The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/01/1995 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Non Agenda Informational Items DATE: July 28, 1995 1. Attached is the August calendar of Upcoming Meetings. 2. Attached is the August Business Update from City Hall. 3. Attached are the July 13, 1995 minutes of the Planning Commission. 4. Attached is correspondence from the City Clerk to the Jackson Township Board regarding annexation. 5. Attached are the June 5th& 12th, 1995 minutes of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 6. Attached is correspondence from the City Clerk to all tobacco licensees regarding the new regulations to the sale of tobacco products. 7. Attached is a handout from AMM regarding issues for discussion on Property Tax Reform/LGA-HACA, Transportation/Transit Funding and Land Use Regulation/Urban Service Area Expansion. 1 Augus t 1 9 9 5 Upcoming Meetings SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 7:00pm City 4:30pm Annual 5:00pm Taste of 8:00pm Derby Derby Days Council City Picnic Shakopee Days Celebration 7:30pm Planning Celebration - Commission Dance 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 4:30pm SPUC 13 14 15 16 17 18 1g 7:00pm City 5:30pm Council Community Development Commission 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2g 30 31 7:00pm Park and 5:00pm Recreation Committee of the Whole July September SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 ' 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 07/17/1995 01 BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL, Volume 9 No. 8 Dear Chamber Member: August I, 1995 City Clerk Engineering/Public Works At their regular meeting on July 11th, City Council At their July 18th meeting, City Council approved approved On Sale and Sunday On Sale Liquor plans and specifications for the construction of Licenses for The Main Event of Shakopee, Inc. Fuller Street from 10th Ave. South to the future (formerly Springers on Main). Vierling Drive and directed staff to advertise for bids. Construction is scheduled to begin late At their regular meeting on July 18th, City Council August. Construction is progressing on the approved a temporary beer license for the Shakopee downtown alleys. The contractor plans on having Jaycees during Derby Days. the two blocks between Holmes and Sommerville paved in time for Derby Days. Community Development Construction has begun in the P &V subdivision On Tuesday, July 11, 1995 the Shakopee Economic which was annexed into Shakopee last Fall. Sewer and water and new streets are being constructed. Development Authority tabled discussion on the redevelopment possibilities for Blocks 3 &4 in Other projects progressing and/or just being started are,Prairie Bend, Sarazin&Roundhouse Streets, Downtown Shakopee. The item was tabled to provide staff with the opportunity to contact all Meadows West 2nd Addition, Orchard Park and property owners and tenants affected by the Chateau Ridge. Staff is also working on the Annual potential redevelopment project. Discussions will Pavement Preservation program which will include continue on this issue at the August 1, crack sealing, seal coating and the Sidewalk 1995 Economic Development Authority meeting. Replacement Program. The Shakopee Economic Development Authority Park & Recreation and the Community Development Commission are currently in the process of evaluating the City's Development of the Shakopee Civic Center Project industrial development incentive policy. A number continues at full speed. Pre-cast panels are expected of surrounding communities have incentive to be placed within the next week. Once the walls programs which provide economic assistance to have been erected, staff expects development on the qualified commercial and industrial prospects who project to speed up dramatically. Many of the maybe considering locating in their community. building materials are already on the project site. The City's current industrial development incentive The unexpected Fabcon strike has caused policy was established in 1988. Over the course of approximately a 3 to 4 week delay in the project the next two months, staff expects a great deal of construction schedule. However,staff is optimistic discussion regarding the pros and cons associated that the ice arena portion of the facility will be with possible incentive programs. ready for the Fall hockey season. The Shakopee Park and Recreation Advisory Board City of Shakopee Rezoning in area around Rec.Approval is also currently in the process of developing a Canterbury Park facility schedule and fee structure which will be City of Shakopee Phase 4 Rezoning Closed Public Hearing/No forwarded to City Council for approval within the longer needed next 30 days. Staff would like to have the City of Shakopee Amend Zoning Map Rec.Approval membership fee structure and daily admission for Medium Density schedule in place by early September. This would Residential(R-2)areas in"Old Shakopee"area allow for advance membership sales. Orchard Park Final Plat Rec.Approval Horizon Heights 5th Final Plat Tabled to 8/3 Staffing for the Civic Center facility will be Prairie Bend PUD Amendment#2- No Action accommodated primarily through the addition of Concept Review part-time/seasonal positions. A proposed reorganization of the Recreation Department will be Other Business: CLP Rec.Approval presented to the Shakopee City Council in conjunction with the development of the 1996 Welcome to the new Planning Interns: Julie Baumann,Nancy Budget. Staff is proposing the addition of one new Emerson and Nicole Bennett. full time Recreation Department position to serve as the Assistant Ice Arena Manager. The proposed reorganizational structure will also create a new Police Recreation Superintendent position and eliminate several existing position classifications. The An application for a Safe and Sober Grant is being relocation of the Recreation Department from the completed cooperatively with the Scott County current City Hall facility to the new Civic Center Sheriff's Department. Safe and Sober is.a project facility will also serve to produce economies of dedicated to improving traffic safety in our scale in terms of staffing at the Civic Center site. community. Officers participating in the first year of the project must be trained in standardized field Planning sobriety testing and occupant protection usage enforcement. Second year participants must BOAA Meeting 07-06-95 complete advanced training in standardized field Fischer Aggregates Amendment to CUP Con't to 8/3 sobriety testing. Tietjen Family,Inc. CUP for outdoor sales Approved Valley Green Bus. Park CUP 2 bldgs on 1 lot Con't to 8/3 The Employee Council of the Shakopee Police Department coordinated a team for the American PC Meeting 07-06-95 Cancer Society's"Walk in the Park". Team City of Shakopee Ord.amend City Code Rec.Approval Chapter 12, Subd.Regs. members and their families joined in the fund Market Place 2nd Preliminary Plat Tabled to 8/3 raising event, and several officers also volunteered Meadows North Preliminary Plat Con't to 8/3 their time to provide security throughout the night. Fischer Aggregates Text Amendments Rec.Approval Knights of Columbus Amend Zoning Map Rec.Approval Officer Scherer met with the Shakopee Jaycees to Larry Schlasinger Amend Zoning Map Rec.Denial City of Shakopee Amend Chapter 11 Rec.Approval discuss the McGruff House program. The to modify the setback Department has set a goal of establishing over 100 of canopies in the business zone. McGruff Houses in Shakopee. The Shakopee Park and Recreation Advisory Board City of Shakopee Rezoning in area around Rec.Approval is also currently in the process of developing a Canterbury Park facility schedule and fee structure which will be City of Shakopee Phase 4 Rezoning Closed Public Hearing/No forwarded to City Council for approval within the longer needed next 30 days. Staff would like to have the City of Shakopee Amend Zoning Map Rec.Approval membership fee structure and daily admission for Medium Density schedule in place by early September. This would Residential(R-2)areas allow for advance membership sales. in"Old Shakopee"area Orchard Park Final Plat Rec.Approval Horizon Heights 5th Final Plat Tabled to 8/3 Staffing for the Civic Center facility will be Prairie Bend PUD Amendment#2- No Action accommodated primarily through the addition of Concept Review part-time/seasonal positions. A proposed reorganization of the Recreation Department will be Other Business: CIP Rec.Approval presented to the Shakopee City Council in conjunction with the development of the 1996 Welcome to the new Planning Interns: Julie Baumann,Nancy Budget. Staff is proposing the addition of one new Emerson and Nicole Bennett. full time Recreation Department position to serve as the Assistant Ice Arena Manager. The proposed reorganizational structure will also create a new Police Recreation Superintendent position and eliminate several existing position classifications. The An application for a Safe and Sober Grant is being relocation of the Recreation Department from the completed cooperatively with the Scott County current City Hall facility to the new Civic Center Sheriff's Department. Safe and Sober is a project facility will also serve to produce economies of dedicated to improving traffic safety in our scale in terms of staffing at the Civic Center site. community. Officers participating in the first year of the project must be trained in standardized field • Planning sobriety testing and occupant protection usage enforcement. Second year participants must BORA Meeting 07-06-95 complete advanced training in standardized field Fischer Aggregates Amendment to CUP Con't to 8/3 sobriety testing. Tietjen Family,Inc. CUP for outdoor sales Approved Valley Green Bus. Park ' CUP 2 bldgs on 1 lot Con't to 8/3 The Employee Council of the Shakopee Police Department coordinated a team for the American PC Meeting 07-06-95 Cancer Society's"Walk in the Park". Team City of Shakopee Ord.amend City Code Rec.Approval Chapter 12,Subd.Regs. members and their families joined in the fund Market Place 2nd Preliminary Plat Tabled to 8/3 raising event, and several officers also volunteered Meadows North Preliminary Plat Con't to 8/3 their time to provide security throughout the night. Fischer Aggregates Text Amendments Rec.Approval Knights of Columbus Amend Zoning Map Rec.Approval Officer Scherer met with the Shakopee Jaycees to Larry Schlasinger Amend Zoning Map Rec.Denial City of Shakopee Amend Chapter 11 Rec.Approval discuss the McGruff House program. The to modify the setback Department has set a goal of establishing over 100 of canopies in the business zone. McGruff Houses in Shakopee. BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL. Volume 9 No. 8 Dear Chamber Member: August 1, 1995 City Clerk Engineering/Public Works At their regular meeting on July 11th, City Council At their July 18th meeting, City Council approved approved On Sale and Sunday On Sale Liquor plans and specifications for the construction of Licenses for The Main Event of Shakopee, Inc. Fuller Street from 10th Ave. South to the future (formerly Springers on Main). Vierling Drive and directed staff to advertise for bids. Construction is scheduled to begin late At their regular meeting on July 18th, City Council August. Construction is progressing on the approved a temporary beer license for the Shakopee downtown alleys. The contractor plans on having Jaycees during Derby Days. the two blocks between Holmes and Sommerville paved in time for Derby Days. Community Development Construction has begun in the P & V subdivision On Tuesday,July 11, 1995 the Shakopee Economic which was annexed into Shakopee last Fall. Sewer Development Authority tabled discussion on the and water and new streets are being constructed. redevelopment possibilities for Blocks 3 &4 in Other projects progressing and/or just being started Downtown Shakopee. The item was tabled to are, Prairie Bend, Sarazin& Roundhouse Streets, provide staff with the opportunity to contact all Meadows West 2nd Addition, Orchard Park and property owners and tenants affected by the Chateau Ridge. Staff is also working on the Annual potential redevelopment project. Discussions will . Pavement Preservation program which will include continue on this issue at the August 1, crack sealing, seal coating and the Sidewalk • 1995 Economic Development Authority meeting. Replacement Program. The Shakopee Economic Development Authority Park & Recreation and the Community Development Commission are currently in the process of evaluating the City's Development of the Shakopee Civic Center Project industrial development incentive policy. A number continues at full speed. Pre-cast panels are expected of surrounding communities have incentive to be placed within the next week. Once the walls programs which provide economic assistance to have been erected, staff expects development on the qualified commercial and industrial prospects who project to speed up dramatically. Many of the maybe considering locating in their community. building materials are already on the project site. The City's current industrial development incentive The unexpected Fabcon strike has caused policy was established in 1988. Over the course of approximately a 3 to 4 week delay in the project . the next two months, staff expects a great deal of construction schedule. However, staff is optimistic discussion regarding the pros and cons associated that the ice arena portion of the facility will be with possible incentive programs. ready for the Fall hockey season. /3 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION Special Session Shakopee,Minnesota July 13, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mars, Joos, Madigan, Bladow, Link, DuBois, Christensen (arrived at 7:12 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Paul Bilotta,Acting Planning Director Bruce Loney, City Engineer Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planner I. ROLL CALL Chairman Joos called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. IL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM(CIP) The Acting Planning Director provided an introduction to the CIP process, and showed the Planning Commission members a map of the proposed projects. Street Construction Projects The City Engineer discussed the staging of the street construction and reconstruction projects, reminding the Commission that the City does not want to close off entire neighborhoods with these projects. Phasing their reconstruction over two or three years reduces the negative impact upon the residents of each neighborhood. Comm. Bladow asked when CR 16 would be open. The City Engineer stated that a paved surface will be provided so that it can be open over the winter. However, it would be closed again next spring and summer while they finish the project. Comm. DuBois asked what the reason was for the delay in the completion of CR 16. The City Engineer reminded the Commission that this is a County project and its reconstruction is not under the jurisdiction of the City. He added that sometimes it just takes longer than anticipated to acquire right-of-way and permits, and design changes made during the construction process can delay a project also. The City Engineer stated that the first two years of a CIP are fairly focused. These two years include the best projections that can be made at that time. The third through the fifth year require additional planning so there will not be as much detail provided. Comm. Mars asked if the projects are sewer driven or road construction driven. The City Engineer replied that most of the reconstruction projects are sewer driven. However, City of Shakopee Planning Commission July 13, 1995 Page 2 some are driven by the poor pavement conditions and some are driven by both poor pavement and poor sewer conditions. Comm. Mars asked if the CIP includes the cost of the reconstruction of Fuller Street north of 10th Avenue. The City Engineer responded that it did not. He added that the City may want to look at the pavement preservation program for that portion of Fuller. Comm. Mars asked if Fuller Street would be four lanes. The City Engineer responded in the negative, and explained that it would contain two traffic lanes and parking would be allowed on both sides of the street. Comm. Mars asked the width of Fuller Street. The City Engineer responded that Fuller Street is 44 feet in width both north of 10th Avenue and south of 10th Avenue. Comm. Mars asked if the extension of Taylor Street south and the construction of Vierling Drive on the west edge of town was included in the CIP. The Acting Planning Director responded that Taylor Street and Vierling Drive are being extended due to development pressures. Comm. DuBois stated that Vierling Drive is being constructed in the southeast and the southwest sides of the urban area, but asked what about in between these two areas. The Acting City Planner responded that 7 out of 10 times road construction is driven by development and that Cities generally don't like to extend roads unless they will be used. He added that no one is asking for Vierling Drive to be extended into this "in between" area. Comm. DuBois responded that Vierling Drive would provide a better flow of traffic if it were connected. Comm. Christensen arrived at 7:12 p.m. and took her chair. Comm. DuBois asked how many traffic lanes the Fuller Street alignment would have. The City Engineer responded that they are proposing two traffic lanes with parking on both sides, and reinforced that they are not proposing any changes to the number of traffic lanes at this time. Comm. DuBois asked if this included the portion of Fuller Street south of 10th Avenue. The City Engineer responded that they are proposing two traffic lanes, with parking on both sides. He added that the street will be the same 44 foot width south of 10th Avenue as it is north of 10th Avenue. Chrmn. Joos asked if the City has taken over Harrison Street north of 10th Avenue. The City Engineer responded that this is a City road. City of Shakopee Planning Commission July 13, 1995 Page 3 Chrmn. Joos asked when 3rd Street would be reconstructed. The City Engineer responded that 3rd Street is in the CIP for the year 2000. The City Engineer explained the 1997 proposed projects and asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Chrmn. Joos asked if there was a proposal to close Muhlenhardt Road. The Acting Planning Director responded in the negative and stated that it would be critical to provide access in this area to avoid an overlength cul-de-sac. Comm. Mars asked when the reconstruction of Maras Street would occur. The City Engineer said that there would be a feasibility study performed in 1996. Discussion took place regarding a road proposed to connect the existing CR 18 to the new CR 18. Chrmn. Joos asked if this was new. The City Engineer responded that it was on the previous CIP. The City Engineer went on to briefly discuss the street construction projects proposed for the years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, and 2001. Storm Sewer/Drainage Projects The City Engineer briefly introduced the proposed storm sewer projects, including 10th Avenue (east of Marschall Road), improvements to the Upper Valley Drainage Ditch, the VIP detention pond for the Valley Green Industrial Park, and ponding south of the proposed TH 101 southerly bypass. He added that although this ponding is being built now, construction costs will not be paid until 1996. Trails The Acting Planning Director provided an overview of the existing and proposed trails within the City. He stated that the Scott-Hennepin Trail will run north and south from the Mini-bypass, through the urban area, to the City of Prior Lake. He added that this trail will be critical when the City gets into downtown revitalization projects. He stated that the construction of trails in the eastern portion of the City will be difficult because there are owners of large tracts of land. He also stated that the proposed Dean's Lake Trail will probably be routed down old CR 18 instead of crossing the TH 101 southerly bypass, and that there will probably be more trail planning done next year. Comm. Bladow asked if these trails would be for bicycles only. The City Engineer responded that if direction from the City Council is given, trails could be signed for bicycles only. Comm. Bladow asked if motorized vehicles are allowed on the trails. The City of Shakopee Planning Commission July 13, 1995 Page 4 City Engineer responded in the negative, but added that the trails are currently for both bicycles and pedestrians. Comm. DuBois asked about trails along CR 17. The City Engineer responded that the City really needs to look at increasing the number of trails versus the number of sidewalks. Comm. Christensen asked for clarification, asking if the trails are for bicycles only, and asking if any mixture of uses were allowed. The Acting City Planner responded that some of the City's trails are not under the City's jurisdiction. For instance, the trail along the Minnesota River is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and that they allow both horses and snowmobiles on their trails. However, the City predominately allowed bicycles and pedestrians. Comm. Christensen said that the City should consider more ways to incorporate walking on the trails, and that they should be open to this as a concept. The Acting Planning Director stated that the City allows both pedestrians and bicyclists to use the trails now. Chrmn. Joos asked when the Scott-Hennepin Trail is scheduled for construction. The Acting Planning Director stated that although it is in the active planning stage, its construction is tied to grant funding. He added that it will take to the year 2000 to get out to the Dean's Lake area, and that the City could do more in the urban area, such as on- street striping. Comm. Bladow stated that the DNR Trail along the Minnesota River allows snowmobiles. He stated that to get to this trail, a snowmobile has to travel around the urban area, and that there are often complains of snowmobilers traveling through the urban area to get to the trail. He stated that it would be nice to have a designated snowmobile trail through the urban area. Discussion regarding the politics involved in this type of proposal took place. Comm. DuBois stated that there are extensive trails being proposed and added that the trails will need signage. She added that, to avoid accidents, bicyclists should know the "rules of the trail". Mr. Jon Albinson, Project Director for Valley Green Business Park, 5240 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, approached the podium. He asked for clarification regarding design standards for trails. The City Engineer responded that trails are generally eight feet (8') wide, are constructed of bituminous materials, and are used by pedestrians, as well as bicyclists, skateboarding, etc. Sidewalks are generally five feet (5') in width, are constructed of concrete, and are generally used by pedestrians only. Mr. Albinson asked when wood chip trails would be acceptable. The Acting Planning Director stated that the City of Shakopee Planning Commission July 13, 1995 Page 5 design standards discussed by the City Engineer are for "collector trails". However, when there are no trail connections made, and the trails are purely for local purposes, wood chip trails could be worked out during the negotiations for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Comm. Madigan asked why the 1995 special assessments were twice as high as they are for other years. The City Engineer stated that it was his belief that this was because of the construction of the Chaska Interceptor. However, he added that there are some expensive projects proposed, including the construction of Vierling Drive and Sarazin Street, and the realignment of Fuller Street. He added that expansion projects are more expensive than reconstruction projects. Comm. Mars asked where the millions of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) were for the construction of the Civic Center. The Acting Planning Director responded that this question was not in the planning area, and that he was unable to answer it. Comm. Mars asked about the acquisition and demolition of Blocks 3 and 4. The Acting Planning Director described how these costs are spread out over a number of years. Comm. DuBois asked if the acquisition of Blocks 3 and 4 is officially approved. The Acting Planning Director responded that this was not the case. He added, at this time, that the level of commitment from the City Council is to seek appraisals. He stated that the Economic Development Authority (EDA) will be discussing this issue at their first meeting in August and will determine if the site should be acquired and/or demolished. He added that staff should have more direction from the City Council within the next two or three months. Comm. Madigan asked about the proposed land acquisition south of the TH 101 southerly bypass. The Acting Planning Director responded that this land is for another major park. Once development is started south of the bypass, there will develop a need for another major park within this area. Discussion regarding Park Dedication Requirements took place. Motion: Commissioner Mars/Madigan offered a motion to recommend the approval of the Capital Improvement Program to the City Council. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. III. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Joos adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. {1\PLANNING\M!NUTFSIPC-BOAA\PLANCOMM.713} -tty Al SHAKOPEE July 24, 1995 Ms. Rose Menke Jackson Township Clerk 1060 Oak Road Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Annexation Dear Ms. Menke: The City of Shakopee has discovered that there are a few small parcels that are not part of Shakopee but that are surrounded by Shakopee properties. The City desires to clean up this area so that all of the area is located within the City of Shakopee. This is more of a housekeeping matter than anything else. Pursuant to annexation procedure we are following, I am hereby serving you notice of the City's intent to annex this area. A copy of the"Notice Of Intent To Annex" is enclosed, along with a map identifying the area in question. According to the annexation procedures, the Jackson Township Board has 90 days to object to the proposed annexation. Please forward any comments to me and I will forward them to the City Council. Please give me a call if I can answer any questions you may have regarding this matter. Sincerely, .ith S. Cox City Clerk Enc. I CC: Karen Marty, City Attorney Norbert Theis, Chair, Jackson Town Board COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South• Shakopee,Minnesota 55329-1351 6l2-445-3630 F4 5]2-445-6718 4 MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on June 5 , 1995 at 4: 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Vierling and Unseth. Also Liaison Sweeney and Manager Van Hout . Commissioner O'Toole and Secretary Menden are absent. Commissioner Vierling is acting as chairperson for the June 5, 1995 regular meeting. Motion by Andy Unseth, seconded by Gloria Vierling that the minutes of the May 1 , 1995 regular meeting and the May 12, 1995 adjourned regular meeting be approved as kept . Motion carried. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 42,000.00 ARAMARK Refreshment Services 94. 50 A T & T 21 . 53 Marvin Athmann 28.07 Athmann Industrial Medical Supplies, Inc. 213 .29 R.W. Beck 9, 565. 69 Bentz Construction Inc. 1,200.00 Border States Industries, Inc. 37 ,059.17 Burmeister Electric Co. 268.04 Business Essentials, Inc. 364. 39 Canterbury Park 3 ,596.00 City of Shakopee 1,034. 61 Clay's Printing Service 79.44 Cooperative Power Co. 30,648.61 Crown marking, Inc. 22.80 Cut-Rite Forest Products 139.78 Cy' s Amoco and Tire 52 .14 DCA, Inc. 150.00 Davies Water Equipment Co. 89.05 Dueco 1,069. 46 Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. 1,159. 91 FRESCO 90.08 Glenwood Inglewood 20.18 Gopher State One Call, Inc. 649. 53 Graybar Electric Co. , Inc. 7 ,489.81 Hennen' s ICO 28. 71 High Voltage Testing Lab 354. 56 Hydro-Trace Inc. 270.00 Jaspers Streefland and Co. 350 .00 Jerry's Lawn Service 967.02 Kimball Midwest 79.02 Leef Bros. , Inc. 25. 76 McGrann Shea Franzen Carnival Straughn and Lamb 355. 57 Midwest Engine Service and Supply 172.89 Mn Dept. of Public Service 83.46 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 174. 12 Minnesota Safety Council 106.00 Minnesota Valley Testing Labs 334.00 Sheldon Moe 64. 95 Motor Parts Service Co. , Inc. 25.88 Municilite Co. 383.76 New Pig Corporation 300.80 Northern States Power Co. 411,809.81 Northern States Power Co. 2,706.81 Northern States Power Co. 332. 32 Northern States Power Co. 500.00 Parkside Printing, Inc. 465.46 Petersen-Wisdorf, Inc. 4,356. 38 Pitney Bowes, Inc. 1,601.18 Pomp's Tire Service, Inc. 365.93 Power Monitors, Inc. 4,014.00 RESCO 5,858.83 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 4. 79 Ribbon Recyclers, Inc . 139. 78 Carol Roquette 42. 33 St . Francis Medical Facility 5,754.00 Schilz Ornamental Iron 25.00 Schoell and Madson, Inc. 21,151. 75 Scott County Abstract and Title, inc. 51 .00 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 382.47 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 61 .00 Solomon Corp. 3,195.63 Southam Business Communications 255.00 Southwest Suburban Publishing 639.09 Starks Cleaning Services 72.42 State Chemical Mfg. , Co. 200.31 Dean Struck 125. 70 T & R Service 102.00 Tom Hennes and Sons 80.00 Total Tool 149. 36 Transport White GMC, Inc. 2,506.12 U.S. West Communications 362.48 University of Nebraska-Lincoln 30.00 Lou Van Hout 39.86 Waste Management-Savage 156.26 WESCO 9,124. 61 Wheeler Lumber Operations 921.01 Wild Iris 106. 50 Yarusso' s Hardware 102. 47 Motion by Andy Unseth, seconded by Gloria Vierling that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. A communication from the Health Department stating that all samples of Shakopee water were in compliance with contaminant level testing trihalomethanes. Liaison Sweeney gave his liaison report. Copies of the final AUAR report from Savage had been given to the Commission for their information. A Nitrate test update was given to the Commission by Manager Van Hout on wells #4 and #5. The public hearings held by Jackson Township on the substation site were reviewed. A proposal for a central control system for well was presented. Motion by Unseth, seconded by Vierling to order Phase I of the proposal, a feasibility study on preliminary design under the cost cap of $3,800.00 and completion to be as per the the timetable set by Kaeding and Associates and will be subject to the opportunity for the City Attorney to review the agreement. Motion carried. The investment request from Greg Voxland was tabled until the July, 1995 meeting. Three fire calls were reported for a total man hours of 70 minutes. There was one lost time accident for May, 1995. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened to June 12, 1995 at the Utilities meeting room. Lo an s nHout , Utilities Manager TTEST: Cul G. N\ASZ}._-Barbara Mendenommission Secretary i MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in adjourned regular meeting on June 12, 1995 at 4: 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners O'Toole and Vierling. Also Manager Van Hout and Liaison Sweeney. Commissioner Unseth and Secretary Menden were absent. Motion by Vierling,seconded by O'Toole that the bill to Keys Well Drilling for Payment Request #2 be approved in the amount of $40,204 .84. Motion carried. The public hearing on the substation site by Jackson Township has been re-scheduled to June 26 , 1995. Liaison Sweeney reported on the actions by City Council on the issue of the Trust Land action. The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be held on July 5 , 1995 in the Utilities meeting room at 4: 30 P.M. Motion by Gloria Vierling, seconded by Terry O'Toole that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. Lo sVVan Hout, Utilities Manager ATTEST: betat G.A.& . Barbara Menden, Ctm ission Secretary 4(0 PlalILA! SHAKOPEE July 21, 1995 To All Tobacco Licensees: At their regular meeting on July 18th, the Shakopee City Council adopted new regulations relating to the sale of tobacco products. The purpose of the new regulations is to make it more difficult for minors to obtain cigarettes. The attached Ordinance No. 414 outlines the City's new regulations concerning the sale of tobacco products. The new regulations are underlined. The paragraph under Subd. 4.B. is being deleted from the City Ordinance because it is part of State law and as such has stricter penalties than those contained in the Ordinance. Please review Ordinance No. 414 and where you are not already in compliance please take appropriate actions to come into compliance. The City Council wanted to give licensees time to make any necessary changes. The effective date of the new regulations is August 26th. All licensees are expected to be in compliance no later than August 26th. The City Council spent a considerable amount of time deliberating on the new regulations. The Mayor and City Council are very grateful to the retailers for their time and input which assisted them in coming up with these new regulations. If you have any questions regarding Ordinance No. 414, please give me or the City Attorney, Karen Marty, a call. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, !Judith S. Cox City Clerk Enc. 1 COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South• Shakopee,Minnesota 55379-1351 612-445-3650 FAX 612-445-6718 cou) Issues for discussion 1. Property Tax Reform/LGA-HACA For several years the Governor and Legislature have been discussing major changes in the property tax-local government funding system with the goal of providing more funding for education and property tax reduction. Just in this last session: - A property tax freeze passed the Senate - A constitutional amendment to eliminate school funding from local property taxes passed the House - Bills to eliminate city HACA were heard in committees of both houses - Major tax reform bills were heard in both houses The Governor and various commissions he has established during his tenure as governor have recommended total elimination or major reductions in LGA. The business community through its main associations(Minnesota Chamber,Business Partnership and the Minnesota Taxpayers Association)has tended to support the Governor's thrust. Now that the business community has accomplished major changes in workers compensation,its major legislative focus will be to reduce C/I property taxes. 19%could well be a watershed year for property tax-local government funding modifications. Sweeping changes can be used as campaign rhetoric and the effects of such changes (some which may have negative political implications)would not be felt until after the 1996 election. Please think about how cities and the AMM can best position ourselves to be a meaningful participant during these discussions in the 1996 session. 2. Transportation/Transit Funding Something has to give and soon! Major highway projects state-wide and in the metro area such as I-495,I-35W and Hwy. 100 North have been shelved for the foreseeable future. Transit in the metro area,both regular route and metro mobility,is being pared back. Many regular transit routes have been eliminated and many more are scheduled for elimination. There is even serious discussion of eliminating all regular route transit outside of the 1-494- 696 beltway. Fares will have to be raised which will lead to less bus ridership and more congestion on the main highways. Reduced public transportation could also negatively impact the region's efforts to provide more affordable housing in the developing suburbs since lower income people tend to be more public transit dependent. Again,please give some thought as to the role metro city officials and the AMM can play in trying to break the funding"log jam" which has dominated discussions during the last three sessions. This disagreement between highway advocates(mainly rural) and transit advocates(mainly metro)has resulted in inadequate funding for both highways and transit. Everyone loses! 3. Land Use Regulation/Urban Service Area Expansion Land Use Regulation and development sprawl could also be issues during the 1996 session. Bills were introduced in the 1995 session that would have virtually frozen the MUSA line in its current configuration. While perhaps well intentioned,these bills provided no controls beyond the 7-counties and preventing growth within the metro area would almost surely lead to more development in adjacent Counties which would exacerbate the sprawl situation. Thee developers and realtors are also suggesting that unreasonable local controls are the major cause of increased housing costs in developing communities and are quietly suggesting more oversight of local land use regulatory authority at either the metro or state level. The Met Council is also sponsoring a study of the cost allocation system for the metropolitan wastewater treatment system which could lead to the return of a sub-regional cost allocation system that could produce some tension. While somewhat indirect,there is a relationship between all these issues and concerns and they could "come together" at the Legislature. How should the AMM,with members on all sides of these issues,proceed policy wise for the 1996 session? TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, MN August 3, 1995 Chairperson Terry Joos Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Recognition by Planning Commission of Interested Citizens. 4. Approval of Consent Agenda- (All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda). *5. Approval of the July 6 and July 13, 1995, Meeting Minutes 6. 7:55 P.M. Public Hearing, Continued from July 6, 1995, meeting. To consider the Preliminary Plat for The Meadows North, located east of CR 77, north and west of the proposed Fuller Street Extension. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development, Inc. *7. Preliminary Hat: To consider the preliminary plat of Market Place 2nd Addition, located west of Market Street and North of Fifth Avenue (Public hearing closed at the May 4, 1995, meeting. Continued from July 6, 1995, meeting.) Applicant: Klingelhutz Development Company *8. Final Plat: To consider the final plat of Horizon Heights 5th Addition, located south of Riverview Estates, east of Horizon Heights 1st Addition, north and west of Shakopee City limits. (Tabled at July 6, 1995, meeting.) Applicant: Steve Muhlenhardt 9. 8:00 P.M. Public Hearin To consider an amendment to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development (PUD) for one level, owner occupied condominiums for seniors 55 and older, to be called Canterbury Point. The portion of PUD being amended is located south of 4th Avenue and west of Sarazin Street (extended). Applicant: Cottage Homesteads of America, Inc. 10. 8:05 P.M. Public Hearing: To consider an amendment to Chapter 11, The Zoning Chapter, for a Text Amendment to revise the setback requirement for vehicle sales lots. Applicant: City of Shakopee 11. 8:10 P.M. Public Hearin,: To consider and amendment to Chapter 11, The Zoning Chapter, for a Text Amendment to revise the Design Standards within the Residential Zones. Applicant: City of Shakopee 12. 8:15 P.M. Public Hearin: To consider a Zoning Ordinance text and mapping amendment to remove the Mandatory Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District from the Official Zoning Map, and to delete language referencing the mandatory PUD District from Chapter 11, The Zoning Chapter. The Mandatory PUD Overlay District is generally located South of 4th Avenue, North of County Road 16, East of Marschall Road, and West of County Road 83. Applicant: City of Shakopee *13. Vacation - To consider the vacation of the drainage and utility easement between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Valley Park Sixth Addition. Applicant: Valley Green Business Park *14. Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Plan Modifications 15. Other Business a. b. 16. Adjourn Paul Bilotta Acting Planning Director/Economic Development Coordinator Note to Planning Commission i.lentbers: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items,please call Terrie or Shelly on the NInnday or Tuesday prior to the Nleeting. 2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Pb g Department prior to the meeting. (i:`planning\pc_boaa\1995 pc0803 agenda.pc) TENTATIVE AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, MN August 3, 1995 Chairperson William Mars Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of July 6, 1995, Meeting Minutes 4. Recognition by Board of Adjustments and Appeals of Interested Citizens. 5. 7:30 P.M. Public Hearing: Continued from July 6, 1995, meeting. To consider amendments to a Conditional Use Permit for Fischer Aggregates. Applicant: Fischer Aggregates Action: Resolution No. PC-713 6. 7:35 P.M. Public Hearing: Continued from July 6, 1995, meeting. To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit for Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership to allow two buildings on one lot, located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 12th Avenue and Park Place. Applicant: Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership Action: Resolution No. PC-722 7. 7:40 P.M. Public HearinU: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit for Rick Jeurissen and Bernard Jeurissen to allow two buildings on one lot, located at 2967 Marschall Road. Applicant: Rick Jeurissen and Bernard Jeurissen Action_ Resolution No. PC-726 8. 7:45 P.M. Public Hearing: To consider an application for a two and a half foot (2 1/2') variance to the twenty foot side yard setback requirement, located at 1316 Blue Heron Trail. Applicant: Joseph Johnson Action: Resolution No. 724 9. 7:50 P.M. Public Hearing: To consider an application for a variance to the maximum density requirement within the Rural Residential zone (RR) of one dwelling per ten (10) acres, located at 9076 Boiling Springs Lane. Applicant: Steve and Roxane Larson Action: Resolution No. 725 10. Other Business 11. Adjourn Paul Ililotta Acting Planning Director/Economic Development Coordinator Note to the B.O.A.A.Members: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items,please call Terrie or Shelly on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the Meeting. 2. If you are unable to attend the meeting,please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. (i:\planning\pc_boaa\1995\pc0803\agenda.boa) TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 1, 1995 LOCATION: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] Recess for EDA Meeting 4] Re-convene 5] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 6] Mayor's Report 7] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 8] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.) 9] Communications: None 10] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: None 11] Reports from Staff: *a] Approve Bills in the Amount of$395,490.80 b] Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Fischer Aggregate Inc., tabled 7/18 c] Recreation Superintendent Position - Res. No. 4263 d] Temporary Access Road to Boat Ramp from Bluff Avenue e] Authorization of Pavement Management System *fl Downtown Alley Reconstruction - Project No. 1993-9 g] Sarazin Street, Roundhouse St. &4th Ave. Improvements - Project 1994-10 - Consider assessment deferral for William and Renalda Hauer Parcel. *h] Vierling Drive, from CR 77 to CR 79 - Approve payment for R-O-W Acquisition *i] Approval of Engineering Fees for Grading on Public Improvement Projects and for Grading Permits TENTATIVE AGENDA August 1, 1995 Page -2- j] Savage-Shakopee Proposed Joint Powers Agreement *k] Authorization of Engineering Services for Upper Valley Drainageway Trail *1] Civic Center Project- Bid Packages No. 6A, 6B, 6C, 10, 14A, 14B, 16 & 22 m] Huber Park Regrading and Restoration n] Fuller Street - 10th Avenue to Vierling Drive 12] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 4262 & 4265 - To Convey Property to MnDOT & Make Payment to Met. Council to Satisfy Loan *b] Res. No. 4261 - Accepting Work on Public Works Parking Lot- Proj. 1994-9 13] Other Business: 14] Recess for an Executive Session to discuss matters covered under attorney-client privilege and labor negotiations. 15] Re-convene 16] Adjourn to Tuesday, August 15, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. - Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator TENTATIVE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Session August 1, 1995 1. Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. 2. Blocks 3 &4, OSP 3. Property Acquisition/Relocation Assistance 4. James Development-Arlington Ridge 5. Scott County HRA Tax Levy 6. EDA Budget 7. Other Business a) b) 8. Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director MEMO TO: Shakopee Economic Development Authority FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Blocks 3 and 4, OSP DATE: June 29, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Staff has obtained the appraisal reports associated with the property located within Blocks 3 and 4, OSP. Tenant relocation estimates have also been obtained. It would be appropriate at this time for the EDA to review the cost estimates associated with the potential redevelopment of Blocks 3 and 4 and provide directions to staff accordingly. BACKGROUND: This past February, the Shakopee City Council approved Ordinance No. 401 extending a development moratorium on the property located within Blocks 3 and 4, OSP. The moratorium is scheduled to expire on September 17, 1995 absent further extensions. On March 7, 1995 the Shakopee BRA authorized the appropriate City officials to utilize the services of Peter Patchin& Associates to complete appraisals for the properties located within Blocks 3 and 4. In May the EDA once again approved utilizing Patchin Appraisals to complete fixture appraisals for the properties located within Blocks 3 and 4. In an attempt to determine relocation estimates, staff has utilized the services of Evergreen Land Services Company. Evergreen Land Services utilized the guidelines setforth in the Federal uniform Relocation and Real Estate Property Acquisition Policy Act and Minnesota Statutes to determine a projected cost range for the tenant relocation costs associated with this project. Shown in Attachment#1 is a cost summary identifying the appraised value, fixture value and estimated tenant relocation costs. Note that the high side estimate to proceed with the redevelopment project in its entirety is in excess of$1.7 million. It should be noted that the cost estimate does not include costs associated with possible building removal. Depending on the amount of asbestos in the buildings, demolition costs could easily exceed $200,000.00. At this time, the City has not taken steps to determine the level of asbestos associated with these parcels. On June 21, 1995 the Shakopee CDC met to discuss the possible acquisition of Blocks 3 and 4 given the new cost estimates. The CDC is recommending that the EDA take the appropriate steps to secure friendly acquisition of the property. If friendly acquisition is not possible, they are recommending that condemnation be pursued. The CDC believes that in order for the property within Blocks 3 and 4 to develop that it is necessary for the City to retain ownership of all parcels. The CDC believes that the decision to clear and/or rehabilitate all or a portion of the property in question can be evaluated at a later date. A short term possibility offered by the CDC would be to maintain ownership of the property in a landlord capacity until such time that a final determination is made on the preferred redevelopment option. If the EDA wishes to proceed with property acquisition, the issue of funding needs to be addressed and understood. Shown in Attachment#2 is a financial summary of the tax increment trust fund. Note that in 1995, approximately $350,000.00 is available for this project. The amount available is significantly less than what is needed to do this project in 1995. In subsequent years, an additional $1.9 million will become available for this project. (Amount generated in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999) In order to bridge the funding gap, the EDA has several options to consider. First, the EDA could request the Shakopee City Council to grant them a loan in the amount of approximately $1,500,000.00. (The difference between the amount of TIF available this year and the high side estimated total project cost plus current and estimated consultants costs) This would necessitate an agreement by and between the City of Shakopee and the EDA outlining certain repayment procedures and interest terms. The second option for the EDA to consider would be to sell tax increment bonds to cover the financing gap. The tax increment bonds would be repaid with future tax increment collected from existing tax increment districts. The financial risk involved for the City is whether or not there will be adequate tax increment revenues generated over the next 4 years to cover either loan repayments or bonded indebtedness. In reviewing the financial ramifications of this project, staff would recommend that a loan arrangement be developed by and between the City of Shakopee and the EDA. A loan arrangement would potentially save the EDA dollars since bond counsel and financial advisor costs would not be incurred as a result of having to sell bonds. The decision whether to proceed or not proceed does not come without risk. It is purely a Council policy decision whether or not we should proceed with property acquisition at this time. The likelihood of finding a developer for a project on Blocks 3 and 4 without having a firm commitment from the EDA is not likely. If complete acquisition and demolition is pursued, staff can also not predict with any certainty when and if a developer might consider a redevelopment project on these two blocks. Our past efforts in attracting a developer have been unsuccessful due to the multiple property ownership that presently exists. Given the financial issues discussed herein, perhaps the EDA might want to consider purchasing one block now and another at a later date. Funding for acquiring the second block in the future could perhaps be generated by tax increment revenue associated with the redevelopment of the property purchased at this time. A fourth option would be to simply sit tight and purchase property as it is listed for sale. Under this scenario we might be able to avoid some relocation costs. One concern that should be taken into consideration if we take a wait and see approach is that ultimately the moratorium will have to be lifted. This would allow property owners to make improvements to their property which could in turn drive up acquisition costs in the future. If the EDA selects to focus on one block versus the other staff favors the acquisition of Block 3. The buildings in Block 4 tend to have facades that are consistent with the historic theme of the downtown area. Staff believes that other EDA programs and incentives could be pursued to encourage property owners to make improvements to the rear portion of their buildings. The cost of these programs would be substantially less than the cost of acquisition. Furthermore, their is good potential that the old City Hall building could be sold and placed back on the tax rolls. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct the appropriate EDA officials to proceed with friendly acquisition of the property located within Blocks 3 and 4 and should acquisition attempts fail, initiate condemnation proceedings accordingly. 2. Request the Shakopee City Council to consider a loan arrangement by and between the City of Shakopee and the EDA for financing the redevelopment costs associated with Blocks 3 and 4 acquisition. 3. Direct the appropriate EDA officials to proceed with friendly acquisition of the property located within Block 3 and should acquisition attempts fail, initiate condemnation proceedings accordingly. 4. Direct the appropriate EDA officials to proceed with friendly acquisition of the property located within Block 4 and should acquisition attempts fail, initiate condemnation proceedings accordingly. 5. Table action pending further information from staff 6. Do not proceed with property acquisition at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1 and#2. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to direct the appropriate EDA officials to proceed with friendly acquisition of the property located within Blocks 3 and 4 and should acquisition attempts fail, initiate condemnation proceedings accordingly. 2. Move to request the Shakopee City Council to consider a loan arrangement by and between the City of Shakopee and the EDA for financing the redevelopment costs associated with Blocks 3 and 4 acquisition. BAS/tiv - h:\wp5 1\docs\tami\admin\blocks.3&4 Attachment#1 Blocks 3 and 4 Cost Summary Block#3 Orig. Est. Appraisal Fixture Relocation Relocation Low Side High Side Value Value Low Est. High Est. Est. Total Est. Total 1. 