Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/1995 TENTATIVE AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Session Shakopee, MN March 9, 1995 Chairperson Terry Joos Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of the January 12, February 9, and February 23, 1995, Meeting Minutes 4. Recognition by Planning Commission of Interested Citizens. 5. Approval of Consent Agenda - (All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda). 6. 7:30 P.M. Public Hearing: Continued from February 23, 1995, meeting. To review the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan and to receive any public testimony. Action: Recommendation to the City Council 7. 7:35 P.M. Public Hearing,: To consider the preliminary plat of Arlington Ridge 1st Addition, located at the west end of existing 13th Avenue. Applicant: James Development Firm 8. 7:40 P.M. Public Hearing: To consider the preliminary and final plats of West View 7th Addition Planned Unit Development, located at the southwest corner of 6th Avenue and Jackson Street in Shakopee. Applicant: Jerry Enns 9. 7:45 P.M. Public Hearing: To consider amendment which would rezone properties currently zoned Racetrack District which surround the Canterbury Downs site and the Knights of Columbus Hall site. Applicant: City of Shakopee 10. -7:50 P.M. Public Hearing/Continued: To consider amendments to the new Zoning Ordinance text (Ordinance No. 377) which was adopted on June 7, 1994. Applicant: City of Shakopee 11. Other Business a. Election of Officers b. Downtown Riverfront Plan 12. Adjourn Lindberg S. Ekola Planning Director Note to Planning Commission Members: 1. If you have any questions or need additional it formation on any of the above items, please call Terrie or Shelly on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the Meeting. 2. If you ar unable to attend the meeting,please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. (0309agen) TENTATIVE AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, MN March 9, 1995 Chairperson William Mars Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of February 9, 1995, Meeting Minutes 4. Recognition by Board of Adjustments and Appeals of Interested Citizens. 5. 7:30 P.M. Public Hearing: To consider an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Fischer Aggregates to expand the operation to include the 5 acres in the Rutt Farmstead, relocate the natural gas pipeline, relocate the central processing area, increase the mining depth from 12.5-19' to 20-40', change the operation from three to five phases and from 17 years to 20 years of operation, increase the cubic yards of material from 1,640,000 to 5,700,000 cubic yards and expand the hours of operation to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Applicant: Fischer Aggregates Action: Resolution No. PC - 713 6. 7:35 P.M. Public Hearing: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit for James Development Firm to place two buildings on one parcel of property, and to build the structures three stories in height in Arlington Ridge 1st Addition, located at the west end of existing 13th Avenue. Applicant: James Development Firm Action: Resolution No. PC - 715 7. 7:40 P.M. Public Hearing: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit for Classic Plus, Inc. to do classic auto restoration, located at 1511 A & B Co. Rd. 18 in the I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone. Applicant: Classic Plus, Inc. Action: Resolution No. PC - 714 8. 7:45 P.M. Public Hearing: To review the application from John and Judy McGovern for Variance to the 30 foot front yard setback requirement at 1008 S. Market Street and located within the R-1B Zone. Applicant: John & Judy McGovern Action: Resolution No. PV - 712 9. ANNUAL REVIEW: A. Shiely Co. - Resolution No. 375 - Conditional Use Permit and Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit 10. Other Business a. Election of Officers b. 11. Adjourn Lindberg S.Ekola Planning Director Note to the B.O.A.A.Members: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items,please call Terrie or Shelly on the Monday.or Tuesday prior to the Meeting. 2. If you are unable to attend the meeting,please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. (0309agen.boaa) Iv0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT - FEBRUARY 1995 February 1995 February 1994 No. No. Valuation No. No. Valuation Month Y.T.D. Y.T.D. Month Y.T.D. Y.T.D. Single Family-Sewered 2 5 437, 759 8 17 1,482,421 Single Family-Septic 1 1 271,432 - - - Multiple Dwellings - 1 525, 108 1 1 332,404 (# Units) (YTD Units) (-) (8) - (4) (4) - Dwelling Additions - - - - - - Other - - - - 1 300, 000 New Comm. Bldgs - 1 90, 000 - 3 340, 000 Comm. Bldg. Addns. 1 1 35, 000 1 2 250,000 New Industrial-Sewered - - - - - - Ind. Sewered Addns. - - - - - - New Industrial-Septic - - - - - - Ind. Septic Addns. - - - - - - Accessory/Garages - - - 1 1 8, 000 Signs & Fences 3 4 15,775 1 3 2, 318 Fireplaces/Wood Stoves 1 1 1, 000 3 3 7,500 Grading/Foundation - - - 1 1, 000 Moving 1 1 - 1 1 Razing 1 1 1, 000 1 1 1, 000 Remodeling (Res. ) 6 8 48,812 2 4 25, 918 Remodeling (Comm/Ind. ) 2 6 115, 200 4 7 391, 000 TOTAL 18 30 1, 541, 086 23 45 3 , 141, 561 No. YTD. No. YTD. Electrical 23 58 29 76 Plumbing & Heating 23 46 32 70 Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date 5, 208 i CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN FEBRUARY, 1995 11010 McKnight & Assoc. 827 Vista Ridge Lane House $271,432 L 10 B 1, Westridge Lake Estates 1st 11011 Prestige Contractors 8574 McGuire Court Remodel 10,000 11012 John Hennen 1403 Sage Lane Remodel 9,254 11013 Laurent Builders 1783 Presidential Lane House 78,000 L 2 B 2, Minnesota Valley 8th 11014 Novak Fleck 309 Alexander Court House 95,766 L 14 B 3, Meadows West 1st 11015 Equities Unlimited 6268 Hwy 101 Remodel 3,000 11016 Klingelhutz Dev. 404 Roundhouse Street Sign 325 11017 Suzanne Walsh 1039 So. Atwood Street Remodel 11,764 11018 Canterbury Park 1100 Canterbury Road Signs 200 11019 Edwin Bounds 815 West 1st Avenue Addition 35,000 11020 Mark Silvis 937 East 4th Avenue Remodel 300 11021 Daniel Lang 333 So. Lewis Street Remodel 500 11022 Midwest Fireplace 3364 Marschall Road Fireplace 1,000 11023 LeRoy Sign Co. 511 Marschall Road Signs 10,000 11024 Prestige Contractors 8574 McGuire Court Remodel 5,000 11025 Bornmann Building Corp. 1158 Shakopee Town Sq. Remodel 12,000 11026 Ames Construction Tract D RLS # 134 Demo 1,000 11027 Meger Enterprises 8855 13th Avenue East Moving Total: $544,541 4/ 7 CITY OF PEE S HAK O ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT FOR FEBRUARY, 1995 Respectfully Submitted ,67-aoe- ,4i)t,e/ Bruce A. Loney Public Works Director PROJECT START COMPLETE STATUS COMMENTS Category -I Projects Under Construction 1 1. Upper Valley Drainage 9/93 7/29/94 99% See Narrative Section 2. Pierce Street 6/94 7/94 50% See Narrative Section 3. 1994 Sidewalk Program 7/94 9/94 90% See Narrative Section 4. Vierling Drive,Adams St. 7/94 9/94 80% Asphalt Base and Curb Complete to Presidential Lane 5. Murphy's Landing Lift Stations 9/94 30% Category II-Projects In Design 1. Downtown Alleys Redesign 6/93 1/95 100% See Narrative Section 2. Sarazin(Viking Steel Rd.) 7/94 9/94 100% See Narrative Section 3. County Road 16 Utilities 7/94 11/94 50% OSM Doing Design 4. Alley in Block 51 8/94 9/94 95% 5. St. Francis Sewer Extension 10/94 3/95 10% In-House Design 6. P&V Reconstruction 1/95 5/95 25% In-House Design Category Ill-Projects Under Study 1. C.S.A.H. 18 Connection 11/93 7/94 10% See Narrative Section 2. Maras Street 6/94 10/94 15% See Narrative Section 3. Vierling Drive C.R. Road 79 to C.R. 77 10/94 5/95 100% See Narrative Section 4. River District Trunk Sewer 1/95 4/95 20% See Narrative Section 5. Fuller Street 2/95 3/95 20% See Narrative Section Category IV-Development Projects In Review e9rY P 1 1. Arlington Ridge Preliminary Plat 2. Orrin Thompson Pre-Application 3. Hauer's Hillside Town Homes Pre-Application 4. Hauer's 5th Addition Preliminary Plat 5. Orleans Addition Final Plat 1 PROJECT START COMPLETE STATUS COMMENTS Category V - Private Subdivision Construction 1. Maple Trails 6/93 9/94 99% Restoration Remaining 2. Dominion Hills 6/93 9/94 85% Wear Course Remaining 3. Stonebrooke 2nd Unknown Unknown 0% 4. South Parkview 2nd 6/94 11/94 50% Utilities Complete,Gravel Base 5. Homestead Ridge 5/93 9/94 80% Asphalt Base And Curb Completed 6. Minnesota Valley 8th 9/94 5/95 80% Asphalt Base and Curb Completed 7. Meadows West 9/94 25% Working on Utilities 8. Prairie Bend 9/94 5% Site Grading In Progress Category VI - Special Projects 1. Pavement Management System 6/94 9/94 100% Proposals Under Review RFP's Please refer to the attached narrative section for a more detailed discussion on several of the projects. 2 NARRATIVE SECTION Category 1 - Projects Under Construction 1. Upper Valley Drainage Project- Phase II and Shakopee Bypass Drainage Facilities This project is essentially complete except for clean up and miscellaneous items. Work on Jasper Road (vacated) will be performed by this contractor next spring. 2. Pierce Street Public Works crews have removed the existingpavement and are regrading the g g new alley. A City contractor has installed the new curb & gutter and patched the pavement on 4th Avenue. The alley paving has yet to be done. 3. 1994 Sidewalk Program The work on this project is mostly complete except for some minor punch list items. Category No. 2 - Projects in Design 1. Downtown Alleys The Downtown Alleys Project is out for bids. The bid opening is scheduled for March 14, 1995. 2. Sarazin/Roundhouse Streets Sarazin Street and Roundhouse Street is out for bids. The bid opening is scheduled for March 3, 1995. Right-of-way acquisition is not complete and the MPCA permit is being held up by Met Council until the River District Trunk Sewer Feasibility Report is complete. 3 Category -3 Projects Under Study 1 1. County Road 18 Connection This feasibility report is on hold due to the recent court decision which has prevented the County from bidding this project. 2. Maras Street A feasibility report has been ordered on this project. There are still two remaining properties that have not dedicated the street. The feasibility report will also identify future street alignment alternatives in order to determine all additional right-of-way needs. Also, the storm water drainage into Savage needs to be reviewed and addressed. 3. Vierling Drive A public hearing has been scheduled for March 21, 1995. 4. River District Trunk Sewer The field work on this project is underway involving location and inspection of the manholes. 5. Fuller Street Staff is waiting for the Cooperative Agreement between the City and Scott County. 4 At_a MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney DATE: March 1, 1995 RE: B & B v. City As you may recall, last summer the City denied a pawnshop license to Doug Bell . He sued, and lost in District Court . He then appealed to the Court of Appeals . The Court of Appeals now has rendered its decision in favor of the City. They took a very simple, clean approach, based on the facts of the case. They found that the City' s decision to deny the license was supported by the evidence, and therefore "the City Council acted within its broad discretion in denying Bell' s pawnbroker' s application. " A copy of their decision is attached. If you have questions regarding this, please let me know. Signed !V • A�O Karen Marty, C ty Corney KEM:bjm [1CCL] Attachment rtD—GO-177 1_�• 1r rlUrr,DHKKI 6. 1LULtKtK V.UI HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Gsoscr C.Hors• op COUNSEL moms G.Ramey,JR. Cumming J.Let PATAIc6►E.XL1Demra February 28, 1995 DAvm R.[RACUM PAULA A.CALLU M nutriment(612)941-9220 Fr=M.SCKAua 1400459-9220 CRAIG 3.HAIRRLACK• FAX(612)941-7965 Scorr 3.Rtxt -*Lao AOOQrT10 or MoscoMI/N .AL10 A L[C•Npe CPA The information contained In this facsimile message is privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the addressee listed below and no one else. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended recipient,please do not use this transmission in any way, but contact the sender by telephone. TO: Karen MartyNo. of Pages following: 4 Company/Firm: City of Shakopee Telephone Number: FAX Number: From: George C. Hoff If transmission problems occur, or you ere not the intended recipient, please call us at(612)941-9220. Ask For: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Re: B&B Sales v. Shakopee Karen - Please find with this the decision of the Court of Appeals in the above matter affirming the trial court with respect to cert.review and affirming the City's denial of the pawnbroker's license. I anticipated that the Court would affirm both the trial court and the city council, particularly after the oral argument. I was hopeful that the Court might provide some added guidance concerning what type of record is adequate in the case of license review. (Obviously, they found the record that you assembled for the City to be adequate and provided a general statement at the bottom of the second page.) I do not anticipate that there will be any attempt to secure review by the Supreme Court. As always I want to thank you and your office for the assistance provided in handling this case, and also commend you on assembling the record which allowed the City to prevail on its case before the Court of Appeals. cc: Bob Weisbrod, Doug Gronli O:\WPDATAW100.O211MART3m.FAX 7901 FLYING CLOco DRivE, EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344-7914 Rio WINO ORIca•17ss Ow W.Alum SrRtsr•RID WINO,Mnesaom SS066•(611)3*$.0471 rtti—eims—1077 17. 10 murr,oHKmr KuutKtK t.".10d This %Ws:Ai will be unpublishect and may not be cited excejt as provided by Minn, Stat. 6 480A.08. subd. 3 (1994). Nk'll-176:44t-E-STWAINIIVESPer3 " • • • .. ,4, — —• ,;_•S PP;(;) 1:1MisA1.1c):34,14i0.1i+If ' ' • • a• ., is;ps I . nu )14 0 12,01 M :)N DAIL' C6-9449.61;;N !II 1 1..1‘,1. Scott County Klaphake, Judge District Court File No. 94-07569 B & B Sales and Service, Inc., Daniel W. Voss d/b/a B & B Pawn, et al., Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. petitioners, 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Relators (C6-94-1762), Bloomington, MN 55431 Appellants (C9-94-1772), vs. City of Shakopee, et al., George C. Hoff Hoff, Barry & Kuderer, P.A. Respondents. 7901 Flying Cloud Drive Suite 260 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Filed February 28, 1995 Office of Appellate Courts Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Davies, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION KLAPIIAKE, Judge Appellants Douglas L. Bell and B & B Sales and Service, Inc. sought district court review of the Shakopee City Council's denial of their application for a pawnbroker's license. rtb-eo-177J 1D. 1 PYUrr r GHKK T & KUUtKtK F.03 Upon the district court's dismissal of the action, they simultaneously petitioned for a writ of certiorari and appealed the order of dismissal. We affirm. DECISION It is now firmly established that, unless otherwise provided by statute or appellate rule, a petition for a writ of certiorari is the exclusive procedure for reviewing an administrative agency's quasi-judicial decision. Micius v. St. Paul City Council, 524 N.W.2d 521, 522-23 (Minn. App. 1994). A city council's act is quasi-judicial if it is "the product or result of discretionary investigation, consideration, and evaluation of evidentiary facts." Pierce v. Otter Tail County, 524 N.W.2d 308, 309 (Mimi. App. 1994), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 3, 1995) (citation omitted); see. e.g., Country Liquors. Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 264 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Minn. 1978) (decisions regarding liquor licenses are discretionary). Here, the City Council's decisionmaldng process involved investigating Bell and his business, considering his circumstances under the standards set out in the pawnbroker's ordinance, and evaluating the facts produced by the city's investigators, as well as those proffered by Bell. As there is no statute providing for district court review of the City Council's decision, petition for a writ of certiorari to this court was appellants' exclusive means of review. Micius, 524 N.W.2d at 522-23. Bell applied and then reapplied for a pawnbroker's license. He twice appeared before the City Couircil and twice had the opportunity to be beard. He submitted testimony and documentary evidence. The hearing transcripts, exhibits, City Council minutes and resolutions, and investigatory materials are part of the record. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 115.04. Any other materials submitted to this court were not part of the City Council record and are therefore -2- rtb-ed-1777 t D 17 Murr,t1HKK T L4 KUUtKtK stricken. Safeco Ins. Cos. v. Diaz, 385 N.W.2d 845, 847 (Minn. App. 1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 30, 1986); see Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01. An appellate court may reverse a city council's decision only if it is "fraudulent, arbitrary, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence,not within its jurisdiction, or based on an error of law." Dokmo v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671, 675 (Minn. 1990). Here, appellants argue that the decision was unsupported by the evidence. We disagree. Among other undisputed or unrebutted allegations are these: Bell's employee bad transacted firearms deals at the shop; Bell had pawned vehicles without a license; Bell failed to disclose that he had previously operated a pawnshop; when inspected, Bell's equipment was not adequate; Bell failed to disclose a prior misdemeanor conviction; and Bell issued non-sufficient fund checks to the city for the license application and to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, to whom he still owes money on a utility bill. Bell did not deny that he had more stolen property on the premises than other local pawnshops or that pawned items were on the floor for sale prior to the expiration of the redemption period. On the record before us, the City Council acted within its broad discretion in denying Bell's pawnbroker's application. Country Liquors. Inc., 264 N.W.2d at 824 (otherwise adequate application denied due to community residents' complaints). We affirm the district court's dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the City Council's denial of the pawnbroker's license. Affirmed. ► -3- TOTAL L P.04 #5 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney DATE: February 23, 1995 RE: Connection Charges for Sewers BACKGROUND: At its last meeting, the City Council requested staff to report on the feasibility of imposing connection charges for reconstructed sewers, instead of assessing them 25%, as was proposed in the assessment policy revisions. Connection charges for reconstructed sewers are authorized by law. Under Minn. Stat . Sec. 444 . 075, the City has authority to "build, construct, reconstruct, repair, enlarge, improve, " or obtain "sewer systems, " storm sewers, and waterworks systems. The city is given authority in Minn. Stat. Sec. 444 . 075, Subd. 3 to impose charges for the use and availability of the sewers. That subdivision is quite long, but the relevant portions are excerpted below. To pay for the construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement, or other obtainment and the maintenance, operation and use of the facilities, the governing body of a municipality . . . may impose just and equitable charges for the use and for the availability of the facilities and for connections with them . Charges for connections to the facilities may . . . be fixed by reference to the portion of the cost of connection which has been paid by assessment of the premises to be connected, in comparison with other premises, as well as the cost of making or supervising the connection. . . In determining the reasonableness of the charges to be imposed, the governing body may give consideration to all costs of the establishment, operation, maintenance, depreciation and necessary replacements of the system, and of improvements, enlargements and extensions necessary to serve adequately the territory of the municipality . . . The City may require payment of charges for the availability of its sewer facilities. The charges may be set in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of reconstruction of the facilities. The statute also provides that if the charges are not paid, they may be certified for collection with the taxes . All revenues received by the City must be placed in a separate account and reserved for payment of the cost of operating and maintaining the facilities. The City also has authority to impose connection charges under Minn. Stat. Sec. 444 . 075, Subd. 5, which provides in part as follows: A municipality . . . may permit a person, company or corporation located and doing business inside or outside the municipal . . . limits to connect with the facilities and make use of them upon terms and upon the payment of fees and charges as may be prescribed or contracted for . . . and to contract . . . for the payment . . . of a part of the cost of construction, maintenance or use of the facilities and to receive . . . payment in cash or installments . . . and devote the money received to the purpose of the construction, maintenance or use. The proportionate cost of construction, maintenance or use of the facilities to be paid by the person, company, or corporation may be made payable in installments due at not greater than annual intervals for a period not to exceed 30 years. " This section allows the City to impose connection charges, and allow for them to be paid over time, much like special assessments. The City also has the authority to levy assessments under Minn. Stat . Sec. 444 . 075, Subd. 4, as well as under Chapter 429 . Only a couple of cases have discussed connection charges to existing or replacement sewer lines. In Crown Cork & Seal Co. , Inc. v. City of Lakeville, 313 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. 1981) , the court held that connection charges may be imposed above and beyond special assessments. Lakeville imposed a sewer connection charge based on estimated gallons of daily flow, in order to generate revenue to retire funds issued to finance the sewer trunk system. Crown Cork had replaced its sewer pipe with a larger pipe, and the City sought to impose the connection charge on it . The City gave Crown Cork credit for all previous connection charges. The court approved the new connection charges. The other case discussing connection charges and benefit to the property is Nordgren v. City of Maplewood, 326 N.W. 2d 640 (Minn. 1982) . In that case, special assessments had been voided on some new, undeveloped lots, due to lack of benefit to the property. The City then imposed connection charges. The court held that connection charges were not assessments and could be imposed on top of prior assessments. The court noted that the statute requires that the charges be just and equitable, but that there is no requirement that there be a benefit to the land. In this case the court implied that the charges were equitable, since they were imposed on other lots . -2- In contrast, and perhaps limiting the usefulness of this statute to us, is the Attorney General' s opinion number 387g-5, dated June 27, 1963 . In that opinion (which is not binding on the courts, but provides guidance) , the Attorney General ruled that the connection charges statute, Sec. 444 . 075, Subd. 3, "applies only to cases in which a new connection is being made. " The opinion involved a situation where a village constructed a new sewage disposal plant and water tower; it already had one of each. The village sought to impose a connection charge on lots already connected to the system. The Attorney General ruled that that was prohibited. Only future connections could be subject to the charge. The City Council discussed imposing only 25% of the cost of the sewer as a the sewer connection charge or availability charge. This approach will certainly lessen the amount of opposition the City might receive. There is no statutory regulation approving one percentage over another; this is strictly a policy decision. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the City does have the authority to impose sewer availability charges, and sewer connection charges, to offset the cost of maintaining and reconstructing sanitary sewers. However, connection charges may be imposed only for new connections . Signed i 1 A/ -. aren Ma y, Cit; Attorney KEM:bjm [2 3 MEMO2] cc: Dennis Kraft Bruce Loney -3- Monthly Project Report - Submitted by Barry Stock March 3, 1995 Project Start Complete Status Comments 1. Clinic RFP's ? ? 0% Intern Project 2. AWAIR Program ? ? 0% Intern Project 3. Perform Employee 11/1 6/1 50% Evaluations 4. Develop Pay for Perf. Program 4/1 12/1 95% Intern Project 5. Downtown Utility 2/15 ? 25% Easements 6. City Residents Guide 12/15 7/1 40% 7. Complete steps to 8/21 3/1 75% create Econ. Dev. Auth. 8. Complete Contract Negotiations a. Sergeants 11/9 ? 0% b. Police 2/8 ? 0% c. City Hall 12/9 ? 0% 9. Develop Employee Training 2/1 3/15 0% Program 10. Community Center Process 1993 1995 5% 11. Blocks 3 and 4 1/24 2/7 100% Moratorium Extension 12. Dial-A-Ride Contract 2/1 3/31 50% SW Metro Agreement 13 . Van Pool Contract 12/14 3/1 95% 14 . City Newsletter 1/30 4/1 0% Need Budget Amendment 15. Neighborhood Meeting 1/17 5/1 25% Concept 16. Rec. Twshp. Fee Policy 1991 2/1/95 100% 17. Admin. Policy RE: Common 12/21 4/15 10% Sewer/Water Line for Condominium Units 18. Fill EDA Position 2/7 3/7 90% JI MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, Planning Director RE: Savage AUAR/ADR Update DATE: March 3, 1995 NON-AGENDA INFORMATION ITEM: The ADR Committee is nearing completion of it's review of the Mitigation Plan for the Savage AUAR. The Savage City Council will take action to adopt the Mitigation Plan following the completion of the ADR Committee's review. Although a great deal of technical information has been presented and a general consensus reached, some of the participating environmental groups and agencies may file minority opinions with the City of Savage and the Environmental Quality Board on the Mitigation Plan. With regards to the Shakopee City Council taking action on the mitigation plan, the City Attorney has advised that there is no legal reason for the Council to adopt this document . We can simply acknowledge that the environmental review has been completed and use the recommendations from the AUAR process as appropriate in the subdivision plat review process . A copy of the Final Mitigation Plan will be distributed to the City Council when it becomes available. Also attached with this memo are the minutes from the February 9, 1995 meeting for information purposes. If you have any questions please call me at 445-3650 . APPROVED AND ADOPTED 2/17/95 AUAR ADVISORY PANEL MEETING February 9, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER, The meeting was called to order at 7:40 a.m. by Roger Williams. 2. ROLL CALL Members present: Roger Williams, Minnesota Office of Dispute Resolution, Elliott W. Olson, Trout Unlimited; Klaas Van Zee, Van Zee Homes; Lawrence Samstad, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District; Steve Eggers, Corps of Engineers; Jim Larsen, Metropolitan Council; Tom Balcom, MN DNR; Cyrus Knutson, Mn/DOT; Lindberg Ekola, City of Shakopee;Nicholas Rowse, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Jim Ostenson, James Development Company; Scott Wallace, MN River Valley Audubon; Del H. Einess, Chamber of Commerce; Jon Westlake, Scott County Planning Director; Barbara Koennecke, Community Representative Members absent: Craig Affeldt, MPCA; Stanley Ellison, Mdewakanton Sioux Community Guests: Randy Duncan, Barr Engineering Staff present: City Administrator Steve King, City Planner John Heald, City Engineer David Hutton, Consulting Engineer Bruce Bullert, } Assistant to the Administrator Jean Gramling, and Recording Secretary Clare T. Link 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the AUAR meeting of 2/3/95 were approved as amended: 1. Page 1, Members present: Add Bill Penning, alternate, DNR. 2. Page 2, Item 4, first paragraph: amend second sentence to read: "to restore fen features that have been degraded by past land use practices. 3. Page 2, Item 4, second paragraph: change "affect" to "effect." 4. Page 3, third paragraph, third sentence: ...weight to an adopted comprehensive land use plan. • r AUAR eeting February 9, 1995 Page 2 2. Minutes (Continued) 5. Same paragraph, fifth sentence: stand on issues that could involve future permit applications. 6. Page 3, third paragraph, sixth sentence: He believed ...to an adopted... 7. Page 6, sixth paragraph, last sentence: add "quality" after,"high." 8. Same page, ninth paragraph, second sentence: He discussed that the Wetland Conservation. Act had significant impacts on developments in the city of Shakopee. - 9. Same page, tenth paragraph: has declined and wetland avoidance has increased. • 10. Page 9, 2nd paragraph: backfilling with native material... 11. Page 9, 5th paragraph, 1st sentence: "are addressed on top of Glendale Bluffs." _ 12. Page 9, 6th paragraph, 1st sentence: "the recharge rates of the Glendale Bluffs area.. 13. Page 9, 10th paragraph: "Bullert discussed the soil conditions due to their silty _ clay nature which does not allow for minimal percolation." 14. Page 11, 6th paragraph, 2nd sentence: "restore the calcareous fen plant communities,..." 15. Page 11, 7th paragraph: "be notified of the proposed mitigation plan." 16. Page 12, 3rd paragraph: replace "appropriately" with "adequately." 17. Same page, 4th paragraph: "...using the definition of calcareous fens being adopted under the Wetland Conservation Act." 18. Page 14, second paragraph: "that the assumptions of the AUAR and the..." 3. DNR STATUS - Balcom discussed the progress at the DNR level to state their position on the Savage Fen area. g 4. EAGLE CREEK CORRIDORS Heald discussed the corridor width along Eagle Creek. A handout was referenced from the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service relating to the design and establishment • :�' of a buffer strip. He reviewed a study from Iowa State which suggests a 60' buffer area. He noted that it was important for the group to understand that protection can occur in an area less than 200' in certain circumstances. AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 3 4. Eagle Creek (Continued) Heald discussed various widths proposed in the Iowa document depending on what they are intended to protect. In response to a question from Samstad, Heald stated that there isn't a planning policy for buffer strip width. Olson noted that the DNR is recommending a 200' width, and he is certainly concerned about this. He stated that this should be the minimum corridor width. He felt that we . would need as much width as possible. He noted that every scientific study that has been done where the impervious surface is increased more than 15%, the cold water is destroyed. He cited another study which notes that areas are more susceptible when they are naturally pervious areas. 