Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/24/1995
TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JANUARY 24, 1995 LOCATION: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 5: 30 p.m. 2] Approve Minutes of January 10, 1995 3] Joint Meeting with Jackson and Louisville Township Officials a] Recreation Budget - Township Contribution b] Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan - bring item #13g from 1/17 agenda packet c] Other Business 4] Community Center 5] Blocks 3 and 4, Shakopee City 6] Other Business 7] Adjourn TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 24, 1995 Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call after Committee of the Whole meeting 2] Trunk Sanitary Sewer Policy, tabled 1/17 - bring item 13b from 1/17 agenda packet 3] Other Business 4] Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JANUARY 10, 1995 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 5: 30 P.M. with Councilmembers Brekke, Beard (5:33 P.M. ) , Sweeney, and Lynch. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer; and Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner. Sweeney/Lynch moved to approve the Minutes of November 9th, 22nd, 29th, and December 14th, 1994; and, to amend the Minutes of November 29th, page 1, paragraph 7, to read "$2, 000,000.00" instead of $2 , 000. 00. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl.Beard arrived and took his seat. Mr. Voxland explained the options for funding the bypass drainage commitment which included: capital improvement funds, tax increment funds, general fund balance, storm drainage fund or a combination thereof. He did mention that there are insufficient funds in the storm drainage fund and that bonds could be sold if that fund were used for the bypass drainage costs. Discussion followed. Mr. Nummer explained that the original estimate of $1, 060, 000. 00 for the drainage for the bypass has been reduced to $750, 000. 00. Mr. Voxland recommended selling G.O. revenue bonds and that they be repaid from the storm drainage fund. Mr. Nummer explained that the Chaska Interceptor estimated cost to Shakopee was reduced to $2, 125, 000. 00 after the bids on the project were opened. Discussion ensued on the costs to repair the river district trunk project because of inflow/infiltration. Mr. Nummer stated that the City has received some evidence that might indicate it may not all have to be rebuilt right now. Mr. Kraft stated that he believes that the problem is inflow not infiltration and that the cost for repairs may be more in the amount of $300, 000. 00 versus $900, 000.00. Mr. Nummer stated that Council has authorized a feasibility study on the river district trunk, including maintenance, pipe replacement, and future costs for rebuilding. Mr. Nummer then introduced the Trunk Sewer Policy item. He said that in earlier meetings the City Council has been trying to address three separate but interdependent issues: sanitary sewer trunk charges, funding for the Chaska Interceptor, and the financial condition of the Sanitary Sewer Fund. In an attempt to clarify the relationships between these three issues and in order to determine funding sources, Mr. Nummer and Mr. Bilotta reviewed all the sanitary sewer funding as a whole. They identified costs, cost drivers and revenue sources for: Met Council Office of Waste Services (MCOWS) Charges, Expansion of the Trunk Sewer System, Official Proceedings of the January 10, 1995 Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -2- Interceptor System Costs, and Reconstruction/Maintenance/Operation Expenses of City Lines. Mr. Bilotta then explained the financial analysis of the proposed sanitary sewer funding concepts. Staff was directed to bring back some alternatives using a SAC (connection charge) charge as well as flow fees for funding interceptor system costs. Mayor Laurent was in favor of 50%/50%. Staff was directed to bring back options using a 25% assessment policy or raising the sanitary sewer base rate for funding the reconstruction of sanitary sewer lines. Staff was directed to bring back a trunk sewer policy using a flat rate per acre for funding expansion of the trunk sewer system. The rate being the same for residential as well as commercial and industrial properties. Mayor Laurent thanked Mr. Bilotta and Mr. Nummer for their presentation and help in resolving the funding issues for the Chaska Interceptor, trunk expansions, and reconstruction of sanitary sewer lines. Discussion resumed on how to fund the cost for the storm drainage improvements in connection with the Southerly bypass (approximately $750, 000) . Staff was directed to look at alternatives utilizing raising fees versus ad valorum taxes. Council consensus to put agenda item 5] Blocks 3 and 4, Shakopee City, on the January 24th Committee of the Whole meeting agenda. Mayor Laurent initiated discussion on holding "neighborhood meetings" in different areas of the City to hear comments and questions from residents. Mr. Stock offered to explore the concept and make suggestions on its implementation for Council consideration at another meeting. Council consensus to meet with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission on Friday, February 3rd at 3 : 00 P.M. at city hall. Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting to January 24, 1995 at 5: 30 P.M. Meeting adjourned at 8: 04 P.M. c9. 