203 &209 E 1st. $225,000 $250,000 $29,885 $65,000 $85,000 $344,885 $364,885 2. 213 E. 1st. $100,000 $135,000 $2,330 $20,000 $25,000 $157,330 $162,330 3. 221 E. 1st. $150,000 $250,000 $15,000 $66,000 $100,000 $331,000 $365,000 4. 237 E. 1st. $150,000 $127,000 $22,200 $20,000 $30,000 $169,200 $179,200 Total Cost Est. $625,000 $762,000 $69,415 $171,000 $240,000 $1,002,415 $1,071,415 Block#4 1. 115 E. 1st. $70,000 $67,000 $440 $21,000 $30,000 $88,440 $97,440 2. 117 E. 1st. $70,000 $75,000 $4,780 $48,000 $70,000 $127,780 $149,780 3. 123 E. 1st $75,000 $78,000 $750 $9,000 $15,000 $87,750 $93,750 4. 125 E. 1st $80,000 $87,000 $7,885 $18,000 $25,000 $112,885 $119,885 5. 137 E. 1st. $125,000 $122,000 $9,090 $35,000 $45,000 $166,090 $176,090 Total Cost Est. $420,000 $429,000 $22,945 $131,000 $185,000 $582,945 $636,945 N N N H H 1-1 N 1-' Z N N N H H N H H x (1 00 10 10 NO lb 10 NO 0 O O 10 N b b 10 10 11 I 2 M• o 0 b ID t0 tD w W R O O tD ID N tD t0 tD 3 R H0 IO 0D V . UI .P0 H O ID W V m VI IP W 'C O O O W to W W W 141,3141-11-11-11-11-1 H .7' O O O t0 t0 10 14 10 0 R M 0 0 0 N (OW W W 'C m 0 0 0 10 10 ID W 10 H (1 Co N N H O N CO V m Ut m N H O 10 CO V 0) N \ R 0' 0 0 'U0 m H H b m C 0 HH 11 1Th V H Q. 0A .13 n Cl 1~ 0 o • Hp 0 O H• 0 LI• tor Ip p o 0 0 0 0 o C 0 0 O UI W O N 0 4 R m UI 10 CO W 10• 1O IO 10 10 N UI Ij M o 0 t0 Q. 0 H R H. I•'• 0 W W IP 01 Of Of Of ON m 0 H '" . 0 K ° 0 FR'• to N to CD CD Co Co CD co c� H O 0 O m 0 W V H t0 W b b 10 10 0 'C O O f 0 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cm C M m W m (Ifr � 1-1 W tl R E F{ U1 N N N N N UI 0 V- ',I,' II 0 0 N H 7 V O O O O O V O m I H. O 0 N m R R Cr O O O O O O O W R R 10 0 0 o m 5 m m .5 0 0 0 0 0 .P 0 i-. ry m 0 o to H 0 0 0 0 o H 0 H. 0 0 '1, Q. to 0 0 0 0 o t0 N' m I ma. C 0 0 ro I U H y y 8 w w N m 0 H H H H H H R 0. H 0 0 o V V V V . .1 ".0. .0. W O F. e U H E a 0F0KW .4 V N 10 WWWWW F UN 0 UI F- 0 00 0 0 0 0 Y 0 N W m FH R 0 O N N 00 H V W 0 C H 0' H• ro VI UI on O 0 UI N 0 Hi 0 O H H H H H H m CO 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 .P X 0 '0 .P V V V V V V ON K R H- 0 0 0 0 0 0 w H. 0 W w W W W W H H+ n 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ '0 0 .P .P .P .P O. .P .P H 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 A II U o 0 0 0 0 0 o NI Q. H- m H 0 • Q K x 0 br� H. 0 W al ch ci 0 0 INi0 0• x ro U' w 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 11 (mt CC 0 0 8 V 01010101010% m N I 0 0 m 0 m 00 W W W W W W 5 W 0 0 0 0 1J. m m H H H+ H H H UI R m M H 0 4 O R H• 0 0 CO C 00 0 H Ci tUn N 0 C .P U U I UUI U1 t UI UI CO 0 m R 0 O m R7 co O UI V V V V V V I R 0+ 0 o R C 0. .I m Ci C1 Cf C1 m E w O O 0 m H 1-' H H H H H U o o K 5. WWWWWW 0 d U •to tto p01 '< '< w 0 0 w w w w 3 0 01 O O V U m N 0 0 w W W W W 0' R O O C 0 m m m 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 m a. .) .... ..4 O O 1NW W 0 I O 0 + m o Q. p 0 0 0 04. ARAdeteAfr ro d (1 0 m (1 aWD w H H H I-. .0 m °0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 R to N C H .0. 3 1.3 3 b 0 0 o 0. 0 0 6) 61 0 r m N H or H m N W W W WWW 'C * * * • * * * * * * * * * * * * W 10 t0 0 V 00 0 0 V H I W N W N H W 0 V V CO H H 0 In V H m co H 00 00 N 'C 0 0. N W O OD m 00 00 m 0 N W W 0m N .P I W H 10 Co m b1 00 0'N R to H H F+ H 1•+ H H V H H H H H H R 10 In W W N In 01 W W 01 0 H .P N N N N N N W 'O U' CO (O W ID NO CO 10 N H 1.1 H 1.1 0 H W .0. N .P 01 N W W C m oo m - 0 W N a1 W O N N N N 0 ro V N H UI .P W UI m H 4. UI V W t0 01 N UI ut a CO O CO 01 OD 0 W K.' W m ut V O W CO UI ut b V 0 UI 0 0 0 CO 0 V UI t0 N .P tO 01 ON 01 m XI I I-. m CO F+ H+ H' CO CO H H H .P .P O. G H ID 01 in W W O1 V V N N N Ft W 01 C0000616161 61 w IP co V VI W .P 0• 'U H W m 10 t0 tD N O H W N N H . 5 Q. 'C N U' CO WNW VI O W W t0 W W Cr V 01 V 0 . . 0 W N VN I V Of VI Of CO0 m R P W P O COW V W COP 10 C W VI V 01 H H CO 0 V V 0 VI 0 0 0 N m W UI 10 N V N CO N CO H. m W XI Ut N oto H W W W W W .P A A M H 01 W CO 00 H VH CO W 10 ro 10 tD 0 0 0 w C H We w UI a VI o o to H t0- VI W N W .P W N W .P UI 0 H NO .P 0 0 0 0 0 P P m . . CCQ. R 0' . Q n n .twCfDoDw VI V MONO w O V 0D 0 001 0 0 0 0 0 OV\ 0/IT .P CO VI 10 N V N CO A H 1Q in O O O O O O O UI SII N WN N N M H W m V 01 0 m a1 m W ( H W m mw H V H H UI to co m m H10 N 0D O H m H VI p1 C P N V V V 1-,. (] .P W H H N N 0 H ✓ V .P VI 0 m H V W .P .P m N 0 CO W 1Q 0 0 0 V V N m V ilk N W 2 W 0 HW 10 14 m UI H W 0 H cop V '0 W 10 N .P UI VI H W m U C ut 0 R I I N 0D N or VI V 0 m H- O 0 N ON VI N 0 VI 0 < O I I H t0 N .P V W 0 m E YJ 19- # „2,.-. torY i-n k'a (A Division of Hughes Associates,Inc.) 287 WATER STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 PRINTING COMPANY PHONE (612) 474-8896 RECEIVED JUt3f 1995 July 28, 1995 Mr. Paul Bilotta City of Shakopee 129 Holmes St. So. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Paul: Re : Blocks 3 & 4 This letter is to confirm our conversation of today. As I mentioned to you, I will not be able to attend the Economic Development Authority meeting on Tues. , August 1, but wish to express my sincere desire to upgrade my property located at 123 E. First Avenue. I have clear title to the property and am willing to get bank financing for a new front, roof, inside or whatever it might need to improve the quality of down- town Shakopee . Thank you for relaying my thoughts to the Tuesday night meeting. Si - ely, Al Ir Ronald N. Hughes MEMO TO: Shakopee Economic Development Authority FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Property Acquisition/Relocation Assistance DATE: June 29, 1995 INTRODUCTION: If the Shakopee EDA selects to proceed with acquisition of the properties located within Blocks 3 and 4, staff would like to recommend that a professional firm be utilized to lead acquisition and relocation efforts. BACKGROUND: The time commitment that will be necessary to facilitate the acquisition and relocation process is more than what can be handled by existing staff. Furthermore, existing staff does not have the expertise to deal with the guidelines set forth in the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act. Therefore, staff has solicited two proposals from consulting firms that specialize in property acquisition and relocation. The proposals were received from the following two companies: 1.) Conworth, Inc. and 2.)Evergreen Land Services Company. Both companies have previous experience in working with municipalities on property acquisition and relocation projects. The total not to exceed costs for the acquisition and relocation phases as submitted by Conworth, Inc. is estimated at $37,000.00. The not to exceed cost estimate submitted by Evergreen Land Services Company equates to $52,000.00. Upon reviewing both firms qualifications and experience as well as calling communities who have previously utilized the services of the consultants, staff would recommend that the low cost quotation submitted by Conworth Inc. be accepted. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not utilize professional consulting services to complete the property relocation and acquisition process. 2. Authorize the appropriate EDA officials to execute documents accordingly to facilitate the utilization of Conworth Inc. for the property and relocation and acquisition process associated with Blocks 3 and 4, OSP. 3. Authorize the appropriate EDA officials to execute documents accordingly to facilitate the utilization of Evergreen Land Services Company for the property and relocation and acquisition process associated with Blocks 3 and 4, OSP. 4. Table action pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1. ACTION REQUESTED: Do not utilize professional consulting services to complete the property relocation and acquisition process. BAS/tiv-h:\wp51\docs\tami\admin\eda SOF MEMO TO: Shakopee EDA President& Commissioners FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director RE: James Development Firm,Inc. Request for Financial Assistance DATE: July 26, 1995 BACKGROUND: Mr. Ralph Schmitz, President of James Development met with me last week and discussed the possibility of receiving some form of economic assistance,possibly tax increment financing, for the development of the Arlington Ridge Multi-Family Housing Project which will be located in Western Shakopee in the vicinity of the Shakopee Valley Mall. Mr. Schmitz indicated that he believes his project has experienced several problems which has cost him time and money and which has also resulted in the project being down sized considerably. The attached letter from Mr. Schmitz describes in much greater detail the experience of the Arlington Ridge Project and the City of Shakopee. Representatives of the firm will be at the August 1, 1995 Economic Development Authority meeting and will be commenting further on their request at that time. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Economic Development Authority listen to the proposal of James Development and then direct staff to take the appropriate action. 07'24'95 15:37 a 6122520992 Janes Dev Fir 02 tune 2iuefopmcnt Jtrm, ine. 225 Ilsr14 1:441•••!haw,.S a. #204, Sash Rwrih, twwaolw 56379 Am., 612 252.25221w. 612.252.0992 ppselsoadora July 24, 1995 Shakopee Economic Development Authority ATTN: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Arlington Heights - James Development Firm, Inc. Our File: 95-3787 Dear Members of the Economic Development Authority: As most of you are aware, James Development Firm, Inc. has been involved in the proposed development of apartment units towards the west end of Shakopee at the junction of Taylor Street and the proposed new Vieling Drive. In the course of the planning for the development there have been numerous events which have added significantly to the cost, timing and difficulty of the development. For the reasons hereinafter explained, we are requesting that the Economic Development Authority consider a request for pay as you go tax increment assistance for the project. As background, we would provide the following information: 1. When our company researches a city looking for a site to develop, it only considers sites which are properly zoned for the anticipated development. In the instant case, we were looking for multi-family zoned property which would not require significant rezoning. The site selected met that criteria. The site was zoned to allow 203 units and we entered into a purchase agreement based on that zoning. After careful investigation and close consultation with planning department officials, we downsized the density to 144 units, 59 units less than the density allowed under the zoning. It was our opinion that this was a compromise which was in the interest of the Developer and the City of Shakopee. 2. Because Shakopee does not have a huge rental stock and the addition of 144 units would have a major effect on the marketplace, we decided that the project should be developed 07/24/95 15:38 a 6122520992 Janes Dev Fir 03 in three phases to insure the success of the development and avoid the problem of potential default. To develop in three phases required re-platting of the site. Iii view of the zoning, we expected this process to be relatively simple. 3. The City of Shakopee has a significant need for moderate income rental housing. In order to develop apartments today, it is almost essential that low income housing tax credits be obtained for the development in order to justify the costs of development and construction. We have obtained low income housing tax credits for the first phase of 4J units. We are applying for low income housing tax credits for an additional 32 unit townhouse Phase 2. 4. Contrary to our initial impression, the replatting and site plan approval did not proceed smoothly or quickly. We were vilified by neighbors and by certain members of the Planning Commission. What was expected to be a cooperative effort to develop quality moderate income housing became a difficult and drawn out process that has cost our company thousands of dollars. The costs include: A. A second downsizing of the development from 144 units to 112 units or approximately 50i,, of the approved zoning. B. Engineering fees exceeding $75, 000 for design and redesign of the apartment homes and roads and utilities which will serve the apartments. C. The requirement that in connection with the development of Phase 1 that we consent to assessment of the cost of Vierling Drive to the site. D. Construction of holding ponds which serve not only our area but a substantial portion of the area surrounding our site. E. The cost of construction of townhouse style units as opposed to standard apartments units on the final two phases of the site which is estimated to be at minimum of $10, 000 per unit in addition to the reduction in density by 32 units. F. The initial process was thought to encompass a two to three month time frame. It is now a six to nine month time frame. The first phase will be directly involved with winter construction and rent-up, each of which is a costly and a negative factor. . Through all of the delays, misinformation and personal disappointments of the development process, our company has attempted to act in a responsible and tempered manner. We have listened to the criticisms and suggestions of the City and residents without overreaction and in an attempt to develop a plan 07/24/95 15:40 S 6122520992 Janes Dev Fir 04 which will be a credit to our company and to the City of Shakopee. To that end, we now need some assistance from the City to justify and assist in the costs which are being incurred to provide a development acceptable to the City, neighbors and our investors. We would respectfully request that the EDA grant to us five years of pay as you go tax increment assistance on the final two phases of the project. This will allow us to economically develop that site as requested and hopefully obtain the necessary low income housing tax credits from Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. If tax increment assistance in the amount of five years of property taxes are granted, we will obtain additional points in the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency selection procedure. The changes to the development have made it very difficult to develop only one phase of the project. In order to do a second or third phase, it is necessary to obtain the low income housing tax credits as well as the tax increment assistance. We respectfully ask that you consider our request in the same spirit with which we have accepted the events which have transpired to date in the development of the site. We will attend the meeting on August 1st to discuss our request in person. Thank you in advance for your consideration. It would be appreciated if you would notify us on the time of the meeting. Sincerely, Ralph Schmitz President RS/seb To: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Subject: HRA Tax Levy Date: 07/26/95 Introduction The EDA has received the attached two letters. Staff is researching options available to the EDA and will have information available at the meeting. THOMAS L. HENNEN SCOTT COUNTY AUDITOR COURTHOUSE 103 .fr 3 " , 428 HOLMES STREET SOUTH SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1379 (612) 496-8160 Deputy Auditor THOMAS LANNON July 7, 1995 William Jaffa 16049 Franklin Trail SE #104 Prior Lake MN 55372 RE: City of Shakopee-Economic Development Authority Mr. Jaffa: It has recently come to my attention that the City of Shakopee will no longer be operating under the authority of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. It has reestablished itself as an Economic Development Authority. As you are probably aware when I spread the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authorities levy, I excluded the City of Shakopee. My question of you is, for taxes payable in 1996, do I include the City of Shakopee in the spread levy for Scott County's H.R.A.? If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hennen Scott County Auditor CC: meg Voxland, Shakopee Finance Director Gary Cunningham, Scott County Administrator TLH/mkk An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action/Safety Aware Employer SCOTT COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 16049 Franklin Trail S.E.#104 Prior Lake,Minnesota 55372 „roost (612j 447-8875 Fax(612)447-8865 Ami A mmimmmmimmmmmmmmimmh... INWilliam I.Jaffa July 10, 1995 Executive Director Thomas L. Hennen Scott County Auditor Courthouse 103 428 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN. 55379-1379 RE: Scott County HRA 1996 Special Tax Levy Dear Mr. Hennen: In response to your letter dated July 7, 1995, the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority does plan to include the City of Shakopee in the spread levy for taxes payable in 1996 . The City of Shakopee will continue to benefit from the Scott County HRA housing programs and services even though they no longer have a housing authority of their own. Please feel free to contact me if you require further clarification. In closing I thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, - )- '-- W1. Liam I . Jaffa Executive Director WIJ:ejm cc: Marjorie Henderson, SC-HRA Chairman Gary Cunningham, Scott County Administrator Greg Voxland, Shakopee Finance Director Maynard Harms,District I Marietta Sharkey,District II Marjorie Henderson,District III Mary Beth Onkka,District IV Sylvester Wacker,District V An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer EDA' G To: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Subject: Proposed 1996 EDA Budget Date: 07/26/95 Introduction Attached is a proposed budget for 1996 for Commission discussion. Background Attached is the proposed 1996 EDA budget for discussion. The actual action to adopt the budget and tax levy will be prepared and brought back at the September meeting for adoption by resolution. Action Requested Discuss and give staff direction. EDA FUND 1996 BUDGET ACTIVITY: Activity includes the operation of the Shakopee Economic Development Authority including research and development of projects to improve housing, community resources, and economic opportunities in Shakopee. Preparation of applications and administration of grants to accomplish above activities. Staff must maintain EDA records and prepare materials for policy decisions by Commissioners. The Commission is made up of the four City Council members, Mayors and the two member os the Community Development Commission. OBJECT DESCRIPTION: Description of lines items: Salaries: Share of City Staff including City Administrator (25%) , asst. City Administrator (25%) and Planning Director (50%) . Miscellaneous: $25,000 Downtown Rehab Grant Program CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 1996 BUDGET EDA FUND BUDGET SUMMARY 1993 1994 1995 1996 Actual Actual Budget Proposed Revenue Taxes $ 25,605 $ 26,579 $ 101,710 $ 101,710 Intergovernmental 4,977 5,368 5,370 5,370 Charges for Service Miscellaneous Interest 24,762 16,212 12,000 12,000 Sale of Property 118,351 Total Revenue 55,344 166,510 119,080 119,080 Transfer in Total Revenue and Transfers 55,344 166,510 119,080 119,080 Expenditures Personal Services 25,791 27,642 70,630 73,130 Supplies & Services 25,295 106,195 45,950 45,950 Capital 1,500 16,906 2,500 - Total Expenditures 52,586 150,743 119,080 119,080 Excess (Deficiency) Of Revenues over Expenditures & Transfers $ 2,758 $ 15,767 $ - $ - Fund Balance December 31 275,690 291,457 291,457 291,457 1996 CITY OF SHAKOPEE PROGRAM BUDGET WORKSHEET 15 Economic Development Authority Fund Program 191 Object# Description Management Total 4101 Wages FT- Reg. $ 58,760 $ 58,760 4110 Wages- Temporary - 4121 PERA 2,630 2,630 4122 FICA 4,500 4,500 4131 Health & Life 4,100 4,100 4151 Workers Comp 3,140 3,140 Total Personnel 73,130 73,130 4210 Operating Supplies 4,400 4,400 4240 Equipment Maintenance 100 100 4310 Professional Services 10,000 10,000 4320 Postage 20Q 200 4321 Telephone .250 250 4330 Travel/Subsistence 800 800 4350 Printing/Publishing 500 500 4360 Insurance 200 200 4380 Utilities 1,500 1,500 4390 Conference/School/Train 1,000 1,000 4410 Rents 1500 1,5b0 4430 Miscellaneous 25,000 25,000 4433 Dues 500 500 4437 Property Tax/Special Assess - Total Supplies & Servic 45,950 45,950 4550 Capital Expenditures - - Total EDA $ 119,080 $ 119,080 N 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON N N u N U N A II n C23 E u n Cn W N n O 0 N n n CU Q N If C4' ,~CAI N N n a n N N N N • N 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 II N N II II II F N N II Z El N II W Ca N Z W N II F A N II II OwII n II a x N II w N A N N n N N r4a0010 .-1 in 0000O10r-IM1- 000 MOO 0 00 0 in it N c0 M a' O1 in V' 111 b N tD M 01 M CO N N V' C` N V' 01 m 10 Cl. V' V' I-4 in V' u N - N A I H 1--1ri ri N V' N 1 111 El o. n I O M 10 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 11 Or-1COV' 0 CO 000 OLn00000000 in O O co 11 O In N W 0 10 V' ri 0 N N CO 11 In N 0 L1) O Ln 01 Io In O II El 10N V' V' M 0 V' 0 ri H1i111 In N N 01 n W 4-1 01 L7 in N r-1N V' rI n ri n 0 01 E-1 � � O 10•rl 0 0 10 0 10 N M 0 N 01 0 O M M N M U1 0 CO 0 CO <D Ln ri 1O V• N 01 CO M a1 111 10 V' N N O H N .-1 CO N 0 00 In 01 r-1 01 0 V' N E� ,� CI• V' 10 MON 01 c0 1•1 ri VM 10 N N 01 ' N N O N ri N O1 r-1 .-4 H •eI V' ri ri N V' ri N 10 M ri 10 0 N U Q V' .7� N N 01 0 I-1 ,-i H II 01 n ON E-1 a N CO V' 0 V' H N O c0 0 O V' M O ri 0 01 0 O O IA In 0 O 0 \0 N N .-IN 01 01 N 10 01 OriN0r1 0 01 0 0 CO N N O 10 M N 10 0 N V' .-1 ri M 'Cr N N 111 in N it M NHH LO N CO ri H ei10 H Lil N H ei 0N II 1 II 01 0 O1 Et II II H U N u n n n II CO II 0 0 U z w II H CO n H a II CT) V) II 0 CO COI H CO Z \ H CO C>; z N E• CO wz > OH a U U 0 n a U Hwa zxQ COH II CO H H El.] HW CT) Cil a > H m II 4 Z > a Z N E+ H U x CO x A H II A W W C:4 a CO 14 HU CO \ W • z > r~ n rz r2. a CO A 4 a H W > CO A En CO H O N CO HZ CO C) ZF4Cn COa rx� 0 < a A •r.1 N 1 a 4O zw al El] E43 w E• '?1 >C N U a CDE' 041 w ',.ELI cnC ZEi CO a Ai ii O) E• .3COCc1 Z Z CL Z En CDU Z >+ CO Z A k n riG4 = Ix z E ZEOLDE9 = 4H Haag a H Z aEl 03 ELI 4 w amt 1 4 H EDidU4aa CO CHI OaCEna < HCOH Z Z N w O a a a EO J I WH•13a4H. x3 CO OWawaEw• WEAaHH 0I% Zga COA4E U El U a) II 1 > alb N HririNr•1ri 000100r-I0000000MN 00 •r-s0 n If) A0NNM111 riV• ririNNMIn10a001r1MMM ri011 A U It H 1•1 H H ri H N N M M M M M M M M M V' V' V' V• N Ln 0 n ri V' V' a' a' a' V' V' a' V V' a' V V' V' a' V' V' V. V' V' V' 11o.. CONSENT Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1995 based on data entered as of 7/27/95. CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 07/27/95 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 69,450 2,709 32,150 46 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 220,940 6,053 101,708 46 13 CITY CLERK • 121,170 4,809 64,025 53 15 FINANCE 303,390 9,456 180,303 59 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 212,090 8,778 111,194 52 17 PLANNING464,430 26,668 199,962 43 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 148,120 5,492' 69,220 47 - 31 POLICE 1,495,760 51,090 776,206 52 32 FIRE 410,240 2,449 143,071 35 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 197,780 7,664 99,212 50 41 ENGINEERING 357,100 12,526 169,071 47 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 759,180 20,834 268,920 35 44 SHOP 112,120 6,837 53,363 48 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 292,420 14,163 148,601 51 61 POOL136,580 13,730 48,765 36 64 RECREATION 239,580 11,819 127,547 53 91 UNALLOCATED 129,570 121,589 23,496 18 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,669,920 326',666 2,616,814 46 saa 17 PLANNING 467,160 21,660 189,867 41 TOTAL TRANSIT 467,160 21,660 189,867 41 .:s 19 EDA 119,080 1,883 46,369 39 TOTAL EDA 119,080 1,883 46,369 39 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a H E H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ri N CII CI a V 0 a En U . - H In N to to .t0 t0 to to to t0 t0 tO t0 to to to N CO ori 1.1 vi .dr V V dl dt d1 V VVI ell d1 VVt a1 d1 er N N N ri ri ri ri r1 e-1 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri o1 ri ri 0 0 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O M 0 M H 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA rI 0 In O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O N rI O N O 4t t0 00 0 ri rl ri-ri rl ei r♦ ri ri ri O r-I ri M 0 O M rI rI M M NNNNNNNNNNMNN N rI r4 CO N M dl el, M M M M M M M M M M dt M M ri N tO rI M • dt dt dt eN •:11 yr 'd1 'V el, VeM er .d/ Vdt VN N •414N eN 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I O ri rI O r♦ N ri ri ri rl ri ri rI ri ri ri rI N 0 ri N ri U to rl C1 N n t0 dt N U1 N ri M M M N ri ri ell N rI 111 U rI t0 C1 M rl ri t0 rl rI dt dl rI M rI rI M C1 00 M Ct ri 4 O O C1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C1 C1 O 0 6.3 N a a Pl_ IA 0 PG a p. u H N N4 a H O 04 W U can ZII NNUANNNriN a a z PI 000000000000 w ri 0 • A x x x x x x x x x x a x x U o In x DI a a a a a as alA14aa 1 a DIl Ntl D7 DI Nt] W D4 N4 67 NI U h714 a' • E CO Nd laaaaaaaaaacn a U 0 CO n a HElElHHHHHHHZ H-1 Pi U A N H H o z Z CFIE Ea H 2E7PI y U r4 E-1 N O OP a C4 03 W 0 q 0 H h U z CII 03 O p• U H a H H E El E H H H E E E I E1 H a. H trl H 14 vv)i H A I!! 4214.8 Ix 17! a! .i1 41 ill to a! N x NN a in U A E E H H E E H H E E H H E o1 a N ti ON 1 i i 0 0 n it it it it # it # it it N El 0 0 O O O O In C1 In O to O 00 t0 dt 00 in to o ri VI es O O In U1 O O M M O O O O O O O t0 O N C1 er In M 00 C1C1C1 N N O O O O N N O O rI ri r-I • . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 0 0 N N t0 t0 t? in. U1 N In O. i? ak t? In M M i? n M o er es O O ri r1 rI ri C1 C1 1'0 1 N N 10 W. t? ri t? i? i? VI. LI. N N 03 00 In In to to N N 0 0 r I ri r I r I f? t? rI M M er 'r11 r-I ri N N ri r I H U tNik0n n N3 .0 an C4 U DI H CP NI n C) C1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 H E ri ri ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 . ' \ \ \\\\\\ \N,\\N,\\ . \ \ \ � CTI Q N N N N N N N N N n n n N n N N N N N N N C4 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a � � � ,,,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, . � 14 U In U1 In In to In N to to In in In M to to to In in in In to U W CI C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 01 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 01 01 CO 01 C1 W .'I', C► 01 CO C1 C1 01 C1 C1 C1 01 01 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 01 C1 CO CO CO UU ri ri rI ri ri ri rl ri ri 4-1 ri ri ri rI ri ri ri ri ri ri ri 0 r7 Z 0 ri N CO C1 O ra N M C. DL In In in N N N N N N rPZ U O O O 01 C1 C1 01 01 CO 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aaaaaa a a a s a s a a a a a 04 H HHHHH H H H H H H H H H H H H Cl m bl Id Pi •i 0 a 11<] U MI H Cl C1 01 01 C1 Cl 0 H el ei H N in m dl O dl d' dl dl mo dl to co u1 1A in IA 'dl in N N 10 In rt rl rl H el H e1 ri O H elelrl Y1 in O r 1 Cl HM M M M M M M t0 M M M M - O O O M N M H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in t0 N 0 M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ei 0 0 0 0 01 M el 0 M 0 4C el H el ei el el 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I. 0 0 N N N N N N el rt et el Y1 el H VI H e. el ell M M M M M M M N Cl Cl M Cl M N M 'II' N N ellVI NO V/ •dl"di VI N dl VI VI VI VI VI dl m VI VI 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I O el e-1 el el H el el 0 el el el el el el H In el el U N Is 041 N el el CO VI el ep el el N VI VI 0 H N U H 10 el M VI M H W Cl 10 Cl M M VI 10 00 M ei e4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 ul 'J Hr7 14 14 H 14 > ZU2 103 Z 1.11 H > u1 14 Z H aaVI 04 0 a aH c] ei - Pi H V1 N 14 14 HH • oi a H HfC 14 N V] 10 V] N a 0 b D H b t4 Z U T� Tr I N 7r N H U 'Ta •'r5 C9 Z 0 •Te H U H IA 000000 N HHZH V] W eai A x x x x x x co U E E HE� E cn El aaaaaa 14 aaZg 14 N 14 -1 H DI a a a a a 0 0 14 14 H 14 0 D 0 D W D HE • aaaO01H E 14 lE a U 0 0 04 0 Di ?I 0 HHHHHH 14 El H al 1410414141414 C4 C4 a O V] V] VI V] V] U a 41 Epi V] N N N W y Z N 14 I-1 Z VI N y N N CO O O O O a H el 04 W 04 Det W 1511 Z U U U U El H U .41 Ia Ia A Fa la la 0 6 El 0 Dao 0 0 aaaaaa U a 11411 o4 E N N HHHHHH E H aaaa 0 la e4 U �Z1 333333 a h aaaa 04 a aI 0 COI > E H E E E E 04 a a a a co x a H x 41 eil 1!I tb tl! 041 V] 80 0 0 0 0 YI pe4 8 a H in EEEEEE qq aa �zzuzHuzz a 44 ga a 04 a1 4 04 04 4 4 R R e4 4 4 I W 01 Al U H IN # 0 # # # # # # # # N E t0 t0 I.C. I• CI el 00 I• Is 0 0 M Cl 0 H M 0 0 IA Ill CO CO IA In ep VI 01 Cl O I• O O Ml O eN N N 0 0 M 01 VI I• VI O O N N IA IA N N ei ei IA IA O 0 H 0 el 10 H ei el CO CO 0 0 M 10 0 10 N 0 0 IA IA 0 0 Cl Cl 10 10 CO CO I, 1 el H H M N 0 Cl 10 to In In M M e• 10 0 0 0 0 0 Cl N N 01. 10 10 Cl Cl t/f 41, fI, t/h i? el el el el VI V• t? N O 10 CO di VI N N ri r I H H f? tr t/l• t •4• 1+4 ? +h +h f/* +M l in. e• 44. t? N 4A. VI. ah f? yr E U 44. t/L D4 x C4 U 03 E In 14 4-1 r♦ r4 4-1 ei H e-I ri r4 H H rl H H H H H e-1 H E O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 14 \\\\\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ W Q CO CO Co 03 CO CO CO CO O CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO 03 00 IX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W U IA In IA In In IA N In u1 In in In to In In In in in U 64 a% Cl 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cl Cl 01 01 01 01 Cl Cl Cl Cl 04 ••L", 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cl Cl Cl a% a1 Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 01 U U 4-1r1 e-1 el el el el el el el el el el el et el el el O O Z I� CO Cl 0 vi . N M no IA to H In in in 10 10 1010 10 10 10 U 114 N Cl Cl Cl N Cl Cl N Cl N D�.e U Cl 01 C1 •Cl Cl Cl 01 Cl Cl Cl 1s4 VI VI 41 VI VI VI VI VI VI VI O x O O O O O O O O O O U U a a a a a a a a a a a a a H H H H H H H H H H H H H co N b1 N a •i 0 a w ri U W N H In t0 N co t0 01 dt to O rl sOin In In ri in M in N Min to rl rlri CO rl 111 rl 'to VI r1 N O rl M M M 0 M' dl M rl 10 M rl 0 M H O o O ri O dt O O O O ri N 0 O O O M o er O O O O in rl 0 18 N 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O • o O O r• 0% rI 'dt rl rl N rl ri 4-1 dl er 01 eN M N to N M N N N N N N N M •r dl rl dt dt R0 'dl Vdt V •41I I I t I I I I I I I I I O 01 N rl 0 M rl M 0 rl ri rl rl ri U O rI M CO CO 01 do N ri 4-1 In to ri U Co M rI N rt rl rl dl er t0 M ar t0 A', 0 O 0 co 0 0 0 o% O O O O O H U H V Z zz \ CO Co H C4 N N 03 H H °c a a vi o a a s-1 Z ZZ H H U a a a a a H H C4 H 14 Z IA En H > 07 �Ea CI] (too) Cl) 01 U) [� W Cl) U Z Z 7714 igC 14 HI+ Z H p CD CD Z 'El 03 deE4 E-1 E-1 pU 'moi H A C4 H W g H 14 Da 0 OG PC a W a W 0 H W w W H H a o o a a aIx o a a a a a >4 U 0 w 0 a Z 0 0 o W w C4 la Ei 14 0 0 3 0 H Z a A >4 co Z Cl) C7 OM w 11:31 a Z rI WW" pl '+ `e W O H W o' a rte: a H Z V1 Cl) fA N 0 0" H CTI H ° Cl) E. >4 >4 z 0 Z /aH� Aqp 1z� to h• w a a H Ia H E•'t 0 h H H 14 Cl) o W H lxi H a a0 0 A v0 w a U H Cl) in Z a k >4 a w a C7 w0 a a1 0 0 0 a 0 a�' U a H H a1 U U Cl U C) A A W p W pq pq rl N 0 8 0 it it # it 0 # # 8 # N 00 00 00 00 00 NN CO CO VI dt 0 0 N N 00 NN 0 rl 01 In O O O O N N 00 t0 In In In in 01 a% O O CO CO er nil CO CO In 0 0 03 Co In In 0 0 t0 t0 M M M M N N In In ' 'I 0 0 IA In CO CO 1-1 h �a f? f? M M N N CO CO 111 In 01 01 In in I- N M M N� I-- In In N N IA rl rt f/r to 0 0 ir} t/} 40 40 tr} ilk rI ri 0 0 Vt. V} M M tri ri in H UW V} V} V} VI. V} V} M M U w H Cl) 14 rI rl rI rl ri ri rl rt 4-1 r1 ri 4-1 ri H H o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O O o CD IC W A co Co co Co Co co co o m m Co Co Co Gd o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O >4 AG U in IA to In In In In In in in I41 01 In U W 01 a1 01 01 0% a1 a% a% a% 01 01 01 01 14 M a1 01 01 01 01 a1 a% a% 01 a% a% a1 0% U U 1-1 4-4 ri ri r1 ri rl rI F4 rl ri r1 rl O r7 Z C` o 01 0 rl N M V . In 40 N CO H t0 to t0 N N N N N N N N N C) W NN N N N N N N N N N N U 01 a% 0% 01 01 01 QI 01 01 01 01 01 T3' .44 .40dl '0, dt nr sN di Trdl d' VI 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pi a a a a a a a a a a a s H H H H H H H H H H H H H VI m b1 al 04 •I 0 Pi II Di to U to to H N M II N In t0 a1 0 a1 N CO Co O 10 t0 10 I t0 t0 10 N 0 10 10 10 ri e-1 4-1V1 4-1 !1 1-1 ri e-I 1 ri ri T-1M M M 01 CO M M M M 'd' M M M H 0 0 O I CD 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ri 0 0 0 0 rl 0 0 0 4C I- N O O O O N N N O O O O N N 1-I ri ri ri N N N r'I eP d' II I, d' N M M N eN d' d' M N N N M m d• d' d' 'd' M m m d• d• d' d' I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I O in In ri Co CO ri to r1 In N N ri In U O O It m m d' O ri O rl N d' N U Co Co eI II d' t0 Co t0 Co 10 NV d' t0 04 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 O 10 O O O U U U 0 U U H (Z [Z14 Z�[-ii Z co co 04 H g 01 01 N g �.�1'moi ?1 o 14 DI a 14 14 a 14 a 14 14 H H E E H a en y a E ch El y1 H H H H H y N H > a [gam g gr U El El 0 0 0 0 CHET 1 H Z 'fir z CI g 44 04 H ai coN 04 t3 44 01N 'A g W 03 O 14 0 g 14 E 0 Da O Pi H PI PI I:3 D 0 a >IaW>i >4 o a o >4 as 1S4 14 U U E+ Z H H /y H y crl 14 O HH eI6] U IO 7 H 4 , h 14 U . UVo O bU H U W Nl �r7 aaz xU H 0 4.703 H H Et co a C4 U0 EEo Z ai o Zin Z co Z 4-1 in P3 0p o 001 Al D1 P4 0 0 0 0 'JC x x x ri N * ♦ s it is • s s a +1 * s it N O 1A In 0 0 in in m m 0% 01 10 t0 In {A 0 0 0 0 Cl 01 0 0 0 0 0 MI NN In In N N In in 1.1 ri N t` NN 00 to to N N in to IA 0 IA O 0 ri Co COCO CO N N M tel ri ri IA to Co Co N N CO CO N in C% a1 d' N ri 17 1 In f? if so. $ fM V.* In in 10 1O ri ri f? co. ri N vs. go. O O M m 1-1 ri M N 01 a1 a1 a1 t0 10 N N 10 10 4l iM f? ll} A 14 N N N N ri ri E U as. as. In to Op N 141 NN x a U w E to 14 r I ri e-I 4-1 ei ra ri r♦ r♦ r♦ ri rl e-t H• E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 q m m Co CO Co Co m Co CO CD CO CO CO a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 U in In In in in in in In in In in In to U 1'4 01 01 a1 a% a1 01 a1 01 a1 a1 01 a% a1 117 1Z1 a% a% 01 01 01 a1 a1 01 01 a% a1 a% a1 U U ri 4-4 .-t ri rI 1-1 1-1 ri r♦ ri ri rI ri O A g 01 0 r♦ N M d' in 10 N Co a% O ri H , N CO CO CO w CO CO Co Co Co CO 01 C11 U 1+4 N N N N N Cl N Cl N N Cl N N U 01 ON 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0% 01 01 14 d• d' d' d' d' d' eI d' d' d' eI d' er O 7'. O O O O O O O O O O O O O U U a a a a a a a s a a a a a a a ` H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H to �T7. In tn Id a •i 0 Po 14 U H ri N In M d1 In V1 t0 h co a1 0 0 0 R. N h h VN h h h h h h h CO CO CO V1 ri Ii M rl I l I-4 rl rl 1-i rI ri ri rI rl N M M N M CO) M M M M M l+1 M M M H e11 - O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O 4-1 O 0 Z 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O O 3C 0 O h M O 0 0 0 0 0 Ct 0 O O O rI ri h M 1-1 N ri ri N ri CO H ri rl ri M N sl, di N u1 M M In N eM N N N N II all eN .d1 ‘311I viM e11 V' 111 ell I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O ri rl IA 4-1 ri CO l0 ri CO r1 rl rl rl N ri U eN N 0 M rl M N rl M eN rl H er r1 r♦ U 10 M CO M M eI t0 di d1 t0 co ri l0 M t0 AI' 0 O • O O O Cs l0 O 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 01 03 H W W H H Cl, E Cl, V) CO VI Z oa H t H a s H W • H H H H o 67 a M 1-7 14 67 1-7 14 .1 a a a H O a H a 0 0 a No a a a a H C4 El eh ad ad ad Pi ad H Zy > N z to 01 y 13 0113 y •0 0 0 El 0 co O O V1 0 A 0 0 0 0 cn H Z U Z 0 H H 0 Z H Z Z Z IZ 14 V1 H i1 H IT.I V1 CO Z H VI H H H H A 01 El F H V] CO H El 14 H H H N 01 14 a a aa 0. s g gg apasba0a A 14 a a a a 0 >I 0 13 as CQ 0 z 0 000 C4 H H U CO 14 z C.) C.) 0 a Z r♦ co H 0 0 a 14 w er N0 a to aH4 H H z H o > H 14 El H N H H A E1 W 14 In 1 104 H o0 a HCa ai vUi y z H H Hr ON .�'0, oil x H Fl H H H h .H�i !4i ri h 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 # 3 3 « N 0 0 01 a1 0 0 0 0 In V1 0 0 V1 CO M V1 V1 N N 0 0 V1 In t0 N l0 CO CO h h In 115 0 0 NI. all O O rI O N V1 V1 N N 0 0 h h N t0 sr r1 . . . . • . . . . . 1 0 M M h h CO CO 1f1 1n In 1.41 M M eil N 10 W W h h l0 10• 1n In rl In 01 17 1 CO 01 l0 t0 f? 4* C1 01 I NII h h 10 CO e11 In 141 a1 C1 ri ri VI In l0 d1 M f? 4/1 1-1 rI r♦ rl V1• th 10 CO CO t& h d/ ell f? K t? N O. Lk rl 4* N rl I-1 h h El U rl rl N N 4* C4 U C4 H N 1d ri ri rl rI rl r1 ri ri H rI rI H 1-1 ri r♦ H H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 04 ♦ \ �� \ \ � ............ 117 A co co co co W co CO W co co Co co CO CO CO Pd o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b4 � - 5- � ............... bd U in in in in us In In V1 in us in us In In in U 14 01 as a1 as as as C1 as as as CI 01 a1 a1 a1 4 W C1 01 C1 C► C1 01 O1 O1 C1 O1 as C1 O1 01 01 U U ri 1-1 r1 H rI v-I rI rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl 0 A Z N M el, 111 l0 N CO 05 0 rI N H 01 O1 O1 O1 01 01 O1 O1 0 O 0 U 14 N N N N N N N N M M M 17�r U C1 as 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 117 e11 e1I all NI* .0ell Va!I all VeN 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a s a a a a s a a a a a a H H H H H H H H H H H H H H tOm tr id Pi • 0 Pi N U H rI N N M - d' tel t0 t0 N co 01 O ri N O CO Co O CO CO CO CO Co CO CO Co 01 a1 01 r♦ r-1 rl 1-1ri ri ri ri ri .-1yrl .-i ri M M tel m m M M M M m M m M M H - 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4* N O O O O • O M M O O m to O N N M M r-I rI ri ell CO ri M M M rI d' Nil M M I I M I N MN O m N I d' 'd' N r♦ M d' d• d' d' sr M N d' d' d' d' d' d' I I I I I I t O in rI rI rI ri ri ri M N ri ri ri ri rl U 0 rl N M d' N M rI N CD ri t0 d' d' U Co ri ri M t0 ri M 01 ri r♦ M ei d' t0 tIC O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U U U U H En H �i a co UU > N • 9 VI > N Z VI � c� U H H H E y VI pay vii H �n LCil Pi m ai a H H y � gli q y Z a N N 0 H y co Ui V] V1 0 'T� 0 U 0 CD a Z N 04 \\ N H N H H N '.1, H H 0 A apq A co H N o4 04 N H a L a DN4 RNi' U U RNi tA7 N U a o �a a a a 0 a s 0 H g a a Z >4 H H a 0 a N M a a1 A N0 ."ti CDa • 0 x U U E.0 0 N 0>4 i- U O H a 0 N N o4 H H H z H a °` o O H H H H N N N U E.+ N 01 d 01 tg-1 N i tall CO H N o > A A U C9 ix W W C: 0 0 • HH oa Z U Z Zto x N UU Na 01 144 b4 b4 144 144 a a s U H H z ri N • • • # # 0 • • # 0 # • N t' 00 ONN 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 NI", 00 NN 00 0 M 0 0 to N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y1 U1 N In t0 t0 O 0 ri r♦ U1 to 0 rI • • . . . . . • . • . . . • . • • . . O 010 N N O Cl Co em 14 t• N N M in th in N N 0 0 to to is t` O O O Po 4 e' ri ri N +h M t0 t0 ri ri N N rt ri N N N N N N t0 co t0 t0 ri N Nth th ih rI v-I ri rI N. 4/1 VS. 4I. N N ri rI Vt. (% rI ri VI, i? M 0 th • • th N • • t/Y N tit th • A 14 e-1 ri Ill til Y H U a} th th N th N M M U N H N N ri ri ri ri ri ri rI ri rI ri ri ri ri ri H H 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 4 - -� • .., �� - -, .., N A co Co 03 Co Co Co CO Co 03 Co Co Co Co CO a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 ��to to to to to to to to an to to to to to U N 01 01 01 a% a% a% 0% a% 01 01 01 0% 0% 01 N .'4' at a1 a1 0% 01 01 01 0% 01 0% a% 01 01 a% .'4' U ri ri rI ri r-I ri r♦ ri v-I v-I ri ri ri • ri U 0 a Z m d' Io %0 N CO 01 0 . ri N M d' H , 0 0 0 0 0 O O ri y y ri •-1U d m m m m M m m m m m m m 01 a1 a% a1 01 0% 01 01 a1 01 01 0% N d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' sr O '.4' 0 O O O O O O O O O O O U U a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Pa ••H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H r- (1)m b1 of a i 0 a w ri U r4 H M Id to 0EI 01 01 Cl r-I 0 001 Cl 01 0011 001 01 t0 01 O 01 01 ri ri ri Nil ri ri r I ri rI 1-I 0 ri 01 ri ri M M M N t0 M M M M m M M N M m H O 0 O r1 ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O rl 0 0 O O 0 ri O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri O M O O OC 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O ri rl 01 ri er ri ri ri r-1 ri ri r♦ er u1 M ri M N M N N M M M M MM N N N M N I. d� d� N VI '0, vi, ll .v1, TI, dI TrTrdl VI i I I I i I I I I I I O ri ri CM 0 1A N CO ri N ri tf1 ri rI ri M ri O r{ dr ri eI N ri M M M N N Ti ri rI !!1 ri U M 10 M co t0 t0 II r• 10 to 10 t0 M t0 ri t0 4 0 O O Cl O t0 01 0 t0 t0 l0 O O 0 0 0 w a U 41wa4wrT1w C) El AH v1 r.7 HHHHHH y W y> w a z > > » p. > w z U alz a H 0 tri 0 0 0 a a a H Ew+ z H H N a U a gH tm tCA m]n vmi vagi FVVIi v 14 �]i a HgzvEi a a d co •moi �i �i ri �i ai ctn epi w CA H N H0 z0 �' w CC, zzzzzz y W H rZ• Z g H H H H H H Z . [ED H� 0 as V1 H W �i V1 03 Ca Ca VJ Vl H .. DH Aa. ply� U PCia C4 ��a Rei D�q Rte. �E � 0 El c�: 0 arl 7 0 in 000000 17 H C44 rfj W C4 a o • a aaaaaa a 01 rvi Pa a o U ci W a a a IN a a 0 Del z H o a E U A to 00000U fi 0 Ca H H H H H H Hyt,' a Wi O •• a I� H 0 000000 a y 0 A U o O a a g to VI ta to VI V1 0 >I H as N 0 U 0 N N v1 y y W 0 W r7 0 H w R R Pa 0t1! Q! Q! 4! U U 0 00 Vp1 ZZZMZZ H H HH a z In Pa a > > col COv10ti) y z a aHa 01 0, g z Zz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a a ri N O 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N 0 N t0 0 ri 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 CO 0 N N 0 0 0 0 er di to In ri N O N ri In M I, I- r• I- In In 00 10 In If . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . 0 0 0 CO Co 0 0 Cl 01 Ii ri In In 0 M N N N d' er Co Co Cl 01 CO Co In In o PG r1 ri 01 01 0 0 CO 0o O O M M 01 r-1 O 01 co Co t0 t0 t0 CO co CO Co v-I ri ri a�ii M 0 0 N N fO• vb ep er t/} co. N yI In 4/1• er ri da (-I ri ri 1-1 ri ri V! y} 01 .4 M ri ri r♦ V! V! V! V! V! • • V! V! • V! V! V! V! N V! V! er N CO E C.) V! V! V! v! V! co. 14M C4 U DI E �Q N F r♦ ri ri ri o ri r4 ri ri rI ri ri r-1I-1ei r♦ H t� O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 4 \ \ \ . \ \ \ \.,\\ \ \ \ \ W AW co CO CO CO CO co CO 0 CD CO CO CO CO CO CO a 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O t. \ \ \ \ \ \ .,\\ \ \ \ \ Mi U In in In In v1 u1 in In In N In in In In to In U M Cl 01 01 01 01 010101010101 01 01 01 Ot 01 41 0 01 01 01 Cl 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cl 01 UU r1 ri ri .-1 ri ri ri rI ri ri ri ri r♦ ri r1 r.I 0 0 Z In t0 N CO Cl 0 ri N M dV to H rI ri ri r♦ rI N N N N N N 0b4 ' M M M M M M M M M M M U Cl 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cl Cl 01 W V er er er d' eI dV VI er VI do 0 U 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • a a a a s a a a a a aaa a H H H H H H H H H H H H H H CO m b1 Id IN •i 0 a Da U H O N r-I m m VI t0 U1 t` r- co O O 0 0 O O N O UI O 0 0 0 0 O N N N N N O NN N N N N N N M M M M M co M Ul M M M M M M H O O 0 0 O 0 O M 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 ri 0 N O O 0 O O 0 4C 0O 0 O 0' 0 O 0 O 0 N 0 0 0 ri r1 ri 01 01 r4 VI VI 'V M N ri VI VI M N M M M N N N N M N N N to .yl dl dl .dl .yl N If' V1 VI dl V Vri 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I O ri rI VI I"I ri 0 N ri ri t0 N rl N O U 1-1 m CO e- ri VI rI VI VI t` ri ri ri CO U M ri r-1 r1 VI co M V1 V/ ri M M M N O O O 0 0 01 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 01 PI 04 Q4 04 U U U U U U Cl) U �.i1 pApq day a� 14 U paq ca zea Z C44' H 0>4 0 0 1t W1 E. hl Z +�7 a ��W+. H Cl) W Cl) H U a H H H Cl) 14 a H Cke H Z Cl) Z Dia t4 �` pad vs . H vs til Cl) H U1 Irl CIl i I H p� A Cl) H Cl) a s U a H T:t4 PI trlN 0 14 PI O Z ? 04 ill Cii AI IX 11 04 H H H H IA 11 D d a O PP. U U U zW Doll H XO. 0 P3 a t4 > a 413 Z Cl) U U PI 4 0 0 Z H 03 H 0 61 t4 U 0 '� 0a a 4 H ri U Z A H Z 14 1.3 crs 0 0 0 )4 H 0 ply 4 4 4 00 `•'• gp C.) w /� h 0 pap U I� a a a PI c4 0 9 0 0 Dao Dav x vt4 14 Hi H '� a 413 03 0 H u 14 PI 14 PI In 0 0 0 Z Z >4 0 E 0 0 P. P. P. Cu 01 U U U 01 CA DIl a H H H A A A A 01 co Cl) Cl) y N Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) U7 CO3 ti O ri r- • • • • • • • • • • • 41 N CO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In to 0 0 In U1 U1 to 01 CO l0 M 0 0 U1 O O U1 In O O O O O ts 1s 1• I- tel U1 01 01 M el VI CO 1-- 4-1 O O ri . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 ID ID O O O O U1 in O 0 0 N N 1/1 U1 ri ri V1 11 M 'IP N ri to U1 I, 1 4-1 O O ri ri t0 1D N N U1 Co CO ri ri 121 U1 M M H i-I N N N Co O O 01 ri ri N N N N N th N M M N N IA U1 N N N N N N ri ri 0 . H N NN NN NN Nth . CO H U ri ri D11 N N M a U PI H N DII r♦ ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r♦ ri ri ri H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 4 - �..., ... S PI A Co Co Co Co CO Co Co m Co CO Co Co Co Co C4 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 �..., � ......�.... P4 U In U1 U1 U1 In U1 U1 U1 In UI In UI U1 U1 U D11 01 01 01 a1 01 01 01 01 C11 01 01 01 01 01 60 St'. 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 C4' U ri ri ri r-I ri ri rl ri ri rI r-I ri ri rI U 0 a Z 10 N co 01 O r-I Cl M VI U1 10 N H . N N N N M M M M M m M m U H M MM M M M m M M M M M Phi U a1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 111 eM VI VI VI VI 41 .d1 VI VI VI VI .11 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a a aaaaa a s a a a a Cu a a s - H H HHHHH H H H H H H H H H H Ot 0) CA 1 of a •i 0 IN 14 U H as 0 rl H H H H N N Cl er in tO N O o o H H H H H H H H H H H H N N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N M Cl Cl M M M M M Cl Cl M Cl Cl Cl Cl H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O in in O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 N N 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O N O Cl H H N H r4 01 H Cl H dl M Co t` H t` H N N �I Cl Cl N N N N N N N Cl Cl sN N H Cl H H DSI dl dl VIet' `dl 'W 'IN 'Ili di 'tll M dl N dl N N 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I O H H H H H H H rl d, H H in H N t0 N N U dl H N N H dl N el, N N dl 0 H r4 0. H H U t0 Cl t0 er M e 1 er IO.tO H N CO tO at H at"ON a,' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U ,U�j a U a • H CO to Cl in rzi 141 V1 pA H z a HH H HW U to H a icC o w a s a a [� . w 0 ca a w a H to a s �( a EE-(I a Z E-1 U H a A', to Ei QI a 7. a 7r IN H N �1 E4 a a w H co cocotp/1 ' CO a > N • 0 w C4 z w H to x u a U 0 C7 0 0O EE+ co E+ o Z 0 H co H `Z Z CD Z C4 Z Z N U Z H H A � hl to W H H 0 H Z H 0 E+\ yI A', H y ,?I A C7 t-� E� H E+ H E� a E a CO ai 4 aHgaga gH a x v a °i� 0 CO Cil k7ID HD7H Gb a H a aaa 0aH H oomoCU E( B >4 0 U a v4oa ZZZZZ to as H H H H H v a aaaaa H U U H iCo a m to VI a o Cil CO N tx O C4 4 CO I4 zIEI( 4E+( EE+�I EE�II a s H Tr En H 03 02 y 4 N H W C1 lx1 W a s 0 Z W U 0 1a W 1 o aaaaa VI VI AH H H a 00000 M o 04 C U z off • E( HHE( El Aa E+ x ao1 incri COCO HHHHH ,.1 a CO H H py 0 i i a a 22222 > ›. 3 3 3 N 14 U N it # lI it it # # # lI II 41 N 0 0 0 0 0 In CO 0 1.0 ON H In tO 0 0 N to 0 0 0 0 VI er H H er t` H 00 00 0 00 0 0 H 0 0300 !sr. 1`. 0. In 1n t0 tO d1 dl 00 er t0 H H • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 0 0 o o %o t0 010 I 0 tO N o N N er e' 00 0o 0o 0o Cl Cl de er H H N N 0 00 CO In to co H all O1 In In dl N tO H H to 10 t? t/} VJ• V} v er 00 00 co dl M H H N N H N f? t/) 44. tO Cl t? Cl VI. fM ftiI Nil In in In In at Cl Cl .4 a( (A. V} VI. VI. VI. V) V* VI. VI. • • Ole V • • • • • H H N N H M In E I U 4/1- V} H H H H N x 4/1 4* Vl• V} V) a U W El to hl H H H H H H H H H H H H H tO tO t0 t0 H El O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N 0 A', \ \ \ \\\\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ Cel A co 0 0o 00 00 Oo 00 00 0o co 0o 0o 0o N N NN C4 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 \ \ \\\\\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ b4 U In in In In in in in In in in in in in in in In in U W at at at at at at ON ON a1 aY at apt at at at ON ON W 0 at alt ON 01 01 a1 ON a1 a1 at ON at ON at ON ON ON U U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 a Z 00 Ot 0 H N Cl erin at o H H • Cl Cl er er dl dl nit 11 d1 In In U b. Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl /Z U a, of of a, a, a, a► a, of ata, D17 w '01d' dl dl .0, er w .41d' d' U0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O Ila Of Of O , H H H H H HH H H N a •i 0 a tit U H CO N M rI rl d' at ori N r rl N N N i N N N N N N N M M ri M M M ei M M H 0 O in O O O M1 O O o O N 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 40 0 0 M ri 0 0 CO CO 0 �1 M I M I rl rl I M M rl rI 1A 'pj� �N eN N N NM VII I N N V U M M rl ri dt d' r♦ rI d• U t0 to 01 at r♦ r♦ at at .1t t` to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Da -DD U C 5 Z - a C4 H CO CO 00 H 55 N C4 C4 Ca 0 0 yN N W CO CO O 10 NH O A CO z I a%% H H a% a Cra Oa CO ri 0 0 I- CO �HH AHN r1 'V A C4 a in o P P N mm Doll � N C7 itC z a�-t H 14 14 U cUi U O OU 4 ri 0 CD CD H • O 0 O H 0 H z a • N '• Z A H U W O H H H 14 at O Wr7 Uyy .4H 11 U C.i 14 0 C4 El to D D A a 66o 17 O a at UOOAat CO CCCO 3 ri r• oN 14 0• 0• 0• 0• a1 01 N N 10 0% IA 10 CO M M 0 0 0 O O O O t. N 10 t0 01 N NPI M 01 a1 O O co • 0 0 O O 0 O a1 01 in in O 0 rl Is I- 10 10 0 0 0 h 1 IA IA dt dt in in rl rI IA Co M N N N N 0 0 0% el rI N N 01 a% N N el N d' M M N N 0 0 .r 0 a} 4/3 N y} • • 03 49) • • • • • • • • • • .( W r♦ rl M CO rl t0 t0 ri rl el ri IA H U rI rl i/i rl N i? N N to t/i N 0% Dd 4Q a} N 4/1. M x 4/3 C4 U C4 H CO 1<1 t0 10 10 10 10 10 CO 10 10 H H N N N N N N N N N CD a,' \ \ \ \ \ \ � 14 A r N r- N N N N Is r- O a4 � o o o 5- U U in in in 0% 0% 0% aatt a%0% 0�% 00% Cl a0% Dtl 01 0% a1 01 a1 0% a1 01 0% U U r1-I 1- 1-1 r I rl rI el el ri 1-1 0 A Z N m d' in 10 N 0 0% H to in in in IA In in in C. bG m m m M M m m m NU 14 atVP at 0%de a1sll at 0% 0%di a1 lo O xi O O O O O 0 0 0 U U rl d al fda IA M M CO ut di N LO IA dl N LA 0 0 0 0 O rl CO LA N 01 01 rI rI IA N N N rl 0 CO N • . . . • . . . . . . • . . . M en di ri IA O1 N d1 O1 e' CO v-I N 0 O1 to CO 0 .1O L'• N CO in In 01 IA 01 CO 01 O d• dV N rl e-I IA de O 'aN IA ell rI 10 er • • t/} • • • (/} • • • • • • M ri N M N rI 01 N e-I 0 ri M CD N IA i/- to Vi 01 Op N N N 01 IA t/f tM V* v-I t? en 01 41} K 01 rI L` N v7O q A b. 1 lI d+ A a 41 H B 44 0 IA z 14 M 0 a ZZ H H a Z 0 H v A 0 3 14 En M H Z Oil H Z b 0 44 �r O P 41 41 i A O1 'C . II H H 61 Z v3 41 co 0 H W rI a u A 01 C.) ci1 a H Di A M U e- d• In rI 0 rI In N Co 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 e-i rI N N N N M en en eM CO d' 01 U0 rI rI en di di vii eN di N N N CO O1 a H 3k, qk 4k 40 ?t It qk Ik It 40 00 qk 40 40 U 04 04 44 Ik4 44 44 04 04 04 44 44 44 44 i . b Memo To: Shakopee Planning Commission From: Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planner cig: Date: July 28, 1995 Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment; Revision to the Conditional Use Permit Standards for Industry Zones (Tabled from July 18, 1995, meeting.) Introduction Fischer Aggregates, Inc. has submitted the attached letter withdrawing their request for a text amendment to Section 11.88, Subd. 2 (S.3), regarding specific standards for Conditional Use Permits for Mining. This provision requires that an application for a Conditional Use Permit for mining must provide the following maps of the site and all areas within 500 feet of the site: (1)Existing Conditions; (2)Proposed operations; and(3)End Use Plan. Background At their August 3rd meeting, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that Section 11.88, Subd. 2 (S.3)be amended to require topographic information within 100 feet of the site drawn at a scale of one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet. However, they added that the City Engineer was to use the appropriate discretion to require additional topographic information in order to evaluate the potential impact upon neighboring properties. At the July 18, 1995, meeting of the City Council, the Council discussed this request at great length, and the general consensus was that they felt that topographical information within 1,000 feet should be required. However, they also felt that the City Engineer should have the authority to reduce this requirement on a case by case basis if certain criteria are met. Their decision was tabled to the August 1, 1995, meeting, and the Council directed staff to return with draft criteria upon which the City Engineer would base his decision. Attached is a memo which describes the criteria requested. Alternatives 1. Accept the withdrawal of Fischer Aggregates' request for a text amendment to Section 11.88, Subd. 2 (S.3) . 2. Do not accept the withdrawal of the request for the text amendment and provide direction to staff based upon the information provided in the attached memo. 3. Table the decision and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Action Requested Offer a motion to accept the withdrawal of the request for a text amendment to Section 11.88, Subd. 2 (S.3), and move its approval. {I:\PLAN\CC\1995\CC0725\TEXTMIN2.801} 1 FISCHER AGGREGATES, INC. 8801 W. 150th Street Apple Valley, MN 55124 612-432-7132 July 27, 1995 Terrie Thurmer City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 RE: Withdrawal of Ordinance Amendment Dear Ms. Thurmer: Please withdraw our request for an Ordinance Amendment which was to be heard Tuesday, August 1, 1995. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, (.7 / ,•••650 Liza Robson LR:mc I'd DMI anti WdS':E0 S6, Z2 Int MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: David M.Nummer, Staff Engineer DMS SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment - Fischer Aggregate Inc. DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: At the July 18, 1995 City Council meeting, this item was tabled and staff was directed to prepare criteria for determining when topographic data requirements for mining operations could be reduced below a 1000 foot base requirement. These criteria are included for Council consideration. BACKGROUND: In determining criteria for lessening a requirement, staff was very careful to consider factors which are very objective and logically based. This will help to provide guidance to staff in reviewing requests to lower the topographic requirements, without the possibility of appearing to be arbitrary in the decision. With this in mind, the following criteria were developed by staff. These criteria are based on a minimum requirement of 1000 feet adjacent to the mine perimeter. 