8:00 a.m. Balcom stated that it is the DNR's belief that a 200' width is the best width based on a number of studies. Samstad pointed out that the studies received are more rural in nature which should be taken into consideration. King discussed a meeting held the previous evening regarding the Eagle Creek area where the 200' width was discussed. He stated that the legislators seemed to accept this width. Ekola asked for a clarification on how the width is measured. Heald stated that it is measured from the edge:o€the water to the establishment of the buffer line or property line Van Zee noted that there would be an additional 50-60' from the 200' width before there would be a house constructed. Van Zee stated that he is currently looking at redesign and see what happens with that. The only area where there is a problem is where the old farmhouse is located. He stated that he is trying to get some drawings done so that he can sit down with the DNR, the city, etc. He stated that general intents have been agreed upon. In response to a question from Williams, Van Zee noted that some design alternatives will be available at the next meeting. AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 4 4. Eagle Creek (Continued) Samstad asked if the buildings are intended to remain. Van Zee stated that the original layout allowed the Hirscher house to remain. With the 200' corridor, it may difficult to have it stay. The second house that is there has little value. Westlake asked if there could be more lot depth in the area and increased densities in the townhouse areas. Van Zee stated that the density will be just over one unit per acre. Westlake asked how many acres are in there. Van Zee replied that there are 210 acres. He stated that he is looking at another proposal from a land planner where impervious surfaces can be decreased. His concern was allocating more assets to replanning. He discussed his concerns about getting a consensus on the corridor concept and widths of the corridor in order to avoid future appeals. 8:15 a.m. Rowse noted that the stream comes fairly close to lot lines and asked Van Zee if his intent is to move the lot lines. Van Zee stated that it his intent to redesign; 60-70 lots will be lost in creating the 400' corridor. King noted that the Park Board met earlier in the week to discuss the concept of a joint management plan on the corridor. This favorably met with the Park Board's approval. He discussed funding. He noted that a joint maintenance plan still has a lot of details to be worked out. Ekola stated that Shakopee's legal counsel has advised that there is a legal basis and rationale for Shakopee to take part in the AUAR process. Koennecke questioned if there are reasonable restrictions which can be put on future property owners relating to the use of chemicals on yards. Van Zee stated that the intent is to have restrictive covenants placed on the property. He discussed enforcement concerns. Ekola stated that the Shakopee portion would be less dense (one unit per 1.35 acres). Van Zee noted that the one unit per acre is the entire area and includes Shakopee. Balcom stated that there needs to be ongoing dialogue between the homeowners and the DNR. AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 5 4. Eagle Creek (Continued) Ekola stated that legal counsel has suggested that a maintenance agreement be prepared. Einess noted that restrictive covenants would provide adequate legal protection; they are enforceable. 8:30 a.m. ' Samstad asked if utilities could be brought into this area without disturbing Eagle Creek and if utility crossings s and a bridge have been considered. He suggested a different route gg for the utilities. Bullert cited a similar situation where small utilities crossed Credit River successfully. Putting larger utilities on a bridge would be more difficult, but alterations could be considered. King pointed out that the focus to this point has been on the west branch of Eagle Creek and not the east branch. Williams summed up discussions so far. He asked if panel members who were not supportive of this proposal would state their concerns. Van Zee stated that if the corridor is increased to 200', there will be one wetland that will be impacted. Wallace stated that he is optimistic about the progress so far. Samstad stated that alternatives to mitigate construction problems should be addressed. Eggers stated that the Corps has a permit condition on Covington Ponds on the corridor width. He stated that what is being discussed today would certainly satisfy the permit condition. . Olson stated that Trout Unlimited is pleased with the direction the proposal is taking. He stated that there are a number of other issues that are still on the table. He believed that because this is only the second AUAR in the state of Minnesota, it will set certain precedents. Larsen stated that they are meeting with the city on the plans. It is still important for the city to have their policies and procedures in line. AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 6 4. Eagle Creek (Continued) Rowse stated that he is satisfied with this particular development's progress. He stated that minimizing the impervious surface area is important. Looking at restricting the use of chemicals is also important. Einess stated that the proposal is very positive. Koennecke agreed: King noted that Mn/DOT is a key player in making this project work. Balcom stated that this is a win-win situation, and the department is very interested in protecting this area. Ekola discussed the effort to bring together recreational areas in both cities. Break at 8:45 p.m. 5. MITIGATION MEASURES REDESIGN Duncan noted that the handout distributed is a very rough draft. He noted that the mitigation has been reformatted to make it more useable. He explained how the plan was restructured. He stated that the plan is not intended to modify regulatory agencies' responsibilities. He stated that the group needs to determine what the goals are and see if there is a consensus among the group relating to these goals. Boiling Springs and Eagle Creek Duncan discussed Goal 1 to protect and maintain the water quality of Eagle Creek. Samstad suggested a goal to protect Boiling Springs and its water supply. Duncan noted that this is included as Goal 2. Five other goals were noted. Rowse suggested rewording Goal 4 to reflect a "self-sustaining" population of brown trout. Panel members discussed stocking of Eagle Creek. Olson noted that it has been stocked. After further discussion, it was decided not to change the wording of Goal #4. • AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 7 5. Mitigation Measures (Continued) Olson stated that "brown" should also be taken out. He stated that they are more concerned about the temperature of the water. Van Zee suggested another goal to address the Mdewakanton cultural aspects. Olson suggested that Goal 5 be amended to provide recreational and religious opportunities. - - ' Balcom'stated that there needs to be a vegetation goal or a goal that would talk about maintaining and establishing vegetative species along Eagle Creek. He stated that he can provide the language for the goal. Larsen asked if there are any plans for a buffer along the east portion of Eagle Creek. King noted that the DNR is interested in an acquisition program with regard to the east branch of Eagle Creek. He also noted that an office park concept is proposed with a lot of greenspace and open areas. He stated that there are problems unique to this area that need to be defined and discussed. Duncan stated that these goals apply equally to both the east and west portions of Eagle Creek. Savage Fen Wetland Complex Duncan discussed five goals for this area. Eggers stated that avoid and minimize impacts to other portions of the wetland complex should be another goal._. Wetlands in AUAR Study Area Duncan reviewed two goals for this area. Panel members discussed the language of Goal 2 and whether "protect" should be a part of it. Larsen stated that a goal should be included relating to mitigation. Duncan stated that it should be noted as a protective strategy. i 9:20 a.m. AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 8 5. Mitigation Measures (Continued) Balcom discussed legislative review of the Wetland Conservation Act. Natural Areas in AUAR Study Area Duncan noted that this section concentrates on woodland areas. He ieviewed three goals for this section. He stated that it might be in everyone's best interest to have a county biological survey performed. -Panel members discussed the replacement of trees during development. Heald discussed the city's tree replacement process. Rowse stated that this would be an opportunity to enhance and promote tree coverage. He suggested that Goal 3 be amended to read maintain and encourage. King suggested "protect and maintain the quantity and quality of the urban forest" be revised language for Goal 3. Rowse suggested still adding the word "enhance." 9:30 a.m. Panel members discussed the language of Goal 1. King stated that it should be worded to "protect the recharge area of the bluff area along the Savage Fen Wetland Complex and the Eagle Creek'Area." He also suggested a goal relating to aesthetics. Historical, Archeological, and Architectural Resources Duncan reviewed the two goals relating to these resources. He noted that there are areas of significant historical, archeological and architectural resources. He stated that the city or a group should take the initiative to look at these areas. Balcom stated that "to the extent practicable" should be removed from the second • : . P Ph r , Samstad suggested including "cultural" under this section. Duncan noted that archeological and architectural are subheadings under cultural resources. Van Zee was concerned that this would require doing more than what is required by law. Duncan stated that the intent is to identify goals and not to add another regulatory layer. • AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 9 5. Mitigation Measures (Continued) Van Zee was concerned about the city's preparation of a phase one archeological survey. Olson asked if some sort of procedures can be put.in place if they don't want to do the surveys. King stated that the vast majority of cultural resources are in the proposed corridor area. Van Zee noted that'dire are always surprises out there and was concerned about what can be done. King stated that this would be a topic of discussion for the corridor management plan. Rowse suggested that someone from the State Historical Preservation Office be asked to come to a meeting to address the issue. Ostenson stated that he would be more concerned about existing buildings that might be deemed as historical sites and would need to be preserved. Van Zee noted that he has concerns about finding grave sites during development. Other Development Related Issues . Duncan requested input on what goals should be included in this section relating to traffic, air quality, noise and aesthetics. He suggested language for goals which panel members discussed. Balcom suggested a goal relating to infrastructure or corridor-type development. Duncan noted that revisions will be made to this document. It will be sent out to panel members on Monday for review on the 17th. Panel members discussed what information they would like to receive regarding the County Road 27 proposal. Ekola requested information on soil types. Eggers discussed soil types. Rowse has observed wetland vegetation in teh haul road at the lower end. • AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 10 5. Mitigation Measures (Continued) Eggers suggested that the County discuss alternatives such as upgrading Quentin Avenue and plans for Highway 13 rather than extending County Road 27. Williams suggested discussing alternatives which would include a,bridge over the fen area. Balcom suggested discussing how CSAH 27, existing and proposed, fits into the city's transportation plan. 6. RESPONSE TO AUAR COMMENTS King distributed a list of additional comments from Barr Engineering. In response to a question from Williams, King discussed what kind of action, information, and responses the city is looking for relating to these comments. He stated that they are looking for major problems and omissions with the responses provided. Olson noted that he hasn't had a chance to review everyone's comments and would like some time to review them. Balcom stated that he also hasn't had time to review the comments. • Williams suggested taking comments from those who have had time to review the responses. Wallace stated that"it is unknown how much drop in hydraulic head would cause adverse impacts" should be added on page 38, Item F. On page 39, Item 0, the language "along the edges" should be removed from the first sentence and "over the entire area" replace it. He discussed his rationale for changing this particular language. • 10:00 a.m. In response to a concern raised by Samstad, Duncan explained how this report was prepared and how each letter responds to comments. • , II . AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 11 6. Response to AUAR Comments (Continued) Wallace discussed page 28 which notes where boiling springs are located. He noted that information he has received reveal that there are nine springs in Minnesota. He discussed different levels of boiling action and varying pressures. King suggested deleting the word "that" before unique from the first sentence in te third paragraph. Eggers noted page 11; Item I where it states that the landfill has been removed. He noted that a portion of it has been removed, but portions remain on the USF&WS. property. Language will be added to note that it has been partially removed but that some concrete products presently remain in the fen wetland complex. • Olson noted page 23, Item M, I-B, stating that Trout Unlimited is concerned about the "no-build" alternative. 10:15 a.m. Olson noted page 24, II-A, noting that they will not have specific plans but questioned whether they would require an environmental review. King noted that they would have to go through all the regulatory hoops. He discussed his concerns about this issue. Duncan noted that it would still go through an environmental review as part of the permit process. Panel members discussed development proposals and their review. King noted that the planning process will use the AUAR as a review. He noted that EAW's are not triggered for every development. Heald discussed mandatory threshold categories. Balcom noted that Item II-A needs a heading relating to who is responding to this comment. King noted that no heading indicates that it is a city response. Duncan discussed responses. Olson noted page 26, Item II-E-1. The third sentence should indicate that the contaminants could move faster. Olson noted page 27, relating to the Van Zee well. Panel members discussed this issue. Olson noted page 27, II-F-3: he questioned stated that he is still waiting for information on the level of accuracy of the MLAEM model. Page 30, II-F-5: Olson is still waiting for more data. AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 12 6. Response to AUAR Comments (Continued) Olson questioned Barr's response to using topographical maps in this area when they could not be used in Kennelly's Creek in Eagan. Olson questioned the formula on Page 28 and if a drop in pressure in Boiling Springs would stop them from boiling using this formula. Page 35, Item II-E,-concerns about groundwater contaminants. Olson noted that once he is provided with the requested information, he will be able to comment on the groundwater model Page 4, Item L: concerns about the land use alternatives being inconsistent. The number of homes is much larger although the acreage of land remains the same. Wallace asked if the city would be submitting a revised density to Met Council. Larsen discussed other changes which need to be made. He noted that the revised AUAR should reflect a revised Comprehensive Plan. Williams asked if it is the city's intent to revise the Comprehensive Plan based on the AUAR document. King discussed the city's intent to revise the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that there is discussion between Met Council and the city relating to the numbers provided in 1989. Ekola stated that what Savage is experiencing today is not that different that what was experienced years ago in cities such as Eden Prairie and Bloomington. Ekola questioned if panel members accept the city of Shakopee as part of the AUAR. It was the general consensus of the group that they take part in the process. . r 10:45 a.m. Williams suggested that panel members take time between now and the next meeting to review this document. Rowse questioned Page 22, Item G and the CSAH 27 process. He stated that he has had a problem with including CSAH 27 as part of the AUAR document. Heald noted that traffic patterns are part of this document. He didn't think that it could be removed, because this is a comprehensive environmental review of this area. He believed that the AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 13 6. Response to AUAR Comments (Continued) group will better understand the plan following the County's presentation at the next meeting. Rowse was concerned about this panel putting a stamp of approval on CSAH 27. I1 Balcom suggested rewriting the second to last sentence to read, "The City hopes to work - with Scott County and other concerned agencies to resolve this matter. Input on this issue will be provided through the facilitated process." Olson was concerned`about discussing CSAH 27 which could drag out the meetings for a longer period of time.r Williams stated that it is up to the city to make the decision what recommendations they want from the group. Ekola reminded the group that this is an environmental review process and the purpose is disclosure of impacts on this area. Williams noted that a time period for discussion of CSAH 27 can be set by panel members. Larsen stated that he would like to see in the final document whether or not CSAH 27 would be a reality. He noted that other alternatives have not been presented to the group. Westlake stated that the County should make their presentation and then decisions be made. 11:00 a.m. Larsen discussed the change in traffic patterns based on which alternative is chosen. Panel members discussed reports referenced to relating to CSAH 27 impacts. It was noted that information from the Strgar Roscoe Fausch document should be included in the AUAR. 7. PUBLICITY Williams stated that he had discussed this group with a reporter from WCCO. King noted that they contacted the city regarding filming a meeting. He stated that the reporter was more interested in how the alternative dispute process works. • AUAR Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 14 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m. Re tfully b.i, -d, •0 ) P17 Clare T. Link - TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Session March 7, 1995 1 . Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2 . Approval of the February 7, 1995 meeting minutes . 3 . Rehab Grant Program Amendment 4 . TIF Expenditures 5 . Appraisor Selection 6 . Other Business a) b) 7 . Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 7, 1995 LOCATION: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M. 2] Approval of Agenda 3 ] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 4] Re-convene 5] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 6] Mayor's Report 7] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 8] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) *9] Approval of Minutes of February 21, 1995 10] Communications: a] Bill Von Bank regarding Convention & Visitors Bureau's 1995 Budget *b] Peggy Adermann regarding access to Memorial Park after normal hours 11] PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 12] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: *a] Vanpool Provider Selection 13] Reports from Staff a] Community Center - User Group Survey *b] Hiring An Economic Development Coordinator *c] Application for Tattoo License d] Shakopee Bypass Noise Variance Request e] Authorization of Engineering Personnel *f] CR-78 and CR-79 Street Light Agreement TENTATIVE AGENDA March 7, 1995 Page -2- 13] Reports from Staff continued: g] Consultant Contract for River District Trunk Sewer Feasibility Report Assistance *h] Firefighters Accident Insurance Policy *i] Approve Bills in the Amount of $136, 092 . 97 14] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 4185 - Amending Pay Plan By Establishing An Economic Development Director Position *b] Ord. No. 407 - To Include Valleyfair In New Zoning Ordinance *c] Ord. No. 408 - Incorporating Materials By Reference *d] Ord. No. 409 - NSP Franchise Agreement *e] Res. No. 4187 - Modifying The 5th Precinct Boundary *f] Res. No. 4186 - Setting Hearing On Creating An Economic Development Authority 15] Other Business: a] b] c] 16] Adjourn to Tuesday, March 21, 1995 at 7 : 00 P.M. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator REMINDER: March 14th, 5: 30 P.M. Committee of the Whole 11111111 SHAKOPEE March 6, 1995 Norbert Theis, Jackson Township Chairman 12466 Marystown Road Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Draft 1995 Shakopee Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Theis: At the February 28, 1995, Committee of the Whole meeting, the Shakopee City Council members expressed the desire to make the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan available to the County and the Townships so that all planning efforts can be coordinated. The Committee of the Whole directed staff to try and work with these groups proactively, provided it does not adversely affect the City's approval process. Enclosed is a copy of the Draft 1995 Shakopee Comprehensive Plan for your organization's review. The Planning Commission will hold the continued public hearing on the draft plan on Thursday, March 9, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Based on direction from the Committee of the Whole, City staff will recommend that the public hearing for the draft plan be continued until later in March in order to provide an opportunity for input from the Townships and the County. Please review the Draft 1995 Shakopee Comprehensive Plan. City staff will be more than happy to meet with you to review the concepts developed in the draft plan within the next one to two weeks. If you would like to set up a meeting time, please call me at 445-3650. Thank you. Sin 'eriy, —_ Lindberg S. Ekola Planning Director cc w/o enclosures: Mayor Laurent City Council Members Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator Chairman Underfuerth, Scott County Board (ga..twnshp.comp) COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South• Shakopee,Minnesota• 55379-1351 • 612-445-3650 • FAX 612-445-6718 OFFICI9AL PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 7, 1995 Chrmn. Beard called the meeting to order at 7 :08 P.M. with Comm. Brekke, Sweeney, Lynch, and Laurent present . Also present : Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director; Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Dave Nummer, City Engineer; Judith S . Cox, City Clerk; and Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer. Laurent/Sweeney moved to approve the minutes of January 17, 1995 . Motion carried unanimously. Barry Stock stated that a rehab grant had been submitted by Gary Turtle for the property referred to as the former bowling alley site on 1st Avenue. Mr. Turtle's intention is to construct a new facade on the former bowling alley as well as make improvements to the rear portion of the building. The total project cost is $42 , 395 . 00 . Mr. Stock stated that the project is eligible for a 33% grant and that payments are distributed upon project completion and submittal of actual invoices paid. He added that interior improvements are not covered expenses under the program guidelines . Jason Turtle, son of Gary Turtle, grant applicant, approached the podium and clarified that there will not be two Turtle's establishments . The second building will be a retail center with Lathrop Paint Center in one half and the other half will be customized for the retail business that moves in there . He stated that the proposal is for the building down the road and that it will not have anything to do with the Turtle's awning on their current establishment . Laurent/Brekke moved to approve the Rehab Grant Application submitted by Gary Turtle in the amount of $14, 131 . 66 . Motion carried unanimously. Karen Marty gave a brief up-date concerning decomissioning the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and establishing an Economic Development Authority. Ms. Marty stated that this has been a high priority for several months but there have been other substantial or more urgent projects that have come in, pushing it aside. She stated that information has been gathered from other cities and from the League of Minnesota Cities on how to make the transition from one to the other. She stated that she hoped to bring the information to the Council by early March. Chrmn. Beard recessed the meeting at 7 : 19 for an Executive Session to discuss matters permited under attorney-client privilege to follow the City Council meeting. Chrmn. Beard re-convened the meeting at 9 :33 P.M. and stated that - no action was taken during the Executive Session. Chrmn,_ Beard adjourned the meeting to the 1st meeting in March. Meeting adjourned at 9 :34 P.M. - Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary # 3 MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Rehab Grant Program Amendment DATE: February 27, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On February 7, 1995 the Shakopee HRA approved the Rehab Grant Application submitted by Gary Turtle for the former bowling alley site. At that time, the HRA requested the CDC to revisit the 25%/33% funding formula. BACKGROUND: Shown in Attachment#1 is a section of the Rehab Grant Program Guidelines which deals with the funding formula. The problem with the current formula is that there is a gap which provides uncertainty in terms of the appropriate funding share for reimbursement. Additionally, the current formula may encourage an artificial increase in the project cost. Shown in Attachment #2 is a memorandum from Jon Brekke, HRA Commissioner, outlining the problem with the current grant formula. On February 22, 1995 the CDC met to review the Rehab Grant Funding Formula. It was the consensus of the CDC that the Rehab Grant Program has been effective in encouraging downtown redevelopment. The CDC also felt that it was important to continue to encourage the redevelopment of properties in the downtown area. The CDC did concur that their was a flaw in the current formula. The CDC is recommending that the current formula be deleted and that a progressive grant formula be incorporated. The progressive formula would provide for a 25% grant reimbursement for projects with a total cost ranging between $4,000.00 - $40,000.00. For incremental project costs in excess of$40,000.00, a 33%reimbursement amount would be applied not to exceed a total Rehab Grant reimbursement amount of$25,000.00. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to amend the Rehab Grant Funding Formula incorporating a progressive reimbursement formula which would provide for a 25% grant for projects with a total cost ranging between $4,000.00 - $40,000.00 with additional projects costs above the $40,000.00 level reimbursed at a rate of 33% not to exceed a total grant reimbursement amount of$25,000.00. 2. Recommend to the HRA that the Rehab Grant Program Guidelines be amended to establish a new flat percentage reimbursement rate. 3. Move to maintain the status quo. 4. Move to amend the Rehab Grant Program Funding Formula to provide for a sliding reimbursement rate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to amend the Rehab Grant Funding Formula incorporating a progressive reimbursement formula which would provide for a 25%grant for projects with a total cost ranging between $4,000.00 - $40,000.00 with additional projects costs above the $40,000.00 level reimbursed at a rate of 33% not to exceed a total grant reimbursement amount of $25,000.00. BAS/tiv- h:\tami\admin\rehab 'w-....._...._.-.».r.w ».a.`r..r''...N+u�...`.i.ra.:..•.».w._r.�_..�...s-- .. YumMlat�f.6oea�SeST.OYt e'.\a Mi+Mwas.aMn: ' All.facktiaj- -24? Rehabilitation Grant Program Program Guidelines Program Intent The Rehabilitation Grant Program created by the City of Shakopee and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) for the Downtown Business District is intended to encourage the preservation and beautification of our downtown buildings by enhancing their original character in order to create a more attractive, inviting downtown shopping environment. The HRA shall annually consider allocations from the HRA reserve fund to match private building owner or merchant financing at a ratio of 25% grant money to 75% owner or merchant financing in grant amounts ranging from $1, 000. 00 to $9,999 . 00 and 33% grant money to 67% owner or merchant financing in grant amounts ranging from $13, 333 . 00 to $25, 000. 00. The grants will be awarded to approved applicants by the HRA based on a review and recommendation from the Community Development Commission. A. Eligible Applicants Any owner or tenant manager (with written consent of the owner) of a downtown commercial building. Shown in exhibit A is a map of the Downtown Central Business District. (B-3 zoning district) B. Eligible Proiects 1. Grants will be awarded under the Program for the rehabilitation of commercial buildings. A commercial building shall be any building the primary ground floor function of which is retail, service or office use. 2 . To be eligible, the building to be rehabilitated : a. Must be located within the B-3 zoning district and South of First Avenue; b. Must comply, after rehabilitation with the City's Comprehensive Plan. c. Must comply, after rehabilitation with the City's exterior building and sign design standards. (Exhibit B) C. Eligible Expenditures and Improvements 1 . Rehabilitation grants shall not include expenditures for the acquisition, installation or repair of furnishings or trade fixtures. 2 . Eligible improvements shall be limited to the following improvements: z MEMORANDUM To: Dennis Kraft, HRA Executive Director From: Jon Brekke, HRA Commissioner Subject : Rehabilitation Grant Program Date: February 10, 1995 I would like to request that a reevaluation of the Rehabilitation Grant Program funding formulas be considered at the next HRA meeting. It was suggested at the February 7 meeting that once we have hired an Economic Development Coordinator, we would be able to begin the process of reevaluating the grant formulas. I believe we cannot afford to wait that long. Unfortunately, the current formulas encourage unnecessary improvements. For example, suppose a business owner designs a rehabilitation project that will cost $38, 000 . 