Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/26/1996 Joint Worksession
TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORKSESSION W/ SCOTT COUNTY BOARD NOVEMBER 26, 1996 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jeff Henderson presiding 1] Roll Call following City Council Meeting at 5:00 P.M. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] New Business A. Discussion of Scott County Courthouse Square/Judicial Center Proposal 1. Site Plan Review 2. Traffic Impact 3. Actions needed to facilitate B. Discussion of Collaborative Efforts (if time permits) 1. (Dropped) 2. Local Effort/Traditional TIF Reactions 3. Growth Options Discussion 4] Adjourn (Anticipated 6:30 PM) CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Scott County Board of Commissioners Gary Cunningham, County Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Scott County Justice Center DATE: November 21, 1996 Introduction: During 1995, the City of Shakopee and Scott County, through their elected and appointed officials, had several conversations about the potential location of a new criminal justice facility. As a result of those conversations, and because the retention and expansion of the Courthouse at its present location was viewed as a positive economic influence on Downtown Shakopee, in September of 1995 the previous City Council reached consensus on providing support in a variety of ways to Scott County for the development of the new criminal justice facility. In February of 1996, the present City Council passed Resolution No. 4386, reiterating the City's support for, and willingness to cooperate in the development of an expanded Scott County facility at the site of the present Courthouse. As a step in the process of cooperating with the County on the development of the justice center, the City has asked its consultant, WSB, to provide an analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed justice center, as well as recommendations for dealing with the impacts. WSB's report is attached for the City Council's and County Board's information. The information contained in the report should be helpful to the Council and Board in identifying future steps which need to be taken by the City and County, respectively. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director JTCOMTG.DOC/RML 1 v 1 , .., I . I I I 11114 =milli I 111111111111911111 MEMO Scott County i iorill.. iNm.i.-.jInrk4 4-111111 Ialh MasterplarStud ....Ad..... ......... I ,:- 1 [111.01 WOLD ARCHITECTS IAND ENGINEERS 6 WEST FIFTH STREET Scott County ST. PAUL, MN 55102 I612.227.7773 Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 , I - , ,-f.,,....-t-.1. '7,... ... .. . ---,.--h." -- - , ..""-'"1. , te-4'3i0.. . .- /- - -,-.P0...-...t:k'-.....1,-f-.:-:-.-. ., - -- a.r. ,,L4. ----- ,- w• • ,- ,-4 . . ---g.,,,......;. ,. .. ,, ,i .„ ---. --........-f....,-....„„„;.--74./. .. f,....--J„ ,-, . e......- „- rE4, _.--._. ,...,4-4 ..,----- „iiiF,.......ek -.' '-- 0_, --.•--,:— --.,,, ..- . -, —-• ,,i a- • I ..77--' „,/„..1.... . 1. ...4.0.il k. "4".------- '''' ''' I '--.1, ...•'f, 00$4 ,-. -----'---C "...' . ',-'' 1 S-. ,...,...._e_ -.: - •• 4,,, II . _ -- . -- ...,tit',S.-11. --...., .-- - 2.,-,..0.-.-':_---......, -- ,7---:.- : re- ....„,,, ..., -, 1 . _ .7-: .4-. -4. i T.','"i,..-7-_,-.... '9.4'4 ------;.,...- -.i.,____. '- a-. ``-;....;... I---- ,.- I , • :::-'s ,. .4: ...„, .....e.170, •' i I _,, _-- ..)./..c,-..?-411111,Letri....,_,.. •-•4' -- 77-',, ..:--, , „.F.,.......--,' ,-.-,-., ,---,or.. ,._„,.....-.......- 2%,, : '/ ___rzi' . - ,,,„,ziii,,,,.......1,,*_:0,1,....- - 1..4,-,-- -,----- •-.."_-- .,--•••- , .4.1 - ,...;:or- •- iFflorl,-.-z-_-...., 14.-4: ,-_ -,....:: ' ...-,,,so,- ,',, N:t...,,, ------.77,4'---7--,; ..: „ , I - -----. .- --74:---1.5'-- --- .,:eli;1!--i#,-:;'•-,:- --- . 2 -r_ -t. ,-:----'•-• -"r----kmaLerr4.t.,17:-,-•`-?‘ --' ' "- :,* , 1 '''' .--,,." ,,.. ., -, s, -- 4 _.,-- "P' ' ,,,c mi,,-- •_.. ... .:.. /,..„- -.1,- s' e, :- -'''. -41.:,.e•„,1,114, • -all * t ".: -'(- •'': .. Pr'' Elk_ 'WA , ' ::.. 'Zj '' '' ','' -... •'(*a- -O.. te 4. " - '-'" -.4‘.417: r2;'.'4' -7. 010i.." '-- "--'-'' 41,1'7 &t. dr ...4$ f-e.::_ly..- -- -0-- : - . - -• —-,;, ,,,-, 4-, ; - .1 ,.. .,si. ...,--......;....ft......,,......-.,;..... ... ,..-- ./..----•-, -..........___‘,.., . •-„....if___ ..... :. .. •: _.• 0----..",„ -_-- . ---.- .----.. ,r.,----, .--"nr, ."*„'..“-'. . I "Pomir‘t-i:.4At'' -'''' --..0--"----------- ' '' *-41:''=-* ------2,-, , ei-=-----t;,'--...-.Fr;--r-.. •-• . je '.2"2.,2-„,..,,.-___„<m,..-* ..e.: .. , : ........icbh._.f.a .7 ,.,... _,...s., .........,.... ,„.„;._ z=,-0". '-'" 11,:ei, 4 ,,‘"-- - kko ._6'.--- . 4: .0-'9_ --- :.-.- .".•• .,,,,_: -- .:.--,. . '- ... ;;.;"-'Z'm - )j.'47,- -11r.--at:'-'1.7 ta• ' _ .: ., i „c e• • . 4,, ..--, ,. .....- .' •;''' ze . I r--:;;..:.-t- 4e:-.4'i ,,,•,,,4.6itioLOT --_, , -• I --: - - .;rno-if • -.e- • ...--- - - A - ' -.a.' / ''',Lilit:27., .... -,....... ---.• ,...- k .. 1 $1.."...... -- 1/.. ' • ' , -, , 7,1,- elli 'P.." 411;‘,:7 . fal p,r11,. • '.. e. -' . •• - eel:a , ' . - .. z '. • 4 ... 4, II y •• • • 7 - .•N•1 ,,,...i,•• _.‘, 0 Alf l' . 1 ,I. •-'':'..„761:,,,,E. _ . _ 0 s , -1 .,.‘,.. I . •. 1 i' . .., Scott County Masterplan Study Wold/Tumer Team Master Building Plan November 5, 1996 SCOTT COUNTY SITE MASTERPLAN O OUTLINE: • Mission - Page 2 • Overview Page 2 • Step I Development: New Justice Center Page 2 • Step II Development: Renovate Existing Government Center Page 2 • Connecting of Facilities Page 3 • Step HI-V Developments. Page 3 • Law Enforcement Center • New Jail • Additions to Justice Center/Government Center • Discussion of Final Masterplan: Page 4 • Orientation to City • Orientation for ParkingNehicles • Proposed Vacation of Streets Page 5 • Fuller Street from 5th Avenue to 3rd Avenue • Atwood Street from 5th Avenue to 4th Avenue • 4th Avenue from Atwood Street to Holmes Street • Summary Page 6 • Appendices Page 7 O MASTERPLAN STUDY On the following pages a narrative details the outline as indicated above. The appendices following the narrative include diagrams and plans supporting the masterplan study. Page 1 Commission No. 96069 Scott County MastemIan Study Wold/Tumer Team Master Building Plan November 5, 1996 SCOTT COUNTY SITE MASTERPLAN ❑ MISSION: With the County Board's approval to continue moving forward with the new Justice Center,there became a need to establish a site masterplan for all current and future needs related to a growing county. The County has finalized the purchase of the St. Francis Hospital site and has also approved a long-range concept of incrementally acquiring the two residential blocks north of the existing County-owned blocks. ❑ OVERVIEW: The development of the new Justice Center addresses Scott County's short-term needs. Understanding the County's long-range needs requires a comprehensive look at the downtown Shakopee site with a masterplan viewpoint. With anticipated growth at all levels of county services, the site masterplan envisions full utilization of a five block site including the streets dividing the parcels. This site masterplan will not be fully realized until sometime in the next 20 years. The phasing of the development is proposed to occur in five steps. ❑ STEP I DEVELOPMENT: Step I calls for the addition of a new Justice Center facility to the current Scott County site/former St. Francis Hospital three block parcel. As Schematic Design is being finalized for the Justice Center, it is evident that the two key issues are calling for connecting of the new facility to the existing Scott County Building. (1)To maximize a user-friendly orientation for Scott County citizens a single entry is proposed to easily direct all users of the facility to their appropriate department or service center. (2)The connection of the two facilities will also provide an all-weather route for County employees and visitors to move from one facility to another. The Justice Facility itself has a unique requirement which is fast becoming critical in the planning of courts related facilities,the requirement of a single point for public entry. This provides a more controllable/supervisable access to the courts and judicial aspects of county services. It may even facilitate easy additional security measures such as weapons detection or guard stations. During this Step,vacating Fuller Street from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue is essential in allowing the building connection to occur. Vacating Atwood Street from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue at this time allows critical parking requirements to be satisfied in a safe manner. ❑ STEP II DEVELOPMENT: Step II calls for renovation of the existing Government Center for the following: 1. Re-use of space previously occupied by County Attorney, Courts Administration and Court Services as well as the courtrooms themselves. 