1. Where there is development within 1000 feet of the boundary of the mine, and where there is topographic information for such development on file in the City Engineer's office, the 1000 foot requirement may be reduced to the distance to the adjacent development. 2. Where environmental or unique topographic features exist within 1000 feet of the boundary of the mine, no reduction in the topographic requirement will be allowed. These features include, but are not limited to: wetlands, public waters, sensitive groundwater areas, and sensitive land uses such as cemeteries. 3. Where, in the opinion of the City Engineer a 1000 foot perimeter of topographic information is not necessary, the topographic requirements may be reduced to a distance equal to the maximum depth of the end use plan for the mine divided by the maximum roadway grade allowed by ordinance, or 300 feet, whichever is greater. Where the end use of the mine is a reservoir or pond, the depth for purposes of determining the topographic requirements shall be measured from the floor of the mine j:\eng\user\pat\council\topo.mo Staff feels that these criteria are fair and equitable, and can be easily applied to various situations. Staff is however concerned about being in the position to either increase or reduce submittal requirements which are established by ordinance, as this places staff in the position of having to justify the reduction/increase to an applicant. A possible remedy to this situation is to establish an analytical method for determining the topographic requirements. If Council desires to consider this option, staff would recommend the following requirement. Topographic information shall be provided to a distance equal to the maximum depth of the end use plan for the mine divided by the maximum roadway grade allowed by ordinance, or 300 feet, whichever is greater. Where the end use of the mine is a reservoir or pond, the depth for purposes of determining the topographic requirements shall be measured from the floor of the mine. Where environmental or unique topographic features exist additional topographic information may be required. These features include, but are not limited to: wetlands, public waters, sensitive groundwater areas, steep slopes and bluffs, and sensitive land uses such as cemeteries. The 300 foot minimum equates to an end use plan depth of 21 feet (with the current maximum street grade of 7%). Staff feels that this definition will provide adequate topographic information to review a proposed mining site. In addition, staff can always request that additional information be provided by the applicant above and beyond that required by ordinance, and, in an extreme situation where an applicant will not provide additional information but there exists sufficient concern with the project, staff can recommend denial of the project until such time as the concerns have been addressed. This approach appears to be logically based on the ability of an applicant to construct street connections to the adjacent properties in an acceptable manner, and is somewhat site specific because it is based on the physical dimensions of a particular site. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to amend Section 11.88, Subd. 2 (S.3)to require topographic information to 1000 feet beyond the boundary of a proposed mining operation, subject to reduction under criteria 1-3 above. 2. Move to amend Section 11.88, Subd. 2 (S.3)to require topographic information to distance equal to the maximum depth of the end use plan for the mine divided by the maximum roadway grade allowed by ordinance, or 300 feet, whichever is greater. Where the end use of the mine is a reservoir or pond, the depth for purposes of determining the topographic requirements shall be measured from the floor of the mine. Where environmental or unique topographic features exist additional topographic information may be required. These features include, but are not limited j:\eng\user\pat\council\topo.mo to: wetlands, public waters, sensitive groundwater areas, steep slopes and bluffs, and sensitive land uses such as cemeteries. 3. Do not amend Section 11.88, Subd. 2 (S.3). 4. Table for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: This is a Council policy decision. Staff prefers Alternative No. 2 from an implementation perspective, but all the alternatives are feasible. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction to staff in regard to topographic submittal requirements for mining operations. j:\eng\user\pat\council\topo.mo MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Recreation Superintendent Position - Resolution No. 4263 DATE: July 26, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On July 24, 1995 staff presented to City Council a proposed organizational plan for the Recreation Department . The intent of the plan was to provide the City of Shakopee with a cost effective method to administer the existing operations of the Recreation Department and the new duties and responsibilities that will come into play as a result of the new civic center facility. BACKGROUND: One of the principal components of the proposed reorganizational plan was the creation of a new Recreation Superintendent position classification. If the Recreation Department is relocated to the civic center facility, it will be necessary to have an individual located in the new facility that has the ability to manage and supervise the daily operations of not only that facility but the existing Recreation Department . If City Council selects to contract out the management operation of the civic center facility, it will still be necessary to have an individual on board that has knowledge and experience relating to the operation of a civic center and/or ice arena. Shown in Attachment #1 is a job description for the proposed Recreation Superintendent position. Once the Recreation Superintendent position is filled, it is staff' s intention to ultimately eliminate the existing Recreation Supervisor position. The Recreation Superintendent position carries a job point value of 87 . This equates to a 1995 pay range between $36, 566 . 00 to $45, 707 . 00 . In order to attract a qualified individual for this position, staff believes that it will be necessary to hire an individual at the upper end of the pay range. Staff is proposing that Scott County Personnel be utilized to establish an eligible list of candidates for this position. The approximate cost for the County' s services for this position recruitment is estimated to be $2, 000 . 00 . Shown in Attachment #2 is Resolution No. 4263 amending the 1995 pay schedule to create the Recreation Superintendent position classification. Staff is recommending that Resolution No. 4253 be approved at this time. The recruitment and selection process for this position classification is expected to take between 6 and 8 weeks . Once a candidate is identified, staff will be seeking formal Council action to fill said position. At that time, staff will also be seeking an amendment to the 1995 Recreation Department Budget to reflect the costs associated with this position through the remainder of 1995 and the cost of recruitment and selection. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Offer Resolution No. 4263 , A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4149, Adopting the 1995 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee. 2 . Do not approve Resolution No. 4263 . 3 . Amend Resolution No. 4263 and approve accordingly. 4 . Authorize the appropriate City officials to utilize the services of Scott County for the recruitment and selection process associated with the Recreation Superintendent position classification. 5 . Do not initiate the recruitment and selection process for the Recreation Superintendent position classification at this time. 6 . Table pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOZ'ff4ENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 and #4 . ACTION REQUESTED: 1 . Offer Resolution No. 4263, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4149, Adopting the 1995 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee 2 . Authorize the appropriate City officials to utilize the services of Scott County for the recruitment and selection process associated with the Recreation Superintendent position classification. h: \word\tami\admin\rec BAS/tiv Attachment #1 City of Shakopee Job Description JOB TITLE: Recreation Superintendent EXEMPT: Yes JOB CODE: 87 SALARY LEVEL: $38, 089 - $45, 707 DIVISION: Recreation SHIFT: DEPARTMENT: Comm. Services LOCATION: EMPLOYEE: REPORTS TO: Asst . City Admin. /Comm. Serv. Dir. PREPARED BY: Barry A. Stock DATE: 7\25\95 APPROVED BY: DATE: SUMMARY: The position is responsible for coordinating the management and operations of the Recreation Department and Civic Center facility. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES include the following. Other duties may be assigned. Direct activities, programs, services and policies or procedures of civic center facility and recreation division. Supervise day-to-day activities of the recreation division and civic center facility. Conduct supervision related activities including employee training, work task assignment, employee performance review and employee recruitment selection. Develop and administer City Park Comprehsive Master Plan. Plan, direct and coordinate the implementation of recreation, civic center and/or nature programs and services. Perform communication activities including writing routine correspondence, reports, public relations and promotional materials. Assist in performing budget and financial analysis to determine resource needs and program revenues. Monitor project, departmental, divisional expenses and revenues and/or deviations from budget . Identify and obtain funding (grants, donations) for special projects. - 1 - JOB DESCRIPTION Job Title: Recreation Superintendent Studies and analyses recreational needs and resources. Interpretes recreation programs and their physiosophy to individuals and groups through personal participation and staff assignments . Plan, conduct and direct retail management activities of the civic center facility. Plan and arrange for minor modifications and/or repairs of civic center facility and/or equipment . Establish/Administer/Implement safety programs, plans, policies and procedures for the recreation division. Identifies and evaluates vendor/consultant products or services. Develops, prepares, negotiates and monitors proposals, agreements and contracts/leases. Plan, organize, and supervise arena programs, group skating lessons, leagues, open skating, etc. that ensure the use of the Civic Center facility year around. Investigates, documents and responds to complaints relating to recreation programs. SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES: Carries out supervisory responsiblities associated with seasonal recreation and civic center facility employees in accordance with the organization' s policies and applicable laws . Reponsibilities include interviewing, hiring and training seasonal employees; planning, assigning, and directing work; appraising performance; addressing complaints and resolving problems. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS : To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE: Bachelor' s degree (B. A. ) in public administration or recreation management from four-year college or university; and four to - 2 - JOB DESCRIPTION Job Title: Recreation Superintendent six years recreation center/ice arena operations related experience and/or training; or equivalent combination of education and experience. LANGUAGE SKILLS: Ability to read, analyze, and interpret general business periodicals, professional journals, technical procedures, or governmental regulations. Ability to write reports, business correspondence, and procedure manuals. Ability to effectively present information and respond to questions from groups of managers, clients, customers, and the general public. MATHEMATICAL SKILLS: Ability to calculate figures and amounts such as discounts, interest, commissions, proportions, percentages, area, circumference, and volume. Ability to apply concepts of basic algebra and geometry. REASONING ABILITY: Ability to define problems, collect data, establish facts, and draw valid conclusions. Ability to interpret an extensive variety of technical instructions in mathematical or diagram form and deal with several abstract and concrete variables. CERTIFICATES, LICENSES, REGISTRATIONS: Valid Minnesota Drivers License PHYSICAL DEMANDS: The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions . While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to talk or hear. The employee is occasionally required to stand; walk; sit; use hands to finger, handle, or feel objects, tools, or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 pounds . Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus . WORK ENVIRONMENT: The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. - 3 - JOB DESCRIPTION Job Title: Recreation Superintendent While performing the duties of this job, the employee occasionally works in outside weather conditions . The noise level in the work environment is usually moderate. - 4 - ATTACHMENT#2 RESOLUTION NO. 4263 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4149,ADOPTING THE 1995 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, on December 20, 1994,the Shakopee City Council adopted Resolution No. 4149 approving the 1995 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, certain conditions and circumstances have changed to make it desirous to amend the 1995 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee at this time. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,that the Recreation Superintendent position classification is hereby added to the Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee at the following pay steps: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 $36,566 $38,851 $39,994 $41,136 $42,279 $43,422 $44,564 $45,707 Adopted in Regular Session of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 1st day of August, 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney h:\word\tami\admin\res4263 I MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director Kif, SUBJECT: Temporary Access Road to Boat Ramp from Bluff Avenue DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: This item is to continue the discussion on whether to close the temporary road access off of Bluff Avenue through Huber Park to the boat ramp. BACKGROUND: At the July 11, 1995 Council meeting this item was tabled in order to investigate the City's liability on installing a quote to close the access into Huber park except for vehicles with boats in excess of eleven feet in clearance. The City attorney has checked the liability issue with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LCMIT) on the recommended requirements when closing a road to the public to limit the City's liability. The recommendations are as follows: 1. Comply with Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 2. Install"Road Closed Ahead" Warning Sing. 3. Install Type III barricade with"road Closed" Sign. 4. Install a breakaway type of gate. 5. Place orange and white reflective paint on the gate for warning motorists or equal warning devices. A traffic control plan has been developed to correctly sign the area as per the recommendations and is attached for Council review. In addition to the LCMIT recommendations, staff would recommend that a sign be made to notify boaters of potential access such as "LIMITED BOAT RAMP ACCESS FOR BOATS OVER 11 FEET IN HEIGHT, CALL CITY OF SHAKOPEE". To administer the opening and closing of a gate for boat ramp access, the following options are available. 1. Lock the gate and have boaters notify the Police Department for entrance. 2. Locking the gate and have boaters purchase a key from City at an annual fee. Also the locks would be changed every year. 3. Don't lock the gate and depend on the boaters to close the gate after use. In reviewing the alternatives for the boat ramp access off of Bluff Avenue, there exists the following: 1. Close the access road to boat ramp traffic only by installing a gate and appropriate signage and markers. 2. Close the access road to boat ramp traffic only by installing appropriate signage with no gate. 3. Close the access road to all traffic. Alternatives No. 1 and No. 3 would require the closure of Bluff Avenue access road with barricades and an access gate would be needed by Public Works for maintenance of the park. Alternative No. 2 would not physically close the Bluff Avenue entrance into Huber Park but rely on motorist compliance with the signage and Police enforcement. If an access to the boat ramp is needed for boats that cannot clear the new 169 bridge, the Bluff Avenue entrance into Huber Park is the best alternative. A gated system can be implemented with the appropriate measures with signs and barricades as mentioned previously at the gate, an opening should be provided to allow for bicycle or pedestrian traffic to enter Huber Park. The opening and closing operation of the gate for boat ramp access should be an administration decision as to the procedures in obtaining access for boat launching. Staff did check with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as to the locations of boat ramps along the Minnesota River and the nearest public boat ramp from Shakopee is in Burnsville. The cost of providing the necessary materials and installation would be out of the Street Division Budget. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to direct staff to close off access road off of Bluff Avenue into Huber Park and to install the appropriate signage and other measures as recommended by the LCMIT to allow for boat ramp and maintenance access only. 2. Direct staff to leave access road open and place signange for"NO THRU TRAFFIC". 3. Direct staff to close off access road off of Bluff Avenue with no access to boat ramp. 4. Do Nothing. 5. Move to direct administration to set up procedures on allowing boaters access to the boat ramp. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend Alternative No. 1 and No. 5 be approved as a means to close the access road to thru traffic from Bluff Avenue to Levee Drive and to allow for boat ramp access for boats higher than eleven feet. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to direct staff to close the access road traffic off of Bluff Avenue and to install the necessary signage and other measures as recommended by the LCMIT and by staff. 2. Move to direct staff to set up an administrative procedure to allow boats higher than eleven feet in height access off of Bluff Avenue. BL/pmp BLUFF ' J t 1• r i t:.cit �. 1-. �.l� + \-V\ i .'------17-----,A. \ ' ,- ,, -- L..,\,\L\ \\ Az _..a r s . . \ 1 cli ( fa a> i 3 i 4t j 0 rrranc ii 1 v iiF \ i t ". -,„ C j 41 \ •I CD C i- 0 o 71-10.......„/ 1 `\ 'A 4,yc0mXo;al. o \ o n A + Z m G _ —aii. .... -0 x.0 so 0-0 cv i OW IIT 'y1� A �A L 11110 `A N N = N co10 c; 10 vt al 0 101,- �- �cDo0 .,.,..,........,_. ?..-: ci> a 1 107.1 . .. ‘3, \logs wm, \ . • .. \Folio ., .110 ?NM II D \ > v) \ O yD X ittillimacpa' 0 rn 10 ,,• w_. s L rs W � r I e_, Ut- SEINIT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: David M.Nummer, Staff Engineer (7ny1tJ SUBJECT: Pavement Management System DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On September 20, 1995, the City Council approved a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Pavement Management System, and directed staff to solicit proposals. The proposals have been reviewed, and staff is seeking Council permission to purchase a Pavement Management System. This item has been discussed by the City Council previously, and was discussed most recently during the CIP process. Due to the previous discussion on this item, staff is placing this item on consent. Staff and the consultant will be available at the meeting with a presentation for the Council if they so desire. BACKGROUND: Of the five RPF's that were sent out, four companies responded with proposals. These companies are: Braun Intertech, Infrastructure Management Services (IMS), Pavement Management Services (PMS) and Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH). The proposal deadline was October 31, 1994, however, the selection of a firm was delayed by the Public Works Director leaving in August and the time for the position to be refilled. The proposals which were received had a large degree of variation in the services which would be provided and in the cost to provide those services The following is a summary of the "base bid" cost and the total cost including all available options. Company Base Bid Bid with Options Short Elliot Hendrickson $30,070.00 no options available Braun Intertech $36,428.00 $55,414.00 Infrastructure Management Services $39,750.00 $45,812.50 Pavement Management Systems $47,605.00 $48,850.00 After reviewing the proposals, staff is recommending that Braun Intertech be selected to provide a Pavement Management System to the City of Shakopee. Braun was chosen for the following reasons: 1. Data collection methodology c:\dos\pmsmem.doc 2. Data analysis 3. Location and technical support 4. Price DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY The data collection methodology is based on a manual walking survey to determine the condition of the roadways and establish a numerical rating. The manual survey is more accurate and less costly than other automated methods such as video or laser surface survey. This type of survey also accommodates collecting other data such as sidewalk condition, drainage and sanitary sewer manhole locations and condition, and a street sign inventory. The proposal price from Braun includes providing trained raters to perform the initial rating of the streets in Shakopee. City staff will accompany the Braun technicians for hands on training on rating the streets. For subsequent years, staff would propose to utilize a combination of Public Works maintenance workers and Engineering Technicians to do yearly rating. This combination of personnel provides the maintenance experience of Public Works, and the road construction experience of Engineering. Staff also believes a joint project between the two divisions of the Public Works Department will help to foster a better working relationship and establish a feeling of"ownership" in the program. DATA ANALYSIS The Braun Intertech data analysis program is called ICON, and was found to provide the highest degree of flexibility in determining pavement rehabilitation strategies and for running different financial scenarios. This software is compatible with the computer environment currently used in the City, and is compatible with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) that the City may add in the future. Staff is recommending that if the Braun proposal is selected, the mapping option($3,804.00)be added. This option allows for graphically selecting roadway sections for analysis and can be used to more logically group street construction into project areas. Since the proposals were submitted, staff has learned that SEH has purchased the rights to sell the computer data analysis program which was developed by Braun Intertech. This is the same program which was included in the proposal by Braun. c:\dos\pmsmem.doc LOCATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT Of the proposals that were received, only two were from Twin Cities based firms, SEH and Braun Intertech. Braun has been selected to provide pavement management services to 12 other Cities in the metropolitan area. In addition, Braun works for several DOT's, and has clients from California to Virginia. Braun also offers a users group which meets quarterly to go over advances in pavement management technology and software improvements. PRICE The Braun proposal is the second least expensive, with the proposal from SEH being less expensive. The SEH proposal was not selected because of the lower quality software. SEH is now marketing the Braun software, but did not revise their proposal due to the fact that Braun had already given the City a proposal. As previously mentioned, staff would recommend adding the mapping feature to the software. In addition, Braun offers software training as an option for an additional cost of $2,906.00. Staff feels that this training would be beneficial, and is recommending that the training be added to the pavement management system. Staff has contacted Next Century Technology for a price quote for a computer station to run the pavement management system. This station would be used for data entry, producing project maps and examining financial scenarios for use in the Capital Improvement Program. When the station was not being used for pavement management, it would provide an additional AutoCad station for the technician and interns who do not have access to one. The total price of the Pavement Management System, including the mapping ability, training, and computer station is $46,311.00. The two year budget amount for pavement management was $50,000.00. The Pavement Management System budget was split into the 1994 and 1995 Budgets, with $25,000 allocated in each year. The $25,000 budgeted in 1994 was not spent, and was transferred to the General Fund at the end of the year. Attached is a budget amendment which transfers $25,000 into the 1995 Pavement Management Budget from the General Fund. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4266 amending the 1995 Budget. 2. Deny Resolution No. 4266. c:\dos\pmsmem.doc 3. Authorize the purchase of a Pavement Management System from Braun Intertech. 4. Authorize the purchase of a Pavement Management System from another vendor. 5. Do not authorize the purchase of a Pavement Management System. 6. Authorize the purchase of a computer work station. 7. Do not authorize the purchase of a computer work station. 8. Table for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No.'s 1, 3 and 6. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 4266, A Resolution Amending Resolution 4136, Adopting the 1995 Budget. 2. Authorize the purchase of a pavement management system from Braun Intertech. 3. Authorize the purchase of a computer work station. c:\dos\pmsmem.doc RESOLUTION NO. 4266 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 4136 ADOPTING THE 1995 BUDGET WHEREAS,the City Council has adopted a budget for the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, funds for a Pavement Management System were spread over the budget years ,1994 and 1995, with$25,000.00 budgeted each year; and WHEREAS,the budgeted amount for 1994 was not spent; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to purchase the Pavement Management System. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the accounts are increased as follows: FUND DIVISION ACCOUNT AMOUNT General Street Professional Services $25,000.00 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1995. • Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney ti , CONSENT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator l' FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director61,_ y SUBJECT: Downtown Alley Reconstruction,Project No. 1993-9 DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: The City needs to acquire easements for the Downtown Alley Reconstruction Project No. 1993-9. This item is to consider payment for an easement on the Downtown Alley Reconstruction Project No. 1993-9. BACKGROUND: In Block 25, between Sommerville and Spencer Streets, an electrical transformer was designed to be placed on the Post office site owned by Bart Partners. An easement of 10 feet by 14 feet was needed for this transformer. This property owner was asking for $6,000.00 for the easement due to the impact on the site's parking lot. Staff has redesigned the transformer location to the north side of the alley and has reached a tentative agreement with this property owner. Staff has offered a$2.00/S.F. price or$280.00 total for easement acquisition. Attached is a right-of-entry which has been signed to the City to permit the City and its Contractor to construct the necessary improvements. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize payment of$280.00 to Joelle J. Sawvel for Easement No. 95-25 on Project No. 1993-9. 2. Do not authorize payment. 3. Provide direction to staff on negotiations. 4. Table for more information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending Alternative No. 1 in order to complete the construction of Block 25 between Sommerville Street and Spencer Street. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to approve payment in the amount of$280.00 to Joelle J. Sawvel for Easement No. 95-25 on Project No. 1993-9, Downtown Alley Reconstruction. BL/pmp SAWVEL RIGHT OF ENTRY A. The City of Shakopee ("The City") proposes to construct an underground utility line in the downtown alley. This action will occur on a portion of property owned by Joelle J. Sawvel . The affected property is described on the attached Exhibit A and hereafter is referred to as "Subject Property" . B. The City has entered into negotiation for a permanent utility easement (See Exhibit B) , and in the alternative, intends to Petition the district court for condemnation of said easement . The City has requested that Joelle J. Sawvel allow entry onto the Subject Property prior to granting an easement so that the City can begin construction. C. The property owner understands that she is not required to surrender possession of the Subject Property prior to a Court order, but is willing to do so as long as all of her legal rights are preserved. AUTHORIZATION 1. Joelle J. Sawvel hereby grants to the City of Shakopee the right to go upon the Subject Property and begin the construction of the utility lines effective this date. This authorization shall remain in effect until an agreement is reached for conveyance of an easement or until the Scott County District Court acts upon the City' s motion for immediate possession. 2 . Consideration for this right of entry shall be paid by the City as part of the total compensation for the Subject Property. ,a ./L `-/ 3 . By granting this right of entry, the property owner does not waive any claim that she has or may have for damages to the Subject Property caused by the City or its contractors and does not waive any legal right which she has as part of the condemnation procedure. Dated: 9- 11 -T, Al / By: 72K // Aat [7entryl7) 4 %,., . :, Orr Schelen 300 Park Place East 612-595-5775 '' Mayeron& 5775 Wayzata Boulevard 1 800 753 5775 AmSAssociates,Inc. Minneapolis,MN 55416-1228 FAX 595-5774 EASEMENT NO. 95-25 PIN: 27 - 001197 - 0 OWNER: Joelle J. Sawvel 320 - 1st Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT: A permanent easement for utility purposes over, under and across the south 10.00 feet of the west 14.00 feet of Lot 8, Block 25, SHAKAPEE CITY, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota. Said permanent easement contains 140 square feet more or less. NOTE: No boundary survey work was performed as to the precise I hereby certify that this survey,plan,or report was prepared by location of this tract. me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed . land surveyor under.the laws of the State of Minnesota. H:\1 775.65\SIJ R V\M I SC\95-25 C .i Peter�T.Jenkins,R�_S. Lie.No.22683 Dade EASEPJ3.XLS Engineers • Architects • Planners • Surveyors ......7 FIRST AVENUE • - - • • - - •• L..) Z , 0 t.....) F— CC V) 00 1 eS) i in i 0 M C\I tt 1 4 CO — r . . 1 1 ..• 1 1 . . , OD I I- I I 0 L. I I -J CC W I PC I Z k-51 I ____ -J LOT 8 BLOCK 25 1 i I- 3 2 JOELLE J . SAWVEL \I _ 27-001197-0 G 1 1 1 1 (95-2 , . . ! 1 : ! - - : • i !•• !• ..: [-PROPOSED EASEMENT .•: ,• • . 3 i • 14' , , 14 ' ( i - • . . , , • . . : SO4 LINE LOT 8 -- : i o ‘ — BIT ALLEY NOT TO SCALE Drown By: Drawing Title Proj. No. K.J.M. MIlia Orr Schelen Mayeron & Associates. Inc. EASEMENT SKETCH 1775.65 95-25 ote D : Engineers a Architects a Planners . Surveyors SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA Sheet No. 300 Park Place East la 5775 Wayzata Boulevard 07/07/95 Minneapolis.WN 55418-1228 la 812-595-5775 1 77C CgagCl WM./.&Mar OR.-"S NMI 1111111 July 19, 1995 SHAKOPEE EXHIBIT B Ms. Joelle J. Sawvel 320 1st Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Easement Acquisition for Downtown Alley Reconstruction Project No. 1993-9 Dear Ms. Sawvel: The City has been discussing the acquisition of an easement on your property for the purposes of placement of an electrical transformer by the alley in the rear of your property. The easement being requested is a 10 foot wide by 14 foot long area which is 140 square feet. The City would like to propose to offer a $2.00 per square foot price for the easement area or $280.00 for the easement taking. If you are in agreement with this offer, the City would like to request that you sign a right-of-entry in order for the City's contractor to continue work in this area and this would be taken to City Council for approval at the August 1, 1995 City Council meeting. City staff is allowed to negotiate with property owners, however City Council must authorize any payment for the easements. If you have any questions or concerns in regard to this letter and easement acquisition , I would be more than happy to meet with you and discuss this in my office or at your home. Sincerely, /g1/11- e-g/711/ Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Director BL/pmp SAWVEL COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South• Shakopee,14innesota 55379-1351 612-445-3650 FAX 612-445-6718 5 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director /11// . SUBJECT: Sarazin Street, Roundhouse Street and 4th Avenue Project No. 1994-10 Consider Assessment Deferral DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter from William and Renelda Hauer's attorney requesting consideration for an assessment deferral on their parcel at the southeast corner of Roundhouse Street and 4th Avenue. Also attached is a memo from the City Attorney on this matter. BACKGROUND: Mr. & Mrs. Hauer have a single family residence on a 3-acre parcel which is zoned R-3. As part of the project improvements, a temporary easement was requested from the Hauer's in order to install the sanitary sewer along 4th Avenue to serve the Prairie Bend Development. The easement ultimately proved unnecessary. During negotiations for the easement, the Hauers asked if the assessments from the Roundhouse Street and 4th Avenue improvements could be deferred until their property is sold or developed. The Hauer residence currently has sewer and water service and street access from 4th Avenue. In the Assessment Policy under Section V - Financing of Public Improvements, Council does have the authority to grant deferred assessments for two cases. One case is for the senior citizen deferment and the other is for undeveloped lands for a specific length of time or until it develops. Terms and conditions of the deferral will be established in the resolution adopting the assessments. Staff has reviewed previous assessments on this parcel for the sewer and water to the single family residence. An acreage of .46 acres has been used for previous assessments for the single family residence. The proposed assessments for the Hauer parcel for Project No. 1994-10 improvements would be for the remaining acreage assessments for sewer and water and street assessment for Roundhouse Street per City and Shakopee Public Utilities Commission's(SPUC)policies. If the City Council does grant a deferred assessment, staff would recommend that an agreement be prepared so that the deferred assessment is recorded against the property. One reason deferred assessments are discouraged is that this type of assessment cannot be certified to the tax statement, and this may be lost by staff whenever the deferment is over. The City Attorney feels an agreement can be prepared for recording on the property. The deferred assessment agreement should include the interest rate of the assessment term and if the assessments should be adjusted for inflation with a cost price index after the assessment term is over. The carrying cost of the assessments would be from the City's Capital Improvement Fund with reimbursement of assessments upon development of the property in the future. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to direct staff to prepare a deferred assessment agreement with William and Renelda Hauer for assessments associated with Sarazin Street, Roundhouse Street and 4th Improvement Project No. 1994-10. 2. Declare to defer the assessment. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no recommendation as this is a Council policy decision, however, there is merit for consideration since this parcel is being used as a single family residence and yet zoned for multiple residential. BL/pmp HAUER MEMORANDUM TO: Bruce Loney, Director of Public Works FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney DATE: July 18, 1995 RE: William and Renelda Hauer Attached is a copy of a letter I received today from the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hauer. As you may recall, on May 23, 1995, I sent the attorney a letter stating that "We will continue to pursue the possibility of imposing connection charges rather than special assessments on Mr. Hauer' s property. " They would like additional information now, which seems reasonable. Please let me know what the Public Works department has decided regarding handling their request . Signed /, • Ifaren Ma ty, City Attorney KEM:bjm [18MEMO2] Attachment MEI JASPERS JEROME JASPERS.C.P.A. DENNIS PAI RICK MORTAR]Y MORIARTY & STEP1IEN W.WALBURG LEE VICKERMAN WALBURG,P.A. DAVID 0.BROWN ANNE IIEIMKES TUITIJ ATTORNEYS&COUNSELLORS AT LAW July 17, 1995 Ms. Karen Marty Shakopee City Attorney 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: WILLIAM AND RENELDA HAUER FOURTH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 1994-10 Dear Ms. Marty: This office has not heard from you regarding the issue of connection charges versus special assessments for the Hauer property. What is the status of this matter? Obviously, the Hauers would like this issue settled so that they know where they stand. As I indicated to you in the past, the Hauers would have no objection to connection charges just as long as they do not have out of pocket expenses now. They do not care about costs to future owners of the property. Please contact me regarding this matter. Very truly yours, JASPERS, MORIARTY AND WALBURG, P.A. (2 . ',.e de.ez-p.:„lalty Lee Vickerman Attorney at Law LN0j) 206 SCOTT STREET•SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379•(612)445-2817 BELLE PLAINE OFFICE•(612)873-2988 FAX NO.445-0812 CONSENT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: David M.Nummer, Staff Engineer PPIrj SUBJECT: Vierling Drive, from C.R. 77 to C.R. 79 -Approval of Payment for Right of Way Acquisition. DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Attached is correspondence from Independent School District (ISD) 720 regarding acquisition of 2.27 acres of school property for the construction of Vierling Drive. Staff is seeking authorization to purchase this right of way from the School District. BACKGROUND: In August of 1993, the City of Shakopee purchased approximately 65 acres of property located generally south and west of the High School from Gold Nugget Development, at a cost of$13,200 per acre. In September of 1993, the City sold approximately 32.5 acres of this property to the School District for $13,200 per acre. The acreage which was sold to the School District inadvertently included the future right of way for Vierling Drive on the west side of County Road 79. Staff has contacted the School District regarding purchasing the property needed for Vierling Drive. Attached is a letter from Mr. Robert Ostlund, Superintendent of Schools for ISD 720 outlining the offer from the School District. The letter indicates that on July 17, 1995, the School Board approved the sale of 2.27 acres to the City of Shakopee at a purchase price of$17,500 per acre. Mr. Ostlund has informed staff that the $17,500 per acre figure was arrived at by comparison of other recent land sales in the City of Shakopee. If this offer was accepted by the City, the total purchase price for the 2.27 acres would be $39,725.00. The right of way acquisition costs will be included in the project costs for Vierling Drive and assessed at the local street width equivalent. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the purchase of 2.27 acres of property from the School District. 2. Do not purchase the property. c:\dos\rowmem.doc 3. Purchase the property for$17,500 per acre. 4. Purchase the property for some other amount. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 as the property is required for the construction of Vierling Drive. Staff is requesting Council direction on Alternatives 3 and 4. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the purchase of 2.27 acres of property from the School District. 2. Provide direction on the purchase price for the property. c:\dos\rowmem.doc smizopEE. Shakopee School Board Superintendent Robert J.Ostiund Ron Larson,Chair Janet Wendt,Vice Chair ; : 'r / v Kathy Busch,Clerk �, .,.,.. < , :: "!,i Wim, // Steve Schneider,Treasurer District Office Jessica Gels,Director Bob Techam,Director Robyn Wolfe,Director July 18, 1995 Dave Nummer City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 Dear Dave: This letter is to inform you that the School Board, at its regular meeting on July 17, approved the sale of 2.27 acres of school property for right-of-way acquisition by the City of Shakopee at a cost of$17,500 per acre. This approval is for the land south of the Shakopee Senior High School which borders the proposed Vierling Drive extension from Spencer Street to Adams Street. Please have the necessary contracts drawn up for the sale of the above mentioned property. If you have any questions,you may call me at 496-5005. Si el , .07(e/ Robert J. 'i st d Superin :n,ent of Schools RJO/ph 505 South Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379 ALL SCHOOLS ACCREDITED BY THE NORTH CENTAL ASSOCIATION (612)496-5000 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1;üd\1T MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: David M. Nummer, Staff Engineer PO) SUBJECT: Approval of Engineering Fees for Grading on Public Improvement Projects and Grading Permits DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Recently, staff has had several inquires from developers regarding site grading for developments, and the need to provide financial guarantee and pay for engineering fees (7.5% of the construction costs) associated with the grading. Attached is Resolution No. 4264 which amends the 1995 Fee Schedule for grading permits. Staff is seeking Council direction on this issue. BACKGROUND: The 1995 Fee Schedule allows for engineering fees totaling 7.5% of the construction costs for a project to be charged for development projects. These fees are included in the financial security which is provided with the Developer's Agreement. The past practice has been to include the site grading costs in the financial security amount, and in the "project costs"which were the basis for calculating the engineering fees. This has been the standard, however, there are a few plats which have performed the grading under the authority of a grading permit prior to the final plat being approved. The City has allowed the developer the option of grading the plat under a grading permit prior to final plat approval to help expedite the construction of the development. In these cases, the costs associated with the grading were not included in the financial security since the work was already completed, and a grading permit fee was collected in lieu of the engineering fees. The basis upon which the grading permit fees and the engineering fees are calculated are very different, and tend to produce radically different results. The grading permit fees are calculated based on the volume (cubic yards) of material either brought onto the site or being removed from the site. These fees are established by the Uniform Building Code, and have been adopted by the City through the 1995 Fee Schedule. The engineering fees are calculated as a percentage of the grading project costs, which includes not only the grading, but the erosion control, and turf establishment as well. The 1995 Fee Schedule j:\eng\user\pat\council\grading.mo set the engineering fee at 7.5% of the project costs. A comparison of the grading permit fee verses the engineering fee for various sized grading projects is shown in the following table. Grading Permit Fees vs. Engineering Fees Estimated Construction Volume Cost per yard Grading Permit Fee Engineering Fee 50 $ 4.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 100 $ 4.00 $ 37.50 $ 30.00 200 $ 3.50 $ 55.50 $ 52.50 500 $ 3.00 $ 87.00 $ 112.50 1,000 $ 3.00 $ 139.50 $ 225.00 5,000 $ 2.50 $ 183.00 $ 937.50 20,000 $2.00 $ 283.50 $ 3,000.00 40,000 $ 2.00 $ 394.50 $ 6,000.00 100,000 $ 1.50 $ 727.50 $ 11,250.00 200,000 $ 1.50 $ 1,042.50 $ 22,500.00 Examples Volume Grading Permit Fee Engineering Fee Meadows West 2nd 107,000 $ 727.50 $ 12,037.50 Prairie Bend 130,000 $ 822.00 $ 14,625.00 The inconsistency between these two fee structures can cause confusion, and lead to a developer either being charged both fees, or being charged one fee or the other depending on when and how the grading is done. Staff is recommending that the grading fee and the engineering fee for site grading be combined to eliminate this problem. This can be accomplished by either eliminating the engineering fees for site grading, or by eliminating grading fees and replacing them with the 7.5% engineering fee. The option to eliminate the engineering fees for site grading is not very attractive from a revenue perspective because the grading permit fees for larger projects are substantially lower than the corresponding engineering fees. In addition, there is substantial staff time required to approve a grading plan which might not be recovered under the existing grading fee structure. j:\eng\user\pat\council\grading.mo The option to replace the existing grading permit fees with an engineering fee of 7.5% is preferable due to the equity it provides between proposed developments and other grading operations. This provides the developer with the flexibility to perform site grading early on in the development process, while still enabling the City to collect the fees as stated in the Fee Schedule. In addition, smaller grading projects (less than 500 cubic yards) would have a fee comparable to the existing grading fees. Attached for Council consideration is Resolution No. 4264, a resolution amending the 1995 Fee Schedule by replacing the existing grading permit fees with a 7.5% engineering fee. In addition to resolving the inequity in the fee structure, staff is recommending that the responsibility for grading permits be administratively transferred from the Building Official to the City Engineer. The review and approval of the grading permits is largely an engineering function, and problems or questions are typically referred to the Engineering Department. There are currently several developments with pending Developer's agreements, as well as one development which has applied for a grading permit for site grading. Staff is seeking direction for applying the grading permit fees and engineering fees for these developments. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4264. 2, Deny Resolution No. 4264. 3. Table for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1,to adopt Resolution No. 4264. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 4264, A Resolution Amending the 1995 Fee Schedule by replacing the existing grading permit fees with a 7.5% engineering fee, and move its adoption. 2. Provide direction on applying the grading permit fees to permits and developments currently under review. j:\eng\user\pat\council\grading.mo RESOLUTION NO. 4264 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4143 ADOPTING THE 1995 FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City has adopted a fee schedule which specifies the amount to be charged for various City services; and WHEREAS, the Fee Schedule includes fees for grading permits; and WHEREAS, the Fee Schedule also includes engineering fees for reviewing and inspecting site grading; and WHEREAS, the City desires to combine these fees into a single fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the 1995 Fee Schedule shall be amended as follows: 1. The sections under the heading of Building Inspector/Electrical Inspector entitled grading plan review fees and grading permit fees are deleted. 2. The section under Engineering Fees entitled department fees for public improvement projects shall be renamed to department fees for improvement projects, 3. Section A. Private Developments shall be amended to include the following: "The estimated construction costs for projects shall include, but are not limited to utility construction including sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain; street construction including sidewalks, boulevard trees and other appurtenances, site grading and erosion control." 4. A heading entitled Grading Permits shall be added to Section C. Miscellaneous Engineering Work as follows: Grading permit fees shall equal 7.5%of the estimated cost to perform the grading. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee A I hST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney / IA' Engineering Fees charged by Development Eng. Fee paid for grading? Development Name Yes No Chateau Ridge X Dominion Hills X Homestead Ridge 1st X Homestead Ridge 2nd X Maple Trails Estates X Meadows 8th Addition X* Meadows 9th Addition X* Meadows West 1st Addition X** Milwaukee Manor X Minnesota Valley 8th Addition X P,arkview 1st Addition X Prairie Bend X St. Francis Hospital - X** Stonebrook 1st Addition X South Parkview 2nd Addition X West Ridge Bay Estates X Eng. Fee paid for grading? Developments under Review Yes No Arlington Ridge X Meadows West 2nd Addition X Orchard Park 1st Addition X * - Grading done with earlier phases prior to 7.5% engineering fee. ** - Grading done with a grading permit. 7.5% fees were not charged. MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director V ' SUBJECT: Savage-Shakopee Proposed Joint Powers Agreement DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter from Dave Hutton, Public Works Director of the City of Savage requesting consent from the City of Shakopee on participating in Eagle Creek Watershed drainage improvements. BACKGROUND: The second phase of the Klaas Van Zee's development is currently being designed in the City of Savage and is in the Eagle Creek Watershed. The City of Shakopee has an area which is included in the Eagle Creek Watershed. The area in Shakopee is shown as Subwatershed 8 on the attached Eagle Creek Watershed Study - Alternative 3 as prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. (OSM) for the City of Shakopee. This subwatershed area is located east of County State Aid Highway(CSAH) 18 and is known as the Boiling Springs Lane area. The City of Savage is currently designing drainage improvements for the Klaas VanZee development and is requesting City of Shakopee consent to include Shakopee's area in the sizing of storm sewer pipes and ponds. A separate Joint Powers Agreement would then be prepared on the flow rate and cost participation between the two Cities. Previously in July, 1989, a feasibility study was prepared on providing an outlet for Boiling Springs Lane. The improvement prepared was to construct a ditch to Eagle Creek through the City of Savage. This improvement project was not approved for construction. During the first phase of the Klaas VanZee development a 1994 drainage study was commissioned by the City of Shakopee to determine future flow rates and ponding requirements for the Eagle Creek Watershed. Subwatershed 8 was calculated to have a peak discharge of 4 cubic feet per second(cfs)with 5.9 acre-feet of ponding storage. Attached to this memo is a recommendation from Pete Willenbring of OSM who has been hydraulic engineer for the City in preparing the City's Stormwater Management Plan and the 1994 Eagle Creek Watershed Study. His letter recommends that the City of Shakopee should plan for an outlet of 4 cfs as a positive outlet should be the prudent design to avoid the possibility of flooding. The 1989 feasibility report states that a low area exists on Boiling Springs Lane and is a problem in the spring and during heavy rainfall. In the 1989 feasibility report, the cost of a drainage ditch outlet to Eagle Creek was estimated to be $24,500.00 and 25% of the cost was proposed to be assessed to thirteen benefiting lots at$471.15 per lot. In a previous Joint Powers Draft Agreement for Shakopee/Savage flow rate and cost participation, the cost of Subwatershed 8 storm sewer outlet in Savage was 6.7% of the storm sewer system cost or $7,300.00 plus 26% indirect costs. The latest letter is requesting that Shakopee pay for the storm sewer and pond oversizing costs associated with City of Shakopee drainage. The total cost to Shakopee is estimated at this time to be $20,000.00. A final cost will be determined once the design is finalized and bids received for the improvements. Another area of concern for drainage may be the Eagle Creek Bluff Development south of Boiling Springs Lane. The development has area which drains into Eagle Creek, although this development was approved before the Savage AUAR process and Eagle Creek protection requirements by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), if rerouting of the storm water from Eagle Creek is necessary, this area should be included in the design calculations for the City of Savage to consider. If the developer needs the proposed storm sewer outlet and pond in Savage, the developer should participate in the cost. The cost of stormwater improvements would have to be paid either by the City's Stormwater Utility Fund, special assessments to benefiting properties, or developer contributions. In summary, the City of Savage is requesting a decision on whether to include in their stormwater design, the City of Shakopee's water in the Eagle Creek Watershed and also requesting that the City pay for the additional sizing to accommodate our flow. Drainage studies have shown a flow rate from Shakopee to Savage of 4 cfs in Subwatershed 8 which currently does not have an outlet in the Boiling Springs Lane area. The Eagle Creek Watershed has had additional requirements placed on stormwater drainage namely no discharge of stormwater to Eagle Creek. Subwatershed 14 which includes the Eagle Creek Bluff Development is proposed to drain into Eagle Creek and does have PUD approval. In order to properly manage the stormwater in Subwatershed Area 8 and 14, stormwater facilities in Savage to reroute water away from Eagle Creek should be considered. This alternative is recommended by our hydraulic engineer. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to direct staff to respond to the City of Savage's letter dated July 14, 1995, and agree to having Savage accommodate the City of Shakopee's flow and indicate a willingness to pay the City of Shakopee's oversizing costs up to a maximum of$20,000.00. 2. Table for more information. 3. Move to direct staff to respond to Savage on the City of Shakopee's desire not be included in stormwater design in Savage. 4. Move to direct staff to investigate the stormwater routing of Eagle Creek Bluff Development to Eagle Creek. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as the drainage from Subwatershed 8 will need to be directed to the east and must be routed away from Eagle Creek. Also staff recommends Alternative No. 4 ,so that stormwater design plans can include this area if it is necessary. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to direct staff to respond to the City of Savage's letter dated July 14, 1995, and agree to having Savage accommodate the City of Shakopee's flow and indicate a willingness to pay the City of Shakopee's oversizing costs up to a maximum of$20,000.00. 2. Move to direct staff to investigate the stormwater routing of Eagle Creek Bluff Development to Eagle Creek. BL/pmp JOINT Orr Sdielen Associates,Inc. Jul 25, 1995 300 Park P ce East July 5775 ay i u1evard - Min,1.Iis,MN -,x.228 Mr. Bruce Lone , P.E. i;4% '.53-7i6 OpF y 95 74 � � Public Works Director I nee City of Shakopee ! ane! 129 South Holmes ' ® 'rv'r Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: OSM Project No. 1775.76 Dear Bruce: Receipt is acknowledged for your letter dated July 20, 1995 regarding our recommendations concerning the future drainage direction for water to be discharged from Watershed No. 8 as shown on the Eagle Creek Watershed Study. Based on our analysis of this drainage system which was undertaken as part of the Eagle Creek Watershed Study, as well as an updated analysis which was recently undertaken to reflect changes in the drainage system as proposed by the City of Savage, we would recommend that any future improvements to the drainage system that would outlet Subwatershed 8 be directed to the east into Watershed 18 and then to Pond 15, as shown in the Eagle Creek plan. The peak discharge rate from this basin should be anticipated to be 4 cfs. In a separate, but related matter, the current Eagle Creek plan shows Subwatershed 14 directed into a public water Wetland 245W which is tributary to Eagle Creek. Based on a review of the environmental impacts of discharging this stormwater into Eagle Creek,which was completed as part of the AUAR Study, the City should anticipate redirecting the water from Subwatershed 14 away from Wetland 245W or Eagle Creek as much as possible. Furthermore,if the City of Shakopee anticipates to redirecting any water from Subwatershed 14 into Subwatersheds 12 or 15, the City of Savage should be so advised and terms for - redirecting this discharge be defined at the earliest possible time. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 595-5767. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. l.J Peter R. Will enbring, P.E. Manager, Water Resource Department H:\1775.76\WATER\LETTERS\950726.BL Equal Opportunity Employer Qtyoms Time .� Home of 1=-1=-5:i Ho 1.905 �: Patch Q4 _'7Y l� 0Op age °P 0 July 14, 1995 � 99d. LS. Mr. Bruce Loney City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 • RE: Eagle Creek Watershed Dear Bruce: The City of Savage is in the process of designing the next phase of Klaas Van Zee's development in the Eagle Creek Watershed. This phase will be referred to as the Hirscher Farms Project and is shown on the enclosed map. - At this time, the City of Savage would like to know if Shakopee desires Savage to construct the stormwater facilities in this subdivision adequately to handle future runoff from Shakopee. Specifically, I am talking about the runoff from Subwatershed 8, as shown on the OSM Eagle Creek - Watershed Plan, that discharges into Subwatershed 18 in Savage. According to the OSM Stormwater Management Plan, Subwatershed 8 will ultimately discharge 4 cfs into Savage. If the City of Shakopee desires Savage to increase the storm sewer design in this subdivision to accommodate your 4 cfs, please indicate this and also submit a letter indicating your willingness to pay for this additional oversizing. Currently, Subwatershed 8 does not drain into Savage because there is no outlet from the Boiling Springs Lane Subdivision. I believe the current proposed Joint Powers Agreement states that this portion of the storm sewer would cost Shakopee approximately 6.7% of the overall project. This will need to be re-evaluated because the 200 foot corridor required by the agencies along Eagle Creek will result in a redesign of this plat and may result in less overall storm sewer needs. If Shakopee is acceptable to Savage increasing the storm sewer capacity for this additional 4 cfs, we will calculate the additional oversizing costs that would be Shakopee's share once the design is completed and submit that to you as a separate Joint Powers Agreement. In addition, to the storm sewer oversizing cost, there will be some oversizing costs to Savage for Pond 15 as a result of drainage from Shakopee. It should be pointed out that there has been a revision to what has actually been constructed versus what was proposed in the OSM Stormwater Plan, specifically regarding Watershed 7. Watershed 7 from Shakopee actually drains into Pond 19 City of Savage •6000 McColl Drive • (County Road 16) • Savage, Minnesota 55378 Telephone: 612-890-1045 •Fax: 612-890-3815 0 Mr. Bruce Loney City of Shakopee July 14, 1995 Page 2 via a direct pipe as opposed to Pond 15 as shown on the OSM Plan. Pond 19 and Pond 15 actually work together to provide adequate storage via a cross-connection pipe; so it is not a major change in the overall stormwater management of this Watershed. OSM is currently reviewing this change to determine if it affects the required storage in Pond 15. Subwatershed 8 and Subwatershed 14 in Shakopee do drain into Pond 15. Subwatershed 8 drains directly into the pond via the proposed storm sewer of Hirscher Farms. Subwatershed 14 drains into DNR Wetland 245W, which is the headwaters of Eagle Creek, as opposed to going into Pond 15. If Shakopee is proposing to drain Subwatershed 14 into the Savage ponding system to avoid direct stormwater discharge into Eagle Creek as a result of the AUAR requirements, that decision needs to be made now so that we can size our ponds accordingly. By diverting the water in Subwatershed 14 away from Wetland 245W and Eagle Creek, Ponds 12, 13, and 15 may need to be enlarged. I would request that you consult with your stormwater consultant on this issue so that any revisions to Pond 15 can be made at this time. If you decide to direct runoff in Subwatershed 14 away from Eagle Creek, the overall Stormwater Plan prepared by OSM should be revised accordingly. It is obvious that Subwatershed 8 will go directly in Pond 15, and at this time, we would also request that if Shakopee desires to ultimately discharge that water into Pond 15, that we be notified immediately so that we can size the pond accordingly. We are requesting that Shakopee commit to paying for the additional size of Pond 15 to accommodate your flow. Based on the OSM report, Pond 15 is required to hold 51 acre feet of storage, and we would be able to calculate the storage needed for your discharge as part of the Joint Powers Agreement. We request that you_r-e.spond to these issues by August 1, 1995, so that we can accommodate them into the design of the project. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 882-2670. Sincerely, David E. Hutton, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer DEH/mc Enclosures cc: Steve King, City Administrator F:\USERS\ENGINEER\95-08\LONEY.114 - - - - _ _- - I I ' I i 1 I I 1 (` S1-iAKOP�'t CLAN ( — • I--_ ! � � , I � sYSi�q I j—� —;— — _ � i�l I \ \ I. 1 � i � iLJ 1IIIaaIEL I i 1 ( 4 0 I • 1 A i co— 0 / a g/i i DID r , I L ............) kil -.1 1 lr . ,,• 40, 1 • 4 ,e- - tr‘ ._._._. / , . it .. , ,, /9-- ..2., „ ,10, . I___..,___ALLIUT 1 I '---. K ii I / < \ \ I N / 2 / i\ 7”' ''' '."' al \ .... ''. FUTURE STORM SYSTEMcn 1 J 1 ' ? SHAKOPEE COST TO BE ,o i _41-311---7 i L_______—, i ..---- PY�1RIT " p �� T ' ‘A(4L.L 7, ,,•---// . •\"1--- -)-----1--------1 . N. /4/ 13/h AVE . 4 a �`\ 6 " RCP '�. 42 " RCP �Q- i;:i i � 5 o l'\ `" QS /2) �`' STORAGE R .. •ED '� ea % Q ST �� ♦ CHANNEL a . •c v iQi 4ilk Si O W r I 21 \ �`'+ W h Q Sibit 1 z ST • ++ .� I„• ,�� Q /241h ST l°� q 1 ,J �.. L e 1� 7 ? 30 " RCP ti o 1251h5T 12 • /h ST 3 6 BOILING SPRINGS .'.. i U R r LL Qi,j z / TWO STAGE OUTLET / STORM EVENT ZISNRAN SYSTEM EAOLECHARGE TO CREEK ARGE O 100 Tear35 ofS 16 ofS 8 / 50 Y. 27 ofS 16 ofS 15 ofS / 25 Year 10 Yew 15ofSS 15 ofS ti pp ' , SPR/NGS / �k �� Ro 15 16 SHAKOPEE ``' 13 1990 POP . 11 , 739 • 0 W 0 A 1 Qca ' 1 t or 16 i 12 + K ji.) l / SAVAGE i 1990 POP . 9 . 06 • 4 M`(5 McGlj�Re r cr C.) /ho,Q ( 134 /h ST . ) NcCOLL OR. ijoy -- 14 / ,. . OR' P�� // 11 LEGEND ct SA / SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY o `I'Zt / `" / 12 SUBWATERSHED IDENTIFICATION 18 ® PONDS / I \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ CORPORATE BOUNDARY il\ -.-e. DIRECTION OF FLOW POND REQUIRED STORAGE PEAK DISCHARGE HWL / 1.D. # foo-ft) Cafe) 1 1.4 EQUALIZES WITH 2 6. 3 737.0 )112 3.3 EQUALIZES WITH 1 & 3 737.0/ / 3 0.5 9 737.0 4 7.7 4 734.3 il i/// 5 6.2 EQUALIZES WITH 4 734.3 / 6 43.8 4 740.0 / 7 22.7 10731.9 / 5.9 4 8 736.1 Sr 2}0 0 54o 000 0 G�� 11 5.2 4 955.5 SCALE IN FEET 12 37.7 15 737.7 13 16.3 • 27 733.0 0 15 51.0 26 727.5 19 12.6 35 723.5 20 2.9 56 721.0 • 21 2.0 54 716.1 0 r r °'," wire meow.�.M mammas a ay... Sc"' As NOTED Schelen ...1••�� Kr�....M owl avarr..M r EAGLE CREEK INN IN/ IINIA0""'..°' M a e r o n & ......�..w.e s.....�. PUN eY ItSo01 ST. cliNtink Associates. Inc. 'Aa' F i CURE 4 WATERSHED STUDY ME eeM4N0.$ Enelneare• Arehneets • Planners•Surveyors PEKII R.Wl1ENOM1O Mr Drays 300 Part n...s..l.one.a,r.%a N.ela..re AL TERNAT I VE 3 arcaro eery v. DATE IIlea.aplla.NN ee/le•Iers•sis•e•e•smle re1�.s'. df. roe. Cale 11 K CO1SENT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director ", SUBJECT: Authorization of Engineering Services for Upper Valley Drainageway Trail DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: This item is to consider authorizing Orr-Schelen-Mayeron& Assoc. (OSM) to design the Upper Valley Drainageway (U.V.D.) trail corrections from County Road (C.R.) 79 to Vierling Drive. Attached is a cost proposal from OSM on this Engineering service. BACKGROUND: A bituminous trail along the U.V.D. was installed with the U.V.D. Project No. 1993-3. Portions of the bituminous trail along the U.V.D. have been under water during the course of this year. Council has directed staff to review alternatives to make the trail connection from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive usable. The two alignment alternatives to provide a trail from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive along the U.V.D. is as follows: 1. Use the existing trail alignment and reconstruct portions of the trail that are under water at normal water levels of the pond and flatten the slopes wherever possible to meet ADA regulations. 2. Reroute the trail along Vierling Drive and C.R. 79. This trail route would be a new route entirely and the cost would be substantially higher as the route is longer and pedestrian ramps would be required at street intersections. Staff would recommend correcting the trail deficiencies along the existing route as the most cost effective and the best location for the trail. A cost estimate comparison of the two alternatives with three options is shown as Attachment No. 1 and location maps of the options. The existing trail revision option is a much lower cost than constructing a new trail along Vierling Drive. Staff believes that the trail areas under water can be elevated so that the trail is useable except for brief periods during major storm events. In order to complete this design and construct the corrections this year, staff is recommending OSM be authorized to prepare drawings for the U.V.D. trail revisions. Staff does not have the time to redesign the trail at this time and OSM is the designer of the U.V.D. improvements. It is recommended that OSM be authorized to complete the design and the design be brought back to Council along with construction quotes for Council consideration. Payment of the design services can be from the U.V.D. 10% contingency or Capital Improvement Fund. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to authorize staff to utilize OSM on the design of the U.V.D. trail revisions from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive. 2. Do no authorize the Engineering service proposal. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to authorize staff to utilize OSM on the design of the U.V.D. trail revisions from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement with On- Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. to design the trail revisions from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive for a cost not-to-exceed$1,700.00. BL/pmp UVD JUL 27 '95 09 26 091 MPLS, MN P.2 f • 5��dnt .,.. i 300 Park Placa East i5776 Wayzata Boulevard I Minneapolis,MN 55416-1228 I 612-595-5775 . I.800.753-5775 . FAX 595-5774 I engineers July 27, 1995 Architects ers Surveyors , . t Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. , Spiv of Shakopee • 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Itte; Contract Extension Agreement • Upper Valley Drainage Trail Reconstruction Dear Mr. Loney: , *cording.to our Agreement for Professional Services with the City of Shakopee and Section I-C 2 (Major Projects), this extension agreement is for the design modifications to the bike trail located along the Upper Valley Drainage Ditch between CR 79 and Vierling Drive. . Qrr-Schelen•Mayeron&Associates,Inc.(OSM)agrees to accomplish the noted services for a fee not to exceed: ' S ' 600.00 • Hydraulic analysis of ditch to determine the storm event which can } be achieved without flooding the reconstructed path and recom- mendations for a culvert installation under'the trail at Pondview Court. ;$1,100.00 • Plan preparation, cross sections and analysis of the trail improve- ments to raise the trail to an acceptable elevation. Any additional preliminary surveying or construction surveying is considered outside of the above-noted fee. . The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse OSM for these services in accordance with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services. , . EmPloYer JUL 27 '95 09:27 QSM MPLS, MN P.3 Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. City of Shakopee Shakopee, MN ruly 27, 1995 Page.2 i • if this agreement meets with your approval,please sign below and return one copy to our office. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, ORR.SCHELEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES,INC. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Project.Manager, Associate City Administrator Edward 3. DeLaForest, P.B. 'Nice President City Clerk Mayor Date MAS Attachment No. 1 Unit Cost Per Option 1 Cost Option 2 Cost Option 3 Cost New Trail L.F. 10 930 9300 1520 15200 1520 15200 Old Trail Removal L.F. 1 930 930 0 0 1560 1560 Resodding S.F. 2.25 0 0 15200 34200 15200 34200 Reseeding Acre 1000 0.758 758 0 0 0.758 758 Pipe Cost L.F. 50 50 2500 0 0 0 0 Curb and Gutter L.F. 15 0 0 120 1800 120 1800 Fill C.Y. 4 300 1200 0 0 0 0 Grading flat fee 1000 1 1000 0 0 1 1000 Totals 15688 51200 54518 Option 1 : Repair existing trail Option 2 : Create new trail, leave existing trail as is. Option 3 : Create new trail, remove existing trail. Page 1 111 L. •....... ....4 .,0? iii -,,,,,,,. ° r _IA acu *Marr:1O CO e- f Q Q IIO v , ._ 4,4000 ® , s n , �uJ (/) ^ 1 VI (D L L a ,' IP / f i I ,. . C.1111 _, 1 . . .. i U oLO c .� i 6L ei 0 • • . _•f ,. . .. oAdO ., t� . 'a, a) > o ..: mi. o •, ,,, Al I II lah, r., ,...._ ...,...„....:,_... .. . ., ..-Cf; ijf--72'..--:, - 111 Q f 4411, . i.. i. ,..r.,....::.:•:::,...'s.::::-_:.....:_,..:-:.:::_,..i......_...,_. • rn 0) 'x 12)C 1\/� i 0 . . _or. _ _ _ .•liti41111:.....(,) t c_p_on lira I Ln . , . ;I 6L el0 e°4111111111°111°' . Jv., AID au* SP* t1') . 1104 , -,..... Lo - -7..:---2 10141Plilip I" (111 IL _ to ! s •I • V) N 11111111 . III " . 1 116_,Ael wilWrial _ . .CD0 L o U in c M 6L a0 1 L CONSENT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock,Assistant City Administrator RE: Civic Center Project-Bid Packages No. 6A, 6B, 6C, 10, 14A, 14B, 16&22 DATE: July 26, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On July 19, 1995 bids were received and opened for a variety of bid packages. The Construction Manager has reviewed the bids and is recommending that contracts be awarded accordingly. BACKGROUND: Attached is a correspondence from Mike Parsons, Greystone Construction regarding the Civic Center bid packages opened on July 19, 1995. Note that the correspondence includes a summary describing the bid packages and the lowest responsive bidder. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to award the Shakopee Civic Center project bid packages to the lowest responsive bidders as noted in the summary provided by Greystone Construction Co. dated July 26, 1995 and authorize the appropriate City officials to execute contract documents accordingly. 2. Table action pending further information from staff. 3. Rebid certain bid packages as deemed appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative#1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to award the Shakopee Civic Center project bid packages to the lowest responsive bidders as noted in the summary provided by Greystone Construction Co. dated July 26, 1995 and authorize the appropriate City officials to execute contract documents accordingly firI' T1► TW ?irk P IM T V % LIKEY a I LJ1' CONSTRUCTION COMPANY • July 26, 1995 Barry Stock Assistant City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 Re: Shakopee Civic Center Bid Package Work Dear Barry: We recommend the award of contracts for bid package numbers 6A, 6B, 6C, 10, 14A, 14B, 16 and 22 to the lowest responsive bidder. Bids for this work were received on July 19, 1995. Bids for bid package 16 were received on June 21. The lowest responsive bidder and the budget for each category of work are listed on the attachment. A bid tabulation sheet is also enclosed for each category of work. Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, 74QQ Mild J. Parsons Project Manager • ENCLOSURE-summary;bid tabulations; copy of bids received-categories 6A, 6B, 6C, 10, 14A, 14B, 16 and 22 cc: Rob O'Brien w/summary Paul Dahlberg w/summary bsrec726 1221 East Fourth Avenue, Suite 110 Equal Opportunity Telephone: 612-496-2227 Shakopee Minnesota 55379 Employer/Contractor Fax : 612-445-4191 Shakopee Civic Center, Shakopee,MN --Owner: City of Shakopee SUMMARY--Prepared by Greystone Construction Company 07/26/95 Bid Description Budget Lowest Responsive Amount Package Bidder 6A Rough carpentry, architectural Note 1. George F.Cook Construction $70,000 woodwork; &door frame Company installation(rebid) 6B Doors,frames,fmish hardware& Note 1. Hauenstein&Burmeister $82,040 hardware installation(rebid) 6C Drywall systems&related work Note 1. Olympic Wall Systems $71,500 (rebid) 10 Overhead doors,coiling doors& $ 6,600 Specialty Door System OR $ 10,385 grilles(rebid) Stanton Building Specialties or (pending review of material) $ 11,655 14A Carpet&base(rebid) $ 19,450 St.Paul Linoleum&Carpet $32,500 14B Synthetic rubber athletic flooring $30,000 Anderson LADD $28,100 (rebid)-walking track 16 Wood flooring-gymnasium, $179,695 Anderson LADD $153,380 . multi-purpose&wrestling rooms; including specified products with voluntary alternate material thickness&pattern 22 Athletic&recreational equipment $50,000 Hauenstein&Burmeister $51,800 Notes: (1) The budget for this work is included in the $179,695 budget for bid package no.6. The lowest responsive bidder on June 21 was at $365,300. Subsequently the work was divided into smaller categories and rebid. Direct quotes were obtained for division 10 specialty items. The current total projected amount for bid package 6 work is$320,743. i1 ►-�, MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director )1%, SUBJECT: Huber Park Regrading and Restoration DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Huber Park is a three acre park by the riverfront which was used by the City as a fill site throughout the past years. This item is to request Council authorization to regrade the Huber Park area, place topsoil and establish turf to clean up the site and make the park useable for recreational activities. BACKGROUND: The City used Huber Park as a fill site to raise the elevation of this park above the flood waters. Much of the three acre park had fill deposited with no topsoil needed to establish a good turf cover. Also much of the area is very uneven and rocky, thus mowing of the park is difficult if not impossible. With the investigation of the Bluff Avenue boat ramp access road closure and the availability of several thousand cubic yards of topsoil, staff would like to request Council authorization to regrade Huber Park and place topsoil in order to establish a turf cover that is mowable and useable similar to other parks in Shakopee. Staff will need to obtain permission from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) in order to place more fill. Preliminary indications are favorable and a meeting with DNR and LMRWD representatives is being scheduled. To regrade and restore Huber Park to a useable condition, the following work items are necessary and/or recommended by staff: Work Items Estimated Cost Dozer Rental $ 750.00 Paving of Bituminous Trail $3,500.00 from 1st Avenue to DNR Trail Pipe Culvert $ 500.00 Seeding & Fertilizing $ 500.00 TOTAL $5,250.00 The Public Works Department would provide the labor to regrade the area, install pipe culverts,place topsoil and establish turf. The bituminous trail paving from 1st Avenue to the DNR Trail would be contracted out. The City will need to remove the topsoil from the Fuller Street and Civic Center to complete the street and site improvements. Staff is recommending that this topsoil be used to restore Huber Park as a short term improvement until the Riverfront Development occurs. Payment of these park improvements can be from the General Fund in the Park Division. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to direct staff to regrade and restore Huber Park as outlined in this memo. 2. Do not regrade and restore Huber Park at this time. 3. Table for more information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as Huber Park can be restored for park recreational purposes at a relatively low cost and due to the fact the City has excess topsoil available with the Fuller Street and Civic Center Projects. Restoration and placement of topsoil is contingent upon DNR and LMRWD permission. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct staff to regrade and restore Huber Park as outlined in this memo and as amended by Council. BL/pmp HUBER i11 • MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney,Public Works Director • SUBJECT: Fuller Street, from 10th Avenue to Vierling Drive, Project No. 1995-8 DATE: August 1, 1995 JNTRODUCTION: This memo is to report to the Council on the Alternatives, Recommendations, and Action Requested for the sanitary sewer alignment change on the Fuller Street improvement project. BACKGROUND: The City Attorney has reviewed the Resolution No. 4219 which orders the improvement of Fuller Street by grading, curb&gutter, street, storm sewer, sidewalk, sanitary sewer, watermain and appurtenant work and which designates the Public Works Director as the engineer for this improvement-and reviewed the 429 special assessment statutue. The conclusion of the review is that the sanitary sewer alignment change can be made if waivers of appeal are obtained from the affected property owners who will have a larger assessement from the sewer improvement. Waivers have been sent to the affected property owners and all affected property owners have indicated a willingness to sign the waivers. The extra cost of routing the sanitary sewer on Fuller Street versus the Civic Center Property is approximately $8,000.00. Previously in the feasibility report,the sanitary sewer cost was to be assessed totally to the unplatted parcel owned by Novak-Fleck known as the proposed Meadows North development. In the City's assessment policy, City-owned properties, including municipal building sites, shall be regarded as being assessable on the same basis as if such property was privately owned. The assessment cost of the sanitary sewer on either the Civic Center or Fuller Street alignment will be essentially the same which is approximately $18,000.00 to $22,000.00. If staff receives signed waivers from the affected property owners,the sanitary sewer change will be incorporated into the plans. For Council's information,these property owners were included in the public hearing notice and the mailed notification for the project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to direct staff to make the necessary plan changes to route the sanitary sewer on Fuller Street and obtain the necessary waivers from the affected property owners. 