Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1998 4 TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE • ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 15, 1998 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] Mayor's Report 6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 7] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 8] Recess for an Economic Development Authority Meeting 9] Re-convene *10] Approval of Minutes of August 27 and September 30, 1998 *11] Approve Bills in the Amount of$1,229,452.83 12] Communications: A] Union Pacific Railroad presentation on train speeds and Operation Lifesaver 13] 7:00 p.m. Public Hearings A] Continuation of the hearing on the modification of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plans for TIF District Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 9 -Res. No. 5043 B] Applications for a Minnesota currency exchange license - 1) MoneyXchange, 2) Game Financial Corp., and 3)Excel Pawn -Resolutions 5040, 5041, and 5042 TENTATIVE AGENDA December 15, 1998 Page -2- 13] Public Hearings continued: C] Proposed vacation of a portion of an easement located in vacated Spencer Street lying north of First Avenue and west of Lot 1, Block 1, Original Shakopee City Plat -Res. No. 5032 D] 1999 tax levy and budget -Res. 5035 and 5036 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: *A] Rezoning of property from agricultural (AG) to medium density residential (R-2), located south of U.S. 169, north of 17th Avenue(extended), east of Marschall Road and Longmeadow Addition - Ord. No. 535 B] Setting workshop to discuss modifications to City Code, Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations 15] General Business A] Police and Fire 1. Award Bid for Purchase of Airboat/Hovercraft and Trailer *2. Authorize Police Civil Service Commission to Begin CSO Selection Process 3. Authorize Purchase of Civil Defense Sirens - memo on table *4. Minnesota Police Recruitment System Payment *5 City Towing Contract B] Parks and Recreation *1. Authorize Payment for Purchase of MnDOT Property West of Tahpah Park 2. Community Center Sign *3. Community Center Track Striping C] Community Development *1. Correction to Legal Description in Ord. No. 493 - Ord No. 534 *2. Setting Public Hearing for Vacation of Right-of-Way in Dominion Hills -Res. 5044 3. Ord. No. 532 Rezoning of Heritage Development property located north of CR-16 and west of Canterbury Park to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) 4. NAPA Stores appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals denial of a 6.65 variance from the side yard setback requirement in the Highway Business (B-1) zone TENTATIVE AGENDA December 15, 1998 Page -3- 15] General Business continued D] Public Works and Engineering 1. Feasibility Report of River District Trunk Sewer Line Reconstruction, Project 1990-1 Res. Nos. 5039 and 5045 *2. Purchase of Alley Groomer for Public Works Street Division *3. Hiring of Engineering Technician IV E] General Administration *1. Application for On Sale and Sunday On Sale Liquor Licenses -Heyde Hospitality, Inc. *2. 1999 Fee Schedule - Res. No. 5038 *3. 1999 Workers Compensation Insurance *4. Amending 1998 Budget -Res. No. 5031 *5. Closing TIF District No. 8, MEBCO -Res. No. 5037 *6. Authorize Purchase of Two Police Squad Cars 7. Use of TIF/Sanitary Sewer Funds for Chaska Interceptor Sewer *8. Riverview Estates 2nd Addition -Letter of Credit 16] Other Business 17] Adjourn TENTATIVE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Adjourned Regular Meeting December 15, 1998 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes: OwE 4. Financial A.)Approval of Bills 5. Resolution No. 98- ,Decertifying Tax Increment Financing District No. 8 6. Resolution No. 9 -(7 ,Approving Modification of Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 and a Modified Redevelopment Plan for the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1. 7. Other Business: 8. Adjourn edagenda.doc 177/4 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: December 10, 1998 Introduction Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA and Seagate fund for the period 11/25/98 to 12/10/98 . Included is the payment to Kraus Anderson for the clock tower in the amount of $37, 500 . The fund raising committee will be turning over to the EDA almost $29, 000 . 00 Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $38, 832 . 50 for the EDA General Fund and $50 . 00 for Seagate . H II 0 0 0 0 o O O o O O O o II H 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 A II W 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O II IX I U II I 0 H 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II O H M O L11 Ul U1 0 0 0 0 Ln II 1 • • • II H I 0 N 0 0 N N N 0 0 0 0 N II H I O N H O M M M Ul in U1 U1 co it (11 1 N r-1 U1 CO CO ao co II W 1 H N co co co co 11 A 1 m m m m M 11 1 Pa Cl)HiI x a) CCl) iI 0000 0 l0 co Ll 01 N Cl) N H H N CO N M M M N C1+ VD l0 l0 l0 Gil 0 0 0 0 0 E-. C4 0000 O CO H O a m � 0X Z alC4 Z H wzW 0 CnZH4a WOHZ w Qxz0 .a away w aaaw E' U) HaA U 4 0 0 H ...11 XCl) n 01 0 H O co W 0 E. o H HE1 V) A 0 PI F-1 Gaol N 1x � 3xU) W N IX H Cr) acnH � a H o W U F 4-1 Eil DI 0 A WD [O!) x z H to H RI A N co N Z LD H CO 00 d' W Ln Co 0 0 14 N U1 U1 H N O 01 H l0 H III M M CO 0 O N M M N M DI 0 0 0 0 0 = 0l0 l0 1p l0 L0 O z 0 0 0 0 0 aococoao co 01 01 01 01 a, a1 01 01 a1 a, H H H HH COU) Coao Co w 0 0 0 0 0 4 N N N NJ N O HH H H H K * K * K * P * 0 01 01 H Ln H Ul * H H H l0 d' d1 * 0 l0 K O 0 * � Z 0 Z 0H r•1 �ti H a PI H N Ln M IX1-D OHOO Cl) Cu M C4 HCA Ci. N O w w w Tr 0 D a w 0 > aO U a H 0 H O HHI-Iri a H 0 Cx. d' a 0 w C4 01 01 01 01 111 al Cu o00o G..O0 H no 0 44O H 01 01 01 01 0 H O H H H H 0 0 H w a a E + an an an an H 0 EL* �- H * 0 *Ln 0 0 * Gzr. rH-I ,iH HOH 0 4. 'a. H H * ED4 #5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE ,/2 Memorandum /I G v/Sec/ TO: EDA Commissioners Mark McNeill, Executive director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Closing TIF District No. 7 (MEBCO) DATE: December 15, 1998 Introduction & Background Tax Increment Financing District No. 7, MEBCO has reached the end of its allowable life. Resolution No. 98-8 documents official decertification of the district . Action Offer Resolution No. 98-8, Resolution Decertifying Tax Increment Financing District No. 7, and move its adoption. ll G e g Voxland Finance Director I:\finance\docs\taxinc\close#7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESOLUTION NO. 9 8- 8 RESOLUTION DECERTIFYING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.7 BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of Shakopee ("City") has previously established its Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project") pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act");and 1.02. Within the Project the City has created Tax Increment Financing District No.7 (the "TIF District")pursuant to Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (collectively, the "TIF Act"). 1.03. The Project and the TIF District are now administered by the Authority. ("Authority"). 1.04. The Authority and City have determined that is in the best interest of the City to decertify the TIF District as of December 31, 1998. Section 2. TIF District Decertified; Filing. 2.01. The TIF District is hereby deemed decertified as of December 31, 1998. 2.02. Staff is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to Scott County with instructions to de-certify the TIF District,it being the intent of the City that no collection of tax increment from the TIF District will be distributed to the Authority after December 31, 1998. Approved by thepoard of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee this 15 day of December, 1998. President Attest: Secretary SJB-154371 SH235-1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: EDA Commissioners Mark McNeill, Executive director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Closing TIF District No. 8 (MEBCO) DATE: December 8, 1998 Introduction & Background Tax Increment Financing District No. 8, MEBCO has reached the end of its allowable life. Resolution No. 98-8 documents official decertification of the district . • Action Offer Resolution No. 98-8 , Resolution Decertifying Tax Increment Financing District No. 8, and move its adoption. Gee"g Voxland g Finance Director I:\finance\docs\taxinc\close#8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESOLUTION NO. 9 8-8 RESOLUTION DECERTIFYING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 8 BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of Shakopee ("City") has previously established its Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project") pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act");and 1.02. Within the Project the City has created Tax Increment Financing District No. 8 (the "TIF District")pursuant to Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (collectively, the "TIF Act"). 1.03. The Project and the TIF District are now administered by the Authority. ("Authority"). 1.04. The Authority and City have determined that is in the best interest of the City to decertify the TIF District as of December 31, 1998. Section 2. TIF District Decertified;Filing. 2.01. The TIF District is hereby deemed decertified as of December 31, 1998. 2.02. Staff is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to Scott County with instructions to de-certify the TIF District, it being the intent of the City that no collection of tax increment from the TIF District will be distributed to the Authority after December 31, 1998. Approved by thetpoard of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee this 15 day of December, 1998. President Attest: Secretary SJB-154371 SH235-1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: EDA President and Commissioners Mark McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: TIF Plan Modification DATE: December 10, 1998 Introduction and Background Attached for your information is the packet of documents prepared by counsel to be used to amended the TIF Plan and Budget for TIF districts 1, 3, 7 and 9 . This is to update the financial part of the plan based on 1997 and 1998 events and forecasts. The County and School District should have receive their copy on October 16 . The Planning Commission has reviewed the Plan and adopted Resolution 98-120 on 12/3/98 . The public hearing was held on November 17 and continued to December 15 . Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 98-7 A Resolution Approving Modification of Tax Increment Financing Plans For Tax Increment Financing District Nos . 1, 3 , 7 And 9 And A Modified Redevelopment Plan For The Minnesota River Valley Housing And Redevelopment Project No. 1 and move it adoption. LI regg Voxland Finance Director °,[9-,A. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: EDA President and Commissioners Mark McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: TIF Plan Modification DATE: December 10, 1998 Introduction and Background Attached for your information is the packet of documents prepared by counsel to be used to amended the TIF Plan and Budget for TIF districts 1, 3, 7 and 9 . This is to update the financial part of the plan based on 1997 and 1998 events and forecasts . The County and School District should have receive their copy on October 16 . The Planning Commission has reviewed the Plan and adopted Resolution 98-120 on 12/3/98 . The public hearing was held on November 17 and continued to December 15 . Action Requested 1 . Reopen public hearing on the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for TIF Districts Nos. 1, 3 , 7 and 9 . 2 . Receive comments and close the hearing. 3 . Offer Resolution No. 98-7 A Resolution Approving Modification of Tax Increment Financing Plans For Tax Increment Financing District Nos . 1, 3, 7 And 9 And A Modified Redevelopment Plan For The Minnesota River Valley Housing And Redevelopment Project No. 1 and move it adoption. Gregg Voxland Finance Director � r e ' v,. .4444,5 ' "A*14�`"> tki40. ."�a$ 'crt�.riirrx : ,t i }a k a e a 3 has. \ L, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESOLUTION NO. 98 7 RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NOS. 1, 3, 7 and 9 AND A MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of Shakopee ("City") has previously established its Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project") pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"). 1.02. Within the Project theCity has created Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 (the "TIF Districts")pursuant to Sections 469.174 to 469.179(collectively,the"TIF Act"). 1.03. The Project and the TIF Districts are now administered by the Authority. 1.04. The Authority has determined to consider a modification of the redevelopment plan ("Project Plan") for the Project and the tax increment fmancing plans ("TIF Plans") for the TIF Districts, as described in a modification document presented to this Board on this date. 1.05. The City Planning Commission has provided a written comment to this Board fording that the modified Project Plan and TIF Plans are consistent with the comprehensive City plan. Section 2. Plans Adopted;Further Proceedings. 2.01. The modified Project Plans and the TIF Plan are hereby approved and adopted. 1 2.02. The Board hereby transmits the modified Project Plan and TIF Plans to the Council and recommends that the Council hold the required public hearing and adopt the modified Project Plan and TIF Plans. 2.03. Upon approval of the modified Project Plan and TIF Plans by the Council, Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take all actions necessary to implement those plans. Approved by the Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee this 15th day of December, 1998. President Attest: Secretary SJB135304 SH235-5 24: .t7$.sr 71 p .e 7 r" W""47-77,'. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 27, 1998 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Debra Amundson, Jane DuBois, Cletus Link and Bob Sweeney present. Those absent: None. Also present were Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Greg Sticha, Accountant; Dan Hughes, Chief of Police; and Mark McQuillan, Park and Recreation Director. Item 4A, Police Department resolution regarding task force participation was added to the agenda. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Police Chief Dan Hughes approached the podium and stated that the Department needed to turn in the Task Force application by the next day and it needed a signature. Link/DuBois offered Resolution No. 4958, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Regarding Participation in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke turned the meeting over to Mark McNeill who noted there was a memo from Police Chief Hughes regarding the juvenile officer position. Mr. McNeill noted that the memo explained the status of the juvenile officer position. Jane DuBois questioned whether the juvenile officer was a full- time position. Chief Dan Hughes approached the podium and stated that there was one officer who administered the DARE program and another officer who worked 10 hours per week at the high school as a liaison. Mark McQuillan approached the podium and stated that if the City wanted to continue its agreement between Jackson and Louisville townships, the agreement needed to be approved. Jane DuBois voiced her concern that the agreement did not cover the cost to the City on the use of its facilities. Cletus Link agreed with Ms. DuBois. Mr. Link questioned whether it would help if Louisville Township did its own accounting and Mr. McQuillan noted that doing so may create a problem since there are about 100 activities. Mr. McQuillan also voiced his concern that the volunteers have to take the brunt of Louisville Township resident's frustration regarding the administering of the system. Bob Sweeney noted that there are flaws in the way the program is administered, but these problems can be addressed within the next year. Mayor Brekke noted that the amounts set forth in the agreement were negotiated in 1995. Debra Amundson recalled that computer software is available to ascertain whether people are City or township residents and stated that the townships should pay for the software. Ms. DuBois stated that the City taxpayers are picking up the full cost of the programs and although the townships do defray the cost, the townships are able to use all the City's equipment, etc. which is fully funded by the City and its residents. She further noted that Park & Rec may be bringing a bond referendum which could also change the picture. Mr. Sweeney stated that the matter should be discussed internally and options brought to the next meeting Official Proceedings of the August 27, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -2- with the townships. Mr. McQuillan noted that he had spoken with Gregg Voxland and stated that some of the costs are also absorbed by the industrial/commercial property owners. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve Administrative Policy No. 238, Jackson and Louisville Township Recreation Contribution Policy, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sweeney requested Mark McQuillan to provide a memo regarding other options available and then conduct a workshop to discuss them. Mark McQuillan distributed a memo regarding the pool filtration system. He noted that a second opinion/estimate was obtained from U.S. Equatics which was comparable with the first estimate. He noted the U.S. Equatics estimate included an additional $110,000 for a new surge tank and gutters. Mayor Brekke stated that he did not want the pool filtration system to be part of a bond referendum. Mr. McQuillan stated that he preferred the repairs be started in fall of 1999 because there was no specific plan at this time. Bob Sweeney suggested that the cost could be obtained from cash depreciation in the building fund this year. Gregg Voxland stated that if the cash flow amount is to be brought down, it should be done at this time. Mr. Sweeney suggested that Mr. Voxland prepare guidelines as to what type of expenditures could be paid from cash flow and bring these guidelines to the Council. Cletus Link questioned if Mr. McQuillan should obtain bids for the pool repair since the pool will be closing for the season. Mr. McQuillan stated that he had already received two estimates and in order to get more precise numbers, the City would have to hire someone in order to get specifications. Mr. Sweeney requested that Mr. Voxland recommend an amount to transfer for the pool repairs. Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct Gregg Voxland to structure the building fund as discussed and bring back guidelines to the Council. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan stated that he would like to interview both candidates. Bob Sweeney suggested that Mr. McQuillan also review the construction journal for other sources who performed this type of work. A discussion was held whether the pool repair should be done in stages or all at once. It was the consensus of the Council that it was open to doing the work at one time. Mayor Brekke noted that it may be of benefit to do some of the work this fall. Mr. McQuillan indicated the repairs could be started if the Council desires. Bob Sweeney noted his concern with rushing into the project without having solid numbers. Cletus Link questioned whether there was a health risk to the users of the pool and Mr. McQuillan replied there was no health risk at this time due to the amount of chlorine being used. Mayor Brekke stated that if there is no health risk it would make sense to wait until 1999. Official Proceedings of the August 27, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Judith Cox commented on the City Clerk budget. She stated that the budget had remained essentially the same as last year. She noted that the temporary wages were less, however, other wages had increased. Ms. Cox stated she would like a half-time Clerk 1 position to be shared with the building department and stated that she had discussed this with Michael Leek, Community Development Director. Regarding the budget for training, Ms. Cox stated that she could take some of the dollars in the printing and publishing budget and transfer them to training. She estimated the amount to be transferred would be approximately $1,000. Gregg Voxland discussed the Finance Department budget. He noted that the Department would either need an additional clerical position or wages could be increased for overtime. He also noted an additional $10,000 may be needed for LOGIS. Jane DuBois questioned why additional help was needed and Mr. Voxland stated the workload had increased. Bob Sweeney noted that the Finance Department is under pressure from the State Auditor's Department. Mark McNeill discussed the Legal budget. He noted three areas which were contained in the Legal budget, those being Jim Thomson, the Scott County Joint Prosecution and tribal affairs. Mr. McNeill noted that 38% of the entire workload of the Scott County Joint Prosecution was due to City matters. He also noted that Mr. Thomson's firm was increasing its hourly rate from $105 to $110 per hour. Bob Sweeney stated that the Scott County Joint Prosecution was supposed to be generating income but this was not seen in the budget. Jane DuBois recalled talking about the matter last year and thought the City was supposed to receive specific numbers to ensure participation in the program was worth the cost. She stated she would like to know what percentage of fees and fines cover the cost of the program. Mr. McNeill noted that there were an increased number of cases and the Police Department is writing more tickets. He offered to look into the matter. Chief Hughes approached the podium and stated that there was a collection problem and that sometimes the offenders do not show up for court. Bob Sweeney suggested that perhaps the judges could tell the offenders that either they pay their fines or go to jail. Mr. McNeill stated that the judges do not think of city budgets when pronouncing fines or sentences. He further noted that if the City did not participate in the Scott County Joint Prosecution, it would have to deal with the matter in-house or contract for services. Ms. DuBois questioned what percentage of the budget related to BIA and Mr. McNeill replied 20%. He also stated that if there is future litigation, the amount would substantially increase. Regarding the tribal matter, Mr. Sweeney noted that it was the consensus of the taxpayers that they do not want people receiving services that they do not pay for. Mark McNeill also discussed the Government Buildings budget. He stated the budget had remained essentially the same except for an increase in building maintenance and roof repair. He noted that $10,000 had been allowed for a Official Proceedings of the August 27, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -4- rooftop air conditioner and $3,000 for library shield receptacles. Jane DuBois questioned whether the current receptacles met code and Mr. McNeill replied that although they did, the City recently put the school through the same matter and if a new building was built, the receptacles would not comply with code. Regarding the Unallocated budget, Bob Sweeney stated that a contingency fund for unexpected expenses should be established vs. unallocated funds which are funds that will be spent with an unknown factor of where the funds will be spent. Mr. Sweeney stated that the tax capacity rate should increase no more than 10%. He also noted that there was no increase in eight of the last nine years. Mr. Sweeney suggested foregoing the three additional firefighers because a full-time fire marshall could be hired with 75% of the salary paid from fees and 25% paid from the budget. Mr. Sweeney stated that he had spoken with Fire Chief Terry Link who told Mr. Sweeney he could work this suggestion. Mr. Sweeney also suggested reducing the additional police officers and hiring one CSO rather than two. Chief Hughes stated he could reallocate an existing officer to the Task Force. Chief Hughes also recommended the hiring of two CSO officers if the grant money is obtained. Cletus Link questioned the ratio of police officers to residents. Mr. Sweeney stated that last year the City had more officers than needed. Mr. Link noted the growth in the City along with the rise in crime and drugs and stated he did not want the City to be cut short on police officers. It was noted that the Police Department will receive 90% of Task Force officer's salary. Mr. Sweeney suggested transferring the $224,800 for the Police Department computer/support staff, etc. grant from Unallocated to be a $57,000 contingency item. Chief Hughes distributed a memo regarding the details of the grant program. Mr. Sweeney asked if the Police Department needed all items included in the grant because although computers have value, there was a tendency to have more computing power than necessary. Jane DuBois stated that the existing computers could be used by the other departments. Mr. Sweeney replied that if that were done, the City would not all be on the same system. Debra Amundson confirmed the current system now calls for a police officer to come back to dictate a report and then the dictation is given to someone else to enter into the computer, however, if the grant is obtained, the information could directly be entered into the computer. Ms. DuBois asked how much money would be needed for new computers if the grant is not obtained and Chief Hughes estimated $25,000. Ms. DuBois stated that if the grant was not received, she would hope that the City would still be able to be at the same level as the county with the purchase of new computers. Mr. Sweeney noted the importance of establishing a computer budget. Mark McNeill noted that he and Michael Leek were working on this. Mr. Sweeney noted that Greg Sticha needs to get into the new structure. He further stated that the City can certify a budget up to a 30% increase by statute. Official Proceedings of the August 27, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mayor Brekke noted that the consensus of the Council was that there were to be no additional police officers and only one CSO officer unless the grant was approved for two. It was further noted that the contingency fund was unfunded because the monies would come out of surplus. Chief Hughes stated that he would look at an investigator being assigned to the Task Force so that a street officer could be kept. Greg Sticha noted there was an increase in the Park Fund for a maintenance position in the unallocated portion which increased the amount from $324,000 to $381,000. Jane DuBois stated that if the City can go without an extra police officer, it should be able to go without an extra maintenance person. Mayor Brekke agreed with Ms. DuBois. Ms. DuBois questioned whether the Police Department ever ran short of officers due to illness, injury, etc. and Chief Hughes replied that when the Department came to full staff, there would be adequate coverage. Bob Sweeney suggested estimating the number of retirements expected this year. Ms. DuBois suggested a 3-4 month notice policy be established for retirements. Chief Hughes stated he would do his best to relay this message to the Department. Regarding the $5,000 unallocated amount for the pay plan and reclassifications, Mark McNeill noted that $17,000 was a more realistic amount and $22,000 would probably be a better estimate. Mr. McNeill stated a formal recommendation would be made by the end of the year. Sweeney/DuBois moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, liplikri; 4 u ith S. Co City Clerk Janet Vogel Freeman Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with Councilmembers Debra Amundson, Jane DuBois, Cletus Link and Bob Sweeney present. Those absent: None. Also present were Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Paul Snook, Economic Development Director and Mark McQuillan, Park and Recreation Director. Item 5.A. was added to the agenda: Resolution No. 4985, authorizing submission of a business and community development application for the downtown revitalization project. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 4985, A Resolution Authorizing the City of Shakopee to Submit a Business and Community Development Application for the Downtown Revitalization Project, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke turned the meeting over to R. Michael Leek for a discussion of the Dial-A-Ride matter. Mr. Leek approached the podium and stated that the City had received a number of complaints, many of which were related to school problems. He specifically noted that residents had questions as to whether or not there were enough vans in operation and if Laidlaw was short of drivers. Mr. Leek spoke with Laidlaw who stated that there were a sufficient number of drivers and vans on the road. Mr. Leek stated that a number of people are calling City Hall with their complaints instead of Laidlaw. The callers are then requested to call Laidlaw. Mr. Leek also noted that Shakopee Services has not as yet submitted a formal proposal for transporting children only. Mr. Leek stated that he had spoken with John Matthews, Area Manager of Laidlaw, regarding the possibility of having another van but was advised there would be a substantial extra cost. Mr. Leek stated that Laidlaw advised not having a van for preschool children only because the City would not want to start a situation where it would be transporting exclusive groups of people. Mayor Brekke questioned whether adding another van would solve the problem and Mr. Leek replied that it probably would not because transportation is a demand-based situation. Debra Amundson questioned how many preschool children are using the service and Mr. Leek replied approximately 175 monthly. Jane DuBois stated that she had talked to parents who told her they cannot depend on the service. She questioned whether the City could not direct Laidlaw how the City wanted the service performed since the City is paying for it. Mr. Leek replied that it is difficult for Laidlaw to do transporting of preschool children only because it is private transportation and there is a liability situation. Bob Sweeney questioned whether the City wanted to be in the business of providing preschool transportation and noted that it did not appear that many metro transit services provide preschool service. He also noted that the City may find itself providing a specialized transportation. Official Proceedings of the September 30, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. Leek stated that he had attended a meeting with other transit people and it was clear during that meeting that the future intent is how to provide transit and connect to a metropolitan system. Mr. Leek stated that it was possible that there would be light-rail or HOV lanes connecting Shakopee to other nearby cities in the future and the City needs to look at that possibility. Mr. Leek also noted that the City subsidy had substantially increased since 1996. Ms. DuBois questioned whether the City could increase the cost and lower the subsidy because parents may be willing to pay more if there was a service they could rely on. George Bentley approached the podium and reviewed the fares. He stated that since the City has an obligation as a transportation provider, it cannot refuse a ride request to someone unless there is a specific policy in place. He noted that it is difficult to have services serving only one segment of the population to the exclusion of others. Mr. Sweeney noted that if the fares are increased to a certain point, people will find another service that is more convenient or cost effective. He further stated that raising fares would have the effect of excluding those users whose resources are limited. Mr. Sweeney stated that the City needed to ask itself if it was willing to use general levy to subsidize parent's transportation of children to preschool or daycare. If so, the City would have to cut something out of the budget. Mayor Brekke noted that the Council did not need to decide at this meeting whether or not it should be in the business of providing transit services of preschoolers, however, if the City decided to go ahead with the plan, the City better provide the plan well and if it could not perform it well, it should not go ahead with it. He further stated that the City ought to be able to perform the service within the confines of the transit levy. As far as not performing the service well, Mayor Brekke stated that children who are between the ages of 3-5 are not riding a yellow school bus with enforced safety regulations. He further noted that the current plan does not meet quality testing. Mayor Brekke suggested that the City should participate as it currently does through this school year in order to give parents advance notice. Ms. DuBois agreed that the City needed to provide good service, but stated if there was no more Dial-A-Ride service for preschoolers, the City would be depriving the children of going to preschool. Mr. Sweeney stated that people could adjust their work schedules, ask relatives for assistance, etc. Mayor Brekke stated that if the City cannot provide a safe and reliable service, it should not be providing any service as it was more important for children to be safe than to go to preschool. Ms. Amundson stated that the City was trying to provide a service that has too many multiples, i.e. days, times, etc. so unless the City could get the preschools to conform to the plan, the plan is destined to fail. Mark McNeill noted that he found Shakopee to be somewhat unusual in that most daycare facilities provide transportation. He envisioned the City getting to that point. Cletus Link stated that it appeared the problem was more of a customer service problem and questioned whether Shakopee Services could provide the service and charge the going rates. Mr. Sweeney replied that it would be too expensive but Official Proceedings of the September 30, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -3- added that Shakopee Services could be the City's last hope to address the problem. Mr. Link questioned whether the funds for new buses were still available and Mr. Leek replied that three buses had recently been ordered and when they arrived, they will go to Laidlaw's fleet to serve the City. Mr. Leek stated the buses are due to arrive in November and further noted that there are no more available funds. Ms. DuBois stated that the City could not drop the current service without having something else in place. Mr. Bentley reapproached the podium regarding the recent complaints received. He stated that there were complaints from parents who were not able to schedule standing orders two days per week. Mr. Bentley stated that Laidlaw changed its policy from three days per week to two days per week to accommodate the parents' requests. He further noted that Laidlaw had called all parents who had complained of not being able to schedule two day per week standing orders and advised them of the policy change. Mr. Bentley noted that the actual number of declined rides was very low. He noted that it is the nature of the service that it cannot provide rides to all people at the exact time the people want the rides. As far as the complaint of children not getting picked up or dropped off on time, Mr. Bentley stated he would look into that problem. Mayor Brekke stated that it was the consensus of the Council to make the best of the situation for now and hopefully a proposal would be received from Shakopee Services which could be evaluated before the end of the year. Mary Blatzheim, Shakopee Learning Center, approached the podium. She stated that in years past, they had 45-50 children using the Dial-A-Ride system and this year there were only 12 despite increased enrollment. She stated the drivers told her and other parents that there were not enough vans. As a City taxpayer, Ms. Blatzheim stated that if the City is paying for three vans, it should be receiving three vans. She further stated that she is working with parents to set up some type of carpools. The meeting then turned to discussion of the Park Comprehensive Plan. Mark McQuillan approached the podium and stated that Greg Ingraham of Ingraham & Associates was present to explain the park system plan and park dedication study. Mr. McQuillan noted that there was a new ordinance in 1997 which resulted in changing the cash dedication basis from per lot to per unit. Mr. McQuillan further stated that Jon Albinson of Valley Green Business Park challenged the ordinance stating that the City should show a rational nexus for charging fees to commercial industrial property owners. Mr. McQuillan noted that Mr. Albinson had stated that the new ordinance was good for residential property owners but not for the commercial industrial property owners. Mr. McQuillan also noted that Mr. Albinson wanted the City to show how it arrived at the fees charged to commercial industrial property rather than relying on surveys from other cities. Mr. McQuillan stated that the City then hired Ingraham & Associates to prepare a comprehensive park plan Official Proceedings of the September 30, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -4- and address some of these issues. Mr. McQuillan stated that the park comprehensive plan serves as a vision for future facilities and standards for the City's parks. Greg Ingraham approached the podium. Mr. Ingraham stated that he had met with commissions and held a public meeting regarding the park plan. He reviewed his company's findings and recommendations to the City and also showed drawings of existing park areas and future areas. Mayor Brekke questioned whether one acre per 75 residents was reasonable and Mr. Ingraham replied it was. Mr. Ingraham noted that there were not many changes to the trail system, but it was updated. Bob Sweeney stated that the most cost effective trail and one that would give the largest exposure to other trails was the one that went along the Old Indian Road because the City of Eden Prairie retained the right-of-way for the remainder of Old Indian Road which connects to the Hennepin County park trail system. Mr. Ingraham stated that if the City decided to go with the plan as recommended, the cost would be $23.3 million for land and development which figure did not include maintenance after acquisition. Mr. Ingraham noted that the total cost was prorated between the residential and commercial property owners. The proposed fees to cover the cost would be $1,800 for a residential single family home/duplex unit; $1,500 for a multi-family/apartment unit and $3,880 per acre for commercial/industrial property. Mr. Ingraham stated that the proposed residential fees were double that of the existing residential fees and that the commercial industrial fee was reduced by $620 per acre. Mayor Brekke questioned if the City raised park dedication fees on new single family plats, if it could then remove the land acquisition portion from a referendum. Mr. McQuillan replied that the City could do that but a lot of the acquisition is in tiny increments and other funding options are available. Jane DuBois questioned whether most cities take cash in lieu of land dedication and Mr. Ingraham replied that it depends on the fees and the community. He noted that the more developed cities take cash and the less developed take land. Mr. Ingraham noted that he did have specific recommendations of what type of land to acquire. Mayor Brekke questioned whether the City could sell bonds with a funding source of park dedication fees. Mr. Sweeney replied that that would be too uncertain of a funding source because if times change and development does not continue, the bonds are still due so the City would have to levy. Mr. Sweeney suggested using park dedication fees to make the payments and cut the debt service levy. Debra Amundson questioned how the City's fees compared to other cities and Mr. Ingraham replied that the current fees are below comparable cities. Cletus Link questioned whether or not it would be a hard sell for the City to charge these types of fees when most of the houses are entry-level houses. Mr. Ingraham replied that users from expensive homes have the same demand on the park system as the users from the inexpensive homes. Mr. Ingraham stated he was convinced that the costs of $23 million is a reality and the question is more where the dollars will come from, i.e. from either new residents and Official Proceedings of the September 30, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -5- businesses or existing residents and businesses. Mr. Ingraham noted that the development costs include such things as parking, security lighting, ballfields and play equipment but nothing out of the ordinary. Mr. Ingraham also reviewed the City's current policy on collecting park dedication fees and noted that the current policy does not account for inflation and also that the administration and collection was inefficient. Ms. DuBois stated that City is now missing out on a revenue source due to the way it collects park dedication fees. Mayor Brekke recommended that staff should come back with changes in the fee schedule and any other recommendations. Ms. DuBois requested an update on when the City passed the proposal for current park dedication fees. Mr. McQuillan replied that the new fees went into effect in July, 1997 and all plats since that time paid the new rate. Mr. McQuillan further noted that he had spoken with the city attorney who felt comfortable with defending the policy of charging fees to the commercial industrial property owners. Ms. DuBois stated that she did not feel the $4,500 fee to commercial industrial property owners was out of line. Mr. Sweeney stated he believed the developers would challenge the fee if it was $4,500 rather than the proposed $3,880 in light of the fact that the proposed residential fees would be phased in over three years. Mr. Link stated that he felt it would be a hard sell to builders and developers to pay the proposed fees and Mr. Sweeney noted it would be more of an impact for local builders than metropolitan builders. Mr. Link further noted that everything in the building industry seems to be increasing. Discussion then turned to a community park on a portion of the Southbridge/MnDOT property. Mark McNeill approached the podium and stated that regarding this remnant parcel remaining from the Highway 169 acquisition, that 51 acres was currently owned by MnDOT. MnDOT has contacted the City to see if it would be interested in purchasing the parcel. Mr. McNeill noted that of the 51 acres, nine acres are road right-of-way which would be assessed against the 500-acre parcel leaving 42 developable acres. He further noted that the developer of the eastern portion of Southbridge has been in contact with the school district regarding an elementary school site. Mr. McNeill stated that the school district looked at the site and due to the power line locations, it was not the school district's first preference, however, they may be willing to do some land swapping with the developer. If an elementary school came to pass, that would leave 25 acres which might be suitable for a community park. Mr. McNeill estimated the cost to be in the $500,000-$600,000 range. He noted that MnDOT is not in a rush to dispose of the land if the City is interested in it. Mr. McNeill reviewed the funding sources, i.e. referendum, capital improvement. He asked for direction from the Council as to pursuing the matter or not. Mayor Brekke questioned whether the Park & Rec board could look into the matter and make a recommendation. Mark McQuillan reapproached the podium and stated that the Park & Rec Board had discussed the matter but had no recommendations at this time. Mr. McNeill further noted that if the City were to buy the land for Official Proceedings of the September 30, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -6- park use but would later sell it for another use, the City would probably owe the difference between what it paid and what the market value was at the time of purchase plus interest. Bob Sweeney stated that he would like to see the options in writing with maps on how the land might be divided. Jane DuBois agreed with Mr. Sweeney. Ms. DuBois further noted that the City already has existing park land available that has not been developed. Cletus Link stated that he was disturbed that the City could have had $1,000,000 in park dedication at the time of the Southbridge plat rather than taking useless land and giving credit in lieu of money in addition to now talking about a referendum and raising park fees. Jon Albinson of Valley Green Business Park approached the podium. He stated that he believed Valley Green Business Park gave 120 acres of wetland to the City thereby leaving Valley Green with 220 developable acres out of 550 total acres. He stated that Valley Green took the draft comp plan and gave the City what it wanted. Cletus Link noted that the land dedicated did not benefit the whole City but only that subdivision. Bob Sweeney stated that there is no rule that says park land has to be used for football or such other activities but can be used passively. Link/Sweeney moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, u ith S. C y Clerk Janet Vogel Freeman Recording Secretary // CITY OF SHAKOPEE ( r ► Memorandum ' TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: City Bill List DATE: December 10, 1998 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1998 based on data entered as of 12/10/98 . Also attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval . Included in the bill list is payment to SPUC in the amount of $135, 791 for costs associated with the land sale in 1997 . This was a substation site acquired but not used. The amount includes SPUC costs of $124, 097 (as determined by SPUC Manager and Councilor Sweeney) including the purchase amount and a 50o split of the net proceeds. The City share of the net proceeds (profit) is $11, 694 . 00 in addition to recovering our costs of $1, 345 . 00 . Also included are bills to Patchin-Messner for appraisals of Sarazin/Roundhouse parcels and Eagle Creek Hall - $9,477 . 50, Scott County for final payment of their CR 18 project in the amount of $44,457. 84, Valley Green for the $3, 000 berm at the Fire Station and $62, 833 . 00 to IDS 720 pursuant to the TIF agreement with the school . Included in the check list but under the control of the EDA are checks for the EDA General Fund (code 0191) and Seagate (codes 6654 & 9450 including Canterbury Drive) in the amount of $38, 882 .50 . Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $1, 229,452 . 83 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 12/10/98 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 00 N/A 258,619 0 -0 0 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 75,330 308 64,619 86 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 225,000 6,136 159,936 71 13 CITY CLERK 182,430 5,702 159,538 87 15 FINANCE 326,090 7,046 284,161 87 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 263,500 8,122 232,969 88 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 492,700 21,923 460,555 93 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 148,390 7,072 101,516 68 31 POLICE 1,812,370 54,848 1,586,422 88 32 FIRE 486,860 9,978 409,682 84 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 261,400 11,404 235,682 90 41 ENGINEERING 417,790 14,425 375,478 90 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 1,228,580 16,253 894,930 73 44 SHOP 125,890 6,027 102,621 82 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 415,960 9,880 363,412 87 91 UNALLOCATED 514,530 2,531 377,357 73 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7,235,439 181,654 5,808,879 80 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 485,570 7,849 355,042 73 TOTAL TRANSIT 485,570 7,849 355,042 73 19 EDA 156,600 40,694 118,237 76 TOTAL EDA 156,600 40,694 118,237 76 H c ca a a 4 H H H H H 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 X 124W 0 al 04 XA X 0 Z W a) U o1 a) in H o) a0 O 1 H o) H H M 10 N d' op CO In U) 0 In U) l0 t0 to N N l` 0)01 O d' 00 00 N 0) t0 S N N r N H N M M N N N H 10 H H N N CO 01 to N N z (r) U) In I U) U t0 10 t0 to to H H 0 0 to O N to 0 to 10 H 0 0 0 H 0 W 0 0 O O O a0 M t0 t0 0 If)N d' 0 0 0 0 O 0 H 0 A 0 0 O O O 0) V N N O d'V' In H 0 0 10 0 N 0 N 0 H H O H H O O 0 0 H 0 0 O O 0 0 H CO H a) 0) O H N N H N N H ri H ri N M M V. 01 H ri ZX M H M d' M441 N M M M N N N M N N N M N N W N d' N d' M d' d'V' d' d'W V' d' d'd' d' d'd' d' d' d'd' 0 al I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U I N 1O N H H d' H H d' H H 0 N M W H M O H H H H O H C` H No c0 N H U) N H t0 U) U)U) N In M N H H N (Z' 01 H 01 Ii 0 H H M N M M W. N N N M N t0 M M M N O O O O o1 O O O O O O t0 O O O O O O O O O 0 z z H H z z H H Cr) H c4 Cr) U IX U A H U Z El Z H rt -. C0 H V) C/1Cn Il CO Cn H 0 > >4 a Cl) Cr) > Cr) W W Z a W W M H W rz4 (a 0 El H (x H H H G] 0 H H H U W a o Z .a Cr) 1-7 as El 0 as In a z CI) x W a Cl) a as HH Z X as H H rr a) U X a a a s Z H U a s -- a x a U cn x A 0 A AA HH 4 Cl) XX U A et q U g al u)(el 4 4 X - U)C/) co CO CO Z (a W 0 z XX W al Cr) Z 0 U A W W 0 W W 0 0 00 W H U 00 0) A H H 0 Z Z z Z H Z Z z 00 Z Z Z H Cl) (0 Cr) G. Cl) 00 H 00 Cl) H HH 0 Z W Cr) HH 1 .1 Cl) Z a 0 0 X H X Cl) H HH X HH X x HH U 4 Cr) H W 4 as x1 a s Cr) 44 a0 A a Cr) 1xCr.0 w H w w Cr) H WW P WW w x C4 r4 Cr) as H Cr. r4 C4 A w a aao Z 4 w ww a ww 0 a as w AA 0( Z as 01 0 a X U Cl) (x HH 0 HH a 0 00 H al al W U 00 0 Cl) fx H Cl) A FC al H W H Cr. a• ' P; Z U U al a Hff H Cl) 9+ (x o: 0 Cn Fi C0H H Ott W ..a Cl) 0 Cr El X 44 U 0 r:4 c4 W A x 4 H U w a as rx HH a O Z > as g AA C4 U Z H '8 O 0 w 0 H as A 00 H Z H .a 0 (x a 1a,-) A C.Q. U 0 Cr) H AW W H W A A 0 H z a Z a z UU Cl) Cl 00 Z X a H Z 0 W H W 0 W a(x H U U H Z H al H W Cl) xx H Zj 00 0 �� CO H CO z w > HH a AA A U W W a x 4.1)4.0 W Cr) X Cl) a LS 4.8 X 00 Cr) H X C.)C.) a H ;4;4 0U s X ° as° O HH aa Cr) a4 en(nX 4 C4 o al 0 o al HH a as Cr) mcn 4 U WW al U X E H N 4 4 Ft 44 4 44 4 44 al al al co K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K 0 0 VD to 01 0) 0 0 0 0 N N 0)N ri 5 l` d'M(- 0 0 U)U) d'.'c0 U)U) 001 000 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 El m M to to to t0 O 0 O O N N d'to H 00 00 H N M O O N N U)In o d'd' O In In O O O O 0)0 'a 40 441 TJ'<}' 0101 Ln U) OO VO VO HaDO 00x3 Cs)rHM O0 4-4H 101001 10to NHM 1010 O0 HO 0 U)U) 0)O) V'V' V'd' ri ri In U) (-H 01 M M H r-OD ri H N N H ri M ri ri Ln 01 d' N(11 00 03 M M X to t0 a0 00 01-0)- 4J +/f Vf t/} 01 01 LTH ri Vr t/} t/?ri H M M M M .i H N V}Vf H Vr N 4/3-4/3- (? t/)-+/f t/. 4/1-41). t?t? 10.41). 4/1-41). t?i/} 4/1-con- 40-0)-01- t? VI- M f01 0) X t?t? U Cr) Cr: U W H Cl) W N N N N N 0) 0)0) 0) 0)01 0) 0) 01 01 0) 01 01 0) 01 ON 01 H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 000 0 0 00 O 4 -.., .„ �.., ,„ �� .-� - �� W A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (x H H H H H H H H ri H H H H H H H ri ri ri r♦ H H '>!i U co a0 0 00 a0 a0 a a) aD a0 O CO OD a)CO CO a0 a0 CO co co a) C) Cr) o1 0) 01 0) 0) 0) 0)o) 0) O1 01 0) 0) 0)01 0) 0)01 01 01 0)0) ... Cr) x 01 cn 01 a1 01 0) 01)al 0) o1 01 0) al O)011 0) 0)0) o) 0) 0)0) X U H H H H H H H H H H H H rl H ri H H H H H ri H U 0 .7 z M w U) to N a) a1 0 H N M w U) 10 N co 0) H M M M M M M M d• d' d' W d' d• d' d' d' d' U ^.L NA NA NANA NA NA N A NAN A NANA N A NA N A NA NA N Z U 0 K 0 K o K 0 K 0* 0* 0 -K 0 K 0 K OK 0 K 0 K C3* 0 K o K o K O '.7 W to v to v t0 v t0 v 10 v t0 v to v to v to v l0 v t0 v t0 v to v to v t0 v to V to O X U U N 0) CT .15 il. a 4 0 0 0 0 00 0 0000000 0 0 00 000 00 0 0 X E4 ELI Dao a£ A z 0 z w U o m H l0 01 d' N M V' CO CO CO CO CO 0 CO 01 111 0 0 N O N U1 01 l0 N N N 01 01 01 01 CA 01 CA 01 N 0 O CO U1 N H 0 <r 01 N O1 H 0 MM M NNNNNNN N M MM HLC)U1 r.0) 01 N Z U) N V• 0 1/4.0 l0 U1 U)U1 l0 U1 10 l0 l0 l0 W U1 U1 V'U1 U1 l0 H U1 H H 0 co U1 N 00 O 0000000 O O 00 MM m H U) M H 0 H V' H O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O HHH N V H 0 O O O O O O U1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O E H m H H MM H r-IH'-1HHHH H M MH HHH V V H H za M M M M in Ln N NNNNNNN N U1 NN N N N NN N N W V V' V' V'- V'V' V' V'V'V'V'V'V'V' V V V V N N N V'V• N V' O al i i i I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 I U HH 01 0 OO N HHHHH V'rI 0 co d'O OOO HH O HU 01 H U1 N LC)U1 N H N H M V'U1 HN in UI N V.V'V' N N V' H a Z H m l0 V' l0 l0 V' H H Cr)Cr)V'l.01 V' l0 N[r Co Co Cu M M Co V• O O l0 O1 l0 l0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 l0 O 01 O1 01 01 O O O1 0 W W w U0`�0 Z H w H H Ul U]m m cn Ul Ul Ul cO X0a]0 0 4ti44 a cn H 0 > U > > Wwwwwww w w UU)U) Ell Ell CO ril H M H a z a a HHHHHHH H H 4 44 1n El cwn H col co ELI aaaaaaa a Ea 444 zz 4 a H H co aaaaaafa, a z a a a a HH a a a H a a u)u) AAA AA AA A CO Hp �4 U co 4 FC EE COmvOUOcnmm w H 4c www X w x CO Cl) z 011 Z Z Z Z X 000 0 01'1 W 0 A 0 0 ww UJ 0000000 0 w 0 a s E E a 0 rn q H UI H H X Xa zzzzzzz Z X 0z FC<4: Z FC Z H Ul \ Ul U] w G] !C HHHHHHH H lit 'Z H x x x W w x H I Ul 0 CO CO >> H EEEEEEE E > HE UUU XX U El J w w w w 00 a 444 44 0 A4 as 4 I Cl.. > G4 014 as w 010101 as a as • • • HH0 0 as H • a A 0 FC wwwwwww w a Hw 000 x� 0 w I IX a a a XX 4 la/aaaaaa a X pa • 0101 a al Cl.. H Cl.. a HH X 0000000 0 H al0 000 ww U 0 0 0 U U Z Z H H H U a H H E. C04 AA U 3 A E UI w E UI UI U CJ) U 0101 O W 0 El 0 EEEEEEE a >C WW Ul 0 Z 0 UIUI A 0000000 w W a U] A H A AAA AA AA a1 as >4>+ 0 U 0 Cr) >4 0 441 Cl0 00000006 La UU UUU WW H z ..a Z Z En EL.EL. a aaaaaaa a 0 zZZ E.a4 Z w lx) to aaaaaaa Z 00 HHH FC FC 0 • D H w Z 4 WW ".4 • H AA UlU) H a H E .701 U wwwwwww a F-7 a..7 U]U1U1 E H H H a HHHHHHH El - 0 co 3 z a z 014 014 014 Cu a 014 w U rC FC O O O >'>+ a W 0 w JB � 0000000 • 01L4�01�y44 xxx ww U) >1 W w 0 IX En I-1 l ga a EEEEEEE>4 x HHH ,. 0 0 0 U) CO 01l 011 al UA CO P0al011011a1011W U U C.)C.) UUU UU U U * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * U1 00 V.VV Co C0 00 COMH LOW V'H CO Ul N LO LO N CO CO Co CO d'CON 0000 000 MM 00 E 01 0 0 H H [r V' 0 0 H CO 0 CO CO Or[ H 0 CO M VW N UU1 'M LO I 0 l0 U1 0 0 0 0 0 U1 U1 U1 M M H 00 V'V' 1010 00 HU1N .4..4, COHCO V401NNU) MM HH UIMCO 0000 UONCO in U1 MM 0 l0 00 MM 00 00 H010 MM U1 NHU1NOH0 LOlo Co CO NCo0 If)U1 U1 U1 IO ION 1010 1.0111 V? (N N H H l0 l0 O 0 U1 V'H Lt t? L?V)-H q.0-4/1-N V1•U1 01 01 Co Co H L}N V'V'V'm V1-in l0 M m m m in-r.0- 4/}CA- L} i/? t? t?V? Lf VT Vf L?V} V}V} H H H H H 0 N U1 U1 H l0 l0 H H ."l. V!i? V-V- Ul H LO H H L1- V}V} VT Ill- 0 ?0 in-H H CO-V! W if,- I x a U w H co W 01 01 01 01 0)0) 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 CA O1 H E O o o O o0 0 0000000 O o 00 000 0o O o 0 4 \ ▪ \ \ �\ \���\., \ \\ \\\ \\ Cr) A N (N N N N N N NNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N NJ H H H H H H H HHHHHHH H H H H H H H H H H H .Y. 0 00 CO• CO CO CO CO CO Co CO CO CO CO CO CO Co Co Co CO Co Co Co CO CO CO CO U W 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 01 01 CA 01 O1 01 CA CA 01 CA 01 CA 01 01 lx) x 01 01 01 01 0101 O1 0101010/01 0101 CA 01 01 O1 01 01 0\ 01 01 O1 01 U 0 H H H H HH H HHHHHHH H H Hr-I HHH HH H H 0 0-i Z O H N m V' U1 l0 N Co 01 0 H N m H U) U1 in N in in U1 in U1 N l0 l0 l0 l0 0 A N A N A N A N A (N A N A (N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A Z 0 * O* O* 0* O * O * 0* O * o* O* O * O * O * 0* 0* 0 x V WV WV WV WV l0 V WV l0 V 1/40 V U) V l0 V l0 V l0 V WV WV U 0 M N RI a I-1 X xx]CX x xxxx xxxx xxxxxxx x X x X x x x 0 0000 0 0000 0000 0000000 0 00 0 00 O O 0 X x W OW 04 z 0 z W U H W 0 H H H H HHHHHHH N M M N a' 0 N on al H V' LU Ln Ln U) 0000000 0 00 N CO N N 0 TV 0101 V)CA O 000101 M 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 P) M m m d•.t' LO N 01 Z c CO 01 0 O M N N N N M M M M 10 V)VD X 10 10 10 tp W t0 N S N H 'o 10 H 0 M L•1 TV d' TV 0 0 0 0 H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 H CO f 1 Cl 0 0 CO HHHH H TV TV Tr TV HHHH 0000000 O 00 al HH H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 H H 0 0 0 El H HHHH H TV II L1 cr HHHH M M M M MMM d' d'Ln a0 000 H 0) 01 'Z.x N NNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M 0 0 N Cl N `.�W TV d'c)'d'd' d1 d•d'W d' d1 V1 TV TV V1 VV Tr d'd1 W d' d' d•d' Tr N N N Tr V• 0W I 1111 1 1111 lilt 1111111 I 11 I 11 1 1 1 OX H mm MM N HWHLn HHHH HN OD d•H0 M 1.0 r-1 f` MM 0 H H Up a0 NNNN Cl HNTrN Ml MH COCOHNNMU) Ln Nd. N HH TV TV CO g4 H Trd•d'.f' r Md'crto HHMcr HHMMd'lOr' L- 'V'd' W Olin co Tr H O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 01 0 0 z H ww z 0 0 H UU zU U U gg a Z m Cn cn c0 m U) i Q 0)CO U)U) z x x W H rH O w WWWW w Z Z WWWW Z z xa co a M H H HHHH H W W N HHHH N N 3 D rt0 E-, a as as 1-1 E-,E4 El as as E-, E4 w U)U) yi 0 in a a as as a ZZ Z as as EAElEiEiE-HEl Z Z U g4 x EA H H a a a a a a H H H a a a a ZZZZZZZ H H H1 1 a U z x A 44 FC HHHHHHH 4 Kt > U) H U U] mC)U)U) U) XXNZ U)U)upu) 41 44444 X XN x Eii W \EKt co En Ch XXZZXX U) W HH C9 W X 01 W C7 C7 C7(7 C7 C9 H H H EiU' C7 C7 C7 Ei EA H U) X X f U 01 0 Z zzzz Z Z z zzzz 0000000 z zA oda 4Z 0 H H HHHH H WW W HHHH ZZZZZZZ W W >I WW x W Z I H E ElEiEi H £X X EiHEiH HHHHHHH X X4 El as 0 x H O FC Kt 4 4 4 4 aaaa Kt 444 AAAAAAA a ax H W A W x x M C4 x HHUH xxx a as 1-]a a as H HO 1-1 CDC7 • 04 I-1 A W WWWW W 333 WWWW HHHHHHH p xx H 00 0 Z H 1 a aaaa a 0101P1 Or aaaa tp::::0 7 a O1w H 1- 0 0 D 0 O OOOO O WWXW 0000 00a4U)a1U)o00o w wX x 0400 U U o0 U 0 Z 51 UUUU Cl)0H 4-1 HHHH °x zzzz Cl) 0 a 0000 00-�01-�0I�- W U 0000 HHHH ZZZZ H 00 0000 W EIEIElEI HHHH • • • • • • • (7 Z .1 Enu)opU) EA 44 4 FC XXXXXXX O HH FC KC FC Kt KC w c4 a x fn En En U) 00 a Ei EA C7 U O4 x 0000 XXXX wwwwwww U) C)L) O UU Z H O 01,s U aaaa wwww C7 C9 C7 C7CDC00 w Z FC 14 H Z z xxxx HEIfiEi xxxxxxx a fn U) x ax x x w zzzz 0 0000 wfnmfn 0000000 x E4 E4 U E-,E-1 x U w a 0000 U UUUU 4y+,4yi wIll wwwww i) 10 x w ZZ 0 w 4 cnU)U)U) U)U)Cil U) C7 C7 C7 C7C7C7C7 x gig U) x x x x x O4 A4 O4 x U a s H 0 0 00 Ei o yi W z A W W 9 Ei Ei E-1Ei Ei Ei E-,E-, H H H H H H H W W a U)U) 0 H N .a rC x C7 C7 C9 C7 a a a H HHHH a W W W W W W W W H H Z 0 0 z W U) a xxxx HHHH NNNNNNN .-1 p',3 W 00 U) z CQ U) w[t.fs.flll x wwww 0000 0000000 a zZ W WW Z W 1"'{ 1-1 X X X X 4 4 4 I HHHHHHH .7 W W x a W A 0 W W W W W W W W W WW0404 WW 04 04040404 W C7 C7 U' CDC7 x x 4, -K 44 ie is is * * is # is # HH ONO H rt` N N r 0)0 tO M(ISO) N Lo CO M 0000 00 0100) 0000 000 00 00 ZSly NI-L-HO d•W N1�0010 NLf1L(1NLf1 HHNH UIOOH o0 00101 NN 14lLn0 roto 00 0 7 00 co co L-01L,(NI 00 O,pMH0 LONNLOL- 01 VD L110101 M cOTr 0)01 CO OD lO 00 00d.00 00 Lc,LI) H 0 NN 01HOD010 crcr lDCOCO I.5 ODr-r-00H LOLf1Mf*1 HH1-01 MM HN d. 00 HHN SN .4.,r H L}i? S N d1 N O V)-L? 01 N iI)i?r t?H H Lf in In N C`H M N N 0) in-co. +/)-N N H H t/T i/I•CO- 10 10 /)-U) N .i?.4/1-01- . i?L} t/? i/?t/? {/} {?i/?i/?t/}i/f in} t?L} iI i/f 4/1- U NH � �� W N M U W H U) W 01 0/01010/ 01 0)010101 C0 CA 0101 01010101010101 01 0)01 01 0101 0l al al H H o 0000 0 0000 0000 0000000 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 4 ���.„ ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, �„, W 0 N NNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C4 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H C+4 \ \\\\ \ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ :l, U 0D CO 00 00 0 CO CO 00 0 CO O a0 CO CO a0 a0 CO a0 OD a)CO 0 CO CO OD a0 a0 CO CO O U W 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 01 01 01 01 01 01 W x 0) 010/0/01 01 0)010101 0)010101 01010101010101 01 0101 al 0101 al 01 01 U U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HHHHHHH H H H H H H H H H 0 ra Zi [N L() l0 N. CO 0) O H N M d. Ln t0 H LO t0 l0 l0 l0 t0 N S S N N N. S U o4 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N Z U 0# 0 K 0 K 0 is 0 K O K 0 KK 0 K O 4, O K O* 0 K O Ox to V L0 V l0 V lfl V l0 V l0 V l0 V 1.0 V l0 V lfl V t0 V lfl V 1.0 U U Tr a) t) ro a a Mxxxxxxxxxxx x X x x x xxxxxx X x x x x 0000000 0000 0 00 0 0 0 000000 00 0 0 0 0 X x W 0 co aX M z 0 z riM W NN0\0\ E-'H U NI�MM H ulU1 H Wd'd'd'd'd'cN MM riH N HH 00 to M NNNNNN 00 01 01 UI O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H N N a1 A A N N a N N N N N N M M N N N 0 M M M M M M M O O O O O N M N M M M M M M N cN m M N CO Z W101010/011)10 '4'd'd'd' N Cao W L L Ul to toto to to t0 MUl to to 10 10 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N H H 0 0 O\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M O 0 O O 0000000 HHHH CO E-A El 0 0 0 000000 H H 0 0 0 0 0000000 in UI U)U) 0 00 0 0 0 000000 00 0 0 t` 0 H MMMMMMM HriHH H MM in H H ri ri riHHH HH v' M N H za NNNNNNN NNNN N d'd' M d' N mcnrnmmM NN N d' d' M `J W d'd'd'd'd'd'd' W W d'd' d' cP d' d' d' d' V'd'W W d'cM N N d' d' M d' 0 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I i I I OX cl Tr,4 v CD01 W d'd'd'd' H Nd' H aD H LC)Ht0LI)O r-i 00 H H 0 H U 0 a0a0NNMUlUl NNNN H CP•41. M U) Tr Nt0NMUIUI W d' H O\ N M 4Z H H M M t0 N N d'd'd'cM Cl) d'ct' M Cl) d' Hr-1101/401.04.0 CO CO Cl) H a0 m 0000000 0000 0 a)a) 0 0 0 00totototo aa) o o N 0 U]W cn 00 0 W W U)cn of c I U)U) W CO Cl) zz WWWWWW U W FC FC C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Wz rC U Z w a s Z M HHHHHH a s .] H H 0 W as H W »»C>C, ww Z .] CO H H W W x H aaawC4C4 RC RC W W co a E. E0awwwwwww u) E-'HE EA EA a c) H ncncicilca /44 Z M H Cl) H H ZZZZZZZ a H H a a a s H H H I:4 HHHHHHH p XX c0 '.D a as.1.1 r.t X H a U Kt Kt r.g F4Ft4Ft M D U) 4FC44Ft4 41 1.13 X > 4 co co ZZXXXXX AA a ZZZZZZ ()C9 A H Z 0\ W UlUIUIU] 0 WW 0 000000 cx Z H U 00 a\ Cl 000000 0 a a a Z H E-. C) Z HHHHHH 4 4 H ZZZZZZZ 4444 H 4 a' z Ul H En(a u)ch CAC) M G] 4 FC Cl) i HHHHHHH HHHH El ZiZ H 0 Et cc)cc)UIUIUIUI UU X 'Z, U) 0 AAAAAAA aaao4 FC C7 C7 E' rC WWWWWW a 0 x W LI as a a a as WWWW Ix HH Z N wwwwww • • H H El w O HHHHHHH E.EHE-I WUI UI H z W 000000 00 0 Ul x 0 0000000 444 a 41 41 P w a c>:n:atxaX 01 w 0 a a) cow al oo al aow XXXX 0 AA a P 0 aaa a as UU W 0 >t a 0 O AA AN AAA EA EA EA W 00 0 LY(xodaaQi fx NN N 0 xxxxxx 4 rN t` Z UUUUUUH A 4 ZZZZZZo» HH Ei 4 >-' O Et)ul uw >>»» AA z a R U U U U z A A H a w gggggg W W FC U0l W W z z z z W z H 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X E. P W H 0000000 HHHH U 41-1 r7 0 0 00 Ul W ,:i.. 0000000 00 0 Cl) x '.MLt1cScol 41LS xx A xxxxxxx E,�i�-lE,�ia7 xx x a 0 >i>4>4>4>4>+ Z 4 CCD c0rlc0»c0rlc0nc0rlc0»c0n c�nu�iU�iU�i X cUrlai cogoa wwwwww 22 w ca up H xxxxxxx HHHH H 41 0 HH H h X01 DI xx`X`XX 41 41 xx X X X C4 C34 x C.G is lc # is is i1 # tc is is is * is Oto N O 1.0 a0 d'0 N N CO to OD O\O\ 000 00 00 01 O\ N ri ri ct'O ctc N 000 t0 10 00 00 00 Et O U)to ri O N N O\ O CO ct'OM ri H 000 Ul U) 00 00 CO UI a0 t0 UI O\N 000 00 00 00 00 CO U)NtOO O\O\H M 0HMao NN a\d'M NN 00 CO OD CO h NI's NaDa0 000 r-I r1 00 CO CO tOto 0 O\N d'CO d'a0 OD a0 t0 N M d'U) N N t`U)M tO tO Ul U) Cl)M UI Cl)03 Cl)N H Ul U)U)0 d'd' 0 0 r1 ri M M XN t?LTL?t?�L}a0 ri O\N O\a\ Cl)w co i/1-4/1- w w ri ri ri O\w to-un Tv UI w al i?� U)U) v)-4.o- O\CA t? t/} in.t?i/}t? . Cl)-Cl)- t/}Cl)- t/}Cl). Cl)- . t/}t/} . t/}Cl)t/} H H H N MN N NN r♦rI .^4 t/} 19 t?10 Cl)-H H M M Cl)-VI- C) ?U Cl)- t/} t? 4/1- Cl)-t/} W M X 0 W E. Ul W 01 a\0\0\0\0\0\ O\a\a\O\ a1 al a) a\ O\ a) a\a\a)a)a)a\ a)a) al a\ a\ al H el 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 O 4 \\\\\\\ \\\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \\ \ \ \ \ W 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0•.' HHHHHHH HHHH H H H H H H HHHHHH H H H H H H 4 U a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 CO a0 a0 a0 a) OD a)a) a) a) a0 a0 a0 a0 a)a0 a0 CO a) a) a0 a0 a) U Ix) Ch Ch 01 Ch CA CA a) a)a\rnrn rn a)o) al rn a) rnrno\rnrno\ c)a) a) a) a) ch W x a\a\a\rn el 0\0\ 0\0\a\CA al 0\O\ a\ 0\ 0\ al a\T a\a\a\ a)O\ a) a) 0\ 0\ x U HrA riH r♦H ri ra r4 1-4 ri H HH ri ri H H H H r-tHH HH H H H H U 0 I-1 Z 10 N CO 01 0 H N Cl) ct' Ut to N ao H N N N N CO 00 a0 a) a) a0 a0 a0 co U N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A Z U O * o is 041 0 4 04 0i 04s 0 41 0 i 0 * 0i 0 lc 0i • w 10 V 10 V t0 V to V 10V 10V 1.01/ 10 V 10 V 10V 1.01/ 10V t0 V 0 x U U U a) rn as a a xxx x x x xxxxx x x x 44x4 xxx x x xxxxxxx 000 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0000 000 0 0 0000000 X 14 w oU) ax z 0 z w a0 V'V'V'V' Co 0 O1 N N N N N m Ht.c. NNNNN O N H 0000 HHH 01 H NNNNNNN 0 0 0) 00000 M 1- Co HHHH MMM W N OD a0 Co 0 CO OD Co U)U)V' M M • MMMMM M V N 0101010) MMM W N NNNNNNN `l-. M M 0 10 01 'J W l0 l0 t0 0 rD 0 1.0 N N N N rO W t0 U) o1 tO tO 1.0 tO 10 tO tO H M M N 0 tO 0 00000 0 H O HHHH 000 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO W W 0 M Z 00000 0 H 0 4.4444 It. 000 H t0 0000000 000 0 0 0 00000 0 0 U) 0000 000 0 0 HHHHHHH H HHU) M H H HHHHH 00 M N HHHH V'HU1 V' H NNNNNNN Z 14 N N N N CO M MMMMM M N H M M M M N N N N N M MMMMM M 7 W V'W V' V' V' V' V'V'V'V'V' V' V' N V'V'V'V' V'V'V' W V' V'V'V'V V V'W 0 CQ 1 i 1 I I I mil 1 I I i i i a I I I I I IIIIIII UX HHH t0 o H HHHHH t0 H N MU)a001 HHH U) H HOM V'U)a001 U'A N N V' N N to NN H N U) N 00 H M U)M U) N V'V N U) H U)M M U)M U) 4Z V'to V' to V' M H H M V'N tO H 01 tO tO t0 t0 Cl V'd• t0 N V•t0 t0 t0 tO tO t0 O O O 0 01 0 00000 0 0 0 W t0 to tO 000 0 0 0 W t0 to tO t0 W C!) m EUUUU] UU]mm W W W W WEll WEll W WWWEll U U — U U UUUUU UUUU 'z U)Ul H H HHHHH W HHHH dam U] H 0 WW > > >> a >>>> ZW Z W 14 14 1414 14 1414 w 14 1414 WH w 14 H H HH w w wwwww w FC wwww Ha H a to a a s H m m m m m m m U H >1 m m m m Z a Z a H H 00 H a a 00 41-10 H Z a 0000 �o H 3 U cUw KC g 4 KC4g444 14 r•C 4g4r•Ca Xmw Z m oD m m Z Z Z ZZZZZ W X m ZZZZ m 0) W OOH 0 0 00000 m W 0000 H(OH H 0 WWWWWWW 01 A ZZA 0 H H HHHHH 0 .'D HHHH ZZ Z Z ZZZZZZZ H HHZ Z m Cl) MMMMM >+ Z A MUMU WH z W H 0000000 HH H m m mmmmm H H mmmmH H xxxxxxx U ��x 0 w w wwwww H A Z wwww 044Ma 4as a a a as w 00 a w w wwwww a a o wwww H14U HF� 14 wwwwwww A W W 14 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H 0 0 0 0 D W 14 X 111 a a a a a a a M aaw x 14 14 1414141414 H x z 14141414 00,al a Cu wwwwwww ooX M a Cl.. 1414141414 U) 0 14141414 WOZ W 0 HHHHHHH 0 U 0000 z ZZZZ mUmmmmm H HHHH zzzzzzz 0000000 HHHHHHH ZZZ U 14 0 14141414 HHHHHHH HHH W cy W 41 41g4g4444g4g4 O H H H z H o a Z m mmmm U 0000000 A ZZZ H 14 14 00000 \ H HHHH W HZZZZZZ Z WWW H ZZZZZ 4 m mmmm pD D W x z x 04(34134 14 U 14 HHHHH 14 wwww m m m 0 F4 X X Z Z Z X Z w w (X 0 0 w >> 14 �> HHH 0 000 X W H EEEEE m o m HHHH 444 H W 0000000 aaa x Cl) 00000 a aaa Cl) 1 www a 14 H UUUUU C7 w 4 mmmU H 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 �jw '0 zz7zzzzzz zzw a wF. >-1>+>4>I 141414 A Wwwwwww QQAQ 0000 000 Z H 4 0 HHHHH H Z Z 0000 000 H rt WWWWWWW aaa a X X XXXXX X X X X ZZ XXX X Z ZZZZ M V'o N V'V' 00 00 tD tO N to tO tD U)U) NN 00 01 V'N 00 001 Tr el U)L) 0101 1-000000 01o)t0 W )0 v) 00 00 1400 M OD ODIC NN un un 00 U1M000 cr O1-N 0)0) un un 0000000 tO 10 N t0 O O H H O O U)U)O U)U)M 1.0 t0 H H V'V' 1-H a)M O U)U)U)1.0 01 01 N N U)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H O M t0 1.0 H H 0 O 4n-V).V•V};/).1.0 N N OD CO 01 01 co O M N U) co U)V'OD H H 0)0l U)0 U)U)U)U)U) M-M M M 4/1.4/1- NN SS V} Lf 4/Hi} V}VT MM H t0 N N N M41)-NW 4/ V} HH L?H L}V}V}V?Vf M-V} V}V? V)-M- .V)-V?VT . V} M-0. i? 4 in-in-NH M HH U W X 14 U W H m W 0)0)0) 01 01 0) 0)0)0)0)0) 01 0) 0) 0)010101 0)0)0) 01 0) 0)0)0)0)0)0)0) H H 000 O OO 00000 0 O O 0000 000 O O 0000000 CO 4 \\\ \ \ \ \\\\\ \ \ \ ----,--.......„---..... \\\ \ \ \\\\\\\ W A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNN 14 H H H H H H HHHHH H H H HHHH H H H H H HHHHHHH .''�. U 1400 Co 140 140 OD 0)0 a000 CO 0 CO 0000 Co a00)0) Co 00 000)a00000)W U W 0)0)0) of 0) 01 0101010101 0) 0) 0) 0)0)0)0) 0)0)0) (3) 01 0)010101010101 . III x 0)0)0) 01 0) 0) 0101010101 (3) 0) 0) 0)0)0)0) 0)0)0) 0) 0) 01010101010101 U0 H H H H H H HHHHH H H H HHHH H H H H H HHHHHHH 0 a Z 0) o H N M V' U) to N co 01 0 H H CO () 0) 0) O1 0) 0). of of 0) of O O U Y N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A M A M Z U 0 * 0* 0* 0* 0 * 0* 0* 0* 0 * 0 * 0 * 0* 0 OW.T. t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V Loy t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 U U v tli 1a a a M x x xxx x M M x x x x x x x x M 00 0 0 000 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 X x W om az z 0 z W H U V• 0 LID H M co I V' 0) in N FC N N 0 M V' H a0 In U)H O o 0 0 a) O(NI 1-1 0 a)aD I M H H M M H a0 m M • > N M W N CO LI)UO CO N N N V' M V' m M m M N m M N Z to U0 UO l0 V'In U) U) U)VD 0 N 1/40 ,••I U) 1.0 UO U) 0 UO 1.0 a) H 0 0 CO 0 M M M 0 0 0 CO a0 0 H O O O O a0 O 0 LI) 0 O H 0 H H H 0 0 0 01 01 0 Fj 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 H 00 0 0 000 N 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 00 H a0 CO H H H H H N H H H H H r-1 H M CO CO V' CO d'd' Z RS M M N M N N N V'CV M M M M M N In N N N In N N W V'V' N N. N N N CO W V• V'd' V' V' V' d' d' V' V' d' V'V' O 01 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O NN O H OOO H r11I l0M rI H H 01a) H , I Ln , IrI U N N 'q' M N.V'V' 0 M H N a) l0 H d' In N N H Ln H N 4 Z V'V' OD H OD CO CO a0 M N v0 1-1 H CO V' U0 U0 M CO U0 M CO 0 O 0) O 01 01 01 N O 0 UO 0 0 0 0 U0 0 0 0 U0 0 0 CO CO U) CO CO U) Cl) W W W W W W W W W W 0 0 0 W 0 WWW 00 00 0 0 Z. ,.a H aaa HH HH H H CO H 0 CO > 01fAa0 >> >> > > W Z, zZ M H FC IX 1 FC FC M a'a' Cx C4 RS M H W W W H W W >' W 7+>1>+ W W W W W W W 1.1 H H H LI'1 Cl, 00 FC CI) 444 H U)M u)Ca Ul Ul Cl, H El Z ZZ H H H H Cl aaa H a Z Z H H I--I U a� W ,0 WWW > 4� I-1 ' UU1 H FC 4 X Z XX CO U) W W 0 Z 000 I-i ZZ ZZ Z Z Z 01 W UIUI 0 MM04 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W H W H H 0) Q H FC FC FC U HH HH H H Z Z 0 0 Z X ZZ H >4'Ji x Cf) xxx IC Ul U) Cf)0) CO U] H W Z Z W W W W 1 H H U Ul U U U U]CO UI UI Ul Ul H > H H Z > X X 'J H H W x W W W W W Cr) 0 Q 0 Cl' 0 as I] Q.•7 • W H CLI W W W W Cr., C ,--1 , H a' H H Q HH 0 0 000 '.3 00 00 0 0 W Cl, H H x a MM 1 HH 040 M 1:4 C4 x x a Z 01 x as 01 Px 0 a 000 >1 as as Cl, Cl, 0 H 00 W W H WW 0 W U) H H U FC a z U)UlM MM H 000 HH CU U Z CO R.' FC xxx T� W W Cx P4 Z Z Z U Ul G4 CL. O x ZZz F1 0U WW H 0 Z HH Al 0 Cl' 000 co Z 0 0 Ul 0 H as Z H FC Ul CO Ul Q Q Q Ul Ul W W ,-a H H0' W W W > H aaa CO W W CO CO H 0 W 't7 a z W 03x U > FC Cn XXX XX WW 0 3 `«74, H H 3 W 0)0) Q 000 x XX 0 I-1 C.) H 0 0 O xxx 0 UU W Ul WFC (II H 00 El ,-1 HH ZZ CO 0 q 0W W z 00 z W zz HH Z a a: W x a w Cr) '.Z,'Z.,'Z., H I I x x H 0 z0 FC x H H as 0 4 axa (0(� IXXx HEU-' a M 51 U CO CO qa X 00 �1 = I� pc14, 4 Q W hi) W H H H 0 0 U ZZ Z X 000 a as as a a a x rx x (:4 CO CO CO K # K # « i1 # K * K K * i, # K K N NH0 00 LI)Ln 0000 00 000 000 NN 00 H H In In 00 a)CO 01 ON C.-C.- 0U0 H 0 N M In o 0 N N 0000 O O Ln O Ln Ln o In a0 a0 O O O O UO UO O O 00 a0 .4..4. N N V N Ln N a)Ln O O HH 0000 UO UO 01 Ln V' N O N V'V' 00 HH 00 00 Loin In Ln In In Ln ri O 0 H 0000 Ln In 010, L(1 U)Ln Ln 4.0-4/1- 0HN N 0 N a00o NN N.V N N O0 1/40 U0 H H 0)01 HN X w HLf H ?ii? V'V'V'M i?H 0)Ln H H NN 00 H H NNn HH co a) 0I +/? i? i/} i?i? i?i/}41)- .. in. i? i?i? i?i? i/?in- i?i? -i/} H r--H01 'V'V' HH UO U0 NN H ^1 i/? t/1•i/}4? 4/)-i/} i?i? N N i?i? 41)- O 413-V} W X C4 0 W H Ul W 01 01 0) 01 01 01 0) 0) 01 01 01 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 01 H H O O O 0 o 0 o O O O O O O 0 o 0 o O O O 0 0 O 4 \\ \ \ \\\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ W Q N N N N NNN N N N N N (N N (N N N - N N (N N N x H H H H H H,--I H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H \\ \ \ \\\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ .''�. U CO a) a0 a0 a0 a)a) a) a)a0 a0 a) a0 a) a) a0 a) a) a) a0 a0 OD O W 0)0) 0) 0) 0)0)0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 0) 0) 01 0) 01 01 01 01 CL) x 0\01 0) 0) 0)01 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 01 0) M 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H U 0 I-] Z N M V' Ln UO N a0 01 0 H N M V' in UO N H O O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H O x A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A MA MA MA MA MA MA MA M U K 0 K O* 0 * 0 i1 O# 0 i1 O i1 O 11 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0 O V l0 V l0 V l0 V In V l0 V UO V UO V l0 V UO v l0 V WV l0 V l0 V l0 V WV UO U U . a) M a a 4 0 xxxxxx Z x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxXZZXX x XX x x 000000 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000 0 00 0 0 X x W om az I Z 0 Z W N o 0 H WN W O)ON i H N co M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co Tr NN O\ 0 0 co co COW 0101 CO 01 H M HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H 0)0) M Tr > N N N N N M H N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M NN m M Z w w O 0U)m I W to U) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 U)10 10 10 10 10 W VD 10 10 10 10 V) 10 10 H 000000 H 0 0 0 00000000000000000 0 00 0 0 000000 O1 O O O 00000000000000000 O O O O 0 000000 O 0 U) O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M 0 HO O O H HHHHHH M U) H 0 OD CO WWWWWW W W W CO Wap WN N N NN H O a' M M M M M M CO N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M o 0 W O 10 M N W d'd'd'V�d'el, d' W .7, N w Tr w Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr w w w w w Tr N N M N M w N Om ill Iii I I ) I u111111111I 1 I t III I It I I U I HHHHHH H H Tr O H N H H TrH HN N Tr WON M WMM 0 HH H O U NNHHHM N cr N TP o000HNNU)NNNNN M U)U)U)HH M 00 H Tr K. Tr Tr V'MmM Tr Tr Tr co HH M M M 01'LP Tr 10101010NNN 0101 N 00 M 00 000000 0) 0 0 01 CD CD 000000000000000 0) ON 01 0 01 mmmmmm m W W W W W W W UUUUUU 0 Z HHHHHH H M FA a- wwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW w a w m 0000000000000000 W Cl) m 1 rA H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 m4444H >>>>>9D>>>>>>Um 4 F 0 'i0 44 W KC rxaxarxarxrxaxxxxxaWrx Z 00 Kt FC CO mZZZZZZ Z m a WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW H W WZ0Z a W 000000 W H m mmcnmmCnmmmmcnmmmUZH 4 041 C4 aZZ 0 Q1 fl HHHHHH X 0 a m H CO H mmmmmm W Z4 H >+ 5+>4N>i>45+>+>+>45+>47+>+UX 0 .l m H ' m m m m m m > 4 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H O 0 m H 0 W W W W W W 0 x RS Cil HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHC4C4 X PW W CO W 44w44w4.44 rx U W 0 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aWW x U 44 0 0 000000 a P: H a H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 W m 0 a of a a a a a a X X X A E-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 al A X a 0 0 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XX XXXXZXXXXXXXZXXXX X XX 00000000000000000 0 00 00 00000000000000000 0 00 0 cn a a a a a a a a a a a a a as a s a as rxaarxarx a Z Cl) HHHHHHHHHHHHHHF�HHH H HH R1 R1 R1 124 c4 R1U)U)4 r4 1:4 R.Ell Z H RC .'7- 0IDID'.7I- IDIDIDI'a'a.'�- IID0 0 .ti- 'J_ 04 000000 ",..)' H ;-1 >A 00000000000000000 U 00 0 0 McncOmmm Cl) W W HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H HH Z W R1 444444 aa a0o ax a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a.-]a ID0IDIDIDIDAAIDI � aA as0 H FC waaaa0 IDOID0ID � 0o D HHHHHH H f=. 0 M a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a as H rx 000000 0 W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W WW W . UUUUUU U W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W WW W a a a a a a a a a a a CUIIDICU a as a 0 HHHHHH H 0 0 0 00000000000000000 0 00 0 IX 000000 0 4 44gxggggg gg� g:�� 4 44 x H 000000 0 p 000000 0 U) U m m m m m m m x m x x m m m mm x mmmmmm m Cl) U) Cl) mmm CO CO CO co co Ul Ul co U)U)co co mm cn En Cl) En * * * * * * * * * * * 10 N v 01 m N Tr m w[r coo) mm 0 0 M O N N N Tr Tr U)U)N 01 N U1 N U)O o Tr NN 000 0 0 00 ZH HMHOHa)U WW NN NN 00 Oa)U01H0)U)U)NWNOUN1000C 0)0) 000 00 00 ID N M011010010 W r-r- un U1 HH 00 CA N0W NO1011001 Tr W10 MU)U)ONN 101O OHH 00 LOU) 0 CO N V'01 CO OHO LOU) MM NN 00 N cr U)O Ty.M 10 H OH Tr Tr W OU)10 TPcr 00101 W W NN U) r-r-0110 W r-r- Tryr i?i? LOU) LOU) H M M Tr 0)i?co TrHL}H i/-NW 0U)NCs 00 055 LTi? MM L}m-L}i?v).m- . . . i?i? .41)i?i?i/} i/} .40- i/} i/} . 5if/in- vi x W W NN H H MNW MM HH U)o U) 'LP Tr Z U ?t? L? in- V)-4.0-M LT U) V}i? N H M H H Hi?H W M- i/} i? M.- r4 )P4 U W H Ch W 0)0101010101 01 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 CAM 0) 0) H H 000000 O o 0 0 00000000000000000 0 00 0 0 C7 KC \\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \ W 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N r4 HHHHHH H H H H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H HH H H U W 010101010101 0) 0) 0) 01 01 0)0)01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 0)01 01 0) 01 0) 01 0) W AC 010101010101 0) 0) m 0l CO 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 CO 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 0)0) 0) 0) UU HHHHHH H H H H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHH H . H 0 a Z co 0) o H N w U) 10 N W H H H N N N N N N N N U A r`') A M A M A M A MA M A M A M A M A M A E; 0 * 0 * O* O* O* O* 0 * O* O * O* O 0 V 10 V l0 V to V 10 V 10 V LO V U1 V l0 V U) V U) V O 0 OD+ w rn rt a a M xxxxx M M x x x M x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0 00000 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 0000000000000000000 Z x W om aI z z 0 2 w U H HNM VI W In U) in Tr t0 HN 1N 00000000000000 CO OD OO OD 000cO 00O O LO dl cr dl dl W HH 0101 H M 01 co co H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH > N M 01010101 M M N N M 0,0 N 0 0 Cl M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 2 H W l0 VO t0%.O l0'.O t0 LO tO N N cr d' t0 tO W W W LO VO tO V0 W0 l0 tO l0 W VO LO VO l0 tO t0 H 01 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 Cl M 0 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O O O O O O O 0 O H tO 01 01 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 O In O O O O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HHHHH 1.11 LO 111111 Cl H W in Lc) H NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Z l (N 0101010101 M M M M dI N N M M N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W .7 -W d'W cf.dI .7 d' dI d. W N dI dI dI Tr Sr Sr Sr W VI V'd'W dI dI dI dI.7.7 sN W W VI V' OCA 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 11 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U X H H H H H O H H H H H O tO HH M H H M H H H N H N H H H w H H H H M 11 U dI 01toHHt0 M01 to U1 N dI N MM In HNNMU1NNO0001HNNMHNUlU1to Fr;,'Z.. VI N1(-MCI.tO HH fit` H 00 v MM N HHHHHHHHHHMMMM W W lststs O 0 0 0 0 tO O 0 0 0 O 01 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z 0 H H Cl) FC W W U U Z CO Cn m H Cn Cn Z Z Z Z H a Z Z CO H 0 W WW941W HH HH CO CU 2 HH W M H H HHCHH M M '.7F4 W xx H •• H 4 aawaa En u) u)En a >4 H cnu) a In a a aacnaa HH HH \ 4 2 HH a H H a as as 014 as w a H 1-70 a U Cl) En En IG En CO I'7 17 D 0 W Z M D m co CO Z as as H C7 as m W 0 0000(5 \\ \\ H H \\ C7 ria Ell WWWWEll WWEll WWEll WWWEll WW 01 0 2 ZZHZZ 00 00 a Z 0C7 2 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz HH HHEn HH HH HH (x U X HH H xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ') 4 44U)Il 4 HH HH U a HH FC a a a a a a a Cu a a a a a a a a a as s7 O: C4c4GL.C4c4 22 Z Cl) • H ZZ C>+ WWWWWWWEll Ell WWWEll WEll WEll WEll O W WWOWW HH HH CO 0 .7- HH W a a a a a a a a a a a a a.1.1 .al-11-1.-1 1 a al,ooCil o r4 C4 iX(X 01 C4'C4 a WWWWWWWWWWEll WEll Ell wWEll Ell Ell GI 0 000,00 as as cn 0 w as O HHHHHHHHE-FHHHHHHHHHH 0 U Z H 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z 01 01 01 01 01 HH H H H H C# IX WWwwW �a�a �a�a �a a co zz 0 P:IX 14P41:4 CA POWal m W W HH ( U 00000 as xx a 0 (X O HHHHH pp 7.7 p 1.1 H Cnd) A Cl) u1Ulu]ulm �Wa ]] xH H HH 0 ZXZ X XX XXXXX XX W 0 C9C7000 U]C! MU) Cl) CO U) M U 0000000000000000000 > 0 ����� >1 0,a 000000UUUUU00000000 H AQAAA W W W W CO H CDL9 C9 EnODCHn CCOO CCOO EA CCOCHn CHn CHn CHn CHn CHn CHn CHn CHn EnHn CHn CHn CHn En CD �W+�W+�gW+�Wi}gW1 W 33333.33333333333333 z zzzz i 00 00 O H H WW x UUEnCOEnEAU]U1cnEnEnU]CU1U]cnU]U]U] Cl) co cocnUOtn LOCO C CO CO CO CO HH H D D D D 0 0 D D D D0 D 0 0 0 D 0 0 # # # # # is is K K K 0000 Cl 00 N H in dI 00101 000 00 00 00 (-N 01 00 H M tO Cl to CO tO O H t0 to N 000101 Cs N O tO H Sr d' OD Tr Trt000N d'Mt- 000 00 00 cr W OMM tO VD HTr 01Nt Trto OltOtOH 00(-NtoHH 00UoH t0 a VD w LO Cl a Mtn in 0)0 00 N tO OD LO to O O In LO to r-N C`C` N Ul H o CO N Cs N 01 N 01 M Cs 00[r 01 VO In M H 0 MM HL1-1.1 Mt?H OD H 01 Cl to 01 NN to U1 NN NMH cr Tr (NI sr 4A-to co M N M H N N H 0000 Tr m in N too L>L} M. L}- H d'H U1 H LT H L}L? Tr dI L}L} N H d' H H 4/1.L} l)Lf H L}H H L)•N H H L}N N L}H dI 01 4/)- 4/)-CO-L)- L} L)- L}4/)- 4/1-Lf L} L?L} L} CO-Lf L!Lf L} L)-L1- L}L} X V} 0 W C4 0 W H U) W 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 01 01 H H 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q,' \ \\\\\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ -......,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.......-_---- 111 0 N 010104 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cl N N N N N N N N `x H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H X 0 00 00000000 COO 000 OD CO 0,D OO OD CO OD 03 00 OD OD OD 0000 O CO 0000 CO 00CO CO CO 00 0 W 01 0)01 0)01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 04 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 W x 01 010)010101 0101 0101 al of 01 0101 01 01010101010101010\01 CA 0101010101010401 UU H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 a z 01 0 H N Cl dI Lo t0 N 01 H N Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 0x M A M A M A Cl A MA M A MA Cl A MA Cl A 2 0 O K O is 0 is 0 * 0 K O K 0 4K 0 K 0 i' 0 # 0 x t0 V t0 V t0 V tO V tO V t0 V to V t0 V t0 V tO V U U a a) in ca Re a X x x X X X X x x x x x x X XXXXXXXE El a 00 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00000000 0 H X a W 0W a D z 0 z m N W i U w Ul d' H LI110 U) O U) N CO O Md' U)U)U)U1 U)l0 US l01 N 0 1,d, N m NNMM CA O M H H (N > mm Ul H CO CO VDV) N O N U) m m d'd' Mm MMMMMM O N •'7.. U)U) N H N N CO co U) co d• N U) U) H H l0 VO U)UO U)IO IO ID M U) H 0 0 U) W 0 0 0 0 0 M MJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO 0 00 U) CO d..44 did' 0 H H d• O O H H 00000000 H 0 H H 0 0 0000 0 0 0 H U) N 00 00J000000 0 01 El NN H COO1 HHH CO H H U) H N HH MH--1 d'HHHHH H OD `Z' a M M N w M m m m M N N U) N w M M N N N N N N N N N H '.�W d'd' d' d' d'd'd'd' W N N H d' (I d'd' d'Cr d'd'Cr d'd'd' d' N 0 M 1 i i i I l l i I 1 i i i i i i i i i a 1 Ii UX HN H H HHHH M O O H N H HH OOHH r-1HNN Cr H N 00 U)N H H Nml�M d' d' d' O N 0 HM rHN NNcNNMLn d' H 4 z H H CA CO H M ri m ri CO a) O d' a0 d'N on M m Cr d'VO t`� d' CO 00 0 0 0000 0 0) 01 01 0 N 00 00000000 O O U)U] U)U) U]U) W W W W W W W U H 0 Cl]Z HHHH a 0 HH U) cn U)U)U)U) Cl) >>> 01 01 >e> 41 51 WWWEll W a m H H aaaa FC KC Cl) as H WHHHHH H FC H a wwww w >' >i w 41 41 .1E'00000 ,a D U) a a EnU)U)U) 0 FC KC H cnu) Hazaaaaa a ,-7 H aaaaa a ,a FA 0 aaaa > Co ° F. zaHH .aa H 4: 0000 0 w U U) >1 4:4: 4Kt a w w > 4CFC FC U)Xcncnu)cmcn Cl] U a0 U) U z z z z W 0 0 H z z 01 w ww 0 Z 0000 CO a a CO El C)C) CD F.CD 0000 0 x 0, 0 Z Z W HHHH FC RC .-1 U HH OZZZZZZZ Z 0 H 0 0 H 0 U)c)U)m >i x x W FC 4 U]u) Z H W H H H H H H 0 ' X E' Z C l)U]v) H U U z H 01 U) HEAXElEiEaEF. E' O U as FC H WWWW H rC a ]C WW C4KCa'4FCFCFC64 4 H W WW a H CL,4444[x4 ,.a a W H 44 4. as Haa aaa a Cl 1-7 Il W z 0000 H 0 0 0 E. 0 00 HEII414.1414141 W a (4(4 a 0 aaaa El a KC 0 as �a �aa oaaa a H CO EE-' 0 U a aaa 0 U U a X >1 as coow00000 o KC 0 E. X zzzz HHHH COCO 0 CO 0 HH H z H HHHHH Z 0 W E El U H rI4 E.1.,4., 0 H Z U) a 4: 4: 0 U) 4.,444_,(u. H E. H Z a U0 E 0 FC FC FC FC E. U a 0 UU 00000000 a 0 JO U] 00 E''E'E'E. U 0 U) W Z 00000000 0 (II XX KC U)cnmU) 0 a W H HH ,a Z ZZ Z a E a ..a a 33333333 ,-7 00 w ZZZX CO Cl) H a Kt oo XXXXM00XX CW) 0 a WwFr)Ell Z 0 w a cncn E E+ H Cl E4 El H H U 00 Cl) a u)co co U)U)m U)cn W u) x En X z U �- aKta 00000000 0 W W H >1 >'>'>i> H >' a W a' U)U)U)U)U)U)U)U) 0 33 W ,Wa aaaa H CO a a R 0 `�`s 00000000 x EA cul 3 KC 44444 a w w H Z 01 01 44444444 4 H 9 »» > 3 3 3 § 3 3 3 >+>+>+?'>+>I>4>l N FC K K K K K K K K K K K K K K VO VD CA VD VO O O ID OD ID d'd' d'W 0 0 O O m M U)in 0 0 O O O d'r11�ID I0 CO m 0 U) CA CO Cr Cr Zri H N Ifl VD 00 m lfl 0 CO CO 00 00 00 00 U)1,O 00 U)U)O VO O OD N d'N U)OD CO 10 IO U)N ',..) 01N rH in u) OO 01rid'U1 d' NN OO OO NN NN VO VO Ha'IO 01010)01 U)0 m M[- Mm IOU) 0 Od'U) un U1 00 CV r4 M O I.- 0101 00 u)un v..4. ID VD L)-L} NMU) CO-O MHNNMIDO NN ,r v. rH N M V)-L} O O d'N m rH O U)U) U1 Ul d'd' CO CO rH H CO N H H L}H L}H VT i/}U) H H U)U) L?i?L? L?Cl)-L}LT L?i? L)•CO- LT 4/1• . LT L} Lf L? LT 4.0- m m H NN d'd' NN H HH 0 L?L? L). L}L? L}L} L-L} LT L?L)- W x C4 U W E U) W CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CA CO CO CO 01 01 CA 01 O1 CO 01 CO H E1 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 O Cl 4 \\ ' \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\\\\ \ W 0 (NI N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W HH H H HHHH H r1 H H H H HH H H H riHH riri H H ?.C. \\ \ \ \\\\ - S. -\ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\\\\ - \ .">'. 0 a)a) a) a) a0 a0 a)CO 00 OD CO 00 a0 00 CO 00 0 CO CO 00 CO 00 co a0 CO 00 U W CO CA CA CO CO O1 01 01 CO CO CO 01 CO CO CA CO CO CO CO CA CA CA CO CO CO 0) W x 0101 CO CO CO 010101 CO CO CO CO CO CO CA CO CO CA 0101 0101 CA CA 01 CO 0 U HH H H HHHH H H H H H H HH HHHHHHHH ri • H 0 ,-a z 0 H N CO w U1 IO N a) CO O H N M H d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' in Ul in U) U ^� M A M A M A M A MA MA MA MA MA MA M A m A M A M A •7., U O K O K O K O K O K O K O K O K O K O K O K O K O K O K El U) 0 . V U) V 10 V lU) ID U) l0 U) U)0 V V V V V V V l0 V IO V 1.0 V I) V U U 0 H N la) OS RI 4 a fa.aa4 a a as a a a a H H H H H H H H H H H H z L44 W OU) al z O LIN U)ln z www ON CA CA w www CO CO U r-IHH ON ON H N N M w O H HHH CO H H W VD Tr a, co co r N H U) AAA O U) HH 0 0 rn 0 H Tr Cir Cr..[ir M w Lfl U) O O M M. O w U)CO CO 0 LO O H M co co E-r - N a0 co CO N N CO M a) a0 N N zlx l0 HHH H L0 Ml's H H H H M M N N N N M wM N N N N O a1 i 1 I ) I I ) ) t ) ) I UX H NNN NN H HO N N N N FC Z 0 01 01 ON 01 0 N N O) a) a1 O) 01 O O O O ON 00) 0 O 0 0 H H 0 M aS U1 H Z El O(/) M H SCE 4U H M0 W M r4 H -r-I U) UFC zUUHU O Fal 0W0 A a A� mrn z0co rn 41 u z H a AXTJ a zN co o 0 j U Z U m w U 0 a co a)g01 w 04 Un 4-11O U] a'E+ H N m M A H W H M H V O U) N N 01 X OXO w 0 U N inW c4 P W W Z O El 4 4 CEI UUU Ul W W HHH co E a El E, U1 U) o ff 0U0 z 0 33 0 O W HHH W CG HH a H Ea U] CO • H WWW C.4 U ZZ U) 3 3 0 0 O XXX G7 0U0 Q FC H H Z H U WWW FC W COC r:4 U6 X FCU Uwww Z H XX Cu A K K K K K K K K K K 00 Nw0)0 1.010 00 H0r-i 00 NN H Nle (0 El 0 0 U)N 0)l0 CO CO N N ON 0 0) U)U) M M a0 co H H CO • 00 NOwN 0)0) MM U)0U) WW MM 00 NN N 0 00 CO H 00 NN Vf V} m M 10 H H N N t0 V) 40V? U) 0 0 N 0)H CO N N W N aO NN m M U)U) w L?4/).in- - VT i? M-1? MM H a0w N MM U)U) ON • V}t/} L} U)N M H H VI-VT N U H N w V}M. N M V?V.i? H a U 4.0- M H U1 W 01 01 01 0) O) a) O a) 0) O) a) a) H l o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N H HHH H H H H H H H H \ \\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ .Y. U CO a0 CO a0 co a) 0 a0 a) U) co a) U lx] ON 0)01 a1 0) a1 0)a1 0) 0) 0) 0) [J] x a1 a)a1 a1 a1 a1 0)0) O. ON a1 0) • U H HHH H H H r-I H H H H U 0 r] Z w U) w IN a0 O) O H N H U) U) U1 U1 U) U1 10 LO )0 U x M A M A MA M A M A MA MA M A Cr) A Z 00 K 0 K 0 K 0 K 0 K 0 K O K 0 K 0 K W V L0 V 10 V WV )0 V )0 V WV WV )0 V U x U U H a) ro H Ln H CO 01 0, H an 0 In V. 0 l0 W H d' 0 0 H N 0 1.0 N U) M M N O U) N CO M l0 O O U) 01 O r O CO CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l0 N N N N 0 N C) V' 01 O 0 l0 U) N O N M 01 M U) U) 10 M N U) N N U) 01 Ln CO l0 U) Ol U) CO N W V' i/) M 'V' N N i/} H M O m d' l0 N a0 V. V. O H H N 01 01 H H L0 01 N 0- M t? V' N l0 ( lD V' M L} H H N M i? L? i? (? H 4/)- V. CA- i/? N (/} 4/1- t? EH H CA 0 H DE+ E-+ 0 H H Z Z C4 1-1 a H H Z X Z H W H H w DI Z 4 w U x W 0 0 Z a E W CD 0 m W z Exi a w H Cr)) OHCAH >4 HH a c HaHH H >' 04 a H W a U) £ cn CA W X CAO HH 4 H (Z4 O1 H H H C] H H P m H 0 C] 0 H Z W 0 H V' 1/40 H a0 H P4 a C4 m Z a a in CL CL Cl) rn CL o U U a4 0• E w04 U H H H H w H H Pc H Cl) Cn oW4 w U W H d' U) 0 H N O N V' a0 01 0 0 O 0 O U O H H N N M V. V. V. V. V' U) H f"1 U) V' O H H V' V. V' V' d' V' V' V' V. N N N 00 00 0 J E E E o CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL W W i. CL W W CL, CL CITY OF SHAKOPEE /.2 Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Union.Pacific Presentation DATE: December 9, 1998 INTRODUCTION: At its December 15th meeting,representatives of the Union Pacific Railroad will be in attendance at the Council meeting to make a presentation on rail safety, and also to discuss their desire to increase train speeds through the City. BACKGROUND: On November 13th, the City received a letter from the Union Pacific Railroad notifying the City that it intended to increase the speed of its trains through Shakopee from the existing 10 miles per hour,to 30 miles per hour. That information was provided to the City Council,which directed that representatives of the Union Pacific be invited to appear before the Council to further explain their intent. Mike Payette,Assistant Vice President for Union Pacific's Government Affairs Office in Chicago, sent the information dated December 8th. He will review this with the Council at the December 15th meeting. In addition, Superintendent 011ie Cromwell of the Union Pacific's St. Paul Regional Office will also make a presentation on"Operation Lifesaver", a program designed to reduce train/vehicle and train/pedestrian accidents. ACTION REQUIRED: Based on the information provided,the Council should give direction as to whether it wishes to take any action relating to the Union Pacific speed issue. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw TRAINS.DOC UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY MICHAEL W.PAYETTE 101 N.WACKER DRIVE ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT SUITE 1910 GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS-CENTRAL REGION UNION CHICAGO,ILLINOIS 60606 PACIFIC 312-853-8400 111111 FAX 312-853-8420 December 8, 1998 VIA FAX Mr. Mark H. McNeill City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street, S. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mark: Attached is a copy of Bullet Points supporting the various reasons that UP believes that it is safer and better for our trains to be operating at 30 m.p.h, rather than at 10 m.p.h. , through Shakopee. Also attached is a map of UP' s system and information on UP in general and UP in Minnesota. The point is to have some understanding of how large our rail system is in the western U. S . If we allowed every municipality to impose some sort of speed restriction, we would never get a car of freight to its destination via a schedule acceptable to our customers . Many of these rail cars travel several thousand miles . Finally, attached is a one pager on Railroads: The Safe Way to Move Freight. It strives to indicate all the safety precautions that we take as an industry. Also, if we are not able to compete due to speed restrictions, there will be a lot more truck traffic through Shakopee, which is less safe than railroads . I touched lightly on the preemption and our legal stand in the Bullet Points, but I am attaching a list of cases if the City Attorney is interested in looking at them. Very truly yours, Attachments .e t \ 11 (MWP120898.002) BIBLIOGRAPHY FRSA 49 U. S.C. S . §20103 et seq. (Federal Law) 49 C.F.R. §2139 (a) (Federal Regulation) - • •• ' 041 . - . ••: , 507 US658, 113 S .Ct . 1732 (1993) See also, 4 - • •• - . •i * • .• • , 741 F. Supp. 889, 891 (M.D. Ala. 1990) (holding that a municipal ordinance regulating the speed of trains was preempted because the municipal ordinance cannot qualify as state law for purposes of preemption exceptions) ; City of Covington v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. , 708 F.Supp. 806, 809 (W.D. Ky. 1989) (finding ordinance regulating speed preempted by holding that safety regulations addressing local conditions must be enacted at the state level) ; - go . . - . : : • • , . • d- - , 738 F.Supp. 1205 (N.D. Ind. 1989) (holding municipal ordinance limiting train speed to twenty miles per hour preempted because a municipal ordinance is not a state law) ; CSX Transportation v. City of Tullahoma, 705 F. Supp. 385, 387 (E.D. Tenn. 1988) (holding that municipal speed regulation was preempted stating that, " [t] he plain language of the statute itself indicates that it applies only to states. ") ; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. City of Bridgman, 669 F.Supp. 823 , 826 (W.D. Mich. 1987) (finding that " [t] he plain language of the exception, however, indicates that only a state may adopt a more stringent railway safety law in response to a local safety hazard. ") ; Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Smith, 664 F.Supp. 1228, 1237 (N.D. Ind. 1987) (stating that " [e]very court that has addressed the question had held that the language of section 434 which permits state regulation does not permit local regulation. " ) . (MWP120898.003) SHAKOPEE TRAIN SPEED INCREASE A. Entire Line Upgraded to 49 m.p.h. between St. Paul - Sioux City, IA - California Junction, IA (East/West Main Line). • Previously, track from St. Paul to Shakopee was 30 m.p.h. • Previously, track from Shakopee to almost LeSueur was 30 m.p.h. 10 m.p.h. slow order in Shakopee: MP 27.3 - MP 28.3 was not that harmful to train operations. Now that has changed with upgraded track. Is inefficient to go 49 m.p.h. then 10 m.p.h. and then increase again. Shakopee is only town on 335 mile line between St. Paul and California Junction where UP operates at 10 m.p.h. • Through most other towns on the St. Paul - Sioux City Line, UP now operates at 49 m.p.h. Products moving by rail in interstate commerce would never arrive if each town along the route placed a speed restriction on the train. • Substantial funds spent to upgrade line to achieve better train handling and to give customers better schedules to move their produce in interstate commerce over UP's track. B. Local Situation of Track in Middle of 2nd Street Was Taken Into Account. Reason that there will be a 30 m.p.h. slow order from MP 27.3 to MP 28.3 in Shakopee rather than raising the speed to 49 m.p.h., which is what the track is upgraded for. • UP, and other railroads, operate at speeds of 60 m.p.h. or higher through other towns in the U.S., where the track is not in the street; and it has been a safe and relatively accident-free practice. C. Grade Crossing Safety Statistics: Fewer Accidents at Crossings Where Trains Travel at Higher Speeds. • Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) , the railroads' safety regulator, statistics show that more accidents occur at crossings where trains 2 operate at slower speeds. Nearly 68% of all collisions at railroad street crossings occur when train speeds are less than 40 m.p.h. • Slower trains occupy the crossings longer, and people take greater chances when trying to beat a train to the crossing. D. Crossings are Blocked for Less Time When a Train is Operating Faster. • A train 4000' long traveling at 10 m.p.h. occupies a crossing 4' 33". • A train 4000' long traveling at 30 m.p.h. occupies a crossing 1 ' 31 " (3 MINUTES LESS). • A train 5000' long traveling at 10 m.p.h. occupies a crossing 5' 41 ". • A train 5000' long traveling at 30 m.p.h. occupies a crossing 1 ' 54" (ALMOST 4 MINUTES LESS). For signalized crossings, add 30" for advance activation. E. Risk of Train Derailments are Greater at Slower Rather Than at Faster Speeds. • FRA statistics prove that there are more train derailments at slower speeds. • Rock and roll action at slower speeds is more conducive to train derailments. • As far as train derailments are concerned, it is better to be traveling 30 m.p.h. down 2nd Street. F. Locomotive Whistles Likely to be Less at 30 m.p.h. Than at 10 m.p.h. • Law requires railroad to begin whistling 1/4 mile from crossing: 2 longs, a short and 2 longs. • There are numerous crossings, very close together in Shakopee, which requires continual whistling per the law because the crossings are much closer together than 1/4 mile. 3 • The faster the train travels through these crossings, the less the overall whistling sound will be heard. G. Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 Provides that U.S. DOT Secretary Shall Prescribe Regulations and Issue Order for Every Area of Railroad Safety. Railroad safety laws are to be nationally uniform. • U.S. DOT Secretary has promulgated regulations covering the maximum speed for different classes of track - 49 CFR §213.9 (1997). • CSX Transportation Inc. v. Easterwood - the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the preemption of state law relating to the speed of trains. See 507 U.S. 658, 113 S.Ct. 1732 (1993). • Numerous Federal district courts have addressed the specific issue of municipal regulation of train speed. Unanimously they have found that a municipality is preempted by FRSA from regulating train speed. H. The Fact That the Ordinance That Granted Land for the Rail Line Specifically Reserved Power to the City to Regulate Train Speed Does Not change the Preemption Analysis. • Passage of FRSA (by Congress in 1970) indicates that any type of private or other agreement which regulated railroad safety would be preempted. • The court in City of Covington v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. addressed this issue. 708 F.Supp. 806 (E.D. Ky. 1989). The City asserted that the 1885 contract which granted the defendant's predecessor rights of way on condition that the defendant complied with City mandated speed limits, gave the City the right to regulate train speed. Id. at 809. The court found that agreement was preempted under FRSA. kL The fact that the original ordinance granting Union Pacific's predecessor use of the land for the rail line was contingent on the City of Shakopee being able to regulate speed is not material to the preemption argument. The FRSA is clear that regulation of railroad safety rests with the Federal government, except for those specific instances provided for in the preemption clause. 4 CONCLUSION: • Many safety benefits to raising train speed through Shakopee. • Many Quality of Life benefits to raising train speed through Shakopee. • No safety statistics that would indicate a 30 m.p.h. train speed is a problem. • Trains travel through other towns on this line at 49 m.p.h. • Trains travel through other towns on other lines at 60 m.p.h. or faster, without creating safety problems. • Railroad conducts Operation Lifesaver Program. This is a nationwide public awareness program where railroads reach out to school children, motor vehicle drivers and the general public to make them aware of the hazards of rail/highway crossings and trespassing on railroad property. (MWP 120798.0051 0 * In ou c x 0-7E .il a , c,. =a *. a i , . a. ' i _ - q m s . , ., ,, „,•,•••. CD . ( s k no # .0.- oil er , t in a c. i. , - .0. vor1111W , o (D 0 EN = 1 = — (rim or- i F ir 0 , ...• r I . g • 4* = ..- •.< a , CA) ma . , bo z x = la 0 o 1 \ w 0 olki , a o. r- 4 w ' ... a '4 K CO 0 ' 0 2 c ' ” , E C 0 c , co la o 2 2? g• =-1 P. ammo e _ o e , a t a a C4 0 0 0 = = tie .t.43 it ,o CD .10 ' 3 , r 1 ill rtillill et" •• " CO ‘11 v 3 2 ilk • = ,,, r gm.a inmpline•• --•' 2 , 0 , a t e m = X CD . (.0 -. . o .. , . , 0 —• col 0 ..... i P.. a a = ..... .., ... , 04 A,..4 • a .11 r- a ir Apr F a= =II (1) at x , (1) 0 CD „... 5' a , = 0 . ... , = CIE -- in — ct 1 0 ' 0 if I 8 T 1 ; pg 0; 2 4 Iliri 1 ,, c t •zg 0-41 <' =I x It 0'• g lir ' ! 4 C4 0 • 31 47 0 .... 111 J lili FRAIIII 01, Z '11111111111L . (.0.' ' 2 2 2 CO= , Sifr 0*8 C .......... _ ....4 . ,,.. . . en F7 0 g " n ., a r- a e. " ,. 2,- '' • CA 0 . :1 111117 I ' , _ LI 0 , , z ' 1 eV 1 Pir , , e; r+ ......... . I . ) , . ID C, l' - 3 1 .1? . *IL.11111111k1111 1 i F I • k -0 ;•` 1 mail 0 = m ou 5' c to m- f. ,i- it c 01 RI • a. 3 UPRR in Minnesota wysiwyg://4/http://www.uprr.com/uprr/ffl3/usguide/usa-mn.shtml .'..::.:. :..:::::....... .':. .:...dOC..:.. .... . :::k...4.11....E+Y....}.L•... .. .. ... :::Y:.i'::::::::.:..i::::i:::i::b:::,;b.,:...i:::::.i:.i: .:i :_:':�:::.i:h'::.:n::: :.i.....:.gA::i::: INti si Minnesota Return To: US.£l:id3 to tho Union Pn fir Railroad Corridors and Clientele iE:tS;figura<.&New? y<{t', Union Pacific owns the two main rail i'lE3EIR3::i3EE ::''`a s : ' ,Z,, •..: : corridors traversing the southern Refenenoesborder of the state. The very busy Glossary Index • " n n .. Spine Line runs south from the Twin ................................................ Cities to Kansas City, MO. The other ........................................... UPRRIluiok Links: major corridor runs in a southwest direction from the Twin Cities to Gumer Information Sioux City, IA. Union Pacific also has trackage rights over Burlington Supplier Relationships Northern Santa Fe track from Minneapolis to Duluth. Nears Safety,Health&Environment Employment Union Pacific serves unit train shippers located in prime corn and Merchandise soybean areas including flour mills, malt houses, soybean processors and numerous rail-to-transfer stations. The railroad's top three customers in Minnesota are Northern States Power, U.S. Steel and Unimin. UP also serves Unimin, which is the largest producer of industrial sand in the United States. Its twin sand plants at Ottawa and Kasota, MN, located on Union Pacific, represent the largest production facilities for frac sand in the United States. The St. Paul (Drake Street) ramp serves as the destination facility for inbound shipments of Toyota, Mazda and Mitsubishi vehicles. Fast Facts in Minnesota Miles of Track 724 Employees 458 Annual Payroll $26.1 million Purchases Made $55.9 million [Home I What's New I Find It I Copyright I Site Info I Feedback] 1 of 1 12/08/98 09:07:39 UPRR:Company Overview wysiwyg://8/http://www.uprr.com/uprr/ffh/uprrover.shtml aa<UNION PACIFIC � .., f t RAILROAD :,:; .5::::::::::.::::.. . :"'"{'�`# �`.i?::..::,•:....,a.. v K.: • ...::,-................................: ..:.:. ::•.v'•:k £. ...::>'-::::;:::iii' .\\ •: qn 'fi'i iii�i:i iiiiiiiii ilii iiiiiiiiiii}>i>ii'{?iLv:iiii;:$};:�i:�1i:iiii. ~•i':p• '�.i'hi'i'iiJn''r ..%ii:i%l�i�:3 ivk•,+i '�./j/ \iii'r'+:'r'•�:•v v:k.:•JG..:ii':•i::}i:.\.: :•lv �+1.+iiiiiiii:[ii:2:iiiiiiiiiiiii iiii:f:iii::i:iiiiiiiii:i``-ii i::�i: .4.....:Y•.....:X REItFIFf!To: . •.•.• Overview UPRR QuiLinks: of the Union Pacific Railroad Customer Information Supplier Relationships Nems Union Pacific Fast Facts in The USA Safety,Health 15a Environment Employment Miles of Track 36,026 Merchandise Fact ,Fidiirax . i;4tnr'y Employees 52,081 Annual Payroll $3.0 billion Purchases Made $3.1 billion Locomotives Owned 7,100 Freight Cars Owned 146,013 System Map - get expanded views of different system map segments Company Vision Statement Union Pacific is committed to be a railroad where: our customers want to do business, our employees are proud to work, and shareholder value is created. The Largest U.S. Railroad Union Pacific Railroad is an operating subsidiary of Union Pacific Corporation (NYSE:UNP). It is the largest railroad in North America, operating in the western two-thirds of the United States. The system serves 23 states, linking every major West Coast and Gulf Coast port. It also serves four major gateways to the east: Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans. UP is the primary rail connection between the U.S. and Mexico. It interchanges traffic with the Canadian rail system. The railroad has one of the most diversified commodity mixes in the industry, including chemicals, coal, food and food products, forest products, grain and grain products, intermodal, metals and minerals, and automobiles and parts. Union Pacific's largest single customer is APL Limited, a steamship company that operates in the Pacific. Second is General Motors, followed by an assortment of chemical companies and utilities. The railroad is the nation's largest hauler of chemicals, much of which 1 of 2 12/08/98 09:08:04 UPRR:Company Overview wysiwyg://8/http://www.uprr.com/uprr/ffh/uprrover.shtml originates along the Gulf Coast near Houston, Texas. Union Pacific is also one of the largest intermodal carriers--that is the transport of truck trailers and marine containers. Dependable Transportation Having access to the coal-rich Powder River Basin in Wyoming and coal fields in Illinois, Colorado and Utah, the railroad moves more than 130 million tons of coal annually. It's one of Union Pacific's fastest-growing business areas. The company is investing millions of dollars annually to add capacity to handle coal traffic, including new locomotives, and new double and triple track main lines. Although Union Pacific Railroad's primary role is transporting freight, it also runs a substantial commuter train operation in Chicago and California. Overview of the UPRR Web Site The Web site provides much more information about Union Pacific Railroad. Check the Web Site Overview for a synopsis of what information is available in each of the various sections. tel: [Home I What's New I Find It I Copvrinht I Site Info I Feedback] 2 of 2 12/08/98 09:08:06 Railroads: The Safe Way to Move Freight Today's railroads are safer and more efficient than ever before, using the most advanced, proven technology available. The rail industry is working constantly to improve its strong safety record. Measuring Up to the Competition, Other Industries In spite of the fact that railroads moved more ton-miles of intercity freight than combination trucks, accidents involving combination trucks caused more than three times as many fatalities as accidents involving freight trains during the most recent year for which comparable statistics are available. The railroad industry's lost work day injury rate was 58 percent lower than for bus, subway or other transit workers; 61 percent lower than for trucking industry workers; and 64 percent lower than for aviation workers in 1995, the most recent year for which comparable figures are available. In 1996 (the most recent year for which comparable figures are available), the railroad industry's more than 200,000 employees experienced lower on-duty injury and occupational illness rates than did workers in factories, mines and even some retail industries such as hotels and grocery stores. Getting Safer Every Year The train accident rate was the lowest in history in 1996 - 3.64 per million train-miles. This represents a 68 percent reduction since 1980 and a 23 percent reduction since 1990. The Federal Railroad Administration's preliminary figures for 1997 show an additional reduction in train accidents. Moreover, derailments per million train-miles have declined 70 percent since 1980 and 23 percent since 1990 and the employee on-duty casualty rate has been reduced by 67 percent since 1980 and 52 percent since 1990. Modernization of Equipment, Track and Warning Devices During the 1990s, railroads have spent more than $100 billion to maintain and improve tracks and equipment. Because more than nine out of ten rail-related fatalities involve either motorists at highway-rail grade crossings or trespassers, the railroad industry invests $200 million annually to improve safety at highway-rail crossings and an additional $10 million for public education. Finally, since 1990, the industry has added more than 4,000 new state-of-the art locomotives and 250,000 new freight cars to the equipment fleet. These new locomotives and freight cars incorporate new technology and designs that enhance safety. Training and Education Railroads spend millions of dollars annually on employee training and recertification, including classroom work, use of locomotive simulators, and on-the-job training. Because more than 90 percent of all rail-related fatalities involve either trespassers on tracks or motorists at highway-rail grade crossings, Association of American Railroads in cooperation with Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI) and the Federal Railroad Administration work together to improve safety. These groups launched a dramatic new public safety educational program called "Highways or Dieways" utilizing television, radio and print advertisements to educate drivers about the need for extreme caution when approaching rail crossings and to urge potential trespassers to keep off the tracks. In 1997, railroads marked the 25th anniversary of support for OLI's nationwide educational programs that focus on grade crossing safety and discouraging trespassing. NOU 13 '98 13:23 FR UP GOUT AFFAIRS 312 853 8420 TO 916124456718 P.02 MICHAEL W.PAYETTE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS-CENTRAL RCGION 101 N.WACKER ORIV@ SUITE 1910 “NION CHICAGO,ILLINOIS 50606 PAWK 312853-8400 HMI FAX 312.853.8420 November 13, 1998 VIA FAX: 622/445-6718 Mr. Mark H. McNeill City Administrator 129 Holmes Street, South Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. McNeill : Union Pacific has upgraded its track and signal system through Shakopee that will enable our trains to operate at speeds up to 30 m.p.h. Our line between St. Paul and Mankato is being upgraded to 49 m.p.h. to better serve our customers . While we will reduce our speed in Shakopee to 30 m.p.h. , the current 10 m.p.h. speed would cause us significant problems. Beginning November 23, 1998, train speeds will be increased to 20 m.p.h. ; and on December 7, speeds will be increased to 30 m.p.h. In most instances, however, the change will not be noticeable and may actually enhance traffic flows and grade crossing safety in Shakopee. For example, more highway-rail grade crossing collisions actually occur at slower train speeds than at faster train speeds . Also, in many instances, the risk of derailments is greater at slower speeds. Moreover, on a very practical note, slower train speeds result in trains occupying crossings for longer periods of time, thereby increasing inconvenience to motorists waiting for trains to pass and, in some instances, increasing the likelihood that motorists will try to outrun trains through crossings. As a way of explanation, the rail industry is regulated by the federal government . In 1970, Congress enacted the Federal Rail Safety Act, 45 U. S.C. §421, et seq. recodified at 49 U.S.C. §20101, et seq. , which imposes uniform national railroad safety standards . Under this Act and Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") regulations adopted pursuant to the Act, the federal government, among other things, sets speed limits for all trains based on the classification of the track on which they run. These regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 42 C.F.R. §213 . 9. NOV 13 '98 13:23 FR UP GOUT AFFAIRS 312 853 8420 TO 916124456718 P.03 F Mr. Mark H. McNeill November 13, 1998 Page Two We will let the newspaper in Shakopee know of our plans. If you wish, we would be happy to meet with you in person to discuss this change and to provide you with further information about train speeds or other rail safety matters. Very truly yours, r") ilf FIR (11 cc: 011ie Cromwell Nick Louris Ed Trandahi (MWP100158. 004) ** TOTAL PAGE.03 ** OPERATION LIFESAVER • .9Ili BACKGROUND • . V V Ar Arr 1-800-537-6224 Operation Lifesaver is a nationwide, nonprofit public information program dedicated to reducing collisions, injuries and fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings. Operation Lifesaver maintains a 3-E philosophy emphasizing Education, Engineering and Enforcement. Operation Lifesaver was established in Idaho in 1972 by the Union Pacific Railroad after the average highway-rail crossing-related fatalities in the United States escalated to over 1,200 annually. During the first year,crossing-related crashes in Idaho dropped 38 percent,and the Operation Lifesaver name and concept subsequently spread to Nebraska where the program yielded more impressive results- a 46 percent reduction in related crashes. Autonomous Operation Lifesaver programs currently exist in 49 states and have contributed significantly to the over 50 percent reduction in crashes and casualties at highway-rail grade crossings since 1972. This statistical decrease has occurred despite an increase in motor vehicle and train traffic at highway-rail intersections. In an effort to assist in coordinating the mission, message and activities of Operation Lifesaver among the independent state programs, a national program was established under the auspices of the National Safety Council in 1978. In 1986, the national program was released from the NSC and incorporated by three entities and their representatives. These entities are the Association of American Railroads, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the Railway Progress Institute which are currently represented on the 8- member board of directors. The board secured Federal grants from the Federal Railroad Administration in 1987 and the Federal Highway Administration in 1988. The board established the Operation Lifesaver Inc. Program Development Council, a 33-member advisory council to the board of directors, in 1987. (more) . OL BACKGROUND Page 2 of 2 In 1989, Operation Lifesaver Inc. opened an office near Washington, D.C., in Alexandria, Va. The national program functions as a support and referral center for the independent state programs and as a liaison to the federal government and national organizations. Entering its 20th year, the Operation Lifesaver program was formally recognized by the United States Executive and Legislative Branches. The$151 billion Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 1991 mentions Operation Lifesaver specifically in a section subheading. This section is entitled "Operation Lifesaver; High Speed Rail Corridors" which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to expend $300,000 each fiscal year to Operation Lifesaver Inc. through the annual operating budget of the Federal Highway Administration beginning in 1993. Operation Lifesaver is endorsed by the nation's railroads, railroad suppliers, the U.S. and state Departments of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board, state and local governments and various public and private groups interested in highway-rail safety. The ultimate goal of Operation Lifesaver is to make highway-rail collisions obsolete by encouraging every motorist to LOOK, LISTEN...AND LIVE! # # # OPERATION LIFESAVER WHAT MOST AMERICANS DO NOT KNOW! 1) IN 1996 488 PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND 1160 WERE INJURED IN IN 4257 HIGHWAY-RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING INCIDENTS. 2) THERE WAS ANOTHER 471 PEOPLE KILLED WHILE TRESPASSING ON RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAYS AND TRACKS. 3) ABOUT EVERY 100 MINUTES A VEHICLE AND TRAIN COLLIDE IN THE UNITED STATES. 4) A MOTORIST IS 40 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE IN A CRASH INVOLVING A TRAIN THAN ANY OTHER HIGHWAY COLLISIONS. 5) MORE PEOPLE DIE IN HIGHWAY-RAIL CRASHES EACH YEAR THAN IN AIRPLANE CRASHES IN AN AVERAGE YEAR. 6) OVER 50% OF COLLISIONS AT PUBLIC CROSSINGS OCCUR WHERE ACTIVE WARNING DEVICES (GATES& LIGHTS) EXIST. 7) THE MAJORITY OF HIGHWAY COLLISIONS OCCUR WITHIN 25 MILES OF THE DRIVER' S RESIDENCE. 8) MOST COLLISIONS TODAY INVOLVE TRAINS TRAVELING SLOWER THAN 30 M.P.H. 9) THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 280, 000 MILES OF RAILROAD TRACKS IN THE UNITED STATES . 10 THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 268, 000 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HIGHWAY AND PEDESTRIAN RAILROAD CROSSINGS IN THE UNITED STATES . 11 RAILROAD TRACKS, YARDS, AND EQUIPMENT ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND TRESPASSERS ARE SUBJECT OF ARRESTS AND FINES . TRAIN SPEEDS: 1) A TRAIN GOING 55 MPH TRAVELS 81 FT. IN A SECOND. e 2) A 100 CAR FREIGHT TRAIN TRAVELING 55 MPH ON DRY, LEVEL TRACK TAKES A MILE OR MORE TO STOP, AFTER FULLY APPLYING THE BRAKES . 3) AN 8 CAR PASSENGER TRAIN TRAVELING 60 MPH TAKES 3500 FEET OR 2/3 MILE TO STOP. AT 79 MPH THE SAME TRAIN TAKES 6,000 FEET OR 1 1/6 MILE TO STOP. 4) MOST COLLISIONS TODAY INVOLVE TRAINS TRAVELING SLOWER THAN 30 MPH. WARNING SIGNS: 1) THE ADVANCE WARNING SIGN (ROUND YELLOW SIGN WITH AN X AND RR ON EACH SIDE OF X) TELLS YOU TO SLOW DOWN, LOOK AND LISTEN FOR THE TRAIN, AND BE PREPARED TO STOP WHEN A TRAIN IS APPROACHING. 2) Th . CROSSBUCK MARKS HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS . (SAME AS A YIELD SIGN) 3) OPERATION LIFESAVER IS A NON-PROFIT, NATION WIDE PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM DEDICATED TO REDUCING CRASHES, INUuRIES, AND FATALITIES AT INTERSECTIONS WHERE ROADWAYS MEET RAILWAYS AND ALONG RAILROAD RIGHTS OF WAYS. OPERATION LIFESAVER DRIVING TIPS FOR MOTORISTS AT GRADE CROSSINGS OP R ail Air? Arr /Pr Ar Air APPr 1-800-537-6224 • NEVER DRIVE AROUND LOWERED GATES -- IT'S ILLEGAL AND DEADLY. IF YOU SUSPECT A SIGNAL IS MALFUNCTIONING, CALL YOUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. • NEVER RACE A TRAIN TO THE CROSSING-- EVEN IF YOU TIE, YOU LOSE. • DO NOT GET TRAPPED ON A CROSSING. ONLY PROCEED THROUGH A CROSSING IF YOU ARE SURE YOU CAN CROSS THE ENTIRE TRACK. • GET OUT OF YOUR VEHICLE IF IT STALLS ON A CROSSING AND CALL YOUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR ASSISTANCE. ONLY ATTEMPT TO RESTART IF YOU CAN POST LOOKOUTS TO WARN OF APPROACHING TRAINS. • WATCH OUT FOR A SECOND TRAIN WHEN CROSSING MULTIPLE TRACKS. • EXPECT A TRAIN ON THE TRACK AT ANY TIME. TRAINS DO NOT FOLLOW SET SCHEDULES. • BE AWARE TRAINS CANNOT STOP QUICKLY. EVEN IF THE LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEER SEES YOU, IT CAN TAKE UP TO 1 1/2 MILES TO STOP ONCE THE EMERGENCY BRAKES ARE APPLIED. • DO NOT MISJUDGE THE TRAIN'S SPEED AND DISTANCE. A TRAIN'S LARGE MASS MAKES IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCURATELY JUDGE ITS SPEED. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HIGHWAY-RAIL SAFETY AND THE NAME OF YOUR OPERATION LIFESAVER STATE COORDINATOR,CALL OPERATION LIFESAVER,INC.AT 1-800- 537-6224. ("> :°1 o h .. .), 11-..4 • ...t:tt. Q Q dui CA 4°J CI 4 MIL 715..1:11.1. .t , •F ' F' t N V) t ititi) ,.1 45 Ct o "0 y = C J =C 111411 onemo ` ) c. m 72 E 0 i i ?, oQg Ca:4 viiii o n a vimm k Immli '411111141C411 1 44 HW CZ 0 20u Ste' !�i .4 0 E i' I1 :I ° ° • . 7 0"w • ,...4c/ 1 con 0 UO � o .. ai, O y -� . s.. v, U U 1. E o o.vOO m ° 5O O Od "f'.4 (i cn V " j U O ,.. ,iO� V)� bA 73 '0 6 s� y bA �. ,� D C Cr a) a� O Q N �, C/: at O 3 . , a) F. cd O O a) 3 m ,� c,., l� „� --6.'4 O bOA cad V �--1 '' , cn S" cd ' N ..0 O `•0 .) O ..0 E C.1 y a�", O r-tO� - .- 1) con b' 6 ce c -d y, w O v •CCS bA • 4" o 'O O I ,.a vi •- , - , O "O O r a u O h > a o -- C/p ,�/ j O� y a O —4 .5 u ce 'V E w u.O C C .+ u -�S 6 i O v Q O Z y3j d cd Cd C tA ..`r,' by v' r sem. id bbA•O `� p •O2 `d ..t'.1 O u .n U C/J y y� y, v� C1' 'CS 'i, Ti c�3 v� v' O s-f Q� cd • CNS-. O. vii t+ s. �n (ID `v p,'• cd O� p. O., a.) c+'. -Ld = v� vA a, y, '6 4• sem, -� s-' G v' wJCI) �'• Q O •a w u O O u E s" o O • O u '' a� bA °� °� O �s t.,•—•1 s� cn -0 + cd i C cd O ." O0 r-a -C7 o L1 O n O L O O •-cj G.4 ---4 •ct °� O O 3 s`d.' x ' U bA.") s- y u O u N O O O" .. O w •�4 ct ��/ ' p O Tj O v .� t '� ".1 p 0 .9. cd v' e by•C Itema cd y .E u y ce a) Fri CI W w ° ..� cd ° cd E I .bA 3 O u O CU C V, "O cd c%3 T -C cd cn . .5 .4 cd O0 rt' • t� O w yW nUq n N R " Q•, r tH111 .., [[Y'�� O � C t✓ - a • ..I F5 n • I0 O ' wvI v ,Vi ciOO I 9a . C`O rn nOt . n D nC w w44-' nro nm -7 as rw C O D < y CD 7 9i. OCcn cr r-D p cm co . O C O , el . n to O peD • O- na' OAa O p •a.w O E w 0 n0.. 0 33 ,-1. Ft cn O 0- p' wn O CJq OC a O a r . n CD O aa. w 0 '73 0 � n• ptn0 O n ' n CCD < Uq "p D 0pry ` rt in hNC n ° (D v ,••s CD CIO D npin 3CD rr O n CD O cr • 6, cnCq 7) a3 pc r7 " n p CD 3rr* O rnn cn k w 3 — p rY a: o • ,0 a s nn ✓ 4. • Di'� . n t , O H = ( iP � in Op • Qu � , S O U4w -, P •cn � t ' n n, n n CJq • . 'T3 r, t= a. n cn Uq pr E O C y ca rt O rD •U� rt �. H a 7•ctq rtn O �, . to O .� O`C `C w (1' 0. a O ,-1-, '* O C n 0 13 S. % n O .< -, n n ,••t O p' n p _ to n w n p' '1 C 3 CD , p O v 0 O n p w w rD S a -, n n w Cr CD O Uq n C y n n ¢ rD rY C3 CD G pr p, O S w � a S w n fl.•. w O n • CD n P CD• cr rn CD , 3 CD _ .� n 3 rt 7 p C¢nIn I-I CpSn a 'I w el) nO tD 0 ,-,'6'1 f1q• 6Pw 0" a Ha a. I <.+ m DG w . O w H13 CD 75 a 0 Cr Q- p, to O < S _ O 9 n n ] O -.. O �Uq wrDprDrD . yDO O n O Nv, P nZ: 0 w e° (i) cn 2. 5. c,,, 7 - S to 't O rt v) :: a. vn rw � O ' C) cgi nO30 4 ° 7 • vi O SD cCfR nnn - 9 w O td O Q Z CoOO _• DO4,0 c" rtUp C p O0 N - a. n n nt 0. 9. C • eD O n ,t . "'Cp rt OCD wg- cr g fel G w O c, .v - 1n vv> CJQ 8 sD O Q • - n n vnwapartrtw i .� 3N ....4.'t ; . DO < Q a U • t a n se- rtp crqpC Q. O n zaCn -I .. C •• c n n Q.` p• D 3 w 5.' O O; fp D Swp 8 O ' a• S toa. H ~ O AO a O _k es rmt (1111) CD r 4 n 0 p 'til �. � w 000 .15' co O w � ~' CD ( • w cn,.n. a a. O S ,•nr cn w co w �• a 3 CA O s,, crq c C Cp a , < � 3 C n • ON • O c. n n .� n c!q• n n - w ¢, v `C l co P&T. ..--.3._CT , 00.3 V0 ti n eD eD C rt ,Y• n p' I a .9 9 t v' I 4 9 "w•t t" O 0C w 0L- vn• O crrr -« O C �' ° C n w � S G C C. R `C w O 2 w • 0 13. in CD 'Ts O •('D . ° O G O b� 0 H CD �. ..• R.' _ Cc' CrO 0 5 - 0 n <• —w O Y BO G. O � C rD • n O• nH aQ `C • n O ,� w n .. nrH nD '1 D O D 0p , Ft • .w Q. rD O fl. Lj Or � n ro n rt it p 0. 0aq<CinI '_ n S3 ul: • O- n 0DEO n ' Cr .iwa — an ° O n 0 ft00 Ortn n '-n w ri te. S -n w ,-t tn O n n Nrt O ( — • n _y cit ri .. n a 3 C T3 r` 3 < a 11 " • CtJVq O 3 O .I. C1q Com' S. n C O 13 1 CM 5-�-�.0 w " f0 a O n p vn, n •v < — CD • n 6•`<.., e, Uq 5 ..< p' 0 Cy O• r". n •c3 CD tact 13 C rD pit' - n n' • fa.n n O rD ra. cit n H 0.O `6 rt, p a Ca CD n n c n rwt Q •r n n-r •O wi v J3.6 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: TIF Plan Modification DATE: December 10, 1998 Introduction and Background Attached for your information is the packet of documents prepared by counsel to be used to amended the TIF Plan and Budget for TIF districts 1, 3, 7 and 9 . This is to update the financial part of the plan based on 1997 and 1998 events and forecasts . The County and School District should have receive their copy on October 16 . The Planning Commission has reviewed the Plan and adopted Resolution 98-120 on 12/3/98 . The public hearing was held on November 17 and continued to December 15 . Action Requested 1 . Reopen public hearing on the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for TIF Districts Nos . 1, 3, 7 and 9 . 2 . Receive comments and close the hearing. 3 . Offer Resolution No. 5043 A Resolution Approving Modification of Tax Increment Financing Plans For Tax Increment Financing District Nos . 1, 3 , 7 And 9 And A Modified Redevelopment Plan For The Minnesota River Valley Housing And Redevelopment Project No. 1 and move it adoption. begV G g Voxland Finance Director CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESOLUTION NO. 5043 RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NOS. 1, 3, 7 and 9 AND A MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council")of the City of Shakopee("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City has previously established its Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the"Project")pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.001 to 469.047 1.02. Within the Project the City has created Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 (the"TIF Districts")pursuant to Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (collectively,the"TIF Act"); and 1.03. The Project and the TIF Districts are now administered by the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee("Authority"). 1.04. The Authority and City have determined to consider a modification of the redevelopment plan ("Project Plan") for the Project and the tax increment financing plans ("TIF Plans") for the TIF Districts, as described in a modification document presented to the Council on this date. 1.05. The modified Project Plan and TIF Plans were, in accordance with the HRA Act and TIF Act, referred to the City planning commission which submitted to the City its written opinion that such plans conform to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. 1.06. Estimates of the fiscal and economic implications of the modified TIF Plans were presented to the school board of Independent School District No. 720 and to the county board of commissioners of Scott County at least 30 days before the public hearing on the TIF Plans, all in accordance with the TIF Act. 1.07. By resolution dated December 15, 1998,the Authority approved the modified Project Plan and TIF Plan and referred them to the Council for public hearing and consideration. 1.08. This Council has fully reviewed the contents of the modified Project Plan and TIF Plans and this date conducted a duly noticed public hearing thereon, at which the views of all interested persons were heard. Section 2. Findings; Redevelopment Project. 2.01. It is hereby found and determined that within the Project as modified there exist conditions of economic obsolescence, underutilization and inappropriate uses of land constituting blight within the meaning of the HRA Act. The findings stated in the modified Project Plan are incorporated herein by reference. SJB-151534 SH235-5 • 2.02. It is further specifically found and determined that: a) the land within the Project as modified would not be made available for development without the public intervention and financial assistance described in the Project Plan; b) the Project Plan as modified will afford maximum opportunity,consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole,for the development of the Project by private enterprise; and c) the Project Plan as modified conforms to the general plan for development of the City as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. Section 3.Findings TIF District Nos. 1, 3,7 and 9. 3.01. It is found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the Council, that the redevelopment of the Project as described in TIF Plans, as modified, could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and the use of tax increment financing for assistance as described in the TIF Plans as modified is deemed necessary. 3.02. The proposed public costs to be financed in part through tax increment financing are necessary to permit the City to realize the full potential of the Project in terms of development intensity, employment opportunities and tax base. 3.03.The modified TIF Plans conform to the general plan of development of the City as a whole. 3.04. The modified TIF Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project by private enterprise. 3.05. TIF District No. 1 remains a TIF District established before August 1, 1979 and is not subject to the TIF Act except as described in the modified TIF Plan therefor; TIF District No. 3 remains a redevelopment district under the TIF Act in effect upon approval of the TIF Plan for that TIF District; and TIF District Nos. 7 and 9 remain economic development districts under the TIF Act in effect upon approval of the TIF Plans for those TIF Districts. 3.06. The approval of the modified TIF Plans is intended, and in the Cites judgment its effect will be,to promote the public purposes and accomplish the objectives specified in the TIF Plans and the Project Plan. 3.07. The reasons and supporting facts on which findings in this Section are based include the reports and recommendations of City staff regarding unmet redevelopment needs within the Project, as well as reasons and facts set forth in each TIF Plan and the Project Plan as a whole. Section 4.Plans Adopted;Filing. 4.01. The modified Project Plan and TIF Plans are hereby approved and adopted. 4.02. The Authority is authorized and directed to file a copy of the modified Project Plans and TIF Plans with the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue as required by the TIF Act. SJB-151534 2 SH235-5 Approved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee this 15th day of December, 1998. )g-(e-A-X- Ma Attest: City Clerk SJB-151534 3 SH235-5 MODIFICATION OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND MODIFICATIONS OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 3, 7 AND 9 I. Background. The Shakopee Economic Development Authority("Authority")currently administers the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project"). Within the Project, the Authority administers Tax Increment Financing Districts ("TIF Districts") Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 (among other districts not addressed in this document). The Project is governed by a Housing and Redevelopment Plan ("Project Plan"), which generally describes the overall objectives for the Project and contains estimates of public improvement costs (Section 1.7) and descriptions of public improvements (Section 1.8). Except as described below, each TIF District is also governed by a tax increment financing plan ("TIF Plan"), which is incorporated into the Project Plan. Generally, the budget of expenditures for each Eli- Plan is described by cross-reference to Section 1.7 of the Project Plan. The Authority and City have determined a need to modify the Project Plan and the TIF Plans for the cited TIF Districts. The purpose of this modification is to summarize expenditures to date and modify the budget for future expenditures. TIF District No. 1 was established prior to August 1, 1979 under the predecessor statute to Minnesota Statutes,Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"). As such, this TIF District is not generally subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (the "TIF Act"). However, under Section 469.179, subd. 2, if development or redevelopment activity of this "Pre-1979" district is extended beyond the scope of activity set forth in the redevelopment plan under the HRA Act after May 1, 1988, the Authority must,with regard to the new activity, conform to the provisions of the TIF Act. Accordingly, to the extent any activity described in this modification extends beyond the scope of the Project Plan as of May 1, 1988, this document is intended to constitute a tax increment plan for TIF District No. 1 for the purposes of complying with Section 469.179, subd. 2. Nothing in this document is intended to alter the status of TIF District No. 1 as a"pre-1979" district for the purposes of the TIF Act. II. Redevelopment and TIF Plan Modifications. The tables attached as Exhibit A modify Subsection 1.7 of the Project Plan and the comparable "estimated public cost" sections of the TIF Plans for TIF District Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9. Consistent with the existing Project Plan, it remains the Authority's intent that all public costs set forth in the Project Plan may be financed by expenditures from any of the named TIF Districts, subject to any limitations otherwise imposed on expenditures from any TIF District under the TIF Act. The Project Plan and each TIF Plan remain in full force and effect and are not modified except as SJB134433 SH235-5 provided in this document. III. Estimated Impact on other Taxing Jurisdictions. The Authority believes that the TIF Plan modifications described herein have no fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions, as the modifications do not add new property to any TIF District,propose any increase in captured tax capacity, or extend the duration of any TIF District. Rather, the purpose of the modifications is to increase and revise the budget of expenditures from existing projected tax increments,in order to accomplish the redevelopment goals for the Project. SJB134433 SH235-5 2 'EXHIBIT A City of Shakopee Tax Increment Budget Amendment Districts 1-9 1998 Amendment TIF District 1 Sources Through 1997 Future Ton ax Increment $28,572,371 $4,742,788 $33,315,159 Interest Income 7,430,835 170,000 7,600,835 Bond Proceeds 29,178,932 29.178,932 Loan Proceeds 500,000 500,000 Real Estate Sales 1,139,468 1,139,468 Special Assessments 228,978 228,978 Rant/Lease 44,252 44,252 State Aid Construction 1,756,281 1,756,281 Transfer in District#1 District 82 340,602 - 340,602 District#3 361,927 85,593 447,520 District#4 2,221,638 2,221,636 District#6 222,147 222,147 District ar7 91,415 41,705 133,120 District*9 5,199 682,968 688,167 Transfer From Other Funds - General Fund 72 72 Capital Improvement Fund 108,669 108,669 Total Sources 72,202,784 5,723,054 77,925,838 Project Costs Land acquisition/Writedown KMart 1,139,468 1,139,468 Riptides Mebco FMG Bbdr 3 8 4 1,741,255 50,990 1,792,245 Subtotal 2,880,723 50,990 2,931,713 Site Improvements KMart 1,598,915 1,598,915 BL 3 d 4 178,731 178,731 FMG - Subtotal 1,777,646 - 1,777,646 Public Utilities KMart 1,576,045 1,576,045 Nighties Offsite Sloan Drainage 6,646,911 6,648,911 Rahr Force Main _ 304,765 304,765 Chaska Interceptor 1,634,565 1,634,565 Subtotal 8,527,721 1,834,565 10,162,286 Parking Facilities Streets 8.Sidewalks 210,916 210,916 Offsite-Track 2,932,395 2,932.395 Downtown 3,035,420 3,035,420 KMart 158,497 158,497 South Bypass 1,136,454 1,136,454 169 Bridge/junction 1,922,808 1,922,808 Downtown Alleys 500,000 500,000 9,896,490 - 9,896.490 Public Parks - Park Improvements - Tahpah Stadium Restrooms 380,000 380,000 SocialRec/Conference 5,699,367 90,000 5,789,367 5,699,367 470,000 6,169,387 Bond Principal 25,420,000 3,695,000 29,115,000 B ond Interest 10,707,955 445,420 11,153,375 Loan Principal 82,900 417,100 500,000 L oan/note Interest 25,109 13,038 38,147 36,235,964 4,570,556 40,806,522 Administrative Costs 4,140,420 Debt Service 379,571 13,000 392,571 IOMMt Project 46,476 46,476 Higlrise - Highrise Relocation - Downtown Motel 169 Bridge/junction 22,785 22,785 Drainage 34,883 34,883 So.Bypass 23,179 23,179 HRA/EDA 228,720 228,720 Offsite 33,875 33,875 Downtown 9,987 9,987 Mebco Civic Center 15,301 15,301 City 439,000 439,000 FMG - Block 3 8.4 25,776 25,776 Block 3&4 Relocation 385,907 40 385,947 Subtotal 1,645,460 13,040 1,658,500 Other ISD pmts 1,755,976 316,036 2,072.012 Relocation Returned for Distribution Subtotal 1,755,976 316,036 2,072,012 Total uses of Funds 68,419,347 7,055,189 75,474,536 Transfer To Other Districts District i1 District#4 2,356,528 2,356,526 District 86 94,776 94,776 District 910 a 81 Transfer To Other Funds - Total OtterUses 2,451,302 - 2,451,302 Excess(deficiency)of Revenues over Expenditures $1,332,135 ($1,332,135) ($0) A-1 City of Shakopee Tax Increment Budget Amendment 1998 Amendment TIF District 3 it TIF District 7 Sources Through 1997 Future Total it Through 1997 Future Total axax Increment $550,247 $93,036 $643,283 it $270,343 $41,705 $312,048 Interest Income - i 5,904 5,904 Bond Proceeds 159,188 159,188 i - Loan Proceeds - it 157,984 157,984 Real Estate Sales - It - Special Assessments - It - Rent/Lease - it - State Aid Construction - it - Transfer in - it - District ii - it - District i2 - it - Distrct i3 - it - District i4 - it - District i6 - i District#7 - it - District i9 it - Transfer From Other Funds - i - General Fund - i - Capital Improvement Fund - i - Total Sources 709,433 802,489 It 434,231 41,705 475,936 it Project Costs Land Acquisilion/Writedown it Mart - it - Highrisa - i - Mebco - it 142,882 142,682 FMG - it Block 3&4 - i - Subtotal - - - 5 142,682 - 142,682 Site Improvements i Khan - i - BL 3&4 FMG i Subtotal - - - i - - - Public Utilities It KMan - i Highnse Offsite - it Storm Drainage - i Rehr Force Main - i - Chaska Interceptor - i Subtotal - - it - - . Parking Facilities - It - Streets&Sidewalks 243,941 243,941 it - Offsite-Track - it - Doentovm - it Khan - it - South Bypass - It - 189 Bridge/junction - It - Downtown Alleys - It - 243,941243,941 It - - - Public Parka It Perk Improvements - i - Tahpah Stadium Restrooms SodaItRec/Conference - it - i - Bond Principal - it - Bond Interest - it . Loan Principal - it 157,984 157,984 Loan/note Interest - it - - - - i 157,984 - 157,984 Administrative Costs it Debt Service - it - KMAn Project - it - Highrise - It - Highrtse Relocation - it - Downtown 54,240 54.240 It Motel - It - 169 Bridge/junction - it - Drainage - it - So.Bypass It - HRA/EDA - It - Visite - it - Downtown - it - Mebco i 15,303 15,303 Civic Center - i - City - it - FMG - it - Block 3&4 - it - Block 3&4 Relocation - it - Subtotal 54,240 - 54,240 it 15,303 - 15,303 Other it ISD pmts 49,325 7,443 56,768 it 26,847 26,847 Relocation - it - Returned for Distribution - - Subtotal 49,325 56,768 it -6847 - 26,847 Tota uses of Funds 347,506 354,94 it 342,816 - 342,816 it Transfer To Other Districts It District#1 361,927 85,593 447,520 it 43,277 41,705 84,982 District i4 - it - District i8 - it - District i10=it - it 48,138 48,138 Transfer To Other Funds - it - - it Total Offer Uses 361,927 85,593 447,520 it 91,415 41.705 133,120 it Excess(deficiency)of it Revenues over Expenditures $0 $0 $0 it SO $0 $0 A-2 • City of Shakopee Tax Increment Budget Amendment 1998 Amendment TIF District 9 s TIF Districts TOTAL Sources Through 1197 Future Total I Through 11197 Future Total ax Inne�menI $2,170,920 $682,968 $2,853,888 s $32,372,232 $5,560,497 37,932,729 Interest Income 5,200 5,200 it 7,851,459 170,000 8,021,459 Bond Proceeds - 8 30,196,615 - 30,198,615 Loan Proceeds - s 657,984 - 857,984 Real Estate Sales - 1 1,159,468 - 1,159,468 Special Assessments - s 228,978 - 228,978 Rent/Lease - s 44,252 - 44,252 State Aid Construction - 8 1,818,757 - 1,818,757 Transfer in - I - - - District at - s 94,776 - 94,776 District 12 - s 384,402 - 384,402 District 813 - s 361,927 85,593 447,520 District/4 - It 2,221,636 - 2,221,636 District$6 - s 222,147 - 222,147 Districts? - a 249,399 41,705 291,104 District s9 - 1 5,199 682,968 688,167 Transfer From Other Funds - s - - - General Fund - it 72 - 72 Capital Improvement Fund - If 108,669 - 108,669 Total Sources 2,176,120 882,988 2,859,088 s 77,977,972 8,540,763 84,518,735 a Project Costs Land AcquisitionMkitedown s KMart - s 1,139,468 - 1,139,468 Highrise - s 83,965 - 83,965 Mebco - 1 142,682 - 142,682 FMG 1,053,034 1,053,034 s 1,053,034 - 1,053,034 Block 3 d 4 - s 1,741,255 50,990 1,792,245 Subtotal 1,053,034 - 1,053,034 s 4,160,404 50,990 4,211,394 Site Improvements s KMart - s 1,596915 - 1,598,915 BL 3&4 178,731 - 178,731 FMG 17,293 - 17,293 5 17,293 - 17,293 Subtotal 17,293 - 17,293 a 1,794,939 - 1,794,939 Public Utilities s KMart - s 1,576,045 - 1,576,045 Highrise Offsite - 8 139,843 - 139,843 Storm Drainage - s 6,648,911 - 8,848,911 Rehr Force Main _ - s 304,765 - 304,765 Chaska Interceptor - s - 1,634,565 1,634,565 Subtotal - - - s 8,667,564 1,834,565 10,302,129 Parking Facilities - s - - - Streets&Sidewalks - a 542,678 - 542,676 Offsite-Track - a 2,932,395 - 2,932,395 Downtown - I 3,035,420 - 3,035,420 KMart - s 158,497 - 158,497 South Bypass - 1 1,136,454 - 1,136,454 169 Brdgeijunctian - s 1,922,808 - 1,922,808 Downtown Alleys - 1 500,000 - 500,000 - - - s 10,228,250 - 10,228,250 Public Parks I Park Improvements - s - - - Tahpah Stadium Restrooms - 380,000 380,000 SocistReoConference - s 5,699,367 90,000 5,789,367 - - - it 5,699,367 470,000 6,169,367 Bond Principal - It 26,290,000 3,695,000 29,985,000 Bond Interest - s 11,077,468 445,420 11,522,888 Loan Principal - a 398,868 417,100 815,968 Loan/note Interest 760,010 760,010 a 785,119 13,038 798,157 - It 38,551,455 4,570,558 43,122,013 Administrative Costs s Debt Service - s 379,571 13,000 392,571 PAM Project - s 48,476 - 46,476 Highrise - a 11,544 - 11,544 HIghrise Relocation - if 5,819 - 5,819 Downtown - s 54,240 - 54,240 Motel - s 23,858 - 23,858 169 Bridge/junction - 1 22,785 - 22,785 Drainage - s 34,883 - 34,883 So.Bypass - a 23,179 - 23,179 HRA/EDA - 1 228,720 - 228,720 Onsite - a 33,875 - 33,875 DowntoNn - a 9,987 - 9,987 Mebco - s 15,303 - 15,303 Civic Center - s 15,301 - 15,301 City - it 439,000 - 439,000 FMG 59,881 59,881 a 59,881 - 59,681 Block 3&4 - 8 25,776 - 25,776 Block 38.4 Relocation - 1 385,907 40 385,947 Subtotal 59,881 - 59,881 5 1,816,105 13,040 1,829,145 Other ISO pmts 280,703 280,703 s 2,170,425 323,479 2,493,904 Relocation - s - - - Retumed for Distribution - a 40,936 - 40,936 Subtotal 280,703 - 280,703 s 2,211,361 323,479 2,534,840 Total uses of Funds 2,170,921 - 2,170,921 s 73,129,445 7,082,632 80,192,077 If Transfer To Other Districts I District 11 5,199 682,968 688,167 s 973,152 810,266 1,783,418 District 14 - s 2,356,526 - 2,358,526 District s6 - s 138,576 - 138,576 District sl0=s1 - s 48,138 - 48,138 Transfer To Other Funds - s - - - i - - Total Other Uses 5,199 682,968 688,167 I 3,516,392 810,266 4,326,658 s Excess(deficiency)of s Revenues over Expenditures $0 SO $0 s $1,332,135 ($1,332,135) ($0) A-3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 98-120 RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFICATION OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND MODIFICATIONS OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 3, 7 AND 9 CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee has authorized preparation of a modified Redevelopment Plan for the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") and modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans ("TIF Plans") for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1,3,7 and 9 within the Project, and the modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plans have been submitted to the Planning Commission for comment; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plans and has compared them with the plans for development of the City as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota as follows: 1. The modified Redevelopment Plan for the Project and the modified TIF Plans for TIF District Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 are found to be consistent with the plan for development of the City of Shakopee as a whole. 2. City staff are authorized and directed to provide a copy of this resolution to the City Council and the board of commissioners of the Shakopee Economic Development Authority as the Planning Commission's written comment regarding the proposed plan modifications. Approved this 3rd day of December, 1998, by the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota. a. 4-tricota Chat son Cl Al-FEST: Secretary SJB-134435 SH235-5 / 3 . 6. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill,City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox,City Clerk SUBJECT: 1999 Currency Exchange Licenses DATE: December 10, 1998 INTRODUCTION&BACKGROUND: The City Council is asked to consider applications for renewal of a currency exchange license for: DRM LLC of Shakopee dba/Excel Pawn.; Madison Financial Companies dba/Money Xchange; and Game Financial Corporation. You may remember that the City has previously approved licenses for these applicants. The licenses are ultimately issued by the State of Minnesota. Current law requires that the local municipality approve or deny the issuance of a license, after published notice and a public hearing. The applicants have provided the State with the required $10,000.00 Currency Exchange Surety Bond. The Chief of Police has advised me that he is unaware of any reason for the City of Shakopee to object to the granting of a currency exchange license to these applicants. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5042, A Resolution Approving the Application of DRM LLC of Shakopee dba/ Excel Pawn for a Currency Exchange License at 450 West First Avenue, and move its adoption. 2. Offer Resolution No. 5041, A Resolution Approving the Application of Game Financial Corporation for a Currency Exchange License at 1100 Canterbury Road, and move its adoption. 3. Offer Resolution No. 5040,A Resolution Approving the Application of Madison Financial Companies dba/ Money Xchange for a Currency Exchange License at 1147 Canterbury Road, and move its adoption. kt,tiL . Ji ' . Cox 4 JSC/tiv RESOLUTION NO. 5042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF DRM LLC OF SHAKOPEE dba/EXCEL PAWN FOR A CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE AT 450 WEST FIRST AVENUE WHEREAS, in 1992 Minnesota Statute Section 53A.04 was amended to require a City to approve or disapprove of a proposed currency exchange license; and WHEREAS, DRM LLC of Shakopee dba/Excel Pawn applied for a currency exchange license for a location at 450 West First Avenue;and WHEREAS,the City has given published notice of its intention to consider this issue, has solicited testimony from interested persons, and finds that the application should be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the City approves the granting of a currency exchange license to DRM LLC of Shakopee dba/Excel Pawn at its location at 450 West First Avenue. Adopted in Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 5041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF GAME FINANCIAL CORP. FOR A CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE AT 1100 CANTERBURY ROAD WHEREAS, in 1992 Minnesota Statute Section 53A.04 was amended to require a City to approve or disapprove of a proposed currency exchange license;and WHEREAS, Game Financial Corp. applied for a currency exchange license for a location at 1100 Canterbury Road;and WHEREAS, the City has given published notice of its intention to consider this issue, has solicited testimony from interested persons, and finds that the application should be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the City approves the granting of a currency exchange license to Game Financial Corp. at its location at 1100 Canterbury Road. Adopted in Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 5040 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF MADISON FINANCIAL COMPANIES dba/MONEY XCHANGE FOR A CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE AT 1147 CANTERBURY ROAD WHEREAS, in 1992 Minnesota Statute Section 53A.04 was amended to require a City to approve or disapprove of a proposed currency exchange license;and WHEREAS, Madison Financial Companies dba/Money Xchange applied for a currency exchange license for a location at 1147 Canterbury Road;and WHEREAS, the City has given published notice of its intention to consider this issue, has solicited testimony from interested persons, and finds that the application should be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the City approves the granting of a currency exchange license to Madison Financial Companies dba/Money Xchange at its location at 1147 Canterbury Road. Adopted in Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk I.Q.C . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Partial Vacation of Drainage&Utility Easement Vacated Spencer Street, West of Lot 1, Block 1, Original Shakopee Plat DATE: December 15, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City Council received a request from James Perry to consider the partial vacation of a drainage and utility easement, located within vacated Spencer Street and west of Lot 1, Block 1, Original Shakopee Plat. The applicant is requesting the vacation to eliminate the easement due to Mr. Perry's office building being constructed over the easement. The resolution contains the legal description, provided by the applicant's representative, of the property to be vacated. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission reviewed the request at its meeting of December 3, 1998. The Commission recommended approval of the requested vacation. Please find attached a copy of the December 3, 1998, Planning Commission staff memorandum. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the requested vacation. 2. Deny the request to vacate the subject easement right-of-way. 3. Table the decision to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested vacation(Alternative No. 1). ACTION REQUESTED Offer and approve Resolution No. 5032, approving the requested easement vacation. u ie ima Planner II is\commdev\cc\1998\cc1215\vacperry.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE VACATING THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED IN VACATED SPENCER STREET,WEST OF LOT 1,BLOCK 1, ORIGINAL SHAKOPEE PLAT, CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY,MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a drainage and utility easement has been dedicated in vacated Spencer Street, west of Lot 1, Block 1, Original Shakopee Plat; and WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that this easement serves 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 15th day of December, 1998; 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 the vacation hereinafter described is in the public interest; and 2. That the following drainage and utility easement located in vacated Spencer Street, west of Lot 1, Block 1, Original Shakopee Plat, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, serves no further public need, is hereby vacated, and described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, City of Shakopee; thence a portion of the 25 foot wide easement for utilities over and under part of vacated Spencer Street that was reserved in Resolution No. 4650 of the City of Shakopee, the part to be vacated being described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota; thence N 80 degrees W assumed bearing along the north line of said Lot 1 to the Northwest corner thereof; thence continuing N 80 degrees W assumed bearing a distance of 22.00 feet to the east line of a utility and trail easement reserved in said Resolution; thence S 7 degrees 57 minutes 06 seconds E to a point that is 20 feet south of the north line of Lot 1 extended, which is the point of beginning of the easement to be vacated;thence continuing S 7 degrees 57 minutes 06 seconds E to a point on the south line of said 25 foot easement that is 25 feet south of the north line of Lot 1 extended; thence S 80 degrees E assumed bearing, along the south boundary of said 25 foot wide easement, parallel with the north line of said Lot 1 extended, a distance of 22 feet, more or less, to the west line of said Lot 1; thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 1 a distance of five feet; then westerly to the point of beginning. 3. After the adoption of this 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 , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 5032 I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 15th day of December, 1998, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of , 1998. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Partial Vacation of a Drainage&Utility Easement Vacated Spencer Street,West of Lot 1,Block 1, Original Shakopee Plat DATE: December 3, 1998 SITE INFORMATION Applicant: James Perry Site Location: Vacated Spencer Street,west of Lot 1,Block 1, Original Shakopee Plat Current Zoning: Highway Business(B1) Adjacent Zoning: North:Floodplain South:Highway Business(B1) East: Highway Business(B1) West: Highway Business(B1) 1995 Comp.Plan: Commercial MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary DISCUSSION The City Council received a request from James Perry to consider the partial vacation of a drainage and utility easement, located within vacated Spencer Street and west of Lot 1, Block 1, Original Shakopee Plat. The purpose of this request is to eliminate the easement due to Mr. Perry's office building being constructed over the easement. The City Council will hold a public hearing on December 15, 1998, to consider this vacation request. A recommendation from the Planning Commission is needed for the vacation process. Other agencies, city departments and utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation, and no comments adverse to this request have been received. Maps indicating the location and proposed vacation are attached for your review. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the partial vacation of the drainage and utility easement in vacated Spencer Street. 2. Recommend to the City Council denial of the request to vacate the subject easement. 3. Table the decision to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information. doIJaaQ and IEXHIBIT A ..'Ilk ' . .. ico1Ja'O 6u!u!w(Tf/7j, f . . . .. . : •. • }ou}s!O u!oldpoo131-4. puDIaJOUS{-S-4 l • sauoZ ADIJano UOI}Da.Da LI JOIDw 1 LIW 1 . IDu}snpul ,(noaH 1 ZI I • lou}snpul }y6n I LI I 011 . • ssau!sn8 la}uaO 1 ce I ig 1 ssau!sn8 ao!6!O 1 Z8 I © ssau!sn8 AoMy6!H I-1 lo!}uap!sab AHLuo j aWd!}Inyy 1 £b 0 /if, lo!}uap!saa Al!suaO wn!payq 1 Z2J lo!}uap!say aadomoyS plp PL a .11110 loguap!saa uogJn 181L1 lo!}uap!saa t}IsuaO Moi 1d18 ill/0 • lo!}uap!saa loJnaa2i I aJn}ino!J6y 1 Jb I1411 /A .. i .• 70 :." sauoZ bu!Al:apun aN3D]•1 * v .. Cal r % .1.. _-„„Arip„,„„ . • _ . • . _ _ . iostoO. „, mg% * *\ : • . Ai 1=111vOi Ai 0 " - ---WrI41-11.141° .... o 111141110\ --1 . "-Io soIIIP 01 fiAlli • . ... ,,... ..,..s iwklip ,. wrs oi ---- . . • ..... . ...... . . i..., 0, ,10,0 • ._... 0 \iii, c s . _0_,..,010, .._. o ,... r . .. 4,. ,,,,,,, ._.. .. crN ,„,,,,,o,„„0rim______:\ d ,� i. . r1, Ca .g; C: ---- ----------4, (1) -.r. s a _ 5g SPENCER .12136 - N 10'37'18'Wx I - j zsofl T 1 O @7 •r - --7OPENO.A3N9D2608TILITY EASEMENT! 4— 7. :TREET .� ,3 � __te_l. _s3_a`e_� ��I v1 NI /% . , OPI Go y.„:, v „i, a NiT 0),723 �.0 ss S / �'! ' PER WO.NO..392604 STR•EET W 1_C` — o N_ ypyp 4:1_ . P 400 \ l 44 ry- iq RI �,0.. y• 25.70 P m I /'�”' I ~ SEE DETAIL 1""30 \ O l!j .a. 53.010 N gb3bS•W I��� OOMMON fLfMtNT 1 ••�: _ , 21.23 21.00 .. X0.00 NIO'03'OS•w -�1� ) '' ••:•••• 3A $ xe.7z nlooa'os•w O r �V z z• . ° r Q K • \1 . ' r • \ r ' nc°' 10 I . 4 -, x = z • • CO I ' • 13.x3 a o •A r— I.• m C ^ 33 fT{ : Ot l 9crg : I .4.< rnr NlT � r di D illg x Z u) AD ria +n / e m \ z � c� r Y 7 7 • NN t,n•nt 0 T1 O Z s$ ,0.00 Wv �� o rn 142.00 N10'37'18'W • .. _� C i 0 i;a `! �� m EMc•T+z'J6 1 I C 1y lean Colby 15 --, z .C i .A I g 5 • L t iT1233 ; I �� • 2f; QK•733A3 6m a 15x3 Flw.4..733.35 • a C Ry'< w' [14..731.18 � � S 4 km .. i [N..172315 • IOb.cam�Na,Rama > I F 20.75 Z Flax •14.73.15 1«11.50 O `I Flax•14.723.15 Obmmm EI.ie JOBS • 0) 0 • °: 1 -- 1 fr i n 1 ilk; 1! U. • 11,;:i iuil , , , t ;s s• s 514 Fr rill •4•0:- [s1 17 r . - fir : 3 15 W ci ; € 83•334 r s^ Ry • z.fl 4341. u 3 n • . ;a; _ o : �-. ^ . f I. E. ::: :111E5Ea . :: 3 • �g6 0 • • ° ko a.= IQ O r O V G 5 o 001 , O — w • • , O ' _ • .i, O • H I 0• 0 •4« p y S C V a : 4 4 ''� ' .. „. . i 4 • _I. 3 14 04 • • _ m d O: • S 23'; 9 S ✓ 4 O C 4 S M " x �O• '�. C .'.i j •p «u V •ta a« •4 Vq• :e• • i i U ••• a •� .L C U u §401710 a:Is.;.i r.•° • 4 u 3 Y.. ° �i •O • Ciii/� M ` M • 2 ° w $ ikr els 21 aF ' •F N Y ISO s. s 14e Bse 8� r� af; � os x; a 5 : s "A� F � M :� � : • F s =pq :� a "_ ug` I : a a • Yt sa � aaq a 3 • e YO r l • •1i . LON p M m • s Ifs 5ryM FA Sia: ;Psvivg Pso a. .•.ri i$yYy i YP II 0 • 3 • • w 1; V. •a ✓yya W � N ✓ g~ . 1 � 1114 . IH 1 di esF aQw" Il • i .211 a e; 1 i I aa . II q .i e ' li gi Ail II I • H • • I. ! w • • C • I 0 °••; 8 £9o£ • IUIWII3 UWWO3 • 91'£ZL•11•I•111O14 I. O OS'11 91'1£1.149 6u11!•9 w Pi 9L'9Z • z 00111 Z Q 1111••••13 U�•N0 ' I W 91101•*M•�•Q� 91£ZIr••13 44 S sg }• I— 2 3 00 61 ; MIN 13 W ��� 91'I£L�"•13 I 99'££L•'A I J004 0E91 0 W 9C££L•�M3 f Z _.1..,....iW g , FMill I ,i{ A r� 9S'i ZML•�`•N p+61•0 02911f1 H _ ( 113�+•••••Ol a W r a f N 1111 w r 91 9SZ1rL•�•13 r a r N M.81 LE 01 N 00'Z41 �;j < 2 • ��° i _ o0 oe `_ 8 s Z •• W O1 j • lu10uol lea • • �'� H A •�,• Q Z w r ti § � a ...I U Z . O 0 t VA iv. Z G *. v.• 00'9900.9 CI) I alt.. a I- 0 .0 �-co !'': s . J f Iii "Ct U �, \el'b�—��:� W Pt. 1 s • lig i U - . R °1 a W i�1 g in CZTI — N I.:. z ar •'T rO i.1.1\$• , • u a • t 0 1 a — 0) Y o0•£1 " W zr Y n 0 14 W W h 1 1 „ 2 1 ; \ . ... la O M,90,1!Q,OIN ZL'9Z• _ ' wiz, .•`„ M.SO,£0.01 N 00'01 001.2 92'12 • Uf, 1N3W3�3 NOWNI00 . 1 ' `-• M,SO,£agN 90'99 ' �a j 7 0 0911�� 1IV130 33S /,, m e 11 gig 91 \ Pi 9L 9Z •,o • -.i.. • o 1.1 •j c0 SS "---s.-- > »-» 9O926£'09'000 23•11 / 11 r� �' 1_�� tri V= I 133a1S a30N3dS 071 A O 03 ID 'Ain lf) O t iii.:;;:. �C I M M81 rk v Ill f • �__ ,!.. 3.90.19.1 SS j' __l''' I " S 1I93W3SY3 909Z6£'71 ti...11.1.F:72-1' I- 'ON900 aid // .1....!*.j:1*. F I 1111119 ONY 301/NIVNO�"'d00 SZ , t ••_ 1 'M.81,LE.01N 9E•IZI ' tJj m/ ogo a• 3 8,+r ilL •Sj-• 11 U 9 / J ii'' Z. „4".11' , . t:: QQ bn an N / 3, a . City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Hearing For The Adoption Of The 1999 Tax Levy And Budget Resolutions DATE: December 3, 1998 Introduction and Background The state requires that the tax levy and the budget be adopted at a hearing subsequent to the public hearing on the tax levy and budget which was December 7th. The Department of Revenue has indicated that the hearing may be held at a regularly scheduled council meeting. Resolution Number 5035 finally adopts the tax levy for payable 1999. The gross tax levy for 1998/99 is $757, 854 more than for - 1997/98 due to the change in the transit levy, inclusion of part of the EDA levy, small increase in the fire Station bond levy and increase in the General Fund Budget . It includes reimbursement to the General Fund for 1998/99 debt service levies transferred from the General fund in 1998 . Resolution Number 5036 adopts the 1999 Budget . The budget must be adopted after the tax levy. Action • Open the hearing and call for comments . • Offer Resolution Number 5035, A Resolution Setting the 1998 Tax Levy, collectable In 1999, and move its adoption. • Offer Resolution Number 5036, A Resolution Adopting the 1999 Budget, and move its adoption. • Close the hearing. (1 / Greg Voxland Finance Director n:\budget\budres99 RESOLUTION NO. 5035 A RESOLUTION SETTING 1998 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 1999 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the following sums of money be levied as the tax levy in accordance with existing law for the current year, collectible in 1999, upon the taxable property in the City of Shakopee, for the following purposes : General Levy (net of HACA) $3, 128, 886 Plus Economic Development Authority $75, 000 Transit Levy $ 354, 615 Debt Service - Fire Referendum $ 261, 235 (Market Value) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy to this resolution to the County Auditor of Scott County, Minnesota . Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of December, 1998 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 5036 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1999 BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the 1999 Budget with the estimated revenues and appropriations for the General Fund and the Special Revenue Funds as shown below is hereby adopted. Estimated Revenue Expenditures & Other Sources & Other Uses General Fund - (Personnel, Supplies & Capital Outlays) Mayor and Council $ 74, 080 Administration 219,200 City Clerk 201,220 Finance 348, 770 Legal 269,000 Planning 751, 720 Government Buildings 232,230 Police 1, 931,330 Fire 618, 420 Inspection 326, 710 Engineering 507, 620 Street 827,730 Shop 145,330 Park 487, 090 Unallocated 257,580 Transfers 336, 970 Total General Fund $7, 302, 388 $7,535,000 • Transit Fund $500, 630 $500, 630 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of December, 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum Ct\tbesc�.�, TO: Mayor and City Council Shakopee Residents and Taxpayers FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: 1999 Operating Budget DATE: December 15, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to take action to adopt the 1999 Operating Budget for the City of Shakopee, as outlined in Finance Director Gregg Voxland's memo of December 3rd, and also give direction on what to do with an additional $100,000 in revenues not previously anticipated. BACKGROUND: On December 7th, the City Council held the State-mandated"Truth in Taxation"hearing to consider the 1999 Operating Budget. The numbers presented by Councilor Bob Sweeney were the result of a preliminary budget which had been determined first by departmental requests being submitted in July, and reviewed by the Council in August. The City Council then set a preliminary budget in September, after considering departmental needs, City policies, and tax structure. Staff and the elected officials worked cooperatively on this. Special recognition should go to Finance Director Gregg Voxland, and Accountant Greg Sticha for their work in the budget's preparation. Mr. Sticha was a new hire in 1998 by the City, and his initial experience with the City's budget process went smoothly. DEMAND FOR SERVICES: Several factors were considered by the City Council as they considered needs for 1999:. • Completion on the new River City Centre building, which is a cornerstone for downtown redevelopment. Comprehensive planning work is being done to look at redevelopment issues for the downtown core area, and the First Avenue and Marschall Road areas,part of which will have an impact on the City or EDA budget and tax base. • Completion of the first major retail/commercial area resulting from the U.S. 169 Bypass. October, 1998 saw the opening of the CUB Food and Crossroads Center shopping center in the Marschall Road/Vierling Drive areas. This will add to the City's tax base, and will also reorient some of the existing commercial activities. aun.noc • A continuation of development in the ValleyGreen Business Park,the major project being the construction of the Seagate Research and Development plant south of Canterbury Park. • The beginning of development in the Southbridge development near East Dean Lake. Ultimately, these 880 housing units will extend the need for concentrated City services to eastern Shakopee. By November, 1998,. building permits for some 609 dwelling units had been issued. Of these, 163 were for single family units; the balance were for multi-family units. By comparison in 1997, there were 137 single family units (out of 360 units total)permits issued through November, 1997. Declared value of the building activity through November, 1998, was $111.2 million vs. $82.8 million for the same period in 1997. EFFICIENCY MEASURES: The following are the actual budget and measures of efficiencies as presented at the December 7th Truth in Taxation hearing: 1996 1997 1998 1999 Population* 14,952 15,200 16,400 17,200 Households* 5,111 5,500 6,000 6,400 FT Employees** 63 66 69 74 Pop. per Emp 220 231 238 232 Households 78 82 87 86 per Employee Budget $/pop. 377 393 405 418 Budget$/household 1,104 1,085 1,107 1,125 *Estimates **Assumes all budgeted positions are filled. BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS: The 1999 budget had several changes from the 1998 budget. • $100,000 is included to address Year 2000 issues. The City is reviewing all identifiable problems and expects to have any needed changes in place before December 1999. Several items of equipment will need to be replaced in 1999. BUD.DOC • Two Community Service Officers are added in the Police Department. The employees will perform tasks that do not require a sworn officer such as code enforcement, educational functions and maintaining the police evidence files. Also, a police officer is added due to the growth of the city and to provide more staffing in certain functions. • Recreation is budgeted for an additional position at the Community Center for maintenance and operational staffing. • The new full time position of Fire Marshal is added in the budget to review building plans and perform inspections. The function is currently performed by volunteer fighters; the growth rate of the city has surpassed the ability of volunteers to devote the needed number of hours. • One clerical position for additional staffing in the City Clerk and Building Inspection departments to keep up with the increasing work load is also included. • Council has set up a"Building Fund"to provide funding for future building acquisition/expansion/renovation. Part of the money put into this fund is from charging "rent"to the operating departments. This will help smooth out the peaks and valleys in the overall cost and tax burden for major public buildings. • Larger equipment purchases for 1999 are three cars for the Police Department, a pickup for the Fire Department and three larger trucks for Public Works. • 1999 will see the first full year of operation of the new fire station, which opened in May, 1998. LEVY IMPACT/ADDITIONAL REVENUE: The net spread levy for 1998 was $2,573,873. The preliminary budget as presented at the Truth in Taxation hearing would increase that to $2,913,791, an increase of 13.2%. However, Councilor Sweeney was advised at the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission meeting on December 8th that SPUC is revising its revenue estimates, so that the amount to be budgeted for SPUC transfer should increase by $100,000, to $924,000 in 1999 (Councilor Sweeney notes that this increase may be due in part to increased electrical sales to such recent developments as ADC and Seagate). While SPUC estimates are just that -estimates -and can go up or down,there does exist an opportunity for the Council to reduce the 1999 levy by that$100,000, if it so wishes. Gregg Voxland has provided what the impact of a$100,000 tax reduction would be (attached). With the current status (Exhibit A),the total City net levy spread would be +13.2%, as described previously. Factoring in the additional $100,000 revenue would reduce that increase to +9.3%. The net impact on the City tax rate is a reduction from 2.88%,to 2.70%. The two exhibits also show the difference in taxes that the $100,000 would mean for each property in Shakopee. It ranges from 310 annually for the $81,000 value house, to 990 annually for the $187,700 house. BUD.DOC The alternative to reducing the tax rate would be to simply allow excess revenues to go into General Fund Reserves. Staff asks for direction from Council on this. ACTION REQUI.RED: After taking input at the December 15th public hearing, the City Council should, give direction on how it wishes to address the additional $100,000 in SPUC revenue. It should then approve the resolutions described in the Finance Director's memo, dated December 3, 1998. 1,M( Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw BUD.DOC EXHIBIT A City of Shakopee General Fund Only 12/10/98 Lctr_ rp,� S Pay 1998 Pay 1999 Change Net levy spread 2,573, 873 2, 913, 791 13 .2% Total City Net Taxable Tax Cap. 12, 016,642 13,607, 909 13 .2% City Tax Rate 0.21127 0.21735 2.87783% Assessor' s Estimated Market Value $75, 000 $81, 000 8.0% Tax Capacity First $75, 000 at 1% 750 750 Balance at 1.85% 102 750 852 13 .6% City Tax Rate 21.127% 21.735% $ 26.73 City Tax $158.45 $185.18 16.9% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $101, 600 $109,300 7.6% Tax Capacity First $75, 000 at 1% 750 750 Balance at 1.85% 492 583 1,242 1,333 7.3% City Tax Rate 21.127% 21.735% $ 27.33 City Tax $262 .42 $289.75 10.4% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $107, 800 $117, 100 8.6% Tax Capacity First $75, 000 at 1% 750 750 Balance at 1.85% 607 716 1,357 1,466 8. 0% City Tax Rate 21.127% 21. 735% $ 31.92 City Tax $286.65 $318.57 11.1% Assessor' s Estimated Market Value $177, 800 $187, 700 5.6% Tax Capacity First $75, 000 at 1% 750 750 Balance at 1. 85% 1, 902 1, 916 2, 652 2,666 0.5% City Tax Rate 21. 127% 21. 735% $ 19. 19 City Tax $560.25 $579.43 3 .4% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $177, 800 $187, 700 5.6% Tax Capacity Commercial First $150, 000 at 2 .7% 4,050 3, 675 Balance at 4 . 0% 1, 112 1,320 5, 162 4, 995 -3 .2% City Tax Rate 21.127% 21.735% $ (5.02) City Tax $1, 090.58 $1, 085.55 -0.5% LEVY98B.XLS TAXBILL pay 99 8:40 AM 12/10/98 i EXHIBIT B City of Shakopee General Fund Only efAx /,e,,/ -'/oo, 000 CsPcI9 12/10/98 / Pay 1998 Pay 1999 Change Net levy spread 2,573, 873 2, 813, 791 9.3% Total City Net Taxable Tax Cap. 12, 016,642 13,607, 909 13 .2% City Tax Rate 0.21127 0.21698 2.70234% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $75, 000 $81, 000 8.0% Tax Capacity First $75, 000 at 1% 750 750 Balance at 1.85% 102 750 852 13 .6% City Tax Rate 21.127% 21.698% $ 26.41 City Tax $158.45 $184 .87 16. 7% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $101, 600 $109, 300 7.6% Tax Capacity First $75, 000 at 1% 750 750 Balance at 1.85% 492 583 1,242 1, 333 7.3% City Tax Rate 21.127% 21.698% $ 26.84 City Tax $262.42 $289.26 10.2% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $107, 800 $117, 100 8.6% Tax Capacity First $75, 000 at 1% 750 750 Balance at 1.85% 607 716 1,357 1,466 8 .0% City Tax Rate 21.127% 21.698% $ 31.38 City Tax $286.65 $318.03 10.9% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $177, 800 $187, 700 5.6% Tax Capacity First $75, 000 at 1% 750 750 Balance at 1.85% 1, 902 1, 916 2, 652 2, 666 0.5% City Tax Rate 21. 127% 21.698% $ 18 .20 City Tax $560.25 $578.44 3 .2% Assessor' s Estimated Market Value $177, 800 $187, 700 5.6% Tax Capacity Commercial First $150,000 at 2 .7% 4, 050 3, 675 Balance at 4.0% 1, 112 1,320 5, 162 4, 995 -3 .2% City Tax Rate 21.127% 21.698% $ (6 .87) City Tax $1, 090.58 $1, 083 .70 -0.6% LEVY98B.XLS TAXBILL pay 99 10:35 AM 12/10/98 ly. A . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT ^ENI TO: Mayor and City Council f V J G Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map -Rezone property from Agriculture (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone APPLICANT: James E. Allen Gregory J. Kerkow&Gary E.Kerkow(property owners) DATE: December 15, 1998 INTRODUCTION Mr. Jim Allen is requesting that the Official Zoning Map be amended to rezone a parcel currently zoned as Agriculture (AG)Zone to Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone. This property is located South of US 169, east of Marschall Rd., north of 17th Ave. extended, and immediately east of "Longmeadow Addition" (Centex Homes). A copy of the December 3rd, 1998 Planning Commission staff report is attached for reference. This rezoning is in compliance with the current Comprehensive Land Use plan for the city. ALTERNATIVES 1. Amend the Zoning Map to rezone the subject property from Agriculture (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone. 2. Do not amend the Zoning Map. 3. Direct that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect a different use for the subject site. 4. Table the decision and request additional information from the applicant or staff. PLANNING COMNIISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has recommended Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED Offer Ordinance No. 535,Fourth Series, and move its approval. i:\connndev\cc\1998\cc 121 spa-allen.doc ORDINANCE NO. 535,FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEC. 11.03 BY REZONING LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF US 169,EAST OF MARSCHALL RD.,NORTH OF 17TH AVE.EXTENDED,AND IMMEDIATELY EAST OF "LONGMEADOW ADDITION,"from AGRICULTURE(AG)ZONE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R-2)ZONE WHEREAS,James E Allen is the Applicant and Gregory J.Kerkow&Gary E Kerkow are the property owners, and both parties have requested the rezoning of land from Agriculture (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone, and legally described as follows: That part of the North Half (1/2) of the Northeast Quarter(1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section 17, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the south 50.00 feet and southerly of the north 33.00 feet thereof. WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property referenced herein to Medium Density Residential (R-2)Zone to the City Council. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by rezoning land referenced herein, from Agriculture (AG)Zone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone. 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 , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1998. Prepared by: City of Shakopee 129 S.Holmes St. Shakopee,MN 55379 PC AGENDA ITEM#6 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map-Rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG)to Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone DATE: December 3, 1998 Site Information: Applicant: James E. Allen Property Owner: Gregory J. Kerkow&Gary E.Kerkow . Location: South of US 169, east of Marschall Rd.,north of 17th Ave. extended, and immediately east of"Longmeadow Addition"(Centex Homes) Current Zoning: Agriculture(AG)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Agriculture(AG)Zone South: Agriculture(AG)Zone East: Agriculture(AG)Zone West: Multiple Family Residential(R-3)Zone 1995 Comp. Plan: Medium Density Residential Area: 18±Acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: 1995 Comprehensive Land Use Map Exhibit C: City Code Sect. 11.32,Medium Density Res. (R-2)regulations Introduction: The applicant is requesting the City to amend the Official Zoning Map by rezoning a parcel currently zoned as Agriculture(AG)Zone to Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone(refer to Exhibit b A). The applicant has indicated they intend to construct a townhouse development,titled"Dublin Square." Considerations: 1. The Comprehensive Plan Map (Exhibit B) has set basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. A list of the uses, both permitted and conditional,that are allowed in the Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone is attached(Exhibit C). 2. The Land Use Chapter of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan designated this area as "Medium Density Residential." The rezoning of the site to Medium Density Residential, as requested by the applicant,would be in conformance with the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The purpose of the Medium Density Residential Zone is to provide an area for medium density residential development consisting of 5-11 units per acre, and where public sanitary sewer and water are available. These services are available, and the developer is prepared to extend all services to the proposed site. Findin : The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with staff findings. Criteria#1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding#1: The original Zoning Ordinance is not in error. Criteria#2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding#2: Significant changes in community goals and policies have, as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, taken place. Criteria#3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3: Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have not occurred Criteria#4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4: The Comprehensive Plan has identified this area for `Medium Density Residential" use. Therefore, this request is in compliance with the land use plan in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agriculture(AG)Zone to Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone. 2. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to rezone property from Agriculture (AG)Zone to Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone. 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval of the request to rezone the subject property. Action Requested: Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agriculture(AG)Zone to Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone. i:\commdev\boaa-pc\1998\1203Vrz-allen.doc 2 nr ,rrillw r'. CO I 4 141-11_ ovum \°I 14411 /0 OA W III IrTellk a \ . a a Q 0 cc W 5 W J 1 V '^ Q � . a a a J F U _ ----- V■VS 2 ' P LEGEND 12 \ :•:• a .:-:• �� v1, _, m Underlying Zones S�, QIN,:lrie\k, r o I AGI Agriculture kE bJ7 A I*�,1 w'O N,t4 - ,,l • I RR I Rural Residential + liii ..04ij n A IR1AI Low Density Residential ���/ 0 R B Urban Residential in M S e! Jur. !�"Q ' N �/ A� ,ate o .,4. • 1.4-- [RIC( Old Shakopee Residential :foie =r 77 e,P J �2 ' 4. R Medium Density Residential eal ® --cal '+a .•� I R3 I Multiple Family Residential : �d�0v �F�ah�d� 0000 ii _ I 81 I Highway Business ", S �I(Zt/2J'dS H 1 1 Office Business ��� Q f Central Business r-- ¢, (� I I1 I Light Industrial illm = - F 112 ( Heavy Industrial H I MR I Major Recreation Jb'2! II .� Overlay Zones num.,----.---------.... �.. ,2ldW \I r� 'a 1. LJt [•-S-lShorelond Q I--F-I Floodolain District / ! V/41 Mining Overlay r 1 M ® ?UD Overlay EXHIBIT A • §11.32 • SEC.11.32. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE(R-2). Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the medium density residential zone is to provide an area which will allow 2.5 to 8 residential dwellings per acre and also provide a transitional zone between single family residential areas and other land uses. Subd.2. Permitted Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. residential structures containing two to four dwelling units; B. existing single family dwellings; C. public recreation; D. utility services; E. public buildings; F. day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons; G. adult day care centers as permitted uses, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care center shall: 1. serve 12 or fewer persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designated to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least 40 square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in. a multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways,stairways,closets,offices,restrooms,and utility and storage areas; b. more than 25 percent of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or . c. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; and 5. comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) peps revised in 1997 1151 EXHIBIT C §11.32 H. residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons; or I. townhouses (Ord. 467, December 19, 1996) Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit A. multiple-family dwellings containing up to 6 units; B. home occupations; C. hospitals and clinics; D. cemeteries; • E. churches and other places of worship; F. public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Board of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12,or any portion thereof; G. nursing homes; H. bed and breakfast inns; I. utility service structures; J. day care facilities serving from 13 through 16 persons; K. adult day care centers as conditional use, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care centers shall: 1. serve 13 or more persons; • 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least 40 square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization, the center may share a common space with the multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways,closets,offices, restrooms and utility and storage areas; p.0,revised in 1997 1152 • . §11.32 b. more than 25 percent of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff, or c. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons • associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; 5. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and • 6. comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) L. residential facilities serving from 7 through 16 persons; M. relocated structures; N. structures over 2-1/2 stories or 35 feet in height; O. developments containing more than one principal structure per lot; or P. other uses similar to those permitted by this subdivision, as determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Subd.4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. open off-street parking spaces not to exceed three spaces per dwelling unit; B. garages; C. fences; D. gardening and other horticultural uses not involving retail sales; E. communication service apparatus/device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be co-located on an existing tower or an existing structure; 2. must not exceed 175 feet in total height (including the extension of any communication service device(s) apparatus); 3. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 4. signage si a shall not be allowed on the communication service device(s)/apparatus other than danger or warning type signs; 5. must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; paps revised in 1997 1153 §11.32 6. shall be located and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility off-site to the maximum extent possible; 7. applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; 8. all obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an approved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site; 9. the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication devices(s)/apparatus; 10. wireless telecommunication towers and antennas will only be considered for City parks when the following conditions exist and if those areas are recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the City Council: • City parks of sufficient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; • commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults; 11. all revenue generated through the lease of a City park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund; (Ord. 479, March 13, 1997) F. swimming pools; G. tennis courts; H. receive only satellite dish antennas and other antennas; 1, solar equipment; or J. other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd.5. Design Standards. Within the medium density residential zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following requirements: • A. Density: a minimum of five and a maximum of 11 dwellings per acre. Streets shall be excluded in calculating acreage. B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 60% C. Lot specifications: p.pe r«issd in 1997 1154 §11.33 • Minimum lot width (single-family detached): 60 feet (two-family dwelling): 70 feet; (multiple-family dwelling): 100 feet Minimum lot depth: 100 feet Minimum front yard setback 35 feet Minimum side yard setback 10 feet Minimum rear yard setback 30 feet In the case of townhouse developments which contain both public streets and private streets or driveways, the front yard setback on public streets may be reduced to the average setback from private streets or driveways, so long as the front yard setback from any public street in the development is no less than 20 feet. (Ord. 467, December 19, 1996) D. Maximum height: No structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height without a conditional use permit. Subd.6. Additional Requirements. east 20 feet for at A. All width.eAll dwell ngs shall have a width sall have depth of at ) least of at least 20 feet foratleast 50 percent of their depth. B. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 60, May 14, 1981; Ord. 159, • February 28, 1985; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 11.33. Reserved. ppe nvis.d in 1997 1155 /L( . 3, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Subdivision Ordinance MEETING DATE: December 15, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Commission recently, over several meetings, completed its review of the draft subdivision ordinance and related design criteria. Because of the length of the proposed ordinance, and the possible complexity of the items to be discussed, Council may wish to review it first in a work session. Possible dates for a workshop session would be: • Monday January 11, 1999 • Wednesday January 13, 1999 • Tuesday January 26, 1999 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Establish a date and time for a workshop session on the proposed subdivision ordinance and design criteria. 2. Do not establish a workshop date,but direct staff to put the matter on its next regular agenda. ACTION REQUESTED: By consensus or motion set a date and time for a workshop session on the proposed subdivision ordinance and design criteria. AP-R. Michael Leek Community Development Director CITY OF SHAKOPEE /5 , A , I Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Bid Irregularity DATE: December 11, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to consider waiving an irregularity in the Fire Department's airboat/hovercraft bid, and award a purchase order for the vehicle to Windmark, Inc. BACKGROUND: The attached memorandum from Fire Chief Terry Link describes that both bidders on the airboat/hovercraft failed to include a bid bond as required by the bid specs. Chief Link further goes on to describe his discussion with the lower bidder, who indicated an inability to provide a bid or performance bond. Chief Link and I spoke with the City Attorney. We were told that a bid bond only guarantees performance until such time as a contract is entered into, and is commonly done in engineering or facilities project wherein failure to execute a contract would require costly rebidding. Therefore, while the bid bond was a requirement, it is not critical to the issue at hand. Of more concern is the low bidder's performance. In this case, Windmark is requiring 1/3 of the $45,000 at the time that the order is placed; the balance is due upon completion. Therefore, if the $15,000 is paid, and Windmark fails to perform,the City would have to sue Windmark to recover its money. The owner of Windmark has offered to provide a letter of personal guarantee; the City Attorney suggested that be accepted, as the City would than have recourse against both Windmark, Inc., and the owner. Chief Link is seeking to have the entire purchase price payable upon delivery, which would be the most beneficial to the City. Council will be advised of that status at the December 15th Council meeting. The City Attorney did say that both a bid bond and performance bond are unusual requirements for equipment purchases. It is something which the City may wish to examine before drawing up future bid specifications. HOVER2.DOC RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that Windmark be awarded the bid, with the following conditions: 1. That the Council first waive the bidding irregularity caused by the non-submittal of the bid bond by Windmark, Inc.; 2. That the City Attorney be directed to draw up a contract between the City and Windmark for the purchase of the airboat/hovercraft, contingent upon the submittal of a satisfactory personal letter of guarantee by the owner of Windmark. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, do the following: 1. Waive the bidding irregularity caused by the non-submittal of a bid bond as required in the airboat bid specifications; 2. Award a purchase order to Windmark, Inc., for a rescue airboat, contingent upon the City Attorney drafting a satisfactory contract between the City of Shakopee and Windmark, and submittal of a satisfactory personal guarantee by the owner of Windmark, Inc. 1,11(tdi-VIVAW"e Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: Terry Link, Fire Chief HOVER2.DOC CITY OF SHAKOPEE /si9. ). Memorandom TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeil, City Administrator FROM: Terry Link, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Award of bid for Airboat/Hovercraft DATE: 12/9/98 INTRODUCTION: Council recently approved the Fire Department to request bids for the replacement of our current Hovercraft. Two bids were returned and opened on December 8th with the following results: Windmark- $45,000.00 This is a rescue Airboat Hovertecnics - $56,000.00 This is a rescue Hovercraft NOTE: Neither bidder returned a check of Bid Bond in the amount of ten percent. DISCUSSION: The Windmark Airboat and the Hovertecnics were both researched by our committee members with the Windmark Airboat having the most desirable features and the least maintenance (the Hovertecnics needs to have the lift boots retied after use and is not as steerable as the Windmark). On the issue of the ten percent Bid Bond, I called the owner of Windmark to find out if this was an oversight or misunderstanding on their part. He did not understand what he was to do, so after some discussion he checked into getting a performance bond but found that it would be to costly and time consuming for him to do so, but he is willing to have a letter of personal guarantee written and signed if that is acceptable. BACKGROUND: The 1998 Equipment Fund has $25,000.00 for a replacement Hovercraft and $40,000.00 for a mobile breathing air unit to replace our current Air One. The board members that make up the Air Association voted not to continue this Association so we do not need to replace this truck. (It has been put on the excess equipment list so we can sell it) The money for the new Airboat/Hovercraft would come from these budget items. RECOMMENDATION: After talking to the owner, I feel that the Windmark Co. will build us an airboat in a timely manner and complete the project with no problems. I also feel that we should have some sort of agreement between the City and Windmark for completion of the Airboat, but I do not know what options there are. ACTION REQUIRED: Awardthepurchase Q pu c ase of a new Airboat/Hovercraft to Windmark for$45,000.00 with some sort of completion agreement between the City and Windmark. HOVERTECHNICS INC. cont. page -3- - date: 4 December 1998 Proposal for Supply of One Rescue Hovercraft and Trailer One Tilting Hovertrailer for Hoverguard 1000 with folding sideboards: Bed Length: 22 feet Overall Width: 102 inches Axles: Two 3,500 rubber torsion Dexter axles with surge brakes Lighting: Regulation trailer lighting and marker lights. Tilt Mechanism: Hydraulic tilting system. Winch: Electric powered 3,500 max. line pull winch operated by heavy duty trailer mounted battery. Wheels and Tires Four 20.5 x 8 x 10-D range tires plus one spare wheel and tire Trailer Weight: 1,980 lbs. Payload: 5,000 lbs. Total Price for one Hoverguard 1000 and trailer delivered to Shakopee, MN: $ 56,319.00 Payment Terms: 25% deposit with order; balance upon delivery and completion of training. Warranty: One year - see attached Limited Warranty. I l r 11 t Tr�_. , indmark p, e -INC. 2171 - 106th Lane N.E. • Blaine, MN 55449 • (612) 786-0324 • 1-800-650-0324 • (612) 786-2703 Fax November 23, 1998 Shakopee Fire Department 334-2nd Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 To Whom It May Concern: "Windmark Inc. " agrees to offer a bid to the Shakopee Fire Department for the construction of listed airboat for $45 ,000 .00 . We agree to build the boat to listed specifications , and delivery requirements . Construction schedule is; first come , first served. Scheduling is done when deposit is received , and once construction is in process that boat is given primary status . We are currently finishing production on Cohasset 's boat and can start construction on your boat in December if order is received in timely fashion . Your boat would receive factory field testing , before delivery , to check for component failure at service initiation . Our usual terms are 1/3 at time of order , and 2/3 at time of delivery . The boat and trailer are manufactured in Zimmerman , MN . Some components such as the engine , propeller , and reduction drive have separate manufacturers warranties . Windmark warranties material and workmanship for two years on boat and trailer, that are not covered under separate warranties . Thank you for the opportunity to bid our product . Sincerely , „Aefe25'7 M rk Schulte CEO 4w'(, O/y?,1/k /S rvD - /'ESpe,•var4c4- (7o 1. •" �Y'PP�•oA'1����` 1 -7( . ..- Shakopee Fire Department . Airboat / Hoverc'raft Specifications'.... . Bidder shall respond "Yes" or "No" to each specification listed below. If exception is taken to any listed specification, an explanation shall be provided on a separate • sheet. Yes/No 1. Overall length will be at least 19 feet 3 inches. YES a5 2. Overall width will be at least 8 feet. fr .-4 o 0e. LmA0 „4„A,,�,,4,*T,..v _C_r- 3. List payload capacity. /,6 op_;,a,e v gas �� __ _ 4. Minimum personnel seating capacity longbackbotards and still retain full seating 5. Capability to transport two loadedy�J capacity. • 6. Engine: o-s Must be high performance marine power engine. VMinimum 350 cubic inches. f o 2. e" ' As, ..Y_ ___.7.3.Minimum 275 horsepower. sot y Equipped with minimum of 60 Amp alternator. 94* A''"'° 7. Must be equipped with hull protection package to prevent under hull damage. 8. Must be able to maintain floatation when not moving and engine is off. _ 9. Dive ladder for easier water entrance and exit. c'''`''''"' yes crf 10.1 000,000 candle power dive light bank with side mounting bracket. 7/43.000 11.Night drive light package with a minimum of 4 mounted lights. _ 12.Minimum of 2 low intensity deck lights mounted on the deck.. J y yrs 13.1 handheld flood light. 14.A11 lights will be individually switched. .1±-i.15.A console / dashboard will be provided with a windshield. .16.Seating for 3 behind the console. 17.Dashboard gauges will include Fuel level, Coolant temperature, Oil pressure, Ye5 Tachometer, Hour meter and Voltmeter. 18.13oth trailer and watercraft shall be red in color with appropriate raphics . 19.Custom tandem axle trailer with loading winch and tilt swivel be y�f 20.Spare wheel and tire for trailer will be provided. 21.Loading winch will run off of a dedicated battery which will charge from the yri f towiiig vehicle when connected. 22.Trailer brakes will be provided if required due to overall weight. 23.A11 applicable shipping costs will be included in the bid. 24.A minimum warranty of 2 years on materials and workmanship on the boat. c. Notice for Bids The City of Shakopee will receive sealed bids for the furnishing of all necessary labor, equipment, and materials for one airboat/hovercraft and trailer. Bids must be filed with the City Clerk, at 129 Holmes Street, Shakopee,Mn 55379, prior to 1:30 p.m. on December 8, 1998 at which time they will be opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall. Bidding forms and specifications may be obtained from the City Clerk's office. Bids must be filed in accordance with the specifications of the City. A certified check, cashiers check or bid bond in the amount of ten percent of the total bid must accompany each proposal as a guarantee that if the bid is accepted, the bidder will enter into contract and furnished a performance bond in the full amount of the contract. Bids must be submitted in a sealed envelope marked"Bid for Airboat/Hovercraft and Trailer", and the name and address of the bidder. The City reserves the right to alter or change specifications and to reject any or all bids received and to waive any irregularity in its bidding process. All contacts with City officials from the time this bid is let until a bid is awarded shall be through 3rd Captain Ed Schwaesdall at Shakopee City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street, Shakopee, Mn 55379. Telephone number(612) 445-3650. Judith S. Cox City Clerk /5 . 1• CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum ®NSENT To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police Date: November 23, 1998 Subject: Authorization for the Police Civil Service Commission to Begin the Community Service Officer(CSO) Selection Process Introduction The Police Department is seeking authorization, on behalf of the Police Civil Service Commission, to begin the Community Service Officer(CSO) selection process. Background The City Council approved the Police Department's participation in a COPS More 98 grant. The grant award is to be used to fund CSO positions within the department. Minnesota Chapter 419 designates the Police Civil Service Commission the responsibility of conducting a selection process before the positions can be filled. Action Requested If Council concurs, they should, by motion, authorize the Police Civil Service Commission to begin the selection process to fill CSO positions within the Police Department. an Hughes Chief of Police 15 . A. 3. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police /, Date: December 11, 1998 Subject: Civil Defense Siren Purchase Introduction The Police Department is seeking approval to purchase 2 Civil Defense warning sirens to meet the growth needs of the City. Background The City's commercial and residential areas have expanded past the range of our existing siren placements. The new sirens will be strategically placed in areas of the City which will meet existing and future needs while eliminating as many as 4 older sirens. Six or one-half of the existing civil defense sirens are models which require three phase electrical support, have multiple moving parts and do not have voice transmission capabilities. Replacement part availability and maintenance costs associated with these older model sirens has become a factor in the placement of future sirens. Vendors report there is not a market for used sirens with smaller out-state communities for the reasons previously stated. Staff recommends the older sirens be stored in their present working condition for use as a stop gap measure should City growth surpass our ability to fund future purchases of civil defense sirens. The placement of a siren in the eastern corridor of the City will meet the existing and future Civil Defense needs of that area. This new siren will also allow for the removal of two old three phase sirens which have limited range and higher maintenance costs associated with this type of siren. The second siren has not been permanently sited. Options include the Prairie Village, Pinewood developments which would also afford coverage to the western portion of our Industrial Park. This placement would also eliminate two additional older model sirens while increasing the area covered by the siren. Another potential site would be the area near the new fire station which may provide sufficient coverage to the previously mentioned site. We will continue to work with the Scott County Emergency Management to site our sirens in the most effective areas. Budget Impact The number of vendors available to provide bids on civil defense sirens is limited. Bids were received from two vendors;Front Line Fire&Rescue, Monticello, Mn and Fesler's Inc., North Liberty, Iowa, both of which have supplied sirens to the City in the past. Front Line Plus Fire&Rescue Whelen WPS 2800-5 siren $13,585.00 MN sales tax $ 883.03 Shipping $ 600.00 Total $15,068.03 Whelen WPS 2800-9 siren $21, 345.00 MN sales tax $ 1,387.43 Shipping $ 985.00 Total $23,717.43 Fesler's Whelen WPS 2800-5 siren $13, 920.00 MN sales tax $ 904.80 Shipping $ 600.00 Total $15,424.80 Whelen WPS 2800-9 siren $21,345.00 MN sales tax $ 1387.43 Shipping $ 900.00 Total $23,632.43 Front Line offers a 5% discount on the price of a siren if invoice is paid within 10 days which, if done, reduces their quote to the following: Whelen WPS 2800-5 siren $12,905.75 MN sales tax $ 838.87 Shipping $ 600.00 Total $14,344.62 Whelen WPS 2800-9 $20,277.75 MN sales tax $ 1,318.05 Shipping $ 985.00 Total $22,580.80 Both vendors anticipate 10-12 weeks for delivery and a 7-10% price increase for sirens ordered after January 1, 1999. The 1999 Police Department budget has $40,000 identified for the purchase and installation of new civil defense sirens. If the sirens are ordered before January 1, 1999 and the invoice paid within 10 days of reception the City may save up to 15% in siren expenses for 1999. Action Requested If Council concurs, they should, by motion, authorize the appropriate City staff to purchase a Whelen Model WPS 2800-5 and a Whelen WPS 2800-9 Civil Defense warning siren from Front Line Fire&Rescue for $33,183.50 plus tax, shipping and installation. • Dan Hughes Chief of Police CITY OF SHAKOPEE /$ ñ. Y Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: MPRS Payment DATE: December 10, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to give authorization to pay $7,496.31 as the City's share of the plaintiffs attorneys' fees as remaining damages for the plaintiffs in an employment law suit filed against the Minnesota Police Recruitment System(MPRS). BACKGROUND: Several years ago,the City was part of the MPRS,which was a consortium of mostly metropolitan area cities that used joint testing to establish police candidate eligibility lists. In about 1993,two unsuccessful police candidates sued MPRS and its member cities, alleging discriminatory testing practices. That suit has now been adjudicated. As such, Shakopee, and the other 35 defendant cities approved a settlement in which attorney fees and part of the settlement,totaling $428,360.63, would be shared based on a formula which provided for a proportionate distribution of the damages. Shakopee's share of the settlement amount is $7,496.31. MPRS is asking for payment of that amount, and for that to be forwarded to the City of New Hope by January 8, 1999, so that this part of the case may be settled. BUDGET IMPACT: The $7,496.31 will be billed to Police Professional Services in the 1998 budget. This amount was not budgeted, and a budget amendment may be necessary to provide for that line item. Note that there will likely be one additional bill coming from. MPRS, when all the costs of litigation are known. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that payment be authorized to MPRS in the amount of$7,496.31, as the City's share of the bill. MPRS.DOC ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize payment in the amount of$7,496.31 to the Minnesota Police Recruitment System, as its share of the settlement and attorney fees for the cases of Fields v. MPRS, etal, and Starks v. MPRS, etal. kfiLvoluiti Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Dan Hughes, Police Chief MPRS.DOC 470 Pillsbury Center Kennedy 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612)337-9300 telephone Graven (612)337-9310 fax CHAR TER ED e-mail:attys@kennedy-graven.com CHARLES L.LEFEVERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial(612)337-9215 email:clefeverena,kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM TO: City Managers/Administrators FROM: Charlie LeFevere eXC DATE: December 8, 1998 RE: Starks and Fields v. MPRS, et al. By letter dated September 18, 1998, I forwarded a proposed resolution approving a settlement of the Starks and Fields cases. All 36 defendant cities approved the settlement and Judge Larson has signed an Order which will eliminate all future court oversight and reporting. All cities have previously paid their agreed share of the damages originally awarded to plaintiffs Starks and Fields. The settlement approved by all cities requires the cities to pay an additional $15,000 to the plaintiffs ($7,500 to each plaintiff). Additionally, the amount due to the plaintiffs' attorneys is finalized by the settlement as the amount established by the court. The settlement does not increase or decrease the amount due to the plaintiffs' attorneys. We have calculated the total additional amount due to the plaintiffs and their attorneys as of January 15, 1999. These amounts are as follows: Starks additional payment for settlement $ 7,500.00 Daily interest to 1-15-99 from 11-6-98 $1.0274 x 70 days 71.92 $ 7,571.92 Fields additional payment for settlement $ 7,500.00 Daily interest to 1-15-99 from 11-6-98 $1.0274 x 70 days 71.92 $ 7,571.92 Reinhardt&Anderson judgment $403,434.87 Daily interest$55.2651 (from 7-22-98 to 1-15-99) x 177 days 9,781.92 $413,216.79 $413.216.79 Total remaining amount due from cities for payment of settlement,judgments and interest $428,360.63 The total amount noted above has been allocated among the cities in accordance with the formula agreed upon several years ago. The allocation and the amount due from your city is shown on the attached billing from the MPRS. Please pay the amount indicated for your city no later than January 8, 1999, so that we can make payment on January 15 and secure a satisfaction of judgment for all cities. The City of New Hope has agreed to collect these amounts and arrange for issuance of the necessary checks. Please make your checks made payable to the City of New Hope. The attached bill is the final bill you will receive for damages, costs, and plaintiffs' attorneys fees. Once the MPRS has determined all expenses of the litigation, those cities which participated in the collective defense will receive one more billing for those expenses. Thank you for your cooperation. Please give me a call if you have any questions. CLL-154657 2 MP110-2 I MINNESOTA POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM Suite 125 • 13911 Ridgedale Drive • Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone (612) 593-2666 • Fax (612) 593-2501 December 9, 1998 Mr. Mark McNeill City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 STATEMENT Assessment of plaintiffs attorneys'fees and remaining damages for plaintiffs in the lawsuits filed against the MPRS and its members(Fields v. MPRS, et. al.; Starks v. MPRS, et. al.): $428,360.63 x 1.75% = $7.96.31 Please make payment to The City of New Hope Please remit to: The City of New Hope Attn: Mr. Larry Watts 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 19-. 57, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum � ���-NT _..l To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator I dif From: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police ,'�' Date: November 25, 1998 Subject: City Towing Contract Introduction The Police Department is requesting the Council to approve a two year contract for services with Shakopee Towing Inc.. Background The City has utilized the services of Shakopee Towing for the past two years under an existing contractual agreement. The contract expires December 31, 1998. Shakopee Towing has met, and on occasion exceeded, their responsibilities to the City over the life of the existing agreement. The towing contractor has agreed to changes in the contract language (see attachment). The changes should benefit the City by reducing the cost of long term storage associated with forfeited vehicles. The towing contractor's fees will remain the same under the proposed agreement. Recommendation Staff recommends the two year contract with the agreed upon additional language be renewed. Action Requested If Council concurs, they should, by motion authorize the appropriate City staff enter into a two year contractual agreement with Shakopee Towing Inc. for towing, impounding and storage of motor vehicles. Additions to Existing Towing Contract Paragraph 5 (add) The Contractor will provide five (5) secured storage spaces for forfeited motor vehicles at no cost to the City. Paragraph 12 (add) The Contractor will provide the City five(5) service calls per month with no charge to the City. is. .6. I. CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Aquisition of MnDot Property Date: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION Motion requesting the City Council to approve the purchase of 10.26 acres of land owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDot) for park purposes. BACKGROUND The 1998 Parks Capital Improvement Program identifies the acquisition of 10.26 acres of MnDot property on the west end of Tahpah Park for park purposes. A negotiated price of $119,604.00 ($120,000.00 less $396.00 for state deed tax)was approved by MnDot for the conveyance of(Parcel 49) to the City of Shakopee. Upon completion of the sale, the City will be reimbursed $50,000.00 through the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Grant Program. RECOMMENDATION Approve the disbursement of$119,604.00 to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. ACTION REQUESTED Move to approve payment of$119,604.00 from the Park Reserve Fund to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the acquisition of Parcel 49 which consist of 10.26 acres of land located on the west border of Tahapah Park. 974,444P146Z-11---- Mark J. McQuillan Parks and Recreation Director . Minnesota Department of Transportation — C � Transportation Building � z 395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 632 Saint Paul. Minnesota 55155-1899 January 27. 1998 Mr. Mark McNeill City Administrator 129 Holmes St. South Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: C.S. 7005 (101=187) 901 • Scott County Parcel 49 Reconveyance • I am pleased to inform you that all the approvals have been obtained for the conveyance of the above referenced parcel. The 10.0 acre tract has an appraised value of$215,000.00. Richard Stehr our Metro Division Engineer has recommended we sell this 10.0 acre parcel to the City of Shakopee for$120,000.00 with the restriction on the Quit Claim Deed that it be used for"Park Purposes Only".. If this is acceptable please submit payment of$119,604.00 ($120,000.00 less$396.00 state deed tax) in the form of a cashier's check, certified check or money order made payable to"Commissioner of Transportation -Trunk Highway Fund". You will be responsible for payment of the deed tax at the time of recording of the Quit Claim Deed. Upon receipt of payment the State will issue a Quit Claim Deed using the enclosed legal description to the City of Shakopee. Please submit payment and any questions you may have to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Attn: Ron Deustermann, Office of Land Management, Mailstop 632, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55155-1899. His phone number is 612-296-3609. Sincerely, Merri Linzi Enclosures: Copy of legal description (1) Map (2) I I J n E CO. IA 69 a CI H 8 tin Co 0 o 1P4, 59 2 - 1- 1 d c N c [ 9 r 3 / i ( TirC-- <�4),rT I> -0 / . y I tilN O D POLK ST. 1 \ 171 -0 `1'., [ 3> 0 / 8 TYLER ST. A. i O (� d HARRISON i T ST. vo (....-J o r D 1121 / D V IVAN BUREN lis: . Z 70 m J � rrn �--4 ST.O f / JACKSON I � :-...-.".:\ ‘ m CI i %.. j., i 3> 13 ....s .di < MONRQE \ `Z _ 30 \ C n . n MADISON lir''' N D = ((---1 JEFFERSON l�_ ....4 XI MI \',.,' F: [ - `� j 7 = OUINCY CUINCY ST. coZCIR. { r*� 4 D � � - I L. ~ C.S.A.H. NO. 15 Il 0 t gill r, X 70 :I. D 33. ST. MI 1 JA Il = n f CLAS Z t PI�K� C i. l) n 'R i -6:1 rz 1 g N 3 1 istium\ i 1 (83- ---- c, ..c y x i Jar S 7I (AP3AM i g- 1 o girt> i1 A PPLEGAT� LANS I .S.A� NO. 77 � Fa— � u IN ,...k. 4 O >l ��Q 11 H 1 1 rt OCD {= ., s?' 15, � a. CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Community Center Sign Date: December 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Mark Menke has requested to appear before the City Council to discuss a bill he submitted to the City for design services of the community center sign. BACKGROUND For Council's information, I have chronologically outlined the events surrounding the community sign project and any supporting documentation. Feb. 24, 1997- The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) approves its 1997 Goals and Objectives which included the construction of a sign at the entrance to the community center. July August, 1997-Facility Manager Ron Stellmaker contacts Mark Menke of H& M Builders to advise him about a sign at the entrance of the community center. Staff approached Mr. Menke because of his involvement in the design and construction of the new Lions Park sign on the corner of 11th Avenue and Adams Street. As a Lions Club member, Mr. Menke donated his time and resources on that project. Mr. Stellmaker had two meetings with Mr. Menke to discuss various design options. Mr. Stellmker also met with a representative from the Wausau Tile Company a maker of custom pre-cast concrete signs. They make a finished pre-cast sign and ship it to the buyer for installation. August 25, 1997- Stellmaker submits three examples of signs to the PRAB. (Those same examples were also submitted at the October 21, 1998 City Council Meeting. See Exhibit B-2.) Stellmaker informed the PRAB that costs will range from$3,000, for a fancy wood sign, to $7,000 for a pre-cast concrete sign. By way of a motion, the PRAB recommended to the City Council option, a pre-cast concrete sign be constructed at a cost of about $8,000. (See Exhibit A-1, the minutes of the August 25, 1997, PRAB Meeting.) Oct. 7, 1997-McQuillan met with Mr. Menke to request better a sketch or drawing for the sign. Oct. 15, 1997- McQuillan met with Mr. Menke to review the drawing and memo going to Council. Oct. 21, 1997- Council authorize City officials to have Menke Builders construct a brick pre-cast sign at a cost not to exceed $6,000. According to the minutes, "The source of funding for the community center sign will be determined when drawings and exact cost are available. " (See Exhibit B-1, the minutes of the October 21, 1997 City Council Meeting.) Nov 3, 1997- Stellmaker and Menke meet with Mr. Menke's electrician to examine the site for lighting a sign. Mr. Menke and his electrician were instructed to contact Greystone Construction for additional information about available conduit for stringing wire and power source. Dec. 10, 1997-McQuillan meets with Mr. Menke to request a more detailed drawing or blueprint requested by Council. December 18, 1997 Mr. Menke drops off copy of blueprint for the January 6, 1998 City Council meeting. Jan. 6, 1998- Council determines how the sign and other community center projects will be funded. (See Exhibit C-1, the minutes of the January 6, 1998 City Council Meeting.) The discussion about the community center sign is not mentioned in the meeting minutes. However, if you recall, I did distribute a spec drawing of the sign for comment. (See Exhibit C-3. ) Councilman Link felt the proposed sign was not a"professional" looking sign and that it was just two pillars with a sign in the middle. Mayor Brekke suggested that staff come back with a different design or make improvements to the existing design. Jan. 8, 1998- McQuillan meets with Mr. Menke, again, to discuss Council's decision and request. March 23, 1998 - McQuillan calls Mr. Menke to arrange a meeting with his draftsman Rick Krebs. A meeting was arranged for March 24 at 9:30 a.m. @ CC, but it was moved to April 1 due to illness.). April 1, 1998- McQuillan meets with Mr. Krebs to discuss design alternatives. Mr. Kreb was instructed to submit his bill to Menke for services rendered. August 24, 1998-McQuillan meets with Mr. Menke to review the drawings for September 1, 1998 City Council Meeting. Two options are attached to the memo to Council. September 1, 1998- Staff submits two design proposals to the City Council. Option I is an upgraded version of the original proposal and Option II is a completely different design. Again, Council was not satisfied with either design. Though, Council directed staff to have the drawings in color and/or 3D. (See Exhibit D-1, the minutes of September 1, 1998 City Council Meeting.) September 3, 1998- Staff informed Mr. Menke of Council's decision and direction. Out of frustration, Mr. Menke will not provide any new drawings until he is remumerated for the work he he has done up to this point. He is submitting a bill for$2,300.00. (See Exhbit E) September 15, 1998-McQuillan contacts Hanson Technical Services to see if the Menke/Krebs drawings could be transferred into 3D and/or in color. Mr. Hanson stated he could easily download Mr. Krebs drawings into his software (Autocad) and convert the drawings into 3D and in color. Mr. Hanson also sent a proposal dated 9/28/98 outlining his services as a specialist in designing signs. (See Exhibit F.) I have not pursued this avenue (3D/color drawings)because Mr. Menke's decision not to proceed until he is paid. Mr. Menke has attached additional information to this memo. (See Exhibit G) ALTERNATIVES 1. Authorize payment to Mr. Menke for $2,300.00 2. Do not authorize payment to Mr. Menke. 3. Negotiate an adjustment to the bill. 4. Table for further information. ACTION REQUESTED Discuss Mr. Menke's request at the City Council meeting or provide direction to staff to resolve the matter. Viot-1 ()/A,,„gz.._ Mar J. McQuillan Parks and Recreation Director 3 EXHIBIT A-1 SHAKOPEE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 Chair Steve Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. at the Shakopee Community Center. Advisory Board members present: Steve Johnson, Jeff Kaley, Kathy Prochaska, John Collins, Sean Laughlin, and Dean Shaner. Absent: Dolores Lebens. Staff members present: Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director and Ron Stellmaker, Facility Manager and Asst. Director. Collins/Kaley moved to approve the agenda. Motion carried. Collins/Prochaska moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 1997 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting. Motion carried. Stellmaker reported the City Council directed to draft an agreement with the Shakopee Hockey Association which will allow advertising on the ice arena's dasher boards. The approval occurred at the September 16, 1997, Shakopee City Council Meeting. Stellmaker distributed three design options for a permanent sign at the entrance of the community center. The costs for signs range from as low as $3,000 for wood materials to $7,000 for a concrete precast sign. Collins/Kaley moved to recommend to the City Council to authorize the construction of a brick and precast sign with outdoor lighting at an estimated cost of$8,000. Motion carried. Staff will research an appropiate funding source. McQuillan reported the City Council approved the construction designs and final costs propsals for the Prairie Bend Park Project and allocated $94,979.34 from the Park Reserve Fund for the project. The trail portion and basketball court will cost an estimated $30,000 will be put out for bid. McQuillan reported the final draft agreement with Preserve Golf Course to construct a tunnel under County Road 79 into O'Dowd Lake Park is ready for City Council approval. The agreement will be presented at the City Council's October 7, 1997, meeting. Stellmaker reported very few people have steped forward to serve on the Community Center's ad hoc committee. The purpose of the committee is to review the center's existing operating policies and procedures and to discuss long range expansion plans. Stellmaker will give a progress report at the next meeting. McQuillan reviewed the existing Facility Use Policy as it pertains to Category 4 groups who want to use the meeting rooms. These groups have expressed a real concern in y havingto payrental fees. On the other hand, McQuillan stated there are costs associated Q with maintaining these facilities and user fees help defrey those costs. Discussion followed. Laughlin/Prochaska moved to allow unlimited free use of the meeting rooms before 6:30 p.m. for Category 4 groups. Motion carried. There will still be a limit of six free meetings when the room is reserved after 6:30 p.m. McQuillan gave a progress report of the status of the 1997 Parks and Recreation Goals and Objectives. He noted the department is doing very well in meeting its six major goals. McQuillan stated he would like to accomplish, before the end of the year, Goal #6 which regulates non-budgeted and unplanned projects and programs initiated by special interest groups who desire the City's participation and resources. McQuillan reported Councilor Burl Zorn would like the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to consider naming a park after former parks and recreation director George Muenchow. Johnson is in full agreement with the suggestion and since,it is being initiated by Council member, the PRAB should provide some guidance to Council. Collins was not so sure if this was the role of the Advisory Board. He caution the Board with its recommendation. Discussion followed. Kaley/Laughlin move to recommend to the City Council if it was the desire of the City Council to name a park after George Muenchow, it should name the ball diamonds next the Shakopee Community Center as the George F. Muenchow Fields. Motion carried unanimously. Johnson suggested the Advisory Board set Monday, October 13, 1997 as the date to hold a special workshop session on the Comprehensive Parks and Open Space Plan. The consensus was in the affirmative. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. at the community center. Johnson stated that Mr. Jon Brekke's memo about the City's Comprehensive Plan and the creation of a"buffer"zone does relate the Parks Comp. Plan. He recommended to staff to invite Mr. Brekke to the October 13, 1997 Special Workshop Session and ask if he would explain this concept in more detail. Kaley reported the Community Education Advisory Board held Retreat for its memebers. The 3 hour work session focused on"asset building"as it relates to community involvement with youth. Kaley stated no one agency or organization can do it alone. It takes a collective effort by everyone in the community. Programs for youth do not have to be expensive or elaborate. Simple activities are usually more effective. Kaley/Collins moved to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mark McQuillan 7 Sep-21-97 07 : 17P Mark Menke 612 445 7373 P.02 A E EXHIBIT A-2 E K r, E BUILDERS exaciar '+ aarca- Proposal for: Entrance Sign H & M Builders Inc. 13975 Ciearviety Dr. Shakopee,MN 55379 Phone: 612-445-7373 Submitted to: Ron Stellmaker Submitted on: 9-21-97 I propose hereby to furnish material and labor-complete in accordance with specifications below,for the sum of: dollars(S ). Payments to be made as follows: Full payment to made within 30 days of completion of job. All work to be completed in a worlunan like manner according to —__7__' ` Ozt_^ �standard practices Any alteration or deviatien Brom spe.iftwtions Si (� below involving ware coots will be executed only open written orders,and will bacx me an extra dtarge over and above the estimate. Note:This proposal may be withdrawn by All contingent upon strikes,accidents or delays beyond my control. myself ifnot actxpted within 30 day Owner to carry any necessary insurance. • I hereby submit specifications and estimates for: Entrance sign to community center Stone sign: 108"x 9"x 36"Indiana Limestone. Custom lettering&art work on both sides {SHAKOPEE Community Center}. City to wave permit costs.$6010.00 Brick sign:108-x 9"x 36"all brick with stone top. Lettering on both sides with no logo. {SHAKOPEE Community Center}. City to wave permit costs. $4550.00 Brick&Stone sign: 108"x 4"x 36'Brick pillars with stone middle.Lettering on both sides (SHAKOPEE Community Center ) City to wave permit costs. $5450.00 ADD $750.00 lighting allowance to cost of sign. Price subject to where we have to run power from. Acceptance of Proposal- me above prices.specifications and conditions are satisra. ory and are hereby a xxpted. You are authorieed Signature to do the work as specified Payment w ill be made as outlined above. —` Signature Date of Acceptance i I • EXHIBIT B-1 Official Proceedings of the October 21, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Mr. Loney recommended that the City Attorney draft a letter addressing drainage violations to the area, thereby placing Mr. Ryan on notice that he is responsible for any damages as a result of his filling activity. Mr. Thomson stated he could issue a letter, however, fundamentally this is not a City issue. He said this is between the two property owners and there is no additional liability on the City's behalf for issuing the permit. Mr. Loney said staff would be directing Mr. Ryan to construct a temporary pond to remedy the problem while staff is developing the ultimate drainage system. Sweeney/Zorn moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Hockey Association for dasher board advertising in the community center arena. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Zorn moved to remove discussion of the Lion's Park Hockey Rink from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan said the Advisory Board discussed new hockey boards and felt that the Public Works Department was already overburdened with projects, and it would be unfair to add another project at this time. They suggested delaying the project until 1998 and amending the 1998 Capital Improvement Program to include new hockey boards for Lions Park and fund it with $10,000 Park Reserve Funds and $15,000 in contributions for a bituminous surface on one rink. Zorn/Link moved to amend the 1998 Five Year Parks Capital Improvement Program to include new hockey boards with an asphalt surface for Lions Park with $10,000 to be allocated from Park Reserve Funds and $15,000 in contributions for a bituminous surface on one rink; and requested the Park and Recreation Advisory Board to review the Five Year Parks Capital Improvement Program and to advise the City Council on how the inclusion of the hockey boards in 1998 will impact the Park Reserve Funds. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan said the Community Center does not have an outdoor sign which identifies the facility as the "Community Center." Staff has researched various types of signs ranging from $5,000 to $7,000 and recommended a brick precast sign at a cost of$6,000 with Menke Builders constructing the sign. This is not a budgeted item and staff recommended funding to be allocated from the Community Center's Capital Project Fund not to exceed $6,000 and $1,000 for electrical work. Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to have Menke Builders construct a Brick Precast Sign at a cost not to exceed $6,000. Motion carried unanimously. Y 4110 . Official Proceedings of the October 21, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page - 9 - Lhe source of funding for the Community Center sign will be determined when drawings and an T exact cost are available. Michael Leek explained that the DNR generated a new model ordinance for shoreland areas in the Metropolitan area and requested that all municipalities adopt an ordinance that resembles their model ordinance. In response, staff began generating a draft which was eventually placed on hold. Later, the DNR asked if Shakopee was going to adopt a shoreline ordinance. The draft provided does not affect setbacks for septic systems but provides for more definition of terms and deals more with bluff and shore impact zones. A significant change occurs in Section 4.22, on page 9. The sentence "where conflict exists between a zoning classification in existence prior to the adoption of this ordinance in the land use described below, the land use designated on the City Zoning Map shall govern so long as it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan" was added. An additional change was made after review by the Planning Commission: for natural environment lakes, such as Dean Lake, motorized craft is now prohibited. Zorn/Link offered Ordinance No. 500, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11, Zoning, Regarding the Shoreland District, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4470, A Resolution Ordering Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the CAMAS/Shiely Shakopee Quarry Project, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4772, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Electing to Continue Participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for Calendar Year 1998, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4773, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for the Valley Park 13th Addition Improvements Project No. 1996- 8, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4774, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for the Installation of Sanitary Sewer Laterals in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 115, Range 22; and the NW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County Project No. 1996-9, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Zorn moved to terminate Dean Bisek's probationary status. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) 0 • Official Proceedings of the October 21, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page - 9 - L.. The source of funding for the Community Center sign will be determined when drawings and an exact cost are available. Michael Leek explained that the DNR generated a new model ordinance for shoreland areas in the Metropolitan area and requested that all municipalities adopt an ordinance that resembles their model ordinance. In response, staff began generating a draft which was eventually placed on hold. Later, the DNR asked if Shakopee was going to adopt a shoreline ordinance. The draft provided does not affect setbacks for septic systems but provides for more definition of terms and deals more with bluff and shore impact zones. A significant change occurs in Section 4.22, on page 9. The sentence "where conflict exists between a zoning classification in existence prior to the adoption of this ordinance in the land use described below, the land use designated on the City Zoning Map shall govern so long as it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan" was added. An additional change was made after review by the Planning Commission: for natural environment lakes, such as Dean Lake, motorized craft is now prohibited. Zorn/Link offered Ordinance No. 500, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11, Zoning, Regarding the Shoreland District, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4470, A Resolution Ordering Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the CAMAS/Shiely Shakopee Quarry Project, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4772, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Electing to Continue Participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for Calendar Year 1998, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4773, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for the Valley Park 13th Addition Improvements Project No. 1996- 8, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4774, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for the Installation of Sanitary Sewer Laterals in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 115, Range 22; and the NW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County Project No. 1996-9, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Zorn moved to terminate Dean Bisek's probationary status. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) 8' EXHIBIT B-2 CITY OF SHAKOPEE /)/. /3 . s_ Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Community Center Sign Date: October 15, 1997 INTRODUCTION The Shakopee Community Center does not have an outdoor sign which identifies the facility as the"community center." This item was eliminated from consideration to keep the project within budget. BACKGROUND Attached to this memo is a correspondence from Facility Manager Ron Stellmaker which outline the various types of signs under consideration. See Exhibit A. Costs will vary depending on the types of material used to make the sign. SIGN ALTERNATIVES 1. A sandblasted wood sign will cost$5,000. 2. A precast concrete sign $7,000. 3. A brick and precast sign$6,000. RECOMMENDATION Alternative #3 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES If the City Council agrees there should be an outdoor sign at the Shakopee Community Center, then Council will need to decide how to pay for it. This is not a budgeted item. Options: 1. The Parks and Recreation Operating Fund(Enterprise Fund). Budget Impact: Tight! The Parks and Recreation Operating Fund is right on target in meeting its budget expenses for FY97. At this time, staff can not predict if there will be or not be excess funds at the end of the year. This project could cause us to exceed the budget. 2. The City's General Fund Balance. Budget Impact: May have a minimum impact. Surplus funds are expect at the end of FY97. 9 3. The Community Center's Capital Project Fund. Budget Impact: $83,000 remains in the Capital Project Fund for the community center. Finance Director Greg Voxland indicated there is the potential to transfer the remaining funds into the Blocks 3 & 4 Project. RECOMMENDATION Alternative # 3 The Parks and Recreation Director believes a"facility sign"is a basic element of any building project. Therefore, funding for the community center sign should be taken from the Capital Project Fund. ACTION REQUESTED If the City Council agrees with the notion of having an outdoor facility sign identifying the Shakopee Community Center, it should, by motion, authorize the appropriate City officials to have Menke Builders construct a Brick and Precast Sign with funding to be allocated from the Community Center's Capital Project Fund not to exceed $6,000 and $1,000 for electrical work. /41 Mark J. 0 cQuillan Parks and Recreation Director 3. The Community Center's Capital Project Fund. Budget Impact: $83,000 remains in the Capital Project Fund for the community center. Finance Director Greg Voxland indicated there is the potential to transfer the remaining funds into the Blocks 3 & 4 Project. RECOMMENDATION Alternative # 3 The Parks and Recreation Director believes a"facility sign" is a basic element of any building project. Therefore, funding for the community center sign should be taken from the Capital Project Fund. ACTION REQUESTED If the City Council agrees with the notion of having an outdoor facility sign identifying the Shakopee Community Center, it should, by motion, authorize the appropriate City officials to have Menke Builders construct a Brick and Precast Sign with funding to be allocated from the Community Center's Capital Project Fund not to exceed $6,000 and $1,000 for electrical work. a, // Mark J. 0 cQuillan Parks and Recreation Director lig tf (f FX ct:$ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Ron T. Stellmaker , Facilities Manager Subject: Front Entrance Sign (Community Center) Date: October 14, 1997 INTRODUCTION Over the past couple of months staff has been researching into the possibilities of constructing a front entrance street sign for the Community Center. Staff has worked in conjunction with the Park and Recreation Board on developing what type of sign would best fit the Community Center. BACKGROUND Currently the Community Center currently does not have a front entrance sign to identify the facility to the public. There has been numerous times when people have entered the building and asked staff what type of facility they have entered. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and staff believe there is a need for an outdoor sign at the Community Center. It would be located off of Fuller St. as you enter the parking lot. Staff researched three different signs. 1. Sand Blasted Red Wood Entrance Sign (One Sided) Elements Inc. $3,000.00 - $5,000.00 - Total cost would depend on design. Appointed contractor would need to install. Price includes estimated installation cost. *Sign would require some type of maintenance after two years. 2. Precast Concrete Entrance Sign (One Sided) Wausa Tile $5,000.00 - $7,000.00 - Total cost would depend on design. Appointed contractor would need to install. Price includes estimated installation cost. 3. Brick And Precast Entrance Sign (Two Sided) Menke Builders $5,000.00 - $6,000.00 Cost also includes installation. * Sign would be similar to the design of the new Lions Park sign. * All above signs approximately 108"x 9"x 36" in size. Ii Staff also obtained estimates to illuminate the sign. It will cost approximately $1,000.00 for electrical work and fixtures. Attachment (A) shows pictures and one drawing of the three different styles of signs listed above. Attachment (B) shows the approximate area where the front entrance sign would be located. At its September 22, 1997 meeting,the Shakopee Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Advised staff to approach the City Council with a proposal to erect an outdoor sign at the Community Center. The Board also recommended that the sign be attractive and Permanent. The brick and precast sign design by Menke Builders was preferred. Staff also obtained estimates to illuminate the sign. It will cost approximately $1,000.00 for electrical work and fixtures. Attachment (A ) shows pictures and one drawing of the three different styles of signs listed above. Attachment (B) shows the approximate area where the front entrance sign would be located. At its September 22, 1997 meeting, the Shakopee Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Advised staff to approach the City Council with a proposal to erect an outdoor sign at the Community Center. The Board also recommended that the sign be attractive and Permanent. The brick and precast sign design by Menke Builders was preferred. I ATTACHMENT (A) • di BLA T DR D SIDE TRAN _ . lk a.' •••••....',1 •-;' • 1". ..:=1:•;11i ; 0_,....iftly,e:" •.'-......L it It ..21,-..,,. ..p.i., PriTm. hi '.''N.1•1"0 •••Si" :--.0-a .'.. -N-,-,--1- -----:. * ---.N.:41re-. •'-li%a* ,k.t.::, . ..-.. t :":VZ.,.-.1.: 4.•• ,. ,•1‘ ..1.-.., l'. i .••• C Win 01)470.0d • i„..... CONDOMINIUMS ( . • •.• :, .-••... ....-- , .. • • ,_..4...,fi.:44,..ct...,• . we:v..4, •••,,,i_t_41,4,.. . .4. ••• •11.i:....;:%tir.,,,..--,..;;;;-",... 10., 14.......... . -•.'e7.74•11151. '' 11.;--", . ''' Ne v'Alt'''.',. .1;..^‘,/:. .I.,;:ii•••/Itlil F.4"'':::,al.'.:m .'...1^.'1;efliftf:- :. st i 4;4;.... .:7::\ -1.1"4"14k ^;$, ' *%. -. 14,0*!PfY .•,-t• - .P.'"?.f• • , •.. 1111 ,''•1.1..t.1.0. '... —• PRECAST CONCRETE ENTRANCE SIGN . ,,,, .:4!kth-, ...•.-• 'f.... .. ,. r.....-. A r•-•• .4 .•,. •••... . :i ,t. • • "6.4•" i...; /1 . .;,.,,,,.. ,? .y }...!......- .,tit... -•••••,8 '.4411"......;i:..."4- . I i! 3 low: ;:::R Av.,- i ovvei,E... :•: . r ,:•-et:„...... ,..-.0-,.. • : ..:A a . ... ,_ ....ii 1.,... ,t .. ..iram?,1 • . .;:aike . ti _ • •. - : ...or,- :•,...e...6-4•.,",, ....-.....• ..... -- • . .....-.•._. .,,,,,:.... ,•,-..cf4,4.-:....,•--.4.. - -v.• - , ..., .,:. •• , ...„ ••• .. „,,,,„.-,.,:::-.„.,,,,•-• -_-_,,,.. ....,.: , ...77,:7 -,_, '7- --0,'-r.....?t,-24 . -i----... -.,i1)4.V•ere'ttt.. ...1".•--.."-t%0 ••-rip .. SP 0 5 T ItiVi'L40 :.....-.:•-,-... v4,-*NrouTif...- - • --it . . ,is - -,...ii .... . .,....,-..t.s..........ps..._......;:o.„..•„,. , ,..",....,-,3;a,..1...„,......,juat .. ... "..-7... •"" --.:-•-..wk-en-v-rv."---- --..:-/, • ,.•,..,.,--.Y.',...r.---, --1-••..1,T.•' .• .•.: ..........'•.*:1;.. 1 ...,4.7,i2.74,411:.i..••V.... . • ...1.•••1•....1.•:.t"''" PRICK AND PRECAST ENTRANCE SIGN --- i . ... - , .514 Al<o PE e IllImbitgli NJ J __V • . cia4rit CY 1 I t-1 C 0 091101 4".t y CV (2 I_,"1 ... i 1 1 ! ATTACHMENT (B) Rt glen 51ree* x_ _s1 ,;?,* s;4 L: tooh) Pte. Lorw. ..... ...._ IoC 5k-1 , Qc -irtr—l--e___ ___J El________J Artt -Ft.nS __-----3 i ATTACHMENT (B) Kt/len scree* (-S 14 v,) CM ------: FCCO [i're fS I '0 '• 3 I -irli .5 i .._______---, -tra Eta . ____-- _ f ) Commuff/ 71 Cfl\l7Ek _____ iii EXHIBIT C-1 Official Proceedings of the January 6, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Sweeney/Henderson moved to concur with the Planning Commission's recommenda- tion to deny the request to rezone Blocks 1 and 26, Shakopee City Plat, from Highway Business District to Central Business District. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson moved to refer the request to rezone the S 1/2 of Block 1 and the N 1/2 of Block 26, Shakopee City Plat, to the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee for further study to be brought back to the Council at a later time. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan explained that staff was previously directed to identify items that were left out of the Community Center project due to budget limitations. He reviewed the list of those items which were left out of the Community Center project, which also included a cost breakdown. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has reviewed the list and concurs with the ranking of projects. In addition, he stated that projects 6 ( catch boards)& 7 (lobby furniture) could be pursued through normal budgeting for 1999 and that project 8 (racquetball/handball courts) could be funded by a bond referendum and repaid over 15 years. Cost estimates for the Community Center's sign will be included in the next Council packet. A discussion ensued regarding the catch boards by the seating area, as well as painting the ceiling of the ice arena. Mark McQuillan explained that the purpose of painting the ceiling is for rust prevention as it was omitted in the original construction. A discussion ensued regarding a possible budget amendment. Sweeney/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to seek proposals and/or bids for items 1 - 5 as recommended by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board: the Community Center's building sign, fencing three ball fields, striped lines on the walking track, gymnastics harness/frame, and painting the ceiling of the ice arena. A discussion ensued regarding the possibility of adding a swimming pool in the future. Mark McQuillan explained that the Advisory Board is in the process of creating an Advisory Board Task Force of 30-40 citizens to study the needs of the community, with the Comprehensive Plan serving as a guide. Anyone interested in serving on the task force may contact Mark. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to authorize an extension agreement with WSB, Inc. for preparation of the EAW for Seagate. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) /5 _ EXHIBIT C-2 CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Greg Voxland, Finance Director From: Mark J. McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Community Center Projects Date: December 18, 1997 INTRODUCTION At the November 17, 1997,City Council Budget Workshop Meeting,Council directed staff to identify items that were left out of the community center project due to budget limitations. The Community Center Project Fund has a remaining fund balance of$83,000. - The items which were dropped from consideration include a sign identifying the building, fencing for 3 ballfields, striped lanes on the walking/running track, a gymnastics training harness and frame, a rust prevention(primer and paint)for the ceiling of the ice arena, lobby furniture, and Racquetball/Handball Courts. BACKGROUND The following is a cost breakdown of items,which were left out of the community center project: RANKING Commutative Total -"1. Building Sign $ 13,000 $13,000 2. Ballfield fencing $45,000 $58,000 q PPro��QJ -4-C) P t-oceec�, 3. Walking track striping $ 1,000 $59,000 4. Gymnastics harness/frame $ 6,000 $65,000 5. Paint ceiling of ice arena $ 14,000 $81,000 6. Catch boards by the seating area $ 6,000 $87,000 7. Lobby furniture $ 10,000 $97,000 8. Racquetball/Handball Courts(3 CTS) $350,000 $447,000 PRAB RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the proposed projects and concurred with staff's ranking of projects. Projects 6& 7 could be pursued through the normal budgeting • process for 1999. Project 8 could be funded through a bond referendum,TIF, private donations, or fees (repayment of a fund over 15 years). ACTION Move to authorize the appropiate City officials to seek proposals and/or bids for the community center's sign, fencing for 3 ballfields, striped lines on the walking track,gymnastics harness/frame, painting the ceiling of the ice arena and catch boards for the seating area of the ice arena. /b EXHIBIT C-3 II1/I Z IIe-,q I18-,Z ,IO r--1 A A _ A_ 1i _ I I � I NYN 115—,17 II15-,1 r � � L' = O r 7 L2i L.L. I I I 1 0 ' o: _ Zs)z J u) m m zs o } m , d- m n r 1 0--, I- 07 w r d : , J I.Z. W I t `` IBJ -J71 () U I G CI) I ' NCC N - i r1 (L) N L_1 -I -I r , = --........„.. 1..., CE) N I10—, X1, ,I m � N N ii 10 `1 \;171 l y I , y J y I ,0-.Ki T IILV /T Z IIB II ,S H8-,Z HOT i . - J 1P EXHIBIT D-1 Official Proceedings of the September 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -8- DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change order or quantity adjustments on the 1998-5 Project. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the payment of$7,455.16 to Engine Hauer and $3,096.62 to Gregory and Gary Kerkow for easements on 17th Avenue, from Sarazin Street to 1/2 mile east, Project No. 1998-5. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, as requested by Braun Turf Farms, to begin at 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays through November 7, 1998, and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms, with the conditions: 1) noise exposure near residential areas is minimized, 2) if excessive residential complaints are received by the City, the suspension can be revoked at the discretion of the Public Works Director, and 3) blasting activities, if any, must be done from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mark McQuillan, Park and Recreation Director, explained that H& M Builders was authorized to construct an outdoor sign for the Shakopee Community Center in October of 1997. When the original design was presented to the Council, some Councilors felt that the sign should be more professionally designed. Mr. McQuillan reported that H & M Builders has now submitted two designs for review. Option I is the original design with some modifications at a cost of$13,750. Option II is a completely different design at a cost of$18,750. Funding for this project would come from the remaining balance of the Community Center Project Fund, which currently has a balance of approximately $35,000. A discussion ensued as to the appearance of the designs that were presented and whether or not they were professionally designed. Mark McQuillan was directed to provide copies of the proposed art work, a color picture of the design, and a few more design options. Mark McQuillan reported that the School District would like to move the tennis courts proposed to be placed east of the city courts at Stan's Park. In order to best serve both community and school needs, they would like to place the new courts in close proximity to the existing courts. The cost to remove the hockey boards is included in the bid specifications. The west side of the tennis courts would be in alignment with the west end of the present hockey rink, and would avoid all utilities in the area. Sweeney/DuBois moved to communicate to Ron Ward, of the Shakopee School District, the willingness of the City to allow the placement of the tennis courts partially on city property and partially on school property, east of the City courts at Stans Park. I $ ECJ EXHIBIT D-2 imIkl:Imi II 0 cn Z n a. ii !"' i • • CC I CO �1 L O Zo LI- I IC UJ u Z 1 L t� U m > U r W W Z Y O ED• O Z z O U X I �- 1 ' O 1•••• U O h m U `-. , !- y► cm tilQ] N r I (`/) 1 '4 + g tosines T --1 - 1- Io it* • • C C....) -: : .- O 3 .1 Z Z 1 L- 9 w _ , 11 oa C.,d 1..) I n < ,! Z '''''', ---.... :. r \ .-. _Ns...). . . . 17 .y � Y� Y. .I w W Z Li. Z t i.. 0 o t 1+ N Ccp. V. � .. v, C+ V. v. Z N .. eV N g a r - 1 ilI N Qcc m m L., m c� = a I m 411(1114 _JQ CD `` L J 1 . .. 1 - W11 SII*V Z 3 L m m c U o © N U O m C 5) c tD = �O I ' 1 - .n.... w --� n, N = to ir„ m ! ^'. O ESES X X N r I A 1 N X `ter CO CD I I c N m I 2 f - - J °0 • WO i •'P 0.I.. ., OlCC I I)U; EXHIBIT D-3 CO Z t_J V) W Z V V ]L O Q F4 -U - mf"' O V) B/E B- °' i'.0 .,8/t SZ R „i7/I OI .,0-.b t\ '•' vt 1 ' \ \..I) \ �.` ..4,/i Z ,.�/I Z' o .y U is Z m U O Z m � C.� . Y{ Ilil ' Illiiilll ( lli . ii ' [0 d ,.b/I Z' ' v J cam.) ,.b/rr 9 J cc H : CE Z N :. H -- o .. ; Z o a o 2 xz C 1- oo LD L N O Q .'v UJ \ o amu; o t z OCID U 0- x ZO r" N V N ,• O f C . -. - ' J u. _ .- � :, : { l lltt : , N Z O S O O t \l/.- C\\ :° . _ . � C W Eo m i91 w - Z ¢ Q¢ Lam.'^ cU T ' w W !"-•_, ¢ ¢` 3 O 0 ¢ 3 r- CD E LD 1- I.L.to a ¢ W L ¢ z -J Z U U CO C:©W a U3 ,. m F.,g 3 , CO m Ntf) „Z1 — .0�9 — � ZT a1 is- IIIIIIII% i' ‘. : 2 II O II II I I f---= _ E-' I I I I I �, I - II II 'n I im m : m _ I II lomi I ) tzp. I I :�� ,..•� .., I Ik. I J i Ww IN. in h. N I.s-.0 I „it I I ,s .0 I I a Z I II II I i O CIN o I II II I II 1 II II I 7 i_J VAI I I �t P ,,,,. .,e_.s ,..a,• f N i c r c • , C 2 • ...,,,,g, t Y t .,-::21 FROM TO :3202512763 F.O6 - , EXHIBIT D-4 c cc M ^j z 3 rtrfv eS 1 r^ •• r si`cQQ_ ea-ivuwe. i -,C t I- LI 3u u g • A. • t..)'.I.J o Z . Wi 0 om Q. x u - :' TT^^ W VL r, I ..7.r,„ L.,14....____Li. 0 't Cd 1 / ,,43 2 " ,a-,z a C..) . a.zw 1/4;... x0� - Q C: Q cp ,;; '• Li d Z c. i 1 cn g o Li O g '-� 0 Z V :/w = } N x 0 is, > - Cza t4 14 P In' [ill 1 .'4 tiE II . Z � _ - 10 „0-2 ..S-2 f. f SO' d COD CN i t $6' `v t `nw . =y A.3 600,-6005:.-1 'Ha N:10218 0E7: I cr. 1)7s. V\-".1 P r••nT (.0 C.;fiy 's @o py 11.1 EXHIBIT D-5 BUILDERS e'er:Eat o a• Proposal for: Shakopee Community Center sign H & M Builders Inc. 13975 Clearview Dr. Shakopee,MN 55379 Phone: 612-445-7373 Submitted to: Mark McQuillen&City of Shakopee Submitted on:08-19-98 I propose hereby to furnish material and labor-complete in accordance with specifications below,for the sum of: Option#1 $13,750.00 Option#2$18,750.00 Payments to be made as follows: Net upon receipt of statement.Finance charge of 18%per year All work to be completed in a workman like manner according to Authorized /id/Z.2. No standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from specifications Signature below involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders,and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. Note:This proposal may be withdrawn by All contingent upon strikes,accidents or delays beyond my control. myself if not accepted within 30 days Owner to cavy any necessary insurance. I hereby submit specifications and estimates for: Entrance sign to Community Center OPTION# 1 Brick and stone sign:Brick pillars with stone middle.Lettering and art work on both sides. Lighting of sign included.Landscaping to be done with red rock,to match existing landscaping. Dimensions of sign in accordance of blueprint.Brick pillars 2'x 2'x 6'6"....... 2'x 2'x 5'with stone caps. Stone 4'6"x 10'x 4"tapered to 3'.Footing to be a depth of 42"min. Total price$13,750.00 OPTION#2 Brick and stone sign:Brick surrounding stone middle. Flower planters with stone caps Lettering and art work on both sides.Lighting of sign included..Flower planters to have liners in them to protect from freezing. City to be responsible for planting of flowers and or shrubs. Dimensions of sign in accordance of blueprint. Total price$18,750.00 Acceptance of Proposal-The above prices,specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature to do the work as specified Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature Date of Acceptance ay Oct-07-98 09:53A Mark Menke 612 445 7373 P.01 - EXHIBIT E H & M Builders, Inc. Invoice No. 56729 13975 Clearview Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 BUILDERS 612-445-7373 fax 612-445-7373 INVOICE sm Customer Name City of Shakopee Date 10/7/98 Address _ Order No. -- City State ZIP Rep Mark McQullan Phone -/ -- Qty Description Unit Price ! TOTAL Shakopee Community Center sign i IlDesign and blue prints '4 Different designs of Blue prints I $1,300.00 'Meetings with Mark McQuillian $300.00 i Meetings with brick&stone companys $450.00 Meetings with electrician on where to run power for lights $250.00 TOTAL J $2,300.00 From:Richard D.Hanson To:Mark McQuillan Date:9/2811998 Time:9:36:42 AM Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT F 09/28/98 Mark McQuillan Shakopee Parks and Recreation Dept. FA Ilk, 11111 1255 Fuller Street Shakopee, MN 55379 IIANSON TschnicW Services MIME= Re: Park Signage Proposal/Introduction Mark, Thank you for your interest in Hanson Technical Services to provide signage documentation for your community. Hanson Technical Services has been serving Architects, Engineers, Retail Chains, Developers and individual clients for 10 years. Prior to starting my business, I was Director of Planning and Construction for the Barbers Hairstyling for Men and Women. I was responsible for all plans and construction for both corporate and franchise stores(The Barbers, City Looks, Cost Cutters). I developed a great working relationship with sign companies providing the best product and installation services from New York to California, Dallas to Winnepeg... Over 450 stores in that capacity. Hanson Technical Services has also worked with The Wooden Bird, The Elephants Trunk, Pet Clips, Video Update Stores. My hourly rates are $50.00/hr. Sincerely, Richard D. Hanson • Fax/Modem: (507)645-0197 • Phone (507)663-1080 • Internet UVEbsite www.hansontEch.com E-Mail rhanson@hansontEch.com • 220 North Division Street • Northfield, Minnesota 55057 • �6 4/ô � Mr.Mayor and City Council Members, Since being contacted in mid-1997 to design and estimate the cost of the community center sign,I have expended a large amount of time on this project. The costs to date have totaled to more than$2,300, which includes my time and expenses. I have presented to Mark McQuillan and Ron Stellmaker several hand sketches and professionally designed drawings. In the minutes of the October 21, 1997 council meeting,you moved to authorize Menke Builder's to construct a brick precast sign not to exceed$6,000. This action was approved based on my first design and estimate of$6,010,not including electrical work. At the January 6, 1998 council meetings it was requested that subsequent designs be proposed or rework of the existing design be made. Mr.McQuillan met with Mr.Link to address his concerns of the design of the project.Mr.McQuillan instructed me to design additional plans for review. At the September 1, 1998 council meeting two additional design concepts were presented for council review. The city council was not satisfied with either design. At this time the council also asked to have the designs modified,and to add 3 dimensional color. The council also asked to have a few more design options created. I would like to continue to work the design and construction of the community center sign. However,I am asking that the city council approve the invoice that I have provided to cover the expenses incurred since the October 21, 1997 council meeting. I believe I have tried to do everything possible to get the sign constructed. I feel this action is necessary since it is my understanding that Mr.Link is now pursuing other avenues to have the sign designed. I hope that this issue can be resolved prior to the council meeting Tuesday evening. However,I am prepared to address any of your concerns at that time. You can contact me prior to the meeting during the day at 670-5618 or in the evening at 445-7373. Sincerely, /3Gj .0,-- 44--C__ Mark S.Menke H&M Builders,Inc. H & M Builders, Inc. Invoice No. 56729 c 13975 Clearview Drive BUILDERS Shakopee, MN 55379 612-445-7373 fax 612-445-7373 INVOICE SIM �— Customer Name City of Shakopee Date 10/7/98 Address Order No. City State ZIP Rep Mark McQuillan Phone Qty Description Unit Price TOTAL Shakopee Community Center sign Design and blue prints 4 Different designs of Blue prints $1,300.00 Meetings with Mark McQuinlan $300.00 Meetings with brick&stone companys 6450.00 Meetings with electrician on where to run power for lights $250.00 TOTAL I $2,300.00 Krebs Drafting & Design, Inc. Invoice 1291 Diamond Ct DATE INVOICE# Shakopee, MN 55379 11/21/97 97-78 BILL TO H&M Builders 13975 Ciearview Drive Shakopee,Mn 55379 DESCRIPTION OTY RATE AMOUNT Plan#97-81 Community Center Sign 1 375.00 375.00 — -- J Thank you for your business. _ Total 5375.00 Krebs Drafting & Design, Inc. Invoice 1291 Diamond Ct DATE INVOICE# Shakopee, MN 55379 5/2/98 98-47 BILL TO H&M Builders 13975 Clearview Drive Shakopee,Mn 55379 DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT Plan#98-81 (Community Center Sign) 1 925.00 925.00 Thank you for your business. --— ---—----- Total $925.00 Chateau Brick & Repair Inc Invoice PO Bog 513 DATE INVOICE* Shakopee, MN 55379 12/8/98 223 BILL TO PROJECT H & M Builders 13975 Clearview Dr Shakopee, MN 55379 P.O.NO. TERMS Due on receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PLAN REVIEW AND TO COORDINATE WITH STONE 225.00 COMPANY. Thank you for your business. Total $225.00 � u� S � / 77( roc� Si�. IIMr� kF2 E(44 Nv, yy5- g172 o � pASF_s y PON) f Rem A ff-2.c-,3 app ict3A4s doe kNYVeA-r-JCi, rAE, Convptc,‘„, :Ay wt: ! I ou l i"owi1/4/ (,3&)Na.s3Py 02S/ , /997 ,l hop SOpe-IL of -t-AL 11,4hi£ w; � � le‘,� IP yo 0-4.1 .� �` you -Pia.cL mz A � WS- 727 Th A c OeIc G-/ ) rc-F— • 7 . i ............................._..............___................_ ! ; . ......_.........,, H i .__._ :_. . ._ . ...____-__......._....... .�._ 1 o i'T,-•- r 1 i lY' f f 0 \ U I 1 7 c J ` � J ) 1 , \ 1.{ ') ' ' ZZ\ I - NI i i . I , i , .._.. - I 1 -4.-- T.,....),) t-e- - 7. I QJ--:":._ N ? -1.-- c j -.4 I LI 1 i . i Z. 0 a oo • . ) ;-,.. .....,_•- (Al i kr .7Cir. 0 . 0 „,.... • %•. ... , .... 0., ..-- V) V.) '-..) f CA vl -----r-- , _ 1 ___ . _........) 1 1 0 1 Cal 44'1 I L... 1 2 0 V. 0 (4 i .....- ; ' . , 1 1 1 1 ......... ....._ ...._, I j 1 0 1 a 1 '1 1 A4-1 N (it , ...C.-Y-6e E... -17f) ./ moo. i--°C11° H (v\ (ILA : act,- f, /A( f.= ��i��i C �. MN . SHAKOPEE Ron Stellmaker FAY Recreation Facilities Manager NO. , C 73 .7; 1255 Fuller Street Cf J� ! �� Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 p V\ 612-445-8244 FAX 612-445-8172 COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 (11- 0 COQ CcOlk '4 S:cars UJ/1* /146 1U:04 CAA JLU AOL LINO DA4".31 f+uito a.v. .}Jvvoiv.,O - MAY-19-1996 14:19 FROM TO 132025127S3 P.02 TEL : May 14,98 13:12 No .003 P .01 • C Arliks\ ' � Q(44) 644 , V. Iti .;i , I.. ,iI .. SHAKOPEE ---� , .� COMMUNITY CENTER ,.. .... .:f.... . � j t .1 •.SnWTIi� iiiitniii.. ' s,• � crP P...:1' t! . _ aIiitJtS.: • t t f ./ • r . . ii - fij . . t' _ 3. .. c _� . : .._4_...,` a, tV ..v.. • •Ani . —T.Ai .1/—dr.b.st: r."i • '....-.4,71.iC•.ii'.4:' :fv..i•ia'_IIt:r ..J... . 14'48"_..._.-...� r S• .y -1/4"STONE CRP �, � $'STONE 4LA8 1 • . Lr SHAKOPEE I ART- lai+ COMMUNITY CENTER ''f w .� 2.1/4"STt CAP—.1 g ' cc . ' I a' r Z itt. LL O LU I 1 --POUPED CONC FNB-» I m u t i It Lrf , 6.1. agib..4.. La s..) 1A"CONC FTG W/REBRR- - ‘14 . ) F-3.: - 9.-0 3..4SP) iv Eo t!f S/► V gil W FRONT ELEVATION `D & 1 VI (REAR £LEVRTEON S$MULPA) ������ 04 d41.4. e l •.1"1 Z . „,-.e ,.e 1- 0i/19/98 10:55 FAX 320 zbi 2./04 DAVVA ”.111111.4 6eS.04, , ...., •, .• $ ._, , Y-181998 14:20 FROM :.. TO 13202E.,'-----' • . TEL: May 14,98 1 :13 Nn . -03 02 ,...),,, • . / . ... . : t: ....,.. .C... J . , •. , 41.... ••• 1.:u.pi , • • c: I ••• .1 p •. ....111:44:4St el • s 1 . .. . 1.' '4N. . i: • • ;• ...1:1 dn. *a e. '.. , . •• ( ... i "• "ri,1 - $;;;•,..:.;; • 1..;„1,. „___ • - . i: ,..I:. ... L. i..•.. 1..).':0:.1....Li!.T.4. ei .. ' :': ' ,•: g . t• • : , • ..41• ! I k i - e • Li, .: 1 •, ri.1.1. .1 . ..d Pi ei r,. .. :• ... . . i - ,... L., ... ..... ...•!..,.... .. ....:. :: • ; .!- iri -.. r ri •, •I i ',. . a t a, mai •: a i 1 p..: ...d•1 .•,le• .1•,41,6 I I..rol.6 y114 i i;6, . . 11111),Ittilittqlwri ;t,t 1 . . 1 .. ..,,.; .. ...1 i •-. : •a. I i 1.1 gal. ... .. . I I •• • 0 C4 ''' g .r •1 ••• :r. " . e• ibi 11 •• , i 0 • obi. .111 .• ›. 1 i N * Z ..• I I IX ••1 00 1.••ft 1 ! Z- 1 • . • . • X •••••••.: 11 ti..4 1 1 "I. 'ti I . •'!r: r . •.1 r It i I . r 0 .... IN . • . • i• -I ! 1 , I. ... ,. • ,. —• :''I . , 111 1.• i I .:"Li• .• i Z . r •• til • . i . i .... •••I t '-'•' 110=4 *OH :ill.i r • ,, —: I. 1•, • . : r In -1 '. r • ... • :1 if. ri.s. .1 .. . T., CI) .,....ii, - • !t. II. VI : •' 1, Z ID t... , •"f I •••• .'I ••• . _ :1 71 1 411k1 4.1 n - 1 .- 't' rut - : i-.1 r Mr* -;!I 1 1 e , -I ...,:1 Ar r ••• 9.1 6;r "Tr: i .r 6a7 ..1.11. il 71114 , \ -!• •• .. .” . • i-3 tili gm) v•-••••! 33 ..........„I.Li mei .. .,..:3.• ... ,. ... ... • ,, - •a • r .... : . dismTffurimmITITErt..-:.1 r,t.I •: i ril'1 f•ii*„1'1 9 II 'I I' .-il . ,... , • ...• , ••• • •1. .., •: •••••- -1..r. , -.. , 1 ..111•! •1• eke. _•1.r11 ir..im 0i:,.1.r1ir•ii1 t.rI•.1i.•1n1ti i71g1 tT1. • ; .• ye . i dr.• sou •.., 1 • ' ; • • 1 ' • .... . ... .. t ri 4 f r't ' '4 .A 1 ri ri - :. r: • • •!_,_, • ) ., If,, I -... .• . ,rt I I 1 r ,*.Vt. ;,., •,.7.1.ii . ,,Nr,...... -- — ; . , AI fro, „05/19/98 10:57 FAX 320 251 2763 BROCK WHITE CO. 4008/009 TEL : May 14.98 1313 No .003 P.OL+ • • r. w O 11 z tic et U1 I3 li I i g g A LT, e Pill n !+0 1 < ' a1X � r rs • � 131 g Z u) 0 ' ISI PO 011-; O II x › .L__4_ 1_ ... .../..= gi 0 C 1, Z Z1. . li 4 ti :0F. L . L. jj . xs ” „ 4'w a hi T •• 0tt --1 0 !�W 7 el3 4 1 ' 2”4:21 p % . • iQ f i 112 \ -kN. O A m li c.... s , 3 L...)4 1ST . 5 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM Co N) S f,K To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Ron Stellmaker, Facilities Manager Subject: Community Center Track Striping Date: 12/08/98 INTRODUCTION The Council is being asked to approve the hiring of Tennis West to stripe the walking track lanes at the Community Center. BACKGROUND At the December 1st, 1998 City Council Meeting, Council asked staff for a progress report on painting directional lanes on the Community Center walking/running track. Staff received two estimates to stripe the track. They are: Anderson Ladd. : Fully Clean track and paint three lanes. (2 Coats) $9,344.00 Tennis West: Fully clean track and paint three lanes. (2 Coats) $850.00 ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff to hire Tennis West to stripe the walking track at the Community Center at a cost not to exceed $850.00 15c . /. CONSENT c CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Correction to Ordinance No. 493 DATE: December 15, 1998 INTRODUCTION On August 5, 1997,the City Council approved Ordinance No. 493. This ordinance rezoned property generally located north of 12th Avenue and east of County Road 83 from Highway Business(B 1)to Heavy Industrial(12). Please find attached a copies of Ordinance No. 493 and the associated July 10, 1997,Planning Commission memo. DISCUSSION The legal description provided with the rezoning application was attached to Ordinance No. 493. The legal description does not match the property the applicant intended to rezone, or which was depicted on material accompanying the application. Jon Albinson of Valley Green Business Park has requested that the City Council consider an ordinance which would correct the legal description of Ordinance No. 493. For your reference,Mr. Albinson's request has also been attached to this memorandum. Staff has prepared Ordinance No. 534. This ordinance revises the legal description to comply with the intent of the rezoning request originally made by Valley Green Business Park. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Ordinance No. 534. 2. Do not approve Ordinance No. 534. 3. Table the decision and request additional information from the applicant or staff ACTION REQUESTED Offer Ordinance No. 534, and move its approval. Klima/U(44411/4—Julie Klima Planner II i:\commdev\cc\1998\cc1215\corr493.doc 1 ORDINANCE NO. 534, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 493, FOURTH SERIES WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 493, Fourth Series was approved by the City Council on August 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 493, Fourth Series approved the rezoning of property generally located north of 12th Avenue and east of County Road 83 from Highway Business(B1)to Heavy Industrial (12); and WHEREAS, the legal description associated with Ordinance No. 493 has been found to be in error. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That Ordinance No. 493 is amended by replacing the legal description for the property to be rezoned Heavy Industrial (I2) in Ordinance No. 493 with the following legal description: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Valley Park Twelfth Addition, Scott County, wi described line: Commencingat westerly ofthe following Minnesota, which lies west y f g the southwest corner of said Lot 1, Block 1, Valley Park Twelfth Addition, thence the south line o said Lot 41 seconds East, along1, north 89 degrees, 02 minutes, .f a distance of 794.92 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northerly to a point on the north line of said Lot 1 distant 796.62 feet easterly of the northwesterly corner thereof and said line there terminating. and That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Canterbury Park Third Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, which lies easterly of the east line of Lot 1, Block 1, said Canterbury Park Third Addition, and its southerly extension. 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 , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , City Clerk 2 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1998. Prepared by: City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes St. Shakopee, MN 55379 3 Pr Uc\ °6 4 } ORDINANCE NO. 493, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEC. 11.03 BY REZONING LAND LOCATED NORTH OF 12TH AVENUE AND EAST OF OM HIGHWAY BUSINESS 1 ZONE TO HEAVY ROAD 83 FR (B ) COUNTY FROM: HIGHWAY (12)ZONE. WHEREAS, Valley Green Business Park has made application for the rezoning of land legally described as attached on Exhibit A from Highway Business (B1)to Heavy Industrial (12); and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 10,1997, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property to Heavy Industrial (I2) to the City Council. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by rezoning land described as attached on Exhibit A from Highway Business (B 1) to Heavy Industrial (I2). Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in J pfdeK) session oofthe City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this S' day of �� io0 th / , 1997. r • e ity of Shakopee Attest: _>'/ , City Clerk Published-iii the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1996. Prepared by: City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes St. Shakopee, MN 55379 2 f� EXHIBIT A Lot 2,Block 1, Canterbury Park Third Addition, Scott County,Minnesota, except that part shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat No. 70-10 on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County,Minnesota and That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Valley Park Twelfth Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1,Block 1, Valley Park Twelfth Addition, thence North 89 degrees 02 minutes 41 seconds East, along the south line of said Lot 1, a distance of 794.92 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence northerly to a point on the north line of said Lot 1 distance 796.62 feet easterly of the northwesterly corner thereof and said line there terminating. 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map - Rezone property from Highway Business(B-1)to Heavy Industrial (I-2) DATE: July 10, 1997 Site Information Applicant: Valley Green Business Park Site Location: North of 12th Avenue and East of County Road 83 Current Zoning: Highway Business(B-1) Adjacent Zoning: North: Heavy Industrial (1-2) South: Highway Business (B-1) East: Heavy Industrial (1-2) West: Major Recreation (MR) Comp. Plan: 1995: Heavy Industrial and Commercial Area: 10.52 Acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary INTRODUCTION Valley Green Business Park is requesting that the Official Zoning Map be amended to rezone a parcel currently zoned as Highway Business (B-1) to Heavy Industrial (I-2). Please see Exhibit A for the location of the subject site. Exhibits are attached as follows: Exhibit A, Zoning Map; Exhibit B, Subject Site; Exhibit C, 1995 Comprehensive Land Use Map; Exhibit D, City Code Section 1136, Highway Business (B-1) regulations; and Exhibit E, City Code Section I I.46, Heavy Industrial (I-2) regulations. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The Comprehensive Plan has set basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to 4— • promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibits C and D provide a list • of the uses, both permitted and conditional, that are allowed in the Highway Business (B-1)and Heavy Industrial (I-2)Zones. 2. The Land Use Chapter of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan designated this area as "Commercial" and"Heavy Industrial". The majority of the site is guided for heavy industrial use, while only a small portion is designated for commercial development. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan serves as a general guide plan and is not designed to follow specific property lines and/or boundaries. The rezoning of the site to "Heavy Industrial", as requested, will be in conformance with the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The purpose of the Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone is to provide an area for industrial uses in locations remote from residential uses and in which urban services and adequate transportation exist. FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with staff findings. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The original Zoning Ordinance is not in error. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have, as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, taken place. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have not occurred. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan has identified the majority of this area for heavy industrial use. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan serves as a general guide plan for development of the city and does not follow specific property ownership Therefore, this request is in compliance with the land use plan in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property to Heavy Industrial (1-2)from Highway Business(B-I). 2. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to rezone property to Heavy Industrial (I-2)from Highway Business(B-I). 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property to Heavy Industrial (1-2). Julie lim Planner II i:\commdev\boaa_pc\1997\jullO\rcrvbbp.doc • i EXHIBIT A Irk 1 �. �\ �! l �\ AVE. :,,,„..... ,....40 . .,. 11441111111',.,:low;..7:41frwiall - v„,,,,, '-'----41:11P-...-1.4,, -` till k�..+`►�.��.� `1111111111k �GAED,VAT AVE. .....nye I VtiIEY 1 Cn,rmY $ B PAilfVAT AVE �•.•.��♦�■ IND At VA 1 12 i .... r . '`t °�; 4►�.�►��i SU...�.` l LEGEND .v(1.111\ �s.40,k„ 1-4114,,,,,_ ;1 a ,l ,� °� `� ���. � *,, IIS,,,,,,,,.._____12 M_ Underlying Zones a t Q 4t1„ M R sEpeETARUT DR i Agriculture : `_" 6. ' ;`�2i,.... � RR Rural Residential ��aaTX i E"` 'R1?i Low Density Resdentic1 zi 3 moi ' _ ' ,t,„„, ' R i Urban Residential ___ I ' C, Old Shakopee Residentici ,44.„ R2 1 Medium Density Residentic RRR3 Multiple Family Residentiei 'Ili 4 --- r ,- i 7 ' _81 Highway Business // B2 Office Business /// 83 I Central Business -, Fin 1 Light Industrial ' �' / �� ! ; l2 I Heavy Industrial `‘. eic Major Recreation I . \`-. Overloy Zones r�c-hc eIcnd t t — " oc ^icin Dist, ct 1 � N. . ci:,...7. •t• 1 ; ::`: l i ;h f ll M _...,.::Z..' '1 i:;-1:4‘::: . . . :. . ::::::::::.• 1.; .:. !;I '., !:.:y.1 7 14:t '3 f'rILIIIIIIIIIII:111Nlli't: 4. t E'--; s T i c.„ iv• , R . N . " _.„ ...................... ...... E_ .........._.......,. ;, ...„. „ ., ..„ r— CA •• IININ : , ':. <- S 1 , e; , al .., 1 . i _.... . , ..• •... ....t 11 „ .• . . .............„... ... , . . ...so•um 2 um 9 1 umi ii am• - v . II a • ' '....' ''''''. 1 _�; 5 I CI i � '. t y9. ' . rill ._ � t �:_ 3 ay t r. I MO - '� . .., .:. iJ t,.... , \\ ' { II \ S „...,.. ,....,.. ..,....:... \. iN , ...... .\ . .. : ,/ t 1f • / / I / I/ 3,N4 1 , . . ‘ iZ 71 a.. .... •_-) 1 • - •-f, r -?? .sia(4k;',..-• .. 7 r•.. / , a t i r.. S — i E , lir ���i'�ri.J i' M Y � G' ff «< .. • EXHIBIT D § 11.36 SEC. 11.36. HIGHWAY BUSINESS ZONE (B-1). Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the highway business zone is to provide an area for business uses fronting on or with immediate access to arterial and collector streets. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the highway business zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. motels and hotels; B. restaurants, class I; C. retail establishments; D. utility services; E. administrative, executive and professional offices; F. financial institutions; G. medical or dental clinics; or H. public buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the highway business zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. taverns; B. churches; C. animal hospitals and veterinary clinics; D. open sales lots or any use having exterior storage of goods for sale; E. gas stations; F. restaurants, class II; G. private lodges and clubs; H. commercial recreation, major or minor, I. bed and breakfast inns; J. uses having a drive-up or drive-through window; K. vehicle sales, service, or repair, including general repair, rebuilding or reconditioning of engines or vehicles, including body work, frame work and major painting service, p.qe nevoid n 1996 1171 $ 11.36 replacement of any part or repair of any part, incidental body and fender work, painting or upholstering; L car washes; M. hospitals; N. theaters; 0. funeral homes; P. utility service structures; Q. day care facilities; R. relocated structures; S. structures over 35 feet in height; T. developments containing more than one principal structure per lot; or U. retail centers; or V. other uses similar to those permitted in this subdivision, as determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Subd.4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the highway business zone the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use; B. parking and loading spaces; C. temporary construction buildings; D. decorative landscape features; or E. other accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 5. Design Standards. Within the highway business zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following minimum requirements: A. Density: minimum lot area: (new lots): two acres (existing lots): 8,000 square feet maximum floor area ratio: .50 pogo eo nssa n 1996 1172 § 11.37 B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 75% C. Lot specifications: minimum lot width: (new lots): 100 feet • (existing lots): 60 feet minimum front yard setback: 30 feet •• minimum side yard setback: 20 feet minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet minimum side or rear yard setback from residential zones: 75 feet D. Maximum height 35 feet without a conditional use permit. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 150, October 4, 1984;Ord. 158, January 31, 1985; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 246, June 17, 1988; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 275, September 22, 1989; Ord. 279, December 1, 1989; Ord. 292, September 7, 1990; Ord. 320, October 31, 1991; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 434, November 30, 1995) SEC. 11.37. Reserved. pap mined in 1996 1173 § 11.46 EXHIBIT E SEC. 11.46. HEAVY INDUSTRY ZONE (1-2). Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the heavy industry zone is to provide an area for i uses in locations remote from residential uses and in which urban services and transportation exist. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the heavy industry zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following-uses: A. motor freight terminals; B. manufacturing,fabrication, processing,assembly and storage operations,except those involving a project that fits within one of the Mandatory EIS Categories under Minn. Rules 4410.4400; C. warehousing and wholesaling; D. commercial vehicle rental facilities; E. research laboratories, except those involving a project that fits within one of the Mandatory EIS Categories under Minn. Rules 4410.4400; F. contractors' supply yards; G. retail sales of heavy industrial, manufacturing, or construction machinery or equipment; H. agricultural uses, but limited to the growing of field crops; • I. utility services; J. utility service structures; K. landscaping services and contractors; L. establishments supplying goods or services to industrial users; or M. public buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the heavy industry zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit A. manufacturing, fabrication, processing, assembly, and storage operations, and research laboratories, that fit within one of the Mandatory EIS Categories under Minn. Rules 4410.4400; B. retail sales of products manufactured, fabricated, assembled, or stored on site; C. concrete or asphalt plants; peg.r.vi..d in 1996 • 1238 • D. airports and heliports; • E. grain elevators; F. junkyards; • G. residences for security personnel; ' H. vehicle repair, I. restaurants, class I or class II, contained within a principal structure and oriented toward serving employees or those working in the immediate area; J. recycling or composting facilities; K. exterior storage; L. structures over 45 feet in height; M. developments containing more than one principal structure per lot; or N. other uses similar to those permitted in this subdivision, as determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Subd. 4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the heavy industry zone the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: SA. parking and loading spaces; B. temporary construction buildings; C. decorative landscape features; D. offices occupying less than 25 percent of the principal structure and directly associated with a permitted use; or E. other accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 5. Design Standards. Within the heavy industry zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following minimum requirements: A. Density: minimum lot area: 1 acre B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 85% C. Lot specifications: • p.p.mused in 1996 1239 § 11.46 minimum lot width: 100 feet • minimum front yard setback: 30 feet minimum side yard setback 15 feet minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet minimum side or rear yard setback from residential zones: 100 feet minimum side or rear yard.setback from railroad right-of-way: 0 feet D. ' Maximum height 45 feet without a conditional use permit. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 59, May 14, 1981; Ord. 96, November 11, 1982; Ord. 138, November 24, 1983; Ord. 158, January 31, 1985; Ord 203, July 10, 1986; Ord. 246, June 17, 1988; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 279, December 1, 1989; Ord. 334, May 21, 1992; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 429, November 2, 1995) SECTIONS 11.47 -11.49. Reserved. (The next page is 1261.) • • • v9•rued in 1996 • 1240 : ' - , •Vallcy EIrCCn November 4, 1998 BUSINESS PARK Mr. Mark McNeill City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 Re: Parcel Re-zoning Error Dear Mr.McNeill: Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership made an application to the City of Shakopee on June 9, 1997 for a Zoning Amendment to re-zone a portion of B-1 land in the business park to I-2. In that application,we provided the city the appropriate application and supporting documentation, including a survey,which substantiated our ownership of the property and our request for the rezoning. In our submittal packet,we provided a legal description for the parcel we were requesting be rezoned. That legal was in error. The legal description was attached to the Resolution approved by Council on August 5, 1997 as Ordinance No. 493. Because of the incorrect legal description being attached to the Ordinance,which we provided to the City staff, land that was intended to remain B-1 was rezoned I-2. As is evident from the staff report to the Planning Commission,the graphics noted in the staff report specifically defined to the Planning Commission that portion of land that was requested for rezoning. It appears the Planning Commission had all the appropriate information at their public hearings to do justice to defining and recommending approval of the rezoning. Regrettably,the final outcome was different than the Planning Commission had recommended approval of because of the error in the legal description. We have marked up the survey document to more specifically define that portion of the properties which should be 1-2 and that portion which we would have wished to remain B-1. We are forwarding this to you requesting Council's consideration of a new Ordinance revising Ordinance 493, leaving that portion which was B-1 to continue as B-1 zoned property. Based on our review of the documents, it does not appear that the entire process needs to be started again as to public hearings,etc. An amended, corrected ordinance could be passed by Council, if they are agreeable to same. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and ask your consideration of our request as soon as possible. Respectfully, Y GRE BUSINESS PARK on R.Albinson Project Director JRA:jmc Enclosures \\SERVER\Shared\Projects\SuperAmerica\x to MMCNeill requesting rezoning from 1-2 to B-I.doe 5240 Vali ,, nc a : , Bou,evarr.South •Shaxcpee.MN 55379•Te ephone:)612)445-9286•Fax:(612)904-6875•E-Mail:jalbinson©ValleyGreen.com Is.. C,. )._, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Initiating the Vacation of Right-of-Way DATE: December 15, 1998 Introduction The attached Resolution No. 5044 sets a public hearing date to consider the vacation of right-of-way. The requested vacation is for portions of Peace Avenue and Dominion Avenue within the Dominion Hills subdivision. Discussion The City received a petition for the vacation of right-of-way from Mr. John Peterson of C.E. Coulter and Associates. The attached resolution sets a public hearing for January 19, 1999. On that date, comments from staff members and utilities, as well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission,will be presented to the City Council for your consideration. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5044, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of Right-of-Way within Dominion Hills, and move its adoption. K-1 . iftt lie Klima Planner II i:\commdev\cc\1998\cc 1215\vacphbrn.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5044 A RESOLUTION SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN DOMINION HILLS WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that rights-of-way dedicated with Dominion Hills, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, serve no public use or interest;and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before an action to vacate can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. WHEREAS,two weeks published notice will be given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice will be 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 19th day of January, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, on the matter of vacating right-of-way within Dominion Hills, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota, held the day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 CC 12151998/Heritage/RML L+ •C. . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Communication from Clifford D. Stafford regarding November 17, 1998 Council Approval of Request of Heritage Development to Rezone Property from I-1 (Light Industrial)to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) MEETING DATE: December 15, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The City Administrator received a letter from Clifford Stafford dated December 4, 1998 asking that the Council reconsider its action approving its Heritage Development's rezoning request. A copy of that letter is attached for the Council's information. Also attached is Mr. McNeill's response to Mr. Stafford's letter and a letter dated December 8th submitted by Thomas Bisch on behalf of Heritage Development of Minnesota, Inc. Staff has reviewed the procedure for reconsideration with the City Attorney, and the required process is outlined below. The time for making a motion to reconsider has expired. Therefore, in the event that one or more members of the Council wishes to take up its 11/17/98 decision, a motion would have to be made to suspend the rule that requires motions for reconsideration be made at the same session. In this situation, the motion can be made by any Council member, and requires a majority vote. If that motion were to pass, then a Council member who voted on the prevailing side would have to make a motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration also only needs a majority vote. Were the motion for reconsideration to pass, the rezoning issue would be back on the table and a 2/3 vote would be necessary to adopt any new ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Reconsider the Council's November 17, 1998 action on Heritage Development's rezoning request, following the procedure outlined by the City Attorney. 2. Do not reconsider the Council's November 17, 1998 action on Heritage Development's rezoning request. CC 12151998/Heritage/RML ACTION REQUESTED: In the event Council wishes to reconsider its action, motions consistent with the procedure outlined above. In the event it chooses not to reconsider no specific action is required. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director December 4, 1998 Mr. Mike McNeal City of Shakopee - City Hall 129 South Holmes St. Shakopee,MN 55379 Dear Mr. McNeal, ' I am writing to request that I and other residents opposed to the planned development of Shenandoah Apartments in Shakopee be added to the items being considered for the city council meeting agenda scheduled for December 15, 1998. I would ask that a time period near the beginning of the meeting be considered as many of the residents who wish to address the council on this issue would find it more difficult to appear as the evening progresses. I (we) feel that the city council erroneously approved the re-zoning of the property being purchased by the developer, Tim Bish DBA: Heritage Development, along CR#16, against the better interests and wishes of the residents who feel they will be adversely affected by the construction of an apartment complex on the site. I (we)believe that the city council members who voted for approval of the development did not adequately notify or inform those opposed to the project that they (city council) were reconsidering the approval of the zoning change and would possibly disregard the recommendations of the Planning Commission members who recommended the proposal of the developer not be accepted. I (we) feel that the approval of the re-zoning, as proposed, is not consistent with other residential development occurring in the surrounding area and is an example of special consideration for a developer over the interests and welfare of current city residents. Please consider this request and permit those of us who wish to address the council at the upcoming meeting a reasonable time period in which to do so. Sincerely, Clifford D. Stafford 2328 Eagle Creek Blvd. Shakopee,MN 55379 445-5274 pomi SHAKOPEE December 7, 1998 Clifford D. Stafford 2328 Eagle Creek Blvd. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Stafford: I am in receipt of your letter of December 4th regarding the Heritage Development proposal for Shenandoah Apartments. This action was approved by the City Council at its November 17th meeting. While it considers the recommendations of the Planning Commission, it is ultimately up to the City Council to determine the fmal action on a request for rezoning. It was approved on a 3 - 1 vote,with Councilmember DuBois abstaining. This will be placed on the City Council agenda on December 15th, in the"Community Development"section. According to Robert's Rules of Orders,the format that the City follows for meetings,in order for this to be reconsidered by the City Council,one of the Council members would have to move to suspend the rules governing the meeting in order for the action to be brought back for reconsideration. The Council may choose to hear your statements of concern, but if no one moves to have the action reconsidered no further action will be taken. Because of previously scheduled Public Hearings,the earliest that this could be considered at the December 15th meeting is 8 PM. If you have any questions,please contact either myself, or Community Development Director Michael Leek(445-3650). Sincerely, 11 VCJ,LU Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: Mayor and Council Michael Leek, Community Development Director 1�� CONUNti "ITi�t] Mi1$5r attorney 129reeet South• Shakopee,Minnesota• 55379-1351 612-445-3650 • FAX 612-445-6718 11HERITAGE ICIUa 1111 DEVELOPMENTDEC 9 1996 December 8, 1998 Mayor and Council Members City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Mayor and Council Members: On October 27, 1998 Heritage Development of Minnesota held a informational meeting in which all residents who lived within 350 feet of our proposal for the Parrott property were invited to attend. Enclosed is a list which was initialed by residents who attended this meeting. On November 5, 1998, Heritage Development requested a rezoning of the Parrott property to R-3. The Planning Commission of Shakopee recommended a re-zoning of the Parrott property to R-2,and not the R-3 as we had requested. Attending this meeting were some of these same residents who had attended our informational meeting. Heritage showed a concept of 312 market rate apartment units for this property and not a low income or subsided project of any kind. Early estimates for rental of these units are$600 per month for one bedroom and over$700 for two-bedroom units. On November 17, 1998 Heritage requested and received a rezoning of the Parrot property to R-3. We respectfully disagreed with the Planning Commissions or any rescinding of this recommendation for the following reasons: 1. City staff recommends the approval of the request from Light Industrial to Multiple Family Residential(R-3) 2. The properties to the east and west are currently zoned Industrial. 3. The property is located on the same side of Eagle Creek Boulevard as are several other adjacent R-3 zoned properties. 4. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan guides this property as both R-2 and R-3. The Comprehensive Plan by State statute is the governing document in considering all re-zoning changes within the State of Minnesota. 450 East County Road D•Little Canada,MN 55117•Phone:(612)481-0017•Fax:(612)481-1518•Toll Free:(800)644-0017 909 Blackstone Avenue•Waukesha,WI 53186•Toll Free:(800)644-0017•Phone:(414)322-4789 110 North Cherry,Suite 240•Olathe,KS 66061 •Toll Free:(800)644-0017•Phone:(816)769-2054 5. The Metropolitan Council supports higher density development wherever possible particularly as it relates to the increased costs of interceptors in lower density developments. 6. The property is currently zoned Light-Industrial and a High Density(R-3)zoning will provide the City with future tax base closer to its current zoning. 7. Bedrock is located within 6 inches of the surface throughout the property, therefore the construction of basements is not practical nor economical. 8. The maximum number of housing units allowable under the currently guided use is approximately 290. Our proposal would be for 312 units,not the 360 units which would be allowable under R-3 standards. We believe our concept for this property is in keeping with the existing and proposed neighboring land uses and is separated from the existing large lot single family lots to the south by Eagle Creek Boulevard and our proposed 150 foot setback and berming. Additionally, this property affords the City of Shakopee an opportunity to provide for some additional affordable housing for workers within the community and responds well with requests such as those presented to the Council at the same November 17,City Council meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. Sincerely, Thomas Bisch Heritage Development of Minnesota,Inc. ORDINANCE NO. 532, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEC. 11.03 BY REZONING LAND LOCATED NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 16 AND WEST OF CANTERBURY PARK FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL(I1)ZONE TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R3)ZONE. WHEREAS, Heritage Development, applicant and Lorraine Parrott, property owner have made application for the rezoning of land legally described as follows: East Half of the Northwest Quarter North of Road Exit 5A from Light Industrial(I1)to Multiple Family Residential (R3); and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 5, 1998, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property to Medium Density Residential (R2) to the City Council. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by rezoning land described as follows: East Half of the Northwest Quarter North of Road Exit 5A from Light Industrial (I1)to Multiple Family Residential (R3). 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 j fky of 4tf /A.Ai1 J , 1998. ayor of the City of Shakopee Attest:q,v . , City Clerk Publishein the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1998. Prepared by: City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes St. Shakopee, MN 55379 f / It 1 q r_) Y Puio s 2 I L NN,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..:,,,,,,4:,,,,,,in.,,,,,,:‘,.:7:.:),,,,,,sr\N:\:,,,,N \h„..._. N.:). .-N. •-,,‘..,..-2,, ) ,f, \ % • ,.. L. Nt. it ‘,\•. ,\\:111---c/ii[, -, 1, ;t-,\ ., ', ,. ,- ' 'ki.,,,4,-,N, ... ___cc c ----i, ,1 ,,,.... ',.....,.. , , `,..,;., \',:, -"k's,,,,„.'% 1,'.;,C--, lez---11-4—'1-1-4s-Cal*—J'----s.-_.. ' ' ., '''''.."It;"-,`, ''''''4...-'\'' s.'-\\''',...J. .:=--1.-- --''''-- , --.;:',..,.,-,4,--,,A.77,--*.1,-, l': :,,- ss .0,,,,,,,.- '.-• Vi•PrLt;r4Nf , 4 1-0'.--Wk‘ '' ,, .., ,':'4-i\*;:''' "V.1. `.,-s'4'''4441014V-kj . --- -.75f-tt—r-2-, —— —7-1k—LAZO.;r5\---v00 sal- *1%. •7:A.ktr.,,,,' ';1.`.<,1:' '1 ' --) ri,7— - s 1,_it..)-u-r-, ..T1,w'--",-..-,,,-1,ia..A..*544:-.77:-..e,\v, ^ kli Ill \-<tt, , •,, i MaD,65w1--\ 0 -, t_., ,7:,,..„. ,"',IVA,., -t„_.,_,.,i 1\1 p• i.., -I •7•=1\vralt •:"--.,..„1.1.tf 1.- %.--...---en t4=, 1; atli4javA.4„,(1,'''1 / '4.\,:\‘'Np'r /C1.:(-;e110' ........"71*--:::::- =I {CO II:'',,,,„‘.--11,, a I.--\N.LS'il-•-•,,,,5,v,,,' -,,,......,..i. .....\14,..,... i ..‘,,..: , k -,,,...„ ._\„..-- -_ ,,.. - k:.1- ,,,''..R.,,44.4 ' 0 ..N° `, „ '-.,':.,'__ \'''' f __ l ',-,;iT-1 1-W 44t.-7i'',- ,•'\-',,.Vt0.,;',e,f67' " .t' ..k- -\;„iil lc; 011 : \ '. - I, ' — I 7 •,49,/,,,,,A -;s2' ( i'-'' ''''''''4,;,;:,,,,,,,, .. -•‘31*:, y, •,,';,‘,.„4, .„-.' -;,,', \N•q,,i, —:\'', to � | � n* � � 2... D s ..,,,,,m,,.\-,t44„,;:,:t,, •;,:,,,k,1,....„:„;,?...., . -.,c, ...,,,7,,/,...i, ,;,,y3„4,,,,,, ,, \,x,,,s,,,,,,.:,,,,--4,,,-„N ,, ,‘„, ,,„,,:N.,,ANN sV--' R )) ,), ' -,- --'''-'s\,, '..,, ,,',.\\:,,s,„. .k,..::,,,. \ IV,irA,,,, �~= - -~,--_.—__._ _ - •_ 1 I. • • 1 MN^N�^WN �`VI.p' v N vi N0 • = p+ D PCWCO° ; ,mnPZ-IZD m rn i �° �zp�— Z Z � ` DZ ��nVI rn> XDN •nm Z o o 0 D p / • /A. STS•114*M 0 n W �',"Y l,PAY `t t 4ti.'E14y •' t. '}d,)y `ra,t o •gats', s +y 1f k • .`} a<1 1' !a \ftr Z'�r. • 1tIM y I ( TR fi', " I'Y•Y 0 V♦ r. "'{, fii 1 '' s Y„ rij•� }}'Iw1 ._ '�t�'t t ibf r O ,..1.2„,1, , -� ! r pad ft :;F-1.-'..9•- ,. .� i '1 Iti a,�N&[ vy A• `.` 1 r vi • / , / ' 1),!,(?:;.;444:‘ ,,'• :...:*i. 11.;,!;•k‘:)..6,,‘"4'',`.5). t:::7:',.:,.',..,l',.:::::,,,, .''''''');''''.:.,,.,,._.,.; ,i, .,,,,I.,';;...-:;:11:^P--,..: .i.. , I ti, `t1;1 0 n M > 0,,, 45,,. iffi ,'• .. , 2:4,4, :4SFr ,,,44:0„, '' Ili i ,/, 646 4.. 4' - i'.... t. ''", .:tt',,,,, ,,, ,.4.7../..''''%.41.:•••::',';'/-i'...:1:'::..:OP6.44PwelVa,./,',',14fi'' le.''''''''240.4er:::,.•.•i.:::,:17 %.,.'''.:.i.1,1:::';'' :;•.t,,.'; C.. , 1 M =i i 6,„., , •.'s , tk \ ,p . saml /:::, frt', e'''',7.1 :‘,.$6, 1 ri..,,,..10''.,...46;,;•.',4t,:'• �•� 1 }. 3,,a ,,e e, d •V►:i'''t, I•. t ..rn II '_�/ x •*1 ! .fie ,. `*E•4,.,,; ,,..,•,,, ry r z/....A 41P:44',••••;4,.;14';,:e•,,..:',:,;;.:‘,N.z,....,::.i,,,:-,,:,;;i, ,,..,':ii,,,'.$P ,... . - - „ r > VI 0 IMO 0 •,7r •a' { err '.t11 I ,� 1 1.1”),..;1. . . i" 1/4r 2:... i rn > . .n.L.c.i'' '. ''''%'' i-q • .'.!::.)'': ''''' !.'•'* ttl ' • '.n••• ' '•-•;*';:1!l'4';';N)4/ ' •• '/':t,i/' ZX40:11t •g' '1.q' b.hr j he F� •� j . „. !it ullimi /1;':.',7Q.41:- 71' , a „ ,—' 'i: A i ��:'a 4,:+ ' it '�f iJ A3 , .' • 1 ` ,}a to � Ai: , � �.Q r e.. � �a t;."� o+`y•�..is hy,, -•s w ' ',..!-:?::,''..,',,1. ".,,'" L 1 riz t 1 4 + i ' f wCOr: .{ }• 1.''" :., / r .�i� "\♦ Y .F.. , r y IIk Ir +w yt,S 1 .ti: � 1 :'-� ,,e.5 ,6;..:...,:",7 ,-,,,:5,,,,., M� >F ^ p a r< �.-{+1'`A .. �i ^� : 9 r,: .� «:r`1 '' - 'i'4"1'+'` r 6, • wWa 'fit .,;.`,,,,,'<!':,:i a $ k minows M / . AP^iris •,. ,g . ••• .:., • . -...1',. 7, Mil iiii,...... Z / AN :,:':,' Ali) , . . . ,-, - ;',) ,,),ii,.., . ::..::".2.ktritt....4.*..iiir,...111--....,........:....__.:. ., .i...•,` i d�, • ;� q, ' 1 r� ( i , i `,�1. � y - rlt�, ° ;.4%* *:.';'''''!.;* ' '',..' �\ / '4'1 -, ie ti.,,;' . , - ��` ' ' .t �� I • ,�.� •.T 1� t s► A;) •(`f,i.to i,,$.�� t „W,� vI. ,. , . t ■I�'., r, . �•7 .S'..;,,..,1( H( ( - :b'V) '.V„ s l,,. l� Y „d._....44,. `' t� 2 , .. ,, .i. .° �, 1 ` bw r.1i,p. L a`i `. r Alio, a•, 1e< ?i s Z.. , I,r t!:1 "t",! r..- •@,•; Y. !{ :_�4i t'4,4•,r1_ '-$,," �� ` rr'lo , J61lYn♦• -11.., r ' '.i" , 1)1°1 • f • ' ' , • „ �?t� � �r �a � s,„.,}� 7'�`/ ,:!!:•.,,,,,Y-.-;..... 4<'r' t - 5!y �r3 $SOwr, � • hi t b� ��� y 1+z'Y �` 11101111 it, i ,,..• .uur...., IY1 �.i..�� t.•i }V, „ ,,•„*....5 .: X0 . l- [2S” t á4l 1. r> a.i . ...... .' .. .. .. . a•u a...a...o .... , il 1H I MI .....;". • r .'4' .....i,, * Piii • j • t:4. J PILIgikig.1t 1 l ii!r1..:!.. ;.4111 .rte ',ti ► ,./1.•"•,111 4 :'4. , '' '•'4 ' • . .i•. '• I ,:. -.A•{ r' '�+ «� ;�, • (umime �ult;!......h• _'}.. _:u•�Y.uwa> ettat- `'a�"Yt•�15 ' • all , � _ "—,.....i.--„ :. ..".• . . .:,-'..,- ail ' ,,.., ,.....1 . - I ...i:',... ._. `ir�F < .t�,i ' r L"�,".�' , \.; , r9. a Y; Mfr .�:: ,E `a •� "Si r°3,1• ip ii tr. illAillillili . . 1r7, .&5t. 1 F'ia Fa j-,,,;1...,,,,;,,t t µ �� i�'. •; .i't`. I �`.Q •d&CEKJ; 1F 6°i � ��� cb S` 4• f� ■Q1a._ i pr ',e�• , Atr�` V !' .2,5'7. I h i< • Val gip, ,.�,.., .Z-.....7,,.. . .,.r rt, .t Y.. ,r' Nlyd ,. C:� ;M1i "�7 w.,uc• e' •G. a, r �( ` r�r r 'm� • - I ► r 92 3.72' ' i , a x k1^ imm to i „,..„... vi0 II ids ' W� r"L'''..-;''''''-''41, ? n r. �t M 9 tO • N 4 •/3 0 I . . III Z Z _ T___ rn 1911.111111'llI1iiiil 1i'it I I''■■I Ma I' ;i' ■ ■■ al Ii ME. ■■' MM MM. i��h�ll1@1111111111,1 i!I llil!IOIIIIIJ8111�1!r --_ iunlni Ili �IHln�ll hlllII [ IMM l5i 0 _ ,V��1�1�,!ill!ILII .uuH1u uuun 1I=�IIq iiuiw il, 0 i W 111 II 'll n �v -N n. ■■ 7 • 111111 4 �.... •� I � 1.P�V!lll�l h. III■111 it o I.liUIIVItlVltliliff� 11111 ��i rrl > 0 IP II1_III1=!J 0 I � : ws • I� IIS I�IJd 1119i�1�i l''1U'��;;�Jl iiiiuii"�lNII 0 i �lUnlll�lll{IfVlll`IDII IW��: I�tillr / rn -< �hlal'1 I � 'I. '{n � N1 i irhl� IIIIIHUNIIHI/ I= )( IIN NNN iN .1 (J 11111111, IIli4ly,f"r�.Ilili ,,�l,!1 wunu fIi1i -' 1�1 MI1i111111VINIHI1lBViiil lrl� ill 0 z uiuhIIIIIIIIIHIINNIIi ifilir:"�� z I111�1 ��� Irk---� -u --1 l U nl(! 1• ' ..� -!1IIIiI ',lllll m ........„,),_la III*�1111111■*IIIIII0!�1 011711010 11117 01.1 rn > IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIINIIMLIIIIMI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIINI • Z II[ {i011HII1lNu 1IIIIIIl- II IL•• IIIIIL ' Ja . IiI111111 IIIIIHII IIIIIIII , —.1 7) Iii ■: i■ ■■i '111111111111 111110h ■■: ■■ 'lila ■■ ■■'I'l 1, IlillIllil111111I '11,•11111111 � ul I,I hl �! IIIIiiiII :111111 ,;I, 11 ■■ U OSiul! llllll11111111 ulnll_ 1 1l'i�il' 1 II {� ■illim- NIi1 �l11 , 111111111 rn IIII -■ i { !_ IHINJIml.lillliluii, ■ lUIII Emit Ioafta111pillull[■■ 1110 ■111111w11 1M Dl !L p NNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMilIHuiil.u... , 11111111111111111,...„ (4 or. iiohii i �. ■ l IOU IIIIIu� a] 11911111,"�I'`��Id uY�1�I�,i;�Pii'�I �������� �iiN �u I IIIIlill�liIII II11110Vhlljlj1�11 1111111111111ait I- ! �� !�!i`, �� MINNH NI1it 111;1y111 ,..-- 7, ., l 1 I I bili li 1�I �1L111;11 1,�111 ::°mi �u 1 N�l�i ill lull , 14.1;41 111 1 IP!.IIIIP 101"11 rom- I1u,l 4Illil6i11s,' r......... �� I,IIIIu1 m,''' ja ■N 1■■: ,■■■J 't,� ■■ /Fuji L' L I�Eil IIG uu 1 ��� i l 1 1.�IK111ibb1111bIa� 11111113; 1 1� i IP 1 ,dld _ -- �li Brill *ii I i1 1' II$rriml IlnLifllrrnmmnill rinnni II1LTITLI EITITln a lm In nrmmn]m mwmrnnrnIlni lI trnrri T[i miimr O a3 12 nti>x 1W ,O 03 11 1116 8 ;,11-3 -+ • 1 V) I —I C 4) 0 1 R9 rj C I 1.1 -I IMO 61' " • M sin Z 0 Z in in r rmARow chnowmcA 0 ..., ffi212 ;F I 31,20. 47--=—' .1016 Ca ....__ • Z 011 X, H -<Z 73 •N Z X—1 010 co—1-n a co cvlr,r )1 r ft: . It -----`: r 1 1 r ki - us ?* jais_ i 4::?4.. ; . F i 1 > %./ CI m rui in 4%.• > *4 0 0 , re I krate. ,i i P • ik4 33 ''',4L-)P i''":- I Z 71 ../ 00L) P —0 0 til CI3 e ,.:..i-il L_::._„„, M i OD .I. I 73 .0.1 I ci I NI_ Ii( i--_ _„)) m co I II m 0 IN rs) c 0 1 CO Z m _ 1-00, .J , I I I I I I 1 L. i--- , L I •irt'Of imr.g. „...11, . 11 . 1- --.-- , 1 , 23 O N 3 i 0,, 0 > mu' ° 0 . . II I I i q ci n > .•••,,.1-r- 1 1- i i . i 1 it M ir .:- :' --: I li mil li mit ii lillit I I . A i . . . . i,4-t " , " , ..,Ej . M i < ; ..... )1-0- .4 .6, E ,,..7 — ./... —,,, E , !,-T-q: 4 Cft —I ' 11- -1'• .- ii'•-----,:7 r 1--k ,./ ,., „ .,.. iv 'V 0 0 1 , 13, > .0 .. 11:1 " .• IA ict„,1 L I M 1 > i. . i .. Z X 2 Z 'I r• [r. 1 —i mill ..11 1.. -)..irjj i-'L'7. -71.7''„i lbj V;_c•-_?_-__...., i4q i i 1 K , v ) Ill il I 0 i„ P o-vi - -- - 1 t------ -- .,i,„..., CA I 4 M I 1471IF --yPr.' ----I 11 tiV-: 744," ; i I ! . Z 11 i I! 131 iC":44 1 1 Inii It a..‘.:-? , '\ 1 ,1 % i, ) • MIMI Z "4 i /,'. A. r) V1-:-. : 1..• , . , , rLalf (7) .1,.,,, , 0. i., I k E \ 1.1. I , [S i A o ‘ :' , 11 (11 04 . I i ii I i t I I tl -WI, 1 10 4 --,-, 11-...1 L ,,, ,.., . ,, , I Nq ji \ y. , j I --,,, I , • , 7 I, P ..:.i - .- . - ..,:: P 11. 114 k-,I 17 , ? Hi . ii 1 r' 4:01.11 N'', t.', II„ = 1 1 g , '' : : , '17\ , , ; , , I I I . Il II II I I I I : : I I 11111111 it I A I 111111111 I • IIII \VIt )1i. .. kINI A . El ,-,-Q- - ft'' •) .-- , -, -•,\v. -- 7 k-, .111 IIII . , __I - ti ti;•u-----t–''' t, -':_,_'oi 14- -,,----,..- -r-------' 7,1t .‘ F of •' I. :10) l',- --- E ; ; 11 ,. 1E112 , i,‘ : 5 ,.,•.;A 1.,,,I..' ,) ----- t C T ,,,... -,...., , . w •.,, , PR °IP / . Z '4 r j CO i r II .....i 0 ....-5 6 ... .;, co ntt . 11 0 11 .1-0 * -, _58:-I” • .-. • t0 ti) il V.:.! ,. 00 00 -. .1--) 0 tp CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals Decision Variance Resolution No. PC 98-114 APPLICANT: Genuine Parts Company(NAPA) DATE: December 15, 1998 Introduction At the December 3rd, 1998 meeting, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted 7-0 on a motion to deny a 6.65 foot variance request to the required 20 foot side-yard setback in a Highway Business(B-1)Zone,with findings and conditions as proposed by Staff. Genuine Parts is proposing to construct a new NAPA The Parts Store near 4th&Marschall, immediately south of Snyder Drug Store. A copy of the Staff report to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals with said resolution is attached for your reference. On December 10th, 1998, Staff received an Appeal application and letter from Mr. Bob Bean, Ulteig Engineers, the applicant's consultants for this proposal. Said letter is also attached for review. Action Requested: Discuss the Appeal, and make a motion to either deny the Appeal request upholding the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision or approve the Appeal request (with revised findings) over- turning the Board's decision and direct staff to draft a resolution consistent with that determination. is nde cc\199s\cciai5\napa-apL.dO CON' LT G ENGINEERS PHONE 612-571-2500 FAX 612-571-1168 ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC. l/LTE/G 5201 EAST RIVER ROAD,SUITE 308 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55421 E • December 10, 1998 Tim Benetti Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 RE: Variance Request of 6.65' on 20' Side Yard Setback. NAPA—Shakopee Shakopee,Minnesota UEI Project No. 98-7012 Dear Mr. Benetti, The Genuine Parts Company would like to appeal the Board of Adjustments and Appeals' decision at their December 3rd meeting to deny a 6.65' variance from the 20' side yard setback to the City Council of Shakopee. The fee for appeal of$85.00 is enclosed, and if you could place our application on the City Council's agenda, it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or comments or need any additional information, please call me at 571-2500. Thank you, Robert E. Bean, Jr. DEC 101998 Appapnwiimarimmrimmeer y A�y � EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r .r 159.36' 11 ? � ^ � Z N Cr35' 45" E 2mor Afes s2D E mtmr� m uNi2 � 2 �t7i s II i.... o u ti xo k Ch ryi � mNm \ yNw f cft .y i 3015 `JNicrun8 ,OZ ) : 1 to VI N _ XI oz O 6 gmx m g Z ( u0 4.0, co •-D m A AC_I A 4. s 0 4 \\\ • 'R m 0 M m D O N g �° x 1 m� y m m v m N .! c (-) D z N m b •C.4 CA C-. a,u '+� N S OZ 1 „ E I ,OZ u -{N . . orn 0 XI y O m m t • H t z P .SET l q, S N v3 't N O 70 p9u _ o0 �r 0. t =- i. ui . . CD0N 0' IS' 23” E 159.35' fin 51 /� !";,,,,:-:.;L...--1,'-',!._._ .. 9 Lf) ..„04� 'd❑?� 1331S ❑NI>IIArn ILI ©o 1' IIIEI 13 in amillil \ \°=1))%° & ;1Q ' r°: - :IS iv �bS 414 -Ott*Wi r a 0 410 J F re' k, 11 Oh 03 N '.1"."\ ..__.! Al* iirkP _ O ,, MRUOUND .USE STRE N 43 '='=��► S6ts OWNi = flr N / e-i .-1 ... 1 'aei 11•H❑SZIVN ti N EV ___ Q !till° � � "' Lallii It n MI - Mii � '• i L.L. ��� 1S N' NW J❑❑ .D ON mos ISA / Q ' r° w'v*Ii _0 ri onils, � o !. ri wo,„ 0 \; -.I : III■ �, WIC' mi9 all NAPA The Parts Store—Variance Request Narrative Request: 6.65-foot variance to 20-foot side yard setback. City Code: Section 11.89, Subd. 2 allows a variance to be granted if the following circumstances exist. City staff has submitted draft findings to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals stating that some circumstances did not exist. The staff findings were accepted by the Board with no changes. The applicant offers the following alternative findings for consideration by the City Council and requests the decision of the Board denying the variance request be overturned. Criterion 1 The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: 1 A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The question hinges on the meaning of"reasonable use". NAPA is seeking to relocate in Shakopee for three reasons: They are outgrowing their existing facility, they require better accessibility to traditional customers and public, and their current property is part of the planning area for expansion of the Scott County Government Center. Some neighboring properties have already been acquired for the Government Center project. Scott County is currently leasing space in the building where NAPA currently operates. NAPA has been seeking a suitable alternative site in Shakopee since 1995. It is critical to their success that the site be centrally located to their "traditional"customers (parts delivery) and be readily accessible to the public. This is the only site found which meets those needs. For NAPA The Parts Store, a reasonable use is one that allows them to operate competitively and in harmony with neighboring properties while providing desired services and products to the community. The proposed layout allows them to use the property reasonably: alternative layouts considered do not. The configuration of the store is based on a proven, nationwide history of experiences that maximizes the efficiency of the showroom floor, stock storage and access, customer and employee conveniences. This layout is very important and is the result of much more thought and attention than merely providing square footage. The parking and entrance layout is equally important. The store must be easily visible from traffic routes. Customers must have convenient parking and access to the store. Long walks to the door and then on to parts will deter them from choosing NAPA over competitors. Finding: This property cannot be put to a reasonable use by NAPA The Parts Store under the official controls. 1 B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. This property is unique in terms of its location and availability. No reasonably feasible alternative sites were found. NAPA is seeking the City's assistance in overcoming the shortcoming of this lot (its relative narrowness) in making this project work. Finding: Location, availability, size and shape are unique circumstances to the property. 1C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner. NAPA has no control over the shape of available properties that meet their needs. The variance mechanism is in place as a tool for allowing the City to make desirable projects workable when conditions are "close"and when the project will cause no significant ill effect to the City. Finding: NAPA did not create the above circumstances—it was the most feasible parcel available for their needs. 1 D. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The project conforms to zoning and current usage. No opposition to the variance was voiced at the public hearing held by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. All adjacent landowners were given notice of the hearing. Finding: The essential character of the locality will not be altered. 1 E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Earlier sections describe why a reasonable use of this property for NAPA The Parts Store under the terms of the ordinance does not exist. Finding: The problems extend beyond economic consideration. Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. The spirit and intent.of the Chapter is to set forth guidelines for development in manner beneficial to the community as a whole. This project will be a benefit to the community, the variance will not be a detriment to the locality or the City. Overall building spacing in the locality will not be reduced— the building will be set back from the north property line by 74 feet. A south setback of 13.35 feet will be preserved. The average set back from property lines will be double the minimum required. No opposition to the variance from any owner in the locality was voiced. Finding: The variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of City development policies. Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. Finding: The side yard set back variance is not a use variance. Criterion 4 Conditions imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. NAPA does not support possible conditions described by Scott County for access via adjacent property. NAPA requests the opportunity to review and respond to other conditions that may be considered prior to their attachment to the variance. Finding: No findings are suggested for conditions the City may choose to attach to the variance. Criterion 5 (Flood Plain related — not applicable) Action Requested: Approve a motion to grant the 6.65-foot variance to the 20-foot side yard set back requirement for the NAPA The Parts Store project based on the above findings. r Sf'6S1 1 3 .fZ .SI . N nmreu o N N N N • •� �:.: . . . f i1L335. z . z u z • S ` . • Q 0 . a .:r( W w ...:fir WQ A fon 20' 24• 20• 5: ON r M0 1 I CL O na d _ N z 1 da. a ... \\\\ in O N O Ol < m F n W LL U G 0 W K w a =1 nb a ♦ 1D 0K 0 00 rn b Y on Z a 2 . .. • 13.35' a • " z w w z x 1.S•. 0. ay Q NZrk N 20 BUILDING SIDE SETBACK r . V 3+ Z V b yo o 0C " � , WW1.11- 17) � We Ili S b 2 to cc in V C C W % cILI 1i2 IO.ii � y b 0 0 w � 9 < W ` ` m 5 cc W co in as I. 8Z0 3 •84 ,5f .0N Za ft N) ,9f'6SI lS c . Li .(3K iT7oiv k3 L. CITY OF SHAKOPEE )N i=o k ,q k Ti o n/ Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeals FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Variance of 6.65 feet from the 20 foot required side yard setback MEETING DATE: November 5, 1998 Site Information Applicant: John Rannsi, Genuine Parts Company Owners: Genuine Parts Company(NAPA Stores) Location: SW corner of Marschall Rd. &4th Ave., immediately south of Snyder Drug Current Zoning: Highway Business(B-1)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Highway Business(B-1)Zone South: Highway Business(B-1)Zone East: Highway Business(B-1)Zone/Multiple Family Residential(R-3)Zone West: Highway Business(B-1)Zone 1995 Comp. Plan. Commercial Site Area: 1.23 Acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: Site Plans Exhibit C: Applicant's Letter of Request Exhibit D: Scott County Highway Dept. Letter Introduction: Mr. John Rannsi, of Genuine Parts Company, has submitted a Variance application requesting a 6.65 foot variance from the 20 foot side yard setback. The subject site is generally located at the southwest corner of Marschall Road and 4th Avenue, south of the Snyder Drug Store(Exhibit A). Considerations: Genuine Parts is proposing to construct a new 6,856+ sq. ft. NAPA The Parts Store (Exhibit B). The proposed use is consistent with those permitted in the Highway Business (B-1) Zone. The applicants are seeking approval to construct their building 13.35 feet from the south lot line. The applicants explain and justify this request based on their preference to "maximize the number of parking spaces at the front of the building, where the customer entrance and exit are located." By installing double-row parking (with drive aisle) along the north edge of their site, the south building set-back line is affected. Furthermore, the applicants justify a hardship based upon the possible future acquisition of their current store, located at 112 3rd Avenue West, by Scott County for expansion plans of the Government Center site(refer to Exhibit C). Access for this site is controlled and subject to approval by Scott County. Scott County Highway Department has submitted a number of comments and conditions related to the future access and development of this site(Exhibit D). Findings: Section 11.89, Subd. 2, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings on each criterion. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may use or modify these draft findings as it sees fit: Criterion I The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: 1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; Finding 1.A. The property can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The site plan submitted by the applicants indicates adequate space exists to the west of the building site. Other alternatives exist for laying out the parking lot and spaces. 1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; Finding I.B. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The applicants are aware of the set-back requirements, and are requesting the variance to locate their proposed development closer to the south property line to accommodate their building location and parking layout preference for this site. 1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; Finding 1.C. The circumstances are created by the landowner, and is a direct result of landowner's choice for the location of the building and parking lot. The lot meets the 1 acre minimum lot size standard and should adequately support similar developments. This proposed development intensifies the problems associated with the City Code requiring the setbacks of adjacent and similar uses from each other. 1.D. The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Finding 1.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood The site is currently zoned and guided for Highway Business and Commercial uses, and existing commercial development surrounds the site. This proposed development will be of less or equal intense use as these other sites. These other sites, however, appear to meet all setback requirements. 1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Finding 1.E. The problems do not extend beyond economic considerations related to the placement of the building as proposed Other alternatives have not been exhausted 2 Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Finding 2. The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning) in that there is no hardship in the need to vary from the ordinance. Zoning provides for the protection and species appropriate spacing of similar uses within certain zones for aesthetics and safety reasons. Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. Finding 3. A variance to the side yard setbacks is not a use variance. Criterion 4 Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. Finding 4. Conditions are not applicable if the application does not meet all the criteria for granting a variance. However, if the Board chooses to permit the variance, conditions can be made part of the resolution of approval. Criterion 5 Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria: Finding S. (Not applicable since the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone) Alternatives: 1. Approve the following resolution denying the variance with findings as recommended by staff. 2. Approve a resolution denying the variance with revised findings. 3. Direct staff to prepare a revised resolution approving the variance with revised findings and/or conditions. 4. Continue the Public Hearing for additional information. 5. Table the decision for additional information. Staff Recommendation: Staff finds that this application does not comply with Criterion Nos. 1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, 2 and 4. Therefore, Staff is recommending Alternative No. 1, approval of a resolution denying a 6.65 foot variance from the 20 foot side yard setback within the Highway Business(B-1)Zone,with findings. Action Requested: Offer a motion approving Resolution No. PC 98-114, denying the request for a 6.65 foot variance from the 20 foot side yard setback within the Highway Business(B-1)Zone, with findings. Timothy Benetti Planner I i:\commdev\boaa-pc1199811203\napa-var.doc 3 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, DENYING A 6.65 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 20 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK WITHIN THE HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B-1) ZONE, SECTION 11.36, SUED. 5.C. WHEREAS, Genuine Parts Company, applicant and owners, have filed an application dated November 6, 1998, for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11,Land Use Regulation(Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.36, Subd. 5.C, for a 6.65 foot variance from the 20 foot side yard setback within the Highway Business(B-1)Zone; and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as: That part of Lot Two (2)Block One (1), CENTURY PLAZA SQUARE 4TH ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota, as on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, lying north of the south 291.90 feet(as measured at right angles) thereof. and WHEREAS, this parcel is presently zoned Highway Business(B-1); and WHEREAS, notice was provided and on December 3, 1998, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director and invited members of the public to comment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the application for Variance Resolution No. PC 98-114 is hereby DENIED, based on the following finding(s)with respect to City Code Sec. 11.89, Subd. 2, "Criteria for Granting Variances." Criterion 1 The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: 1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; Finding I.A. The property can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The site plan submitted by the applicants indicates adequate space exists to the west of the building site. Other alternatives exist for laying out the parking lot and spaces. 1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; Finding I.B. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The applicants are aware of the set-back requirements, and are requesting the variance to locate their proposed development closer to the south property line to accommodate their building location and parking layout preference for this site. 1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; Finding 1.0 The circumstances are created by the landowner, and is a direct result of landowner's choice for the location of the building and parking lot. The lot meets the 1 acre minimum lot size standarcL and should adequately support similar developments. This proposed development intensifies the problems associated with the City Code requiring the setbacks of adjacent and similar uses from each other. 1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Finding 1.E. The problems do not extend beyond economic considerations related to the placement of the building as proposed Other alternatives have not been exhausted Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Finding 2. The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning) in that there is no hardship in the need to vary from the ordinance. Zoning provides for the protection and species appropriate spacing of similar uses within certain zones for aesthetics and safety reasons. Criterion 4 Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. Finding 4. Conditions are not applicable if the application does not meet all the criteria for granting a variance. However, if the Board chooses to permit the variance, conditions can be made part of the resolution of approval. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this 3rd day of December, 1998. Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ATTEST: Community Development Director Prepared by: THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 South Holmes Shakopee,MN 55379 VON '*------........)7 33315 ]NI)11A API* Jima © a . _\ In .13 e• is ,Z ty S et( — 1 isr.t. a Nr7) , __ ~ 0 in• — l i111- " . 14041, co is. 411 ~ lil NMI Aim NMI am - M=I. 111111 111; ,C1911l " • 11111111111n" 7 _ /4. 4* r, N Alb ~ Y " as 11111. Aldlikk ~ ~ 1UI' ' 11sH3S8VW a LEGEND rr Under{yinq Zones a .. ( AGI Agriculture • I RR I Rural Residential / ' Q BRIM Low Density Residential FBS Urban Residential Illsli111111111 p (RtCI Old Shakopee Residential ;�. J Mr I R2 I Medium Density Residential ��j O �1r 4NS0\11 I R3 I Multiple Family Residential ligili s C �� Highway Business �� ag '1S my/Nam I B2 I Office Business - Q W l7 [1 Central Business alli lc:..3. 14., Z M St ` — J ( I i I Light Industrial ~ 0.1* ? W I 12 I Heavy Industrial COO WO MR I Major Recreation in iw,10 �- MI t„ Overlay Zones 611.1101 �, �S-4 Shoreiand .....,,r) � n�-�-�-{•� v v© Ill I--F-1Floodolcin District 11.1 -1 - 1 t • •� as m III =Mining Overlay I I IA PUD Over' • EXHIBIT A • 159.36' N C 1 Z N P 35' 45• E 0 a at rn fel rn> R E8. E4. 1 r ^^�C) FA omz2 iii 11 ; ° 2 lac Rim v *A m 23w v •� 00 2 , 5 aais ONIOline .. ,OZ a co N -.N mZ m ' m .S£'Cl 2 .N oc, —o XI a m ' > = u o Co 'x I mi m 1O N m n 6^ m`° ti min z c. A N m a, O I T4 `J cO 5 .0Z ,tZ .0Z �,m ei pm I .Zi gs m rn s • . I N • g S : - N P 1.5' 23" E 9 :LE 159.35' ak 03 C EXHIBIT B NOU-12-1998 15 27 ULTEIG ENGINEERS INC 612 571 1168 P.02/23 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY 2999 Circle 75 Parkway Manta.GA 30399 • �P� NAPA 770.953-,700 770956.2210 FAX 0 November 9, 1998 Via Regular Mai! Mr. Gerald P. Floden, P.E. Vice President Ulteig Engineers, Inc. 5201 East River Road, Suite 308 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421 Dear Gerry: Re: Proposed NAPA The Parts Store Marschall Road north of Eagle Creek Boulevard; Shakopee, Minnesota As you and I have discussed, our primary objective in designing each of our new NAPA Auto Parts stores is to make it as easy and convenient as possible for our customers to shop at NAPA. Of course, this also applies to the site plan for each new store. In designing the site plans for our stores, we try to maximize the number of parking spaces at the front of the building, where the customer entrance and exit are located. Again, we're trying to make it as easy and convenient as possible for our customers to get in to, and out of, our stores. As a result, we prefer to have two rows of parking down the long side of our building. We would also like to have two rows of parking down the long (98') side of our building in Shakopee in order to put as much customer parking as close to the customer entrance and exit as possible. As you know, our lot in Shakopee has 159.36' of frontage on Marschall Road. However, our preferred design with two rows of parking down the long side of the building will leave us just short of the required side setbacks of 20' on the building side, and 5' on the parking side, as follows: Lot Frontage on Marschall Road = 159.36' NAPA Prototype Building Width = 72.00' Sidewalk Width = 5.00' • 1" Row of Parking Width = 20.00' Drive-Aisle Width — 24.00' 2nd Row of Parking Width — 20.00' Total Width of Developed Area -- 141 .00' EXHIBIT C.1 NOV-12-1998 15:27 ULTEIG ENGINEERS INC 612 571 1168 P.03/03 As currently designed, we would still be able to provide an ample total side setback of 159.36' — 141.00' = 18.36', versus the required 25' (= 20' + 5'). However, we could reduce the width of our sidewalk to 4', or the width of the parking spaces to 19' and the width of the drive-aisle to 23', if another foot or two is critical. If we cannot obtain a variance, we will be forced to put a large amount of our parking behind the building, which will be very inconvenient for our customers, and may cause us to re-think whether we should proceed with this project. We are also appealing for the side setback variance on the basis of a hardship that we face as a result of a situation at our existing Shakopee store. Our store is currently located at 112 3rd Avenue West in Shakopee; this is one block north of City Hall. It's our understanding that the City plans to expand its complex to the north at some time in the near future; as a result, we know that we must relocate our existing NAPA store now. The subject property is the only one that we have been able to identify within a reasonable distance of our existing store that is able to adequately accommodate our proposed 7,920-s.f. NAPA The Parts Store. However, we must have the side setback variance in order to make the proposed site on Marschall Road work for our new store. Please let me know if there is anything else that you need, or anything else that we can do for the City of Shakopee, in order to obtain the side setback variance that we seek. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 770/612-2008. Best regards, kat\ Lt.e..:4_ Karl J. Koenig Director of Real Estate & Construction Enclosures • EXHIBIT C.2 NOV-24-98 TUE 11 54 P. 02 SCOTT COUNTY 1111 PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISION HIGHWAY a ;p 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORDAN,MN 55352-9339 (612)496-8346 Fax: (612)496-8365 BRADLEY J. LARSON ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR November 9, 1998 Bob Bean Ulteig Engineers, Inc. 5201 E. River Road Suite 308 Mpls. MN. 55421 Subject: Site Plan for Proposed Napa lock 1 Century'ty of Plaza Square 4th Addition ee CSAH 17 Access on 2, Dear Mr. Bean: The Scott County Highway Department has reviewed the proposed access shown on the site plan for the Napa Store on Lot 2, Block 1 Century offer the following background Plaza Square 4th Addition on CSAH 17 as it relates to Highway Department issues a and comments: Background Plaza Square 4th Addition was approved, Synder's • In 1993, at that time the Century constructed a 30' wide entrance on CSAH 17 located approximately 21' north of the common line between Lot 1 & Lot 2. Lot 2, • August 1997, the City of Shakopee authorized an administrative lot ots with split for along Block 1 Century Plaza Square 4th Addition dividing it lto CSAH 17 of approximately 159' (northerly portion) and 292' (southerly portion). • September 1997, the Scott County Board authorized up to two accesses from CSAH 17 for Lot 2, Block 1 Century Plaza Square 4th Addition. • September 1997, Scott County Highway Department issued Access Permit Nto. ddfor 1664 an access on the southerly portion of Lot 2, Block 1 Century Plaza Square on. • November 1998, an access for Napa is being proposed on the northerly portion Lot 2, Block 1 Century Plaza Square 4th Addition. EXHIBIT D.1 An Equal Opportunity/SafetyAware Employer NOV-24-98 TUE 1155 P. 03 Mr. Bean Napa Store Access -CSAH 17 Page 2 Comments safety• point of view, it continues to be the opinion of the Scott County Hiig`oay From a the of Department that a shared access with the vlssafety northerly management with adequate access and addresses County's concerns for CSAH 17. However, we acknowledge that an additional access has been previously authorized for the property proposed to be developed by Napa. • If an additional access is necessary, we suggest that it bthe a ecrss from then stripp center entrance on the east side of CSAH 17. It appearsproposed Napa store access is relatively close (please verify). This is needed to minimize potential left-turn conflicts from the two entrances. • Additionally, if an additional access is needed, we suggest the parking lots be connected to enable vehicles to move between the business locations without having to enter CSAH 17. Again, this is for safety reasons to minimize conflicting movements on a busy arterial roadway like CSAH 17. • An approved access permit is required by Scott County for any new access on the county road system. The application should include a sketch showing dimensions road the proposed access to the adjacent existing access points on both sides We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Please call us if you need additional information. Sincerely, 03Cat.4444)1111g Scott M. Merkley Transportation Planning Manager Email: Brad Larson,County Engineer Bruce Loney,City Engineer Michael Leek,City Planner EXHIBIT D.2 w:\word\review\plans\siteplan\sh napa.doc /S. O. � CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: River District Trunk Sewer Line Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-1 DATE: December 15, 1998 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5039, a resolution receiving a report and ordering an improvement and the preparation of plans and specifications on improvements to the River District Trunk Sewer Line,Project No. 1999-1. Also attached is Resolution No. 5045, a resolution requesting U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of developing a streambank protection project for the River District Trunk Sanitary Sewer, from Fuller Street to Spencer Street along the south bank of the Minnesota River. BACKGROUND: On May 19, 1998, the City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for the River District Trunk Sewer, essentially from Fuller Street to Spencer Street. The feasibility report has been completed and the report is attached for Council review. Attached is Resolution No. 5039, which receives the feasibility report and orders the preparation of plans and specifications for an improvement project. Funding of this project will be out of the Sanitary Sewer Fund, as a sanitary sewer replacement project. Since no assessments are involved, a public hearing is not necessary. This project was initiated upon an inspection of the River District Trunk Sewer indicating a problem at two locations due to the riverbank erosion near the old T.H. 169 bridge. The feasibility report investigation by staff has determined that the riverbank erosion has exposed the sewer pipe and is undermining the foundation of the pipe. The report is recommending that the City undertake a sanitary sewer pipe relocation as soon as possible to protect the integrity of the sanitary sewer system from river inflow and to pursue a second project for riverbank stabilization in this area. Staff believes a pipe relocation is necessary and needs to be done as soon as possible to protect the pipe from a possible spring flood and to reduce the inflow/infiltration of river water into the sewer system. The proposed pipe relocation project would essentially move the pipe further away from the river. The riverbank stabilization project could be done later and would allow staff time to apply for grant funding for Met Council, Department of Natural Resources, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Minnesota River Basin Joint Powers Board and the groups interested in improving water quality of the Minnesota River. Staff will also investigate a possible Section 14 project with the US Army Corps of Engineers in which the Corp may design and construct a streambank protection project and participate in the cost up to 65% of the cost. Obtaining grant funding or a possible Corp project may take up to one year or more. Staff has included Resolution No. 5045, which is needed in order to request a study to be done by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) for Streambank Protection under Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act. This resolution, if adopted, will request the COE to conduct a study which may or may not be approved by the COE. If approved , the COE will prepare a study and determine the feasibility of developing a streambank protection project in this area. If feasibile, the the COE will ask the City to enter into a contractual agreement to provide local cooperation as prescribed by the Secretary of the Army before any construction commences. Any grant funding that is either State or Local funds can be used for local cooperation matching funds towards the COE project. Staff is proposing to undertake the pipe relocation phase of the project as soon as possible and is proposing to investigate grant funding for riverbank protection to protect the City's infrastructure as a second phase of the project. Staff is also requesting City Council action on authorizing an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to assist staff as necessary in hydraulic engineering, obtaining permits, and obtaining grants for riverbank protection. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5039. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5039. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 5045. 4. Deny Resolution No. 5045. 5. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., to assist staff as necessary in providing design engineering services as necessary for this project. 6. Do not authorize an extension agreement with WSB &Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 5039 so that the sanitary sewer relocation design can begin for an early spring construction. Staff also recommends adopting Resolution No. 5045, in order to apply for a possible Section 14 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers project for Streambank Protection in this area. Also it is recommended to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to assist staff with this project, on an as needed basis, in obtaining permits, grants and design engineering expertise. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5039, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-1 and move its adoption. 2. Offer Resolution No. 5045, A Resolution Requesting U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to Conduct Studies to Determine the Feasibility of Developing a Streambank Protection Project for the River District Trunk Sanitary Sewer, from Fuller Street to Spencer Street Along the South Bank of the Minnesota River and move its adoption. 3. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., to assist staff as necessary in providing design engineering services as necessary for this project. 101 jrnit ruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5039 DEC-10-1998 16: 10 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 6125411700 P.02/02 B.A.Miaelsteadt,P.E. 350 Westwood Lake Office Bret A Weiss,P.E. WSB' 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Peter R.Willenbring.P.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Donald W.Sterni P.E. Cwnald B.Bray,P.E. 4 612-541-4800 &Associates,Inc. FAX 541-1700 December 10, 1998 Loney,Bruce L y, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Re: Extension Agreement to Provide Engineering Services for Assistance with Hydraulic Design, Permit and Grant Applications River District Sanitary Sewer WSB Proposal No. 087.98 Dear Mr. Loney: According to our Agreement for Professional Services within the City of Shakopee and Section I-C-2 (Major Projects), this extension agreement is written to provide you with a method to reimburse engineering services for the above-referenced project. We are proposing to complete the work on a cost-reimbursable basis as necessary in accordance with our attached current fee schedule. The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse WSB & Associates for these services in accordance with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services. If this agreement meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy to our office. Thanks for the opportunity. Sincerely, WSB &Associates, Inc. LL Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Vice President City Administrator c: Pete Willenbring, WSB City Clerk nm Mayor Date Infrastructure Engineers Planners F',lWPW ORMskx,-.x•li, TOTAL P.02 RESOLUTION NO. 5039 A Resolution Receiving A Report Ordering An Improvement And Preparation Of Plans & Specifications For The River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction Project No. 1999-1 WHEREAS,pursuant to a motion of the City Council adopted May 19, 1998, a report has been prepared by Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, with reference to the improvement of the River District Trunk Sewer by reconstruction, river bank protection and appurtenant work and this report was received by the Council on December 15, 1998. WHEREAS, the Council has considered the improvements of said River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction in accordance with the report. at an estimated total cost of the improvements of$412,190.63. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and is ordered as hereinafter described: River District Trunk Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction, from Fuller Street to Spencer Street. 2. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 1999-1 Public Improvement Program. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 5045 A Resolution Requesting U.S. Army Corps of Engineers To Conduct Studies To Determine The Feasibility Of Developing A Streambank Protection Project For The River District Trunk Sanitary Sewer From Fuller Street To Spencer Street Along The South Bank Of The Minnesota River WHEREAS,the Minnesota River has and is eroding the river bank in areas in the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, this erosion of the river bank is threatening to damage the City's Trunk Sanitary Sewer along the Minnesota River; and WHEREAS,the City of Shakopee is desiring to stabilize the river bank to protect a major trunk sanitary sewer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. Requests the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct studies to determine the feasibility of developing an emergency streambank or shoreline protection project from Fuller Street to Sommerville Street at the south bank of the Minnesota River in Shakopee, MN under the authority provided by Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. 2. The City Council acknowledges that it is aware of the Section 14 local responsibilities and that the City has the ability to proceed within 12 months if it is found feasible and advisable to develop a streambank or shoreline protection project at the Minnesota River in Shakopee, MN. The City Council further acknowledges that it would be required, before construction commences, to enter into a contractual agreement to provide such local cooperation as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Shakopee shall be, and is hereby, directed to transmit three copies of this resolution to the District Engineer, St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 190 5th Street East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101- 1638. w Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota,held this day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk NOU-10-1998 09:28 FROM METRO WASTE CONTROL TO 94456718 P.01 I r$ . -� ~—i-- ---_..-..-.. i 1 d' L� • . it_.! r..4....... i, w ,_ .... E g a, fel t C V- , (4. U. t 4,. N r- 1 ap 1 I � ' - �. 1 Ci i ... x { e-r- t per+ �+ : CL, ca et i co to I 4( b.� S� ® ? co CO o0 j m 7 11.._13)._... co : _el 1._.40. _co......1 0 __9 aa) L � � � ENt7 S. a • � � � r -- a q 2 T--- , p No 8 • \1\ - ! 6 w E ' � � .� �' E• � ir N� i z coif ai Cal. 0 i t 0 . (w) , 1 i 1 I 1,.. 1 asaso \* : O ; >41 a) ! toivw It1 tz CO ' 00 ! 6 40 t CC . — �\ • ,.,.,,.ainC >1$ ' . s,. 2 v4104 . 01M 1 it0 ..0 . to i c_71r r.t Ot• 40„ &- at11° 1a '`1 2 rir1CC! : ! 1 ii. , to l` ff.� c0 1 Ji 4 36 4-- ' CO i !V i ti- . "1 pr. • fr. ; ca i CO 1 tO0 TOTAL P.01 FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR ' RIVER DISTRICT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION ' FROM FULLER STREET TO SPENCER STREET SHAKOPEE SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 1999-1 1 1 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. dawd-' Date /2 /a Registration No. 17590. r i I DECEMBER 1998 I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS RIVER DISTRICT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION FROM FULLER STREET I TO SPENCER STREET I DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. I Introduction 1 IScope 1 Background 1 - 2 I Proposed Improvements 2 - 3 Phase I - Sanitary Sewer Relocation IPhase II - River Bank Protection ICost Estimate 3 Funding 3 - 4 I Conclusion 4 I Appendix I I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION 1 On May 19, 1998, the City Council of Shakopee adopted a motion directing staff to prepare a feasibility report to replace existing trunk sanitary sewer on the River District ISewer near the old Trunk Highway 169 bridge. I SCOPE I This report studied the feasibility of rehabilitating the River District Trunk Sanitary I Sewer by relocating the sanitary sewer pipe further away from the river bank that is being eroded from Fuller Street to Sommerville Street, and to stabilize the river bank in this area to protect the City's major trunk sanitary sewer or to repair the pipe in the same I location. This report addresses the need for the project, with recommendations on reconstructing the sanitary sewer and stabilizing the river bank for protection of the facility. Recommendations are made on proposed improvements and funding sources are identified for each phase of the project. I BACKGROUND I The River District Trunk Sewer serves a large area of urban Shakopee and is located I along the south bank of the Minnesota River, from Rahr Malting to L-16 lift station near the intersection of Bluff Avenue and Marschall Road. In 1995, the City did a report on rehabilitating the River District Sewer System to reduce inflow/infiltration as experienced I in the flood of 1993. The City did repair the manhole covers and install a valve on the sewer service to Dangerfield's,which prevented a discharge to the Minnesota River in the flood of 1997. IPart of the report and project done in 1995, an action plan, was developed on inspecting and monitoring the River District sewer for future problems. In the spring of 1998, it was I discovered that the river bank had eroded away and exposed a portion of sanitary sewer and had undermined the pipe, thus creating an opening for river inflow. The City's Public Works Department has temporarily filled the washout area. However, future I1 I floods along the river bank will endanger the sewer system as the river bank is not stabilized from future high flows. A location map problemAppendix the areas is included in A endix A, and the study area is from the Fuller Street storm sewer flume to Huber Park or Spencer Street extended. From the survey, staff has done a preliminary analysis and design on repairing the sanitary sewer in the study area. ' Over the years the Minnesota River has been eroding on the south bank, from Fuller Street to Spencer Street, which has resulted in the sanitary sewer pipe being exposed along with manholes. This exposure puts the sewer system susceptible to damage from high flows and inflow/infiltration of river water into the sewer system. The City pays for treatment of wastewater at $1.62/1000 gallons including any inflow of water from outside sources such as the river. Included in the Appendix is a monthly flow comparison chart for the City of Shakopee as measured by Met Council. This chart illustrates the flow from 1995 to 1998 and from these readings, an increase in inflow/infiltration is observed. Staff believes this area may be one area which has an increased inflow/infiltration problems due to the undermining of the pipe and exposing of manholes. Soil tests pits and borings have been taken along the proposed sanitary sewer realignment to determine the rock level and whether the trench excavation material was acceptable material. The data from these borings were factored into the preliminary design and cost estimate. The borings indicate only a short segment of sanitary sewer may encounter rock excavation and the material was acceptable for backfill. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PHASE I-SANITARY SEWER RELOCATION ' A proposed sanitary sewer pipe realignment is shown in the Appendix. Staff has determined that two segments of sanitary sewer pipe needs to be relocated further away from the river for protection, possible reduction of river water inflow/infiltration and for ' accessibility by the Public Works Department for maintenance Staff also recommends that this relocation be done before the spring thaw in 1999 to avoid a potential failure in the system. Staff also investigated repairing the sanitary sewer line in its present location. However, it is staff's opinion that this pipe location is now too close to the river's edge and shall be 2 relocated for maximum protection of a major trunk sewer serving a large area of Shakopee. PHASE H-RIVER BANK PROTECTION This portion of the project would be to stabilize the south bank of the Minnesota River to ' protect the River District. Staff has analyzed the river bank stabilization for this project and has determined that ' there are several agencies of state, local and possibly federal funds available to be obtained for such a project. However, obtaining these funds will take several months. Thus staff is recommending a pipe relocation project be done as soon as possible for the first phase and a river protection project done later for the second phase of the project. With this project, staff is also recommending that storm sewer outlets be repaired and the ' Huber Park boat landing be considered for repair. COST ESTIMATES For the first phase of the project, the cost of relocating the sanitary sewer that needs to be ' relocated would be $161,425.00 including 10% contingency and 25% engineering and administration costs. ' This estimate is for approximately 625 lineal feet of sewer reconstruction which would move the sewer pipe as far from the river bank as possible. For the second phase of the project, for river bank protection, the cost of the project is $$250,765.63, including 10%contingency and 25% engineering and administration costs. r This estimate is for approximately 700 lineal feet of riprapped river bank to protect the ' reconstructed sanitary sewer. FUNDING ' This project will be funded with Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Funds as a sanitary sewer replacement project. The river bank protection phase of the project may have grants or ' participation available from the following agencies: 1 3 r I r • Mn/DNR($10,000 to $20,000 Grant) • Lower Minnesota River River Watershed District (River Bank Stabilization Demonstration Project) • Metropolitan Council (Water Quality Initiative Grant) • Minnesota River Basin Joint Powers Board ' • Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Section 14 Emergency Bank Protection Project The grants available would be for the protection of water quality of the Minnesota River. The U.S. Army COE program is for a project to be done by the U.S. Army COE. To complete the river bank protection phase of the project, the project can be done as follows: 1. Have the City be the lead agency in designing and constructing the improvements, ' with funding obtained from the City and grants of other agencies. 2. Have the U.S. Army COE be the lead agency in designing and constructing the ' improvements, with the funding through a combination of Federal funds and City funds. Any grants that may be obtained for river bank protection from State or Local funds could be used to reduce the City's cost share. ' This project does not have any assessments, as the City's policy in reconstruction of sanitary sewers is to be paid with Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Funds. ' CONCLUSION The River District Trunk sewer, from Fuller Street to Spencer Street, has portions of the system that need repairs due to the erosion of the river bank. It is recommended that the sanitary sewer be relocated as far from the river as practical and as soon as possible. Due to the time required in obtaining grants or approval in proceeding as an U.S. Army COE project, the sewer relocation project should be done first with a river bank protection project to be done later after funding sources have been identified. Temporary erosion control and stabilization measures will be incorporated with the pipe relocation project to protect the bank until a permanent river bank protection design can be constructed. This report finds that the reconstruction of the River District Trunk Sewer between Fuller Street and Spencer Street and river bank protection is necessary, cost effective and feasible from an engineering standpoint. It is recommended to construct the proposed improvements as described in this report. I 4 1 r APPENDIX I 1 Proposed Project Location Map ' Sanitary Sewer Relocation Map River Bank Stabilization Area Map River District Trunk Sewer Line Relocation ' Cost Estimate River Bank Protection Cost Estimate ' River District Trunk Sewer Drainage Area Shakopee Monthly Flow Comparison Chart 1999 CIP Project Worksheet U.S. Army Corp of Engineer Letter& Attachment on Streambank Protection Program I r r I I (:k ,..., fli po., 1 i. , .., //_ 0, 04 1 li 1 lia, 1 it'll IL"v La 1 is Ili ‘\ VA A r ""1. .1 / - ' r lipir ,r,_ , .= , A . _ \,_____,,\__ , - ''' - ‘ tit** t_ci_ • i t_ _J _ .1 n t. mit D iii� 111F1 rY tottiliti \--I- tio , IIfl KIITA W > I- 40 itt10311wr E2111- W►� talk p m � I Op' ltoittial L-iti > v ,1 w 14 tWi0k I Ircelkil 01301931611! p, r , cm , *Olt A30 ito* „ ,, _,, uo- ittaltiq0 4,01111 LI X111` -*ova1o rD ,_, /i , Cliss 11 s --� ' iik \ k 1111 U ■� s Y �, i m1 /I� :-)Lici4E1-)::>rY -� 021 , N ,o4-11/ 1-11 } ~ �� •i� a ,I,1 J1NW 1_� i , K U _ �__ 5 C � - 1 - "�131Sg3� ��. LJ z ,1S �■ s sWdQd En: 1 1 0. 1a A. ci., ri is, a .4. 0. X Z M ## 7 a14 H a 1 *%.1‘ 4 U r tz; frit 1' • . LL_I 30 Sl'ik k2 :V.A , J-- r A.- '1 \ W tp_ , .rf,-..4„. IN ' ) ; Li -1-- ,4161110 N 1111111111111.7-- • / ce- AO ` , �I I r z ii‘ . , t Z t- 4' V) Q / H ¢ O. o Z U Q aS ti J a t] Li F W 40 I V J ...„..u, W > 2 le LLI i z Y W z Z J N p° a ¢ /, 1 al iL.._ U W O U O \, p O OF 0 a_ 1- a_ z d O I- I d I E 6 O- ci. 0 a 0 1 x 1 v. . ‘,411 * \ lii, Q.,..;..;+.,Ail* N. ta Iii 1 lit . _J 3 V.-",;).S,� o •• t V...4.,, 11,.14. Vi - \', .... 111°.../16, \ H,--4 cA v•P%1 I F--l M W z : III rY Q } z `e.1 0 6 li. :i * - <E > ¢ Q 4: . J . . 1 1-1 H zw ,„.„ .. n iY J ,,.L. ... h 'O ...„ Q W ,_ I— Q 2 X w Z J Z Z z .. akC(1 h wIJ-,_, w W1=1 U \, N a- . . ._ Q' N d d O z I- I I . I 1 RIVER DISTRICT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER LINE PROJECT NO. 1999-1 111 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. PRICE PRICE LANITARY SEWER 1 18" Sanitary Sewer L.F. 626 $ 75.00 $ 46,950.00 I Connect to ExistingSanitaryManhole EA. 2 $ 800.00 $ 1,600.00 2 3 Sanitary Manhole EA. 2 $ 1,800.00 $ 3,600.00 4 Extra Depth Manhole L.F. 32 $ 100.00 $ 3,200.00 1 5 Temp. Bypass Flume Manhole 19 to 21 L.S. 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 6 Bypass Pumping L.S. 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 7 Abandon Old Sewer PiperL.S. 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 (Blow Sand) I8 Restore Pavement @ Substation L.S. 1 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 9 Clear& Grub Trees EA. 12 $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 I10 Rock Excavation C.Y. 100 $ 100.00 $ 10,000.00 11 Storm Manhole EA. 2 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 I 12 18" RCP L.F. 50 $ 35.00 $ 1,750.00 1 13 18" FES EA. 2 $ 800.00 $ 1,600.00 14 Rip Rap Fes Areas EA. 2 $ 1,600.00 $ 3,200.00 1 15 Erosion Control/Temporary Stabilization L.S. 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 ITOTAL $ 117,400.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY $ 11,740.00 ISUBTOTAL $ 129,140.00 IPLUS ADMIN./ENGR FEES $ 32,285.00 IGRAND TOTAL $ 161,425.00 I I RIVER DISTRICT TRUNK SANITARY SEWER LINE PROJECT NO. 1991-1 i ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. PRICE PRICE 'LIVER BANK PROTECTION I1 Riverbank Subgrade Preparation S.Y. 6000 $ 1.50 $ 9,000.00 2 Filter Blanket S.Y. 6000 $ 1.50 $ 9,000.00 t3 Rip Rap (Installed) TON 6575 $ 25.00 $ 164,375.00 ITOTAL $ 182,375.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY $ 18,237.50 ISUBTOTAL $ 200,612.50 PLUS ADMIN./ENGR FEES $ 50,153.13 I 1 GRAND TOTAL $ 250,765.63 I I I I I I I I I „ ,,,,,,,,„ ,,,,, , 1 El r--\ 111 it, . s ,‘,” ', \ ft, i r 1711-- ,,---- ----- , r I t A ‘t,', •N-- \ - 1 ,,__,1_ 1 N . 0,i,„ii 1 t L. t 0 iliaZ - -.J '' VI -taire o_ '''''''''''.'"'''" '""-- . II el ril rY D I Ili /L'1� _ I ill d p w � Km al iii \fir 1S si W v*-- ' 'I' ( I A\ sail II 1 _ iii tri0 1- s ��"', % Ss\ /i� r / d //"Site/ f- gym_► 1::I 11 j is 1il II /� ILH 117:Eir ir I 3 i �- � -A i WI° \-1\OW SM W, SO,I LI \ i -sail fli 6'‘'': ii: 11!: Mn r 1� ,� � RI /, old ■ li 1 i ti lei VI 1 sioWit RR striali 1-1 [ Y z JS ,,, ittarmi W I: itii* W.:( 7 > A ig U 00 ,,„?1, >121,01 a`. HH 1111 z (X LI -.Is 3111:11. Sg3M J S SOO Z -,,, ,-.,i0r11111.:_ri , v) Hu. \ ‘11111111./ El I Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future Environmental Services ' November 30, 1998 Mark McNeill ' City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 RE: Flow Calculation for the First Quarter of 1999 Cost Allocation Dear Mr. McNeill: tThe Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division has measured and/or calculated the flows (units in millions of gallons) for the months of July, August and September 1998 generated within your community to be as follows: Third Quarter 1998: 322.70 i This information is considered to be preliminary and may be adjusted based on further review. The above flow calculations includes estimates for any unmetered connections that either enter or leave your community. Attached is a graph showing only metered flow, by month, for this year and the previous three years. Therefore, the quarterly flow volume shown above may not equate to the total 3 month flow volumes given in the chart. The third quarter 1998 volume shown above will be used to allocate costs for your community during first quarter 1999. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at 602-1116, or Kyle Colvin at 602-1151. • erely, ' Donald S. Bluhm Municipal Services Manager DSB:JLE ' lgtr$99 cc: Neil Peterson, Metropolitan Council District 5 Lois Spear, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 1 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (651)602-1005 Fax 602-1183 TDD/TTY 229-3760 An Equal Opportunity Employer E i1 + ' a CO o 5 c .5 o N y y b s N 7 c , d m c �3 0 0 E ° U ' R :W: d V al M C 0 to C co O w I 2ato N t. C13 ca z °V co 03 •0 a F— co R A L N t o O C U d C U y co 3 m g c N O N Y C N O C ci y C y U I wO - C ..... d n d N ~ .O R afA a' E d R E L •� w O C E — U • c s m • d �, R 07 r w 'E U w y r... U O C d N y ' 0 'C C d w O O o O . V — • C .� O b •C E y p co U C O _ c 4.1 715 • o i— 0 N �. 1] wE y 0 U i j co U U to ., d C co 41 O) O N L 7 = L w j .` a d N CL to moi- 00 o E 0C O CI U O O co_O C 0 '�- a o 0 0 0 p ci 1n Oel CI ch N N !MEM MT • Will NI 1 v O O O O p O p W I ,:....N 3 O O O op N a y O) an 10 O M �_ • I • U caW :i..i7 ••. iris7, ii-ii:1,11111=7/h; �;1 0 ..le 6/ -le 1p_ - cc 2 as c co 2 ��' _ � -�„ CO ti F- 5/ 17a1 = z�1s=_'lime H -0 0 E r ,7 _ I E ° S� oiitiii'; iiiii 5. �, � �� =:®�p®®�1:a 0J 0 x ° �����.V-41 .®aim wJU EWu. C9Ut- tcoWW (OV1F--- ~ a` ¢ m I 1 7-71 I -------- -...--_ - �,l „f -' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY rs. N.)'• " �., ST.PAUL DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS I ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST.PAUL MN SS101-166 REPLY TO I ATTENTION OF November 30, 1998 . I Project Management Branch Planning, Programs and Project Management Division IMr. Layne Otteson City of Shakopee I 129 Holmes Street S Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 IDear Mr. Otteson: • Enclosed is the Streambank Stabilization fact sheet I you requested. The fact sheet describes project eligibility, how to request a study, and cost share I responsibilities . Also enclosed is a Support for Others (SFO) fact sheet. The SFO program provides technical assistance at I100% local costs . Please feel free to call me at (651) 290-5626 if you have any questions. I Sincerely, I "i's--,_t- d) Enclosure Michelle T. Hoff Project Manager I I I I I .. Pnnted on V RecyCed Paper I Emereñcy Bank Protection ::::;.-?, -,::.-- 7-,,.!,-,':',''' , ,,' sgt Sy '.,;, , . F 4 T :'4 V, -------- 1,.;:,, successful operation. Each project -- - ,,3.---;1 constructed must be economically - _ 4-•,.4: {,.• `` a?- --; - ` justified, and the maximum Federal .' I ='"-= r,f.,..4. expenditure per project is limited to I .• $1 aoo,ooc h (r $§00,00O. If the project cost ' aV 7. exceeds the $500,000 Federal cosh Pco, I f limit, the difference must be pro- . h y, - „ _• _ ;� yk:. _,;;-: , ., vided by local cash contribution. °i; `r' — < .. .,1 Studies are accomplished at full "� r x` _ Federal expense up to$40,000; the -,e,,. - #'4.,� P.'`" � j? •.^;-• -_ remainder is cost shared. Projects • `.. .„.,�+ �^��i(- " a. �• are cost shared. Non-Federal • i- -- � - -,_ .E}i.�'� �. -� �, r are are required to contribute -',v �` r "�;, - - a minimum of 35 percent of the --.-'4481*-,_- ` project costs, of which at least 5 tErosion protection along the Red River of the North at Breckenridge percent of the total cost must be contributed in cash. I What the Corps Can Do: public. In addition to major high- Section 14 of the 1946 Flood way systems of national impor- Local Responsibilities: IControl Act, as amended, permits tance, eligible highways may also construction of bank protection include principal highways, streets, Local sponsorship for a Section 14 works to protect endangered and roads of special and significant project must be provided by a I highways, highway bridge ap- importance to the local community. State, local agency, or Indian Tribe proaches, and other essential, Examples are arterial streets, empowered with sufficient legal important public works such as important access routes to other and financial authority to comply Imunicipal water supply systems communities and adjacent settle- fully with all required local coop- and sewage disposal plants; ments as well as roads designated eration and participation. The local churches, hospitals, schools, and as primary farm to market roads. sponsoring agency must agree to: O other nonprofit public services; and known cultural sites that are endan- Privately owned riverfront and 1. Provide without cost to the Igered by flood-caused bank or privately owned facilities are not United States all lands, easements, shoreline erosion. Repair, restora- eligible for protection under the and rights-of-way necessary for tion, and/or modification of the Section 14 authority. Erosion construction of the project. Ieroding streambank is allowed. protection is not eligible under Procedures followed for Section 14 Section 14 if the problem is caused 2. Accomplish without cost to the projects are designed to expedite by the design or operation of the United States all required alter- ' implementation. The time required facility itself or by inadequate ations and relocations in sewer, from initiation of a study to award drainage or lack of reasonable water supply, drainage, and other I of a construction contract should maintenance. Repair of the facility utility facilities. not exceed 12 months. itself is also excluded under Sec- tion 14. 3. Hold and save the United States ISection 14 covers only protection free,from damages due to the of important and essential public A bank protection project must be construction works, not including facilities which serve the general designed to be an effective and damages during construction, I Il :,..,-4„.,,,,,t,pir., .1.0.:„:tr,,,:„,-..,43.,„,,,,-. ...L,,,,;,,,,„..„-..,,,,,..., ,.;-- . --- -,,,- 7 ...:') --...- 4.-,;,.,,,,;-- ,..;,,,,. 7';7:,fr..‘:\st'r','''''''',:'''''' ' ''' ' LeZzrx.ItegItt .:' I The(Clerk. Secretary.etc.)of the operation and maintenance that are .; Sample Resolution _' (City Council. etc.) shall be, and is due to the fault or negligence of the hereby,directed�to transmit three United States or its contractors. - `Be it resolved that the (City Coun- cil.Tribal Council.County Board copies oDistrict Engineer, St.Paul District,f this resolution to the . ' 4. Maintain the project after - - - of Commissioners, etc.)requests U S Army Corps of Engineers,.190 completion. the U.S..Army Corps of Engineers to conduct studies to determine the 5th Street East, St.Paul,Minnesota ' responsibilityfor feasibilityof developing an emer- 55101-1638. 5. Assume full Iall project costs in excess of the gency streambank or shoreline Signed Federal cost limit of$&99;999 or to .protection project at(location) satisfy local cost sharing require- under the authority provided by (Mayor. Chairman. etc.) ments. 1"s 000*000 'Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. Date (Date) 6. Provide a cash contribution for Contact: of Point oi Iproject costs in proportion to any The (City Council, etc.) acknowl- pof nniTitlnAddress, Phone special benefits to non-public edges that it is aware of the Section Number) property. 14 local responsibilities and that ' the (City, etc.) has the ability to 7. Contribute a minimum of 35 proceed within 12 months if it is percent up-front financing for . found feasible and advisable to Iconstruction. At least 5 percent of develop a streambank or shoreline the total cost must be a cash contri- protection project at(location). button. The (City Council. etc.)further ' acknowledges that it would be How to Request a Study: required, before construction commences, to enter into a contrac- Itual agreement to provide such An investigation under Section 14 local cooperation as may be pre- may be initiated after receipt of a I scribed by the Secretary of the formal request from the prospective Army sponsoring agency. An example of an acceptable resolution is given above. This request and any Ifurther inquiries concerning a bank protection project should be made /:.,,, ' directly to: yr St. Paul District, Corps of Engi- ' neers ATTN: Management and Evalua- tion Branch ' ' ' 190 5th Street East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638 U.S. Army Corps Contact Person: Ms. Shelley Hoff of Engineers (612) 290-5626 I St. Paul District 1 a m w ."77., F J ' 4IiZ4 % s s,yin , uV, °\�,. ,s ys!° .-4 I : Conditions Under Which Services May be Provided: _ o Requested services must be •_ similar to those the Corps is al- : .yh ready providing for its own use. am. - a For non-Federal agencies,the request must be accompanied by a statement that such services cannot . z. be procured reasonably and expedi- , tiously through ordinary business channels. _ r I ..: r o Requested services will not be - - ��� ,- c+� up provided if they require any addi- ..: tions of staff or involve outlays for 1 "x"# I t \ ;aI additional equipment or other facilities unless those costs are -charged to the user. o As a general principle,the Corps would recover all applicable costs .s�' ::: . for the Support for Others work. For non-Federal reimbursable work, funds must be on deposit ����-Y; with the Treasury in advance of *;:¢ performing the work. A brief I interagency agreement would be drawn up for signature by the How to Request Services: requesting agency and the Corps. IThe request for work must be in writ- ing. This request and any inquiries 1 concerning the Support for Others Program should be made directly to: 1 1 I 1 1 St.Paul District, Corps of Engineers ATTN: Management and Evaluation Branch I190 5th Street East U.S. Army Corps St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638 I of Engineers Contact Person: Mr. Chuck Spitzack (612) 290-5307 I St. Paul District r -,x y .' Support for Others Programs. s ` v. p , y , 1 , , .. ' li, /ill!, ..,,,-._ \.,. What the Corps Can Do: ,, f �'i - + �' r The Corps of Engineers has the -• •' -,4,A". �� , ~'K "'' �' authorit to rovide reimbursable 1 II, 4- ;. :.+ � _• . t_. • � ,..14 specialized or technical services to '''..1`../.1. ,\ { •- other Federal agencies as well as to �. , c_ .sae,., ,,, States, local units of government, I ` or Indian Tribes. The objective of r; 4 _ : _.... this program is to identify and �} d' `f ,,_` match engineering and related 1. -,. ,...'' r - �, service capabilities of the Corps I --,-,,..f,. with the evolving needs of Ameri- _ - can society. The design,engineer- i -T ,,;.., ,..:. x4.. .t,~" .3;A-1•. , ing, and management capabilities . � >' �, �� ' , " i : n the Corps can complement the expertise of other agencies in Existing conditions - Buffalo River implementing their program re- Isponsibilities. Many agencies lack _ _ 1, :4;7. the technical capability necessary - ` '; — { to properly manage the engineering sr :- '�-.- A • 1 needs of their missions. Many do II �/ �`4r�d`_< *� not have the capability to effec- a� .< tively manage engineering or FY • � =', - construction contracts with private firms. The Corps can often fill that I void. / f 1 —_-- _ ---__ JOgisi -- .---1, ---:- ---7 00'1' S - IBio-engineering erosion protection 1 , - Buffalo River " , 1 1 • ALTERNIV 1. Authorize staffES: to purchase the ROAD BOSS from LM PRODUCTS, INC. for $2,637.30. 2. Do not authorize staff to purchase the ROAD BOSS from LM PRODUCTS, INC. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to purchase the ROAD BOSS from LM PRODUCTS, INC. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve a motion to authorize the purchase of the ROAD BOSS from LM PRODUCTS, INC., at a cost of $2,637.30 to be expended from the Street Capital Equipment Budget. Michael Hullander Public Works Supervisor MH/pmp RBOSS LM PRODUCTS INC TEL : 320-685-3510 Dec 10 ,98 9 : 12 No .002 P .02 LM PRODUCTS, INC. 3351 P.O. Box 452 Cold Sprinpt MN 56320 (320) 68 CUST 'S Okr) DEPL DATE i ,w..troviotwo,RpokYK• o a #1 ,7-/O--)V NAME il CI-I oko,owl- Pt4ei-ir_ (Ai°rcic S it ;S i ADORG S 14o L.DMA.) LOLL.BY I CAW 4.0.U. ...MK.C 411,..X.1 Mt YIT.44111. 4A1f1 Alli .. ..•P" ......... 1. r ]'.1 t.r C'�'ifTJ" -... T ^TF^'::l'R� 41 ,.'gym ef; RotriESS [n►210 I`, 7lik- e 64. 70 Is-2 so_ 40 gieiakkir 60 ow , I. cs 1 7 - c 'crcin if r 3 46 . )0 . . 4s, V. -yA . RECO)BY is". c), 3 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Hiring of Engineering Technician IV DATE: December 15, 1998 INTRODUCTION: Interviews have been held with seven candidates for the Engineering Technician IV position which was authorized by Council to be filled at the October 6, 1998 meeting. At this time, I am recommending that the City Council authorize the hiring of Scott Smith to fill this position. BACKGROUND: Mr. Smith is currently a Design Engineer for Bolton & Menk, Inc. Mr. Smith is a graduate Civil Engineer from the University of Minnesota and has successfully passed his Engineering in Training. I am recommending Mr. Smith will be hired at Step 4 of the 1999 Pay Plan for the Engineering Technician IV position. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the hiring of Scott Smith for the position of Engineering Technician IV starting at Step 4 of the Non-Union 1999 Pay Plan ($41,486.00/Yr.) effective January 4, 1999, subject to the successful completion of a pre- employment physical and background check. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the authorize the hiring of Scott Smith for the position of Engineering Technician IV starting at Step 4 of the Non-Union 1999 Pay Plan ($41,486.00/Yr.) effective January 4, 1999, subject to the successful completion of a pre-employment physical and background check. err," ' ' Bruce Lon Public Works Director BL/pmp EMPLOY is: a dl. CITY OF SHAKOPEE . Memorandum ,CONSENT, J TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Applications for On Sale and Sunday On Sale Liquor Licenses - Hyde Hospitality, Inc. DATE: December 11, 1998 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to consider approval of the applications and grant intoxicating liquor licenses to Hyde Hospitality, Inc. BACKGROUND: Hyde Hospitality, Inc. of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, has acquired the Canterbury Inn property. They are currently operating under a management agreement with the current liquor licensee until such time as their applications for liquor licenses can be considered by City Council. They are applying for both an on sale and a Sunday on sale intoxicating liquor license. The applications are in order, the insurance requirements have been met and they are in compliance with the city code. The Chief of Police has indicated that the background investigation has revealed no information that would preclude the issuance of the licenses. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the applications be approved and the licenses granted condition upon the surrender of the existing licenses. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the applications and grant on sale and Sunday on sale intoxicating liquor licenses to Heyde Hospitality, Inc. , 1244 Canterbury Road, upon the surrender of the existing liquor licenses. Fitry J ladit, j ( 7 S. Cox, Ci Clerk 1:\clerk\jeanette\licenses\ligheyde SHAKOPE E DAN HUGHES Police Department Chief of Police December 11, 1998 TO: CHIEF DAN HUGHES FROM: DET. BRIAN CLARK Sik SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION APPLICANT: HEYDE HOSPITALITY, INC. Carol Jean Rowan Heyde, 2/16/50 Dennis Lee Heyde, 4/11/49 I have completed the background investigation on the above listed party/company and nothing in the applicants' background would preclude them from being licensed. COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 476 Gorman Street• Shakopee, MN • 55379-2638 • Phone: 612-445-6666 • Fax: 612-445-2313 1999 Fee Schedule December 8, 1998 Page -2- Public Works - recommends the deletion of certain equipment rentals where the items are no longer available for rent (page 13) . Planning Department - recommends considering making all CUP applications $200 since all CUP's require similar levels of review and report preparation (page 16) ; increasing an application to appeal a variance decision since that is what is charged for an appeal of staff determination to BOAA, appeals of the BOAA determinations to Council, and appeals of CUP's to Council (page 16) ; adding a $100 fee for a "PUD concept review" and for determinations by the BOAA (page 17) ; and adding an hourly fee for the Planner II (page 18) . Engineering Department - recommends increasing the storm water drainage utility, the trunk storm water charges, and trunk storm water storage and treatment charges by 2.7% per ENR cost price index (page 20) ; increasing the trunk sanitary sewer charge to $1,452 per development acre (page 20) ; and adding a $110 fee for street sign installation in new subdivisions (page 13) . The Park and Recreation Advisory Board recommends changes to the fees for programs and facilities as outlined on pages 22 - 24, see memo from Mr. McQuillan attached. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt fee resolution as proposed. 2. Amend fee resolution as drafted. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDED ACTION - after making any desired changes: Offer Resolution No. 5038, A Resolution Setting Fees for City Licenses, Permits, Services and Documents, and move its adoption. Ltel A _ea W Ju . Cox, City Clerk h:\feeres CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark J. McQuillan, Director of Parks and recreation Re: 1999 Activity Fees Date: October 13, 1998 INTRODUCTION Attached to this memo is the recommended 1999 Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule. BACKGROUND Attach to this memo is a complete listing of fees for parks and recreation programs and facilities. Specific changes are highlighted below. At its Ju;ly 27, 1998 meeting,the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended the following changes: • The Recreation Activity Fee for seasonal youth programs be increased by$1 from$15 to$16 and adult Recreation Activity Fee also be increased by$1 from$22 to$23. • No changes are being recommended for swimming lessons and pool passes. However,the PRAB is recommending raising the Daily Admission Fee by$1 from$3.00 to $4.00. • The PRAB recommends eliminating the resident business and non-resident business categories for renting a picnic shelter and establish just two categories: Residential and Non-resident. The recommended Resident Fee is $35 and Non-resident fee is $60. • The PRAB recommends raising the Community Youth Building rental fee from$75 to$100. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend the 1999 Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule as presented. 2. Table action for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION Alternative# 1 ACTION REQUESTED Move to recommend the 1999 Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule to the City Council as presented. MarkN-74,6,7,p lan Director of Parks and Recreation RESOLUTION NO. 5038 A RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR CITY LICENSES, PERMITS, SERVICES AND DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the Fee Schedule dated January 1, 1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof is hereby approved and adopted in its entirety. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Fee Schedule attached shall become effective on January 1, 1999, unless indicated otherwise therein, and Resolution No. 4801 and all other resolutions inconsistent herewith shall be repealed effective January 1, 1999 . Adopted in Adjourned Regular Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 15th day of December , 1998 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Adopted: Dec. 15, 1998 Res . No. 5038 FEE SCHEDULE Shakopee, Minnesota January 1, 1999 Fees are listed by department and are to be updated annually. CITY CLERK/Misc. Business Licenses FEES Commercial/Industrial/Mortgage Revenue Bond Fees 1 . Application fee for Commercial/Industrial/ 1/10th of 1% of Mortgage Revenue Bonds amount issued with a $2, 600 min\$6, 300 max. 2 . Legal expenses as billed in addition to above 3 . Application fee for refinancing Commercial/ 1/20th of 1% of Industrial/Mortgage Revenue Bonds amount issued with a $1, 300 min\$3 , 150 max. 4 . Legal expenses for refinancing as billed in addition to above Tax Increment Financing Fees (Authorized by Res. 3221) Application fee for Tax Increment Financing $5, 200 . 00 Movies and Theaters (Authorized by City Code 6 .42) 1 . Annual fee for showing 16 mm films $ 2G . 00 S 28 . 00 2 . Annual fee for showing 35 mm films (or larger) $105 . 00 5110 . 00 3 . Annual fee for conducting theatrical play(s) $ 2G . 00 $ 28 . 00 Currency Exchange License Review State Law requires the City to review an application to the State for a currency exchange license . $35 . 00 S 40 . 00 Gambling/Bingo/Raffles Licensed through State Gambling Board, no City fees . 1 Minnesota Home Finance Agency Rental Rehab Grant Application Fees (Authorized by Res . #3181) 1-4 Units $150 . 00 5-8 Units 185 . 00 - 290 . 00 9-16 Units 325 . 00 - 570 . 00 17-24 Units 605 . 00 - 850 . 00 25 or more 885 . 00 plus $35 for each unit in excess of 25 License for the Sale of Beer. Liquor. Wine. Set-up License. Liquor License. Club License and Temporary Beer License (Authorized by City Code 5 . 06) 1 . Annual fee for On Sale Beer License $312 . 00 2 . Annual fee for Off Sale Beer License $100 . 00 3 . Temporary Beer and Liquor License $ 15 . 00 4 . Annual fee for Set Up License $125 . 00 5 . Annual fee for On Sale Wine License 1/2 of On Sale Liquor or $2, 000 whichever is less 6 . Annual fee for On Sale Club License $300 . 00 7 . Annual fee for Sunday Liquor License $200 . 00 8 . Annual fee for Off Sale Liquor License $150 . 00 9 . Application and Investigation fee for Off Sale Liquor License, On Sale Liquor License, or Wine License a) If investigation within Minn. $330 . 00 b) If investigation outside Minn. City expenses up to $10, 000 with $1, 100 deposit 10 . Annual fee for On Sale Liquor License: Customer Used Floor Area Under 1, 000 $3, 705 . 00 1, 000 - 1, 999 $4, 390 . 00 2, 000 - 2, 999 $5, 080 . 00 3, 000 - 3, 999 $5, 765 . 00 4, 000 - 4, 999 $6, 445. 00 5, 000 - 5, 999 $7, 140 . 00 6, 000 - 6, 999 $7, 820 . 00 7, 000 - 7, 999 $8, 510 . 00 8, 000 - 8, 999 $9, 195 . 00 9, 000 - 9, 999 $9, 875 . 00 Over 10, 000 $10, 570 . 00 2 Fireworks Permit Application fee hereby set as follows : $20 . 00 Peddlers (Authorized by City Code 6 . 21) 1 . Weekly License Fee $30 . 00 2 . Annual License Fee $160 . 00 3 . Six Month License Fee $105 . 00 Taxicabs and Drivers (Authorized by City Code 6 .22) 1 . Annual fee $2G0 . 00 $275 . 00 2 . Annual taxicab driver' s license fee $ 30 . 00 $ 35 . 00 3 . Annual fee for each vehicle $ 15 . 50 S 16 . 00 Tobacco (Authorized by City Code 6 .23) 1 . Annual fee for Tobacco License $175 . 00 $how. Non-Transient Theme Parks. Amusement Parks. etc. (Authorized by City Code 6 .24) 1 . Annual license fee equaling the number of rides x $45 . 00 $50 . 00/ride 2 . Show without rides $80 . 00 3 . Non-Transient Theme Parks As per agreement Outdoor Performance Center (Authorized by City Code 6 .42B) 1. Annual license fee $520 . 00 Massage Center (Authorized by City Code 6 .40) 1 . Annual License Fee $315 . 00 2 . Initial license requires one time investigation fee $345 . 00 3 . Investigation fee for each new employee $ 55 . 00 Masseur and Masseuse License Fee (Authorized by City Code 6 .41) 1. Annual registration fee $105 . 00 5110 . 00 2 . Investigation fee $ 55 . 00 3 Pawnshops. Precious Metal Dealers. and Secondhand Dealers (authorized by City Code 6 . 28) 1 . Annual License Fee $315 . 00 2 . Initial license requires one time investigation fee $345 . 00 3 . Investigation fee for each new employee $ 55 . 00 4 . Pawn Shop billable transaction fee $ 1 . 50 Tattooing License (authorized by City Code 6 . 51) 1 . Annual License Fee $315 . 00 2 . Initial license requires one time investigation fee $345 . 00 3 . Investigation fee for each new employee $ 55 . 00 4 BUILDING INSPECTOR/ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR City of Shakopee electrical inspection fees shall be paid according to the schedule contained in the current State Board of Electricity - State of Minnesota - "Laws and Rules Regulating Licensing of Electricians and Inspection of Electricl Installations" . With the following exception: 1. The fee for single family dwellings shall be calculated by service size and number of circuits according to the State Fee Schedule subpart 3 and subpart 4, with a maximum fee of $110 . 00 for 0-200 amp service and $165 . 00 for 200-400 amp service. Plumbing Permits (Authorized by City Code 4 . 05) 1 . Alterations and Repairs - Minimum Fee $20 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax 2 . New Construction Residential - Minimum Fee $36 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Commercial - Minimum Fee $60 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax 3 . Residential Plumbing Permit Fees All fixtures listed below will be figured at $6 . 00/each Water Closet Water Softener +$ .50 State Lavatory (Basin) Bathtub Surcharge Tax Floor Drain Laundry Tub Sink Shower Stall Disposal Dishwasher Water Heater (Gas or Electric) Clothes Washer-Standpipe Permit fees for rough-ins for future bathrooms will be $5 . 00 per fixture. + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax 4 . Residential - Replacements Only Water Heater - Gas $20 . 00 +$ . 50 State Surcharge Fee Water Softeners - New or replacement in other than homes under construction (installer must be licensed by the State Board of Health $20 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Fee 5 5 . Commercial Plumbing Permit Fees Water Closet, Lavatory (Basin) , Urinal, Individual Shower $ 7 . 00 Shower - Gang Type - Per Head 5 . 20 Drinking Fountain 7 . 00 Dental Unit 13 . 00 Sink - Service or Mop 7 . 00 Flat rim, bar, counter, laboratory 9 . 50 Pot or Skullery 9 . 50 Clothes Washer - First five units or less 19 . 00 Each additional unit 4 . 00 Floor Drain - 2 inch 7. 00 3 and 4 inch 8 . 50 Catch Basin 9 . 50 Sewage Ejector 13 . 00 Sumps and Receiving Tanks 13 . 00 Water Softeners 19. 00 Water Heater - Gas - Replacement Only 25 . 00 Commercial plumbing permits to be figured by the above fixture schedule but at the same time the permit is to be issued, the permitee will certify the contract price and the fee will be based on the above method or 1 .27% of the contract price, whichever is greater. 6 . Sewer and Water Connection - Residential Sewer Connection $ 20 . 00 +$ . 50 State Surcharge Fee Water Connection $20 . 00 +$ . 50 State Surcharge Fee Combination Sewer & Water Connection $30 . 00 +$ . 50 State Surcharge Fee Sewer and Water Connection - Commercial/Industrial 1 .27% of the contract price. 6 Building Permit Fees (Authorized by City Code 4 . 05) Building Value Fees $1 . 00 to 500 . 00 $21 . 00 $23 . 50 501 . 00 to 2, 000 . 00 $21 . 00 823 . 50 for the first $500 . 00 plus 2 . 75 53 . 05 for each additional $100 . 00 or fraction thereof, including $2, 000 . 00 2, 001 . 00 to 25, 000 . 00 $C2 .25 569 . 25 for the first $2, 000 . 00 plus 12 . 50 514 . 00 for each additional $1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25, 000 . 00 25, 001 . 00 to 50, 000 . 00 $349 . 75 5391 . 25for the first $25, 000 . 00 plus 9 .00 510 . 10 for each additional $1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 50, 000 . 00 50, 001 . 00 to 100, 000 . 00 $574 .75S643 . 75 for the first $50, 000 . 00 plus $6 .25 57. 00 for each additional $1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100, 000 . 00 100, 001 . 00 to 500, 000 . 00 $887 .25$993 . 75for the first $100, 000 . 00 plus 0 55 . 60 for each additional $1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500, 000 . 00 500, 001 . 00 to 1, 000, 000 . 00 $2, 887. 25 53 , 233 . 75 for the first 500, 000 . 00 plus 4 . 25 $4 . 75 for each additional $1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1, 000, 000 . 00 1, 000, 001 . 00 and up $5, 012 . 2555 . 608 . 75forthe first $1, 000, 000 . 00 plus 2 . 75 $3 . 65 for each additional $1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof 7 Other Inspections and Fees : Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge - two hours) $42 . 00 $47 . 00/hr. * Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108 . 8 305 . 8 of the Uniform Building Code $42 . 00 $47 . 00/hr. * Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge - one-half hour) $42 . 00 547 . 00/hr. * Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) $42 . 00 $47 . 00/hr. * For use of outside consultants for plan checking and insepctions, or both Actual costs** * Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction. whichever is the greatest . This cost shall include supervision. overhead, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. ** Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs . Plan Review Fee : 650 of building permit fee under provisions of Section 107 of the Unform Building Code. State Surcharge : Building Permits (These fees forwarded to the State Treasurer) Less than $1, 000 $ . 50 $1, 000, 000 or less . 0005 x valuation $1, 000, 000 to $2, 000, 000 $ 500 + . 0004 x (Value - $1, 000, 000) $2, 000, 000 to $3, 000, 000 $ 900 + . 0003 x (Value - $2, 000, 000) $3 , 000, 000 to $4, 000, 000 $1200 + . 0002 x (Value - $3, 000, 000) $4, 000, 000 to $5, 000, 000 $1400 + . 0001 x (Value - $4, 000, 000) Greater than $5, 000, 000 $1500 + . 00005 x (Value - $5, 000, 000) 8 State Surcharge : Plumbing, Heating and Electrical Permits Permit fee less than $1, 000 $ . 50 Permit fee more than $1, 000 Fee x . 0005 Certificate of Occupancy (Authorized by Res . No. 2604) Commercial/Industrial - . 005 times the value of the project, or $500 . 00, whichever is greater Residential - . 005 times the value of the project with a $500 . 00 maximum 90% of the fee shall be refunded when a final certificate of occupancy is issued. Fast Tracking Issuance of Building Permits (Authorized by Res . #2604) Fast tracking building permit process - City expenses up to 100% of building permit fee with a 30% deposit Moving Permit $50 . 00 Fire Protection Equipment hereby set as follows : New construction, repair and miscellaneous work shall be computed at 1 .27% of the contract price plus State Surcharge. Individual On Site Sewer Permits hereby set as follows : Residential : $50 . 00 Commercial : 1 . 27% of Contract Amount Heating. Air Conditioning. Refrigeration, and Ventilation Permits hereby set as follows : Minimum Fee $20 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Single Family Residence $40 . 00 + $ .50 State Surcharge Central Air Conditioning (at the time $ 6 . 00 of new construction) + $ . 50 State Surcharge 9 Fireplace - Includes Gas Permit $40 . 00 + $ .50 State Surcharge (Included with new single family residence above) Commercial fee shall be computed at 1 . 27% of the contract plus State Surcharge. Tank & Piping Permits hereby set as follows : Underground fuel storage tanks and piping permit fee to be 1 .27% of contract plus State Surcharge. Lawn Sprinkler Systems - Residential $30 . 00 Lawn Sprinkler Systems - Commercial (This fee includes water connection from building piping to yard side of siphon breaker) $30 . 00 Gas Piping Permits hereby set as follows : Minimum Fee $20 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Residential - Each fixture or applicance $ 5 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Alterations and Repairs - Minimum Fee Commercial fee shall be computed at 1 .27% of the contract plus State Surcharge. Appeal Fees Appeal to Building Code Board of Adjustment & Appeals $90 . 00 Appeal to Housing Advisory and Appeals Board $90 . 00 Appeal to City Council $90 . 00 Sanitary Sewer Service Availability Charge (SAC) Units for Various Residential, Commercial, Public, and Institutional Facilities will be applied as specified in the Metropolitan Council SAC Procedure Manual, latest edition. Metro SAC Charge (these funds are forwarded to the Metropolitan Council) $1, 000 $1, 050 City SAC Charge per Resolution No. 4165 $ 400 $ 410/Unit TOTAL $1, 400 $1,460/Unit Water Availability Charge (WAC) (These fees forwarded to SPUC) Fees are set by Shakopee Public Utilities resolution. 10 ADMINISTRATION/FINANCE - hereby set as follows: Office Charges hereby set as follows : 1 . Assessment Searches $15 . 00 2 . Partial Release of Developers Agreement $15 . 00 3 . Copy fee General Public $ .20 Other governmental/non-profit public service $ . 07 4 . Complete or Partial Assessment Rolls or other Assessment Reports $25 . 00 per report plus $5 . 00 shipping if applicable 5 . Service charge for each check returned $ 20 . 00 Sewer Service Charges (Authorized by City Code 3 . 02) 1 . Monthly service charge $7 . 00 2 . For every 1, 000 gallons or part thereof of metered flow or water usage $1 .74 3 . Charge for unmetered residential water accounts or new accounts $15 . 70 POLICE/FIRE Report Copies hereby set as follows : 1 . Up to 1G 2 pages $10 . 00 $5 . 00 2 . 41- 3.and over pages $ 2 . 00S . 25/ea. 3 . Taped Statements (audio) $15 . 00 4 . Taped Statements (video) $35 . 00 5 . State Accident Reports $ 5 . 00 6 . Drivers License Printout $ 5 . 00 7. Computer Researched Reports $35 . 00 1st hour (does not include duplication costs) $20 . 00 for every hour thereafter 8 . Police Reports from City Attorney $10 . 00 9 . Permit to carry handgun in public-background check $10 . 00 10 . Pawn Shop billable transaction fee $ 1 . 50 Towing and Impounding of Vehicles hereby set as follows : Towing and impounding is done by a private contractor having appropriate impounding facilities . Fees are set by contractor. 11 City Licenses, Impounding Fees, etc. (Authorized by C ty Co de 10 .21) 1 . Dog Licenses (good for the life of the dog) $10 . 00 2 . Duplicate license $ 2 . 00 3 . First impoundment $20 . 00 4 . Second impoundment $50 . 00 5 . Third and successive impoundment within a 12-month period $100 . 00 6 . Amount charged per day when confined to the Pound $10 . 00 7. In the case of an unlicensed dog or a dog for whom proof of a current rabies vaccination cannot be shown, there shall be an additional penalty of $10 . 00 . (Owner is responsible to furnish proof of license and/or rabies vaccination) . 8 . Large animal impoundment $35 . 00 9 . Large animal board per day $15 . 00 Large animals are defined as animals other than household pets ie; horses, cows, sheep. PUBLIC WORKS Equipment Rental hereby set as follows : (Minimum Rental Time 1 Hour. All drivable equipment rates include operator) Caterpiller Grader (private) $92 . 50/hour Front end loader (Fiat-Allis) private $95 . 00/hour Front end loader (Case) private $95 . 00/hour Elgin street sweeper $86 . 00/hour Elgin sweeper (State contract-twice/yr) $62 . 00/hour Roscue Side Broom $47 . 00/hour 12 2-1/2 ton dump truck (single) $58 . 00/hour 2-1/2 ton dump truck w/plow $75 . 00/hour 5 ton dump truck (tandcm) $75 . 00/hour 3/4 ton pickups (w/plow add 10 . 00) $47 . 00/hour 5 ton tandcm truck 2 w/plow $81 . 00/hour Water tanker/flusher $52 . 00/hour Trash compactor $40 . 50/hour Mower tractor (turf type) Contract Rates Weed Mowing (rough) Contract Rates Asphalt roller (1-1/2 ton) $24 . 00/hour Pull pavcr $30 . 00/hour £tcamcr (w/tcndcr) $75 . 00/hour Bobcat $58 . 00/hour Raygo alley grader $41 . 50/hour Wood Chipper $47 . 00/hour root holc diggcr (tractor motcd) $47 . 00/hour (w/o tractor) $24 . 00/hour rower augcr (hand hcld) $19 . 00/hour Sign replacement/installation $110 . 00/sign (w/o post less $10 . 00) Street sign installation in new subdivisions (per each sign pole) $270 . 00 Traffic Control Signs in new subdivisions 5110 per sign Ccwcr roddcr $ 53 . 00/hour Video sewers (w/cassette add $20 . 00/each) $106 . 00/hour 13 Sewer jet cleaning $106 . 00/hour Vacuum Inductor $ 79 . 00/hour Barricades w/flashers $10 . 00/barricade/day Barricades w/o flashers $8 . 00/barricade/day Cones $2 . 00/cone/day Butuminous Street Repair Time and material basis only $2 . 50/3q. ft. Asphalt or Cold Mix $35 . 00/ton Refuse/Recycling Collection Rates (Authorized by City Code 3 . 02) 1 . Urban Rcsidcncc 32 gallon $13 . 82 G1 gallon $14 . 70 Extra Scrvicc Coupon $ 2 . 50 9G gallon containcr $15 . 57 Yard Wa3tc Coupons $ . 75 2 . Rural Rcsidcncc 30 gallon $1G . 03 GO gallon $18 . 72 90 gallon $20 . 33 Extra Ccrvicc Coupon $ 2 . 50 Yard Wa3tc Coupons $ . 75 * All ratcs includc billing, admin. and salc3 tax. 1 . Refuse/Recycling Collection Rates are established according to the contract with the City' s refuse hauler. 2 . Refuse/Recycling Collection License $105 . 00 5110 . 00 yr PLANNING - hereby set as follows: I . INFORMATION/DOCUMENT FEES A. Long Range Planning Documents 1 . Comprehensive Plan $100 . 00 2 . 1995-1999 Capital Improvement Program $20 . 00 14 B. City Codes 1 . Chapter 11 Zoning Ordinance $25 . 00 2 . Chapter 12 Subdivision Regulations $10 . 00 3 . City Code $100 . 00 C. Agenda/Minutes (Annual) 1. City Council Agenda $15 . 00 2 . Planning Commission Agenda $15 . 00 3 . City Council Minutes $35 . 00 4 . Planning Commission Minutes $35 . 00 D. Maps 1 . City Map (small) $ 1 . 00 2 . City Map (large) $ 3 . 00 3 . Zoning (22"x34") $ 3 . 00 4 . Any Printed Maps (blueprint) 50/sq. ft . E. Services 1 . Zoning Verification Letter $25 . 00 F. Recording Fees 1 . Document recording fees with County $1 . 00/page $15 . 00/min + $ 4 . 50 Surcharge G. Sign Permit Fees (Authorized by City Code 4 . 30) Permanent $30 + $ . 50/sq. ft Temporary $25 . 00 II . LAND DIVISION ADMINISTRATION FEES A. Major Subdivisions 1 . Preliminary Plat $330 + $6/lot or $200 + $4/acre, whichever is greater 2 . Preliminary & Final Plat Concurrently Preliminary fee plus final fee 15 3 . Final Plat $150 . 00 4 . Title Review Fee $100 . 00 B. Minor Subdivisions 1 . Lot Division/Lot Reassembly $100 . 00 2 . Registered Land Surveys $100 . 00 C. Vacations 1 . Vacations of Public Easements $100 . 00 2 . Vacations of Rights-of-Way $200 . 00 D. Park Dedication Fees (Authorized by City Code Sec . 12) Cash in lieu of land dedication fees - Residential Single-family/Duplex Units $1, 200 . 00 per unit Multi-family/Apartment Units $1, 000 . 00 per unit Commercial/Industrial Property $3, 880 . 00 per acre E. Wetlands 1 . Certificate of Exemption review process . $ 75 . 00 III . LAND USE ADMINISTRATION FEES A. Application for Appeal of City Administration Decision 1 . Appeal to Board of Adjustment and Appeals $100 . 00 2 . Appeal to City Council $100 . 00 B. Application for Variances 1 . Single Family Residential $ 85 . 00 2 . All others $150 . 00 3 . Appeal to City Council $ 85. 00$100 . 00 C. Application for Conditional Use Permit 1 . Home Occupations $100 . 00$200 . 00 2 . Home Occupation Renewals and Amendments $100 . 005200 . 00 3 . CUP for Over-Height Fence $100 . 00$200 . 00 4 . All Other Conditional Use Permits $200 . 00 5 . All Other Renewals and Amendments $200 . 00 6 . Appeal to City Council $100 . 00 16 7 . Mineral Extraction & Land Rehabilitation Permit $200 . 00 + $2, 500 cash deposit * +all administrative costs ** + all consultant fees *** D. Application for Planned Unit Development 1 . Planned Unit Development Concept Review 5100 . 00 Determinations by the BOAA $100 . 00 2 . Planned Unit Development $700 . 00 +$35 . 00/acre + $1, 000 cash deposit * +all administrative costs ** + all consultant fees *** 3 . Amendment to Planned Unit Development $300 . 00 + $1, 000 cash deposit * +all administrative costs ** + all consultant fees *** C. Application for Environmental Review 1 . Discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet No fee 2 . Required Environmental Assessment Worksheet $1, 000 . 00 3 . Required Environmental Impact Statement $4, 000 . 00 D. Zoning Ordinance Amendments 1 . Map Amendments Less than 2 . 5 acres $250 . 00 Greater than 2 . 5 acres $500 . 00 2 . Text Amendments $500 . 00 E. Additional Notices - Applies to all types of applications 1 . Rezoning Applications : Per Published Notice, in excess one published notices for each of two hearings $ 25 . 00 Per Mailed Notice, in excess of 100 notices for each of two hearings $ 1 . 50 2 . All Other Applications Per Published Notice, in excess one published notice for one hearing $ 25 . 00 Per Mailed Notice, in excess of 100 notices for one hearing $ 1 . 50 17 NOTES FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE * Cash Deposits - Actions requiring cash deposits must be paid at the time of the application submittal . Cash deposits are held by the City to ensure adequate payment. A bill for the appropriate costs will be sent to the applicant and if not paid will be obtained from the cash deposit . The City Administrator has the right to amend the cash deposit requirements . Deposits will be place in escrow. ** Administrative Costs - Actions requiring payment for administrative costs may be billed to the applicant . Administrative costs may include but are not limited to the following: staff time, publishing costs, copying, printing and mailing. Department Fees Planning Director $55 . 00/Hour Planner II 540 . 00/Hour Planner I $35 . 00/Hour Planning Secretary $25 . 00/Hour Planning Technician $30 . 00/Hour *** Consultant Fees - Consultants may be required by the City to review development proposals including but not limited to traffic and water management issues. Consultant fees will be based upon a prior written proposal and agreement . Fees will be placed in escrow. ENGINEERING - hereby set as follows: Engineering Fees Department fees for Improvement Projects A. Private Developments The estimated construction costs for projects shall include, but are not limited to the following:utility construction including sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain; street construction including site grading and erosion control, sidewalks, boulevard trees and other appurtenances. 18 The Development Fees include a lump sum of 5 1/2% of the estimated construction costs for site grading and erosion control and a lump sum of 8 1/2% for the remaining improvements listed above for the project using the following breakdown: REMAINING PUBLIC GRADING & EROSION FEE IMPROVEMENT FEE Plan Review & Administrave Fee-1 . 5% Administrative Fee - 1 . 5% Inspection Fee -4 . 0% Plan Review Fee - 2 . 5% TOTAL -5 . 5% Inspection Fee - 4 .5% TOTAL - 8 . 5% Any direct costs incurred, such as material testing, are not included and will be billed back directly to the developer. SPUC inspection services are not included in this fee. B. City Projects The actual hourly rates of the employees will be used plus a multiplier of 2 . 5 for benefits, overhead, etc . A 1% project administration fee will be charged to all projects . C. Miscellaneous Engineering Work same as the City projects. D. City of Shakopee' s Standard Specifications $35 . 00/per copy. Other costs incurred will be added in using the actual costs (i.e . consultants fees, testing laboratories, etc. ) Grading Permits - Grading permit fees shall equal 5 . 5% of the estimated cost to perform the grading and erosion control work. Wetland Conservation Act Administration 1 . Certificate of Exemption $75 . 00 2 . Replacement Plan $75 . 00 plus hourly 19 Storm Water Drainage Utility City-wide Fee $20 . 80 $21 . 84 per REF* acre/Qtr. *Residential equivalent factor Administrative Fee for Delinquent Accounts Certification $10 . 00 Flood Plain Verification $10 . 00 Trunk Storm Water Charges Charge of $ . 073 S . 075 per developable square foot. The term "net developable acre" means the total acreage of a development within the city limits minus portion of the development used for public right- of-way, lakes, wetland areas, storm water ponds and parks . Trunk Storm Water Storage and Treatment Charges : For any development that utilizes regional ponding systems, the storm water storage and treatment charge is as follows : $ . 041 5 . 042 per sq. foot for a development having 3 or less lots per acre; $ . 073 S . 075 per sq. foot for a development haivng more than 3 lots per acre; $. 135 $ . 138 per sq. foot for a commercial, industrial, or institutional dev. Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge 1996 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge - $1, 319 . 74 per development acre. 1997 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge - $1, 360 per development acre. 1998 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge - $1, 414 . 00 per development acre. 1999 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge - $1,452 . 00 per development acre. 20 Permit to Work in Public Right-of-Way fees set as follows : Permit to work in public right-of-way -first inspection $35 . 00 540 . 00 other multiple inspections - hourly rates When work in public right-of-way requires the submittal of plans and specifications, review of the plans shall be charged in accordance with the hourly fees approved for the Engineering Dept . Lot Corner Field Search (w/metal detector only) $25 . 00 (non-refundable, no guarantees) This is not a legal survey or any verification that lot corners found are in the correct location, but simply an attempt to locate any existing lot corners that are in the ground. Topographic Maps Hard Copy Map & Electronic File $12 . 00/Acre Plus $40 . 00/Hour Rate for Computer File Processing Computer/Plotter Generated Maps $60 . 00/Hour with a Minimum 15 Minute Charge Street Index Maps $5 . 00 per Map PARKS AND RECREATION - hereby set as follows: METHODOLOGY FOR SETTING FEES The Parks and Recreation Department uses a variety of methods and strategies for determining fees. For instance, participants of seasonal sports programs are charged a Recreation Activity Fee. Each participant is assessed a flat fee which is paid directly to the City to cover administrative costs. The Merit Services approach classifies activities into three categories: Low (fees covers only 50% of direct costs), Medium (breakeven or 100% of direct costs) and Partial Overhead Pricing (recovers all direct costs and a portion of administrative costs:110-150% of indiredt costs). In some cases, staff uses the Market Place approach (what others are charging). RECREATION ACTIVITY FEE The Recreation Activity Fee is intended to recover a portion of the administrative cost associated with providing recreation services. The fee is assessed mainly to seasonal activities such as youth and adult sports programs. The current fee for a seasonal youth sports program is$1-5-$16 and $22$23 for adult sports programs. 21 Youth Activities Football, Basketball, Ski Club, Baseball, Softball, Wrestling, Baseball and Softball. $16 per participant. Adult Activities Adult teams have the option to pay the "Base Rate" (i.e $330 $322 softball) or the individual activity fee which is$22$23 per player. The non-resident fee is also assessed to those teams with players from other comunities. Team Base Rate Adult Softball $330$322 (14 player roster) Adult Basketball $1-80$184 (8 player roster) Adult Volleyball $1-80$184 (8 player roster) Church League Softball.. $--20$ 25 Adult Baseball $300$322 (14 player roster) Legion Baseball $309 5322 Over 35 Baseball $300$322 NON-RESIDENT FEE The non-resident fee: Youth $11, Adult $21. The non-resident fee for Jackson Township residents is $21 for those 16 years of age or older. The township subsidizes the non-resident fee for partcipants 15 and under. The non-resident fee Louisville Township residents is $11 for youth and adults. The township subsidizes $10 (per activity) of the non-resident fee for its residents. Prior Lake residents who live in the Shakopee School District are charged a $5 non-resident fee. MERIT FEES Another method for determining fees is using the Merit Services approach. This involves the classification of activities into three categories: Low Fee, Medium Fee and Partial Overhead Pricing. Low Fee-A fee is set to recover 50% of the direct costs of an activity. i.e. playground, special events, open skating arts & crafts. Medium Fee -the objective is to recover 100% of the direct costs of an activity. The idea is to recover the costs of instructors and supplies. i.e. swimming lessons. Partial Overhead Pricing- is a method most commonly used in our programs. This is a method which establishes a price which covers all direct costs and a portion of the administrative costs or fixed costs. i.e. aerobic exercise classes, gymnastics, t-ball, KIDS, trips and tours etc. Low Fee Medium Fee Partial Overhead Pricing Playground events($1) Cheerleading($15-1.8$20-25)Golf LessonsAduitnroutn($23/28$35/25) Special Events($2-3) Volleyballl($20) Day Camp($35$56) Shakopee Showcase (5-40) Jr. Team Tennis($27.$37) T-Ball/Nearball($25$28) Track& Field Meets($1) Dog/Puppy Obedience($35) KIDS/Tot-Time\($20/-1-3$28/16) Teen Broomball($2) Trips(admission+transportation) Archery($21) 100/500 Mile Club($10) Gymnastics($1.50-$5.00-per hour) Tennis Lessons Aduitnroutn($25) Fall Softball($259$260) Co-Rec Volleyball($69$.7.0 Aerobics($2) Youth Camps($5$ (1) 3 on 3 Basketball League($25) 22 PICNIC FACILITIES Shelter Rental: Residents $25-$35 Shelter Rental: Resident Bucinesses $50 Shelter Rental: Non-residents $45$60 KITS Volleyball $5 Horeshoes $5 MUNICIPAL SWIMMING POOL FEES Gate Fees (includes pool and waterslide for the day) Adults & Children (2 and over) $3-00$3.50 Seniors (60+) & Children under 2 FREE Season Tickets Family Pass: Resident./Jackson Township $60.00 Family Pass: Township (Dist. 720) $71.00 Family Pass: Non resident $82.00 Individual Pass: Resident/Jackson Township $37.00 Individual Pass: Township (Dist. 720) $49.00 Individual Pass: Non resident $59.00 Swimming Lessons Swimming Lessons Resident/Jackson Township. $ 25.00 Swimming Lessons Township (Dist. 720) $ 36.00 Swimming Lessons Non resident $46.00 SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY CENTER Memberships: Membership does not include admission to paid events or recreation sponsored programs. This includes aerobics, skating lessons, gymnastics, High School games, or any Tournaments. Membership Card: Adult 19 & over $ 70 Youth 6-18 or Seniors 60+ $ 50 Family $110 Punch Card: (20 admissions) Adult 19 & over $ 35 Youth 6-18 or Seniors 60+ $ 17 Daily Admission Effective Sept. 1. 1997 Adult 19 & Over $ 2 $3.00 Youth 6-18 or Seniors 60+ $ 1 $2.00 Children 5 and under FREE WALKING TRACK FREE (users must be 14 or accompanied by an adult ) COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL FEES SCHEDULE Meeting rooms(graduating scale)$25 first hour,$20 for hours 2-5 and$10 for hours 5-10 Gymnastics/Aerobics Studio(graduating scale))$25 first hour,$20 for hours 2-5 and$10 for hours 5-10 Multi-Meeting Room(graduating scale)$25 first hour,$20 for hours 2-5 and$10 for hours 5-10 23 Gymnasium(graduating scale)$25 first hour,$20 for hours 2-5 and$10 for hours 5-10 Ice Arena $55-$120 per hour Photo copying $.20 per page EQUIPMENT RENTALS(Daily Rates) VCR/Monitor $5 Coffee Maker $5 Wrestling Mats $50 Golf Cage $3.75 per 15 minutes. Locker rental $35 per year OUTDOOR ATHLETIC FIELD RENTAL FEE SCHEDULE These rates are applied to events held on City property and school property maintained by the City. Ball field(one day): $28$25 per field Ball field(two days): $-38$35 per field Ball field(three days): $48$45 per field Concession stand: $50 per day,plus a$50 cleaning/damage deposit Ball fields w/lights: $23 140 per night,per field Canopy Tent S30 per day OTHER - hereby set as follows : 1 . Application fee for variance from or amendment to the cable franchise ordinance 25 . 00 PLUS Costs of consultants hired to assist the City in considering variance applications will be billed to applicant based on actual cost to the City. Notification will be sent to applicant that consultants will be utilized when that determina- tion has been made. 24 /s. E. 5 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE p� Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ.: 1999 Workers Compensation Insurance DATE: December 8, 1998 Introduction The Workers Compensation policy for the city is up for renewal . Background This is a routine item that the work comp policy for the city renews on January 1. The renewal is with the same terms as last year, namely with a $500 deductible on medical coverage. The deposit premium last year was $71, 705 and this year it is $68, 320 . Actual cost is based on the actual figures calculated after the end of the year. The rate base increased but the rates the city will be charged have decreased. The League of Cities Insurance Trust has an excellent program. There is probably nothing in the market place that can compare to this program. Action Move to affirm the renewal of the workers compensation with the League of Cities Insurance Trust for a deposit premium of $68, 320 . cre Voxland gg Finance Director ±:\finance\docs\insure\workcomp _ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT: TO: Mayor and City Council J Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJECT: 1998 Budget Amendment Resolution No. 5031 DATE: December 15, 1998 Introduction and Background: Several additional things have occurred during 1998 that warrant a change in the 1998 budget. The changes are 1) Increase for payment to ADC which was offset by incoming Grants 2) Transfer budgeted wages from Unallocated to Community Development to cover the additional wages for the hiring of the planning technician 3) Transfer budgeted wages from Street Maintenance to Park Maintenance to adjust budgeted amounts to actual time spent in each division 4) Transfer to building fund per budget discussions. Item Division Account# Amount 1. ADC Payment Unallocated 0911-4430 $250,000 ADC Payment Unallocated 9001-3340 250,000 2. Comm Dvlp Wages Unallocated 0911-4430 ($20,000) Comm Dvlp Wages Comm Dvlp 0170-4170 2,000 Comm Dvlp Wages Comm Dvlp 0174-4101 16,000 Comm Dvlp Wages Comm Dvlp 0174-4121 1,000 Comm Dvlp Wages Comm Dvlp 0174-4122 1,000 3. Park Maint Wages Street 0424-4101 (5,000) Park Maint Wages Street 0427-4101 (10,000) Park Maint Wages Park Maint 0620-4101 13,000 Park Maint Wages Park Maint 0620-4121 1,000 Park Maint Wages Park Maint 0620-4122 1,000 4. Transfer to Bldg Fund Unallocated 0911-4722 1,200,000 Recommendation: Adopt the budget amending resolution as prepared. Action: Offer Resolution No. 5031 a resolution amending Resolution No. 4803 adopting the 1998 Budget and move its adoption. Gregg Voxland Finance Director RESOLUTION No. 5031 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 4803 ADOPTING THE 1998 BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the 1998 General Fund budget is amended as follows; Expenditures Division Amount Unallocated $1,430,000 Community Development 20,000 Street Maintenance (15,000) Park Maintenance 15,000 Revenue Gen Fund-Grants 250,000 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,. Minnesota, held this 15th day of December , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk e. Y . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJECT: 1998 Budget Amendment Resolution No. 5031 DATE: December 10, 1998 Introduction and Background: Several additional things have occurred during 1998 that warrant a change in the 1998 budget. The changes are 1) Increase for payment to ADC which was offset by incoming Grants 2) Transfer budgeted wages from Unallocated to Community Development to cover the additional wages for the hiring of the planning technician 3) Transfer budgeted wages from Street Maintenance to Park Maintenance to adjust budgeted amounts to actual time spent in each division. Item Division Account# Amount 1. ADC Payment Unallocated 0911-4430 $250,000 ADC Payment Unallocated 9001-3340 250,000 2. Comm Dvlp Wages Unallocated 0911-4430 ($20,000) Comm Dvlp Wages Comm Dvlp 0170-4170 2,000 Comm Dvlp Wages Comm Dvlp 0174-4101 16,000 Comm Dvlp Wages Comm Dvlp 0174-4121 1,000 Comm Dvlp Wages Comm Dvlp 0174-4122 1,000 3. Park Maint Wages Street 0424-4101 (5,000) Park Maint Wages Street 0427-4101 (10,000) Park Maint Wages Park Maint 0620-4101 13,000 Park Maint Wages Park Maint 0620-4121 1,000 Park Maint Wages Park Maint 0620-4122 1,000 Recommendation: Adopt the budget amending resolution as prepared. Action: Offer Resolution No. 5031 a resolution amending Resolution No. 4803 adopting the 1998 Budget and move its adoption. Gregg Voxland Finance Director RESOLUTION No. 5031 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 4803 ADOPTING THE 1998 BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the 1998 General Fund budget is amended as follows; Expenditures Division Amount Unallocated $230,000 Community Development 20,000 Street Maintenance (15,000) Park Maintenance 15,000 Revenue Gen Fund-Grants 250,000 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 15th day of December , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk ) 5E . 5 &/-sed CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Closing TIF District No. 7 (MEBCO) DATE: December 15, 1998 Introduction & Background Tax Increment Financing District No. 7, MEBCO has reached the end of its allowable life. Resolution No. 5037 documents official decertification of the district . Action Offer Resolution No. 5037, Resolution Decertifying Tax Increment Financing District No. 7, and move its adoption. ik Gregg Voxland Finance Director I:\finance\docs\taxinc\close#7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE • RESOLUTION NO. 5037 RESOLUTION DECERTIFYING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 7 BE IT RESOLVED.By the City Council ("Council") of the City of Shakopee ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City has previously established its Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project") pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act");and 1.02. Within the Project the City has created Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (the "TIF District")pursuant to Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (collectively,the "TIF Act"). 1.03. The Project and the TIF District are now administered by the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee("Authority"). 1.04. The Authority and City have determined that is in the best interest of the City to decertify the TIF District as of December 31, 1998. Section 2. TIF District Decertified; Filing. 2.01. The TIF District is hereby deemed decertified as of December 31, 1998. 2.02. The Authority is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to Scott County with instructions to de-certify the TIF District, it being the intent of the City that no collection of tax increment from the TIF District will be distributed to the Authority after December 31, 1998. Approved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee this 15th day of December, 1998. Mayor Attest: City Clerk SJB-154370 SH235-1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and Council - Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director 7 SUBJ: Closing TIF District No. % (MEBCO) DATE: December 8, 1998 Introduction & Background Tax Increment Financing District No. `S, MEBCO has reached the end of its allowable life. Resolution No. 5037 documents official decertification of the district . Action Offer Resolution No. 5037, Resolution Decertifying Tax Increment Financing District No. A, and move its adoption. 1. G -e'. Voxland Finance Director I \finance\docs\taxinc\close#8 CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECERTIFYING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of Shakopee ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City has previously established its Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project") pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act");and 1.02. Within the Project the City has created Tax Increment Financing District No. (the "TIF District")pursuant to Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (collectively, the "TIF Act"). 1.03. The Project and the TIF District are now administered by the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee("Authority"). 1.04. The Authority and City have determined that is in the best interest of the City to decertify the TIF District as of December 31, 1998. Section 2. TIF District Decertified;Filing. 2.01. The TIF District is hereby deemed decertified as of December 31, 1998. 2.02. The Authority is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to Scott County with instructions to de-certify the TIF District, it being the intent of the City that no collection of tax increment from the TIF District will be distributed to the Authority after December 31, 1998. Approved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee this 15th day of December, 1998. Mayor Attest: • City Clerk SJB-154370 SH235-1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Bids For Full Size Squad Car DATE: December 1, 1998 Introduction The 1999 Internal Service Fund budget contains an appropriation request for the purchase of two squad cars. Background The 1999 budget includes an appropriation request of $60,000 for the purchase of 2 squad cars. Funding is from the Capital Equipment Internal Service Fund. The vendor base price is an increase of $304 over last year. The new cars will replace 1995 models. Additional costs include graphics, communications conversion and propane conversion which could total about $4,500 - $5,000 each. The bid for a full size car is as follows; 1999 Base bid $20,637.00 Options: Deck lid light wiring 39.00 Driver PW/PL control 35.00 Extended Warranty 1,500.00 Shop manual 115.00 Total 22,326.00 Alternatives 1. Buy as per above. 2. Buy as per above but modify options. 3. Rebid on our own. 4. Don't buy full size squads. Recommendation Alternative number 1. Action Move to authorize the purchase of two full size police squads from Superior Ford in the amount of $44,652 in accordance with the Hennepin County Cooperative contract. /6Gregg*/ox d Finance Director C:\gregg\memo\99squad CITY OF SHAKOPEE /6 :Memorandum O' . TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Tax Increment Usage/Sanitary Sewer Fund DATE: December 10, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to give direction regarding whether it wishes to redirect monies earmarked to pay for the Chaska Interceptor Sewer. BACKGROUND: As part of the discussion of sanitary sewer rates at the December 7th Council meeting, Council was made aware that the 1998 Budget provides for a balance of$5.4 million in the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Mayor Brekke asked if part of that could be used to pay off the Chaska Interceptor Sewer, which otherwise would be paid for through TIF monies. The answer is that the City Council may choose to do that, in one of two ways: 1. Amend the tax increment plan,to allow for the freed up TIF monies to go to a specific project. 2. Do not amend the plan,but instead let the TIF money pay for the sewer(the sewer is an eligible TIF expenditure already in the plan),and take an equivalent amount of money from the sanitary sewer fund to pay for whatever improvements Council would direct. The less cumbersome way to do it is option 2. If the Council does choose option 1, there are limits as to the type of expenditures for which tax increment may be used. For example, State law does authorize tax increment money to be used for development of parks (for example, a riverfront development in Huber Park), or recreation-type buildings. However, it may not be used to construct public facilities which are primarily administrative in nature. City Attorney Steve Bubul did say that the State Auditor has not felt that libraries are a legitimate use of tax increment monies. I'm advised that previous Councils made a policy decision to utilize tax increment monies to pay for the Chaska Interceptor Sewer. If the Council wishes to change that, it may do so. The sanitary sewer fund is healthy now,but, as noted by Councilmember Sweeney at the December 7th meeting, major future extensions of the sanitary sewer mains (whether in undeveloped Shakopee, or an annexation area)will place a significant impact on the sanitary sewer fund. T1F.DOC ACTION REQUIRED: Council should discuss, and give direction as to whether it wishes to modify the funding source for the Chaska Interceptor Sewer. .QtitiJ24-Q'e- Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw T1F.DOC 15. t. ?. CITY OF SHAKOPEE r Memorandum CONS EI VT J TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Riverview Estates 2nd Addition - Letter of Credit DATE: December 10, 1998 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to authorize the release of the letter of credit on deposit with the City to insure the construction of public improvements for Riverview Estates 2nd Addition. BACKGROUND: The developer of Riverview Estates 2nd Addition has requested the release of the $160,000 letter of credit for the public improvements. The improvements have been completed and accepted by the City Engineer. The City is in receipt of the required one year maintenance bond. All fees due to the City in connection with this development have been paid, with the exception of some engineering fees. They have been billed and payment is expected soon. RECOMMENDATION: It is staff's recommendation that authorization be given for the release of the letter of credit, upon receipt of the engineering fees, for the Riverview Estates 2nd Addition public improvements. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the release of the letter of credit for the public improvements for Riverview Estates 2nd Addition, upon receipt of the engineering fees. h:\judy\release.rv2