2. Re-organization of the 1st Floor to establish a county"Service Center"to simplify the public's interaction with the County by taking on a non-departmentalized service based approach delivered with a one-stop shopping philosophy. Page 2 Commission No. 96069 Scott County Masterplan Study Wold/Tumer Team Master Building Plan November 5, 1996 U CONNECTING OF FACILITIES: The critical security factors of the Justice Facility combine with the desirable user-friendly nature of a county service center in the existing Government Center resulting in a connected facility with two very distinct functions. By creating one easily identifiable entry point at grade level,the County's goal of conveniently servicing the community is reinforced. ❑ STEPS III-V DEVELOPMENT: The following steps can be developed in any order and will be triggered by County needs. At this time the Law Enforcement appears to be the first of these steps only because these functions are currently housed in the Annex,which may ultimately be demolished. Vacating Fuller Street between Fourth Avenue and Third Avenue, as well as closure of Fourth Avenue between Atwood and Holmes,would be essential in developing a safe contiguous parking area during these steps. • Law Enforcement Center: (Potentially 2000-2010) This facility would replace space currently utilized in the Annex for the Sheriffs department. This would be masterplanned as a possible cornerstone of a new Jail Facility since the desire would be to have those integrated to maximize operational efficiencies. This development is shown on the Step III diagram. • New Jail: (Potentially 2010-2020) While a jail is not needed at this time,to envision a complete masterplan, one should locate such a facility on this site due to the desired proximity to the Justice Center. The Step IV diagram indicates a Jail/Law Enforcement Center facility comparable to facilities being built in similar counties. • Additions to Justice Center/Govemment Center: (Potentially 2020-2050) Given the potential and projected growth of Scott County, all planning for county facilities include provisions for growth. Because we are unable to predict which county service will require growth first, facilities must be planned with"open ends"to allow such expansions to occur easily. The Step V diagram indicates expansions of both the Justice Center and Government Center. Page 3 Commission No. 96069 Scott County Masterplan Study Wold/Tumer Team Master Building Plan November 5, 1996 DISCUSSION OF FINAL MASTERPLAN ❑ ORIENTATION TO CITY: A primary goal for both the City and the County is to maintain a healthy relationship between the County complex and Shakopee's Downtown. Users and employees at the County facility are a valuable asset to this area and visa versa. The site masterplan strives to reinforce this important factor the following ways: 1. "Front Door"facing Downtown. 2. Vehicle access primarily from the north, east and west. (Minimal from the south.) 3. Majority of parking north of the County complex, in a contiguous arrangement, placed between the County and Downtown. ❑ ORIENTATION FOR PARKINGNEHICLES: During Step I and Step II parking will be provided primarily by the block currently occupied by the old St.Francis Hospital. Later steps will develop the two blocks north of Fourth Avenue into parking lots and pedestrian paths. Page 4 Commission No. 96069 Scott County Masten)Ian Study Wold/Tumer Team Master Building Plan November 5, 1996 PROPOSED VACATION OF STREETS As portions of streets vacate throughout the development of county facilities, a single, contiguous parking arrangement will be realized. The success of this parking area relies on safety and convenience. Street vacation provides the environment in which simple and recognizable vehicular movement can occur. O FULLER STREET FROM 5TH AVENUE TO 3RD AVENUE: This street closure allows the integral connection of the Justice Center and the existing Government Center. Without the ability to build in the right-of-way,the Justice Center security will be compromised and the one-stop shopping philosophy of the County will be unachievable. O ATWOOD STREET FROM 5TH AVENUE TO 4TH AVENUE: This street closure allows connection, both secure and operational,from a future Law Enforcement Center/Jail to the Justice Center. In Step I,the closure would allow development accommodating parking needs and improve accessibility and safety from parking to the Justice Center and the Government Center. O FOURTH AVENUE FROM ATWOOD STREET TO HOLMES STREET: Fourth Avenue is still believed to be a major route in getting to the County Facility, especially from the east. This street closure is currently envisioned as significantly restricting the roadway to .- optimize on-site management of vehicular movement and parking. It would be likely that through traffic would be discouraged. It will be important that the limited parking areas south of 4th Avenue be integral with areas north of 4th Avenue to maximize user-friendly aspects of the facility as well as minimize safety issues regarding traffic. Page 5 Commission No. 96069 Scott County Masterplan Study Wold/Tumer Team Master Building Plan November 5, 1996 SUMMARY The development of the Scott County Masterplan takes into account the needs of the County and its constituents while respecting the unique downtown site. The organization of the phased developments responds to the need for a user friendly environment, understandable parking and clear pedestrian organization. Most importantly,the development maintains a good neighbor posture without compromising the facilities ability to grow efficiently. The long-range masterplan must be a viable development accommodating growth for the next 30 to 50 years. Page 6 Commission No. 96069 Scott County Masten)Ian Study Wold/Turner Team Master Building Plan November 5, 1996 APPENDICES ❑ SITE FORCES DIAGRAM ❑ TRAFFIC PATTERN OVERVIEW ❑ PRELIMINARY MASTERPLAN ❑ PRELIMINARY SITE DIAGRAM ❑ IMPLEMENTATION DIAGRAMS • Existing Conditions • Step I • Step II • Step III • Step IV • Step V ❑ PRELIMINARY STACKING DIAGRAM: ad/rept/96069#14 Page 7 Commission No. 96069 Sc: (r 1"i' C0 I 1 N 'r Y , . JUSTICE .CENTER COUNTY T T S C 0 , r -- -- --•---f7, --**- • • ' - ,::_s.•;iii. --4,-i'::, -..i. . •-•,. _ " --' _ ,....0-:-.: -,,, . • - .,-., ' , -„I • ---_, ,,,•-, - ..,f ,, , ',4 ' .a.-ir ' .,i. .'.."', ,- ' _ •;ii.------ ''''''' „,11*. ..1 ," 4 ....-;F.E -.- - • '..:' r I.' ,. - z•S''.-':'' '''''"''' ''..,?.',' '7-;.,;4''.' ''"'- _, L_, . - ' ,) i .--, ' , : ' ,''''''=":::-.,-,,-;''' 7 4 ...""". • 410---1 , Dot/Afro/6i, __ _i . .-- • , • URBAN DESIGN or '',' . ,...„-t,„ • • 11),7e...,, - ,_ ' : - A., ,,-,,, ,- 4'-' 4 :::__ .. .. _ ,77:-.' • ..',, , 0.fr.& -1.6,,s.:„2,--'.. FORCES . 1 -,---4.imm'40c-*,, .:,-- 7 --..J•'------ „.„/A1-1;kLy, ,„..!,- rl , • AND ACCESS :' -'v4* itt.. „,te . :::2-,,-,7,..,,,-_ : ,_ re ._ '-', Ji • ORIENTATION , .1 WAY 7:s71',Ici': ' _,., 7 -- F:77-'i-7" -*P,t,) • 1 Ci TY " - • . :". [ti MALI- USAGE • 1 ,, t , , _ , , _ • SITEm - . oiry i 1 2nd m PHASING PLAN es TRAI., • 4.• .,.,,,A,„—,,,u, ,,,,_; impoi..,T /1 iv '' itELATIoNsfrip el -coNa&4iiviv - — ,---- ill 00,/-5'Ar • DOWNT° POR I . 1„E PARTNERING°P •1 FIRE . - m mill couRTHOUSE SQUARE ,`' .,,,,,, . ." rocAL MUSEUM RESPONSE '''''''.----"Il ,r§f,f/Crirke 414 '7,,,,,.1Arrs r .; ..„....— ---- III CLIMATICvAL -"----,-......„.. ixi ',•(>7 )...„. ' = Alp.._`. • COMMUNITY UE ' ,..._..... .re . _ • .... ---,,i 1.'1' •*--7:._ ' -fi ,• i„ • -5,1 SACS -I_ „TG 4 s'r. 6 PHASEE 4., --T- FACILITY PLANNIII ,: ' •,14 :--..ii:.: !_z_.------ LI:3;,-;-- 0 cis) FACIL ,iL- ;:t:y” ---,, wr FACTORS ...,..;..-. ... . •,....,„"..,*-- ""::--';'..`-71-:''' ..".-11-' -..' ra i Doh, T A, , II i\ .`,-- i ('--- - -: ii---4.'----- ° Nog, . (7- EDGE 1111 ' UNDERGR U • v M EFFICIENT RELATIONSHIPS i m scURE LINKAGE ° ' L I N.K. = pilASZ 1_ --...-- , • 5th I my a. Ar ,aff- me In .9,••"' • PERIMETER , I, ... '•,.... i, ....0-4-.. --a _ M1*.•....° • EXPANSIONPOTENTIAL ; .1,... . jig • 4 ,,..'-‘6:■• 0 ' "'"'.. Ar PLAUI sclgiffl;gi_P- I ii \-- ,....r.:-.L CONTROLLED ENTRY .'-': ' r --74,..,.. LINKAGE , -_;1' Or At* 4° r Ii...XKIkkliiillNiN -.2•ZgZi;-' PEDESTRIAN • _ g IL,-.... 6th Ave vi I I I n 7 -11 giRl 2. I • .6~ I i , I --1•I SITE FORCES DIAGRAM GINEERS ARCIIIIECISA IN I) E N NV 0 I- I) , . S C; 0 "I' T C 0 1' X I Y .1 1" S I 1 (" 1", ( 1: "N" "I• 1: I: • • g'. t• . :.- . , 1 .:4:1- A • . .. 7 - - Viler Ostrissoso 6 . .100' 4' - 4.'' • 1 . . .. 7, • 11101°.lir--''.1'-7•L 4 ',1,, Widise Cori r• 0 . :4411111Ptillr. 101,1 ,1;11,11411141.- „itilillit,•A—..A ..*_ . """ -CO-'--. •'..4-C,Mile."'''4iii0t,.'.1111L.a 2NE._ ,ilk_ `4, .‘, , .41.00011 -... .r'!,----- -4,alell. c I--.1 • .,.. 'mitt- . - . r r.-•ror...•. li II ' :=0.`" . 40 - ., -, 0.01. . ill air er,II I,:`..401..,'-;"Mr:411-11• •1 4 - 0' "44.. . . 1.. 1111'. '`•102,Aaa ;',-:„,‘,.0agivin., -, , . ... . _. . . . ( y, - ' _ ...=,..A.t... ro 2...0 rosrli 1 - 4 • ,. . -,......,..-- • ••• -••-•,••,,..,-..1.'.11-'4.-04.041, idol El ,, . 144,v"...... ' • ii•• 1 _ -..;;4•.;11-1 ill:-.6......?:;*:7 cd ' -I X__'', iii-3 •._.:.1.! -Riffr, TV, ICi." 4__ /Eli iti • i .11- :- • '''/111-1°-.„:1 - 4 it' rik, I'l i • IV II '. - •'114. - " • ' ieb trieht00"---- . -..1 lit ,- , mu • .•--- -- I or- t: _,.,/-- I , .f: .30t / i , ), ft a/NW elh , SIMINIIII Is 2 • 1 • § .• 1 Weller Cour* g makes • 1 a IR MUS0/4 TOVOMOP , . ., UM PK N.130 110 PM.WM . •••ri • ..... . . . . , .. . . . - 1 / • • . MOO emps• ..mmel.41••••4.4 0 • ... . S..._ . COO / I ,• . I vids • • - e. . , •1•, ;.* ..inwri,, — v.• oksit - • ," - • int %.14i • .. .., ,; - A- 5rt •,..,,.. -.1% • ,4.... • t P446 11.4 11110 Ilk . k A :#,Itik. "11,4:7111Iiiiiii*Iricit140000 -, .,.., I...N,,,. .,,/, ,.%r..,.....4....,.........0.i-,•-;11.7:i ,,i Iwo-iii WI", alit' ' ) -,-, e or - vi trAikirivaii•sy;1*>$100-.4 • V -,, ttig,...."- Ilion .---11111107," 1,_ _,--- it,A1 IV,glig9r 1 . 1:,..4.4 r:4101111:I -IICTI''':;irklIl •-• 1 . 1^,11111i: _ !_:-I :11 ,„11. . " Pei(4.- ....i.4.1. ' - -' •'- ' II ... Ir-, i Ailii t Ili t` -;+,...iikeiV. • 1 ...s - ' -...,.,0, ,... d ..- 4 . ii.,: if_ . IIII 1510;..t t . , ,.....,,, , .11 ' ,1-,.,4:: • .77! .4E17;11 ,A- -.."' 1 1 • - ' - . ..7. 1 .4 . , . '4. .1 • t^- ' 421. If It . . , • '''0 I till • ... ft1 .1.r. 0 wit el' . _ TRAFFIC PATTERN OVERVIEW - 9/18/96 NV 0 1. 1) A It c ii i T i4: c: T s A N 1) F, N (. I :\ I.: I-: It S S c o 'C r C o I V "1' l J t! S 'I' 1 c 1? C I. A F' I IZ • N.................. N...., MIIMsoto IM' ` - Mrnwda VaNy Vol - 0 ❑ 01 aalo• olola ® , �d�■I� 110 o' o ❑ 81 •O0 0 •oIoIOL, Co rm. ,I'�III!! IFIL 1.0-0 °lam ., EA0 0 o°, as 7 I'�•0101011 .a1o1o'a. i °[ 0. . , .0 a. •al°I°I°la` a a aao •aaool , Iola -r�- 10 -i Ila o� jEl. -o-o0 00 , Wird 00 700 IFF=11 ,o 10; !o •oa -a 00 as o a 0 I u i 0 _ - ! ° Ia !° - W°I°I°lo Awnt U _o , oEu12"; .0o •00 i ...,.F os. a 1 �alo101010 , , io000 !.10.00 j-a-ao ao T .00[10 aao-{I I ,I.0000 • -0 D , '� ri -o-oo oa 01010[•0 I01 010,0I0I0I0• 0101010101010101 0 i0 � -0.00 o a -°o 0 0 !0.0..• ) �olalol°lo (� I o a-a •'�0 a s c 0oo 01 1 °1° a°I000io, ol000loEoi°oi0000io0ioi0laio, .. Avinmi 0 % lala1o(o' '010101010' 10101olo' .00001 000.0°( '-0-0o '•o°000 'aol oo f 00 0o asoo o °a ° a � I ,01010lol • 0010101010 ,010101010o E0101010 ` `alalloo 010101ol0a01010100101010lo P010101010 0 aa° go ° t° ° °p'aa 0 0 0 ❑ : ° 0 °❑°a 0 °o a0 a ❑ O ❑ pO o p p ° 0 0 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 a 0 a ° ° ❑ °o !//°° ' 4° !7y / PRELIMINARY MASTERPLAN N 0 100' 200' 400' M r 0 1. 