2. Direct staff to leave the sanitary sewer alignment through the Civic Center site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative No. 1 as the property owners have requested sanitary sewer service. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to direct staff to make the necessary plan changes to route the sanitary sewer on Fuller Street and obtain the necessary waivers from the affected property owners. MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director e. SUBJECT: Fuller Street, from 10th Avenue to Vierling Drive, Project No. 1995-8 DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: This item is to request Council approval of a plan change for Fuller Street, Project No. 1995-8, particularly with the sanitary sewer alignment. Plans and specifications were approved by Council at the July 18, 1995 meeting by Resolution No. 4254. BACKGROUND: After the approval of the plans for Fuller Street staff has had several meetings with Jeff and Jim Monnens of Monnens Custom Builders who own the property to the west of Fuller Street and south of Prairie Wood 3rd Addition. The main item of discussion was on the benefit on bringing sanitary sewer service on Fuller Street from the V.I.P. trunk to serve the property. It was concluded that the sanitary sewer alignment should be placed on Fuller Street versus the Civic Center for the following reasons: 1. Sanitary sewer on Fuller Street would allow Monnens Custom Builders to develop the easterly 500 feet now. The Monnens do not own all the property from Fuller Street to the property owned by St. Mark's Cemetery, thus sanitary sewer from Fuller Street is being requested to serve their property. 2. Sanitary sewer on Fuller Street would provide sewer service to two lots owned by LeRoy and Mike Menke which would be assessed for watermain and street but not sewer with the Civic Center alternative. 3. The sanitary sewer line would be within street right-of-way for better sewer maintenance access. 4. The sanitary sewer would be assessed to the Monnens, Menkes,proposed Meadows North and Civic Center. In the Assessment Policy, the public is to be treated the same as private property. The sewer alignment through the Civic Center does not benefit the Civic Center,however,per the policy one could argue that the City pay for the entire line as would any other private development to bring the sewer line to adjacent parcels. Previously a 50/50 cost split with Meadows North developer was tentatively agreed upon for the sanitary sewer cost. The sewer line on Fuller Street would result in a slightly higher cost to the Civic Center site, however,this alternative would fit the City Assessment Policy. Currently, the Fuller Street Improvement Project plans are being advertised for an August 11, 1995 bid opening. The City Attorney is reviewing this plan change for legal compliance. Staff will report to Council at the meeting what procedures are necessary to make this plan change. The owners have indicated a willingness to sign a waiver of hearing for the sanitary sewer.. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Staff will have memo on the table for Council alternatives. RECOMMENDATION: Staff will have a memo on the table as to the recommendation. ACTION REQUESTED: The specific action requested will be with the memo on the table. BL/pmp MEM4256 CONSENT la. Ct. EXPLANATION TO RESOLUTION 4262 & 4265 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Law Department PURPOSE: To Convey Property to Minnesota Department of Transportation, and to make payment to Metropolitan Council to satisfy loan. REMARKS: In 1985 the City participated in the Metropolitan Council ' s Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) . The City received several loans to acquire property to be later used by Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) for Trunk Highway 101. The terms of the loan agreement require the City to convey the property to MNDOT, and then return the amount of the loan. At this time MNDOT is ready to acquire the property in order to construct Highway 101. The City is also receiving reimbursement of appraisal and title evaluation costs, and reimbursement of special assessments on the property. MNDOT will pay the City a total of $1, 180, 849 . 51, of which $1, 166,467 . 77 will be returned the Metropolitan Council to satisfy the loan from RALF. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 4262 and Resolution No. 4265 , resolutions relating to the sale of land to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for T.H. 101, and repayment of loan from the Metropolitan Council, and move their adoption. Submitted by: Assistant City Attorney (RALF.RES/3] RESOLUTION NO. 4262 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, RELATING TO THE SALE OF LAND TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR T.H. 101. WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has supported the construction of T.H. 101 in Shakopee through its participation in the Metropolitan Council ' s Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) ; and WHEREAS, the City received loan funds from the Metropolitan Council to acquire property within the proposed right-of-way, and the City is required under the terms of the loan to convey said property to the Minnesota Department of Transportation upon request of the Department, and WHEREAS, the City acquired parcels of real property described as Watson Parcel 1 and Watson Parcel 2 as described in Exhibit A, Parcels 3, 4, 5, and 6, as described in Exhibit B, and Parcel 7 as described in Exhibit C, and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation now desires to purchase this property from the City for an amount of $1, 180, 849 . 51, which represents the original acquisition price, appraisal and title evaluation costs, and reimbursement of tax assessments on the property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS : That the Mayor, the City Administrator and the City Clerk are authorized to execute the Offer to Sell and Memorandum of Conditions and a Quit Claim Deed to convey to the State of Minnesota Watson Parcel 1 and Watson Parcel 2 as described in Exhibit A, Parcels 3, 4, 5, and 6, as described in Exhibit B, and Parcel 7 as described in Exhibit C. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1995 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest : City Clerk Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney [RALF.RES/2] Exhibit A Watson Parcel I Outlot A, Block 1 , Valley Mall 1st Addition, Scott County , Minnesota, containing 2 . 14 acres more or less . Watson Parcel II That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter and the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 11 , Township 115 , Range 23 , Scott County , Minnesota, more particularly described as follows : Beginning at the most southerly corner of Outlot A, Block 1 , Valley Mall 1st Addition, Scott County, M.nnesota, thence North 51 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds West a distance of 765 .00 feet to the most westerly corner of said Outlot A, thence North 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 598 . 56 feet , thence North 13 degrees 25 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 247 . 68 feet , thence North 51 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds West a distance of 60 . 00 feet to the Southeasterly right of way of U . S . Highway 169 , thence South 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds West along said U . S . Highway 169 right of way a distance of 1149 .60 feet, thence South 51 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 400 . 00 feet , thence South 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 376 .25 feet , thence North 51 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds West a distance of 400 .00 feet to the Southeasterly right of way of U. S . Highway 169 , thence South 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds West along said U . S , Highway 169 right of way a distance of 649 .64 feet, thence South 19 degrees 09 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 188 . 71 feet , thence South 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 52 .80 feet, thence South 00 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 158. 19 feet, thence North 86 degrees 56 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 1249 .74 feet , thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 266 .52 feet , thence North 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 669 .60 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating, containing; 29 .98 acres more or less . Except the following described Tract in the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 11 : Beginning at the most Westerly corner of Lot 1 , Block 1 , of said Valley Mall 1st Addition, from which said westerly corner of said Outlot A bears South 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 461 . 89 feet , thence North 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 136 .67 feet , thence North 13 degrees 25 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 247 .68 feet , thence North 51 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds West a distance of 60 . 00 feet , thence South 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 360 .99 feet , thence South 51 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 165 . 00 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating , containing 1 . 10 acres more or less . . • •• Y ' EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF PARCELS 3, 4, 5, and 6 PARCEL 3: That part of the West Half of the SW 1/4 of Section 9, Township 115, RB 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying North of County Road #16 and Westerly of Lot 1, Block 1, DCCD 1st Addition, Subject to the Northern Natural Gas Company Easements. PARCEL 4: Lots ,2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 1; Lots 6 and 7, Block 4; Lot 1, Block 5 and Outlot E, Killarney Hills Addition to Scott County, Minnesota. PARCEL 5: , Lot 8, block 1, Killarney Hills Addition, Scott County Minnesota. • PARCEL 6i Lot 11, Block 1, Killarney Hills Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. ABLEGD • EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Original 14 . 2 Acre Parcel That part of the North half of the Southwest Quarter (N1/2 of SWI/4) of Section 11, Township 115, Range 23, Scott County. Minnesota. described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of MINNESOTA VALLEY 3RD ADDITION, also being the Southwest corner of MINNESOTA VALLEY 1ST ADDITION, according to the recorded plats thereof; thence South 1 degree 04 minutes 43 seconds East along the West line of said MINNESOTA VALLEY 3RD ADDITION. a distance of 108.11 feet; thence • South 8,8 degrees 55 minutes 17 seconds West along the North line of said MINNESOTA VALLEY 3RD ADDITION, a distance of 130.00 feet to the point of beginning of the • tract of land to be described; thence South 1 degree 04 minutes 43 seconds East along the West,line of said MINNESOTA VALLEY 3RD ADDITION a distance of 380.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 55 minutes 17 seconds West along the North line of said MIN- NESOTA VALLEY 3RD ADDITION, a distance of 245.00 feet; thence South 2S degrees 25 minutes 17 seconds West along the Westerly line of said MINNESOTA VALLEY 3RD ADDITION, a distance of 380.000 feet; thence South 26 degrees 04 minutes 43 seconds East along the Westerly line of said MINNESOTA VALLEY 3RD ADDITION, a distance of 204.23 feet to the South line of said North half of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 86 degrees 56 minutes 16 seconds West along said South line of the North half of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 724.91 feet; thence North 0 degree 08 minutes 24 seconds West. a distance of 266.52 feet to the intersection with the Southwesterly exten- sion of the Southeasterly line of VALLEY MALL FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence North 38 degrees 30 minutes OS seconds East along-said Southwesterly extension and the Southeasterly line of VALLEY MALL FIRST ADDI- TION, a distance of 1008.70 feet; thence South 51 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds East, a distance of 60.00 feet: thence South 42 degrees 09 minutes 03 seconds East. a distance of • 120.63 feet; thence North 38 degrees 30 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 85.00 feet; thence North 88 degrees 55 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 226.00 feet; thence South 1 degree'04 minutes 43 seconds East a distance of 50.00 feet to the point of beginning. • Subject Parcel (7) To Be Taken (Estimated at 3 . 0 Acres) That part of Parcel B lying South and West of a straight line drawn between a point on the South line of the North Half of Southwest Quarter of Section 11. Township 115. Range 23, distant 400 ft. East of the intersection of said South line with the West line of East half of Southwest quarter of Section Il, Township 115, Range 23. and a point on said West line distant 600 feet North of said intersection. • Peter). Patchiin & Associates, inc. (i ) RESOLUTION NO. 4265 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, RELATING TO REPAYMENT OF LOAN FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION LOAN FUND. WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council authorized a loan to the City of Shakopee to be made from the Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Program (RALF) ; and WHEREAS, the City received loan proceeds in the amount of $895, 603 . 00 (Contract No. L-84-1) , $182 .490 . 57 (Contract No. L- 85-3 , and $88, 374 .20 (Contract No. C-86-34) , and WHEREAS, the City has conveyed to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) parcels of real property acquired under the RALF program and has received $1, 166,467.77 from the State of Minnesota. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the City Administrator is authorized to pay the Metropolitan Council $1, 166,467.77 as payment of the above described loans. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1995 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest : City Clerk Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney IRALF.RES/4] CONSEE\fl MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator / FROM: John DeLacey, Engineering Tech. III 4: SUBJECT: Public Works Parking Lot, Project No. 1994-9 DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Council action is required for a resolution accepting work and making final payment on the Public Works Parking Lot, Project No. 1994-9. BACKGROUND: All of the work for this project has been completed in accordance with the contract documents. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 4261, A Resolution Accepting Work on the Public Works Parking Lot, Improvements, Project No. 1994-9 and move its adoption. • RESOLUTION NO. 4261 A Resolution Accepting Work On The Public Works Parking Lot Improvements Project No. 1994-9 WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Shakopee on July 1, 1994, Northwest Asphalt, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the Public Works Parking Lot Improvements, in accordance with such contract. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ' ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney ). a -# To: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Subject: Civic Center Programs Date: 07/26/95 Introduction Council discussion on what activities are to be accounted for within the Civic Center Enterprise Fund is requested. Background The Civic Center facility will provide space for a few activities that are currently recreation programs within the General Fund. The proposed budget being developed for the enterprise fund included programming fees for those activities. Therefore, Council direction on programming revenues for activities within the civic center is requested. I, had, contacted our auditors and their recommendation is ,to consider modifying the enterprise fund to be a Recreation Fund instead of a Civic Center Fund and move the financial activity for all recreation programs and the pool to the Recreation Fund. The rational is that we are a growing city and have higher costs in the general fund because of the growth when compared to other cities in general and in view of state comparisons for aid determinations. An enterprise fund used to be considered primarily supported by user fees (80-90%) . That has slipped over the years to be at least half supported by user fees. Currently the authoritative literature provides; "enterprise funds. . . financed. . .primarily by user charges; or where the governing body has decided the periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes." An activity not recommended for inclusion in the enterprise fund is park maintenance because of the very minor revenue generated by user fees. Based on the 1995 budget, the pool is supported 46% by fees and recreation programming 41% by fees. Tax support is $73,380 for the pool and $141,520 for recreation programming for a total of $214,900. The proposed 1996 budget being prepared shows the pool at 50% user fees, recreation at 41% and the civic center at 74%% (before depreciation) and a total the those three areas is 59% which equates to a tax support of $283,785. budget/other96/civicpro Iib TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Assessments on City Property and State Aid DATE: June 22, 1995 Introduction Council review of the assessment policy for city property and the process for. paying off assessments on city property, and the disposition of state aid for construction is raised for discussion. Background The assessment policy provides that city owned land'will be assessed like any other developable land. In the past, the dollar amounts involved have not been very large amounts. With the projects of the VIP Extension and Verling• Drive going past Lions and Tahpah Park and the Civic Center, and the future Gorman Street project, substantial dollar amounts are now involved. The VIP Interceptor has been assessed at$55, 664, Vierling Drive CR 15 West is estimated at $295, 133, Vierling Drive 77 to 79 estimated at $39, 969, Gorman Street is estimated at $89, 000, Vierling Drive 77 to 15 is estimated at $146, 875 and Vierling Drive Presidential to 169 is estimated at $232, 000 . Past practice has been to levy assessments and then pay. certified amounts from General Fund Unallocated Division and periodically pay off the balance owing from the CIF. For some projects, not assessing •city property would drop the project below the minimum assessed costs necessary to be able to issue improvements bonds. Most of the time, improvement bonds are issued to cover the assessed and the tax levy or non-funded project costs. If improvement bonds can not be issued, the alternatives are a referendum bond issue or using cash on hand to finance the project . Using cash on hand could deplete the available cash in short order. State aid for construction sometimes gives the city surplus of funding for a project . Past practice has usually been to put that money in the construction fund which then rolls over to the applicable debt service fund and then rolls over to the CIF when all bonds are paid off. It has also been used to reduce the amount of bonding needed for a project . An alternative for state aid construction "surplus" would be to put the surplus on a project directly into the CIF for immediate use on another project. Alternatives 1 .A. Assess city property and pay from General Fund (tax levy) . 1.B. Assess city property and pay from CIF. 2 . Change assessment policy and not assess city property. 3 .A. Not assess city property but pay city share in cash up front from General Fund Fund Balance. 3 .B. Not assess city property but pay city share in cash up front from CIF. " 6 .A. Keep surplus state aid with the project account, then roll to debt service and close out to CIF. 6 .B. Pull surplus state into the CIF when received. Recommendation Basically the questions are; 1. Does Council want to continue to assess city property? 2 . Does Council want to use CIF fund balance to pay off assessments on city property or General Fund balance or does Council want to use tax levy. The current draft CIP shows a substantial draw down on the CIF balance. If surplus state aid construction is placed in the CIF and not used to reduce bonding on applicable projects, there will be more money put into the CIF than what was shown on the draft CIP. 3 . Does Council want to let surplus state aid run with the project through the projects construction fund and debt service fund, or pull surplus into CIF immediately? Action Discuss and give staff direction. Oigte /e ReS.Nc'5.5 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Arena Scoreboard DATE: August 1, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On July 25,1995 I received a call from Gerry Gordon, Regional Sales Manager for Aim Electronics Inc. Mr. Gordon called inquiring whether or not the City would be interested in acquiring a used arena scoreboard at a substantially reduced price. BACKGROUND: On July 25, 1995 Mr. Gerry Gordon inquired whether or not the City of Shakopee was interested in purchasing a used scoreboard. The scoreboard in question was used in the filming of Mighty Ducks 3. The scoreboard was installed at the Columbia Heights arena on June 20, 1995 and used through July 14, 1995(3 weeks). The scoreboard is a Decktronics model which includes player number and penalty times. The scoreboard is the exact same model that is located in the Dakotah arena. The original price for this scoreboard including customized Shakopee Sabers name panel is$6,506.88. Mr. Gordon quoted a sale price to me in the amount of$5,395.13. Upon receiving the information from Mr. Gordon, I contacted several other scoreboard suppliers to determine if the proposal offered by Mr. Gordon was a bargain. I discovered that I could purchase a comparable(Fairplay) scoreboard from Earl F. Anderson, Inc. in the amount of$4,410.00. However,the Earl F. Anderson quote did not include shipping, customized name panel and/or sales tax. I then contacted Mr. Gordon informing.him that his original price quotation was unacceptable. Mr. Gordon then sent me a revised cost quotation in the amount of$4,963.80. (See Attachment). Mr. Gordon notes in his correspondence that the player number and penalty time digits are 30%larger on the Decktronics scoreboard as compared to the (Fairplay) Earl F. Anderson, Inc., scoreboard. I believe that the cost quotation submitted is an excellent bargain for the City of Shakopee. I recognize that we presently have a scoreboard that was donated to the City by the Shakopee Hockey Association. However,the Hockey Association scoreboard is between 12-15 years old and has not been operational for over a 2 year period. Additionally, in checking with the Hockey Association members, the scoreboard did receive some slight damage on two separate occasions in the past when the ice bubble collapsed. I would like to recommend that City Council approve the purchase of the Decktronics model scoreboard in the amount of$4,963.80 as submitted by Aim Electronics, Inc. I would also like to recommend that City Council declare the Valley Ice arena scoreboard as surplus property and direct the City Administrator to dispose of it accordingly. I believe that we maybe able to find a buyer for the old Valley Ice arena scoreboard. The estimated salvage value is $1,000.00. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to purchase the Decktronics scoreboard from Aim Electronics in an amount not to exceed $4,963.80. 2. Do not purchase the Decktronics scoreboard. 3. Declare the former Valley Ice arena scoreboard surplus property and direct the City Administrator to dispose of it accordingly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1 and#3. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to purchase the Decktronics scoreboard from Aim Electronics in an amount not to exceed$4,963.80. 2. Declare the former Valley Ice arena scoreboard surplus property and direct the City Administrator to dispose of it accordingly. BAS/tiv-h:\word\tami\admin\scoreboard 07/27/95 15:49 '0612 941 9831 A!M ELECTRONICS 001 ALmonecainc. 8140 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Praine.Mifneeota 55344 Phone(612)9414830 Fax (612)941-9831 DATE July 27, 1995 TO: Barry Stock,Director SHAKOPEE PARKS&RECREATION FROM: Gerry Gordon RE DAKTRONICS HOCKEY SCOREBOARD 1 am submitting a new negotiated price for the"Mighty Ducks 3"hockey scoreboard. This is an excellent price for the features and minimal use of the scoreboard. Keep in mind that the player number and penalty time digits.are 30%larger on the Dalmvnics scoreboard as compared to the Fairplay scoreboard. Also.the clock and score digits are larger on the 1)aktronics hockey scoreboard. In addition,you can save freight costs if you make arrangements to pickup the scoreboard in St. Louis Park. Again,l must have a decision byA gust 3, 1995. Please call me at 941-9830 if you have any questions. • AUTOMATED INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE 07/27/95 15.50 $612 941 9831 AIM ELECTRON!CS It002 EkECTA011ICS, Inc. 8140 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 Phone(612)941-9830 Fax (612)941.9831 PRICE QUOTATION July 27, 1995 HOCKEY SCOREBOARD Description Sales Price Original price 1. Daktmnics model H-2813S (dot digit) hockey scoreboard including AS-2610 control console(playcr numbers and penalty times) $4,045.00 $5250.00 2. Name Panel (Shakopee Sabers incl. logo) - 24" x 17'10" 475.00 625.00 3. Estimated Freight 150.00 250.00 4. Sales Tax - 63%on materials 293.80 - 381.88 $4.963.80 16,506.88 SAVING $1.543.08 Options Available 1. Signal Cable $ ,50 ft, 2. Console Carrying Case $ 80.00 ea. 3. Installation and Training Call for Quote Other Information --Color. Blue — Five(5)year limited warranty on all equipment --Available immediately -- Net 30 day payment --Prices valid for 30 days AUTOMATED INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE