Matching cost at the rate and term at which it was originally collected. Interest shall not accrue on unpaid Spacial Benefit cost and City Matching cost. V. AUTHORITY. Authority for the Storm Water Drainage Utility is in Section 3. 42 of the Shakopee City Code. 5 PUBLIC WORKS PROCEDURE STORM DRAINAGE CREDITS BACKGROUND In July of 1985, the Shakopee City Council adopted a storm drainage utility, tooether with city policy allowing for adjustments or credits to storm drainage fees. The following procedure shall be used to calculate these credits to assure consistant application to all situations. CREDITS A. LAND USE INTENSITY CREDITS 1. Criteria: When unit runoff generated by a parcel differs from the assigned amount by more than 20%, parcel drainage fee is to be adjusted to reflect actual runoff. 2. Required information by applicant : a. Complete site plan. b. Site area and percentage of "improved" surface. 3. Calculation Procedure: a. Calculate unit runoff by SCSS method; using actual percent improved surface, design rainfall for Initial and Major storm (Initial storm, 2.21 inches for 2 year and 3.57 for 5 year recurrence design; and 6.00 for 100 year recurrence design) , Soil Group "B", Anticedent Moisture Condition II. b. Compare with "Standard" Unit Runoff. Standard Unit Runoff by Recurrence Year(inches) Total Classification Land Use 2 5 100 Inches RESIDENTIAL 1.A. Low Density 35% Impervious 0. 10 1.89 1.99 1.B. Medium Density 60% Impervious 0.47 3.22 3.69 1.C. High Density 1.98 ___ 5.7E 7.74 Standard Unit Runoff by Recurrence Year(inches) Total Classification Land Use 2 5 100 Inches COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL 2. A. Low Density 35% Impervious 0.55 1.89 2. 44 2. B. Medium Density 60% Impervious 1. 31 3.22 4.53 • 2. C. High Density 100% Impervious 3. 34 5.76 9. 10 c. If calculated unit runoff differs from standard by 20% or more, adjust parcels REF value by ratio of actual unit runoff to standard unit runoff. 4. Exceptions: a. No adjustments to single family parcels or improved agricul- tural, as their fees do not depend on lot size or intensity. b. For parcels with drainage easements, reduce parcel size to non-easement area, then calculate unit runoff. B. RATE OF DISCHARGE CREDITS 1. Criteria -- When peak runoff from site is limited to pre- development levels by on-site facilities owned and maintained by property owner, up to 25% reduction in drainage fee can be granted. Any re- duction greater than 25% must be approved by City Council. 2. Required information by applicant: a. Complete site plan. b. Area of site draining to each outlet point. c. Percent improved surface draining to each outlet point. d. Specific details about outlet facilities. e. Calculation of peak outflow rate for initial and major storms in accordance with City Design Criteria. f. If peak 5-year outflow less than predevelopment=lO% credit. If peak 100-year outflow less than predevelopment--additional 15% credit. 4. Exceptions, Special Cases. a. Off-Site water drains to outlet--owner has right to drain this water through_ his site without detention. Grant credits if he provides sufficient control for his portion of the total flow. (This will require applicant to provide information about watershed beyond his parcel) . b. Outlet facility owned by City or others--No Credits. (See Criteria B-1). c. Shared Ponding Situation: All ponds have an outlet. If outlet is on another's land, no credits (as in b above) , except if the pond level is normally below outlet, (requires historic documentation). In this case, if no overflow occurs in a 5-year event, parcel gets 10% credit. If no overflow occurs in 100-year event, additional 15% credit. C. WATER QUALITY CREDITS 1. Criteria: When a parcel provides on-site treatment facilities which function to improve the quality of runoff exiting the site, up to 50% of the drainage fee may be credited depending of treatment effectiveness. 2. Required information by applicant : a. When treatment facility is a "wet" pond. 1. Area of site draining to pond and percent impervious. 2. Volume of pond below outlet elevation. b. When treatment facility not a pond, applicant to furnish sufficient documentation to ascertain the effectiveness of the facility in removing suspended solids. 3. Calculation procedure for wet ponds: a. Divide site into areas draining to each outlet or facility. b. Calculate the averaoe annual runoff for each area using the following equations: Dr=P (.75I1n + . 15) -5.234 (.25-. 1875 Im) where Dr=annual runoff depth P=annual rainfall = 29 inches Im-% improved, expressed as a decimal. c. Calculate annual runoff volume (V annual) = Dr x area acreage. d. Calculate or verify pond volume in acre-feet below outlet elevation. e. Calculate, capacity-inflow ration (CIR) CIR=pond volume/Vannual f. Read sediment removal efficiency from Brune' s Trap Efficiency Curve. (See policy) . D. Calculate total site efficiency by proportioning the eff=iciency of each area, and adding together. h. Calculate credit: Credit=site efficiency/2 x RGU value x current rate. 4. Exceptions and special cases. a. Off-site water drains to treatment area--Ignore effects of off-site water in calculating pond efficiency. b. Parcel shares ponding facility. If parcel has water normally ponded on site, calculate volume of pond on that site below outfall Then calculate credit per normal procedure. D. Other Credits Where, in the opinion of the staff, the above procedures do not result in an appropriate storm drainage charge, the City Engineer has the authority to make adjustments consistant with the intent of the storm drainage utility. AUTHORITY Drainage, Section 3.42, Storm Water Drainage Utility, adopted July, 1985. City Policy, Credits and/or adjustments to municipal storm water drainage fees-- adopted July, 1985. ORDINANCE NO. 176 An Ordinance of the City of _ Shakopee _ Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 3 entitled "Municipal and Public Utilities Rules and Regulations, Franchises and Rates" by adding a New Section 3. 42 thereto entitled "Storm Water Drainage Utility" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION I : A new section 3. 42 entitled "Storni Water Drainaoe Utility" is hereby added to the present "Municipal and Public Utilities Rules and Regulations, Franchises and Rates" provisions in the City Code. Subd. 1. Storm Water Drainage Utility Established. The • municipal storm sewer system shall be operated as a public utility pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 444. 075 from which revenues will be derived subject to the provisions of this Chapter and Minnesota statutes. The storm water drainage utility will be part of the engineering department and under the administration of the city enoineer. Subd. 2. Definitions. A. Residential eouivalent factor, (REF) - One ( 1 ) REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of runoff generated by one (1) acre of a given land use to the average volume of runoff generated by one (1 ) acre of typical single family residential land, during a standard one ( 1) year rainfall event. Subd. 3. Storm Water Drainage Fees. Storm water drainace fees for parcels of land shall be determined by multiplying the REF for a parcel' s land use by the parcel ' s acreage and then multiplying the resulting product by the storm water drainage rate. The REF values for various land uses are as follows: CLASSIFICATION LAND USES REF 1. A. Residential, low density ( 1 and 2 family) less than 35% impervious 1. 