1) A i t C T I 11 E. C T S .a y I) E N (, I y r F. R S S (. () 't' r C 0 11 N .i. l. jl' ti 'rIcE C1: y ri: It Minnesota River - Ilii nesota Valley Trail MI \ l ❑ • if ❑n ❑, ,❑,❑ ❑,a,a øñim � ,___---i___ West First Avlenue 1 i n I ololol 0 010100o Eq, -t uii!1! I ❑ 0 ❑ oii n 1.I - 1 MN 0 � o h O 0; 000 a► I❑I O1FP I I 0000 II I - mei O 00 1010 010101 10 *l I'o a I 0000 West Third Avenue ■i (M.�.' 4 -- u.,��.,v 1 1 11 ❑ aa❑I I '0 ❑❑0I ❑a a 71 � I I I 0 0 J � 11' 1 1 .1: 1r , . 11 IL I I lit ► I O 17 itI 1,0D 0 0 0l l 0I 000C/0� kir West Fourth Avenue E riYrt%mra"'►• coL,h, 4- 010101 ❑_ ololololo 0 0 ❑❑ 0 ❑ 1 SERvices CENTLR o a a a O� i� LDFD al 1000001 ❑0❑❑ West Fifth Avenue ❑a❑ 1000001.1000001 0000 av 1 - ❑ g o — ❑ o 010101010 < 0000011u-_____101001 o _ 0 `° aaaa I, r West Sixth Avenue 000 !ololoIoloI 00000 00000 00000 00000 0000 • PRELIMINARY SITE DIAGRAM N 0 50' 100' 200' \V O 1. 1) A R C 11 1 1' F C T S A N 1) ENGINEERS scot TC01' N FV .J USTICI: ' CE NTLI J i00 [ 1000 L HMuseum •'_� - _,r —0 -II r L West Third Avenue _■ JI - I_ +5 _I IL JI 1_ m W ■ .1..CO :12 0) DOD it) ❑ 706-, t+ N p m c oE o 3 = o a LL = Church DODO ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 11 Ir 11 11— —1 Ir ■ West Fourth Avenue _■ JI IL I. ill■ inmilimillimilmii ■ r II1 DEMO HOSPITAL _ I I ■ 1 r_11 i i a i ilig„ 4 Jill •H 011 ■ -it u -_-•11111111111MMIM■ ■ West Fifth Avenue 1L JI lI' UUU 1Lit ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑lir 1UDUUUr ❑ EXISTING CONDITIONS TIME FRAME - 1996 (PRESENT) PARKING' EXISTING ' 350 CARS APPROX. IMPLEMENTATION DIAGRAM N 0 60' 100' 200' ® \`T 0 i. n A R C II I 'C I: C 'I' S .- N I) E N c: I N F. F: It S SCOTT COUNTY JISTICE CENTER JEl El aJ H❑ a Museum C::::1 1, L 1r in 'll IF II Ir West Third Avenue ■ JI ll.. m JI lL _1 lL 6' ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ m1 ❑ Cl)• — -0 U) o m 4 — 3 m E o — v� a Li i U Church ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ West Fourth Avenue _■ l n ILS I n rt ■_ :ice : COUNTY �<__ PLAZA SERVICES E' j "Xi/; : iii..�� � / COURTYARD ri ® West Fifth Avenue =H JI IL JI IL JI IL ill 1E11E1 E EDI- 10 ❑) 0 ❑ ❑ [ 1C1 0 ❑ ❑ [ r STEP I - BUILD NEW JUSTICE CENTER ISSUES' — DEMO LIBRARY BUILDING ACCESS / PARKING •LOCATION ESTIMATED TIME FRAME - 1997 •ORIENTATION / VISIBILITY PARKING FUNCTIONALITY OF BUILDING AVAILABILITY 540 CARS APPROX. •COURT SET MODULE / EXPANDABILITY REQUIRED a 590 CARS APPROX. 'CAMPUS PLAN' •APPROACH TO BULDING •EXPANDABILITY IMPLEMENTATION DIAGRAM rniiiimiNINNIIININN N 0 60' 100' 20t'' ® \ T 0 I. I) A R C 11 I 1' I. C T S A N I) I: N (: 1 N I' 1`. R S S c O 7 "I' COUNTYJ t' S T I C F CENTER ❑ ❑ [ J ❑ ❑ ❑ L Li c❑ [ dl] J Museum r- -II Ir- -II IF -II Ir• West Third Avenue ■ JI - IL Z. JI IL _I IL m ■ in mv� ❑ _ inOOa co in Church ❑ ❑ ❑ m ❑ 11 ❑ ❑ ❑ mi ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ mEi West Fourth Avenue """.171 I I1PIC" %1 PLAZA , "� �A _ : i:{:: .• ra� JUSTICE Al'. I CENTER �;;JLI.IJI1 r ' Li West Fifth Avenue Lii' LIoLILILIri' LILIoLILIri' LILIn ❑ L I STEP II - RENOVATE EXISTING COURT- ISSUES. HOUSE INTO COUNTY SERVICES ACCESS / PARKING - DEMO ANNEX •LOCATION •ORIENTATION / VISIBILITY ESTIMATED TIME FRAME ' 1997-2000 FUNCTIONALITY OF BUILDING •COURT SET MODULE / EXPANDABILITY PARKING' 'CAMPUS PLAN' AVAILABILITY ' 540 CARS APPROX. •APPROACH TO BUILDING REQUIRED ' 590 CARS APPROX. •EXPANDABILITY - IMPLEMENTATION DIAGRAM N 0 50" 100' 200'® \V o 1. a ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS SCOTT ❑C Oi 1 ' y j U S T I C : C 1N T IR --i J, rj ❑ ❑ ❑L pil°. m Museum I I L UL ir0m I ir r- 2 West Third Avenue —■ JI - a ii mommI■ JI I` 1-6, . m 'I) m ill, C ao P-----------1... p _ 0 � 1100 CO cc a 51 I I Church -J1I I I Ill m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ _• 91 7 I MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIIMIII�, a. u= • West Fourth Avenue ■ 41 ' tl__Jb Al re ■ !IIZ u �:'• I I �� COUNTY �, I' LEC. PLAZA SERVICES ' JUSTICE CENTER FUTURE JAL —■ a� \- , , I ii ■ West Fifth Avenue 1i1I 1000 [ loo ❑ ❑ [ STEP III - BULD NEW L.E.C. ISSUES' — ADD PARKING ACCESS / PARKING •LOCATION ESTIMATED TIME FRAME s 2000-2010 •ORIENTATION / VISIBILITY PARKING FUNCTIONAUTY OF BUILDING AVAILABILITY 750 CARS APPROX. •COURT SET MODULE / EXPANDABILITY REQUIRED • 640 CARS APPROX. ••CONVECTION OF BUILDINGS 'CAMPUS PLAN' •URBAN LINK •APPROACH TO BUILDING •EXPANDABILITY IMPLEMENTATION DIAGRAM N 0 60' 100' 200' WO1,I) AiCIIITi-. CTs A '- a E \ (: 1 N 1-: r: xs S C () T T ( O I' 1 T Y J i' S T Cc E C E N T I: R. JUJ 00Lct ] 000 0 ) � 0 ilL -I -t it a 7r m IF r- 3 -? West Third Avenue ■ JI - IL• ■ . ■_ I. +-- ir ) _ I 1 It ii 1, , r2 is I !i4.4,41.... ___. ,I, It I I a I IIM WI! I I 0 '�I IIIJr Church ' I I � �m!�I Al II till IU est Fourth Avenue Ini %%% • I I — I COUNTY LEG. PLAZA SERVICES III 7/JI JUSTICE 0 t ipi < CENTERT w r— C 44. ' O JAL (oC IRIS) • • • •A ■ IN West Fifth Avenue JI - IL JI IL JI IL -1 1nEnnDHEUIEUIUIF1UIDUI Di r STEP IV - BUILD NEW JAIL, ISSUES. DEMO EXISTING JAIL ACCESS / PARKING - ADD PARKING •LOCATION •ORIENTATION / VISIBILITY ESTIMATED TIME FRAME • 2010-2020 •LINK TO DOWNTOWN FUNCTIONALITY OF BUILDING PARKING. •COURT SET MODULE / EXPANDABILITY AVAILABILITY . 876 CARS APPROX. REQUIRED ' 820 CARS APPROX. •CONNECTION OF BUILDINGS 'CAMPUS PLAN' •URBAN LINK •APPROACH TO BUILDING •EXPANDABILITY IMPLEMENTATION DIAGRAM IMINNImmilimillINNMININII N 0 50' 100' 200' ® \\' O E I) A R C H I 'I' E: c: T S A l I) E N (: 11 E E. R S S C O T T C O i N T l' _JUSTICE CENTER D Ei [ (73 1 El ID El . / EIC , Ot°: —i -IIIr o 1I iF m I IF i t= -5 West Third Avenue ■ JI IL :41.c. ■ u ■ I, iiiinromumn■ r+ ■ El.CO 1) / I. --------]1 IV 1 it #11 �� I coE - I I iliz ril 1Iii G I41I❑ ChurchI I ;,i III °°�ii, I I _ _ I I est Fourth Avenue • . 41 II-1 W �' r'`d I I �• COUNTY r L'E'c' PL's SERVICES ;"I' I (� j;; %i %; j JUSTICE, 0 i,/i ,i j CENTER; I w �� ,i., / • .41ARD JAL / �/ % �:;�z, ■ Q i t . CYC 0O) • • • • •A ■ West Fifth Avenue 1100001E4 I IrL JJI IL JI Ir II 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ [ ioo ❑ ❑ STEP V -BUILD ADDTIONS TO JUSTICE ISSUES' CENTER AND COUNTY SERVICES ACCESS / PARKING —ADD PARKING •LOCATION •ORIENTATION / VISIBILITY ESTIMATED TIME FRAME . 2020-2050 •LINK TO DOWNTOWN PARKING. FUNCTIONALITY OF BUILDING •COURT SET MODULE / EXPANDABILITY AVAILABILITY . 876 CARS APPROX. REQUIRED . 990 CARS APPROX. •CONNECTION OF BUILDINGS 'CAMPUS PLAN' •URBAN LINK •APPROACH TO BUILDING •EXPANDABILITY IMPLEMENTATION DIAGRAM riiimirl N 0 60' 100' P00' NV O I. I) A R C II I 'I' E C T S A N I) E N (: I N I: E R S S C O T T COUNTY _j U S T 1 (, E C 1 N T E R • i &sew*.a 1 -...• .1i _ lgoil.. _Iiii ,...i..-- ---.'t 1 I IIS' 1.4% Canty Memel 1 i, C• Iourt I OWN Courtroom i 1 .�Y • hello d...«► J. /III ,~died., ,—LOW ' - -•.../il 0.1111.11.1.1.11.11111.11.1.77 Midi SuPPall . 1 ;4 C11:0 1 Ir. ''.. ''... ''' • 101111111111111.111111111* STACKING DIAGRAM Canty Bombes <rc.„0"--JUSTICE • • • (c >CENTER . 8ERVK)E ‘cA.0........--...,10,010".1.11.111. . courrY ------cErrr�sEpv CONNECTION PRELIMINARY STACKING DIAGRAMS W0 I. I) ARCHITECTS ANI) LN (: I N i ERS # 3. A. a . A 350 Westwood Lake Office B.A.Mittelsteadt,P.E.Bret A.Weiss,P.E. WSS 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Peter R.Willenbring,P.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Donald W.Sterna,P.E. Ronald B.Bray,P.E. 4411111 612-541-4800 &Associates,Inc. FAX 541-1700 Memorandum To: Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. City of Shakopee From: Charles T. Rickart Bret A. Weiss WSB &Associates, Inc. Date: November 21, 1996 Re: Scott County Justice Center Transportation Issues/Impacts Scott County is proposing the development of a new justice center in the area of the existing courthouse south of downtown Shakopee (See Figure 1). The purpose of this memorandum is to review the potential transportation issues/impacts associated with the new justice center. The preliminary analysis found in this memorandum is based on data provided by the City of Shakopee, Scott County, and the Metropolitan Council. Transportation modeling has not been completed for the proposed justice center. The City of Shakopee and Scott County have been planning the transportation system (collector streets) around the courthouse for many years. This is evident in the decisions which have been made in the past. These include: 1. Extension of Fuller Street south of 10th Avenue to Apgar Street (CR 77) to create a continuous north/south roadway (study completed in summer of 1991). 2. Signalization with turn lanes of Fuller Street at TH 169 with the Shakopee mini- bypass. 3. Designation of 4th Street, Fuller Street, and 6th Street as a county road. 4. Continuous street improvements in the area. Based on these decisions, Fuller Street is the ideal street for the north/south collector in this area with today's transportation system. However, if the plan for the justice center is F:I WPWIM/049.031112196.BL Infrastructure Engineers Planners EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. City of Shakopee, MN November 21, 1996 Page 2 implemented as outlined in the master plan report, the following issues should be discussed in further detail: 1. Closing Fuller Street and Atwood Street By closing Fuller Street and Atwood Street, the existing traffic patterns around the existing courthouse and proposed justice center will be impacted. The pattern of traffic in the justice center area will be dictated by the location of the proposed parking facilities. Figures 2 through 6 illustrate the existing and future traffic conditions around the justice center. It appears,based on preliminary analysis,that Holmes Street and Scott Street will take the majority of the displaced north/south traffic. Even though no east/west streets will be closed, the impact of closing Fuller Street and Atwood Street will also cause an increase in traffic on 5th Street and portions of 6th Street. However, 4th Street would actually see a reduction in traffic adjacent to the justice center. 2. Redesignation of Collector Roadway System Currently, the existing collector system is as follows in the justice center area: A. North/South Collector Streets • Fuller Street from 10th Avenue to TH 169 • Spencer Street from 10th Avenue to TH 169 • Somerville Street from 4th Avenue to TH 169. B. East/West Collector Streets • 4th Avenue from Marschall Road to Fuller Street • 6th Avenue from TH 300 to Fuller Street. Based on the traffic analysis for the proposed justice center, the revised collector street system could be as follows and as shown in Figure 7. F.I WPWIM 1049.031112196.BL Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. City of Shakopee, MN November 21, 1996 Page 3 C. North/South Collector Street • Scott Street from 10th Avenue to TH 169 • Holmes Street from 10th Avenue to 4th Avenue • Spencer Street from 10th Avenue to TH 169. D. East/West Collector Street • 4th Avenue from Marschall Road to Holmes Street • 6th Avenue from Holmes Street to TH 300. 