626 lildith S. Co ty Clerk 'ecording Secretary C0 GO 3 aU MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Recreation Budget - Township Contribution DATE: January 17, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Since 1991 the City and the Townships have discussed options for determining what the appropriate contribution level would be for the Townships to pay. for recreation services provided by the City of Shakopee. It would be appropriate at this time to finalize a participation contribution formula and it's application over the next three year period. BACKGROUND: Currently non-residents utilizing Shakopee Recreation Programs are required to pay a youth non-resident fee of $5 . 00 per activity and adult non-resident fee of $15 . 00 on top of the program's base fee. For the past several years, the City of Shakopee has not required Jackson and Louisville residents to pay the non-resident fee. Jackson and Louisville Townships have contributed a lump sum contribution annually to the City to cover the cost of their residents who are participating in the City's programs . In 1991 the City and Townships first discussed options for determining what the contribution level would be for the Townships . The minutes of the 1991 joint meeting reveal that it was, "the consensus to use the following formula for computing cost to Townships based on the number of participants per activities : recreation expenditures minus revenues times the ratio of participants per activities among: 1 . Jackson Township, 2 . Louisville Township, and 3 . the City of Shakopee and those outside all three jurisdictions . " At last year's joint meeting City staff presented figures representing the number of recreation program participants in 1993 . Staff proposed that these figures be used as the base line for determining an appropriate township fee. Rather than recalculating the number of participants each year, it was also suggested that the base line figure simply be increased by a standard inflationary amount each year for a three year period. Once again, staff is proposing that the 1993 participant figures be used as a baseline for determining program participants. Staff is also proposing that the baseline participant year be applied to the actual recreation program costs for that year. If we apply this methodology, the appropriate contribution level for 1996 based on the 1993 recreation budget would be as follows : Jackson Township - $7388 . 37 Louisville Township - $3863 . 64 Staff is proposing 1993 as a base year because we have actual participant and budget figures available at this time. Actual 1994 revenue and expenditure figures may not be available until the end of February. Last fall each township official was sent a copy of the computer printout which indicated the names of their township members who had participated in recreation programs for calendar year 1993 . Since the township's adopt their budget for 1996 in March, it would be appropriate that some final direction be agreed to by and between the Townships and the City of Shakopee with respect to the appropriate contribution amount . Rather than revisiting this issue every year, staff is proposing that a 3o inflationary increase to the 1996 base fee amount be applied for calendar years 1997 and 1998 . Under this scenario, the contribution amounts for the Townships would be as follows : 1995 1996 1997 1998 Jackson - $2700 . 00 $7388 .37 $7610 . 02 $7838 .32 Louisville - $1479 . 00 $3863 . 64 $3979 . 55 $4098 . 94 In January of 1998 staff would propose a joint meeting to discuss revising the Township contributions based on 1995 actual budget and participant figures . A new contribution amount would be instituted for years 1999-2001 . In other words, the contribution amount paid by the Townships would always be three years behind. Attached is an analysis of the Recreation Department Budget . The analysis includes program participant statistics and historical contribution data. It is important to note that the recreation budget figures included herein do not include funding for park maintenance or the operation of the municipal swimming pool . Staff is requesting the Township Officials and City Council to discuss the proposed participation contribution formula and determine how it should be applied to future contributions to be paid by Jackson and Louisville Townships. Recreation Fee Analysis Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Recreation Expend. 171,209 196, 214 197, 160 206, 030 239, 580 Recreation Revenues 78,958 87, 172 80, 006 82,810 90, 560 Total Cost 92, 215 104, 890 112,972 119, 041 149. 020 Program Participants 1991 1992 1993 Shakopee 3883 78. 60% No figures 4582 84 . 90% Jackson 334 6.76% "" 353 6. 54% Louisville 201 4. 06% "" 185 3 .42% Other 522 10. 56% H 1 277 5. 13% 4940 5397 Cost Allocation Based on 1991 Participation Formula 1991 Cost To Be Paid 1992 Cost To Be Paid 1993 Cost To Be Paid In 1992 by Twshp. In 1993 by Twshp. In 1994 by Twshp. Jackson - $6233 .73 No Figures $9825. 76 Louisville - $3743 .93 "" $5138 . 24 Actual Amount Paid Actual Amount Paid Pojected Amount Paid by Twshp. in 1992 by Twshp. in 1993 by Twshp. in 1994 for 1991 Participants for 1992 Participants for 1993 Particpants Jackson - $2700. 00 $2700. 00 $2700. 00 Louisville - $1479 . 00 $1479. 00 $1479 . 00 Amount Proposed to Be Paid by Twshps for following years: 1995 1996* 1997# 1988^ Jackson - $2700. 00 $7388 . 37 $7610. 02 $7838 . 32 Louisville - $1479. 00 $3863 . 64 $3979. 55 $4098. 94 * Based on 1993 participation and 1993 actual costs # Based on 1996 Contribution amount times 3% Based on 1997 Contribution amount times 3% JAN-13-1995 15 27 FROM SEH-MPLS TO 4456718 P.02 V cod y ▪ > •�14 3 btu o 442 > 4• 0 '0o � o 0 a Ea > 8 .- 5 CScd .g g .8 5 a '' .0 -g Eh 4i •s= O y o 5. h CO y g,� C.' a �� y ▪ u ° y • b 0' ° y e-. O 00 O O >, 03O- H ,o b E � 0> � oC)0 =vOA O ° { TA y O +, co = .D 0 'pVV i u `� .0 ° � U ° � ba cs v -8 3 > >; >, cu vr0 :4a. gin O O tai UOa0 ., y 0 vv $ 0 c o� ' � � , Cr V ' � ` y ;$ -0 •a � � � � '' Ca 3 C5 >, ° 3 ] °a fib ° jb — ° E '° NV I 0 9 S11S Rza, av . ✓ p O... 0.... ' ,. 1 N 13 .off >. V '� $ sac " tee'' u 33 > 2 . °' E a 0 3 .0. E ab�3 < >, rfl is 1b � U1 0 4 c °v °' " b " �kl 41 � o u 3 0 a ' Hytv0 . - c O0U L'c �yckOa6 .yN8 if! u E � • V O 1.4 4 yU '3 .4 O • w .otav •y vc ..r O. Q 04 ] � � 5c3g .b � oXy �� ch u0 .s 0 L g 03 En � O4 y y ¢ • 03 � O 'y H ! � Q . . •9O = y .., E oCSab -6 LI .r cO ., C.O Cw 2 • •E b >+L ° to � � B4) -0 °' E ;= OV .5 .0030 y ' y ," >, a, LI v a° = 0 0 uel35o ., ° ° De 0= 4=°' V) TOTAL P.02 f Aoi 4 i 11 . --....... p AL I ., 2 0 - 0 . A". I iI ►-W It 1 StgNs0 ig (n 0 .1 '' i Nc3 ' °ip ..„.„)›. ..........t+ 6 �/,� 1i� ("w tit fl� 4.% rn t * a I t P - 22 , / TN%1.....1, 1/7 ce 1 1 • ,to / 1Ih ! fl i / isl_?. 1 . ,. , Al § Y it W E eV W--- i ri c§erg_ • r2.34: N�y f yi _ 11(' /L u'Da / L_ V S 4111161r' cit ?Oil . IIII 1111 10 - 1 1j, ��,Nlgt En dU 1 il + - \ pi' mN l-4' ' ill iff It 1 --- nui1114f_Jilil §bi ti'n�,�= - ms1 nwilii —_- --- ei A. iii ! , "Ain; & 0 ' X . ;, ?j1 ,.,,, / dpoitzli . N� , 1 U cc i-,ii H o Al ZF- ax 2 "II t �\ "'s I a 2 \ '1 \ t r I I o j l \ \\ 1...,.../ �\ I I •R I O as \ \ I I -„.1N. .A\ 1 1 iiil N I JAN-13-1995 14 39 FROM SEH-MPLS TO 4456718 P.02 o. C.i e rte. o 7. I cd t — c o 8 3i g 00.0 313 A� 4 A v cJ u v v v v u v v n c e g n 1 c.I 4. I a a 11141 6 Q N < .i t [ .13v z z z z h z Z. ig t g V) b9 N b T. iO 23 1 e = V 4= V O °.4 V 00 V II rnC'Ci v,UVF° h h vgiVG v h IZ V U 0 V Z Si cv pppjv e K s y ii pp u rpp-c 2 C •v' J E .iC V) b PI C E V O a w s.81 X il N ou- f- S 8 � � s , r. 3 5 3 = cogs —oc. p e o • ooh C e u Eel . . v a — 3 a =per u 3 sEi. . ta) e � v) vt. RI II tot, N e1. •6 > i Cog zs ��e I h CJS tg Ces- ag Kl8 ? ii 3 •" •' 1hnI aw - 7. . 5 =v° c ov7y 2o cow) u " . H a C C E 5 V nti hub V 7 O� 2 A dM t�j 0V V7 CAfC n - Vi V) V! h N N V} ( _ i JAN-13-1995 14:39 FROM SEH-MPLS TO 4456718 P.03 to V) a r.4 T VW I Va V B ti v VV v U g • U V to 1 r U V V V a a VI Nf C v a w w 8 u 6 c.) v t5 6 1 t cx cli C4 v .�d} z r; F R z 0 v* N W to H 0: p t4 n H a -. g O 3 3 3 3 3 e' 'eb a o► v v s s s s s E x x zs 1 11 a � s 8 u V V a b r t. b b . '§ 10 t CV V V CV V to V V .Z to . eh C C 8 .2 o 2 to. . s u 2 2 v 2 2 �' c 2 3 p a 4 3 1E g CC u t c v) tx £ E C 3 - 3 1 01 s tow tKy a F 2 u g 5 5 c� a e a 2h V o so i< J -N t7 O to S� 3 EOL 1 p la 148 .3 x Nto toe3 .x vie,' SLm &N V v . Q: M {t. 6 - > t' -V E a �_ O Z tv) `2 vNi t`j'r n tin tJ'n vyi h H to - . to TOTAL. P.03 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Shakopee Community Center Project DATE: January 18, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On January 3 , 1995 the Shakopee City Council directed staff to analyze the possibility of constructing a domed athletic complex in our community. BACKGROUND: Over the past two weeks staff has been gathering information with respect to the construction costs associated with a domed athletic facility. Shown in attachment #1 is a project cost summary for construction purposes . Note that the attachment includes various project assumptions. The cost summary does not include a cost for land acquisition. If City Council were to pursue the dome concept, staff would recommend that a site other than the property South of the high school be considered. Due to the size of the facility and the fact that it would be approximately 90 feet tall, staff does not believe that the property South of the high school would be a suitable location. Additionally, since the facility would serve as a regional athletic complex, a site that would be more conveniently located to major highway collector points should be considered. Staff would propose that a site in the vicinity of Canterbury Downs be considered for a domed facility. The cost for property in this area is approximately $50, 000 per acre. Shown in attachment #2 is an analysis of the operational costs associated with operating a dome. Staff projects that the facility could generate a profit in excess of $300, 000 per year. Staff would caution however that the ability to accurately predict revenues for this facility is somewhat tenuous given the fact that there are no other facilities in this area of this size or makeup. Additionally, at the time of agenda distribution, Lifetime Fitness representatives had not responded with a review of the staff projections. I am confident that we will have their input by Tuesday evening. In order to pursue the domed athletic complex concept, additional funding above and beyond the $6 million that has been allocated for recreation purposes would need to be generated. One possible source of funding would be to sell G.O. Revenue Bonds. Another possible option would be for the EDA to sell G.O. Revenue Bonds and enter into a lease purchase arrangement with a private party to operate the facility. Staff believes that the dome facility maybe more than we can handle from an operational and management standpoint . If Council wishes to pursue the domed concept staff would strongly recommend the lease purchase concept or at a minimum the facilitation of an operating agreement with a firm that specializes in managing private sports and recreation facilities. At the January 3 , 1995 meeting staff presented construction cost estimates and operating proforma for a facility which would include the following components : ice arena, meeting rooms, gymnasium/running tract, racquetball courts, banquet hall, offices and cable studio. (See attachment #3 . ) Staff also presented operating revenue and expense data that included best case and worst case scenarios. (See attachments #4, #5 and #6 . ) Staff would like to request City Council to refer to the memo regarding the community center project dated December 29, 1994 . This memo was included in the January 3 , 1995 agenda packet . This memorandum addresses a variety of issues including construction costs, market issues and operating costs for recreation services in Shakopee . With the data that has been submitted, City Council can calculate the cost of constructing a facility that meets the needs of the community as they see fit . There is no doubt that the construction of a domed facility would provide Shakopee residents with recreational facilities. However, a domed facility would do little to support the objective of enhancing Shakopee's sense of community. Staff supports the vision of developing a facility that will function as a community gathering place, serving both scheduled and unscheduled leisure activity needs of all age groups. Given the limited financial resources available and market considerations, it appears that a staged facility providesthat for future expansion would the most practical route to pursue at this time. Staff would like to request City Council to comment on the information presented herein and provide staff with direction in terms of the appropriate course of action to pursue with respect to a community center facility in Shakopee. Attachment #1 Shakopee Dome Athletic Complex - Project Cost Summary Project Assumptions Domed Area-600ft. x 400ft. Track width -20ft. Support Building - 10,000 sq. ft. Site Size- 10 acres Basketball Courts-Two - Total Floor Area - 14,000 Sq. Ft. Volleyball Courts-Three -Total Floor Area -6,000 sq. ft. Track- Total Floor Area -40,000 sq. ft. Artificial Turf Floor Area - 180,000 DOME PORTION 1. Sitework ($10,000 per acre) $100,000 2. Concrete Base (60,000 sq. ft. @ $1.50 Per Sq. Ft.) $90,000 3. Fabric Dome ($9.00 sq. ft.) $2,160,000 Includes Mechanical, Lights and Doors 4. Dome Installation (35% of Fabric Cost) $756,000 5. Finishes a. Track Flooring (40,000 sq. ft.) $240,000 000 b. Basketball Flooring (14,000 sq. ft.) $98,000 c. Athletic Field Turf (180,000 sq. ft.) $2,520,000 d. Volleyball Flooring (6000 sq. ft.) $36,000 7. Specialties $50,000 8. Parking Lot (300 spaces $1000.00 per space) $300,000 9. 8' Security Fence (2000 lin. ft. @ $12.50 per ft.) $25,000 Subtotal Construction Cost $6,375,000 Support Building 1. Lobby/Observation 2000 sq. ft. 2. Concession Area 1000 sq. ft. 3. Locker Rooms 4000 sq. ft. 4. Offices 1000 sq. ft. 5. Miscl 2000 sq. ft. Subtotal 10,000 sq. ft. © $80.00 per sq. ft. $800,000 Grand Total Construction Cost $7,175,000 Notes: Flooring Estimates- Anderson/Ladd - Rob Wolf- 331-8816 Chem Turf for track and volleyball surface - $5.00- $5.50- $6.00 sq. ft. Maple Floor Basketball Courts- $6.00 - $7.00 sq. ft. Astroturf Quote- Jim Naisack- 216-285-3780 $14 per sq. ft. includes asphalt base. Dome Fabric-Yadin Fabric Structures-Steve Flanagan -633-7400- $8.00- $9.00 sq. ft. Attachment #2 Shakopee Dome Athletic Facility - Revenues/Expenses REVENUES 900 150 yr. 1. Memberships $135,000.00 3588 hrs $150 2. Soccer Field Rental $538,200.00 2080 hrs. @ $50 3. Softball Field Rental $104,000.00 50 day $5 4. Daily Admissions $91,250.00 5. Track Rentals $5,000.00 6. Driving Range Rental $25,000.00 7. Batting Cage Revenue $10,000.00 8. Roller Blade Revenue $0.00 9. Concessions $30,000.00 10. Volleyball $0.00 11. Trade Show $0.00 12. Advertising $10,000.00 $948,450.00 Expenditures Estimated 1. Wages and Benefits $225,000.00 4. Operating Supplies $10,000.00 6. Advertising $10,000.00 7. Printing $5,000.00 .85 PER SQ. FT. 9. Utilities $221,000.00 .23 PER SQ. FT. 10. Insurance $59,800.00 11. Postage $10,000.00 13. Merchandise $15,000.00 .10 PER SQ. FT. 14. Bldg./Equip. Maint. $26,000.00 15. Telephone $2,500.00 $584,300.00 $364,150.00 Notes: Activity scheduling assumptions. (Taken from Woodbury Sports Arena Analysis) 1. Prime Time Available Mon. - Fri. 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. = 1820 hrs. per year Sat. and Sun. 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. = 1768 hours per year. Total Prime Time hours per year= 3588 2. Non Prime time Available Mon. - Fri. 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. = 2080 hours per year. Utility, Ins. and Bldg./Equip. Maint. cost per sq. ft. estimate taken from Woodbury Sports Arena Analy Attachment #.3 - - U) A W N -+^ .-4, ...1 --+ - - -x (00) 40) CJI. W N) _s - O W ? (TA W N . O ' O -n 0f' lnD70o (n (1) r- 7300010W � ) G) C 3 D v • n ocoim m co Oo.000mvnCD 3 > 0 G) o m co Q0 - D ick G) m fo z � c > > o ? a co = = tG (D 10 f0 y E.-., ::O f0 to 7 2� n a N o d n rd 0 o m qg o m o o i5 m m 3 3. 0 d K ' o m O no � o = o to n to t0 0 0 -. 0 0 N C O o r' 0 0 * N -, O O O ,"a O n o) O co c ? A O co• O r CCD N coc� 0 O CD o- 1- N o — c 0) (A O O 3 � NI N Oo U) A, 2 Co Cn N O O g. O O co 3 0 ,G) o u) 3 67 c C Qa 0 ? 0 p 7( n c y a o 0. c c o — o' a' U) Off 0 0 E. o) d d m O o 0 00 _. O O 0 0 O N A N N A A N Cl) N - 00 -► V -' W A W A co � A (n Z. .» -A ... . -& 43N45. 000) •4UiUiNJ0 0 A iv 1.3 0 JOON (nO) U)ONOO r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A 0 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O \/ 8 6-9 EA O EA ��6969EA69 69 EA0 696969 EA 69 W 69 69 69 69 49 49 D NNJ (DNNNO) -.t NW O) NNNCDCDO) CDOO) AN 10 N -- U)Cn (nU) O NJ U) O) coc (n (n (ncoONUoU) OO) C 0 69 EA EA 69 69 EA 69 EA 69 69 69 69 69 e AEA A69AEA 54 EAEAtoo N (D -'�EA63J --') 69EAEA69b3 EAE_A69 N N o - A -+ � OU) AEAU) W NN (n0 (nW W co V -. EA -+ A 69 W CoNN � (n CDOO) OOO - NINA CO NO - -+ NCO A O (nNN 0 C000000 V NJ VUlU1U) O O V W V VCDO (D U10 (31U) AN0) NO CO CD CD a N NOOON (7U) 0000 COU) W --I. -► 000 00000 U10U)0000 O O O O O O O O O O O O -+ CO N 0) 0) O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 - 0 A A 0 N A h) N N K 0) AW AW -+ A COn A -v+ CANAOOOO)) a V CAUiN0CO 0 A NN ONOON (31O) U10N) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A 0 000000000000 0 0000000 O co O 000 ° 0000000c) 0 EA 0a 64 W EA69EAEA(A 69 69 N 6)EA-+-A EA 69�69EAEA�69 'N-' fcn CO N Co— O O Cn CO CO U) 0) (O N N CO Co O O CO U) O U) o U1 00 0 U1 U) U1 0 co co 0) co 0 co co O 0 co U) co W co 0) CA EA EA 69 EA EA 69 EA 69 69 69 69 EA SEA-54 69.P3 69 5"3 EAEA69N SEA x6949 _ " ul 69496969 EA 69 EA N -► A -I -+ U) A -EAA W .-L ...A -- OONNN -4 W W 69 69 03 -+ ND CO 0 -{ O) ANA -4 A WAC - 000 A �lVO) O) W Cn0o O) 0NN0 W 0) 03 (0N (O - 0 0O0) -+ W CO0) N (n03 (n (O0 AN - (OCDNN0 (ncOU) U) OOU) t+) NONOO) a N UIO) --► U) 0000000 -+ U) U1 W W (Oco • 000000U) 00) 00 W CO A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -+ Co W - -A 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O ^l -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) A NJ O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m r- A- E.-o 3 3 CO 3 NO `° m f0nmo T 0) .. j. v to co 0 00 U) 0 O 69 69 c) to 69 EA Ln m 000CCO o) 0000) 0 0000 0 0000 Attachment # 4 ARENA EXPENSES Rosemount 1995 Shakopee Shakopee Proposed Springsted Valley Ice Low Side High Side Description Budget 1993 +5% 1992+10% Projection Projection Salaries & Benefits $46,000 $91,350 $10,439 $25,000 $45,000 Full-Time Overtime $400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Part-Time Salaries& Benefits $34,900 $0 $0 $25,000 $35,000 Duplicating &Copying Costs $500 $0 $0 $500 $500 Training & Instructional Supplie $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 Miscellaneous Supplies $200 $0 $0 $200 $200 Other Office Supplies $300 $0 $0 $300 $300 Cleaning Supplies $2,500 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 Motor Fuels $1,300 $0 $0 $1,300 $1,300 Chemicals&Chemical Product $500 $0 $0 $500 $500 Other Operating Supplies $500 $0 $0 $500 $500 Equipment Parts $1,500 $2,625 $0 $1,500 $1,500 Building Repair Supplies $1,800 $2,625 $0 $1,800 $1,800 Small Tools $300 $0 $0 $300 $300 Minor Equipment $200 $0 $0 $200 $200 Food for Resale $0 $15,750 $0 $0 $0 Other Items for Resale $0 $5,250 $0 $0 $0 Medical & Dental Fees $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 General Fund Admin Fees $5,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 Telephone Costs $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 Postage Costs $500 $0 $0 $500 $500 Travel Expense $200 $0 $0 $200 $200 Employmet Advertising $500 $0 $0 $500 $500 Workmen's Comp Insurance $5,300 $0 $0 $4,200 $5,500 Other Insurance $10,000 $42,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 Electric Utilities $41,500 $36,750 $0 $41,500 $41,500 Water Utilities $0 $0 $0 $1,800 $1,800 Gas Utilities $14,000 $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000 Refuse Disposal $2,100 $0 $0 $2,100 $2,100 Contracted Building Repairs $1,200 $0 $0 $1,200 $1,200 Contracted Mach & Equip R & $1,200 $0 $0 $1,200 $1,200 Other Equipment Rental $300 $0 $0 $300 $300 Dues&Subscriptions $600 $0 $0 $600 $600 Conferences & Seminars $200 $0 $0 $200 $200 Other Miscellaneous Charges $300 $11,000 $74,832 $300 $300 Bond Principal $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bond Interest $149,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bond Paying Agent &Admin F $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $339,400 $207,350 $85,271 $139,300 $170,600 Attachment # 5 Community Center PARKS & REC DEPARTMENT Rosemount 1995 Shakopee Shakopee Proposed Low Side High Side Description Budget Projection Projection Salaries& Benefits $257,300 $0 $0 Part-Time Salaries & Benefits $108,900 $69,000 $82,000 Miscellaneous Supplies $1,900 $1,900 $1,900 Other Office Supplies $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Cleaning Supplies $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Chemicals& Chemical Product $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Equipment Parts $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Building Repair Supplies $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 Other Maintenance Supplies $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Other Items for Resale $500 $0 $0 Medical & Dental Fees $300 $0 $0 Special Programs $5,800 $5,800 $5,800 Other Professional Services $500 $500 $500 Travel Expense $200 $200 $200 Employment Advertising $500 $500 $500 Other advertising $8,200 $5,000 $5,000 Electric Utilities $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Gas Utilities $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 Refuse Disposal $4,900 $4,900 $4,900 Contracted Building Repairs $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 Contract Mach & Equip R & M $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 Building Rental $17,000 $0 $0 Other Equipment Rental $8,500 $500 $500 TOTALS $468,900 $142,700 $155,700 Attachment tt6 ARENA REVENUES Rosemount 1995 Low Side High Side Proposed Springsted Valley Ice Chaska Shakopee Shakopee Description Budget 93 +5% 1992+10% 1993 Act. Projected Projected Interest Earnings-Investments $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Interest Earnings $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Prime Time Ice Fees $169,200 $132,300 $92,670 $141,171 $102,300 $121,000 Non-Prime Time Fees $24,500 $75,600 $0 $0 $18,000 $18,000 School District Fees $4,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Open Skating Ice Fees $7,200 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $4,000 Other Events-Ice Arena $7,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 Advertising Revenue- Ice Aren $13,100 $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $10,000 Skate Sharpening Revenue $1,000 $2,835 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ringette Ice Fees $1,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Inline Skating Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Concessions $5,000 $21,000 $0 $0 $2,500 $5,000 Vending- Ice Arena $10,400 $2,100 $0 $0 $3,000 $7,500 Pro Shop Revenues $0 $15,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer From General Fund $95,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $339,600 $249,535 $92,670 $141,171 $135,300 $169,000 Note: Chaska 1995 Ice Arena Revenue Projection- $149,247 COMMUNITY CENTER REVENUES Rosemount 1995 Shakopee Shakopee Proposed Low High Description Budget Side Side Banquet Fees $62,300 $10,400 $40,000 Auditorium Fees $21,700 $0 $0 Gymnasium Fees $3,700 $0 $1,000 Classroom Fees $12,000 $0 $1,000 Fitness Room Fees $1,000 $0 $0 Food Service $5,000 $0 $0 Open Gym Fees $6,400 $1,000 $5,000 Jazzercise Fees $1,800 $0 $0 Gymnastics Fees $7,200 $0 $0 Karate Fees $8,700 $0 $0 Golf Cage $0 $0 $3,000 Batting Cage $0 $0 $1,000 Raquetball Fees $0 $5,000 $20,000 Vending - Coom. Center $0 $2,500 $10,000 Pay Phones $0 $500 $1,000 Cable Access Studio Fees $0 $7,200 $7,200 $129,800 $26,600 $89,200 Co w i S MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Blocks 3 and 4 Moratorium DATE: January 19, 1995 INTRODUCTION: In March of 1994, Shakopee City Council approved an ordinance placing a development moratorium on Blocks 3 and 4 in downtown Shakopee. The moratorium is scheduled to expire on March 17, 1995 . On January 18, 1995 the CDC met to discuss the status of Blocks 3 and 4 . The CDC moved to recommend to City Council that the moratorium be extended for a six month period. BACKGROUND: After extensive analysis by the Community Development Commission (CDC) over the past three years, it was subsequently determined that in the long term it would be in the best interest of the community to acquire and clear the buildings from Blocks 3 and 4 . Last March, the Shakopee City Council discussed this issue in great detail . It was the consensus of the City Council that a moratorium should be placed on Blocks 3 and 4 for a one year period. Due to the complexity of the project and potential risk, City Council felt that in order to proceed with acquisition and demolition that a developer needed to be on board. Over the past twelve months, staff has been unsuccessful in attempting to find a developer. In preparing the 1995 budget, the CDC recommended that an Economic Development Authority (EDA) be created and that an Economic Development Coordinator position be created. City Council did support both of these concepts in preparing the 1995 budget . The Economic Development Coordinator position is scheduled to be filled in early March. I personally believe that once this position is filled that more time can be allocated by the individual selected to recruit a developer for a project on blocks 3 and 4 . Quite frankly, I did not have the time to successfully market the redevelopment concept . The CDC is recommending extending the moratorium for a six month period to allow the new Economic Development Coordinator time to determine if in fact there may be development interest in all or a portion of Blocks 3 and 4 . ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Recommend to the City Council that the moratorium on Blocks 3 and 4 be extended for a six month period. 2 . Allow the moratorium to expire on it's presently scheduled date. 3 . Do not seek appraisals at this time. 4 . Direct staff to obtain appraisals and initiate condemnation proceedings. 5 . Table action pending further information from staff . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternatives # 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: 1 . Recommend to the City Council that the moratorium on Blocks 3 and 4 be extended for a six month period. BAS/tiv TRUNK SANITARY SEWER CHARGE POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Introduction I Service Area I Proposed Improvements 2 Trunk Rate Determination 2 - 3 Charge Calculation 3 Policy Administration 4 Appendix INTRODUCTION This policy of the City of Shakopee City Council hereby establishes a Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge Policy which will be applied to developing areas in the City. The purpose of establishing the charge is to fund the construction and maintenance of the City owned trunk sewers. This policy is not intended for construction of local sewers. This policy defines service area in which the charges will be collected, establishes procedures for determining the rates that will be used, outlines how the charge is to be computed, and defines an administrative procedure for implementing the policy. The policy has been structured so as to accommodate future MUSA expansions and changing construction costs. Currently, the City of Shakopee Special Assessment Policy allows for assessing new trunk and interceptor sewers 100% to the benefitting drainage area. The trunk sewer charges will take the place of these assessments. The construction of local lateral sewers will still be funded by assessments or maybe installed bydevelopers at their own cost. P SERVICE AREA The Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge Policy will be applied to developing properties within the City Limits generally south of the T.H. 101 Bypass, and\or east of the Prior Lake Interceptor. Rural residential plats have been excluded, and may be added at a later date. Rural plats other than residential are included in the service area. The map in the Appendix shows the current City Limits and the trunk sewers needed to serve that area. The policy will have to be updated to accommodate future service area expansions. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the acreage in the City of Shakopee by sanitary sewer district. TABLE 1 District Gross Acreage Net Acreage East Industrial 522.90 444.47 Areas A-C Less 180 Acres Land Trade South Shakopee 3267.28 2777.19 Southeast Shakopee 2083.06 1770.60 Southwest Shakopee 2819.26 2396.37 V.I.P. District 89.88 76.40 Area H Subtotal 8782.38 7465.03 Rural Residential Plats -1587.80 - 1349.63 TOTAL TRUNK SEWER AREA 7194.58 6115.40 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The trunk sewer costs which will be funded by the trunk sewer charges are identified in Table 1. These improvements are based on the current City Limits, and are subject to change with future service area expansions. The figures in Table 1 shall be updated in conjunction with the service area. The costs shown in Table 2 are based on 1994 dollars and include overhead costs. TABLE 2 1. SS-I (St. Francis Hospital) 161,000 2. South Shakopee SS-H, SS-D 465,000 3. East Industrial District, EI-B, EI-C 892,600 4. SE-K 172,800 5. SE-J & SE-I 339,600 6. SE-C & SE-F 327,000 7. South Trunk Sewer SS-A, SS-B, SS-C, SS-E 1,416,000 8. SS-F 946,000 9. SS-F highway crossing 133,000 10. SS-K, SW-F 910,000 11. Southwest Trunk Sewer 893,000 SW-A, SW-B, SW-C, SW-D Total Construction Costs $ 6,656,000 Right-Of-Way Acquisition(15%) 998,400 TOTAL COST $ 7,654,400 The cost figures in Table 2 are based on 1994 dollars, and should be adjusted annually. All items from Table 2 will be modified yearly based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. Changes in the City Limits will be accommodated by adding or deleting project costs and service areas as appropriate. TRUNK RATE DETERMINATION The rate to be charged under the trunk sewer portion of the policy is based on the costs to construct facilities to serve that area. These costs are taken from the 1994 Comprehensive Sewer Plan. In order to compute the trunk sewer charge rate, the following procedure shall be used. 1. Sum the acreage of each drainage basin within the City Limits from the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to determine the gross area. The total gross acreage is then reduced by 15% to obtain net acreage. This reduction is to account for non-developable land, public right- of-way, and other areas which do not utilize sewer service. 2 2. Divide the total cost for all trunk sewers in the service area by the net acreage from Step 1 to obtain the per acre trunk sewer charge. For the 1995 City Limits area, the trunk sewer rate is calculated as follows: 8782.38 Acre Gross Area X .85 = 7465.03 Acre Net Area $7,654.400 Construction Cost 6115.40 Acre Net Area = $1251.66/Net Acre The cost per dwelling unit can be found by dividing the cost per acre by the proposed density (dwelling units/acre). For a typical single family development, assuming 2.5 dwelling units per acre, the cost per lot would be $1251.66/2.5 = $500.66. The cost for a typical multi-family development, (assuming 10 dwelling units per acre) would be $1251.66/10 _ $125.17 per dwelling unit. CHARGE CALCULATION The trunk sewer fee will be based on the areas identified in the final plat for a property. The gross area will be taken from the plat drawing, then the net area is calculated from the gross area. The gross area is defined as the total area for the final plat, less outlots which are expressly intended for future development, and wetland areas(subject to verification). Outlots for ponding, roadways, or other features of the plat which are required for development will be included in the gross area. The net area is defined as 85% of the gross area. The 15% reduction is to accommodate the public right-of-ways and other undevelopable areas. The flat rate of 15% reduction is intended to provide equity between plats, and discourage dedicating excessive amounts of right-of-way. The net area as identified above is then multiplied by the current per acre rate to determine the total trunk sewer charge for the parcel. 3 POLICY ADMINISTRATION New Plats The Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge Policy will be administered by a combination of several City departments as outlined in the following procedure. 1. The developer will submit and certify area calculations to the Planning Department as part of the final plat documentation. 2. The Planning Department will review the area calculations, then forward this information to the Engineering Department for calculation. 3. The Planning Department will include a condition of approval for the final plat requiring payment of the trunk sewer charge prior to recording of the plat, until such time as this requirement becomes required by ordinance. 4. The Engineering Department will calculate the charge based on the land area information submitted by the developer and reviewed by the Planning Department. The total amount due is then forwarded to the City Clerk. 5. The City Clerk will collect payments made by the developer. Other Properties For any property requesting sewer service which was platted prior to the effective date of ' ance or is an un Tatted roe the trunk sewer charge will be TrunkSewer Ordinance,the , p property,rty, g collected with the building permit issued for sewer connection according to the following procedure: 1. The property owner shall submit a survey and area calculation for the lots to be sewered with the building permit. 