00 • 1. B. Residential, medium density - (3 to 6 family) 36 to 60% impervious 2. 00 1. C. Residential, high density (7 or more family) 61% to 100% impervious 4. 00 2. A. Commercial, Industrial and Institutional, low density less than 35% impervious 1. 25 2. B. Commercial, Industrial , and Institutional, mediurn density 36% to 60% impervious 2. 50 2. C. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional, high density 61% to 100% impervious 5. 00 3. Improved vacant and parks As Assigned For the purpose of calculating storm water drainage fees, all developed one family and duplex parcels and improved acricultura1 parcels shall be considered to have an acreage of one-third (1/3) acre and an REF of 1. 00. Subd. 4. Credits. The Council may adopt policies recommended by the City Engineer, by resolution, for adjustment of the storm water drainage fee for parcels based upon hydrologic data to be supplied by property owners, which data demonstrates a hydrologic_ response substantially different from the standards. Such adjust- ments of storm water drainage fees shall not be made retroactively. Subd. 5. Exernot ions. The fol lowing land uses are exempt from storm water drainage fees. A. Public richts of way. R. Vacant, unimproved land with ❑round cover, including unimproved agricultural land with ground cover. Subd. 6. Payment of Fee. Policy governing the payment of fees shall be specified by Resolution. Subd. 7. Recalculation of Fee. If a property owner or person responsible for paying the storm water drainage fee questions the correctness of an invoice for such charge, such person may have the determination of the charge recomputed by written request to the City Engineer made within twelve ( 12) months of mailing of the invoice in quest ion by the City. The property owner may appeal the decision of the City Engineer to City Council by filing notice of said appeal with the City Administrator- within sixty (60) days of the City Engineer' s decision. Subd. 8. Penalty for Late Payment. Penalty for late payment shall be contained in the policy established for payment of fees. Subd. 9. Certification of Past Due Fees on Taxes. Any past due storm water drainaoe fees in excess of ninety (90) days past due on October 1 of any year may be certified to the County Auditor for .collection with real estate taxes in the following year pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 444. 075, Subdivision 3. In addition, the City shall also have the richt to brino a civil action or to take other legal remedies to collect unpaid fees. SECTION II : When in force and effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper for the • City of Shakopee and shall then be in full force and effect. Adopted in session of the City Council cif the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1985. Mayer of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of • , 1985. • City Attorney of the City of Shakopee J0i SiI � MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Directo SUBJECT: Traffic Signal at the Intersection of County Road 16 and County Road 83 DATE: October 14, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is correspondence from the Scott County Highway Engineer regarding the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of County Road 16 and County Road 83 for City Council consideration. BACKGROUND: At the City Council ' s request, Scott County performed a warrant study for traffic signals at the intersection of County Road 16 and County Road 83 . As indicated in the attached correspondence, this intersection does meet warrants for a traffic signal. Scott County will be designing this signal in anticipation of a spring letting for construction. The costs for this signal are 100% County and there will be no City participation except for the electrical operating costs and certain maintenance responsibilities. Attached is a Cooperative Agreement between the City and County covering this project for City Council consideration. This agreement has been reviewed by staff and is recommended for approval. The electrical operating costs and maintenance responsibilities for this traffic signal are the same as all existing signals in Shakopee. Attached is Resolution No. 3685, authorizing the execution of the Cooperative Agreement. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3685. 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3685. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3685, A Resolution Authorizing the Execution of Cooperative Agreement No. TS 92-83/16 with Scott County for the Installation of Traffic Signals at the Intersection of County Road 16 and County Road 83 and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 3685 A Resolution Authorizing The Execution Of Cooperative Agreement No. TS 92-83/16 With Scott County For The Installation Of Traffic Signals At The Intersection Of County Road 16 And County Road 83 WHEREAS, the City Council of Shakopee requested that Scott County perform a traffic signal warrant study for the intersection of County Road 16 and County Road 83 ; and WHEREAS, the warrant study has been completed and a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection; and WHEREAS, the attached Cooperative Agreement No. TS 92-83/16 outlining the City' s participation in the construction and operation of this traffic signal has been reviewed and approved by the City Council . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the appropriate City officials be hereby authorized to execute the attached agreement and forward it back to Scott County for their execution. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (612) 496-8346 FAX (612) 496-8365 BRADLEY J.LARSON Highway Engineer - :ctober 2 , _ - - DANIEL M.JOBE Asst. Highway Engineer-Design DON D. PAULSON Asst. Highway Engineer-Construction Mr . Dave Hutton, P .E . Public Works Director City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 Re : CR 83 @ CSAH 16 Traffic Signal Study Dear Dave : As we discussed, the CR 83 and CSAH 16 intersection met warrants justifying installation of a traffic signal . A copy of the Signal Justification Report is enclosed. Since both roadways are County highways , no City participation in the traffic signal installation is required. The only participation will be for electrical operating costs and certain maintenance responsibilities which are addressed in the enclosed Cooperative Agreement . If this is acceptable to the City, please have the Agreement processed and return both copies for County signatures . The Minnesota Department of Transportation has been contacted on this project and a Change Order will be made on the CR 83/Shakopee Bypass project once it is under construction. The Change Order will provide for two lanes of traffic in both the northbound and southbound directions north of the intersection. Scott County forces will widen a short segment of CR 83 south of the intersection to allow traffic to use two lanes through the intersection . We anticipate a Spring letting of this signal contract . If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact this office . Si erel t, Bradley J . Larson, P .E . County Highway Engineer BJL/kmg Enc . An Equal Opportunity'Affirmative Action Employer Agreement No . TS 92-33/16 State Aid Project No. 70-616-17 CR 83 @ CSAH 16 City of Shakopee County of Scott AGREEMENT FCR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TRAFFIC CDNTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AND INTEGRAL STREET LIGHT THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of , 19_, • by and between the County of Scott, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Shakopee , a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City" . WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, It is considered mutually desirable to install a full trf`- r• actuated traffic control signal system with mast arms and integral street lights at the intersection of County Road 83 and County State Aid Highway 16 within the City; and WHEREAS, The City has expressed its willingness to participate in the construction and operating cost of said signal system and integral street lights; and WHEREAS, Said work shall be carried out by the pa:ties hereto under the provisions of Minn. Stat . Sec . 162 . 17 . Agreement No. T3 92-83/16 NOW, THEREFORE , IT IS AGREED. AS FOLLOWS: I The County shall prepare the necessary plans , specifications, and proposals; shall perform the required engineering and inspection; and shall install , or cause the installation of a full-traffic actuated traffic control signal system with mast arms and integral street lights at the intersection of County Road 83 and County State Aid Highway 16 . Such installation, as described immediately above , shall be identified and accomplished under State Aid Project No . 70-616-17 , hereinafter referred to as the "project" , all in accordance with said project plans and specifications which plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof . Ti The term specifications as used herein shall mean the 1988 Edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for Construction" and the project special provisions. III The City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work within the City shall be issued to the Contractor or the County at no cost to the Contractor or the County. Electrical inspection fees shall be not more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. Agreement Nc . TS 92-83/16 IV The City shall install , or cause the installation of an adequate three wire , 120/240 Volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the controller cabinet of the project at the sole cost and expense of the City. The City shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of the traffic control signal system and integral street lights to be installed under the project, all at the sole cost and expense of the City. • V The County shall advertise for bids for the construction of this project , receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to law in such case provided for counties . The contract is in form and includes the plans and specifications prepared by the County or its agents , which said plans and specifications are by reference made a part hereof . VI The construction cost of the project shall be the contract cost . It is understood that the estimated construction cost stated hereinafter is for informational purposes only. -3- Agreement No. TS 92-83/16 The estimated construction cost of this project is S75 , 000. VII The City shall , as its share of the construction costs , pay the County the traffic controlzero percent ; C%) of the actual construction cost cf signal system with integral street lights , plus zero percent ( 0%) of such share as payment for Engineering and Inspection of the State Aid Project No. 70-616-17 . VIII T1_ City shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any component, part , sequence , or timing of the aforesaid traffic control signal system; however, nothing herein shall be construed as restraint of prompt , prudent action by properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signal system may be directly involved in an emergency. IX Upon completion of the work, the County shall maintain and repair said traffic control signal system at the sole cost and expense of the County. Further, the County shall maintain the integral street lights for the City except for maintaining photoelectrical controls , relamping, glassware, anc cleaning of the glassware thereof . -4- Agreement No . TS 92-83/16 X The construction of this project shall be under the supervision and direction of the County. However: the City Engineer shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but shall have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. KT Neither the county, its officers ; agents or employees , either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to the City for any claim, demand, action or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of , allegedly arising out of or by reason of the performance , negligent performance or nonperformance of the hereinbefore described maintenance , restoration, repair or replacement work by the City, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by the City for the performance of said work; and the City agrees to defend, save and keep said County, its officers , agents and employees harmless from all claims , demands , actions or causes of action arising out of negligent performance by the City, its officers , agents or employees . XII It is further agreed that neither the City, its officers , agents or employees , either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to the County for any claim, demand, -5- Agreement No . TS 92-83/16 action or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of , allegedly arising out of or by reason of the performance , negligent performance or nonperformance of the hereinbefore described maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement work by the County, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by the County for the performance of said work; and the County agrees to defend, save and keep said City, its officers , agents and employees harmless from all claims , demands , actions or causes of action arising out of negligent performance by the County, its officers , agents or employees. X_TT It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to any other person whomsoever for any claims , damages , actions , or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of , allegedly arising out of or by reason of the performance , negligent performance or nonperformance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided herein; and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein . XIV It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the City shall not -6- Agreement No . TS 92-83/16 be considered employees , agents or independent contractors of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers ' Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said City employees while so engaged any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employees while so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole responsibility of the City shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees , agents or independent contractors of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers ' Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said County employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said County employees while so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole responsibility of the County and shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. xv The provisions of Minn . stat . Sec . 