3. School Impacts As discussed previously, the traffic from closing Fuller Street and Atwood Street would be displaced to Scott Street and Holmes Street. Currently, an elementary school is located on both of these streets. The school on Scott Street is located between 3rd and 4th Avenues and the school on Holmes Street is located between 5th and 6th Avenues. Based on the preliminary traffic projections, traffic on Scott Street would increase from 715 vehicles per day to between 1,500 and 2,500 vehicles per day. The traffic on Holmes Street would increase from the exiting 1,855 vehicles per day to between 4,000 to 5,500 vehicles per day. 4. Potential Transportation Improvements With the increase of traffic on adjacent streets around the proposed justice center and the redesignation of the collector street system, roadway improvements should be considered to facilitate the new traffic patterns. The following is a list of some of the improvements and their preliminary estimated costs, which should be incorporated into the plans for the justice center. A. Improve the intersection of Scott Street and TH 169. This intersection is currently signalized, however, improvements should be made based on future traffic conditions. These improvements may include minor signal changes(i.e. phasing changes) to major changes (i.e. left-turn lanes on TH 169 to Scott F:I WPW!M 1049.031111196.BL Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. City of Shakopee, MN November 21, 1996 Page 4 Street and additional lanes for Scott Street turning left and right onto TH 169). The cost for anyimprovement ement would be shared between the Cityand P County, based on the County's funding policies. B. Improve Scott Street from TH 169 to 10th Avenue with a mill and overlay to support the additional traffic load. This would be included in the City's normal street maintenance program. However, it may need to be completed earlier than anticipated. C. Improve Holmes Street from 4th Avenue to 10th Avenue with a mill and overlay to support the additional traffic load. This would be included in the City's normal street maintenance program. However, it may need to be completed earlier than anticipated. D. Improve the Scott Street railroad grade crossings. Estimated Cost $100,000 - $150,000. Federal monies would be applied for these improvements. However, these monies are difficult to get. E. Develop a connection for Scott Street south of 10th Avenue. This may include a connection to Apgar Street (CR 77) or Fuller Street. These improvements should be discussed with the developer of this property. F. Review and develop a traffic control plan (i.e. stop signs, yield signs, etc.) for the entire justice center area. Estimated Cost $5,000 - $25,000. G. Provide left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes into the proposed justice center parking facilities. This could be completed with minor striping improvements. Estimated Cost$5,000- $10,000. This cost would be included with the justice center development. The above transportation issues/impacts should be addressed during the design process. It is imperative that the City work closely with the County and their architect to provide for the most efficient circulation pattern around the justice center. It is important both to the City and the County that access and circulation be as efficient as possible for the safety of the residents in the area and patrons to the justice center. F:I WPW1M 1049.031111196.BL C:1,, - 3 ! oo. i� Creek I U EDEN PRAIRIE Woo Lake / \` �� �d /,1 CARVER \ CO. CHAIVHASSEN �.c-mac-rR�c c-tic- -1 / /' ,neso 4- St�OTT CO. Project Loc4ttion _ Tee.Cmvt _�.�---- - ere I' .I,r'.. gid op.,- -� ,.amu [ � ',' �=,D'� s,<„,‘..s \ d u \�s� - r�..a 1"h-7E illiC315:13ellbti - di."" 10 \.�/ � S. R� Are i 1 iii e. \ ros'"1-,140-1C1:30,1rIVIA /-0.- I „ lin, mrn ®goer��s�e0®o� �, ,,,..,<„ olio = �® woMEx -� 1 Fri 1 ®IIS ws_� ®_.. Fri /l. _� ��� ‘111.`,._ y ' ¢tF;1 d :/ ¢ was ��� �. nl''- �. ,. trji, y .ice .) m v :k\ g 1. I ;JIIF '� .%.%.---'&1 i -.- ' ' i'' ' z / 14. i 1 1 1 ., Pik YOU. a. . ,ii-- iIf: _' _ WOOL a r PAPHAI a ® aaav000ta IZIL At ams i/'. alpha AM/CR it IT3 !1 OYtEMENm n'msetm a Il 1110.116111I XI ® 1 a. i Si v � a nr rt.. uw a.r. a z .. 1 _ n ) ,_, 'i „ 0 1500 3000 A 350 Westwood Lake office Scott County Courthouse W B Pro�eallo. 1049.03 Date:November 18,1996 8441 Wayzata Boulevard WSB Minneapois,MN 55428 Transportation Plan -` 612-5414800 Project Location Map &Associates,lac. FAX 541-1700 Figure 1 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Minnesota it fires �* t. 1111 i:::—] �NI s 0 400 900 T.H. 169 ..., , eft...; —� i _ T.H. 101 I II IL NEIN Union Pacific Railroad 1 I I 1 11 Al 1 H I I I 1 ii CC IC iikA 3rd Avenue P M III School 4th Avenue 15% P__ l o 5th Avenue 35% .. ... ,........., 44 kii Lii School 6th A enue 16 /I 0 iiS I � 7th 4enue t/ 21 x it. ,... jr_ ________nooc „. o,.. � 'CA'fr.7L----InEDU 'tcz 111" 1 ;,.... ii d- y , ,,it 10th Avenue 1 L 1-IL_I 1:7[:][ QED . [::= 37 C=3 7---------------1 F A 3sovv L Office Scott County Courthouse MB Nett No. 1als.03 Dote:November 18,199E1 8441 Wayzata Boulevard wsBMinneapolis."'N 55428 Transportation Plan 612-5414800 h Traffic Distribution �� FAX 641-1700 Figure 2 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Minnesota h N �\ T.H. 169 Q _ T.H. 101 23,500 24,000 Union Pacific Railroad N 933 8 3rd Aver ll School 4582 6500 4th Avr lie N House '" 5th Ave ue 0 578 G School 3850 16 in3011 6th Avenue 1 014 7th Avenue 1 111 0„..._______, Li N� � cz --___________ iE:j c4 00 "' 0s9oo 3 0 it !. aE 10th x Avenue 10,500 �4 lk I --„, 400 Employees _ 3600 Trips / Day X3006 0 A 350 Westwood Lake°"° `"�Project No 104903 Date:November 18,1 ° r18'' 996 8441 Ways Boulevard Scott County Courthouse £4/SB Minneapoha,MN 55428 Transportation Plan Existing Traffic Conditions AMINININIK °72-41iAverage Daily iY 1996 Traffic &Associate:,inc. FAX m14700 \ INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Minnesota Figure 3 „ ...___ 1 ( , T.H. 169 Q .. _ ,. ...... T.H. 101 Union Pacific Railroad ` 4 l 1 950 3rd Avri n” 0 N School 0 o N N N 2200 6500 4th Ave ue Proposed Proposed c Parking Justice Center ' 5th Ave ue 2700 o en No School en 3850 3500 - 6th Avenue RI7th Avenue 1 -..,.__________ --JO a 1111 'IF/ r-7h rr Avenue Ce) rkl 400 Employees 3600 Trips / Day _—60 AScott County Courthouse '"�P" t No 1049.03 Date:November 18,1996 350 Westwood take Mice 8441 Wayzata Boulevardevard 14/SB Minneapob,MN 554 2 Transportation Plan Step I Traffic Conditions 812-1"800 1997 Average Daily Traffic &Associates, FAX 691-1700 ` INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Minnesota Figure 4 C1----;1=Ii[::::1 T.H. 169 J Q _ T.H. 101 Union Pacific Railroad - 1200 3rd Aver 1111 0 0 Proposed o School N Parking co 3000 7200 4th Ave ue Proposed c Justice Center i 5th Ave ue 0 School 4600 '� 4200 6th Avenue 7th Avenue I NI° L_______, 0 ,.. tl.) 4C/5 ______________ _______________ _________________ E_ -_3 // ! e ,—, r-----7 1(kb 4 Avenue I 500 Employees 4500 Trips / Day _X3006 0 A Lake Scott County Courthouse "�Project No. 1049 Date:November 18'' 996 8441 Wayzata Boulevard I/YSB Mlmeapois,MN 55428 Transportation Plan Step Ill Traffic Conditions AMMIIIIIIIIIk 8121.4800 2000 Average Daily Traffic &Associates,Inc. FAX 541-1700 \NFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Minnesota Figure 5 / El] 1 T.H. 169 C _ _ T.H. 101 I Union i Pacific Rai>,road I ` 1200 3rd Aver - c c Proposed o Proposed C) ?. School N pig N NA* N 2000 8000 4th Ave ue Proposed c Justice Center 5th Ave ue © en $ M School 5100 /6 4600 6th Avenue 7th Avenue 1 111t U ----------- Iiii7 ED ► f ,El r----71 Avenue v,' r lki 500 Employees _ 4500 Trips / Day 30�'o WSB Project No. 1049.03 Date:November 18,1996 A 350 West d Lakeo Scott County Courthouse 8441 Wayzata Boulevard l4YSB Minneapoka,MN 55428 Transportation Plan Step V Traffic Conditions 612-541.4800 2010 Average Daily Traffic i¢- FAX 641-1700 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Minnesota Figure 6 L- -.\ T.H. 169 Q _ ,:11 T.H. 101 r i r r Union Pacific Railroad i I ' , 1 ;i r r • 3rd Ave 1111r a r School Proposed P1oposed Parking Parking 1 F-1 4th Ave ue - i 1 Proposed = I Justice Cent& ' IIII 1111 5th Ave ue r ' r ' a I School ' = 6th Avenue r 76. .r rAm I ' 7th Avenue r# II: r ' ' t MI ' ' �� ' r ' r ' r ..., 1 ill .._....._........._.._ 11 I t. r----1 10th : u Avenue fil" i rr,' r r Legend -----____7 Existing Collector System = all11111111111111111111 Proposed Collector System 0 300 600 A 350Lakeori Scott County Courthouse '"�Project"o. 1049.03 Date:November18,1996 8441 Wayzata Boulevard WSBMinneapolis,MN 55428 Transportation Plan 512-641-4B0D City Collector System &A&,ociaee,Inc. FAX 641-1700 L \ INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS City ofF Shakopee, Minnesota Figure 7 NOV-20-96 WED 13:21 SCOTT COUNTY COLLECTIONS FAX NO. 612 496 8683 P. 02 3. B. a. etp SCOTT COUNTY POLICY REGARDING USE OF Localff o rt Assistance E o snstance to Foster Economic Development Introduction Local Effort Assistance is a local initiative to foster economic development through the dedication of additional property taxes from a new development collected by a city and/or county. The dedication of these additional property taxes is defined in an agreement with the new development to cover related development costs. Local Effort Assistance is not part of the tax increment financing statute, but rather a term used to define this dedication process. As it is not actually tax increment financing, Scott County must herein establish its own policy covering the process and limitations bn its use as regards County participation, and in recognition of the overall limitations placed on the County as regards the financing of redevelopment cost. The County recognizes its responsibility to participate in selected cases in economic development. As Local Effort Assistance commits County property tax dollars, the County requires the applicant to bear the burden of proof that such development would not occur "but for" the use of local effort assistance. The County recognizes that its participation is completely discretionary as to the amount of assistance. One objective here is to provide direction as to the types of development which would warrant County participation. !olicies and Procedures 1. The applicant will complete the County's TIF/Local Effort Assistance amAsatit form (Exhibit 1) and submit a minimum deposit of$2,500 or 10% ('maximum duration of the effort) which ever is less and is non refundable, to cover County administrative costs. 