2. The Engineering Department will calculate the charge based on the land area information submitted by the property owner. If no right-of-way dedication is included within the lot area, the 15% reduction for right-of-way will not be applied to the trunk rate for that property. The total amount due is then forwarded to the Building Department. 3. The Building Department will collect payments made by the property owner. Other administrative functions including the annual fee update and service area expansions, will be the responsibility of the Engineering Department, subject to City Council approval. 4 APPENDIX Page No. 1995 City Limits Map 1 Rural Residential Plat Map 2 Policy Administration Flow Chart 3 i rn Y. [1 ii 4 ti 1 /- 4/ Klima Q' • U • • uli /VZ .. ._ . ,..,. -§ t!..t. 1 !), I 1 141 11 I DI -- , 1\ 1. 1, A, .; E-4 ar.35 a \-"-it----L- ' 4.- - IP ---1 - r ng y t 1 00C) 4 it Rai, It v 1cc1:$ i �� VCE: I 1 yt `moi d w 1 k1 t ii W ; • • / A :. ,,, I , IPA ►•,p s % °Pig —'1 '': li 1 1 10 / .. i , ig 3 I A i V 1 li ao I % 1 y ) 4:1 ' 1 1 i II - V orh • • ..Q +t Id I ' Agi / II Ic �ll kir /1 4 ilifiTiiii ♦ lid / % -. . O' A E---i i l't. r 7 4,- 1 / t?, 2 11 X frintA 1..4 . A \ g \( i K Nil . • ‘,... ,.. , . . .... I , , . c3 .• i • . °1' L.——Ai ... •••., • ! r ‘,.r I h \ 1 '" 1 tt 1 I II •.e4...[ f� Ii I i I .4g C� f 1 P g}5 'I1. I g ' v`� hid To 115—k L., 'ilik 0 v -'-', tior :aimir E....1 4!Ai 11 I.1 0,riej 11 I i:k • ' t I, , * X , I i......i 4.\46„.*:!;,;',.,.ii_11;10.•..1./to.1,44%1s. •i i 1 4i `2% i i i 1 I 1 4: .. '\ ‘t: t 1 [7 �Y . ``e •1 'It • 1--..,1 . 11,1. ► miptC+ „�-- fr)� 'kW?, llnt!1I," s Y 1 I \•--� _ 111!1, ti i �'--______ % % tM ! & r-\ l .Igl. , 11(4••:" ..C;i A iks11211-'.2=11 .P1'' TM tk 4 4 s \ ''' —.1-4 li iv: k-.5.,, .., 1- L__ —L J • 4 f7 ' I \ \ . A � V%. \ti`J � .; 1 4 / ' l ..„ � It A.. � 'N;Ivilli 1::;,11A, , z ,'N "..... V -iC 11 MEW . . .. • . . . : . . 16 t, A. ,- ..- liS . 111 ei. ‘)1;. . 4 1.tifA‘4)ilitri 5111 IN v) ....1 LU I rk gil _J a_ I 40. i 16 ,....• • 11131 < z 0 Y N 1 < U 1 1 11] V) e y , >- 1 ) t ,k7, !._ _ / . , I ..... IIII IN UM „.. < • -0- rx ---.<2040D—Allim ,,, ,,/nr, ..... ,,,, vs , .. :,. c/ , - . i 43) %2I) .- a r. • 1 .., l• •N;„.1 ' fillA: Mi' • • 1711 : , . :. • ti tifk,. . • S\ Y..1111/1 IF ri./11 L.' /11:2111 lit • . . es...-atir is.te.1 rifig:ini.zi-444L, .t.""To , ,lirailEI 6.4Jeit/it\-vi Ilti---1014...• .11•••••••••111 IC ..-j. ,..its a'i!ii.l:S.:40.111.111rIT pl, V vii..,,,t. ,i.t.,,E.,, .,,, \ i 6 < m rodibitollifIr :44. . riti IMP ' (t'l : : fill -. IV ..„ k . • . . . 0 I ••-, 7 7e ‘11 ) tt ,.., els 0 .. . • . : . :. .....,:.:. /. t. , ,p•olit i ‘ .. r . • ) ' c;"=-._•••wolia,....tw e • \ N V\A 111,411,161: liar r4. '1311 401 ''...1 \\ ‘ . .• • . , .. • . . .. . . , . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . • , ,,..„,„,,,,,,....:.,„,_ .„,....„„„,...„„..„„.„„„. ::.,„„„...„,„„„„:„.„„,„„„„,.. ...„,. C 4 ..... �.::: . ,, f.co) a L m S � co � a. .= Q) = m = " y .3• °- °' O :► v a. 7 L.. pu - o L m .. L d ... c cp mom n��'`` d O :w: IA m O CV L vW0 in mo.E a a tiii .. u. f' .. L 3 cv ��' >r; c + d x Vi C/) :; m cci .}r L it �zw: v `:;:. a. — 3 Q iiiii a mt U L • ?t G 2 0 0:: W ORDINANCE NO. 398, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3, MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, FRANCHISES AND RATES, BY ADOPTING ONE NEW SECTION, SEC. 3 .13 , RELATING TO TRUNK SANITARY SEWER CHARGES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS : Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 3, Municipal and Public Utilities, Rules and Regulations, Franchises and Rates, is hereby amended by adopting one new section, which shall read as follows : "SEC. 3 .13 . TRUNK SANITARY SEWER CHARGES. Each property located within the area described in the City' s Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge Policy shall be bound by that policy. Each such property owner shall submit to the City the applicable trunk sanitary sewer charge at the earliest of the following times : A. For property being platted, prior to the recording of the final plat; B. For vacant property, at the time of issuance of a building permit; or C. For developed property, at the time of issuance of a permit to connect to the sanitary sewer system." Section 2 - General Provisions. City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty For Violation, and Section 3 . 99, Violation a Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1995 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest : City Clerk • Approved as to form: i Alee OW City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley NewEon the day of , 1995. (13ORD) RESOLUTION NO. 4157 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ADOPTING A TRUNK SANITARY SEWER CHARGE POLICY. WHEREAS, trunk sanitary sewers serve large portions of the City, connecting various local sanitary sewers to the larger interceptor sanitary sewers; and WHEREAS, trunk sanitary sewers need to be constructed when the first development on such sewer is desired, and cannot be delayed until all property is developed; and WHEREAS, in order to fund trunk sanitary sewers, it is necessary to impose a trunk sanitary sewer charge on all areas which will benefit from such sewer; and WHEREAS, the City desires to spread the cost of the trunk sanitary sewers over large areas of the City, to minimize the impact on individual property owners; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and approves the attached Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge Policy. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the attached Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charge Policy is hereby approved and adopted. 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: !AO • _ /,lam City Attorney [13ORD]