181 . 59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to Civil Rights and discrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of Scott County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. Agreement No. TS 92-83/16 State Aid Project No . 70-616-17 CR 83 8 CSAH 16 City of Shakopee County of Scott IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHAKOPEE By Mayor Date And City Date COUNTY OF SCOTT ATTEST: By By County Administrator Chairman of Its County Board Date Date Upon proper execution, this agreement will be legally valid and binding. By County Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL : Date By County Engineer Date APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: By County Attorney Date -8- C: K\AGRMT\SIGNAL\R92751 09/30/1992 CO1\ISE11T MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator / FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Webster Street, 6th Avenue to 3rd Avenue DATE: October 14, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolutionreferenced which projt oers a feasibility report prepared for the above BACKGROUND: On October 6, 1992 the City Council discussed the proposed lift station and forcemain for the Rahr Malting diversion sewer project. At the conclusion of this discussion, the Council determined that the forcemain should be constructed and owned by the City of Shakopee and the lift station be constructed and owned by Rahr Malting as a private lift station. The City Council ordered f lans ns and specifications prepared for the forcemain portion e project by adopting Resolution No. 3674. The feasibility report for this forcemain had recommended that the forcemain go from Rahr Malting down Webster Street between 3rd and 6th Avenue, then along 6th Avenue between Webster Street and Adams Street adjacent to the old prison property and then south down Adams Street (C.R. 15) until it reaches the vIP IIntercepr extension. Staff is currently in the process of p P g plans and specifications for this forcemain as part of the 1993 Capital Improvement Projects. Part of the forcemain would travel down Webster Street between 3rd Avenue and 6th Avenue. Currently this street is undeveloped, vacant property between 3rd Avenue and 5th Avenue and is a gravel street between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue. The gravel street portion of Webster Street has been identified d) streets Cityin the 's Comprehensive 5-Year Program to upgrade all gravel urban Shakopee and was proposed to be constructed in 1992 (see attachments) . Due to the opportct unity on this street, it would be an ideal fortheCity of Webster Street. to also upgrade the gravel street portion In regards to the 5-year plan to upgrade all gravel streets within urban Shakopee, the attachments summarize those projects identified in the report. The City is currently in the 3rd year of the 5-year program and has managed to completed all previous projects on this schedule. Attached is Resolution No. 3686, which orders the feasibility report prepared for Webster Street between 6th Avenue and 3rd Avenue. Staff is requesting Street thefeasibility 6thAvenue to report 3rd coAvenuee entire the of Webster even though only one block of it is gravel and the remaining two blocks are undeveloped. Staff does not feel that the sectiono between 5th Avenue and 3rd Avenue will be feasible to upgrade de to the steep slopes and rough terrain on this section, but feel that it should be evaluated in the feasibility report along with the rest of Webster Street. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3686. 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3686. 3 . Table Resolution No. 3686 until a later date. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 3686 which orders the feasibility report prepared for this project. Once the feasibility report is prepared, it will be submitted to City Council for review and a public hearing will need to be scheduled since this project would be assessable. In order to include this street project as part of the forcemain project, staff needs to hold a public hearing as soon as possible in order to get permission to add the plans and specifications to the project. ACTION REQUESTED: affertionW Webster Street, 6th Avenue 3686, A Resolution Orderinthe tton3rd of a Reportrt on on an Improvement to Avenue and move its adoption. DEH/pmp MEM3686 -S ),/EAi2 401/64 ?o4y, Fxct PpT �eo�c i Su) 11 By combining various street segments together , five projects can II be prepared as follows : Protect Year 11 1990 1 4e. Adams Street and 4th Avenue X991 1Dp/k1. 2nd Avenue and all intersecting gravel streets 1992 lqqt 4'401: Pierce d A./?nvenue and Weoster St. 1993 Bluff Avenue and various gravel streets north of 1st Avenue II 1994 Brook Lane and intersecting streets This report recommends that a separate feasibility report be prepared for each project that would analyze the project in more detail , prepare more specific cost estimates including any needed 1 utilities and development funding/assessment strategies that are project specific . A public hearing should be held on each II project prior to ordering, in conformance with Minnesota Statutes 429 . The Adams Street feasibility report has already been completed II and the project ordered by Council in January , 1990 . The 2ndd Avenue feasibility report, which has also been ordered , completed in 1990 for the 1991 construction season . i FUNDING SOURCES/ASSESSMENTS I The current City assessment policy indicates that new construction would be 100% assessable to the abutting property i owners. This policy has been a detriment to upgrading these gravel streets because the majority of streets are north-south streets which are actually the side yards of most properties . I. There has been considerable opposition from those neighborhoods for paying for these streets and consequently every time a public hearing is held on any improvements the project is seldom I. ordered . There are several alternatives taofrontider footfor assessmentnweg ore r funding these improvements utilized , the assessment would be around $35 .00 per foot for all properties , excluding any corner lot adjustments and not including storm sewer costs. A standard 60 x 142 lot should be assessed around $2 , 100 per lot. For corner lots, the short side �. frontage could be utilized so their assessment would be the same . The City would either need totwould raisethe absobpng de frontageor ofoot spread out over the project , assessment. 