2. The County's participation will vary as to project based on the weighted criteria in Exhibit 2, but in no event will such participation exceed six (6) years and excludes fiscal disparities (see Exhibit 3). Maximum County participation in Local Effort Assistance will be at a level after deduction of the new development's contribution to the fiscal disparity pool. 3. If the applicant is receiving, or has received tax, increment financing from a Scott County jurisdiction, then the County will not also participate in a Local Effort Assistance program, unless the term of the TIF district is less than six (6) years, and only then up to a level such that the combined assistance does not exceed six (6) years. 4. Total County contribution will be limited; not to exceed one percent (1%) of County's current annual levy. With the completion of the application and evaluation of the project under the method described in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, the County will decide as to the term of assistance, not to exceed six (6) years. NOV-20-96 WED 13:21 SCOTT COUNTY COLLECTIONS FAX NO. 612 496 8683 P. 03 • i Exhibit 1 SCOTT COUNTY APPLICATION for Local Effort Assistance PROJEC 1. Business Name: Address: Telephone Number: Contact: 2. • Brief description of the business. 3. Present ownership of the site: 4. Present Project: Building square footage, size of property, description of buildings -materials, etc. Attach site plan, if available. NOV-20-96 WED 13:22 SCOTT COUNTY COLLECTIONS FAX NO. 612 496 8683 P. 04 Page 2 - Request for Local Effort Assistance Exhibit 1 5. Describe employment levels, types of employcment and wage levels over first five (5) years. Year Tota Employee Pos,�it ns e, ,Salary Range Profesrioi 1 2 3 4 5 6. Total Estimated Market Value at completion: $� 7. Source of Financing a. Equity $ b. Bank Loan $ c. Tax Increment Assistance $ d. Industrial Revenue Bonds• $ e. Other $ List all types of governmental assistance: 8. Estimated real estate taxes on project site upon completion of project. (Please show calculations.) NOV-20-96 WED 13:22 SCOTT COUNTY COLLECTIONS FAX NO. 612 496 8683 P. 05 Page 3 - Request for Local Effort Assistance Exhibit I 9. Project construction schedule: a. Construction State Date: b. Construction Completion Date: c. If phase project: Year % Complete Year % Complete 10. Describe amount and purpose for which Local Effort Assistance financing is required. • 11. Statement of necessity for use of Local Effort Assistance for project. 12. Please indicate how the project and use of Local Effort Assistance would meet one or more of the following Scott County Economic Development goals; job retention, job creation, head-of-household jobs, and tax base expansion. NOV-20-96 WED 13:23 SCOTT COUNTY COLLECTIONS FAX NO, 612 496 8683 P, 06 Page 4 -Request for Local Effort Assistance Exhibit 1 13. Municipal Reference (if applicable). Please name any other municipalities wherein the applicant, or other corporations the applicant has been involved with, has completed developments within the last five years. NOV-20-96 WED 13:23 SCOTT COUNTY COLLECTIONS FAX NO. 612 496 8683 P. 07 Exhibit 2 SCOTT COUNTY EVALUATION CRITERIA Local Effort Assistance 1. Number of Employees (FTE) Estimated number of new/additional employees within two years of full operation: Number of Employees Point Value 1 - 0 1 = 2 3 - 4 5 Points Assigned 2. Public Investment(Assistance) Per Employee Estimated number of new/additional employees within two years of full operation: Total requested assistance(PV at Prime) $ Assistance per Employee $ Investment per Employee Point Value $ or greater = 0 $ - $ = 1 $ - $ s 2 $ - $ = 3 $ - $ = 4 $ - or less = 5 Points Assigned 3. Average Pay Level of Positions Average Pay Level Point Value $ or less = 0 $ - $ 1 $ - $ = 2 $ - $ = 3 $ - $ = 4 $ - $ = 5 Points Assigned NOV-20-96 WED 13:24 SCOTT COUNTY COLLECTIONS FAX NO. 612 496 8683 P. 08 Page 2 Exhibit 2 Continued-Scott County Evaluation Criteria Local Effort Assistance 4. Projecte&operty Tax Revenues Projected Tax Revenue Point Value $ or less = 0 $ - $ = 1 $ - $ = 2 $ - $ -- 3 $ - $ = 4 $ - $ = 5 Points Assigned EVALUATION CRITERIA SUMMARY Total Points Assigned Weighting Weighted Point Value #1 - X ' #2 X #3 X #4 X Total Weighted Points Value Desirability Rating No Consideration Low Medium High NOV-20-96 WED 13:24 SCOTT COUNTY COLLECTIONS FAX NO. 612 496 8683 P, 09 Exhibit 3 ESTIMATED TAX CALCULATIONS FOR LOCAL EFFORT TIF MARKET VALUE TOTAL NTC FISCAL NTC LOCAL NTC 96 COUNTY TAX 20,000,000 918,400 284,670 ) 633,730 $291,896.04 10,000,000 _ 458,400 142,087 316,313 $145,693.77 5,000,000 228,400 70,796 157,604 $72,592.40~ 2,500x000 113,400 35,150 78,250 $36,041.95 l 1,000,000 44,400 13,762 30,638 $14,111.86 900,000 39,800 12,337 27,463 $12,649.46 500,000 21,400 6,633 14,767 $6,801.68 100,000 3,000 930 2,070 $953.44 The table above show the tax that would be gernerated on commercial property having the stated estimated market value. These amounts are calculated using the payable 1996 County rate for a property located in the City of Shakopee, after fiscal disparities. NOV-20-96 WED 13:20 SCOTT COUNTY COLLECTIONS FAX NO, 612 496 8683 P, 01 FAX MEMORANDUM AiGV 2 0 1996 A----a—...ewer.... To: Michael Leek Community Development Department Fr: Michael Nguyen Scott County Re: Local Effort Assistance Policy Comments: Michael, FYI per your request. 1 would ask that you keep this information contained until such time that it goes to our Board. As you will see, it is still in DRAFT stage and I would appreciate any comments you may have. Look forward to hearing from you. Michael. 3133. • November 6, 1996 Mr. Curt Johnson, Chair Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre/230 E. Fifth St. St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 RE: Proposed Amendments to the Regional Blueprint regarding Growth Management Strategy, and Development Guide/Policy Plan Chapters Dear Mr. Johnson: The City of Shakopee appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed amendments, and applauds the efforts of the Metropolitan Council to address in a cohesive way the challenges facing the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region. This letter, and the comments contained herein, are submitted for consideration as part of the public hearing record. General: The Growth Options Report estimates that by the year 2020, the metropolitan region will experience a 25% increase in both households and population. The already existing pattern of development outside the boundaries of the 7-county area provide current evidence that the existing definition of the metropolitan region is inadequate for planning purposes. Understandably the Metropolitan Council is statutorily limited to these boundaries, but the proposed amendments seem to concentrate heavily on reinvestment within the urban core and urban area while turning a blind eye to the real operation of market forces facing communities on the fringe of the urban area. Specific Comments: 1. A process must be developed to insure that the"land use plan" both accurately reflects the current state of the MUSA, and the areas within which expansion is likely to and should take place. In the case of Shakopee, that map doesn't even accurately represent the year 2000 MUSA expansion recently approved by the Metropolitan Council. Since the City of Shakopee has been very careful to identify areas for expansion of sewer service which are logical and cost effective, it is very concerned that future expansions of MUSA take place in similar fashion. GROWTH.DOC/SB 2 2. The proposed growth management strategy provides relatively little area for urban expansion in Scott County generally at a time when growth pressures are extremely high, and when a major, long-awaited component (i.e. the new US 169 Shakopee Bypass) is now in place. 3. The City is in agreement with the Builders Association of the Twin Cities(BATC) on the need to develop an"Ulti MUSA." However, it should be defined only after more discussion, and regional consensus is reached. After the UItiMUSA is identified, the City agrees with the Association Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM)that it, not the systems plans, would be the criteria against which local requests for MUSA expansion would be evaluated. 4. The City of Shakopee strongly opposes any proposal to make"land use" a fifth regional system. Specific land use decisions are statutorily, and should remain, the prerogative of cities. Only at the local level can appropriate decisions be made regarding such things as open space, parks, types and concentrations of public and commercial services. 5. The City of Shakopee encourages the Metropolitan Council to work with the State of Minnesota and the State of Wisconsin to identify creative ways of managing growth in the larger Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area(SMSA), and to take account of the impact of extra-regional development on the potential for development in communities like Shakopee which are on the Metropolitan fringe. 6. The City of Shakopee encourages the Metropolitan Council to expand its view of transportation from the I-494/1-694 beltway to encompass the entire Metropolitan region. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, they may be directed to R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director at 445-3650. Very truly yours, Mayor, City of Shakopee GROWTH.DOC/SB 3 SCOTT COUNTY � ;. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~- -. COURTHOUSE 109 v .1 428 HOLMES STREET SOUTH SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1382 (612)496-8100 RALPH T. MALZ, DISTRICT 1 Fax: (612) 496-8180 WILMA E. BEHM, DISTRICT 2 ART BANNERMAN, DISTRICT 3 DICK UNDERFERTH, DISTRICT 4 ED MACKIE, DISTRICT 5 November 20, 1996 Mr. Curt Johnson Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 RE: Comments on the Metropolitan Council' s Proposed Amendments to the Regional Blueprint Dear Mr. Johnson: Scott County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Regional Blueprint as it relates to the Growth Management Strategy. This letter represents the written documentation of Scott County' s comments at the Public Hearing on November 20, 1996. General : The Growth Options Report estimates that by the year 2020, the metropolitan region will experience a 25% increase in both households and population. The already existing pattern of development outside the boundaries of the 7-county area indicate that the existing strategies for growth management are not providing the desired results. • Understandably, the Metropolitan Council is statutorily limited in their authority outside the region, therefore, a concerted effort is needed to encourage cooperation in planning among the surrounding governmental entities. Specific Comments: 1 . A process must be developed to ensure that the "land use plan" both accurately reflects a current state of the MUSA, and the areas within which expansion is likely to and should take place. In Scott County that map does not accurately represent An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer the Comprehensive Plan and Township maps recently approved by the Metropolitan Council or where existing development has occurred in the past. This concern can be clearly seen on the attached map of Spring Lake and Credit River Townships in which the proposed urban reserve boundary has been outlined over the existing parcel map. 2 . The proposed growth management strategy provides relatively little area for urban expansion in Scott County at a time when growth pressures area extremely high, and when the major regional transportation facilities, Bloomington Ferry Bridge and the Shakopee Bypass are now in place. 3 . Scott County is in agreement with the need to develop a long range urban services boundary. However, flexibility must be allowed with the boundary only being defined after more evaluation with local input and consensus has been reached. In Scott County, we believe we are prepared to address the boundary definition through an unique newly formed intergovernmental organization, the Scott County Leadership Forum. The SCLF has been established with a membership of elected officials and staff of Scott County, its cities, school districts, and townships to facilitate an exchange of information on issues of critical importance to the future of Scott County. Scott County requests that the Council consider this opportunity for a pilot project in coordination with the Council and staff to define the appropriate boundaries for the 2020 MUSA and Urban Reserve utilizing the Scott County Leadership Forum. This could serve as another example of intergovernmental cooperation in addressing major regional issues as was experienced in our relationship over the past three years in developing the Scott County Comprehensive Plan and Township maps. 4 . Scott County does not believe that "land use" should be considered a regional system. Specific land use decisions are statutorily, and should remain, the prerogative of local governments. Only at the local level can appropriate decisions be made regarding such things as open space, parks, types and concentrations of public and commercial services . Metropolitan Council' s role should continue to be in regional guidance that will assist the County in its decisions concerning land use. The Council' s policies need to reflect regional objectives, but allow local governments flexibility in how those objectives are implemented. This point could also be demonstrated through the proposal to address the issues in the Scott County Leadership Forum process. 5 . Scott County encourages the Metropolitan Council to work with the State of Minnesota and the State of Wisconsin to identify creative ways of managing growth in the larger Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) , and to take into account the impact of extra-regional development on the potential for development in areas like Scott County which are on the Metropolitan fringe. 6. Scott County supports a strong effort to invest within the urban core and I494/694 beltway, but this strategy should not overlook the needs of the metro area' s outer ring. To not also address the issues in this area, an area in which Scott County falls, will only exacerbate the problems between the 7-county metro area and the surrounding counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Of particular concern is the need for the Metropolitan Council to expand its view of transportation beyond the I494/694 beltway to encompass the entire Metropolitan region. 7 . The Metropolitan Council should investigate incentives to retain land in preservation. What are the long range cost benefits to property owners to retain property in preservation? 8 . Metropolitan Council has not acknowledged with this present- proposal, Scott County' s progress toward compliance with the Council' s rural service policies which were achieved through the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. 9. The proposed growth option amendment to the Regional Blueprint will have significant fiscal ramifications to Scott County. The proposed MUSA and Urban Reserve areas for Scott County are very restrictive compared to other metropolitan counties and places the County in a position that seriously impacts our tax capacity. Scott County recently conducted a study to determine why our tax capacity rate is higher than other outlying metro counties (Anoka, Dakota and Washington) . The study showed that for a 23 year period (1973-1996) , our tax capacity rate increase was similar to those counties . The only difference was that our rate was initially higher and has continued to remain higher. The study results indicated that several factors contribute to Scott County' s higher tax rate in comparison to the other counties . The most significant being the large percentage of agricultural classified property in the tax base as compared to the others . Scott County' s tax base is comprised of a high percentage of low assessed-value property, which combined with a low percentage of industrial/commercial tax base places an undue burden on the residential property owners . This growth proposal with the limited residential and commercial area will continue to perpetuate this inequity and severely hamper Scott County and our local jurisdiction' s ability • to address this tax issue. 10 . The proposed permanent rural classification in the eastern portion of the County does not reflect the fact that this land is not conducive to agricultural uses due to the terrain and soil conditions. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Any questions may be directed to Bradley J. Larson, Associate Administrator of Public Works and Lands at 496-8346. Respectfully, // /00:r>Ralph T . Malz, Chairman Scott County Board of Commissioners cc: Scott County Legislators Cities of Scott County Townships of Scott County Merry Beckman, Association of Minnesota Counties " .,,. »rte "`.«.a'"as y.' `.r fi "i° y _ r t .. . -dl 'II_11,1U.�_■ ■SII®■[��'. 11_1.., '9.a IP IllOt•140 ® ;■ millikwr crilip,A.: ,„„,;-,;4;mpg,g4 -- ;-,,vp`4,4f,==--E1111175 ri lawn..., v „... .,441., ..sai, a''''i, At 4,-tki.__ame !..;:ita • .1 N. lr'":11 , 1-11r illia.ist . ffi--,,,, ,t1,-- it iffaSiirt:::12FA...'nrailiiii — �! �� e B ,!1 g ■1:31 11ilianii •u, odt.„ ........ v,,,,,is.=a•=e9M11111 ,1 Al ,..63.1-k,,7 ipisiTTrz:nCitpir=IF ill.11.0I Q. "==®®o —vim 1�. ■111��1I .014 /■M11111 • ,.. w ,,.._• CD '� �- ,.;.._®®®�®a®ice. .1 l\la► I/ v , �� L. MEM f h azatistallihrailla a . . { perussamBi i11174:1;;:4® �IUIi111111■II>I 0 rno9. a L :+ AC.) o m • - ._ ..„ .,... L....,_ 1E1=2 V a...7...A%._TV alt `,,,1X;,.iT wg`- ii:IlYZIRVM,' e. T Q { . '';.-.1-';1 -7-77.7` 7. ;72 h =.; =.®��■'" ®®�a® � t F siCIa ■� " .� C H �" __ - wm>,� ® —.41. or 2 4. "la-201m1 -- f� �z _:_ 0,..4111113moss _ . . II fI;Icy Q) :a ,��, - 9 3. E. � '1�� �.��* F , ® tea•; ® x"_ � El°3 II'Iii: t * .7 <.v.a -67 -�. ..s`$'.v"19 Fa 7. ®M • - I m° .r L, `�g � � �� �•�csctfaa i `.. /R 0 ,, ' . ,p Gm11111-•., .ca w. , '_l .._.l�..� Wr :--,-,;..:,,,i--2i--1.. �_ 41 • ■ 1. 11 ■:M ®�/YI Ls ■i. :1 - .....\•- ®4®0 . ..III ®o RIO' ill C a� :.:0 ,` �61t� °®ibl.-.;��1i►. ..:i i 11k�!'I E t�< ` F ,5'' , = E� Lwl 11111111 = .'�1r -i-) ,4, .554 t.,, : :' , ,,,'-,_.: -,..-1,'-nribv,Will'12.10.•"..11-11111111.0104 xuriii-21111.41111 illi : 1 --i- Aki-z.ill cal —ma Illik. Z .m °•tip- sit i L. Q � t' 7 =`� .l�i8 ilii 1.6 ;�� 11.E ' rd`th,Nri..' Illi • a.nsiiiiiii• .-) .,,,_=,, ,,,.. 4,,,..... < - 40 w :_,,„,, EL... I is 1 is mUii ..c c„ fr—I. It_ "�!AIIII■i111�"i .1111111E00117.1111111, .In Firm, +s_..,.. ..n.i. _ iu &u x.11te=aAli ,cno'CL) 4_9 _p_CZ ��. ter. ■►� M. • .moiJI lr...• 11111111 i _ . �111111.111\\1y1 0 0 1iii' !!IIJI—f Credit River Township ent Growth Management Policy Areas N Parcel Boundaries ...,_,1=- E parc Area w ,r t Rural/Ag. Permanent s ... NM Urban Reserve ,..........,„/,..,.... :"....*,- . •.' •, :':' r•--- -71 Urban Area . . . . . , . ...,:,-A4,4,,,,.' •i ,,,.... .01.1.,,r'k.,,,A In.,., . , _- ___:..........: ,,, ,_., ,•.•.:„':.--;•:t,:"X-;!f,1•%;'.' ''•!''''':' ' *!I••'0.'+','''04i"^R4.""ti.',' ,' • ----7. _.— ;''''••;,''" ";.". '.•'-'• '"':.'"•,".."-'"" ' : " -„ r V:•:""" •, i 9. , . - , - ''°;••=1'-"----7-4e"?-71; —-.-. .• --- ' .-----:, :. ' •''..,`.:• .:-`.•3,'-'- :''''."l';',:',..:21,.'•:::::'-•'. ' m.---"--1 Wtgisus-ritr':,- rzZ '''-'7.%`,\.iii F II ''''•-•'',V.' ':____-•---.._•=7-1'-=--=-------- ----- • .. '• ' ' ' ..."'",>;r1,,.‘‘-_:i-:.l'',':•,. 7:-:•;•7-',''.•;,%,i'::1-;..•',• "4'; ;...... Eil ea ':'..: clur2.3c:4•:-.1 .1 ,... . -2-- -t- I ,.::,:.,: El MI 2:1 n. ,,---T . 0:2-7,:, ..„.-,-Elyi 9 k t,.r ail• m 1 v.----,--- '• P,',.;2:•: 1; . ....;.:', ..'.I, . , __I.J . ,..::::.z,:i,----=4..Y. .,12.,..4::: :::,.,,,,,, _ .4;;Inivil Ili,_„-„,,,pi;Luir : Aga—, .,..„...„*„cgiei 4,..:::::::.:„.„..„. %,..-.1„;,,,,ti,s,,,,,• • __ , .. . ;4:4" -.. .,, - -. .-.' .'-::::::t..- -..,;,.„.. '44. *g4i,.;•• tIfil-,-.11111!! 0771-,.. RIK- , ,..,, ,,,r - ‘....... ... .., . ,, ,.,„4 ,-,.., :.;:itritieftt-,T 4,v.2.4's'e4.. 'i*t;•;,:' Laza tb•-.-.--;.:ecrilllipliff wir-i'''-'!"" L i us -;,,,.= Ei,, ,, : :. .e•-•• ,.,. -*E. --,..!;,.'.-.,-. -,;•:.. .$,„,„ '',,44.0.,--,'114,z 1,10,:e',,•.„;,.4.,F71151, -,44e,-,,,!', in& lir/5=2"%,,,,..' sw-x-','"'".4 40,,i;i j': ::::; ` . ''' ' '•''.:- - ',.«.4,4',,','''rrAM4F- 'Y:,itik;'''‘S.,:., tOr!. . .,-- : `,.4,4, ! ,''': ;'411jr m,K.i.%ITC .,7,,' "'tz'f,vi-:...,;','•:' ' ',,,-'- • ';',: '.. ' ;„.. ' ,,,,,,..-••,...4, 45.'V-,0,4v6-•--4-** • -• ' - ''' • ''''''" • MP weAfe•*::7'4% 1,11:-.nz, i , — :. . ::_,---. • ,,,-.4,.4.4,,,;.„.„*„„,1,..,...24,..„.„„:„.: „..,#:,,,, , ,. . . 4„,„„ „Is„,.. it•esiiNIF '.":4,4- ''':-.41001,6V.?-0V-'*,1 ,44.,,,'1,,.>-T,, - "'''' '''' ''' " ' —Er.Isliv. .; rwt,•11 a- OD' -".... :-_,-,..,:..., ''..,:i..--4:-:::f:.: iro i-lta" '411 via, 'Ala ' -t''''''V.%,"'''''''''''''4:t7,4•';'-'7V4%,`,',.••A%'8,.., * , 1..'1'0!.,„:..:X%"lre ill .AIM A r.*Ori 4• "4 ','''%,,••;"'','''t.t,''"ti"..'1"'. " 4'4,-.,,,,,w,- '';',, ,,,,,;' ',44, . . `.t,,,,,;,,,,, ,," i • III i'4,4Z'APalr.P4t0 '‘"i4s- ,,_ WIt.'" A 15g2=,,,,N.,...4,,.:t.,0,41.0... ift.•!P._ -1,-,,,ty. ...:,--,- ,,,, „:••,0* -..,,Fig,, ,,..,7^ . tip*. alu• f.,,..^., M III-Sis'47: miprfikil• IENP,pnirt,,,,,,A,---,.... ,4,,,,,I, '•':';',:,4',„%•::‘,---1P440t.„..:'41,4i•r,z4i**,-4,-,,,,,,\' ..„, ,.. 0.i, :.„ •'.•,,,,,,,:-i-, a :,,ii.V.,'--,-,'..::f4iPV.:L4,414..,1, ,,k1,=1::r.,.... .‘',*:,,,k,,-1*'• .,,..,..,.,4,...., - '1,,q.,,,44.a..3,g,.,4:- , .tr,,,,,,,...!.-•,, PO .1-,.......41 tab ,,Q,„,,,,..,e-e.,'41/1"..-t 70:i.---• III"'• 111- ,, "<1.01114441'-1-'7"' ' -,''.:';:i•`;:- -•!.'0•4.--,-2,1017..km..9,17.1,-** • c ,,. -'''''''" ug,,,,,,, ,4,;',4-44E-..4. - $0447-4--••-- •- ,;„;.1.7. .,...,14,.ft.i..4.il.,,,f,..0,,X,M201 1.1.',„: "' 4,,,Iti,4.rig44715=MK ponw_,--___, I_ inislaal. di NEL y,7,,,,,,0.,.."14,,R 73,,,,,„;. ; '••'..!-‘4-..,'I ittgi,,°--:egl'rn*-7,4<"4:4A4: 9171''!.„'T't ail ami.,C, • wiiklottiLit.4.-.. , '-: .,:k:1--",-"-Nit' A,_ ............. ...,,,m .,',..,,,, . 4,..7:4,:iii4'i nom .,...g?'s:lit ::,.; .,'4,5 y.-..,-_-,,,f,-; I 1.i ,l Emellirj 44, t,,--•-•1,,- ",:,,,,,:,,_ 1-„,.....,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,7...,,. il= ''''4:'''':::Wi0,14Vf''''4,, k-k-'41:k'"0 47*. 'AIWA"' • ''Z''''l'''''.1Fo-,,,,,,r-i,#)A,:i41 W.,,,,-4.•'A.-- AM ler MIIMM1--,1't*''.4.•"'';'':44 4:-,kr.tiT:.' : . .!-_- • -lima-.... ..-.. . ip'vi.,,,:r.54.;;;.e.,.-Ae-..;• , . w•vitaianialliMpl. - Or • L'hIriOzimmaill ,,, IF)0414 ilb-iw4a VII 1;-_,I.,.:•elaTo 77- ..,: EviiiNdiP,4114...-"ANO00.0.4-2 .of,! -iii' - ipranimilP1111 IllrAlltI IMWAN' ': A'-:''''Irt•-WA",,,,.., _4',.*, -.- ' **.••-•••:.•*•,-Y--4,•4•-0',t'l,•,z-a-A''',-,:- milla Al WA El'''f' :;:t.444011t. ': 11.1.1111.11111 1 p•S‘ ilTs...../idow P 1 ki-:= ' 71;:_.- .:: ::::-•,,i-',!-::',44, i-ii annoillilIMMIIIIIIMI , ,x44/./fAr.-::::::.4'i.;! :- ..1. Mil III MM.. .1..milia..• d hi.. -, 41.k--,,-; .1.- ,'..:,,,,,,,-,..;.•:-...- ,-.....'' Illma".111111111111111 mimm'Lilt= „Ilk . 'Air," nomiiml'ild _ 111111 swillprz--- migillo. 1111 ,v,.4.,•. ::.;.t..,77-q,.. ..... limilm EMIL , Row gip, Ballot sill ..o... ,r,r'',.t.-0•4*. .1.:;,,,,,„%-.4”. -II II IIIIIkm .._m•KMIMPjIIIIII-_t..111:Ill PI g la rig 1 =EMI I III . Am= . . -= 1111111N Townships Tow /Ll sville ' 1---- Jackson oumanagement Growth Grow Areas Policy N 4- E w --: - s MI Parcel Boundaries Rural/Ag. Area Permanent ReserveUrban .,.. - Area.. , 77-i--:7 Urban 1 Growth Center Rural •Township Boundary- - ' — ' :-e- ----,•.. .,:.,,m. '441:- ‘_._ › • -- - , f:- ' 0# 4, t, ,,,...:„2:!:;1„-71--::i.,`:,: : ":•:.::1-;1:,;;;,;.- --,:s,,..;f:::,„,440 :4 ,,:x --,,/ , ' : ` .-,. :I'. '''.. .„ p:-'1--''..., '''''1,:,' -1:,:,.' 7'• '''.,--'::::'"/'',;---i,C:F'f?-k;--,;"'---A'--+:;;"r,r.f/ j,"' - . ,--: -'s -- --i-:..L .-- '- -,f,,;,j,i ,''','-';',,-,,-',`',:'• --- ::„ -:-',:--i --,!v....4z--an-17.4:1-',A 1,415,Y , -, ' -- -,!,7 , :•-•-, ' '!, : ", .,,o,",-+4,,,,,,,e4:s'...,-7,-:4.-"'--- ;',.,1-,11-4':,,7%,',-zr.,-, - ••:-,'• : -.,', .-.- ::,.: J",r,-,,'-b,":,:.-r.,z:-,;:{t15-ze47;;-.:7i,!:t--7.,1,47-4-,A3,-:7i..%",.-'*'.1,z7.:&iIt.J-.t-,-..,,,,::----7,,.t.,z'A'--,,'.,,7--',;1.-;4!,,--.'-.,--,.:„'4,'',,VE,.',-''.,,:-,:,[v1,7----7,',,:-,';,.%t,,‘,;,1:,1:i;,•;;i7,:,,S:;:n,-.-.,-;4,.'I;--.-,Y,.4-.'-'.;,---'—,','',,':;,,-,:.-,”','-'.','',--„-'„--,-.,;:::---.,—-_--:,-::,i-..t..::%,-;.43:',,',_,n'•;,,,:..„-:--1 17, 1; , :.--,_, ,%,,,,_ ,,‘,,-,'-,, , , -.:,._...,.:..x,,,:,,,_--:-:_...,._,-,,.,,_•,_,-r-_,,„,,.:,-,,_'._-..-„_,.,:t_.„•ic_iL,-,,,4:':s.z::,i„',. '... _,L-----„, .: 4:0-17p,;1=7-,-,7P.:.:t:12:-:-.:71M.1 ( 14.4%3,-,,-:---7-IV' ,-7-'''.44.C-Ti;' t;%X.•%-/i-;:--'''''' '',LIktoii--:•!-.-44-4'.6...,-,,r-dz ,41,..-,-.-#zi, ,..4,,,,,,1:„,,.,,,-,-.„1-4;,"„:„;Ifilks,..r.c.4 4 -,749 =Ix=v „.,:- '': ='uz=--:...---r„,--- .-P,s„,,;:,:11,:z.• fft..- -,,,,,ii.:Pikki"?v,,titti,..4*-- '''.-: '” fb,,,,.,,Nzwittii:,,,,i, to it.?:;.:74>-- -,, i t ,,A_ :i.,.1. = -,.,..„,.., ,111,,,ps-, , ....,,,, ...w. ':;.....- ,,:e.°1q.p.S.''"," • -' ,c7,7 0,..„ A , am ' -zt,..„4 ,., -,_,;;,,- „, i.1 -'4- ,-.--;,,,:15-4 014:1- 1-,,,i,„., 4 40/ __.. ), ,r,,,,,,- 4--z :,,, ....m.-P7.4.42 .,-,,,,,,>ti „.... „.• __474noRr,:•,..,• rit., Ezzim[2313 22;42 i,...„, .;11,.-. .11‘14v,r.f-k* --7.:-"• • ..-.--..i.',: ,•`±:r.,:is*'' 1' ,,{A, ,,,,„ ,,,,,.. .. ',.,1.7*. 2, _,07,177,1Runi,2, ..k.,,,,,,,,,,,--,,,,4%. ,„ 0.m c:::::::.j ,,s,_, ...11.,,, a=a'''I'L •••• 2 -4,,,,,e,,. .. ' ,„ ,,, r-, ..j “,6" 77 if/r,',1'•;, . ariE:•••::EAU ..ilersi illimmojIVP.'..t SEEREE,,,,,.>„ „.Itiltiat Livi-12 ,, „ - -T.'s,- i_ ,.<,.. iop m....,1.''''.-; 4,..3:., ,,' - 111111111,13 ;„vo•11:,.,K -.'4,'-g., Ear VA -_,,,,?4,41 . I'M .. -''La'r W 4,1,A :: tt1160. 1 .7.; rizowillii )Traiii.,,,,t,11-4-, „,,,Eri.4. - ,--- --A, 1*-vg'-;',ik- .iszl'il' :Ise----2-zz„ , •/ ;,,..,...L.it*ici:7;p4'-z '- pie z1 L-7„.„...,;;i..„,,..L.,1. - x ( ..„---. IS Matiotit'44';,,PM111 w- 1011;;14:70..P.w4t41.1ti;YAM , 41111111111 lk t\lilt . II 4 F: Ari, , .., . .. . C3 minim' : .1, . r 1 SCOTT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COURTHOUSE 109 428 HOLMES STREET SOUTH SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1382 (612) 496-8100 RALPH T. MALZ, DISTRICT 1 Fax: (612) 496-8180 WILMA E. BERM, DISTRICT 2 ART BANNERMAN, DISTRICT 3 DICK UNDERFERTH, DISTRICT 4 ED MACKIE, DISTRICT 5 November 20, 1996 Mr. Curt Johnson Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St . Paul, MN 55101-1634 RE: Comments on the Metropolitan Council' s Proposed Amendments to the Regional Blueprint Dear Mr. Johnson: Scott County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Regional Blueprint as it relates to the Growth Management Strategy. This letter represents the written documentation of Scott County' s comments at the Public Hearing on November 20, 1996. General : The Growth Options Report estimates that by the year 2020, the metropolitan region will experience a 25% increase in both households and population. The already existing pattern of development outside the boundaries of the 7-county area indicate that the existing strategies for growth management are not providing the desired results . Understandably, the Metropolitan Council is statutorily limited in their authority outside the region, therefore, a concerted effort is needed to encourage cooperation in planning among the surrounding governmental entities . Specific Comments : 1 . A process must be developed to ensure that the "land use plan" both accurately reflects a current state of the MUSA, and the areas within which expansion is likely to and should take place . In Scott County that map does not accurately represent An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer the Comprehensive Plan and Township maps recently approved by the Metropolitan Council or where existing development has occurred in the past. This concern can be clearly seen on the attached map of Spring Lake and Credit River Townships in which the proposed urban reserve boundary has been outlined over the existing parcel map. 2 . The proposed growth management strategy provides relatively little area for urban expansion in Scott County at a time when growth pressures area extremely high, and when the major regional transportation facilities, Bloomington Ferry Bridge and the Shakopee Bypass are now in place. 3 . Scott County is in agreement with the need to develop a long range urban services boundary. However, flexibility must be allowed with the boundary only being defined after more evaluation with local input and consensus has been reached. In Scott County, we believe we are prepared to address the boundary definition through an unique newly formed intergovernmental organization, the Scott County Leadership Forum. The SCLF has been established with a membership of elected officials and staff of Scott County, its cities, school districts, and townships to facilitate an exchange of information on issues of critical importance to the future of Scott County. Scott County requests that the Council consider this opportunity for a pilot project in coordination with the Council and staff to define the appropriate boundaries for the 2020 MUSA and Urban Reserve utilizing the Scott County Leadership Forum. This could serve as another example of intergovernmental cooperation in addressing major regional issues as was experienced in our relationship over the past three years in developing the Scott County Comprehensive Plan and Township maps . 4 . Scott County does not believe that "land use" should be considered a regional system. Specific land use decisions are statutorily, and should remain, the prerogative of local governments . Only at the local level can appropriate decisions be made regarding such things as open space, parks, types and concentrations of public and commercial services . Metropolitan Council' s role should continue to be in regional guidance that will assist the County in its decisions concerning land use. The Council' s policies need to reflect regional objectives, but allow local governments flexibility in how those objectives are implemented. This point could also be demonstrated through the proposal to address the issues in the Scott County Leadership Forum process . 5 . Scott County encourages the Metropolitan Council to work with the State of Minnesota and the State of Wisconsin to identify creative ways of managing growth in the larger Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) , and to take into account the impact of extra-regional development on the potential for development in areas like Scott County which are on the Metropolitan fringe. 6. Scott County supports a strong effort to invest within the urban core and I494/694 beltway, but this strategy should not overlook the needs of the metro area' s outer ring. To not also address the issues in this area, an area in which Scott County falls, will only exacerbate the problems between the 7-county metro area and the surrounding counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Of particular concern is the need for the Metropolitan Council to expand its view of transportation beyond the 2494/694 beltway to encompass the entire Metropolitan region. 7 . The Metropolitan Council should investigate incentives to retain land in preservation. What are the long range cost benefits to property owners to retain property in preservation? 8 . Metropolitan Council has not acknowledged with this present proposal, Scott County' s progress toward compliance with the Council' s rural service policies which were achieved through the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. 9 . The proposed growth option amendment to the Regional Blueprint will have significant fiscal ramifications to Scott County. The proposed MUSA and Urban Reserve areas for Scott County are very restrictive compared to other metropolitan counties and places the County in a position that seriously impacts our tax capacity. Scott County recently conducted a study to determine why our tax capacity rate is higher than other outlying metro counties (Anoka, Dakota and Washington) . The study showed that for a 23 year period (1973-1996) , our tax capacity rate increase was similar to those counties . The only difference was that our rate was initially higher and has continued to remain higher. The study results indicated that several factors contribute to Scott County' s higher tax rate in comparison to the other counties . The most significant being the large percentage of agricultural classified property in the tax base as compared to the others . Scott County' s tax base is comprised of a high percentage of low assessed-value property, which combined with a low percentage of industrial/commercial tax base places an undue burden on the residential property owners . This growth proposal with the limited residential and commercial area will continue to perpetuate this inequity and severely hamper Scott County and our local jurisdiction' s ability to address this tax issue. 10 . The proposed permanent rural classification in the eastern portion of the County does not reflect the fact that this land is not conducive to agricultural uses due to the terrain and soil conditions . Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Any questions may be directed to Bradley J. Larson, Associate Administrator of Public Works and Lands at 496-8346. Respectfully, /rte o Ralph T . Malz, Chairman Scott County Board of Commissioners cc: Scott County Legislators Cities of Scott County Townships of Scott County Merry Beckman, Association of Minnesota Counties -..- , -- ' •-.,..--,gli,s4.....W.V.,',..-,- .111azosil .. --_,,,,,c,312.-,7‘,747.-..7-‘-- -z•Mif M.i I .IIIA _ r ■: I ® 1==1111 .....0. r��er 1i• ■■1�`!� jet. � �vv Q'(J.d :-, ..,_„,„.,-,E / ..�i21112,:,, � m _11 ret I�vo've1■c=nL f,,CS::;':: Ed** , ...,,,....,.. ...IL „,,,,„,..., ici,": ' ' ,,.....--. ,.......4.2..,,v4, ::;;;;.‘ .:'1111110 til i:1 r 111116eitt".;...rLitAPEELetwli;41L11111b111.111111- ""iss I s ■lc��11 mug CU .� ``xW CL ` _ ��®ILII®�`� ■1111 ! 4 :■&• ■ ®-swig■® f� 1�1k.. Vi fil.Uil k 'a,� W11•11 — ovelld■IIdIII `—LIM1II,,:�._•jj. ``'ILt ' Ell = ;'¢ 7-- glialiliti _asgr-E r1 a ...., ,.., gRellill . imam � VAI � ` � S21321 ®�. L=g.....30ZSCE1213-14 gli I s ���.,t �i �— -��. _ me ®® • a) <1.-c. ' 7 ; ,:is_ :;:.1,',:l./.4 q; , 1121=1:7,1p, 4 MD. 13--72,... .,.,Pgra.I F.-4a !Dill %kb `4" U _ _� `�`s part.ill/I���HII ll1 �: ` ®l II I 4 I I II •Q� ma .- � 9 'A igsg •76.,..i..-w- ., Ila I B -p;ilia■IE " . 1 C3 x. _ x ►®'01 I1 1"14°= ®`—® It=� .-_/.i:: .. ®®-•-- Lis L. ■�.1 x- ' '�a 01Ir.�u�1. Vim.' I� lik! II , __MS MIMI I 4-1t"-._1 w r a*44I�.lu 1■/s A■dim- terullil�J�/ 111 di ilim 0 C 11 t''''.-'r'';'ir‘ ;'..47 43 _Iii...1=17.I imipiur v.... � m ,`� icerD ^ Q = fAIi. rUM "pa ,„imiwour 0 '..„.0 ,_ I 4102 a , 11,,,,,:.-;,....., 31i .4.E.e=impi.:641±_km......1 _III: - 1111111 9' 111611; ;741111 IBMIIIN till' MIN LEINVIZIMMIlill = - cn �7 ra .41;11 mi.= __.. 4,1 CO CD i■'� _IIID■■■� IIIJII!iii1i11/J■ Ili I II IIIII \ i 00 - I .rdi 11211111111111111111111 .immirimiimuisie ...1 ■I , Credit . , River Town-ship Growth Management Policy Areas N Parcel P Boundaries .7 t:::i Permanent Rural/Ag. Area 4, s ilia Urban Reserve r _ - _ . Area ..,...,..,---;,,..;-,_::----*Ezi,,c---t:-- -4,,,,,,,,,,skk,1-,:*..- ,,, .......--„,,,r,.--;,-;,-,‘ „':‘,4,,,,,4.."..'4,44;,-1,,,...1"1.--. ,t4P-4,,,,,..--- ..,;:ve,A+,,...,,,y,,,,,,„,,;,,,,,, -,-,7„, ,,,,,,',,,,,,.,„--,:,,7,-,4,k,t,,,,‘,...;•:•,.,, ::::: iimi,10.,111111.--",--' 111,,. ..,..!: 1-1111.., :7-:,,v,.:::-.-1,2.4,,,,-- -' ''''. Urban y ii.VIONI= „;,:„ , 1, Kral .,,,,, .1,„,;;;Rot.,, ,,;•,,,,,,,,,0-4*,;421,..ft,A71 ::,',i,',,:,14tki'' '''"'I' N...,;,,,,E: ,•.-i FiEitigswialf,mom& r ,elhana:=-4,frairigurrA1116TrPi 41,411441, up-"Z;larad -kiik's, atini nsiwillawiliviiff. PP' nom 1.1111111. dliik En Fir aillisir411111111111111101111= Iry 11 , 4-4,,ftrtf"A"?:5-W'.'''';-.",', :;44-14,7,217;;#,Art.',0,f •In 4.16.0 ...., , 4:44-60r,.:-;vit35,1j, -pfts:ttrwTre_.- i illiEitanaillirimill , 1 ;%;4,,,,, ,:irf:45:714,4t*'-‘1',.,T:iiteOwsg, i ::4 iiiii - ..•<4.'„oz f-;,:, , i;,,,,t-s'fr-ti,,,-1-.1'':. 1 Raiz!! p•_girai • 4-i , •„ -,:i.:-N.-- ., . •., ,. . • him. ti--E-i_illt:::::::::,, iprzim w - d i bit; iniriiiii11111111.1 4 .,,,,,, _., ..iii& irrAi ..ti" kt kitairlIAIL Ilt : 7. kook..os 0 alb •.11. me"411,47•0. - ... ;=7'V150,.- / 00\ irk wAhrifillt.4aill lot ..-.‘,...- 'ere& Ad rittOeile16111111 mall _ . - ,,au= &. 4 ...1.1 AIM ''''''r.AI ,, 1p447.:1 ..-,.-,:,‘.;,.,„,,,--- .5 1)Nis.441 I. 0 iiim 7 lam '---- ,--,-!--,--.-:;--,,,,,,,,-, - ...-:=4,1e,'-:-,-,--:l ' IF Ns ,;(14,.... lit! l.,,:,,,s,:::,!,,,_-„,:-!:-.,..-, I, .....„,, 1.... ...11......7/. .6.41...., „...r. ff.... _ .., ,,,.... . . .. iii,—,t, We 4 Iiiii•sajoil,At., mil.,,,1 ' :-...'61.:Zii,i4'. ,Nt-mill I I ft . •=iwir mmilhot. ..1 mir- ilk i ,_ _ !Milli all= A V ,,,,,,,„,,,,i misimiF7--• ,--,1"::#:' - 11111 i'l . ,. ..... ...a,- . .1,1,,, ,,,, !Mil m v-kommiki ,,-,;:, , , tio„,,,-../ ...._ ,„„,.__,•J..-, „,, ,,,,---„,„,4: • or—Mil Aii i Email." w-TandilivA1011 ,,,,,,tivoxiz.:4.1*47.; Ilqw4i••• ITAftlX9411-61Evii/ 1 S'igkir4U.4:1 1...-. . -....-,.. rillpira s mill ...am.11111111 iiiikap.,iiiit...._44.....wilimwopioato , 4,44,40,,,,„,„,r.44 41, „:4,1, .,,,„,.,„ EvAivph,,`"mvisasto.: .1411rallanslEal III. .Lyn ..IIIIII wp . M ''''''-40/kVS:1/;: il*.,::''1/4;3.,;'".•. NM Elm dismnimp,i. IT/ .•. 13'1 Ea ;,,,,...;441etc.4.,,,,,, ,,, .-!•.,,,..:,,;',,.#--.4, ,......,.. , „,. iii......mrill 11E111 =I 1.11MMIP dill Mil..Mn11111111 :,'Illit4,4ftrt''." . ..; 'A tr,:;:,,.,:',.-zei,lytt:---„,,,,,...-:::,,,,,,,-,-,--:, a.... 1 mi..iiimilio, I. 1,11.4.1.„0.-iiiiiill ,zg, ''',- -4V7' ;'',:aa;.--,-c,;,.f...i ur...... „,„ - ,..,.......... :,.... 1111111E Jackson/Louisville To ns i s Growth Management Policy Areas Parcel Boundaries I Permanent Rural/Ag. Area Urban Reserve w -7.! = � E Urban Area S Rural Growth Center •d•/•Township Boundary `N ', �r r?,''za? ,^-ems; .a., "'."°' fi ,�,.a�. ,� ,.ya*,� � ,'''..''''2, `----,:'''Ai}igk,'." --ifF,VID,001:4;74ZItC':1'''Vi.1 .-74 r- ,;_i....s.::,.„:„..,,,:.:..;,,,...,, _ fe.447-ai; '451:a,#,K5f.,,Ii:i*S•i!..1,ii , 4.44114;:e.F;;;;;:414';'::' i if4.4.1,,tzia,74:,..:e4: 47,„11..,„,,,,,,,,„.„1,,,,,,,,:,,,,, , ,,,,,i,,...x.,..4,; es': 9w .� c :..1� ,Ill/ a�' � '.."--'-."`-jklt.4 ,,,....--,---,..-P-,-,..-2,-:,-..,,,,,,,,,,,r,,,,, !--,:' jib. ivippk__ . . er4t w--.911 :-.., ,,„-AlAir 1 ... ‘.., Airigiri --m Aiiiii"-----j''L-__..:lliri.IIIMIIIIII %�j i/�A"pr.i-r-wiriswym-ir, hy ■, An, .i • x®1111.wR11'$1 iiu iin1a:al_rii-.-i.-:,.,,. i! Ili. .1 _ Ta/m h - aisreg ilit6sili ilk.,: lir. - - , \ ...- now4 ea% iriAllimi ■ s I trmum anprA ibe=•-issiA�'� �r :Priiiiii 17,.. �, Pray , : oilliairov;iat ,4�17,11gall Tr. 4. a, hill'uklv'1,111 , -dri I 111111 L-=-';,rte' ''' iii ram,11.1./ i , _: .6,..imutriv. ...z, ird .II i?„1 ���� uI_ { �- o -o Minnesota Department of Transportations i_ „ND, Office of Railroads and Waterways OF TR Mail Stop 470, 925 Kelly Annex Phone: 612/296-0355 395 John Ireland Blvd. Fax: 612/297-1887 St. Paul, MN 55155 October 22, 1996 Barry Kraft Shakopee City Administrator City Hall 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Railroad Grade Crossing Apgar Street Dear Mr. Kraft: It is my understanding that the City of Shakopee is considering the upgrading of Apgar Street so that more traffic will be directed to its use. We are concerned about the railroad grade crossing on Apgar Street in the vicinity of TH 169. The crossing has mainline tracks as well as industry tracks spread over a wide area. The crossing has stop sign control and already has a considerable amount of daily train and vehicle traffic. The crossing is undesirable because of its expansive size and the opportunity it gives drivers to make poor choices, and assumptions as they notice parked rail cars or watch slow switching movements and possibly overlook faster moving mainline trains. For this type of crossing, signals with gates would not completely remove all the concerns. We would like to urge you to consider other alternatives to Apgar Street as you plan for future traffic flow in your city. We would be happy to assist in reviewing the needs at railroad grade crossings in Shakopee if you so desire. Please let me know if we can be of assistance. Sincerel / 4—,C4011-1-1— Robert G. Swanson Director, Railroad Administration cc: Bruce Loney An equal opportunity employer