11. 4 I. i !I IIWebster Street 11 Segment 1 - 6th Avenue to 5th Avenue This segment is currently a gravel street. There are existing homes on the east side and the vacant prison on the west side. II Because this street is gravel and obviously being used for public purposes , it should be upgraded to current City Street Standards by constructing pavement and curb & gutter . IISegment 2 - 5th Avenue to 3rd Avenue II This segment is currently unimproved vacant land . There is a substantially it diffiultde tobetween constructhagvenue streetand 3rd Avenue which would makec II Since there is no development adjacent to this street, it should not be approved at this time. However , the right-of-way should be maintained by the City in case future development would IIrequire the construction of a street. 11 r. I . -#� —�_ -_. _ - /I _ I I ' ii H .1 MI ''''''''. ''''-177 ' -7.1 hili 1 1,..., , . .. .. _ HL , _ t . . . . ( � r I��1111117.. .. 1 _'1 1 . h ,. . f � . 1ii1 il -1 : : LT1 • I h I I I -j A J 4.o, '- 'I I NI .' � � l- 1 . 1l ; { ;• 111 2 It ... ...... 0..) 14..1. s„ Ili.:1:1 _ ii 1 — •• •• -= — —-- --=.- '---- ' . -.—-(7 I:•1---:/....-- '. 'SIC'''..1'7.Al.:"II:i 11::'.1 I 1.11"1.il i..11 1.'..........\'Ili... . • 111 111.. • t . • • i / L ' g • 1.6 " ft- , c\. a , .........ii. , ,Ili: i ..... .4. _ -------i. ,....,;;:....„.,... , ::!•/..i./...1.; . , . .. • %Iv . I 1 •,,• • • ., A I I s, I • 'I% ; s, • •I 1 I ; 1 :iI Ii I////..• 1-f.r........ ,• • 1 1:..,.:. , ! • --4.••c- is. ', ' '...• 1/,. 1 • //(/-.--"-- ''-4.,s., ti.v...' 1 • ( / Ar • • • • • •-4" ,,,,:. f. ' • /. 1:.':. .1.1.r.• : , ./,..7/1.1',.,..• Is • • • .i • i . ''- II, .. • /1 .-,;(11tr.7irrili ii • ii\ .••• mo.) .1 .. , ....._ . -1- , 4 t:• a.'1 t•I.r.1...31.....2.7;. i ; • • . r.v. .. 01:1.. .„..,..4,. / . . 1....•.:. I.:F I '• s ze.,4_j.ii.:Er/ ..,::,. ur.!--....,:i... i.....:.i. 1 ii"....1 1 (\?‘' "....‘•% I. -r • .. • 4.: •r- ' - - - rl -'d -':• ii I I , ri>- .'ii." L"-rt-ITI 141'6$5 '' ... • u.,:i..1...1 . :i .: :. •• • co : •‘, \-) .. , .\:1--, ...\rf ..: :... .. ri7r, . ; 1 ,i ., .., • a) , .J .-.1 • . IS V.:1_1.r _.I. '__I 4.1. 1......._.....---1 - .., • .,. 0 • :•-1;" • ' .":")...-1--r2L•:-/li. • 1.1.._,4,:l' I "-- irri•lij. '• . 1 T-. % f,' ...1% rPI • .(:?11.:11.L I I . .t . a.-•:„ .„. _,1 .,1,-- , • • ..,, _..._. nr-ri - • ' 11E-•"---d11.1:!:!. II..., .. . . w \k '.• • , ...-• ..,•.'• k. 7 'r' TIITIrril vim. ,,,, , . . • ..., Fr...?•••J ',••.: i ‘1VIII.M./i;11B 131[7211.i Egli 1-Tial:;:11 11. „ . • • ... .. '... I'. , •q • 'V. \ - ---: r —.111.i.; 1-1141Ti 1 lilWil.liFi L'i 'IP v • • • . . ali VI .. 1 ti i . _ . ... -.. ••• .4 ;.-.. ,. . . . . 2 :,.."--t•-:•-' 114 is . 1....70 :r r,..-11.1,i m.:!.,-.1 1 r,L.111 -?,-/:: -.-:!!:-.' . • \\ ,kk IR it 1 1 11_151.1',117::::::..11.4. 1.:_i_.r.,. .1!:!..t...4...:.... .. ..... ......,,,...-.:::.•c::_., ::-: 2 2 si I .-. :_,.-- - - 1) sAki‘t3-3 . diaik•L-zi , ; ,I I: : w •tt r • •AV-1\k-341k• r. • rrIglia.i .1.11”.!1 I I I i 1 !• > .1 1 MC\I \k&'.:::\LIAVII1C11,1i:tat ALICTI:31 171J1r."\Vrila..X.‘d...11...."'':::".1:71.1 I.1 . ' • I 1 I . I 0) . 1. fll ita. rrltT\Vri •_:_:1!...'ffi u...T.._i .1 ' I .. . • :i 1_1.J li Ca— EC CC ''' ... ' .1.1\C.\-t-f-Ilt-1111C11-03' l'i • - / • . .11.\\A itio,.... iakiluli l•-•"r — -.'::' = ma. < 1.. , 1 17.1: (11.(jOlii•AL'illiakilti-"Icill 'i:',.11:- E-1..,......,,...,:.„..i,,, . . .. . ......,. . ‘it-ii1)(1P,‘,'!'..-1.:1 IL-Hi.1 :f • . = a 2 LU ---d ...:7;i1K. •!..' ; II/i -t'' (4 ": ‘Bkii:O.:121:+j:rt.!! 1,--ir gi,.)1 it..i.i . . c.r) ''`i• k 1 ' - '1-11-I:k.kr.'7'9 fii's 1:r. trit.i i . 14,4! 1, . . ,...--A ..!/-1,--•-;-....;. i 1 .•• " . i 1 . .I• • , 1 l : w III 1 cy) . I .' >-- , :.,'...1Il.k' li \ 1. _ E-- a ? 1 :•:.t.•;•:''` 74 \4.•i•7`.* '...•,;.,..• !I•i .„-:.. -1 IWO _ IP: i i I, .ii ' •' I t• e. :„1/0 .' ":•• k . 3-1W C...D 2 U. 9;47•11---”1-- r•-•=--,r!:::::::::-.;r.;- •:'.1-- •••• \\ .44' \fili?:.:.:.zi:-.i•-;:i t.,_,0,:irr,""n j:1 -'"....•i 111 in ..\".., e• .1.1 11 r-•„••••4 rom.s.si ralt.S,.. 1..:';'• •_1E! i Ii LI \ 9i -.... _ • 2 .‘ ‘. *- . .,4ill.1,..iii.11:%;"7.:..i:::1.0....i?.;:i.Y.::41.• i •\.: -... ., ..• '.-k, vt.p4 i.'i „,:;..ijif.,:•;i%•:113--- -• • ---I 2 < . 74,...„.„... ,. ,_.„ !:. •... , . . .... . -.,., ....i. ,..,,,,,,,.: .....:-...i.:•,.!-:,i. t!. i., . - ' - , o 0) ' • \-• • \. i L. r IL2-1'1..1."-/.--I- / ...- •N71.. 1 i i( • •„\ •.:„.• -.. ....,,k.,...._.. ...,;._[:,.,......i,,,,,,,.;;,...„1 :: . 1,..) ,-• : - %. .., !`'N ‘, :--i44•Itril:..i4;'!".iii-iir...-1,i •----: , LUL •. ..\ --,-I-,I.,Fri' ill,ti! '--,,,,. EC A fr\ v • N..N-—----. •'4 j I.I " -I',:I 1..i • i iv• "giqi ,.' • • v..,•..` Nts•ss. :. : .!,•• . N•••\ .s.'‘ -"!"•"ss.N,:i...,...lf."..---- i 4'••"I / \''. .\ : •Ne.. ) 1.11.Isl.1 ••N.,• \ k • `.. 1 .. / I•.. %.. ' i•...1 l •I . I •, • . -•••-__i.I.I. 1. ..._ .: . . .. ._. . • 7--....'" --""1-• 71116 "1110L 0111E.- MEM MEM MON IlMill 111111=11 Mwam mons... CONSENT ) S -(2) MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator Itt FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director U SUBJECT: Alley Located Between Market Street and Outlot A of Eastview Addition, Including Minnesota Street and Dakota Street North of 7th Avenue DATE: October 14 , 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3687, which orders a feasibility report prepared for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: Currently there is a severe drainage problem in the alley located between Market Street and Outlot A of Eastview Addition, Blocks 309 , 314 and 317 of Wermerskirchen' s Addition. This alley is currently gravel and basically drains from Market Street east to Dakota Street. In addition to the alley, Minnesota Street from 7th Avenue north to the alley is a gravel street and also has a severe drainage problem. During any heavy rains, this section of Minnesota Street washes out completely and there have been instances of parked cars dropping into a 6 foot hole left by the gravel eroding away. Dakota Street from 7th Avenue north is currently a paved street but should be considered for reconstruction. Both Minnesota and Dakota Streets drain north into this alley and subsequently drains into the adjacent vacant land that the old railroad tracks went through. Currently there is a proposal to develop this vacant land which has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. LeRoy Menke is proposing to do a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to develop all of this land and will subsequently be extending Dakota Street through to 7th Avenue, as well as installing storm sewer and detention ponds to address storm water concerns. Because the majority of the drainage coming onto Mr. Menke' s site is from this alley and existing developed land south of the alley, staff feels that the drainage issue should be addressed at the same time. Mr. Menke' s project is probably going to be constructed in several phases starting in 1993 . Staff would like to explore the feasibility of upgrading this alley and these streets by adding pavement and storm sewers where necessary in order to address the storm water issue in conjunction with the development project. This project was included in the 1992 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) , but was not one of the final projects that was ordered for 1992 . This project again ranks fairly high in the priority list for the 5-year CIP currently under review by the City Council and is still programmed in the first year of the CIP. Currently the policy for gravel streets and alleys is to assess these projects 100% to the abutting properties. Therefore, a public hearing would need to be held prior to ordering this project. Staff is requesting authorization to prepare a feasibility report in anticipation of a public hearing for this project. Attached is Resolution No. 3687 , which orders the feasibility report prepared. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3687 . 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3687 . 3 . Table Resolution No. 3687 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 3687 which orders a feasibility report prepared in order to construct this project in 1993 in conjunction with the proposed PUD. The feasibility process should be initiated at this time. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3687, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on an Improvement to the Alley Located Between Market Street and Outlot A of Eastview Addition (Blocks 309, 314, 317 Wermerskirchen' s Addition) and Minnesota Street/Dakota Street from 7th Avenue North to the Alley and move its adoption. DEH/pmp MEM3687 C 7 R MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Resolution No. 3688, Apportioning Special Assessments DATE: October 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: Parcel #27-907015-0 has been subdivided into two parcels. There are existing special assessments against this parcel. Because of it's subdivision into two new parcels, it is appropriate to apportion the assessments against the two new resultant parcels. The attached Resolution apportions the existing special assessments against the original parcel between the two new resultant parcels. The two property owners of the new parcels have been advised of this proposed apportionment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 3688, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Land, Parcel No. 27-907015-0, and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 3688 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND PARCEL NO. 27-907015-0 WHEREAS, on August 1, 1989, Resolution No. 3091 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefitted by construction of Vierling Drive from County Road 17 easterly for approximately 3200 feet, Project #1988-1; and WHEREAS, a tract of land benefitted by the said improvements, known as parcel number 27-907015-0, has been subdivided so as to create two parcels; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remaining unpaid against said tract between the two newly created parcels; and WHEREAS, the property owners involved have been notified of this proposed action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE: 1. That the 1992 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel 27-907015-0 is $113 , 943 . 35 for the 1988-1 Vierling Drive Improvement Project and is hereby apportioned as follows: PROPERTY LEGAL P. I.D.NO. OWNER DESCRIPTION 1988-1 (66) 27-907015-0 Dalles Properties 18 acres in $57 , 513 . 67 121 S Lewis NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Shakopee, MN of 7-115-22 , 55379 lying N of CL of Vierling Dr. , Except Rd. 27-907015-1 Render Development 17 . 56 acres in $56, 429 . 68 5120 Edina Industrial NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Blvd. of 7-115-22 , Edina, MN 55435 lying S of CL of Vierling Dr. , Except Hwy. 2 . That all other parts of Resolution No. 3091 shall continue in effect. Resolution No. 3688 Page -2- Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of October, 1992 . , Mayor , City Clerk Approved as to form , City Attorney_ 64-(•N r rk\IT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Apportioning Special Assessments for Dalles Townhome DATE: October 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: The final plat of Dalles Townhome Addition has been filed with the Scott County Recorder. There are special assessments existing against the original parcel from which this plat originated. It is appropriate at this time to apportion the special assessments against the original parcel, among the newly created parcels within Dalles Townhome Addition. The apportionment of the special assessments as contained in the attached resolution has been agreed to by the Developer in the Subdivision Agreement for Dalles Townhome Addition. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 3690, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created As a Result of Platting Dalles Townhome Addition, and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 3690 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF PLATTING OF DALLES TOWNHOME ADDITION WHEREAS, on August 1, 1989, Resolution No. 3091 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefitted by construction of Vierling Drive from County Road 17 easterly for approximately 3200 feet, Project #1988-1; and WHEREAS, a tract of land benefitted by the said improvements, known as parcel number 27-908001-0, has been platted into the subdivision now known as Dalles Townhome Addition; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remaining unpaid against said tract among the new parcels created because of the platting of Dalles Townhome Addition; and WHEREAS, the property owners have agreed to the apportionment through the execution of a developers agreement for Dalles Townhome Addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA That the 1992 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel #27-908001-0 is $74 , 553 . 58 for the 1988-1 Vierling Drive Improvement Project and is hereby apportioned as outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other parts of Resolution Number 3091 shall continue in effect. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 20th day of October, 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form. City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" to Resolution No . 3690 Page 1 of 4 ASSESSMENT REAPPORTIONMENT FOR DALLES TOWNHOME ADDITION LEGAL VIERLING DR. 1988-1 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-171001-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 1 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171002-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 1 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171003-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 1 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171004-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 1 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171005-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 2 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171006-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 2 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171007-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 2 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171008-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 2 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171009-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 3 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171010-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 3 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171011-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 3 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171012-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 3 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171013-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 4 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171014-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 4 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION Page 2 of 4 ASSESSMENT REAPPORTIONMENT FOR DALLES TOWNHOME ADDITION LEGAL VIERLING DR. 1988-1 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-171015-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 4 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171016-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 4 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171017-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 5 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171018-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 5 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171019-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 5 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171020-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 5 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171021-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 6 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171022-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 6 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171023-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 6 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171024-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 6 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171025-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 7 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171026-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 7 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171027-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 7 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION $1,553.20 27-171028-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 7 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION Page 3 of 4 ASSESSMENT REAPPORTIONMENT FOR DALLES TOWNHOME ADDITION P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY LEGAL VIERLING DR. 1988-1 OWNER DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-171029-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 8 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171030-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 8 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171031-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 8 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171032-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 8 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171033-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 9 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171034-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 9 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171035-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 9 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171036-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 9 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171037-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 10 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171038-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 10 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171039-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 10 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171040-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 10 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171041-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 11 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171042-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 11 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION Page 4 of 4 ASSESSMENT REAPPORTIONMENT FOR DALLES TOWNHOME ADDITION P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY LEGAL VIERLING DR. 1988-1 OWNER DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-171043-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 11 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171044-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 11 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171045-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 12 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171046-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 2 BLOCK 12 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171047-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 3 BLOCK 12 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171048-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 4 BLOCK 12 $1,553.20 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-171049-0 DALLES PROPERTIES LOT 1 BLOCK 13 $0 121 S. LEWIS DALLES TOWNHOME SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION TOTAL = $74,553.58 GONSET Memo To: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Certification of Delinquent Storm Drainage Utility Bills Date: October 13 , 1992 Information Pursuant to Ordinance No. 176, past due storm drainage utility bills in excess of ninety days past due of October 1st of any year, may be certified to the County Auditor for collection with real estate taxes. Background Attached are lists of delinquent storm drainage utility accounts and Resolution No. 3682 certifying such to the 1993 Real Estate Taxes. Notices have been sent to these property owners advising them of this action. Action Requested Move to adopt Resolution No. 3682 , a Resolution Certifying Delinquent Storm Drainage Utility Bills for Collection on the Tax Rolls Payable 1993 . GV:mmr RESOLUTION NO. 3682 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY BILLS FOR COLLECTION ON THE TAX ROLLS PAYABLE 1993 WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did create a storm drainage utility pursuant to Ordinance Number 176 ; and WHEREAS, the storm drainage utility is supported by user fees collected by utility bills; and WHEREAS, some utility bills are delinquent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the delinquent storm drainage utility bills as listed on the attached listing are hereby certified to the Scott County Auditor for collection with the 1993 property taxes. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of the Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 20th day of October, 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of October, 1992 . City Attorney SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS PID MUNIC CD LEVY AMT 270010340 27 73 $39.04 270010380 27 73 $27 .66 270010390 27 73 $6.91 270010480 27 73 $63.09 270010700 27 73 $22. 24 270011420 27 73 $46.76 270011501 27 73 $42.09 270011731 27 73 $91.20 270011850 27 73 $140. 26 270011940 27 73 $14.45 270012060 27 73 $15. 17 270012220 27 73 $14.45 270012261 27 73 $13.02 270012390 27 73 $46.76 270012900 27 73 $14.45 270013300 27 73 $46. 76 270014090 27 73 $46.76 270014130 27 73 $10.85 270015060 27 73 $14.45 270015360 27 73 $46. 76 270015700 27 73 $46. 76 270016230 27 73 $10. 85 270016270 27 73 $46.76 270016340 27 73 $46.76 270016400 27 73 $22.24 270016520 27 73 $10.85 270016580 27 73 $22 .24 270017550 27 73 $46. 76 270017670 27 73 $34.20 270018260 27 73 $14.45 270018270 27 73 $14.45 270020260 27 73 $46. 76 270040210 27 73 $14 .45 270040230 27 73 $14.45 270040470 27 73 $15. 17 270040740 27 73 $14.45 270040850 27 73 $14.45 270041150 27 73 $20.02 270041520 27 73 $14.45 270041660 27 73 $14.45 270041690 27 73 $14.45 270041710 27 73 $14.45 270050100 27 73 $14.45 270060070 27 73 $14.45 270060130 27 73 $15. 17 270060170 27 73 $265.29 270060190 27 73 $149.43 270080530 27 73 $14.45 270080540 27 73 $14.45 270120010 27 73 $46.76 270120090 27 73 $46.76 270130220 27 73 $14.45 270170160 27 73 $14.45 270170500 27 73 $14.45 270170790 27 73 $14.45 270240400 27 73 $14.45 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS PID MUNIC CD LEVY ANT 270240590 27 73 $14.45 270270220 27 73 $14.45 270340470 27 73 $14.45 270360210 27 73 $14.45 270360470 27 73 $14.45 270360780 27 73 $14.45 270400290 27 73 $14.45 270400480 27 73 $14.45 270410850 27 73 $14.45 270430020 27 73 $14.45 270470010 27 73 $14.45 270500010 27 73 $14.45 270500050 27 73 $14.45 270510200 27 73 $14.45 270510210 27 73 $14 .45 270520070 27 73 $14 .45 270530010 27 73 $14 .45 270530080 27 73 $14.45 270560010 27 73 $14.45 270560140 27 73 $14.45 270590010 27 73 $14.45 270610150 27 73 $14 .45 270610160 27 73 $14.45 270620170 27 73 $14.45 270630010 27 73 $14.45 270630230 27 73 $14.45 270650280 27 73 $14.45 270670010 27 73 $1144.26 270670020 27 73 $23. 35 270710020 27 73 $14.45 270740150 27 73 $14.45 270750010 27 73 $184.47 270820120 27 73 $14.45 270830290 27 73 $14.45 270840470 27 73 $14.45 270880010 27 73 $15.17 270890010 27 73 $8.19 270890021 27 73 $6.40 270920050 27 73 $14.45 270920051 27 73 $14.45 270920081 27 73 $14.45 270920130 27 73 $14.45 270920150 27 73 $14.45 270920270 27 73 $14.45 271110020 27 73 $227 .09 271120130 27 73 $14.45 271220210 27 73 $14.45 271290180 27 73 $14.45 271310160 27 73 $14.45 271330240 27 73 $14.45 271330490 27 73 $14.45 271350020 27 73 $14.45 271360330 27 73 $14.45 271360390 27 73 $15.17 271380340 27 73 $14.45 271460120 27 73 $14.45 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS PID MUNIC CD LEVY AMT 279030070 27 73 $723.92 279060410 27 73 $14.45 279070390 27 73 $10.85 279080060 27 73 $1201 .46 279120140 27 73 $467.05 279120240 27 73 $142.62 279130300 27 73 $14.45 279130310 27 73 $14.45 279130330 27 73 $15. 17 279130350 27 73 $14.45 279130380 27 73 $14.45 279130640 27 73 $14.45 279140012 27 73 $583.80 279140070 27 73 $14.45 279140122 27 73 $14.45 279150230 27 73 $14.45 279160090 27 73 $14.45 279180100 27 73 $14.45 279200120 27 73 $14.45 279290071 27 73 $14.45 279290091 27 73 $14.45 TOTAL CERTIFIED AMOUNT $7595.33 END OF XEQ FILE Oi\�a1 �dV EXPLANATION TO ORDINANCE 343 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Law Department PURPOSE: To allow hunting of deer with bow and arrow on the Northern States Power Company, Blue Lake Generating Plant property. REMARKS: At the September 15, 1992 City Council meeting, the Council considered a request to allow bow hunting of deer on the Northern States Power Company Blue Lake Generating Plant property. Council requested staff to prepare an ordinance to allow such hunting during the archery deer hunting season. Chief of Police Tom Steininger suggested that this approval be reviewed after one year to weigh the benefits realized against any problems experienced. The ordinance does not automatical]y provide that, but staff will bring this back for repeal if significant problems are experienced. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 343 , an ordinance amending City Code Sec. 10.20, Dangerous Weapons and Articles, by repealing Subd. 4 , Exceptions, and enacting a new Subd. 4 , Exceptions, to allow hunting with a bow and arrow on property commonly known as the Northern States Power Company Blue Lake Generating Plant property, and move its adoption. Submitted by: City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 343 , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SEC. 10. 20, DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND ARTICLES, BY REPEALING SUBD. 4, EXCEPTIONS, AND ENACTING A NEW SUBD. 4, EXCEPTIONS, TO ALLOW HUNTING WITH A BOW AND ARROW ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY BLUE LAKE GENERATING PLANT PROPERTY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Sec. 10.20, Dangerous Weapons and Articles, Subd. 4 , Exceptions, is hereby repealed and replaced with a new subdivision which shall read as follows: "Subd. 4. Exceptions. A. Nothing in Subdivision 3 of this Section shall apply to a display of fireworks by an organization or group of organizations which has obtained a permit under the Fire Code, or to a police officer in the discharge of the officer's duty, or to a person in the lawful defense of his or her person or family. This Section shall not apply to the discharge of firearms in a range authorized in writing by the Council. B. Nothing in Subdivision 3 of this Section shall apply to hunting or target shooting if the following provisions are observed: 1. That only B-B guns, shot guns with shot shells, or bows and arrows are used. 2. That shooting is done on contiguous tracts of at least forty acres. 3. That the person shooting either owns or has the written permission of the owner of the tract. 4. That the gun is not discharged within 500 feet of a building or public road. 5. That the area within which the shooting is done lies south of 13th Avenue extended easterly and County State Aid Highway #16 and east of Spencer Street and County Road #79 and also an area within which said shooting is done lies in Section 1, Township 115, Range 23 , Scott County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the Minnesota River and westerly of U.S. Highway #169 . 6. That hunting or shooting with a bow and arrow or shotgun using shot shells only within the National Wildlife Refuge east of Valleyfair to the easterly City limits and north of Highway 101. Hunting with a bow and arrow also shall be allowed North of CSAH 16 on the Northern States Power Company, Blue Lake Generating Plant property, during the Minnesota archery deer hunting season, with written land owner permission. C. Nothing in Subdivision 3 of this Section shall apply to the discharge of firearms in such areas, and under such conditions of supervision, as the Council may specifically permit. " 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 10.99, Violation a Petty Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: Q"���?� City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1992 .