00 . According to the formulas, the HRA grant will cover 25%, or $9, 500 . 00, of the cost, leaving the business owner with an effective cost of $28, 500 . 00 . Let' s suppose that before the business owner submits the application, they think of an additional improvement that would be nice to add to the project, but really isn' t necessary. The business owner determines that this additional improvement will cost $4, 500 . 00, resulting in a total project cost of $42, 500 . 00 . Under this new scenario, the HRA grant would cover 33%, or $14, 025 . 00 of the total cost leaving the business owner with an effective cost of $28, 475 . 00 . This unnecessary additional $4, 500 . 00 improvement will cost the HRA $4 , 525 . 00 while the business owner will actually save $25 . 00 . Examples such as the one above are all too easy to come up with in this grant program. That is why I believe we need to take action on this now, rather than waiting for our Economic Development Coordinator. I would like to propose for discussion a 27% grant with a minimum grant amount of $1, 000 . 00 and a maximum of $25, 000 . 00 . The 27% level is being proposed merely as a benchmark for discussion. The main idea of the proposal is to move to a flat rate grant that will encourage frugality in rehabilitation projects. Please refer to the attached graphs for illustrations of our current formulas, and the proposed 27% flat formula. If you have any questions, please call . Effective Project Cost Thousands O N - 0) 03 o O N - W 0) N W O I W C O 0 n) (D 13 p G.) cnp • rh 01 1 O `••• cp n ' rt O cn U1 1 Effective Project Cost Thousands N N W W - O 01 O 01 O N 01 W O co 53 0.1 � rh O O (t O ^ O. w p :: f� n Q • 13 cn O oo 0 rt. 0 1- O w 04s, •-, O CD r 0 (71 01 TO: Shakopee Housing And Redevelopment Authority FROM: Barry Stock, Ass' t City Administrator RE: TIF Expenditures DATE: March 3 , 1995 Introduction At the Committee of the Whole meeting on 2/28/95, City Council requested the appropriate city officials to prepare the necessary resolution and motions to amend the TIF plan budget to allow for the expenditure of TIF funds on costs associated with storm drainage ponding along the south bypass. Background On 2/28/95, the Committee of the Whole prioritized the use of the TIF trust balance in the following manner listed below. 1 . Athletic Facility - $4, 500, 000 . Bond counsel has related that this project is covered by the TIF plan. The actions taken and scheduled to be taken by July 1, 1995 will probably satisfy the proposed legislation. 2 . Blocks 3 & 4 - $2, 050, 000 . This project is included in the TIF plan. On 3/7/95, the HRA will be requested to obtain appraisals on the subject properties. To meet the contractual commitment of funds criteria for this project, assuming a 7/1/95 Legislative effective date, signed purchase agreements would need to be executed. 3 . Park Projects - $775, 000, comprised on the following per the TIF Plan; Replace water slide $100, 000 Pool drainage collection system $25, 000 Upper valley trail extension $250, 000 Tahpah grandstand improvement $50, 000 Tahpah grandstand concession/restrooms $100, 000 Tahpah parking lot expansion/repairs $100, 000 Tahpah park expansion and development $150, 000 To facilitate these projects, action would be needed for design, plan specifications, bids and contract execution before July 1, 1995 . Again, the practical realities of the timing of the specification and bid process may make the contractual commitment of funds for several of these projects difficult . 4 . Chaska Interceptor - $2, 500, 000 . This project is under contract and in the TIF plan. Staff is taking the steps necessary to amend the contract between the City and MCWWS to include the potential use of TIF funds . 5 . South Bypass Drainage - $1, 650, 000 . This project is under contract with MDOT but not in the TIF plan nor is the use of TIF mentioned in the contracts. The first payment of $753, 000 has been made and a declaration of intent to issue reimbursement bonds has been filed pursuant to Council action to issue revenue bonds to pay for the project . Summary There is about $7, 000, 000 now available for the projects listed above. If the legal criteria is met for the athletic facility and the Chaska Interceptor, then the $7, 000, 000 is committed and should be "safe" for expenditure. Due to the cost and effort to change the TIF Plan and MDOT contracts for the South Bypass, staff is recommending that the HRA hold off on amending the TIF plan and subsequent MDOT contract . Based on current projections, there should still be the $1, 000, 000 cushion available in about 1999 unless the HRA wants to proceed with issuing bonds to use the proceeds for blocks 3 & 4 or park projects and not have a cushion. Staff Recommendation Actions are being taken to protect the $7, 000, 000 of available TIF funds . Staff recommends that the HRA retain the future $1, 000, 000 cushion and hold off on other contractual obligations utilizing TIF funds . The cushion is being recommended to protect against any potential non-payment of taxes from the existing TIF districts . Action No action is necessary if the HRA wants to retain a future $1, 000, 000 cushion in the TIF fund. .445 1 MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing&Redevelopment Authority FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Appraiser Selection DATE: March 2, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On February 28, 1995 the Shakopee City Council met and requested the Shakopee HRA to obtain appraisals for the property located within Blocks 3 and 4, Original Shakopee Plat (OSP). BACKGROUND: In September of 1993, staff submitted a proposal from Peter Patchin& Associates, Inc. to obtain appraisals for the property located within Blocks 3 and 4, OSP. Given the uncertain development potential at that time, the HRA selected to hold off on obtaining appraisals. In light of the potential changes in TIF legislation, the Shakopee City Council believes it would be prudent to obtain appraisals of the property located within Blocks 3 and 4 at this time. Attached is a copy of a appraisals proposal from Peter Patchin& Associates, Inc. The estimated appraisal fee is $23,500.00. Mr. Patchin believes that the appraisals he is proposing to complete would be satisfactory for the purposes of eminent domain. Typically, the appraisal reports requested would require approximately 90 days to complete. Mr. Patchin stated that he may be able to complete some of the appraisal reports in a quicker time frame. Staff is requesting that the HRA authorize the appropriate HRA officials to utilize the services of Peter Patchin& Associates, Inc. to complete the appraisals for the properties located within Blocks 3 and 4, OSP. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate HRA officials to utilize the services of Peter Patchin& Associates, Inc. to complete appraisals for the properties located within Blocks 3 and 4, OSP. 2. Do not obtain appraisal reports for the properties located within Blocks 3 and 4, OSP at this time. 3. Table action pending further information from staff STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate HRA officials to utilize the services of Peter Patchin& Associates, Inc. to complete appraisals for the properties located within Blocks 3 and 4, OSP. BAS\tiv- h:\tami\admin\appraisal % OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 21, 1995 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7: 15 P.M. with councilmembers Brekke, Beard, Sweeney and Lynch present. Also present were: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; and Karen Marty, City Attorney. Sweeney/Brekke moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Laurent gave the Mayor's report. Mayor Laurent asked if anyone present would like to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Items added to consent: l0a) Rezoning Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Urban Residential (R-1b) - Ordinance No. 405. 11f) Windows Hardware Upgrade/Software Purchases. Items removed from consent: 10b) Final Plat of Homestead Ridge 2nd Addition. 12e) Res. No. 4176, Authorizing Condemnation Proceedings. Brekke/Beard moved to approve the Consent Business as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent opened the public hearing on the vacation of a portion of Spencer Street between 1st Avenue and the alley immediately to the North. Mr. Ekola stated that Mr. Perry had submitted a petition to vacate a portion of Spencer Street in order to provide an additional 40 feet for his property and install a decorative block wall. Mr. Ekola stated that staff does not feel it would be in the best interest of the City to do so at this time. He identified a number of projects and studies that are underway which may benefit from the City retaining ownership of this right-of-way. He also stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request. Discussion ensued. Mayor Laurent asked if anyone present wantedto comment on this issue. There being no response Mayor Laurent closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued. In response to a question, Mr. Ekola stated that we may know more about the studies and possible need for this right-of-way in six months or so. 0 Official Proceedings of the February 21, 1995 Shakopee City Council - - Page -2- Sweeney/Beard moved to table discussion on vacating a portion of Spencer Street between 1st Avenue and the alley immediately to the north until the first meeting in September. Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Brekke offered Ordinance No. 405, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map To Rezone A . 11 Acre Site Located Adjacent To The South And West Lot Lines Of Outlot B, Homestead Ridge 1st Addition From Medium Density Residential (R-2) To Urban Residential (R-1B) , and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Lynch offered Resolution No. 4173, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving The Final Plat For Homestead Ridge Second Addition, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Larry Griffith, Attorney for Valleyfair, approached the podium. Mr. Griffith requested the approval of a Planned Unit Development for the Valleyfair Amusement Park. He requested that a condition dealing with lighting be amended and also that the City Council consider reducing the PUD review fee. A brief discussion ensued about the request for the reduction in the PUD review fee. Sweeney/Lynch offered Resolution No. 4174 , A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving The Development Plan For The Valleyfair Planned Unit Development, incorporating any wording changes approved by the City Attorney, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued. Cncl. Brekke moved to reduce the PUD review fee to $1, 000. 00 and spoke against the motion. Mr. Griffith withdrew the request to reduce the PUD review fee. Beard/Brekke offered Ordinance No. 406, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending City Code Chapter 2, Administration And General Government, By Repealing Sec. 2 . 50, Boards And Commissions Generally Except The Shakopee Public - Utilities Commission, And Sec. 2 . 52 , Planning Commission, And Adopting Two New Sections In Lieu Thereof, Relating To The Same Subject, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under -Consent Business) . Official Proceedings of the February 21, 1995 Shakopee City Council Page -3- - Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4182, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Adopting Compensation Rate For Planning Commission Members, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to authorize staff to continue with remedial investigation work on the petroleum leak up to a total cost of $30, 000. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to approve bills in the amount of $273, 920.32 . (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Mayor Laurent explained the process that has been followed to recruit applicants for appointments to expiring terms on the boards and commissions. Councilmembers voted for the applicants prior to the meeting where there were more applicants than openings. The City Clerk reported on the results. The following individuals received the majority of the votes from Councilmembers: James Link and William Mars - Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals; Andrew Unseth - SPUC; Steve Johnson and Judy Salchow - Park and Recreation Advisory Board; and Marcia Spagnolo - Police Civil Service Commission. Balloting for Appointments to Boards and Commissions was as follows: Planning Commission James Link : Cncl. Beard, Brekke, Laurent, Lynch, Sweeney Dale Livingston : None William Mars : Cncl.. Beard, Brekke, Laurent, Lynch, Sweeney Park & Rec Advisory Board Steve Johnson : Cncl. Beard, Brekke, Laurent, Lynch, Sweeney Steven Mortland : None Judy Salchow : Cncl. Beard, Brekke, Laurent, Sweeney Robert Tomczik : Cncl. Lynch • Shakopee Public Utility Commission James Bastyr : None Eldon Reinke : Cncl. Lynch Andrew Unseth : Cncl. Beard, Brekke, Laurent, Sweeney Police Civil Service Commission - Steve Johnson :None Marcia Spagnolo :Cncl. Beard, Brekke, Laurent, Lynch, Sweeney Clifford Stafford:None Official Proceedings of the February 21, 1995 Shakopee City Council - Page -4- Lynch/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4178, A Resolution Appointing Individuals To Various Boards And Commissions. Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Brekke moved to designate the Public Works Director or their designee as the "Authorized LGU Official" in reference to the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to approve Next Century Technology (NCT) of Eden Prairie as the vendor for PC hardware at a price not to exceed $21,744 . 11. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to approve Egghead Software of Minnetonka as vendor for PC software at a price not to exceed $6, 777 . 66. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4179, A Resolution Authorizing Delivery Of A Deed To Extinguish An Easement For Lot 4, Block 2, Hennen's 2ND Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke offered Ordinance No. 403 , Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The City Code By Repealing Redundant Provisions, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke offered Ordinance No. 404, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending City Code Chapter 2, Administration And General Government, Sec. 2 .70, Disposal Of Abandoned Motor Vehicles, Unclaimed Property And Excess Property, By Repealing Subd. 3, Disposal Of Excess Property, And Adopting One New Subdivision In Lieu Thereof Relating To The Same Subject, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4175, A Resolution Receiving A Report And Calling A Hearing On An Improvement To Vierling Drive,. Between County Road 79 And County- Road 77 Project. No. 1995-6, and moved its- adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Neil Heikkila, attorney for the Knights of Columbus, approached the podium. He asked Council for a 30 day delay before beginning the eminent domain proceedings for the- improvements proposed to Sarazin and Roundhouse Streets south of 4th Avenue. He stated that he felt the City didnotneedas much property as stated and explained that the KC hall would experience substantial access and parking problems because of the amount of property being acquired by the City. He asked for the delay in order to allow time for further negotiations. Discussion followed. . Official Proceedings of the February 21, 1995 Shakopee City Council - Page -5- Jim Johnson, Developer of Prairie Bend, approached the podium. Mr. Johnson stated that the bid opening is slated for March 3, 1995, and that by filing the eminent domain petition entry could be obtained within 90 days. Discussion continued. Beard/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 4176, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Determining The Necessity For And Authorizing The Acquisition Of Certain Property By Proceedings In Eminent Domain, with the stipulation not to exercise eminent domain proceedings until March 15th, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4177, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement To Fuller Street, From 10th Avenue To Vierling Drive, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4180, A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And Preparation Of Plans And Specifications For The Mill Pond Treatment Basin Project No. 1995-7, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to authorize the proper City officials to execute a consultant contract with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. for design services, water quality monitoring and final reporting for the Mill Pond Treatment Basin Project for a fee not-to-exceed $37, 496. 00. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to adopt Resolution No. 4183, An Amended Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving The Preliminary And Final Plat For The Minnesota Valley Health Campus Planned Unit Development. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4163 , A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4143 Adopting The 1995 Fee Schedule, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Mayor Laurent recessed at 8 :20 P.M. for an executive session to discuss matters permitted under the attorney-client privilege. Mayor Laurent re-convened the meeting at 9: 16 P.M. No actions were taken by the City Council during the executive session to discuss matters permitted under the attorney-client privilege and labor negotiations. Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, February 28 , 1995- at5: 3�0AP.M. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 16 P.M. 411 I • ith S. CoC4- x Esther TenEyck y Clerk Recording Secretary -_ 1 a a, hako CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU Memorandum DATE: February 27, 1995. TO: Mayor Laurent, City Council Members FROM: Bill Von Bank, Executive Director, Shakopee Convention &Visitors Bureau RE: 1995 CVB Budget _ Enclosed for your review and approval is a copy of the Shakopee Convention&Visitors Bureau's 1995 Budget as approved by the Shakopee CVB board on February 21, 1995. I will be attending the March 7 City Council meeting to answer any questions. Thank you. 1801 Trunk Hwy. 101 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 612-445-1660 FAX 612-445-1669 1 0 N N CO C)1 12 w n C) 0 -4 0CD Ci AO 0 ,.. O .O•' O .�+ 0 y 3 G c - 00000000A3 0 -1 0000000 0 0000000 0000000 O OO CD n V 44.1 V V V V • Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • N N N N N • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • AAN-� •+O 0 W NAA W W N 0 0CJ1 A W N 0 O l U)CII N tl 1 en 0. A V C T N C 11. 0 CD a 0 0 0 O I 0 0 0 0 N 0 CA cm cm •• O O O O O 0 O)A W N O p O m O -4-111 CO C1111A C m g OCN))G)U)U)�mm- 11 W�4DCQ m-4in-icOD-4r'Z 0 6 < Do c= =•F �c 3 N G)Om OC(D Li Dc'm cw o a� a_ rn 9� m (o H eD o c d m o 0 H Q 0 CO O A , y Ch oe C W d tQ to 1'c y m O x Q._'tC`�90 r 0 CD c m c m ce, 0 H me H e -0c a, -a 3 »� )C �'a� H D M �" e<D C ..+.0. 'Q y mmai y 7mc O•od•o H oco— c � * ct o tQ 7(G (3n ^! (0 H H 15 7 m.(D C 22.D Re D �°' O (aD n Z O m CD • . N .4 N 0 0 7• CD U) m x o'Z 3 'is o D CD N U) DC (R 7 7 •G m m G m C- co = n c 3 to c (G cc TD 0 1 0 7J n On w A 0 0 -0 3 O • cOO c < 00 0 0 C CO M CD I!� -.7. 0)4).O)� N CID N 1 N 0) " �N(JI N� W -. j�l n JN.p000-40 1D C.) N O)NJ I O 1J tO W O N W CJ-.1..) 04) O CO co CD (p -0)0000 0 CO J AO)N OD CD 100000 000CJ� Cn0W � 1 0 0 0 0 N 0 N O Oo A A A 0 O O N A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 p6 O 0 0 0 0 0 I _ O O A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ''. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C n O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O -+ I O O O O O O O O O co O J _CII N N O) O co co 0 0 O O • C� j.P C 011 co • O - OO 0 0 v D _ 00 n r �O)A0-` N - N N 0) -.NNN-.W 11 JPJAO (0 J0 CO W N co N-J O NCO UI0 s)4)..)-�-IVb W O C•O q 000OONO N O 0NO)O 00000 000Cfl Ut0 pp A A_).O O O N A O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0'888888 "- U1 O 8 88888 _. 88888 — 88888888 W O J N U) -- N PI O co 44J 8 0 0 co. 8 ,8 • -o 0 co - O N t0 N z — m O O) coo m x m os • r • O m O 03 sg m H � C IG Q. c to cc CD p v ,3 C) o � -0 3 I 03 o CD tv to Cr w tCDD CD CD Ca) N 0) CD O p O ON O CD v D r r6 en w Ca) • is 0N) io O) �0 N 0 0 0 N 0 N N - CO 01 zA O O K o n 3 to V -1 a) -4 0 - 0)g m . 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 !m( 01 0)0O) 0)O) 0 01 00 O)O 0)CJ)CJ)O IN CJ) O)0) 0 DI W a)co O) eJ)eA m 0 ffpp n o(D 10 V V V V V • 01010)0)0)00) • N)NNN • 0000000 • 0 • CD O Ata) -►moo 0 fd fa). . we p CO OA CA N 0 al Cif al 01 o1 a1 A 0 7 O V N-a0(Oa 0 OOOIONOND 0 0000 W 00 OUTAc) N-.OIm CD irs, eo 0 -me 0"0 co 0 m I0Wu)gm�13 c W EWMG ---ao- m 0 y m DH'-•—•a 17 3 2 D o= m .o -._S Mm eo =m X S Q a3 ':Mwin 0 'O H 0,-1>m C. a"� a3.�0 m ...co . A y el O m note o ii D - 000 CA x rn �m - d Nor m o CD m= co CD fo S. 0 Oto 0 1D (u A a cc u) m m3 M0 - a•0 > 0 n' H c 3=n. K W C CD m 9 d"a H r- X �9 O ee fQ • CD- -. -. 0 O N N "CS •p s'c CI eD RO eD 01 3 3 g (p 7m H =, ePMgo D m cw Z V v, �' w N A 'O"m 3 go en S -1 a Z in- d m -4 C) c m -I CO p m c- a Cr = Q -fi Ge go 0 W CD 0 ut0a a 0 in cn C) c 0 CD c - W CJI O 01 0 CJ1 W N CJ1 1V N CJI 01 0) 0 O CI1 0 0.0.. 0(0 tO 000CII 001.10NN N.>01 0CJ1-40 0000000 f0)I 01 0 0 0 0 0 . 0000000 O N O O -+ 0 0 0 0 0O ? f.) 41 _, 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 A0 (0 (O N . 01 0 N O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • L —I Cil CJI ca ,p 7 0 - Ca)W CJ1 0 CW)1 0 CJ1 CO N CJI IV N Ul V O) p CA 0 0 0)0 CO > OOOCJIO ON.ANNNN OCJI V pO .8,00000p00 C0)1 r IA -40j _s 00000 8 0000000 -Ca � 0000 0000000 (0 J a) A 01 8 V N O N N cc 0 8 0 8 0.8 (o - 0 N N J m al z a A wx M n 3 d .°i V ° N 0• N 0• 03 03 ID x DC O )OIOCOO 1 OI OI Ol Cn0000 OC O) 0)IO CI OI O)OI UCA CA OCD n OIC 1 •° V 1 1.1 O cm CO CO CO CO CO N,N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • m O) A»O O) c.ip. AN OI A W N CA CMcnCPI OCaO p N '4 OI•a000a 0 OOOIOOf OUID) 0 000 W OICIIAw-aOCD m 0 f0 • �<�ve�o • rnpcn n mm gooca m-i•o•ipDz co 0 a d ; _._.0t -0 3 c v_cIo c0$ co ° =_._9' p a Io ° d 4P. 2 _ a Co c»w N; 'C7 NC I?-1 c o=,:.CI m -0.1:0 m m ° ` 0 cnn a o co O m .e A 7 2 a m rc m 0 0 IAC m y 0. Ei tz tz CO M W m^".C' 1, A N N x Y. d ID o. 0 III 7 iQ N 7 IC z D N Z _ rn '" ' coN to '�" co N A !' C C) D m = m CO !Ill 11 _ eD Q C CD acma i -O+, Q 73 n O co 3 yam C) co � N I ro < CD _ __ __ cr - 00 CO O �-s NC11NN vO)O 10(11000(11 1 IIO W :a -+ 00N0 -I OCANNNCfl U1J0 000000 Ien A w CO 0000 0000000 A 000 Is g 000000 O 4a NO N O 0) Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD N C p p o 00WO �� NC)1NN Ch 000000 . .O O N O �pI OpD Ap pN N PS fA 01-.J 0 '_ p Cr I N C11 n 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IQ N . N - CO N O OOJ OD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • •9 C co ' IC _ J 0 N H 0 . at Z 0 .oa. x o n m °0 CP . o .°. o .oa. 0 0 c� 01 N3 x m a)a)a) 0 0 o) a)a)0)a)a)a) 0 1 a) a)a) 0 C1 a)a)a)0)0)O)00 0 0� 12 0 0) .i o - 0) Cr,NAAw W N • a) A W N • 0) N N 004 Ca))w A 7 '4 .+ ocoD a) ooa)oa.oa)y c 000W oo a) a)nw�o � 3 0 'CD o in ca 40 <'O.Oe0o o rnGIcncn�n+T� 0 �02C• a m-'�1o'-ioDz rn co 0 rn 6 .7..R.n d -30 G C a�D G co c.—=cc m C•� H < rte, 0 0 m _ a m o 9D�� oN mD x a �n13:rn z -a=cra fD = 1- `° -y �A a 1 rn M M 7 u2 0 ,-C m = eD '0-0 7' D O 0 m y.n. .7. -a W H H 0 co x d-0 0 r to A y �, D 0 O 710 N = iq ce 12 D O) 0 H Z to m -i 0 7 G 73 M G C m v. Q M CO - _ 0 CD CD O I 0 3 P. CD I 0 - N CO W I o CD �!< '.. - In ON)C) Na CJINN 01 Ch .0 0000100 tia. 0 j 0Oc00 NNA NNNUI cJ1-4 000000 at in 0 0 0 A (!1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O 0 0 0 0 O � N O I a 000 00000 0 O - 000 p o00o 00 v v W 0CCD COO C0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N W C) DDI O , 0 NC) Iv v00ONO) N CJN N .0O pC0 N US D C)u)0NN AN N NC7 UJ0 - ' 0pco O O 00Ja) r 00p vpp0ppppSOvp00pp0! N OA Ch N A A W CJ1 CO 0 N cn N N 0 0 o o • o 0 0 . 1 SU I CD en J 0 N N CO N _ Z CD M n 0 x 0 O co —1 CD 0 N 0, Al AO co rn O a 0 a o a ocm 3 NA x A, O)0)O CL O)0)0) O)0)O)0)0 01 0)0)0)0)O A) co 0)O)0)O)0)0) 0 CD n o •O I V • OI GA O)0) 0) 0)0) • NNNN • 0000000 • O • y0 Uan NAOa 0 CD 0 0 GAA O CCA ODUIDKu I 0 co 0000 W Cb 0 o0i t0AA W�OAIOrn 3 A fD • ilT� c• rn6)Cnvn�rn-na c oo�0oca O rn-412-71p-irz o 0 �51w lu y CC0 ml co as a CC rn .=-a'-ae m<m -.7D o Da o x 'C m z = —n- a Q.az o en < A 01in '" X rn Ng M 0mrn(00" Re 0 x Wm CD rn '0acmto lf, H r x� =- in a 0 (7) "•" •0 A Cn y x `C W m CC7 0 �.3 ' D N 0 to u. _ EE .=. co ^' Cn O R0 0 n m N H m ^I m 7a Re -I v+ m -1 C) -I O m W rn o. 7 a GQ . C OI co-.1 C4.7 M P. i _ �-.N ND-CA N Ch NChN co-.4 1 ChICDI CO A O)W NChNN Illi-IO) 0 00000 CA ON NNAN NNC1 'OCA V 0 0000000 GA la- !-4 a) 00 ; 0000000 00gp 00 ..N.a 0000000 !', CO A W N CO N 0 CO CCD O 1 0 O 0 O 0 O O -+Ch N0 N Ch ' p —NJcnIs4-p.CA-I �- -4 --" ON NN?NJ O'0VO ,0000000 • GCA r V 0) 88 0808888 -4 0008 • - 0088088 0) 0) A W pN CO N p0 0 CCD O 0 0 0 • 0 0 - O O • • 12 DI d CG ' CD - 1 O N N fC al f° n .O. 9x .O. n O d -I a) .I a) -I N -1 a) 11 o C O ..., fB° CD )C W O co O 0 III co -•� 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 DI O CO O)O 0 d a) O a)a) a) a) O W n 0 V V V V • Co O fr 00000 • NNN A) • 000000 • O • CD O AAS O W .. W AA fA fAN O a)ACa n) O) cn a) aaf a).a e. 0 7 ch C VN0a C 0 a) 000NesenoaI C71 171 C 0000 W C al a• W"0U 3 0 C -4-1 U ° m ca 0cm,0cntn3aa104 3 . -o3cocE . m-i�v-iprZ 0 n 3 d - a 9 c • • c vcf° C5° co -, O E._= c tD H m ad rn = o fp• a _ • <co o o o fn d > )4 a p m m Z a=fa A f° E r r) • o o<� c N N m co » 01�0 �� m e° x c`CR° R y £ 7 � •� Ill rn fG = O - .XI f° . CD -0•o o fG N < W fn **H H x O m Ts 0 r Z 7SS-C G 19 H '6 K d m Re fp N f° j » 5'_ 19 CD DI m m a fD a f° m 5 z fII 7 f° f° fD M. co Re D d to CC H N N •tf1 01 CO • fN° Ry 7 00 y m co �H x N d tis. o -i O < ro m m 03 C Q � CD 0 W Ti 33 IIn Ce) DIj< N O a CD W SS N to - 1 N cli fp N -CO N b (71 N N N-. I N CD n 10100) I0) NJ � 0 V OJUI 0000(71 COW _ OON N N A NNNCJ1 ONJO 00000 CJI 000 CJI O 00000 ONOO 000000 l 0 IJ 0 0 0 ,p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N I O O O O _. 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J i -► fD W 0 -. J J V CO N (0 N (71 O 0 0 0 0 S 0 $ I W p) - N O . 0 W gg N n _ r NN OD N � N ON 00001 II CJ10 fA CI W NCJINN 0JCp CJI 000000 O O N N N ?N N N 91 O CJI J O O O O O O N �, 0 N SSS a, 0 0 00000 N 0000 000000 - • V Co N 54 -. N CO CO Cp O 0 0 0 $ $ CCDab - a 0 N N • -a CO 0 z CD n 0 x w o n 3 n a V 0 eat o N M 0 0 AO 3 x C, CA0 d C) _1 co co co co co co o C, co co co 0 C, C)co CA C)co co co co ID n NI •O V • CJ, o CJCO)C)C) CAC) NIJN • 00000000 • 0 • A CA N O) w NAAw C4 h3 Of AwN CA cn 0,CA O)Cr O)qlA A N G en G 0 co C i 0 0 0 0) co 0 co 0 d G co O co C 0 co 0,A W N 0 0,m 0 fl) c In 0 m o OON) •nyN�TTa c gcocc, . m-4-o-�vOD-iz o D Da. 3 No • • c ac:0 Ccs° W 0 5._5 0 c `° 0 m c n m _ < 3.^, g • ��y nDm c a.:en m -per d �' 0 3 M U2 ° LI w a2i *2 -I '° G C2u x rn 3 o m m7 N3 po I. -0 eo H enenm eo 7 Cn AA 3 � xa� 3� 0 M W m CCC A m y'II y r z C CCD 12 f° 0 it Cr2C z T H N N N co) A3' 0 Ch 0 0 0' N N CSD N 7 E, d H --I 0 —I G d m m t7 3 W Cr c CD t2 m 0 x'133 COIn n o 3 Cd N O C C) a cp 01O O W Con 1CD 0 00)) W N CJINN vCACn OO CD NNpCAJI OJC�n N O N N ANN NCn Cn-JO 000000Cn0 0 0 8 00000 088 NCP 00000000 CO UD CA O Cn 0) 0) N J -I 'I. V CD O CO co Cu A A o o 0 0 0 8 8 8 W, N0 O 105 D CD N O N N NCnN A-+ 0) Cr r O CA W NCnNN V OCn Op 0.ONO-IN O N N ANNIN)Cn Cn�IO 00000OIn0 CO 8 X 0 0 88888 005 n) 88888888 CD C CA 0 N 0) 0) N V V V _._ pO CO (0 01 co CO 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 IL CO _ CD J O N N $0 a1 Z f) norn► x .oi 7 o a O 1 a) -4 a) .4 a)A d p O 3 o V „or al 0 N o 00 0 3 ID x co wa) 0 el C) -4 wa) a) a) C)C)0 m a)a)a)$00 d a)a) a)C) a)0 m Deo 'Q V V Cl) p at O a)CO a) C) • N N N N • 00000 • o A• tD CO NO y .+ NAA W W N•3 CO Ch 4h W NW Cr' cncncntnU� 3 0 7 C tr Oa C O O1 a)a)00O to Otecn Ch y O 0000= 0 Oo+A W co N o 0 -n�• 0 c •m Zf), 0,,C)CoOmMm © WgWCG 0 m •�v-1pZ 0 D n=.3: 3 N v_ ceo Cci° ED =.o E._3 0 s `° o d =m s W D 7 -R O GI 3 E y a Obi x C 7 0+ 7 tD m z =us r to o. 0-q-2- o eKo 13 — to c cn ton `z f°��° "'xa m e3o = I° x c R° ',... Cl A m y toy 7 IG Cl) 70 Co T o =10 n o !p M-. ^ 'x' W yC *d CD N "110 ISI'a H r in 3�_ MP tD i 7 7 to C 'a d fC po tD in co 7 o d oom co 3 . '0 toyz O to N y N y y 7 em 0 �' N y y E ps -1 7 y Oti to Td_ tto 5 o 7 N co -4 J = C gaiTs m -I m C') CO 13) C Q. ff C tel CD r�•r -4, tnel 0 '0 3 W- O O N N gg — oW - CA N O N Cl) -N W N-I CD OA COW NCJINN 01-.40)0 00000 CD NJ IS)00 CJ1 pN p0NppNp00 0NO0 0p0000 A ICO 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 W co Cn cn O 0 CO CO O O O W co N t0 N O �I v o Io 1 0 Cl) 0 0 010 i Ca••••• No o I 00 1, 1 _ w r Cl). - 00)) W N CJI N N Cll v 0)O O O O Np O ON N N ;PNNNCn c)CA J0 000.00 • 00. n 00000. 0000 ' 00000 W +, tp Co O O 00000 .54 4.16 0 - g--Ca N N In 0 --- O Wv 0 Cl) N O O O O 0 0 0 O .0 O O CI co co 0 N N io N Z o n p o co o V -4 CD 4 CI o N 0 o = m o3 co K d O 0 O O y 7. N eD 0) 0) 0 cu 0) -4 0)O O0) 0)0)0 Ct 0) 0) 0)co N co 0) 0)0) 0) 0 m n 0 a V V ea 0 Cf)0) 0) 0) to 0) NNh1 • 00000 • 0 • CD CO N+ 0 lA .•' N A A W e.1 N D A W N O UI a O eA UI A H C al ei)a G 0 Al co a 0 e7)O tl)O tlt d C 0 0 0 C ef)CA A e.f+m 0 �° 0 TWA m cn CD 44 ccmG)Cntng-naa c �WC4 c m-1a—IpZ o a >9 H . a o • • c oceo Com° 00 o E._= 6) a eo H N Rm x ,c 0G)N aDym c a:en m � d < o en x �'m Z en r ee eo 5� o_ •c 3 a a epepenx m 3corn gn go at ern — eb we en enc y �° 73 m a eeoo -0 a n o A CO C (n fII N N12 CD Re I'D m CD S 13 7 eo m eu co co 3 2 a CD to Z = O N N N T 0 7• N N Co A y 3' N 3i 1 ^ 7 < d rn m 1 0 aW3 aCD c CD p I m w— ea'a cD O 3 �To og j < A. m -t ww cn 0 0 CO CO n NO iT W N(tNN VOA 0p000 to CD 0p0 N N 41. MMP (n eft V O 00000 , ea O W 000 vt O 0 O000O0 000 00 OO OO OO OO CO 00 — 4a 0 IA LIA ✓ OOO N O e0 i co 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 Di po • 1 — • In -4 Ma o To O o pppp N cm p_ p_�p p p_cn O r . ' O O N N A N p N N p N CCI v 0 .5 0 0 0 0 • • 02 O Co 00 00 N V Q OO D 00 000 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 a, C ✓ _ s O 40 N f0 O '90 ,'I O 0 0 0 - • 0 • S • S S 12 d . CO 0 N N CO CJS Z CI 7 x o a o O n o a1 ...10 -I 0 1 CO 0 Cep 0 A o m ° .. ° .. y .�oooo7 n co x 0 000)00 0 a) 0o)a) a) 000 0 0000 0 a)a) a) a)a)a)a) 00 n 0 '0 V V V V • at 0)a)a)a) a)a) • N WN • o000000 • o • a O N-1—o 0) W NAA CA CAN 0 A W N 0 to CJ+a)ala)a, A N C 01 a,oco C OOU,OaIOCJ,d C 000 w 0 a)CJ,A C.1�OOm 3 0 CI) 0 '7'1W'O'Otto 0 RI000 1"na 0 gooca c m-I�-IpnrZ o v Do =•='A, .0 3 -� tvam ccs° ao o =._7 Co o m an d m = o. mn wKCn, a •o y ?Dnm c .a E. Cc m C'c d A n C Q a < SD -07 -, O 0 ani x B. m 7" m 2 Ic C A • mco1n o c. C9 7 �IpN-xa 73 0 = eeamccR`cR° N N tD G m ft d 7 fD XI 0 D 0 CN -0'0 c'7 D O S. a.8 �' x tom Iv m ca r A co c 0 0 q ^^ A 7 N 'x0 op m 0 CD 71 01 13 In Z Co H = m a. D a) f° H o Z to d -I 0 m e 73 C) CD 0 tO aa W _ _ _ I 0 CD - _ OSNOW ON)W N CalNN -J0)CJ1 000p000p 4�! Cps W OONO NNANN NCn 91V O 00000CJ1CJ1 -+ -. a, a O O A (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N -' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V •v A COoN 0000 -.. 0000000 S OSS „ 0000000 0) 0) CO W N CO N 0 W co O 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 I 0 CCO Co 'a �(/J1I -i -0 NpW 0)W. NCJTNN v0U1 pp49000VV SNS NNANNNCJI - UIvO .O.00 00 01191 v. r '.. a '` N 0000 A gip-060 .0.0 IJ OO '�- 000000 V V V _pop N 0000 - 0000000 0) 000 0000000 _ 0) 0) CO CO N CO CN 9 - CO CAD . O 0 S - O O S - S 0 • .0 I O _ . Cp O N • J to - 01 z m N 5- c 7 M x o p n O d •I co -1 CO N o 0 to o 0 O O O O 7 3 N x d comma 0) O)CJf CA CA 0) 0)0) 0 ID common I Cm CA CA O)Q)Ory n 0� •O V V V • VI Of C 0) 0) 0) 0) • NNNN • 000000 • o • N Of AAS CA W NAA W W N CA 0146 W N CO once On an cn cn A , N C V cn c) C OO cn cn co C 0000 C cn cn W N-.m S 0 cf 11 T -i-ITA mONN�TT� W g co CC rne.-�T-�DOZ O D d m 3• T a o DCa5F5 W 5.0 �,_S O = -Ttu =m e < w D� 4 o N ei n• Dx S. Q0,— m •p•3 m A tn tno A N * cm " m '�°0 = to NOXI ID ?al' `°� a,cpD o 5 rn < 3 x W to 0 m -tea d-0o y r ��°v m CO �? to H a 'e`< m to po er tn 3 al i _,='3 = CD •3 •o eo :Su) z p to Ia N rzi i to =El Q4 D t• -9 N d S N d H - i 73 r. m co m p =0. Q m C••F M X0 to CD O 1 to`��0 3 A- m IO CD ,pp " -I c - 'N W 01 ION)W N CJINN ICJIVCA CJI X00�pI NNO t0 W OON NNANNpNCJI OCJIVO 000888 — i.- N N V p 0 0 0 -+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 X 8 0 4,,) I0 8 0 0 0 0 O O CJ) al t0 A O V W N CO N O -• -, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W m 0 ' .A W CJI N CJf • NCJI N CJI N N-+ - CJIOIa .0)G) NCJINN .cnvOUI 000000 co OON NNANNNCJI ONTO a 888 08$$888 A 8088 ..- 888588 V CO pN t0 "ND O p O O O O 0 8 0 8 • d N mi 0 N N fD N Z w O C % .C �i 7 3 m ° sl 0 ° al 0 a o » 0q m NIm x m (n 0 01 a)o)on a)a) o)a)0 d a)D)a)0 0 a)a)a) o)a)C 0 to n 0 1264 • UI UI CO CO 0)CO 0) • 261 ND Nf • 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • ID O) , of W N a&A CO W N W A W N O) co at at co at a• p y C 0 C 00 a.0 a+ 0 any C 000 co O co)a+A co N-um 3 0 1° 0• 2?M . mocncng-,�13 c gooCa c rn-i10-4voz o >UIIH Tm co a0 Er rn 1D 7 (C A(12.2 q A Z 7 A X G CI ,0 "° O 3' H-. -0 W H y x .<d A r n 7 v A SII 7 m I 3 -�' ro N Z 0. 00 y F M� fi H N= 73 rn CI, 3 < Z 0 17rn < GQ Q CD o tO-a 3 CA 1 CI CD- w iv 01 -, o'jn p p G 0)) NNA NNN,(N71 U1...I 0 000000 (D CO co 0 _; 0000000 .4 000 - 000000 Bio COCh -J .00) (D N O ,.4 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 w O 0 01 to In - N C1. -L - _.N(fl N—_. < - __ C0) NN A NN NJ N4 ((1 V 0 000000 co D ✓o a 0 0 0000000 A 000 0 000000. 0) 0) N r trl - (D -d C) (ON O V .4 • 13d 1 1a - O .a 0 N N t0 O) I Z CD n 0 x Qf O)C)0) W Q)4)0 da) O)01 0 0) W O)Q) A Q)0) 0 ry n 0 to 'fl tl)0O)0)Q)0)C) • NNN • 000000 • 0 • fD o) t4NAAc.) W N Cr) A W N O) gOOONN A I, 0 Ch OOn)O th OUID, p 000 p o)u,4pw�Orn 3 0 0D • • • N • 3 c)Ch m e hoc ' �mm 0 r o 1, oN dDxm � ° Dcr CD a � m �a " C o ro ° N� m oDme^ p, g CDD 7 Cl) ! m W s; m a CD 3c�D0 Q P. 73 n UcD0 n0 3 I OD I I n v' CD I I w 1 0 INCJ) N ICO - �NUIN— nIG in La -.4 CO pO _ 00pcp 000cp 01 O W I p D O A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO N COCO IOW) CO N UI 0 0 1 O 10 O 0 S 0 0 • W I �W NCJINN 01x0• 0000001 QS D , _ NNANNN O r COco ; g888 8 Na y SSSSSS io O O O O S S 0 • 02 - A 'BENT II, February 22, 1995 CITY OF SHAKOPEE FEB 231995 � Shakopee Parks and Recreation Department - ECEIVE J Attention: Judy Cox 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: "A Walk in the Park" Dear Ms. Cox: We are in the planning stages of the 4th Annual American Cancer Society, "A Walk in the Park." The event will be held from Friday, July 14, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. until Saturday, July 15, 1995 at 8:00 a.m. We would like to request that we again be allowed to stay in Memorial Park after its normal closing time. You should have received a copy of the Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Shakopee as a named insured for July 14 and 15, 1995. If not, please contact me. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. erely, \--/Loic)(1,1 ‘, Peggif Adermann Chairperson Action Requested: Move to approve the request by the American Cancer Society to access Memorial Park after normal hours. MEMO TO: Mayor Laurent and Councilmembers FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator ' 2 RE: Vanpool Provider Selection DATE: February 17, 1995 CO N S E N T INTRODUCTION: The Vanpool Provider Contract with Vanpool Services, Inc. expires on April 16, 1995. It would be appropriate at this time to select a provider for the continued operation of our Vanpool Program. BACKGROUND: This past January staff prepared a request for proposal specification for the continued operation of our Vanpool Program. The notice of request for proposals was advertised in the Shakopee Valley News on January 19, 1995. Staff also mailed the specifications to nine (9) different vendors who could possibly be equipped to respond with a proposal. The proposal submittal deadline was February 16, 1995. In response to the solicitation, one(1) proposal has been received. The proposal was submitted by Vanpool Services, Inc. (VPSI) (Our current provider) VPSI has been the provider of the Shakopee Vanpool Program since its inception. VPSI is proposing to continue to provide the same level of services that they have been providing in the past. Staff has been pleased with the level of service and cooperation provided by Vanpool Services, Inc. over the past twelve (12)years. The provision of adequate insurance coverage continues to be a barrier for other providers. Likewise, the City has selected not to pursue acquisition of vehicles for our program due to the associated maintenance issues and extraordinary cost of insurance. ILII Due to the length of the VPSI proposal, it has not been included in this packet. A copy is available in my office if a Councilmember is interested in reviewing it. On February 22,1995 the CDC reviewed the components of the VPSI proposal. The CDC is recommending authorization to execute a 2 year 3rd year renewable option agreement with VPSI. III ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a 2 year 3rd year renewable option agreement with Vanpool Services, Inc. 2. Table action pending further information from staff. 3. Direct staff to seek other options for the provisions of Vanpool services in Shakopee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a 2 year 3rd year renewable option agreement with Vanpool Services, Inc. BAS/tiv- h:\tami\admin\memos2-17 MEMO TO: Mayor Laurent and City Councilmembers FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Community Center-User Group Survey DATE: March 2, 1995 INTRODUCTION: At the Committee of the Whole meeting on February 28, 1995, the Shakopee City Council discussed options to obtain user group input for the proposed community center project. BACKGROUND: The City's Construction Manager is in the process of meeting with various user groups to obtain input on the proposed community center design. City Council would like to extend an opportunity for all interested parties to provide input. It was suggested that staff investigate the development of a brief survey that could be inserted in the Shakopee Mint and distributed to each household in Shakopee. The Shakopee Mint is distributed to approximately 7,275 households in the Shakopee area. The cost for a distribution insert would be approximately $275.00. The City would be responsible for additional costs associated with printing the survey. The earliest date possible to have the survey distributed in conjunction with the Mint would be Saturday, March 18, 1995. Staff has drafted a survey for City Council's review and comment. (See Attachment) The survey has been designed in such a fashion so that it can be folded and returned to City Hall by mail or simply dropped off at our offices. Staff would like City Council to review the survey and suggest changes as deemed appropriate. In conjunction with the survey, staff is proposing to have the City's Construction Manager present a facility design to the public for information purposes at a Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 11, 1995. City Council is scheduled to meet in a Committee of the Whole Session at 5:30 p.m. on that date. The suggested time for the informational presentation would be 7:00 p.m. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct the appropriate City officials to proceed with the survey distribution. 2. Amend the survey content and direct the appropriate City officials to proceed accordingly. 3. Do not proceed with the distribution of a survey. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct the appropriate City officials to proceed with the survey distribution. III BAS\tiv- h:\tami\admin\ccsurvey.2 SHAKOPEE Attention Shakopee Residents: The Shakopee City Council has unanimously endorsed the construction of a recreation facility. The facility will be constructed on property already owned by the City Southwest of the Shakopee Senior High School. The City of Shakopee is currently in the process of preparing design plans and specifications for the Shakopee Civic Center Project. At this time, the Shakopee City Council has determined that the facility will include the following components: 1) Ice Arena; 2) Concessions Area; 3)Locker Rooms - 4; 4)Mezzanine Level(Wrestling Room/Gymnastics Room); 5)Elevator; 6) Commons Area; 7)Public Restrooms; 8) Office Space; 9)Meeting Room(1,000 sq ft); 10) Cable Television Public Access Room(1,000 sq ft); 11)Locker Rooms with Shower Facilities; 12) Gymnasiums - 2 Full Size Basketball Courts/3 Volleyball Courts; 13)Parking Lot; 14) Youth Athletic Fields. The Shakopee City Council would like to obtain your input with respect to this project to get the most functional and useable facility possible. All requests and suggestions will be evaluated with the overall construction and operating budget in mind. The Shakopee City Council will be holding an informational meeting on the facility components and project design on Tuesday, April 11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Shakopee City Council Chambers. Plans will be presented at that time taking into consideration information received. Interested residents are requested to attend and submit constructive input with respect to the facility components and project design. On the back side of this page, you will find a series of questions. If you have constructive input that you would like considered during the design process, please complete and return this survey to the Shakopee City Hall by March 31, 1995. If you have comments or questions that you would like to share, please call Barry Stock at 445-3650. Gary L. Laurent, Mayor Robert Sweeney, Councilor Mike Beard, Councilor Joan Lynch, Councilor Jon Brekke, Councilor COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South• Shakopee,Minnesota• 55379-1351 612-445-3650 FAX 612-445-6718 mayhave regarding the following: 1. Please give us comments you g g g A. The proposed facility components? B. The facility site design? C. The facility operating hours? 2. Please place a check next to the following services that you feel should be included in the Community Civic Center facility. a. Photo Copying Service _ b. Fax Machine Service c. Pay Telephones d. Skate Sharpening e. Skate Rental f. Towel Service g. Lock Rental for Lockers _ h. Spectator Seating(Ice Arena) i. Spectator Seating (Gymnasium) j. Locker Rental 3. Should additional meeting rooms be added to the facility? 4. Do you have suggestions on thefacility uses that could be accommodated within the proposed space? 5. Do you have any comments on the interior/exterior design treatments to be utilized in the facility? 6. Do you have suggestions for new community education or recreation program activities to be offered at the facility? 7. Other Comments: MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Economic Development Coordinator Position DATE: February 27, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On February 7, 1995 the Shakopee City Council authorized the appropriate City officials to advertise for the Economic Development Coordinator position. Staff is prepared to make a recommendation to fill the position at this time . BACKGROUND: In accordance with the procedures set forth in the City Personnel Policy, staff internally posted the position of Economic Development Coordinator. One application was received from within for the vacant position. The personnel policy specifies that if the City Administrator believes the internal candidate can perform the duties of the position, a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council . Paul Bilotta, has applied for the new position vacancy. During the week of February 20th, the City Administrator and I had the opportunity to review the qualifications of Mr. Bilotta as they relate to the proposed duties and responsibilities for the Economic Development Coordinator position. The City Administrator and I concur that Mr. Bilotta meets the qualifications of the position and can fulfill the duties and responsibilities expected of the position. The City Administrator and I are recommending that Mr. Bilotta be appointed to fill the Economic Development Coordinator at Step 3 of the 1995 Pay Schedule ($39, 994) . If Council concurs with staff's recommendation, a vacancy will be created in the Planning Department . The 1995 Budget included funding for a Planning Technician position (starting in May) as well as the continuance of the Planner II position. It should be noted that there will be some crossover of duties between the Planner II position and Economic Development Coordinator position. This will result in a budgetary cost savings should Council select to not fill the Planner II position. Staff is in the process of evaluating staffing needs within the Planning Department . There are a variety of staffing options available to meet the staffing needs. Staff will evaluate those options and be prepared to make a recommendation to City Council at our next meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Move to appoint Paul Bilotta to the Economic Development Coordinator position at Step 3 of the 1995 Pay Schedule with an effective date of March 20, 1995 . 2 . Do not fill the Economic Development Coordinator position at this time. 3 . Direct staff to obtain additional applications for the position. 4 . Table action pending further information from staff . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Move to appoint Paul Bilotta to the Economic Development Coordinator position at Step 3 of the 1995 Pay Schedule with an effective date of March 20, 1995 . ok CONS3NT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for Tattoo Lice se DATE: February 27, 1995 INTRODUCTION: The City has received an application from Allen Joseph Lindback for a Tattoo License. BACKGROUND: Mr. Lindback has applied for an application to practice tattooing at Body Art/1st in Hair and Tanning, 205 South Lewis Street. You may remember that the City Council has previously issued a license to Linda Kurian at this same establishment. Mr. Lindback will be working for Linda Kurian. The Police Department has conducted the customary background investigation on the applicant and has advised that there is no reason to deny a license for tattooing to Mr. Lindback. Mr. Lindback is in the process of obtaining the required insurance for this license. Once the City has received a certificate of insurance, Mr. Lindback's application will be in order. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve application, conditioned upon receipt of certificate of insurance. 2. Deny application. 3. Request additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve the application and grant a Tattoo License to Allen Joseph Lindback, at Body Art/1st in Hair and Tanning, 205 South Lewis Street, conditioned upon the City's receipt of the required certificate of insurance. JSC/tiv- h:\tami\judy\lindback I� MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce A. Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Shakopee Bypass Noise Variance t9 on Construction Activities DATE: March 7, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a request from Ames Construction, Inc. for a variance from the City's Hourly Restriction on Certain Operations, Construction Activities,City Code, Section 10.60, Subdivision D that construction activities are permitted between the hours of 7: A.M. and 10:00 P.M. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on any weekend or holiday. BACKGROUND: Ames Construction, Inc. is the general contractor for the Shakopee Bypass Project. The contract specifications called for the project to begin by April 3, 1995 and to be completed by August 2, 1996. Ames is proposing to Mn/DOT and the City of Shakopee to work between the hours of 5:30 A.M. to 2:00 A.M., Monday through Saturday in order to complete the project this year. Attached also to the request is a letter from Mn/DOT in support of the variance application. The Shakopee Bypass Project (Segment 1) is from just west of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 to the Bypass interchange located by CSAH 18. Most of the initial grading work will occur between CSAH 17 and County Road (C.R.) 83. This area has residential developments adjacent to the roadway construction mainly to the north. The starting date for the project is anticipated by early April with construction activities lasting approximately 2 1/2 - 3 months in this area. The remainder of the project will be east of C.R. 83 with the majority of work around old C.R. 18. A map is attached to show the project limits within the City. The question with this variance request is whether a variance should be granted and if granted, under what conditions. The current ordinance hours of operation for weekdays allows for a 15 hour workday. This period would be two (7) hour shifts with a 1 hour refueling time. The Contractor is asking for a 5:30 A.M. - 2:00 A.M. time frame which is a 20 1/2 hour workday. In order to work a double shift as proposed by Ames, a variance of some kind is necessary. Two (8) hour shifts with 1 hour of refueling would be a 17 hour workday. The Council, per the City Code, may suspend the operation of Subparagraph D of Subdivision 3 in Section 10.60 for a specific purpose at a specific location and for a specific length of time by Council action and by giving public notice of the nature and limits of such suspension. The appeal of grantingthe variance is that the construction season would be one year versus two pP years. Another benefit is that the Chaska Interceptor would be completed earlier for connection purposes and would benefit areas such as the St. Francis Regional Medical facility. The Council has granted variances for construction activities such as the Minibypass Project and for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge Project. If a variance is granted, staff would recommend the following conditions: I'I 1. Approval is contingent upon minimizing noise exposure near residential areas. 2. If excessive residential complaints are received by the City, the variance can be revoked at the discretion of the City Council. 3. Blasting activities must be done from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. as per the blasting plan submitted to Mn/DOT. If Council grants a variance, a public notice is needed to meet the City Code requirement and a notice such as a news release would be placed in the Shakopee Valley News. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a variance with conditions as outlined in the staff memo for the entire length of project and to allow construction at times and on day as determined by Council. 2. Approve a variance with conditions as outlined in the staff memo for the area east of C.R. 83 to C.R. 18. 3. Deny the variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not have a specific recommendation as to the time extension since this is a Council policy decision. However, the Council has granted a variance in the hours of operation for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge and T.H. 169 and Minibypass Project from 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. in order for the Contractor to work double shifts. Ames Construction, Inc. will have a representative at the meeting to discuss specific details with Council. Staff would recommend conditions be added to any variance which would allow the City to revoke the variance if excessive complaints have been received as determined by Council. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to waive the noise prevention section of the City Code for Construction Activities (Section 10.60, Subd. 3D) to allow Ames Construction, Inc. to construct the Shakopee Bypass and to allow construction activities at times and on days as determined by Council and with conditions as outlined in the memo. ttNEsor Minnesota t1` -4 t Department of Transportation itt Metropolitan District �Ftir e Construction Resident Office OF TRP 7333 Bryant Lake Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 CITY 612-341-7427 Ffe24 1g95 tCE February 23, 1995 QE Mr. Bruce Loney Shakopee City Engineer 129 South Holmes Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: S.P. 7005-53 (Shakopee Bypass) Noise Ordinance Variance Request Dear Bruce: Enclosed is a letter from Ames Construction, Inc., the Prime Contractor of our State Project 7005-53 (the Shakopee Bypass), requesting a variance to Shakopee's Noise Ordinance. After reviewing this proposal, and exploring Mn/DOT's ability to staff this construction project with inspectors, I believe that the positive impacts outweigh the negative impacts of working these long hours. The idea of having only one construction season of dust on this project instead of two, along with an early completion of the project is appealing. I still think it would be wise if a variance is approved to have it contingent upon minimizing noise exposure near residential areas and excessive residential complaints. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Sincerely, /e—f Mark T. Panek, P.E. Project Engineer Enclosure cc: File MTP:ac An Equal Opportunity Employer if AMES CONSTRUCTION, INC. `Os 14420 COUNTY ROAD 5 J _ BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55306 ," (612) 435-7106 • FAX 435-7142 ACFebruary 21, 1995 II, Minnesota Department of Transportation Construction Office 7333 Bryant Lake Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Mark Panek, Project Engineer Subject: Noise Ordinance-Variance S. P. 7005-53 TH 101 in Shakopee in Scott County Dear Mr. Panek: Pursuant to our conversation at the Pre-Construction Conference regarding the above referenced subject, Ame's request for a variance to the Noise Ordinance was to be submitted to your office for processing. for a variance to the Cityof Shakopee's Ordinance is as follows: Our proposal p Our work schedule would consist of a double shift. This would encompass a window of time from 5:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. This equates to two nine hour work shifts with time to fuel and grease at the start and end of each shift. This would occur from Monday thru Saturday. 'll The area west of Cty Rd 16 would have a duration of approximately 2 1/2-3 months depending on the weather. This work will start upon approval from Scott County to detour Cty Rd 16. We anticipate this to be approximately mid to late March. 95% of the work in this area is between station 385 to 445 which is just east of the homes along the north edge of the project. The area near and-around old Cty Rd 18 ( east end of project ) would consist of a double shift duration of approximately 2 months also. An Equal Opportunity Employer OFFICES IN:DENVER, COLORADO • PHOENIX,ARIZONA • SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Mark, in summary Ames is requesting a variance in the City of Shakopee's noise ordinance for the construction of the above referenced project as proposed. This would consist of an overall project duration of approximately 5-6 months depending on the weather. Half of this time would be spent just west of Cty Rd 16 and the other half on the east end of the project. We feel the benifits of working a double shift greatly outweigh the impacts. By working a double shift, the major earthwork operations can be completed in one season in lieu of the planned two season operation. This will minimize exposure to dust problems as well. Ames will use lite plants during the nite shift and dust will be controlled as needed. Please review and forward to the City Engineer. If, upon review of this request any questions or concerns arise please call. We trust that the parties involved can work together on this issue. Respectfully, Butch Trebesch Ilk flri tl 1V:64!k-f ... tills ,,,,:„:5,„4„:„ it((��f��y. S ...,,,...„,....,..„..., ,.....,...,..„..4::, :,.,..,.„...„„.„, ( yiii , sem�+ f 1� I I �/ rAtea � st kf rte; 1 Ir9 h ::. • .tr'+1'r t4 � /l r ....., .„ .., . .., , ... ) , ,4A., 7-'',---:--- -`,...,..„,...._ ....,.., iiig fry , ii ik_ cm ,__ : . - ......_ ,:-....: --. i A„,„ , ,,-„...,,--,,, r' . II-r:•L,,,_ I 0 1 ,,,% ,Art y.a r=rr ilk:.',"-'-,-.',,', .,;.-• Nil lk$ -,,,-.i..f,-;,,..0, ,,,, ,„..,,,,...,\‘._-....,-- .......4 \ , ,ir_ -/:-.;:,,...f r,, \41„.„.-kk:n .'Et("=";'72; '12-. e-t /A\T �`'ZSM l3.Q) MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator ,p FROM: Bruce A. Loney, Public Works Director ea SUBJECT: Authorization of Engineering Personnel DATE: March 7, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Staff is requesting City Council authorization to advertise for an Engineering Technician II and temporary engineering interns. BACKGROUND: The 1995 City Budget included four engineering technicians in the Engineering Division Budget. Currently there are three engineering technicians on staff. One technician, Jeff Swenson, left the City in September, 1994. This position has not been filled and the amount budgeted in 1995 is $40,898 including benefits. The 1995 Pay Plan indicates that the starting salary (Step I) for a Engineering Tech. II is $24,539. With benefits the cost of the Engineering Tech. II is $29,446 annually. According to current City job descriptions the minimum qualifications of an Engineering Tech. II are a 2-year technical or vocational school degree in civil engineering, with two years or less experience. In addition to the Engineering Tech. II position, staff would like to request authorization for two li temporary engineering interns. Interns from the University of Minnesota are available for six month time periods during either the spring-summer months or summer-fall months. Per the 1995 Pay Plan engineering interns would be paid at an hourly rate of$7.30/hour. As mentioned previously, the Engineering Tech. II position was budgeted at an amount of $40,898 including benefits. The earliest an Engineering Tech. II could start employment with the City would be May 1, 1995. At a Step 1 pay of $29,446 annually including benefits, the prorated amount for eight months (May 1 - December 31, 1995) would be $19,631. Two engineering interns at $7.30/hour for six months plus five hours a week overtime would be $14,016 regular pay and $2,628 overtime pay for a total amount of$16,644. The total amount for the Engineering Tech. II and engineering interns is $36,275. 1 JUSTIFICATION: The Engineering Tech. II position was authorized in April, 1993 by Council. li The 1995 public improvement and private development projects that anticipate being built this year are shown as Attachment No. 1 to this memo. This document shows the estimated project cost, design engineering amount and construction inspection amount for both the public and private projects. For public projects, 10% of the project cost is typically used for designing projects. The City utilizes consultants to perform the surveying and soil investigation work, and this work is done for approximately 2% of the project costs. Thus the City recoups 8% of the project cost for designing a public project. Construction inspection is calculated at 4 1/2% of the project cost. For private developments, the City charges 7 1/2% for engineering services such as administrative, plan review and inspection. A summary of Attachment No. 1 shows the following: Engr. Const. Proj. Cost Design Fee Inspection Public Projects $4,858,000 $137,600 $218,610 Private Projects $ 745,000 $ -0- $ 55,875 The public and private project cost total is $5,603,000 with public design engineering revenues at $137,600, public construction inspection revenues at $218,610 and private development engineering fees at $55,875. The total engineering services from public and private projects amount to $412,085. The 1995 City Budget for engineering wages plus overtime is $237,730 and with benefits the total amount for engineering staff is $306,800. Staff understands that the State may cut local aid to the Cities and this would have an impact to Shakopee. However, the Engineering workload is such that even with additional personnel, consultant engineering assistance may be necessary in order to complete the 1995 projects. If Council does not desire to fill a full time position at this time, staff would ask that seasonal employees be authorized to complement the engineering staff in completing the design and construction of 1995 projects. II! A seasonal inspector would be paid $12.70/hour per the 1995 Pay Plan and for six months with some overtime would amount to $14,500. Combined with the two interns mentioned previously 2 at an amount of$16,644 and seasonal inspectorthis alternative total would amount at $14,500, to $31,144. This total of$31,144 compares to the full time Engineering Tech. II and two interns total of$36,275. 'll In summary, staff believes the hiring of a full time Engineering Tech. II to replace the position authorized in 1993 is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The Engineering workload for 1995 and past years has financially supported the position. IIII 2. The City Shakopee Shako ee is in a growth mode and a full time employee is needed now and in the future. 3. A full time employee can be trained for construction inspection and design of projects thereby lessening the need to utilize consultants. Seasonal employees can only be used for construction inspection. ALTERNATIVES: III 1. Authorize staff to advertise and hire an Engineering Tech. II and authorize staff to hire two additional engineering interns for 1995. 2. Authorize staff to hire one seasonal inspector and two engineering interns for 1995. III, 3. Utilize the City's consultants to provide additional inspectors. Cost for a consultant inspector is $60.21/hour. 4. Table this item for further information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 as the position was budgeted for 1995 and in previous years and the 1995 project workload justifies additional hiring as mentioned in the memo. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City staff to advertise and hire an Engineering Technician II and two engineering interns. BAL/pmp PERSONNEL 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PUBLIC PROJECTS CITY.. CITY 1995 ESTIMATED DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PROJECT ENGR. REVENUE ENGR. REVENUE DESCRIPTIONS COST. 8% 41/2% 1. Downtown Alleys Redesign $771,000 $3,600 $34,695 2. Fuller Street $500,000 $40,000 $22,500 3. St. Francis Sewer Extension $161,000 $12,880 $7,245 4. P &V Reconstruction $488,000 $39,040 $21,960 5. Alley in Block 51 $6,000 $480 $270 6. Sarazin/Roundhouse St. $1,017,000 $0 $45,765 7. Vierling Dr.(C.R. 79- 77) $520,000 $41,600 $23,400 8. C.R. 16 Utilities $1,095,000 $0 $49,275 9. River District Trunk Sewer $300,000 $0 $13,500 TOTAL $4,858,000 $137,600 $218,610 PRIVATE PROJECTS CITY CITY 1995 ESTIMATED DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PROJECT ENGR. REVENUE ENGR. REVENUE DESCRIPTIONS COST 10% 71/2% 1. Development $150,000 $0 $11,250 2. Hauer's 5th Addition $75,000 $0 $5,625 3. St. Francis Regional Medical Ctr. $270,000 $0 $20,250 4. Orleans Addition $150,000 $0 $11,250 5. Homestead Ridge 2nd Addtn. $100,000 $0 $7,500 TOTAL $745,000 $0 $55,875 CO v n n � n <al m 70 n T.D ]mo 70 70 -4 C a m 330 ca y y Z 73 ?o 73 mm 0 Z Z 0 1 n V < i 1 a I m 7I n m m M Oc co =i * x m m z X 71 O Z m -< m m m m z Z m Z cn Co Z U) Co C O m 0 co am 0 m (c) O a co to to al 0 ''. N Nv tV C O 03 m is is amm z p W p ? A m r a T N 0 0) N j m N a13 A A C7I CTr -13 11 0) 1 Co _ "0- xi ra W j c m m m W A A co O n 33m v 13 0. 0) a) 0 1 OD w 0, 0, m > Z W r 0 C C) _ O CD tri 0) e c 0 ODmco 0 v r m CO z m I, co w tai. m C? Nco 0 LI of z 00D I co co co coM 8 °' 0 43 o m -IC tan tan to 8 9 0 z D a 43 _ � N al al M 0 04co -I Pi o II Z v 7o z z -1 0 mo m , om o . 3. � a 3 a 2 n a m o 0 -1 0 0 a, a 0 0 w 0 a c' ' co m o m m Cl) 0) m < Z ca CD r m c N a. to 1 mP g � c ° � q 1— — 0 • = r § o • j k 33 a. E 3311 > ) co 0 33 � ? E -1 m m § 0 2m ¢ 2 4 E3z 0 0 m o c 1 § § z « « « E m m m § B _. B ° 9 m ® IV & § E j k a id k 33 § 0 > 71 § § § § f mCO f 8 A § [ 0 _ 1 § � § g § ) KB § i � c M 2k § k § § @AA � k - XJv a § § § 2 0 -13 / a % % m ; : ;§ ) E cn cn o % k ■ co4. 2 63 0o § UI a § % § co - m 73 8 2 § / 2 - i ) ( 01 oi § 0 z Q oz . . ; } } 2 } ) 1- c § § § § j -. z CP z k2 f �� S ■ - c ° § ( c . CONSENT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City ty Administrator FROM: David M. Nummer, Staff Engineer PAY"' ' SUBJECT: Street Light at County Road 79 and County Road 78 DATE: March 7, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Attached is an agreement which was prepared by Scott County addressing the City's participation in the installation and operation of a street light at the intersection of County Road (C.R.) 79 and C.R. 78. The County has requested that the City execute the agreement so the street light installation can proceed. BACKGROUND: The Participation Agreement from the County states that the County will install the street light at their cost and in return the City will accept responsibility for operation and maintenance. This arrangement has been followed in the past and is in compliance with the Scott County Cost Participation Agreement. The Legal Department has reviewed the agreement and has approved it as to form and content. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement for participation in the installation and operation of a street light at the intersection of C.R. 79 and C.R. 78. 2. Do not execute the agreement. 3. Table for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement for participation in the installation and operation of a street light at the intersection of County Road 79 and County Road 78. DMN/pmp Aum Agreement No. 9501 CR 78@ CR 79 City of Shakopee County of Scott AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A STREET LIGHT THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the County of Scott, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Shakopee, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, It is considered mutually desirable to install a street light at the intersection of County Road 78 and County Road 79 within the City; and WHEREAS, The City has expressed its willingness to participate in the operating cost of said street light; and WHEREAS, Said work shall be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of M.S. Sec. 162.17. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: The County shall install, or cause the installation of a street light at the intersection of County Road 78 and County Road 79. Such installation, as described immediately above, shall be hereinafter referred to as the "project." 1 Agreement No. 9501 • The City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work within the City shall be issued to the Contractor or the County at no cost to the Contractor or the County. Electrical inspection fees shall be not more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. Ill The City shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of the street light to be installed under the project, all at the sole cost and expense of the City. IV Upon completion of the work, the City shall maintain the street light including, but not limited to photoelectrical controls, relamping, glassware, and cleaning of the glassware thereof at the sole cost and expense of the City. V The construction of this project shall be under the supervision and direction of the County. However, the City Engineer shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but shall have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. VI Neither the County, its officers, agents or employees, either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to the City for any claim, demand, action or cause of action of any kind or character arising our of, allegedly arising out of or by reason of the performance, negligent performance or nonperformance of the hereinbefore described maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement work by the City, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by the City for the performance of said work; and the City agrees to defend, 2 . Agreement No. 9501 save and keep said County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of negligent performance by the City, its officers, agents or employees. VII It is further agreed that neither the City, its officers, agents or employees, either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to the County for any claim, demand, action or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of, allegedly arising out of or by reason of the performance, negligent performance or nonperformance of the hereinbefore described maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement work by the County, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by the County for the performance of said work; and the County agrees to defend, save and keep said City, its officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of negligent performance by the County, its officers, agents or employees. VIII It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to any other person whomsoever for any claims, damages, actions, or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of, allegedly arising out of or by reason of the performance, negligent performance of nonperformance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided herein; and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein. 3 - Agreement No. 9501 IX It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees, agents or independent contractors of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said City employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employees while so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole responsibility of the City shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees, agents or independent contractors of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said County employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said County employees while so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole responsibility of the County and shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. VII The provisions of M.S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to Civil Rights and discrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of Scott County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. 4 Agreement No. 9501 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHAKOPEE (SEAL) By And Mayor City Administrator Date Date COUNTY OF SCOTT ATTEST: By By County Administrator Chairman of Its County Board Date Date Upon proper execution, this agreement RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL: will be legally valid and binding. By By County Attorney County Highway Engineer Date Date APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: By County Attorney Date K-NP60\AGRNT\SIGNAL\782.IGHT Ali 2/6/95 5 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce A. Loney, Public Works Director ea SUBJECT: Authorize Consultant Contract for River District Trunk Sewer Feasibility Report Assistance DATE: March 7, 1995 INTRODUCTION: City Council authorized staff to prepare a feasibility report for the River District Trunk Sewer on December 6, 1994. I!i BACKGROUND: III Staff has been working on the feasibility report since February 6, 1995 to identify the appropriate methods of rehabilitation to correct the infiltration and inflow (I/I) problem experienced in the flood of 1993. The Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services (MCWS) has made this study a high priority in the redesign of L.S. No. 16. Attached to this memo is a letter from MCWS requesting a denial of a permit from Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on the Sarazin Street Project. This permit will not be issued until the feasibility report for the River District Trunk Sewer is completed and accepted by MCWS. Staff has begun the necessary field work and data investigation needed to identify the I/I sources that produced the heavy flow in 1993. In order to properly analyze the I/I problems experienced in 1993 and to identify the proper rehabilitation actions, staff feels a hydraulic model should be performed by Short Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH). Attached to this memo is a scope of work and associated cost by SEH to prepare the hydraulic model at a cost not-to-exceed $3,500.00. SEH is the consultant that prepared the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan, River District I/I Study and is knowledgeable of Rahr Malting. The model will incorporate the data produced by staff from the field investigation of the trunk line and information from discharge records to recreate the 1993 flow occurrence which resulted in a discharge to the Minnesota River. It is anticipated that this model will produce conclusions to where the I/I problems are and at what amounts of flow. From the model conclusions, rehabilitation options to correct the I/I problem will be developed. The MCWS has made this feasibility study a top priority. Staff has been in contact with MCWS staff, and their engineering staff is in agreement that a hydraulic model would be useful in identifying the problems to the MCWS. In summary, staff feels the assistance of a consultant is needed to complete the feasibility report. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a consultant contract with SEH to assist staff in the preparation of the feasibility report for the River District Trunk Sewer Improvement in an amount not-to-exceed $3,500.00. 2. Do not approve a consultant contract. 3. Table the item for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 as this work is needed in order to complete the feasibility report and would expedite the completion of the report. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a consultant contract with Short- Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. to assist staff in the preparation of the feasibility report for the River District Trunk Sewer Improvement in an amount not-to-exceed $$3,500.00. Ili BAL/pmp RIVER • Metropolitan Council Working for the Region,Planning for the Future - Wastewater Services February 23, 1995 C/7), OP Mr. Bruce Loney 0 Sittet- City Engineer Fte 2 City of Shakopee T I 129 South Holmes Street • IC- 99� Shakopee,MN 55379 / ke RE: Project No. 1994-10 SAP 166-111-05 . Dear Mr. Loney: The Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services has reviewed your application for a sanitary sewer extension for Project No. 1994-10. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan(CSP)for your City indicates this project will convey wastewater flow to our Metropolitan Lift Station Facility No. 16. • High rates of infiltration and inflow(1/1) experienced during the summer of 1993 caused the capacity of L.S.No. 16 to be exceeded resulting in wastewater bypasses to the Minnesota River. In order for improvements to L. S.No. 16 to be made to increase capacity to allow additional flow, the City will need to submit a sewer plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council showing existing and future capacity needs. This sewer plan amendment should include a program for the reduction of I/1 to eliminate the potential for future wastewater bypasses to the Minnesota River. We will,therefore, request the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency not to issue a permit for& sanitary sewer extension for City Project 1994-10 at this time. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to call Mr. Edward Bloom of our staff at telephone number 229-2117. Very truly yours, Donald S. Bluhm Manager,Municipal Services DSB/EJB/bw • 1994-10 cc: Donald K. Perwien,MPCA Bret A. Weiss, OSM Marcel Jouseau, Metropolitan Council. - 155101-1634 - (612) 222-8423 Fax 229-2183 TDD/TTY 2.29-3760 MAR-03-1995 09 28 FROM SEH-MPLS TO Shakopee P.02 II : sal $909 BAKER ROAD.SUITE 590,MINNETQNIc4,MN 55345 Sit 9314601 FAX 612 S31-1 lee ARCHITECT.II E • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION March 2, 1995 RE: Shakopee,Minnesota River District Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Feasibility Study Bruce Loney City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Bruce: We are pleased to submit this proposal to assist you in the preparation of the River District Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Feasibility Study. You have requested that we assist you with some of the more technical aspects of the study due to our background with the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan the i/I Study on the River District Trunk Sewer. It may be appropriate to document some background information for you at this time.The I/1 Study on the River District Trunk Sewer(based on measurements in 1992)concluded that it was not cost-effective to remove the sources of 1/I.This is because the I/1 generally occurs when the river is high,once in the spring and once in the fall. It is cheaper to pay the increased sewer bill than to remove the III. The Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services staff brought to the City's attention in early 1994 the extent of the flows measured in 1993.Measurements indicated that the I/I in the River District Trunk Sewer during the major flood of 1993 was much greater than ever previously measured.We updated the I/1 Study based on estimates of periodic I/1 as measured in 1993 and still concluded that it was not cost-effective to remove I/I based on the comparative cost to treat the flow. However, the MPCA's comments to Metro indicated that Metro's design for reconstruction of their lift station L-16 would need to accommodate a much higher flow rate than the 3700 gallons per minute previously agreed to between the City and Metro. The decision Metro faced was whether to build a lift station to accommodate this periodic occurrence(once every 10 years on average)to obtain an MPGA permit for their lift station, or remove the I/I from the River District Trunk Sewer.Cost estimates indicated that it was more cost-eve to remove the 1/I than increase the size of lift station L-16.It can be argued whose responsibility it should be to remove the I/1 from the River District Trunk Sewer. However,in the interest of expediting approval of the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan (and ultimately MUSA expansions and sewer extension permits),the City chose to include rehabilitation of the River District Trunk Sewer in the implementation plan of the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. We understand the intent of the feasibility study is to optimize rehabilitation of the River District Trunk Sewer to only do what is clearly necessary to reduce the I/I to an acceptable level. To assist you in SHORT BLUOTT HENDRCKSQN INC. Sr PAUL,MN ST CLOUD,MN CHIPPEWA FALLS,WI MADISON.WI MAR-03-1995 09:29 FROM SEH-MPLS TO Shakopee P.03 Bruce Looney March 2, 1995 , Page 2 accomplishing this task,I provided you with a"River District Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Feasibility Study —Possible Scope Outline"(copy attached).You have since determined it appropriate to have SEH assist 1 you in this feasibility study in order to complete the feasibility study in a timely manner. Based on our discussion this morning,I understand that City staff will be completing the tasks under the portion of the outline identified as"Investigation."You have asked that SEH handle Tasks 3–12 under the "Analysis" portion of the outline. We also anticipate that there may be some assistance necessary in accomplishing Task 2 under the Analysis section. While we are completing our work under the Analysis section,City staff will be preparing cost estimates for various rehabilitation options.Cost estimates for many of the more comprehensive rehabilitation options are already available in the VI Study.We will assist in evaluating the options identified in the outline. It is our understanding that City staff will prepare the feasibility study with SEH providing only technical support. Based on review of the effort needed for each of our individual tasks, we estimate that our fee would be $3,000.This includes the staff assigned to the project at their standard hourly rates and related expenses. We agree that our fee will not exceed$3,500, unless adjustments to our work tasks are made and a new fee mutually agreed to. We will proceed with the analysis upon receipt of your authorization to proceed.We anticipate completing our portion of the work within approximately a two-week period from receipt of all the information necessary. III We appreciate the opportunity to provide the City of Shakopee with our proposal for this project and will be available at your convenience to answer any questions you may have considering this submittal. Sincerely, Daniel R. Boxruc0- ?-6976") , ymb MAR-03-1995 09:29 FROM SEH-MPLS TO Shakopee P.04 River District Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Feasibility Study Possible Scope Outline Investigation 1. The purpose of the investigative portion of the study would be to identify what different In sources were contributing in the 1993 floods. 2. Meet with Scott Dentz of Metro to determine more specifically when the flows peaked at 4000 gallons per minute at L-16. 3. Obtain water sales records for the properties served by L-16 to better determine what the domestic flow was during the peak flow of 4000 gpm. 4. Obtain Rahr's discharge records for the peak flow period. 5. Obtain information on the sanitary sewer service to Dangerfield's restaurant (diameter, length, configuration). 6. Visuallyinspectall manholes and castings subject to flooding. 7. Talk to Bob Ratz at Solidification Inc.He was in charge of televising both in 1977 and 1992 and may have more information available than identified in the television log or report. 8. Determine if any basements(other than Dangerfield's)are subject to flooding during major floods,or whether any basements might be impacted by a moderate amount of sanitary sewer surcharging(on the order of four to six feet). 9. "Complete an inspection of each property within the River District to determine compliance with ordinances on sump pump,roof leaders,and foundation drains,since reduction of VI originating on private property is usually the most cost-effective VI to remove."-Recommendation No.2 from 1/I Study. 10. Determine the amount of right-of-way available along the River District Trunk Sewer. 11. Have soil borings performed to get a sampling of the soil conditions along various reaches of the sanitary sewer. MAR-03-1995 09:30 FROM SEH-MPLS TO Shakopee P.05 ' 12. Try to detennine if the existing concrete pipe is reinforced or not. Analysis 1. This section attempts to arrive at a hydraulic model for what occurred during the 1993 flood. 2. Detennine the amount of 11 by subtracting water sales and Rahr'discharge from the total flowum P Ped out of L-16. 3. Calculate expected inflow through Dangerfield's sewer service. 4. Calculate expected inflow through manhole or manhole cover openings identified during the investigative phase. 5. Calculate the expected infiltration through leaks identified during televising of the sewer in 1992. 6. Calculate possible infiltration through leaks which were only identified as dripping during the 1992 televising. 7. Calculate expected inflow from other sources discovered during property inspections. 8. Create and balance a hydraulic model which takes into account all sources of flow. 9. Review the balanced hydraulic model against allowable surcharge conditions. 10. Predict the hydraulic model after WI removal from the identified sources. Often certain sources may input less flow to the system under surcharge conditions due to the pipe being full from other sources. After 1/1 removal of the other sources,remaining sources might input more flow thereby impacting the total flow in the pipe such that the flow will be greater after UI removal than would be expected. 11. Determine if the flow rate within the River District Trunk Sewer can be brought below 3700 gallons per minute with the identified 1/I removed. 12. Determine if the flow in the River District Trunk Sewer will be below 3700 gallons per minute when the domestic flow reaches its ultimate as identified in the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. • r■i MAR-03-1995 09:30 FROM SEH-MPLS TO Shakopee P.06 • Options 1. The purpose of this section is to optimize the rehabilitation project to appropriately reduce the flow at the least cost. 2. Consider a 10-year or 20-year(ultimate)planning horizon. 3. Consider replacement of the pipe where increased capacity is necessary. 4. Look at the possibility of parallel pipes where possible to minimize bypass pumping. 5. Consider"pipe bursting"if the concrete pipe is not reinforced and if the cost of replacement would otherwise be quite high. 6. Consider slip lining where surcharging can be tolerated. 7. Consider chemical sealing due to its low cost where pipe condition is generally good. 8. Consider constructing a valve on the Dangerfeld's sewer service connection for possible closure during major floods. Recommendations 1. Plan for a 10-year or 20-year service period or a combination thereof as appropriate. 2. Determine the cost of the recommended improvement alternative. TOTAL P.06 TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Firefighters Accident Insurance Policy DATE: February 23, 1995 Introduction The firefighters accident policy is up for renewal. Background The feasibility of alternative coverage to compare to the current firefighters accident policy has been reviewed with the Capesius Agency in 1992. This is specialty coverage offered by just a couple of companies. Coverage is written based on the number of pieces of fire equipment and not the individual fire fighters. This means that whoever joins the fire department is covered no matter how many people there are. However, the cost goes up as the fleet size goes up. The alternative of acquiring a plain accidental death and dismemberment policy would have to be part of acquiring a life insurance policy. A disability policy would also have to be acquired to be comparable. Under this alternative, the policy would be written on the individuals covered and the administrative work would be multiplied due to the health history requirement for each covered person. Further more, the city would have to deal with the issue of what happens when the insurance company rejects coverage for an individual due to the health history. The City then has a potential problem for employee benefits liability. The three year premium for the last policy was $2,700. The premium for a renewal policy would be about $1,885 for three years. Alternatives 1. Let policy lapse. 2. Apply for new policy from Hartford which is the current carrier. Recommendation At an annualized premium of about $628 per year, the administrative effort of converting to a "plain" group AD&D policy seems an unnecessary burden. The recommendation is to either let the policy lapse or apply for a renew policy from the current company. When last reviewed in 1992, Council decided to keep the policy in force although some of the converage is on top of or duplicates workers compensation coverage. Action Move to renew the volunteer fighters accident insurance policy with ITT Hartford at an estimated premium of $1,885. 131 CONSENT Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1994 and 1995 based on data entered as of 2/28/95 . Included in the bill list is payment to Scott County Transportation Coalition the amount of $5, 000 . 00 Not included in the attached bill list but included in the total amount of bills shown on the agenda are the below listed subsistence reimbursements for employees. The employee (s) were away from their normal work site for a business purpose but the meal itself was not a "business purpose meal" or there was no receipt and therefore needs to be paid through payroll as taxable income. Tom Steininger $8 . 00 John Flynn $8 . 00 - - CITY OF SHAKOPEE - - EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT - 12/31/94 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL - DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 67,420 8,017 51,895 77 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 194,060 29,735 196,475 101 13 CITY CLERK 116,690 10,770 111,375 95 15 FINANCE 278,660 20,091 262,092 94 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 185,970 18,304 157,793 85 17 PLANNING 408,130 41,978 377,538 93 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 115,790 15,853 119,269 103 31 POLICE 1,389,520 156,670 1,348,382 97 32 FIRE 865,310 38,877 847,335 98 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 187,120 19,693 172,777 92 41 ENGINEERING 355,480 36,773 297,859 84 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 586,820 57,102 476,020 81 44 SHOP 185,050 18,163 188,155 102 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 307,270 24,855 298,272 97 - 61 POOL 150,300 4,644 147,854 98 64 RECREATION 209,380 17,056 191,520 91 , 91 UNALLOCATED 316,264 248,085 271,804 86 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,919,234 766,666 5,516,415 93 00 N/A 0 137 137 0 TOTAL FORFEITURE FD 0 137 137 0 17 PLANNING 360,860 55,461 347,306 96 , TOTAL TRANSIT 360,860 55,461 347,306 96 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR - 165,693 14,015 - 150,102 - 91 - - TOTAL HRA 165,693 14,015 150,102 91 00 N/A 2,135,700 0 747,302 35 TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIP REVOLVING FUND 2,135,700• 0 747,302 - - 35 , 1 I CITY OF SHAKOPEE ' -EXPENSES BY-DEPARTMENT - - - 02/28/95 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 69,450 10,757 13,411 19 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 219,200 11,137 22,263 10 13 CITY CLERK 121,170 7,826 15,103 12 15 FINANCE 302,310 27,057 39,323 13 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 212,090 14,347 26,767 13 17 PLANNING 464,430 25,418 42,780 9 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 148,120 7,958 16,066 11 31 POLICE 1,490,650 104,780 235,486 16 32 FIRE 410,240 5,467 16,174 4 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 197,780 12,854 23,836 12 41 ENGINEERING 357,100 17,407 33,302 9 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 759,180 40,846 74,334 10 1 44 SHOP 112,120 8,501 15,467 14 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 292,420 19,054 36,583 13 61 POOL 136,580 0 2,972 2 64 RECREATION 239,580 15,396 30,151 13 91 UNALLOCATED 136,000 1,942 1,515 1 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,668,420 330,747 645,533 11 17 PLANNING 467,160 22,542 35,172 8 TOTAL TRANSIT 467,160 22,542 35,172 - 8 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 119,080 2,619 4,603 4 TOTAL HRA 119,080 2,619 4,603 4 • a a a '� H H H H - H H H H H H H H H P. m 171 R _ a O a U H If1 0) H 0 N 1 0 01 M M er N H N M t MN H N N N 1n 111 to 00 N N 1[) 01 H 0 N N M M M o O O CO 0 N N O 0 N N N H 0 0 N N N N O O N H 0 0 d'0 N 0 1-1 m N H N N CO H CO HH N N 0 0 0 0 N w r1 •-•1H N H m H H H H to 0 N N N N N M m .tiN I I I I I I I I IN I eI' eI M N O N t0 N N N 0 N I I I I I U 01 N H ri H 'di H H HN HH N Nr 'ell H 0 04 0 0 O O 01 CI1 0 001 0 H 01 0 O O H 0) 0 01 14 H rti 153 p 14 CC.) 7. Ai a P >NI H H H o m a y, a a El H a N as a N14 14 14 paq C4 to A H • go g X t�� C) H 0 a H U ZO z x a 14 X H A ° H 0 0 x A a Cl) co w 0 U m m 0 01 Cl)a) p7 H .U„ ate" co N h�i a 14 Cl) CO Z w 04 1:14 0 0 a H H 0 •O t0 0 H rn Oa ap W 0 CciU 0 w N N a a a A 14 14 g O134 O Cl)01 i 0 0 H H a U 0 co H H W Ca H 14 U U co a U M ,� W C4C.) 14 a H to o `� 55 w a 0 o o U 0u U O 0 co A W 0 W Z H A co O O w h U a a co — u Vi H H H H H 0 lkiz� g-g ,� U° u A ta a a U Z a • a, P� as ao o Cl CO Z 14 ON a Cl) A A 0 0 ) ri - * * - 41 * it * * « _ Hr-1Is N- 01 •44 M N t` O O -N t` 0 O e-1 r-1 01 01 O *O O 0 r') ) 0 N •N 01 01 •y' 10 ri O O O O 10 1.0 O O el, etI r I H O O tO t0 40 tO 0 kP • t` • . • • • • • • • • • • 0 tD O M M i-1ri M co 0t7 O O to M O O er e14 to to N N tic! Oo h t� !n to 1n In N NON ri ri 1n to ri 1-1 In M M In to in '.. 'd 01 11f . 1 H le In 01 01 .4, V' N N t? t? eN e' N N H H 01 01 (I) VI. r. 00 m 'u mt. TV N H M r-1 ri tI) t? t? . •. (f) 1/1. 4/1- t? - C1 CO. X. H H N H H t11 10 N (I 1 i? t? (l t? 4 f t? VI. i/f t? w C4 6H co Dd gyY m - m -M - m m - - - m H � -� _ N N N N N mN N N 0 0 0 H a A IN O N N N \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ O O N N N O p -N - M \ \ O O O O C) 1- N 01 01 0) 001 0 0 in in a) U1 01 \ \ in in \ rCT1i to � \ 0) 01 01 01 00) 001 01 CT 01 01 01 01 01 01 00 00% Tq U H 4-1 H H H 1-1 H Hr i e 1 r1 ri ri A 7 t0 _ 1` CO 01 O H _ N 01 kr 03 kr 01 0 V 14 O O p _0 - N N u1 O 1n to In b 'Cpz U CO - CO co O O O O -O O O O O 0 H- O O �. '._ O CO - CO VI- Op O_ CO U _ - - 0 - O.-_ -0 - O -- 0 --0- 0 - -0 - O - _ O 0 aa ' a a s a a a a s a - a H P4 H H q', H H H H H H H H H H N m 01 - QSa 1 O °0 a r M t0 O d1 0 • U t0 r O CO C1 r♦ N O V' N in 0 'V in I[1 LT LT CO u1 u1 N Q ,:ti dr •111 Tr di to `0' •41' N N M N N N N N N N N N N N o N N N N N N N N N N N O O O H O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O •ri M O O M O O O O ri dkot •-i 1-i dr Ni 'd.1 '.{ M M t.-11.0 LD `,3' M N N EI M N N cn =rj], ▪ eet, eit,I %I, CT id, d' •:11 ds itsTr141 TrNrTr1 1 I 1 o rl CO ri N ri r♦ N M ri e-I N rl r-1 r♦ C.I r-i N CO V, N r- ri r-1 ri LO ri 'd' el, C4 10 ri r- nr ri M M Ty ri M 14 O O Tr ri lupi O O O O O O C1 01 O O O O ii U H co H to 14 N co > k7 z 7a o H CO M 'C4 a H g 14 z a as ca N w N a aa4 El Ug a 0 CU H H H N N a x 0 0 H H co El O 14 to U7, 'Ola H O A'i a' a CO a s H x v,g C4g IX p a a aW 0 H H a o 0 0 H a on w o H 0 a 144a 0 0 U U U g HEA r D U U co " "' a M �' as co 111 O l, s x u 4. a H H p e4 Cp Fas a H x z x —g O i g g E-4 wo H ° ° H ...1a a s 14 to 4 3o as a a in 0 co EA 14 14 3 rt _ o ri ri o 0 0 0 o rn rn o o In In o 0 o ri ri ao aoN 0O oO O ri ri . O NN 000 00 01 01 00 r-1 O N 00 C1 01 N O O Id O LT CO CO LT 111 O L11 Ill eN d, di dI de ri III O O ri rl In C� O O M M N / {fl ON No L` N O N N N N N N r1 M 1 4 in 01 N N Ill Ill CO CO t0 t0 M CO O O V! ;AN ri M M Vf V1• Ln Ill O N O in. Vt• V! Vf if V3• Vf Vf � � � VY . .. V} . .. VT VU VI. VI. . ri ri CO CO ri 3 v 4,11. ill. 4/1. VI- - 14x a U _ w 14 ri e-1 ri ri r-1 ri r-I ri 1-1 r1 r-1 r-I r-I 1'1 H Ea O O O O O O O O O O O o O 0 A \ M M M t+1 M - M m M M M M M M M o a O - O O O O O O O O o O O O 14 V Ill In to in in u1 Ill to Ill to In to Ill In O 14 01 1 01 01 01 CI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 E14 .h'. 01 0 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 t-I 6 U - ,-1l H r-I r1 r-1 ri - 1-Il rl r1 r-I ri ri _ rl _ U M �r In CO01 H x rl N M eN O H r r- r- tp tD - 10 10 h L'� 10 - b O p a co _ --coCOO - z V COO c _ co co 03 03 co co co O- O O O - - _ U -• 0 , a a a a a a a a a a s Cu a a s a s a a a s i4 HHHH H H H H H H H H HHHHHHHH M - In C» 1 - 10 a 0 CU DI co O H CO H 111 tel 41 lel W N h CO m at O h H H H H H H H H O 111 U1 U1 U1 U1 N U1 U1 {f1 lf1 W t0 10 t0 10 10 tel t0 t0 t0 Cl N N N. N U1 N N N N N N NNNNNNCIN N N N N N O N N N N N ell NCVNNNNNN H 0 0 0 0 0 eM O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4k H H H H M O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNN M H H H 01 M M H NN H N M N H H M M M M 11 N N N M M M N M M M M M M N N el, sN NN V eN e' V N e' 'et, V, ell et, V, eN eN eN sp eM dl IIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I O H H H H H N M O H H N H N H N H H H H H U 01 ver H N H H CO e11 h h H H H M h N H H H t0 Uw H 10 M M el' t0 H CO H H M M t0 H H TN M M H i 0000 O t0 O m O O 0 O 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I1'. hl Cl)VI 01 a a u 0 co H 0 rzl co 01 co Z H H I 0 Z Z H a4 Z H H o Ia A >1 0 Cll hl a W Dl s. A H a a sC x H H a w H a s 14 al 04 Pi 0 tt) Ca Pi Crl PI Ri H U) Cl) W \ V1 VI co . Cl) W co g CD DI N ZZZZZZ Z 0 z � Cl) 0 H U) ZZ Dl 0 0 0 0H H ril H cel p7 VI al W H H A xxxx El H 0 as a H 00cl) 00 ° HH NI D4 01 01 Aa a a a Dl Dl FFW> g H > H I aa ° oa D ° OaIn01clD 0 a a OOIOPKw H H H H A 0 0 U U H H 0 a ay a a H a O O 0 H H H H H C3 H H a Cl) >+ >+ 5•+ 141+ 5i 14 W H H H H HH H 0 • A a a gDDI14P30FlDlNI1 0 Dl H 0 0 a a a a a a a a a fel Z M { rn H 1-4I CO 6l D >4 0 \ \ -. \ \ \ \ to O 'Zi Z 0 E. W W COrzl 0 0 z 0000 a al ZZZZ Z / / R: H 0 H H Z H 56 5C 5C 5C 5C 5C 5C X °z a x as z � y � � � y � y 4-14-14-10 0 0 "a 04 1 � aH 07000' 0' 000' 00 ' c7 ° c7 c7 c7 In 4-11-11-10H a a H 00 Z GlDDlDl DIwk] w m Cel DI CO 01 H 0 0 W d4 54 v4 W Dl Dl a a a a Dl Dl at 0000 U U 0 A W W CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H - 10 10 0 CO CO 0 0 41 1.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 N N M N 0 M 0 H 01 O O h h M M O O O H H 0 0 m 01 O 41 U1 0 0 sM sr N M H 41 O CO 1.0 U1 H II♦ 0 O O t0 M dr 0 001 01 t0 10 M M In dl 01 01 01 11 11 4/1- O N ' ' •4/1t0 H O • 1 H H h H44 444 •414t0 t0 N N N N N VT h Vt Vt h h H tet Vt Aft VD i/! M Vt Vt W. W. H Vt Vt VD. Vt Vt W. eM eN Vt Vt H H VT 4/1- 'CI t'd in- VI- VD - in. Vt d 54 Z 0 W X C4 0 Dl - - Cl)Hal H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DI A M-M M M - M M M M M M M fh M m M M M M M m a 0 0 0 0 o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 � � � � � � 54 U U) U1 U1 In U1 In U1 41 41 111 41 41 41 U1 41 ut 41 1/1 41 U1 O Cl at m m 01 m at m at at at ON at at m at at 01 m m m xx m 01 m m - m m m 01 co m 01 01. 0► m m m m m 01 m U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H-H H H 0 0 a Z 40 h O m O -H N - M - - - eN - H h- N h - h O CO CO CO O O I>4 0 0 0 - 0 0 o O o_ o E4 O co ao ao CO CO o0 CO co m D D0 eel4,4 - - 14, 11, -dl eN - vidl_ eN U x U o - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I - • I. a a a a s a 04 a a a a a a a H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ` 7 Cl DI -- W a i O a N CQ M U 0 H 01 00 01 N m V' to t0 N 00 eL' 01 0 I.1 O O U1 In to to t0 b tO t0 t0 M t0 N N co 01 N N N N N N N N N N N V' N N N N N N N N N N N N H 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in O O O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 4k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H O O O O O H V' H 1.11 LC) H H V' In 01 2-1 H H CO El M N N M M N M N H M N M N M 1 V V' V' ' ' V' N V' V' , ' V• as V' N V' 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O N N H H H 0 H H H H H H 0 H O H H H V' In V' M N H to t0 t0 V' N U t0 M d' 10 H CO M M M H H m co M I4 i0 O O 0 0 01 O O O O O O 01 0 H 4 Cl) Z Z I-1 H 4 H \ Cl) H apq Z a U) H x x 4 a' l�ia 4 0 1.1 Cfl 01 01 0 H IA H CO U) a 0H H >4 Z U) 0 04 04 U El H a 11-11 1.1 a H W CJ 04 a H 134 1.1 0H 4 U) UR l P k] Iii U Z \ Cl) 4 D11 a' a z a s 0 z 0 M z 0 w co A Cl) 0 H H H C 0 U) a a El Cl) C) >4 41 Pi 14 CLI 14 H o H C H H • 0 H a z 67 0 • H a 01 01 a s a a 0 0 a a a U) 0 a s U a U 3 U 0 a U H El 0 0 U N N C1 N N C4 H El a C C*l m1.1 a CCD H H C°) a El - °a 1311 to 0 A-El Cl) N F co � GO 14 0 3 O O s 0 U) H H0 0 N H ) x O U W ) Cxl U) s H 0 In P4 H 0 ElN C) H El 4 al U) x H HH M M 1 -i U) U) U) U) H H - - - H * # * # # * * * * * * - * - - EVI VI tO 10 H H in' Lfl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H 0 0 10 10 0 0 O 0 -N pz N N N N O1 01 eN N 0 0 10 10 0 0 N N 0 0 e' V' 0 0 0 0 01 10 0 V' V• HH OD 00 0 01 0 HH min NN NN Ln U1 NN O O O O O • U) t0 t° NN H H H 01 H 1114 O O OD 00 N N 01 01 f? in- O O into 10 M M H H (/t i* f? t/r H 'W ' ' sr V' ffi t? f/T V! H H Ls N '' '' OD 47 VT Vf Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) t? Cl) VT Cl) Vf Cl) Vf VI- ii M V' se - 3 U 4.0- V! - Cxl M - - - a U - Cs kl H H H H H H H H H H H H - -H H H El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --0 -0 - 0 0 0 0 H 4 \ \ - \- \ \ \ -\ - \ - \ \ \ \ \ CA A m M M M m M m - M M M M M M en IX O O O O O O 0 O O . O O O O O 14 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,, \ \ \ \ AG U in In Ln Ln In Ln U1 U1 U1 _ In In In In in U U 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cxl M 01 01. O1 01 at ON 01 01 - 01 O1 _ 01 01 01 01 6 C) H H H H H - H - H - H H H H- H H H O ►a Ua Ul t0 t` - co - 01 O - H -N M -d' in t0 H CO CO CO CO CO 01 - 01 01 - 01 - 01 01 - 01 C.) O - O 0 _ O --O O O O - -O 0- - 0 WU 00 co O 00 00 - O 00. co co - co CO - co I alV' - V' V' V' d' sr V'- V' V' V' V' U0 6 0 0 -0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 _ 0 - -0- - 0 0 O _ O • aaaaa a aaaaa a a a a a a a a a HHHHH H HHHHH H H H H H H H H H in O! _ b1 i - ala • O a N U H N CD M er in N co 00 00 CO CO 01 O N N N 0 N NC-- N N N Nl- N [- [- [- H CO00 f0 CO CO OO N N N N N N NNNNN to N 0 N N 0 N N N NNNNN N N N N N N CO N N N N N N N N H O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 to 0 0 IA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 0 N 0 O H O O O 1O O O O O O NNNNN 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O CO CO CO CO CO 01 N N N N N CO 00 In in H VN CO 00 E-I M M M M M M N N N N N M M LA In m M O m m 14 at 14 Ver er TI, 1, er er er er Ver ri er er N er .14PPP IIIII I IIIII I I I I I I I I I O 00 ri rl ri N H rI N ri rl ri N N H H H N M N t0 U N CO H N O N ri H M N N er N in 0 H er ri N N U 10 ri M V ri M N M M tp H er H 0 H H O1 et, t0 04 0 00 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 01 O O 0 0 0 N El aaaaa U RRRR ix HUU P a rI" AN N NN UU U U E HHHHH U Ix w as to ta H H > � H aaaaa \ NNCIV. V! a a c9 aaa C4 P4C*114CC4 N aaaaa N UU v2 U1 til v2 W UZ 1111 CTI 14 NI Ca 000013 N N El U 0 H HUU) N >i >I >I >I W rya 64 DII W N >t >' N H 03 H H N A HHHHH N H H a A,' N a a H H HH4 H �HHHN H H H H H H H 0 N 0 H H HxxxEhaa 3 EEEEEE u xxE aa AA AAA H O O O U H uuuaaaHaa 14C41414 N U CO CO In CO NEE IHS '�. .�.' 'S.' .�' '�' W AWN+ U H H H mtel a H 'J 'J O N U N 0 paq aq p aq O 0 0 0 0 0 0 a to W �a '?I apo H \ — W W W N UUUUU ri aaaaa 0 H El 0 0 raww5 CO N C7 L7 UI C7 U' M HHHHH Cl) LO U p7 W LA ZZZZZ U A A A A A a H H H u O O O o HHHHH 1 11111 z N 0 °a CO CO CA 01 C H H CO CO In M N 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 in in er er N N M M O O O O - 0 V1 In M ei N IA N M 00 IA O IA in in o t0 to IA in O O t0 10 O 0 0 0 0 OO N N • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 0 N rI a1 co N In O O M W CO O N ri 01 01 er er to t0 in IA O O O O a1 t0 t0 N > t0 H H M In In ri H IA M N O w M M M M M N N in IA O O O O N a1 a1 /I an co N sr H IA H H M WO H H rl ell N N f? Vf _ IA IA N N O O IA IA rl 01 H Ol 144 VT rl VT • H. (? In at VT VT VT VT r-1N V4 IA IA !A !A 10 t0 IA In H VT VT • VT VT UU VT VT VT J1 VT VT H H ilk VT VT VT ilk VI. L} V N i? VT N a U X El 02 CO H H rl ri ri ri H rl H rl r► H H H H H H H H r-1 H El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 4 . ' N A M' M M M M M M M M M M m M m m m m M M M a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 14 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1.4 U in In in in In in IA IA u1 In in to to in IA u1 to - In In an U Ri at at at 01 Ot 01 01 010101 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 MN a1 01 a1 0) a1 01 at o101 0 1 1 01 01 a1 a1 01 01 01 01 01 01 U6 0 H H ri H ri H H H H H H H H H H H H rI rl ri O r7 `N N CO 01 O- H N al er to - H 01 01 - 01 O 0 O O O O Ki - _ O O - O -- - - U O - CO- CO O Cl) O O N CO N_ 4:14d4_ ar .:14 ell V/ er - er er U N 0 - -O 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 -o .- - - - o a. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aaa a HHHHHHHHHH H H H -H H H H H HHHHH CD C7) VSa 1 0 a to to to to 10 H H H H ri N NNNN ptl H U 01 01 01 01 01 H N fV 1V N N N N N N N UI U1 M Vt in 0 0 0 0 0 O CO 0) CO 0) 0) CO CO O CO 0) 01 CO CO CO CO03 CO CO NNNNN NNNNNNNNNN 01 N N N N N N N • ` ` NNNNNNNNNN 0 N N N N N N N NNNNN H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNNN * 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 i CO O CO CO CO h CO CO CO CO e-I 0, M M M M H H ri r-I rl M M M M M M M O M M 1+1 M N M M M M M N N NNNNN 'W Vt V• Vt Vt N Vt Vt Vt Vt Vt sM 'dr Vt Vt Vt Vt N Vt Vt Vt Vt 1111111111 I I I I I I I I 11111 O N H CO Vt H M r1 rl H N ri H H N 10 H N 0 H ri ri ri ri O N in N N rI r-I N N co 0) Vt N H Vt N N ri Vt N Vt N H N U to M to 10 M O1 eN M ri H Vt m M H H H M CO VI VI t0 M V' 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O a1 O O O O O a au a ata PI a 000 o 14P414caw 14141 14 H 0 14 141414 H F aaa H U U U U U f0 U U U U a AC H H H F a 4 a Al a N E+ 14 HHHHHPHHHH a U N N N V) 04 a a a a a 9 9 9 9 > U r, 9 .7 9 A co H H H H A pF-I p 0 H H H a aaa a a a a a co N to co co N PI UCOW N torag g a as 1414 g 14 g w 14 r4 14 cn o COU) coU1 COV) COU1 VC7 U ) �.r U) 0 'Z.I 03 " " N Z 4 H H H 'UT' x 14 >4 >I 'i t>1 'i'1 U >4 >4 >I r 4 H Dtl \\\ H A FFEiFF FFFF H a a a a a F U FE-IE4HH H HHHHaHHHH 4 al l' 4 I' A A aaaaal4AAAA a w • plpclpclfaifai H H H H H H H �H�--II �H�--II [H[iI W Z t�j p p p O U H El F F O U O O O PA0 PAO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0001) 0 U U U U U U U U U U N H H H H H A a a a a a a a a a 1 t, I, Na N N N N N N N N N 0 0 a aaa a U U U U U U U U U U U 0 'rtt"t 0 M M N W CO M HHHHHHHHHH O H 1 M )a a a a a a a a a a 01 U F Iy t00 26666666 o V' • aaa O A a a a aaa a a a a 0 a ag H a a H Dti M1 14141lk7C7Wtr767 H 0 alPIP M aaaaa H > P4 14 kl 14 al 14 14 W 14 14 Z w Z a a a a a a Al a a a 0 H W x A4 D4 D4 0 UUU O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 444444444 a F H UUU al O O 0 0 0 FFHHF 4 4 W O O O a U 66666 H�i H '�Ha 'H�a H�a Obi CO CO CO V1 N N co N U1 co Z Cr) V) U) V1 N UU) F P r7 i7 i� .,H - - H - * _ * * it it _ It it 01 01 CO t` CO 0 t0 ill M N N t0 tO 0 0 0 O CO in 01 N 1.0 t0 0 0 in 0 0 N 'dr H `dt In M M M 0 0 N H t` 111 CO CO 0 0 0 0 O1 O in 10 0 0 Vt VI 10 0 0 N Vt CO elf Id 0 Vt N U1 Vt M Vt lc 03 CO N .01 CO CO 0 0 in In N in 10 01 In in N N M CO CO N N O1 M M in H in co M a1 to a1 co N N O O i!f co- r-1 i? M in H H 01 01 in 01 co to M M N i? Vt i? CO V• CO .dr CO CO 01 Vt Vt H H Mt iA• tA• i? Vf M M N Vl H i/f i? to b ilk V1 i? . (I) i? • (J). . i/f i? Vf co. CA VI- Vf V) VT 0 U in r-I H i? Vf H W ift M X U W COEl W H H H H ri H H H H H H H ri H rI H v-I H ri H ri H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drl A M M M M M M M M -M M M M M M M M M CO M I") M M el a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 14 U in to in in in in an in in 111 in in in ID in in in in in in in in 111 U CO a1 a1 a1 01 a1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 01 01 01 01 01 pry 't1„' 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 _ X U H H H H rI H rI r-I rI ri r1 -4 H H ri-H H_ - ri H H H ri ri U A Z t0 N - co 01 - 0 - H N - -- M H O O O O ri rI ri - H O p4 H r-I H- H rI H H H U co CO CO - CO CO CO co v - —- CO -a Vr Vt -.yr Vr Vr-- Vr Vt 0 O O 0 0 _ 0 0 oI o U. 14 04 v4 H H H 112 H t` tn N - a O a U N H O O N N M rI N 01 H O O M O 01 O r I e-I O er M O O O O M co H H ar et' M M N N eM d4 d4 N d� O rI M H OCe1 •814 I N O H H 10 O N 0 0 O C z a a z H U a agri H U w o A F to w a per, • a a° 0 a a • w k] H H xW a 0 a 0 b co O a x y • a a - - H14 U PO N °° t14 0 04 H In 1 1 b > a- 1 2..1 - 3 3 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01N Id 0 O o IrIn O o - - - - - • • • • • N N to i j M M H r-I 01 01 IS) an O O N V? HIrk O O V} V) 4 d4 'M V 0 d 4 l0 Vf V} V! V!- 3 U VrVr - x a u H to k7 .-I r1 H r1 '1 - H 14 A m M M M t\ P4 O O O O O U Ir) In In U) u) 01 01 x H I-I - H r-1 H xw _ In toCO r H b4 - H H - C.) O 0) co _ coco _ 0 x -O - O- - o - 0 0 U rl - 0 - b1 a 1 Ii I i I 1 1 1 m - O m -AD N in N 0 0 M 0 h N s' 10 N rl . O 10 U1 01 t0 M 01 O f�1 h O d+ r4 l+1 m N N N t0 rI h 10 i-I rI l+1 m in O N 10 N ri l0 N Vf CO N d+ M el+ e1+ eM 0 VT i? • VI• i/f • • • in N V CO M l0 01 N Vf f? e WI 4.0. t? 1-1 01 sir 01 v-I - r♦ - It A Ida+ x V g a b at H °a V trn H 0.-. r7 H U H a Q>4 g Dr+ >4 - zZ� rn o ~ H I 2 2 co LI N x at �_ U U a s Uv-I d+ N N M rI 0 0 0 0 . 0 rI v-i p1 m d' h N N CO - U -- - i H 0 4k 4k 4k 40 * - *k It *k 4k 0 6r - 6q -Di .� Ea W- - Pk ll4• 6+ Is+ SVT VICC, MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: 1995 Pay Plan Amendment - Res. No. 4185 DATE: February 27, 1995 INTRODUCTION: The existing 1995 Pay Schedule does not include the position of Economic Development Coordinator. It would be appropriate at this time to amend the Pay Schedule accordingly. BACKGROUND: On February 7, 1995 the Shakopee City Council authorized the appropriate City officials to advertise for the Economic Development Coordinator position. City Council is being requested to fill the position at their March 7, 1995 City Council meeting. Therefore, it would be appropriate to amend the 1995 Pay Schedule accordingly to establish said position. The position of Economic Development Coordinator is not a bench mark position. Therefore, consistent with past practice staff has sent the proposed job description to the City' s labor consultant (Cy Smythe) to determine the appropriate point value for the position. Mr. Smythe believes that a point value of 100 would be appropriate . Attached is Resolution No. 4185 Amending the 1995 Pay Schedule establishing an Economic Development Coordinator position with a point value of 100 . A 100 point value equates to a pay range between $36, 566 and $45, 707 . The position would be classified as exempt . Funding for the position was included in the 1995 Budget . ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve Resolution No. 4185 Amending Resolution No. 4149 A Resolution Amending the 1995 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-union Employees of the City of Shakopee. 2 . Do not approve Resolution No. 4185 . 3 . Table action pending further information from staff . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 4185 Amending Resolution No. 4149 A Resolution Adopting the 1995 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-union Employees of the City of Shakopee and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 4185 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4149 ADOPTING THE 1995 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, on December 20, 1994 the Shakopee City Council adopted Resolution No. 4149 Approving the 1995 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-union Employees of the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, certain conditions and circumstances have changed to make it desirous to amend the 1995 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-union Employees of the City of Shakopee at this time; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council finds it desirous to establish an Economic Development Coordinator position. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota; that the 1995 Pay Schedule is hereby amended to establish an Economic Development Coordinator position and following pay schedule : Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 Step #4 Step #5 Step #6 Step #7 Step #8 $36,566 $38,851 $39,994 $41,136 $42,279 $43,422 $44,564 $45,707 Adopted in regular session of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 7th day of March, 1995 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney CONSENT /zit, EXPLANATION TO ORDINANCE 407 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Law Department PURPOSE: To make the new zoning ordinance apply to ValleyFair. REMARKS: When the City originally adopted the new zoning ordinance, the ordinance provided that it would not be effective for the ValleyFair and Canterbury Downs properties until June 7, 1995 . This was intended to provide those two properties time to obtain approval for a Planned Unit Development . ValleyFair now has obtained approval for their Planned Unit Development. The ordinance adopting the new zoning ordinance needs to be amended to make that ordinance apply to ValleyFair as of February 21, 1995, the date that approval was given for the Planned Unit Development. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 407, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 377, which adopted a new City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, by amending the effective date for a certain parcel of land, and move its adoption. Submitted by: /11 City Attorney (23MEM02] ORDINANCE NO. 407, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 377, WHICH ADOPTED A NEW CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, ZONING, BY AMENDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND. WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a new zoning ordinance, creating new zones; and WHEREAS, the new zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 377, provided in Section 6 that the effective date for certain property would not be earlier than June 7, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City and the owners of a portion of that property havandenowreed desireon toahavenned Unit the ordinance apply, that apply, soonerthan property then July 7, 1995 date. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That Ordinance No. 377, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the City Code by Repealing Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning) ; Sec. 2 . 90, Official Maps - Effect and Procedures, of Chapter 2, Administration and General Government; and Sec. 4 .30, Signs - Construction, Maintenance and Permits, of Chapter 4, Construction Licensing, Permits and Regulations; and adopting one New Chapter in Lieu Thereof Relating to the same Subject is hereby amended as follows: That Section 6 - Effective Date, is hereby amended by deleting the property described on Exhibit 1 attached hereto from the property included in Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 377. Ordinance No. 377 shall be effective as to the property described on Exhibit 1 from and after February 21, 1995 . Section 2 - General Provisions. City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty For Violation, and Section 11. 99, Violation a Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3 - Effective . Date. This ordinance becomes effective upon its passage and publication. Passed in _Iyi,�.gn -session of the City Council of th City of Shakopee, M nnesota, held this 7tday of �a1995 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee i�-� h J . City Clerk Attest :(___:` -l�t ''� % � to form: j Approved as f City Attorney v Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1995. [2 3MEM02] 2 • VALLEYFAIRI Parcel I: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 116, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying East of a line drawn parallel with and distant 3, 100 feet East of the West line extended of Section • 4, Township 115, Range 22. Parcel II: That part of the East half of Section 4, Township 115, Range 22, lying Northerly of the centerline of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 101 EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part of said East half lying Northerly of the Northeasterly boundary of Trunk Highway 101 and Westerly of a line drawn parallel with and 3,100 feet East of the West line extended of said Section 4, Scott County, Minnesota. Parcel III: That part of Government Lot 2, Section 3, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway No. 101. • • Parcel IV: Lot 3, Section 3, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota. Parcel V: That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter (N} of SWI) of Section 3, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, which • lies Northerly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway No. 101. • • c ; (/3/ 1 CO1\! SENT /111C— EXPLANATION TO ORDINANCE 408 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Law Department PURPOSE: To adopt an ordinance to keep our City Code current, by adopting by reference the most recent version of statutes, rules, and codes. REMARKS: The City Code contains references to a number of statutes, state rules, and building codes. We are required to adopt a particular version, and cannot adopt them "as amended" . Presently we have a number of codes and statutes referenced which are years out of date. This ordinance will allow us to simply amend one section each year to bring all our codes up to date, and keep them current. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 408, an ordinance amending Chapter 1, General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation, by adding one new section relating to incorporation of materials by reference, and repealing conflicting provisions, and move its adoption. Submitted by: 4"rprkiltd: City At orne001V ORDINANCE NO. 408, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE CITY CODE INCLUDING PENALTY FOR VIOLATION, BY ADDING ONE NEW SECTION RELATING TO INCORPORATION OF MATERIALS BY REFERENCE AND REPEALING CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation, is hereby amended by adopting one new section, which shall read as follows: SEC. 1.12 . INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. References in this City Code to Minnesota Statutes are to Minnesota Statutes 1992, Laws of Minnesota 1993, and Laws of Minnesota 1994, unless otherwise provided. References to rules, regulations, standards, or models are to those documents in effect on January 1, 1995, unless otherwise provided. Section 2 - That the City Code is hereby amended by repealing references to effective dates for individual statutes, rules, and codes. Those references are located in Sections 2 . 11, 2 .71, 3 . 11, 3 .20, 4 . 01, 4 .20, 4 .27, 4 .40, 8 . 01, 10 .29, and 10 .35. 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: _ _ City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1995 . [2 3 MEMO2] _ SEDT Mc( EXPLANATION TO ORDINANCE 409 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Law Department PURPOSE: To adopt a new franchise agreement for Northern States Power Company. REMARKS: The City granted Northern States Power (NSP) a 20-year franchise in 1972, which has now expired. The City belongs to the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) , which has prepared a standard franchise agreement for use with NSP. The SRA agreement was prepared in 1987, and has not formally been revised since then. However, they have considered and approved some revisions, which were utilized in preparing the attached proposed franchise . The draft franchise was discussed and negotiated at length with representatives of NSP. At this point they are in agreement with the franchise ordinance. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 409, an ordinance granting to Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, its successors and assigns, permission to construct, operate, repair and maintain in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, an electric distribution system and transmission lines, including necessary poles, lines, fixtures and appurtenances, for the furnishing of electric energy to the City, its inhabitants, and others, and to use the public ways and public grounds of the City for such purposes, and move its adoption. Submitted by: 4(A1 City Attor ey [1CCL] ORDINANCE NO. 409, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, GRANTING TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AN ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES, INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, LINES, FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE CITY, ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS, AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES. WHEREAS, on February 29, 1972, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 337, codified as City Code Sec. 25 . 07, an Ordinance Granting Permission to Northern States Power Company, A Minnesota Corporation, its Successors and Assigns, to Construct, Operate, Repair, and Maintain in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, an Electric Distribution System and Transmission Lines, Including. Necessary Poles, Pole Lines, and Fixtures and Appurtenances for the Furnishing of Electric Energy to the City and Its Inhabitants, and Transmitting Electric Energy Into and Through the City and To Use Streets, Alleys, and Public Ground of Said City for Such Purposes, and Authorizing the Imposition of a Charge on Said Power Company As Herein Provides; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 337 extended for a period of twenty years, until March 17, 1992; and WHEREAS, a new franchise agreement is now necessary. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - Ordinance No. 337, an Ordinance Granting Permission to Northern States Power Company, A Minnesota Corporation, its Successors and Assigns, to Construct, Operate, Repair, and Maintain in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, an Electric Distribution System and Transmission Lines, Including Necessary Poles, Pole Lines, and Fixtures and Appurtenances for the Furnishing of Electric Energy to the City and Its Inhabitants, and Transmitting Electric Energy Into and Through the City and To Use Streets, Alleys, and Public Ground of Said City for Such Purposes, and Authorizing the Imposition of a Charge on Said Power Company As Herein Provides, is hereby repealed, and this franchise ordinance and agreement adopted in lieu thereof, which agreement reads as follows : SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall mean: 1 . 1 . City. The City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. 1 . 2 . City Utility System. The facilities used for providing sewer, water, or any other public utility service owned or operated by City or agency thereof. 1.3 . Company. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns. 1 .4 . Electric Facilities. Electric transmission and distribution towers, poles, lines, guys, anchors, conduits, fixtures, and necessary appurtenances owned or operated by the Company for the purpose of providing electric energy for public use. 1 . 5 . Notices. A writing served by any party on any other party. Notice to the Company shall be mailed to the Regional General Manager thereof at 1518 Chestnut Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 . Notice to City shall be mailed to the City Administrator, City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379. Each party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other party. 1. 6 . Public Ground. Any land owned by the City for park, open space, or similar purpose, which is held for use in common by the public and over, under, or through which the City has the right to grant the use to the Company. 1. 7. Public Way. Any street, alley, or other public right- of-way within the City. SECTION 2 . FRANCHISE. 2 . 1. Grant of Franchise. The City hereby grants Company, for a period of twenty (20) years from the effective date, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light, heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and through the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, the Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Way and Public Ground of the City subject to the provisions of this ordinance. The Company may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject, however, to zoning ordinances, other applicable ordinances, permit procedures, and to the further provisions of this franchise. 2 . 2 . Effective Date; Written Acceptance. This franchise shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication of its title and summary, and its acceptance by the Company. Acceptance by the Company must be filed with the City Clerk within sixty (60) days after publication. 2 2 . 3 . Nonexclusive Franchise. This is not an exclusive franchise. 2 .4 . Service Rates and Area. The service to be provided and the rates to be charged by the Company for electric service in the City currently are subject to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The area within the City in which the Company may provide electric service currently is subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat . Sec. 216B.40 . 2 . 5 . Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this ordinance' s summary shall be paid by the Company. 2 . 6 . Default . If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. If the dispute is not resolved within thirty (30) days of the written notice, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law or equity for breach of contract, or either party may take any other action permitted by law. SECTION 3 . CONDITIONS OF USE. 3 .1 . Use of Public Ground and Public Ways. Electric Facilities shall be located and constructed so as not to interfere with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel along and over Public Ways and they shall be located on Public Grounds as determined by the City. The Company' s construction, reconstruction, operation, repair, maintenance and location of Electric Facilities shall be subject to other reasonable regulations of the City. 3 .2 . Field Locations. The Company shall provide field locations for any of its underground Electric Facilities within a reasonable period of time upon request by the City. The period of time will be considered reasonable if it compares favorably with the average time required by the cities in Scott County to locate municipal underground facilities for the Company. 3 .3 . Permit Required. The Company shall not open or disturb the paved surface of any Public Way or Public Ground for any purpose without first having obtained a permit from the City, for which the City may impose a reasonable fee. Permit conditions imposed on the Company shall not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work. The Company may, however, open and disturb the paved surface of Public Way or Public Ground without permission from the City when an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Electric Facilities. In such event the Company shall notify the City Public Works Department by telephone before opening or 3 distributing a paved surface of Public Way or Public Ground. Not later than the second working day thereafter, the Company shall obtain any required permits and pay any required fees. 3 .4 . Restoration. After undertaking any work requiring the opening of any Public Way or Public Ground, the Company shall restore the same, including paving and its foundation, to as good condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain the same in good condition for two years thereafter. The work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits, and if the Company does not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Way or Public Ground in the said condition, the City shall have, after demand to the Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five (5) days, the right to make the restoration at the expense of the Company. The Company shall pay the City the cost of such work performed by or for the City, including its administrative expense and overhead, plus ten percent (10%) additional as liquidated damages. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the City. 3 . 5 . Shared Use of Poles. The Company shall make space available on its poles or towers for City fire, water utility, police or other City facilities whenever such use will not interfere with the use of such poles or towers by the Company, by another electric utility, by a telephone utility, or by any cable television company or other form of communication company. The City shall pay for any added cost incurred by the Company because of such use by City. 3 .6 . Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ways. Except as provided in Section 3 . 8, if the City determines to vacate for a City improvement project, or to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way, or construct or reconstruct any City Utility System in any Public Way, it may order the Company to relocate its Electric Facilities located therein. The Company shall relocate its Electric Facilities at its own expense. The City shall give the Company reasonable notice of plans to vacate for a City improvement project, or to grade, regrade, or change the line involving any Public Way or to construct or reconstruct any City Utility System. If a relocation is ordered within five (5) years of a prior relocation of the same Electrical Facilities, which was made at Company expense, the City shall reimburse the Company for non-betterment expenses on a time and material basis, provided that if a subsequent relocation is required because of the extension of a City Utility System to a previously unserved area, the Company may be required to make the subsequent relocation at its expense. Nothing in this Ordinance requires the Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconnect at its own expense its facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or reconstruction is 4 mak solely for the convenience of the City and is not reasonably necessary for the construction or reconstruction of Public Way or City Utility System or other City improvement . 3 .7 . Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ground. Except as provided in Section 3 .8, the City may require the Company to relocate or remove its Electric Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by the City that the Electric Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment of the public use to which the Public Ground is or will be put . The relocation or removal shall be at the Company' s expense. The provisions of Section 3 . 6 and 3 . 7 apply only to Electric Facilities constructed in reliance on a franchise and the Company does not waive its rights under an easement, prescriptive right, or state or county permit . 3 . 8 . Projects with State or Federal Funding. Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through the City of a federally-aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161 .46 as amended. It is understood that the right herein granted to the Company is a valuable right . The City shall not order the Company to remove or relocate its facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless the reasonable non- betterment costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to Company, but the City need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available. 3 . 9 . Vacation of Public Ways. The City shall give the Company at least two weeks prior written notice of a proposed vacation of Public Way. Except where required for a City street or other improvement project, the vacation of Public Way, after the installation of Electric Facilities, shall not operate to deprive the Company of its rights to operate and maintain such Electrical Facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to the Company. In no case, however, shall the City be liable to the Company for failure to specifically preserve a right-of-way, under Minnesota Statutes Section 160 .29 . SECTION 4 . FRANCHISE FEES. 4 . 1. Fee Imposed. During the term of this franchise, and in lieu of any permit or other fees being imposed on the Company, the City may impose upon the Company a franchise fee of not more than five percent (5%) of the Company' s gross revenues as hereinafter defined. The franchise fee shall be imposed by a separate ordinance duly adopted by the City Council, which 5 ordinance shall not be adopted until at least sixty (60) days after written notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the Company by certified mail . Section 2 . 5 shall constitute the sole remedy for solving disputes between the Company and the City in regard to the interpretation of, or enforcement of, the separate ordinance. 4 .2 . Gross Revenues Defined. The term "gross revenues" means all sums received by the Company from the sale of electricity to its retail customers within the corporate limits of the City. Gross revenues excludes any surcharge or similar addition to the Company' s charges to customers for the purpose of reimbursing the Company for the cost resulting from the franchise fee. 4 . 3 . Collection of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly, and shall be based on the gross revenues of the Company during the preceding quarter. The payment shall be due on the last business day of the month following the period for which payment is to be made. The percent fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time; however, each change shall meet the same notice requirements and the percentage may not be changed more often than annually. Such fee shall not exceed any amount which the Company may legally charge to its customers prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge equivalent to such fee in its rates for electric service. The Company shall pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles or customer refunds. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is subject to the approval of the Public Utilities Commission, which the Company agrees to use best efforts to obtain. The Company agrees to make its gross revenues records available for inspection by the City at reasonable times. 4 .4 . Condition of the Fee. The separate ordinance imposing the fee shall not be effective against the Company unless it lawfully imposes and the City quarterly or more often collects a fee or tax of the same or greater percentage on the receipts from sales of energy within the City by any other energy supplier including the City' s municipal electric utility, provided that as to such a supplier, the City has the authority to require a franchise fee or to impose a tax. The franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to energy sales for any energy use related to heating, cooling, or lighting, as well as to the supply of energy needed to run machinery and appliances on premises located within or adjacent to the City, but shall not apply to energy sales for the purpose of providing fuel for vehicles. SECTION 5 . TREE TRIMMING. The Company may trim all trees and shrubs in the Public Ways and Public Ground interfering with the proper construction, 6 operation, repair, and maintenance of any Electric Facilities installed hereunder, provided that the Company shall hold the City harmless from any liability arising therefrom, and subject to permit or other reasonable regulation by the City. SECTION 6 . INDEMNIFICATION. 6 . 1 . Hold Harmless. The Company shall indemnify, keep and hold the City free and harmless from any and all liability on account of injury to persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection, the issuance of permits, or the operation of the Electric Facilities located in the City. The City shall not be indemnified for losses or claims occasioned through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising out of or alleging the City' s negligence as to the issuance of permits for, or inspection of, the Company' s plans or work. The City shall not be indemnified if the injury or damage results from the performance in a proper manner of acts reasonably deemed hazardous by the Company, and such performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by the City after notice of the Company' s determination. 6 .2 . Litigation. In the event a suit is brought against the City under circumstances where this agreement to indemnify applies, the Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend the City in such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to the Company within a period wherein the Company is not prejudiced in defense of the claim by lack of such notice. If the Company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have control of such litigation, but the Company shall not settle such litigation without the consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the City. The Company, in defending any action on behalf of the City shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City could assert on its own behalf. SECTION 7. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of the Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance. SECTION 8 . SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this franchise is found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, the validity of the remainder shall not be affected. 7 SECTION 9. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED. This franchise supersedes any previous electric franchise granted to the Company or its predecessor, including the franchise set forth in Ordinance No. 337. SECTION 10 . NO WAIVER. Failure to enforce any of these provisions shall not be deemed a waiver of any provision of this franchise. SECTION 11 . AMENDMENT. This ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of the Company' s written consent thereto with the City Clerk within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the amendatory ordinance. Section 2 - Summary Approved. The City Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance, marked "Official Summary of Ordinance No. " and a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Section 3 - Posting and Filing. A copy of this ordinance is filed in the office of the City Clerk and a copy is provided to the Scott County Library for posting and filing, at which locations a copy is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours. Section 4 - The City Clerk shall publish the title of this ordinance and the official summary in the official newspaper with notice that a printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and the Scott County Library. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1995 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee 8 --- ORDINANCE NO. 409, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, GRANTING TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AN ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES, INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, LINES, FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE CITY, ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS, AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES. The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. 409, Fourth Series, approved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on , 1995 : Northern States Power Company was granted a non-exclusive 20-year franchise to run its electric transmission and distribution lines and equipment along City streets, alleys, easements and other public grounds for the purpose of providing electric energy for public use. NSP may construct, operate, repair and maintain its equipment in, on, over, under and across the City property. This franchise becomes effective after NSP files its written acceptance with the City, which is to occur within sixty (60) days. NSP' s facilities may not be located, constructed, installed and maintained so as to endanger or unnecessarily interfere with the usual and customary traffic, travel, and use of public property. NSP cannot cut into City streets or pavement without first obtaining a permit, except in emergencies, and must restore the pavement to as good condition as it formerly existed when they are done. The City and other utilities may use NSP' s poles. NSP may trim trees and shrubs on City property which interfere with the proper construction, operation, repair, and maintenance of any NSP' s electric facilities. This franchise supersedes the previous electric franchise granted to the NSP in 1972 . A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk and at the Scott County Library. [1CCL] Attest : City Clerk Approved as to form: ,00,,__44 CityAttorney Y Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1995 . [1CCL) 9 :,','( coeR7cTt0 Qi)\ RESOLUTION NO. 4187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, MODIFYING THE FIFTH PRECINCT BOUNDARY. WHEREAS, on Novemb- 1994, portions of Jackson Township 4 north of the bypass an. west of County Road 79 were annexed by the City of Shakopee; : d WHEREAS, under Shakopee Code 2 .20, Subd. 5, provides as follows : "The Fifth Precinct shall be bounded on the East by County Road 79 (Spencer Street) , on the North by 10th Avenue, and on the West and South by the Corporate City limits" , and WHEREAS, the annexed area is included in the Fifth Precinct as described, but the southern boundary of the Fifth Precinct has moved; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to acknowledge that the newly annexed land is included in the Fifth Precinct. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the area annexed by the City on November 9, 1994, is expressly included in the Fifth Precinct as defined in City Code 2 .20, Subd. 5 . 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: City Attorney ■ r or f. 7 ' �,."- t i4/� MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Mark A. Erickson, Asst . City Attorney DATE: March 2, 1995 RE: Precinct Changes for Residents of the Annexed Area. BACKGROUND: On November 9, 1994, the area of Jackson Township north of the bypass was officially annexed by the City of Shakopee. Since the residents of this area are now residents of the City, the area must be incorporated into one of the voting precincts. Since the Fifth Precinct currently runs to the southerly corporate limits the annexed area naturally falls into the Fifth Precinct . Presently the Fifth Precinct is bounded on the "South by the Corporate City limits" (See, Shakopee Code 2 .20, Subd. 5) . Therefore, the annexed area is currently included in the expressed boundaries of the Fifth Precinct . However, in 1 actuality the southern boundary of the Fifth Precinct has been altered to extend to the bypass. Therefore, it is necessary for the Council to formally address the changes in the precinct boundaries (See, Minn. Stat . 204B. 14, Subd. 4 . ) , even though the code need not be amended. I have prepared a resolution for this purpose. ALTERNATIVES: (1) Approve extension of the Fifth Precinct boundary line to the new city corporate limits. (2) Include the annexed area in a different precinct . (3) Take no action. RECOMMENDATION: Move to approve Resolution No. 4187 acknowledging the extension of the Fifth Precinct boundary line to the new city corporate limits, and acknowledge that the recently annexed area of Jackson Township is included in the Fifth Precinct . [FIFT.MEM] RESOLUTION NO. 4187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, MODIFYING THE FIFTH PRECINCT BOUNDARY. WHEREAS, on November 9, 1994, portions of Jackson Township north of the bypass and east of County Road 79 were annexed by the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, under Shakopee Code 2 .20, Subd. 5, provides as follows: "The Fifth Precinct shall be bounded on the East by County Road 79 (Spencer Street) , on the North by 10th Avenue, and on the West and South by the Corporate City limits" , and WHEREAS, the annexed area is included in the Fifth Precinct as described, but the southern boundary of the Fifth Precinct has moved; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to acknowledge that the newly annexed land is included in the Fifth Precinct. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the area annexed by the City on November 9, 1994, is expressly included in the Fifth Precinct as defined in City Code 2 .20, Subd. 5 . 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: City Attorney _l MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorne DATE: March 1, 1995 RE: Creation of an Economic Development Authority BACKGROUND: The City Council has indicated interest in creating an economic development authority, and transferring the powers of the current housing and redevelopment authority to the new authority. A public hearing is required prior to creation of an economic development authority. (At the time I indicated that I hoped to bring the resolution for the economic development authority to you in March, I did not realize that two weeks of published notice was required prior to adoption of such a resolution. Unfortunately, this will delay consideration of the measure for one month. ) This resolution will set the public hearing at the soonest possible date. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 4186, setting the public hearing for April 4, 1995, for the purpose of considering the creation of an economic development authority. 2 . Select another date, amend Resolution No. 4186, and then adopt the resolution. 3 . Do not adopt Resolution No. 4186 . RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 4186, setting the public hearing for April 4, 1995, for the purpose of considering the creation of an economic development authority. [3 CCL] RESOLUTION NO. 4186 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE CREATION OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. WHEREAS, the City Council is considering the creation of an economic development authority, to handle the responsibilities of the current housing and redevelopment authority, and more; and WHEREAS, a public hearing is required prior to adoption of an enabling resolution creating an economic development authority. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That there shall be a public hearing on Tuesday, April 4, 1995, at or after 7: 00 p.m. , in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 129 S. Holmes St. , Shakopee, Minnesota, for the purpose of considering the creation of an economic development authority. 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 4Approved as to form: :/ City Attorney c- [1CCL2] MEMO TO: Mayor Laurent and Councilmembers FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Community Civic Center Facility Components DATE: February 23, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On February 21, 1995 the Shakopee City Council in a Committee of the Whole setting began to discuss the project components for the Shakopee Community Civic Center. It would be appropriate to continue the discussion and reach consensus with respect to the final facility components. BACKGROUND: On February 28, 1995, Greystone Construction will have prepared for Council review a list of facility components and associated construction cost. In order to proceed in a timely manner it is critical for City Council to begin to finalize project components. Staff has been working with representatives from Greystone Construction to establish an estimated operating cost performa for the gymnasium portion of the facility. The illustration shown in Attachment#1 separates the arena/mezzanine operating expenditures from the gymnasium expenditures. The numbers for the arena/mezzanine are the same numbers that staff has included in previous memorandums. Staff has again included a low side and high side projection of estimated costs. Shown in Attachment#2 is summary of the estimated revenues associated with the arena/mezzanine and gymnasium. If we assume a worst case scenario utilizing high side expenditure estimates and low side revenue estimates, the complete facility is estimated to have an annual projected operating loss of$114,300.00. Under a best case scenario (low side expenditures/high side revenues)the facility would have an annual projected operating loss of $4,200.00. In order to keep the project on schedule, the construction manager will also be seeking Council approval to solicit bids for the precast concrete associated with this project. This action should be taken at the City Council meeting following the Committee of the Whole meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Finalize the building components and authorize the construction manager to advertise for bids for the precast concrete associated with the civic center project. 2. Request additional information with respect to the facility components and direct the construction manager to proceed with advertising for the precast concrete bids. 3. Request additional information with respect to the facility components and do not authorize advertising for precast concrete bids at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Finalize the facility components. 2. Move to authorize the construction manager to advertise for bids for the precast concrete associated with the Community Civic Center project. BAS/tiv- h:\tami\admin\civicctr Attachment #1 ARENA/MEZZ. EXPENDITURES Low Side High Side Description Projection Projection Salaries and Benefits $25,000 $45,000 Part-Time Salaries&Benefits $25,000 $35,000 Duplicating &Copying Costs $500 $500 Training & Instructional Supplies $100 $100 Miscellaneous Supplies $200 $200 Other Office Supplies $300 $300 Cleaning Supplies $2,500 $2,500 Motor Fuels $1,300 $1,300 Chemicals&Chemical Products $500 $500 Other Operating Supplies $500 $500 Equipment Parts $1,500 $1,500 Building Repair Supplies $1,800 $1,800 Small Tools $300 $300 Telephone Costs $1,000 $1,000 Postage Costs $500 $500 Travel Expense $200 $200 Conf./Seminars $200 $200 Minor Equipment $200 $200 Employmet Advertising $500 $500 Workmen's Comp Insurance $4,200 $5,500 Other Insurance $10,000 $10,000 Electric Utilities $41,500 $41,500 Gas Utilities $14,000 $14,000 Water Utilities $1,800 $1,800 Contracted Bldg. Repairs $1,200 $1,200 Contracted Mech/Equip Repairs $1,200 $1,200 Other Equip. Rental $300 $300 Other Miscl. Charges $300 $300 Refuse Disposal $2,100 $2,100 Dues&Subscriptions $600 $600 Subtotal $139,300 $170,600 GYMNASIUM EXPENDITURES Low Side High Side Description 13,200 sq. ft. ft. Projection Projection Salaries& Benefits $20,000 $30,000 Part-Time Salaries &Benefits $10,000 $20,000 Duplicating &Copying Costs $500 $500 Training & Instructional Supplies $100 $100 Miscellaneous Supplies $200 $200 Other Office Supplies $300 $300 Cleaning Supplies $1,000 $2,500 Other Operating Supplies $500 $500 Equipment Parts $500 $1,000 Minor Equipment $200 $200 Building Repair Supplies $500 $1,000 Employment Advertising $500 $500 Workmen's Comp Insurance $1,600 $3,200 Other Insurance $4,000 $4,000 Electric Utilities $5,000 $7,500 Gas Utilities $10,000 $15,000 Refuse Disposal $2,100 $2,100 Water Utilities $500 $1,000 Other Equipment Rental $300 $300 Other Miscl. $300 $300 Subtotal $58,100 $90,200 GRAND TOTAL $197,400 $260,800 Attachment #2 ARENA/MEZZ. REVENUES Low Side High Side Description Projected Projected Prime Time Ice Fees $102, 300 $121, 000 Non-Prime Time Fees $18, 000 $18, 000 School District Fees $0 $0 Open Skating Ice Fees $2, 000 $4, 000 Other Events-Ice Arena $0 $2, 500 Advertising Revenue - Ice Arena $7, 500 $10, 000 Skate Sharpening Revenue $0 $0 Ringette Ice Fees $0 $0 Inline Skating Fees $0 $1, 000 Concessions $2,500 $5, 000 Vending - Ice Arena $3,000 $7, 500 Subtotal $135, 300 $169, 000 Note: Chaska 1995 Ice Arena Revenue Projection - $149, 247 GYMNASIUM REVENUES Shakopee Shakopee Low High Description Side Side Gymnasium Fees $0 $1, 000 Open Gym Fees $1, 000 $5, 000 Vending - Gymnasium $2 , 500 $10, 000 Pay Phones $500 $1, 000 Cable Access Studio Fees $7, 200 $7,200 Subtotal $11, 200 $24,200 GRAND TOTAL $146, 500 $193, 200 • MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: March 3 , 1995 1 . Attached is the March Business Update from City Hall . 2 . Attached is the March calendar of upcoming meetings. 3 . Attached are the minutes from the January 12, February 9 and 23, 1995 meetings of the Planning Commission and the February 9, 1995 minutes of the BOAA. 4 . Attached are the March 9, 1995 agendas for the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment & Appeals. 5 . Attached is the Police Newsletter for Council review. 6 . Attached is the Building Activity Report for February 1995 . 7 . Attached is the Monthly Report from the Engineering Department . 8 . Attached are copies of the Court of Appeals' decision in the Doug Bell case from the City Attorney. 9 . Attached is a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding Connection Charges for Sewers . 10 . Attached is the monthly progress report from the Assistant City Administrator. 11 . Attached is an update from the Planning Director regarding AUAR. H:\WP51\DOCS\TONI\TONI\NONAGEND SINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL BU Volume 9 No. 3 Dear Chamber Member: March 1, 1995 Administration Community Development The Community Development Commission is Efforts are underway to establish a coalition of currently in the process of reviewing the cities to combat legislative efforts that have an Downtown Rehab Grant Program Guidelines. adverse impact on suburban communities in the The Commission will be recommending a possible Southwest .metro area. During the current amendment to the rehab grant guidelines to legislative session,weekly meetings are conducted establish a flat precentage reimbursement between our Senate and House Representatives to amount as compared to the currently established discuss legislative initiatives and there impact on two tiered reimbursement structure. our community. Senator Johnston and Representative Kelso have been very active in The Community Development Commission is supporting the position of Shakopee City Officials expected to recommend to City Council the with respect to currently proposed legislation. extension of the Van Pool Commuter Program Contract with Van Pool Services Inc. Van Pool On Tuesday,February 28, 1995 the Shakopee City Services has been the provider for van pool Council will discuss the possible inclusion of transit services since the program's inception in gymnasium space in the proposed ice arena 1985. The City presently has six commuter van facility. Staff is currently conducting an pools that transport Shakopee residents to operational analysis to determine the operating various work sites throughout the metropolitan costs associated with the gymnasium space. The area. construction manager for the project has also developed a time schedule which provides for a On March 7, 1995 a recommendation will be project completion date in early November of this forwarded to City Council with respect to filling year. The funding source for constructing the ice the newly created Economic Development arena project and potential gymnasium will be the Coordinator position. Duties and responsibilities tax increment trust fund balance. Council is of the new position include coordinating all expected to approve authorization to receive bids economic development efforts for the City. The for the structural steel and pre-cast concrete in individual will also be focusing their efforts on early March. Site design is also currently the redevelopment potential for Blocks 3 & 4 in progressing. The site as presently conceived will Downtown Shakopee. The effective date for provide for the development of four multi-purpose hiring is expected to be some time in mid March. ball fields. It is anticipated that the ball fields will not be ready for participant use until 1996. Engineering/Public Works Access Corp. - Bill Anderson & Ken Scannell; C.D.C. - Deb Amundson & Cole VanHorn; Access Corp. - Bob Zeigler; SPUC - Andrew Unseth; Police Civil Service - The Engineering Department currently has two Marcia Spagnolo; Park & Rec. Board - Steve Johnson & _ projects out for advertisement for bids. These Judy Salchow. two projects are the Downtown Alley improvements which will remove overhead power Park and Recreation lines with underground power lines and the improvement of Sarazin Street and Roundhouse The Recreation Department staff is currently processing all Street from 4th Avenue to CSAR 16. registrations for this summer's youth baseball program. An analysis is also being conducted to determine the cost The Engineering staff is currently working on the associated with providing each recreation program activity feasibility study for the River District Trunk in our community. This information will useful in determining where program modifications need to occur and Sewer rehabilitation, updating maps, and as-built whether or not certain programs should be eliminated or records: Staff will be asking Council to authorize expanded. Final changes are also being made to the feasibility studies for St. Francis Medical Health Spring/Summer program brochure. The brochure will be center storm sewer and streets, and for the distributed during the last week of March. extension of Fuller Street south of 10th Avenue to County Road 77. The Fuller Street Project Planning will provide access to the proposed recreation facility site. City Council will be asked to BOAA Meeting 2-09-95 authorize the preparation of plans for the Mill Northstar Auto Auction CUP to Relocate Pond Drainage Basin improvements to treat Structure Approved stormwater. The City has obtained a Water PC Meeting 2-09-95 Quality Initiative Grant from metropolitan Vierling Partnership Amend Zoning Map Rec. Approval Council for $100,000 with a 25% match by the Homestead Ridge 2nd Final Plat Rec.Approval City. Wallace Perry Vacation of Spencer St. Rec. Denial City of Shakopee Zoning Text Amend Cont'd to 3/9 Public Works has received approval for a new City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan: mechanical broom sweeper and is anticipating Land Use Element Rec. Approval arrival at the end of March. Transportation Element Rec. Approval Parks, Open Space, Trails Rec. Approval Urban Design Element Rec. Approval Welcomes and goodbyes are in order for the Housing Element Rec. Approval Public Works Department. On February 6th, Other Business: Bruce Loney started his employment with the Initiation of Phase 4 Zoning Map Amendments City of Shakopee as the new Public Works Update: Savage AUAR/ADR Director. Jerry Dircks will be retiring from Update: Eagle Creek Bluff PUD Public Works Maintenance at the end of March BOAA/PC Appointments after 21 years of service to the City. Police City Clerk The Police Department welcomes Chris Dellwo our new patrol officer. He was raised in Shakopee, received his On February 21st the City Council appointed the following Bachelor of Science Degree from St. John's University and individuals to boards & commissions: his Law Enforcement Degree from Normandale Community Planning Commission-Jim Link & Bill Mars; Housing & College. Chris has worked in law enforcement for 2 1/2 Building Boards - Jim Link & Randy Laurent; Cable & years prior to joining Shakopee. linh coOA c N V/ >- 0) 0) 0 reQ U ti v. M O— , N M Q G 2 u. N 07CO 0 N M QC E C as d G F=- a .0 PZ 0 0 1- ca in N N Cd >- a W U p U W g °' 0 M 6 r N co } W V 03 o U OU U a E Cl- a a c c 00 0o M o0 coO tiU 6 r: U N N Q U 0.5 D -6 0 co a o 2 a °- a, M O 0 to N co co N ^ Q LC) 2 V/ 0) *3 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION Special Session Shakopee, MN January 12, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Joos, Mars, DuBois, Link, Bladow, Madigan, Christensen MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner I. ROLL CALL Chrmn. Joos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll call was taken as noted above. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented III. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Chrmn. Joos recognized anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. IV. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: TO REVIEW THE SHAKOPEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY. The Senior Planner explained background data on housing and growth projections. He noted that in almost all instances, Shakopee is very representative of what is occurring throughout the metropolitan area. Comm. DuBois asked why the City did not participate in any subsidy programs for first time home buyers. The Senior Planner replied that the City has historically chosen to allow the Scott County HRA to handle all housing programs within the City. He stated that the City Council has been looking at the role of the HRA in the past year and it may choose to have more - active participation by the City's HRA in some programs but at this point, no direction has been given regarding first time home buyer funds. The Planning Director gave an overview on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan element. He presented materials from previous park planning efforts as well as a brief - I Minutes of the - -Page-2 - Shakopee Planning Commission January 12, 1995 inventory of existing parks in the City. He presented the general concepts to be used in developing the parks plan element which included one-quarter mile spacing analysis and the acres of parkland per 1000 population ratios. V. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business. VI. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. (0112min.pc) OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota February 9, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mars, Joos, Madigan, Bladow, Link, and Christensen DuBois (arrived at 7:42 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planner Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer Bruce Loney, Public Works Director I. ROLL CALL Chrmn. Mars called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Director requested that two items be added to Other Business: 11.e to set a second meeting in February; and 11.f regarding Government Training Service. The Agenda was approved as amended. M. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 5. 1995. MEETING MINUTES The minutes were approved as presented. IV. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Recognize anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. _ V. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chrmn. Joos informed the Commissioners and the audience that the Final Plat for Homestead Ridge 2nd Addition was the only item on the Consent Agenda, and that on the table was a staff recommendation to add one additional condition to the recommendation for approval. Chrmn. Joos read the recommended condition into the record. Recommended condition number 1.G. stated, "The developer shall record a document which would require that the owners of the parcels between County Road 79,Mound Street, and the Homestead Ridge 2nd Addition subdivision pay for the costs of street curb, glitter, utilities, and other required public improvements for the stub street between Homestead Street and these parcels." There Minutes of thePage- 2 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 was consensus to add the additional conditions to the recommended conditions of staff, and to let the item remain on the Consent Agenda. Motion: Comm. Link / Mars offered a motion to approve the Consent Agenda (recommend approval of the Final Plat for Homestead Ridge 2nd Addition to the City Council). Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Comm. DuBois arrived at 7:42 p.m. and took her place at the table. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP WITHIN CHAPTER 11 (ZONING) OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CR 79 AND MINT CIRCLE. SOUTH OF MONARCH STREET FROM R-2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R- 1B (URBAN RESIDENTIAL). (VIERLING PARTNERSHIP) Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing regarding the above entitled matter. The Assistant City Planner stated that Vierling Partnership submitted an Application for an Amendment to the Zoning Map for a small area located within the proposed Final Plat for Homestead Ridge 2nd Addition. The majority of the site within this Final Plat is zoned Urban Residential (R-1B), but .11 acres in the southwest corner is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-2). She stated that the applicant is requesting that the City rezone this small portion of their site from Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Urban Residential (R-1B) to conform with the zoning of the rest of the Homestead Ridge development. She added that staff is recommending the approval of this rezoning request, based upon its conformance with the Land Use Section of the approved 1990 draft Comprehensive Plan, and based upon its conformance with Criterion No. 1 of Section 11.83, Subd. 2, of the Shakopee City Code. - Chrmn. Joos asked the applicant if there was anything she would like to add. Ms. Vierling's response was in the negative. Motion: _ Comm. Mars/Link offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: -. Comm. Mars / Link offered a motion to recommend the approval of this rezoning request to the City Council. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Page 3 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 VII. FINAL PLAT: TO CONSIDER THE FINAL PLAT OF HOMESTEAD RIDGE II. LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CR 79 AND MINT CIRCLE. SOUTH OF MONARCH STREET. This item was approved on the Consent Agenda, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the final plat: A. Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of required improvements: 1) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5) Construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. 6) Street signs will be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of$250.00 each per sign (2 signs x $250= $500). 7) Park dedication fees shall be collected in lieu of the dedication of park land. The park dedication fees shall be deferred on a lot by lot basis and are to be paid prior to the release of each principal structure Building Permit. 8) The developer is granted permission to delay the setting of the iron monuments for the plat for one year from the date of the recording of the final plat, and shall post a bond or letter of credit to ensure. compliance within the one year time frame. C. Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be approved by the Engineering Department. D. The applicant shall submit verification that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has approved the NPDES Stormwater Permit for the proposed subdivision. E. The rezoning of the portion of the site currently zoned R-2 to R-1B is approved by the City Council. F. The following revisions shall be made to the Final Plat drawing: - Minutes of the Page- 4 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 1) The street proposed to be named "Homestead Way" should be renamed to "Homestead Street"; 2) The cul-de-sac located at the southern portion of"Homestead Street" shall be named either "Homestead Court" or "Homestead Circle'; and 3) The stub street measuring approximately 150 feet in length and located adjacent to the cul-de-sac at the southern portion of "Homestead Street" shall be named "Wagon Wheel Circle". G. The developer shall record a document which would require that the owners of the parcels between County Road 79, Mound Street, and the Homestead Ridge 2nd Addition subdivision pay for the costs of street curb, gutter, utilities, and other required public improvements for the stub street between Homestead Street and these parcels. 2. The following must be completed prior to the approval of Building Permits for the site: A. The applicant shall provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer when native soils are displaced or when building sites are filled. B. The applicant shall sign and record an agreement identifying the possible noise impacts created by the TH 101 Bypass for each property within the plat. C. The applicant shall extend the berm to be constructed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation along the southeast 245 foot property line for noise mitigation purposes. VIII. VACATION: TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF SPENCER STREET. NORTH OF TH 101 AND SOUTH OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN BLOCK 1 AND BLOCK 2 OF OLD SHAKOPEE PLAT. (WALLACE PERRY) Chrmn. Joos opened the floor for discussion regarding the above entitled matter. The Assistant City Planner stated that the City received a petition from Mr. Wallace Perry for the vacation of a portion of the Spencer Street right-of-way. She added that this vacation request is being made in order to provide an additional 40 feet of property for Wild Iris and the Perry Dental Offices. The applicant would like to provide additional parking stalls and construct a decorative brick wall within the vacated right-of-way. She added that, in addition to the existing utilities located within this portion of the right-of- - way, there are a number of projects and studies currently underway which may benefit from City ownership of this right-of-way. These include the Downtown Riverfront Design Plan, plans for a major north / south trail by Scott and Hennepin Counties, and mandates for stormwater ponding to assist in the clean up of the Minnesota River. li Minutes of the - Page- 5 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 She stated that, due to the uncertainty of these studies, staff is recommending the denial of this vacation request. She said that staff feels that it would not be in the best interest of the City to vacate the right-of-way at this time with the possibility of having to purchase additional land in the near future. However, once these issues are resolved and the studies are completed, it may be determined that there is no further public use for this right-of-way, and the vacation could be acceptable. She added that the applicant, Mr. Perry, was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting, but provided a letter expressing his support for the vacation. This letter was included in the Agenda Packets. Comm. Christensen asked the Planning Director when the Downtown Riverfront Design Plan would be completed. The Planning Director stated that it was anticipated that it would be completed within six to nine months, toward the end of the year. Motion: Comm. Mars / Bladow offered a motion to recommend the denial of this vacation request to the City Council. Chrmn. Joos asked if there was further discussion. Comm. DuBois asked if it was OK if the applicant resubmitted another vacation request at a later date. Staff responded in the affirmative. III Vote: Motion carried unanimously. IX. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: TO REVIEW THE SHAKOPEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY. (CITY OF SHAKOPEE) Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing regarding this issue. LAND USE ELEMENT: The Senior Planner provided a brief summary of this Comprehensive Plan Element. Mr. Bilotta provided an historical overview of the decision-making process that the Planning Commission and City Council had been through over the last 6 - 7 months. He also explained the MUSA expansion strategy that the Planning Commission and City Council had arrived at. Dave Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Shakopee,approached the podium. He stated that he was opposed to the inclusion of East Shakopee and the exclusion of his property from MUSA expansion. He stated that he had asked why City staff why the area between CR 17 and CR 79 had been excluded from the Sanitary Sewer plan. Responses included: 1) Jackson Township's opposition to orderly annexation; and 2) It's cheaper in the CR 18 area. He Minutes of the - Page- 6- Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 stated that, according to Mr. Theis, the township is "FOR" the orderly annexation. He also stated that since the extra costs would be passed on to the property owners and they were willing to pay the extra costs, this area should be expanded uniformly into the MUSA. Chrmn. Joos asked Mr. Brown to show the Commissioners the property that he was referring to on the map. Mr. Brown provided the location of his property, plus the Patterson's and the Churne's properties. Mike Hurley, Champlin, Minnesota, approached the podium. He stated that he represented Lloyd Churne and pointed out the site for the Commissioners. He stated that he had just heard of the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He added that he is not an engineer and can't argue costs, but he wants to see the completed report and have his engineers take a look at it. He asked if the Commission could consider "Area F", and if not, he asked if they could table the decision until he and his engineers could take a look at the report. Lloyd Cherne, 5704 View Lane,Edina, approached the podium. He stated that the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan were new to him, but after listening to the testimony, he stated that he would like to repeat the concerns of Mr. Brown. He stated that the City is "giving away access to Shakopee to Savage", while CR 79 is very close to the developed portion of the City. He added that in reference to the additional costs to extend the MUSA, "we pick that up". He said that the extension of the MUSA to their land needs to be completed or they can't develop. He added that, "There's only so much capacity. Take it from your City, not Savage". Gene Brown, 610 McDevitt Street, Shakopee, approached the podium. He stated that he's lived in Shakopee for 67 years and he used to hunt by Dean's Lake. He said the sand is like - quicksand. He added that, in 1985, Luther Anderson asked for an appraisal for Northstar Development. They determined that there was 40 acres of woods and pasture, and 60 acres in the floodplain. It would take a 4-wheel drive vehicle to take a look at it. Comm. Christensen asked why there is not a problem with the annexation (of portions of Jackson Township) any more, and whether the development of East Shakopee would adversely affect the downtown. The Senior Planner stated that recently, at either a City Council Meeting or a Committee of. the Whole Meeting, Mr. Norbert Theis stated publically stated that he is not in opposition to the annexation. This is different information than what had been provided to the City in the draft Scott County Comprehensive Plan in September of 1994. In this document it was stated that Jackson Township had no intention to be annexed into the City of Shakopee. He added that, since the 20th of January, 1995, the language has been weakened, not that it's saying that it's imminent, or references any type of orderly annexation. However, it is progressing and Minutes of the Page- 7 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 probably will take more form in the future. He also stated that in reference to the potential impact upon the downtown, the draft update of the Land Use Portion of the Comprehensive Plan does not include any additional commercially zoned land in the eastern portion of the City. He stated that the Planning Commission did not want any commercial property in East Shakopee as yet. However, if and when this does receive MUSA, it will be more of a regional commercial area. Protections through Zoning will help to protect the downtown. Dave Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Shakopee, approached the podium once again. He stated that it is critical to extend the MUSA to his land. Otherwise there will be approximately 2,700 lots that would need to be filled before any more land could be included within the MUSA. Comm. DuBois stated that during their first review of the proposed Land Use Plan, she was the lone vote in opposition to extending the MUSA to the East Shakopee area. She stated that she feels this would be dividing the City in two. She stated that she wants more cooperation and interaction with Jackson Township in order for this to be a "win / win situation". Art Bannerman, 1708 12th Avenue, Shakopee, approached the podium. He stated that he doesn't know the reasons for this "leap-frogging". He was of the opinion that the Metropolitan Council would require annexation as a part of this plan. He added that he concurs with the statements made by Dave Brown. Dave Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Shakopee, approached the podium once again. He stated that between the Patterson, Brown and Churne properties, there is approximately 200 acres. He added that voting at tonight's meeting would close them down. Steve Soltau, 3601 Minnesota Drive, Bloomington, approached the podium. He stated that he represented the owners of the Shakopee Crossings and the East Dean's Lake areas. He said that with the Chaska Interceptor Agreement, the Metropolitan Council had said that if you show absorption and consumption, you'll get more MUSA. He added that a City cannot force growth, but must respond to market demands. Without adequate planning, the City would incur trunk sewer fees without the funding to pay for it. The City must recognize the demand and show the absorption Bruce Pankonin, Land Acquisition Manager for Orrin Thompson Homes, 8421 Wayzata Blvd., Golden Valley, approached the podium. He requested that the record show that he is in strong support of the inclusion of Area H within the MUSA expansion. - Minutes of the Page- 8 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, 5240 Valley Industrial Blvd., Shakopee, approached the podium. He stated that there are no other areas within the City that are similar to the East Dean's Lake area when it comes to amenities. With the wetlands and trees, the area is easiest to develop with middle range housing. Gene Brown, 610 McDevitt, Shakopee, stated that he was not here for selfish reasons. He said that his family grew up in this area and he trusted that the City would "do the right thing". Dave Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Shakopee, approached the podium once again. He stated that the Senior Planner had pointed out at the August 11th meeting that the situation was similar to the Prairie Bend development. Mr. Brown stated that this is would be only a "microscasm of the Dean's Lake area". Lloyd Cherne, 5704 View Lane, Edina, approached the podium once again. He stated that Eden Prairie is currently searching for a downtown, and here within Shakopee, you already have it. He stated that it is logical to go down CR 79 to bring the residential areas closer to the existing downtown area. WHEREUPON, a fifteen minute recess was taken at 9:45 p.m. Carol Balfanz, 2231, Marschall Road, Shakopee approached the podium. She stated that she represented Lorraine and Don Parrot. A letter from them had been sent overnight to her from their home at 305 South 8th Street,Buckeye, Arizona 85326-2916. She said that the Parrot's own 23 acres of largely vacant land that is located north of CR 16. She stated that their letter expressed the Parrot's agreement with staffs recommendation regarding the Land Use designation change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. Copies of the letter were distributed to the Planning Commission members, and a copy was entered into the record. Discussion took place regarding access to the Parrot's land, and the recommendation of staff. Ms. Balfanz stated that the site is currently zoned Light Industrial (I-1) and they have had trouble developing it as such, even though with Light Industrial zoning the value of the land is higher. Rezoning it to High Density Residential would conform to the uses to the north of the site and give the Parrot's a higher value for their property than Medium Density Residential. Comm. Christensen strongly endorsed rezoning the area to Mid-Density Residential. She said the area is "an eyesore" with its scattered development, and there are homes right across the street. She said that we are fortunate to be given the opportunity to rezone the site to either Mid-Density or High Density Residential. - Minutes of the Page- 9 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 Comm. DuBois stated that she is in favor of rezoning this area to residential. She added that, on the south side of Eagle Creek Boulevard(CR 16) there are shallow lots which are suitable for Mid-Density Residential development, and that the City should look at the whole area. Chrmn. Joos stated that the Land Use portion of the Comprehensive Plan update needed additional input and direction. He said that the issues of concern should be separated from the rest of the issues that are less controversial and come back to discuss the more controversial issues at the next meeting. He requested that staff come back with additional information from Jackson Township on the timing of their development. He requested and received consensus on these two issues. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The Assistant Planner provided a brief summary of this Comprehensive Plan Element. She stated that the Transportation Element addresses two aspects of the City's transportation system. Intercity travel is examined to determine how well the City streets accommodate cars, trucks, buses, etc. The Shakopee Dial-A-Ride program, the VanPool program, and the recently implemented 53S Shuttle to the Eden Prairie Transit Hub contribute to the City's transportation system. She added that although there have been major problems with traffic access to and through Shakopee in the past, there have been improvements made within the past two years. The most important improvement is the Downtown Highway 169 Bridge and Mini-Bypass project. Planned improvements, such as the Bloomington Ferry Bridge Project and the Shakopee Bypass Project(southerly bypass), will be a significant improvement to the existing system. She stated that one of the most important aspects of the Transportation Element is the development of a Functional Roadway Classification System. This system separates street classifications by characteristics, right-of-way and pavement widths, and the types of services performed. The classifications include Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, Minor Collector, and Local Streets. Comm. Madigan asked what the existing TH 101 will be called after the Shakopee Bypass Project is completed. The staff engineer responded that this highway would become a county road, but what it would be called has not yet been determined. Discussion took place regarding traffic control, street signs, and the possibility of implementing a stop sign "weave" to discourage traffic on certain streets. Chrmn. Joos asked if the City was going toward firm street widths. The Planning Director responded that several things go into this and often there are missed opportunities with reconstruction projects. He added that too often we look at one area and only fix that. These - are incremental decisions. - ram . - Minutes of the - - Page- 10 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 Comm. DuBois asked if the commission of a traffic study would be possible. She stated that traffic congestion is one of the biggest issues that the City is currently facing. Comm. Mars stated that he is in agreement with "Vierling II", referring to the proposed reliever street south of the southerly bypass. Comm. Bladow asked how traffic in and out of the Dean's Lake area would be accomplished. Discussion regarding local streets within the proposed development took place. Comm. Christensen stated that CR 16 comes into the proposed southerly bypass at an interesting angle. Discussion regarding access to the southerly bypass took place. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium. He discussed the proposed density and local roadway issues within the East Dean's Lake area. He added that there is "no floodplain within this area" (referring to Gene Brown's comments), but that there are wetlands. They are proposing 191 homes on 270 acres. This isn't many, as normally there are approximately 2.5 homes per acre. The light density is related to the wetlands. He stated that it would be nice to get the southerly reliever through this area, but it would be literally impossible. Mr. Albinson asked if the Transportation Plan defines the pavement ranges for local, residential streets. The Staff Engineer responded that the standard street width is 28 feet within the rural area and 36 feet within the urban area. Bruce Pankonin, Land Acquisition Manager for Orrin Thompson Homes, approached the podium once again. He stated that he is a residential builder and that a 36 foot wide street width is excessive. He added that the maximum width should be 32 feet for local streets because of the "incredible costs" associated with the construction of 36 foot wide streets. Chrmn. Joos suggested that Mr. Pankonin make his comments known to the City Council, as they are the decision making body on this issue. PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS ELEMENT: The Planning Director provided a summary of this Comprehensive Plan Element. He explained that the Planning Commission is responsible for maintaining and updating the Comprehensive Plan. The Parks element in this Comprehensive Plan focuses on parkland acreages needed as the City grows and the general location of park sites. He also explained the Parks and Recreation Boards' role as being responsible for planning facilities and activities within the City's parks system. He reviewed the materials contained in Volume 1 noting that there are 400 acres of existing parks, 1240 acres of public open space and 7 miles of trails. He explained the methods used in determining the parkland acreages needed for the Year 2000 M[JSA growth areas and general locations of park sites. Minutes of the Page - 11 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 Chrmn. Joos suggested that since there were Land Use issues that needed to come back to the Planning Commission, discussion regarding the Urban Design and Housing Elements should also be discussed at the next meeting. Motion: Comm. Mars / Link offered a motion to continue the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting, the date of which is yet to be determined. (The Planning Commission later set the next meeting date for February 23, 1995, at 7:30 p.m.) Vote: Motion carried unanimously. X. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT (ORDINANCE NO. 377) WHICH WAS ADOPTED ON JUNE 7, 1994. (CITY OF SHAKOPEE) Chrmn. Joos reopened the public hearing regarding this issue. The Planning Director stated that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing regarding this issue to the March 9, 1995, meeting. Motion: Comm. Mars/Bladow offered a motion to continue the public hearing to the March 9, 1994, meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. XI. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Initiate Phase 4 Zoning Map Amendment-Verbal. The Planning Commission reached consensus that Phase 4 of the Zoning Map Amendment Process should be initiated. b. - Savage AUAR/ADR Update - Verbal. No action. c. Eagle Creek Bluff PUD Update- Verbal. No action. d. BO AA/PC Appointments - Verbal. No action. e. Set second meeting date in February - Verbal. The Planning Commission set February 23, 1994, as a second meeting date to discuss the update of the Comprehensive Plan. f. Government Training Service - Verbal. No action. Minutes of the - Page- 12 Shakopee Planning Commission February 9, 1995 XII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. {TERRIE\PCMINUTE.209} • • .. . • , • • . • . . - . .. . • • • , • • . • . . . • . _ . . . ' • - • • -•• • • •• •• • • EXHIBIT A • . • . .. .. • . • •-.. . ‘.,‘fr. &Mrs. Donald Parrott :.:.;. : .:7.. ..•i.,•-i, ;i...•,-:.•.".. . ••••;.7.t• ,-.• ,..;..< 305 South 8th Street ; i-:\•.:''-''.•....1::4•,..f. 4 f -• - -.!, .. 1 !.. .... Buckeye,.qZ 85326.2916 - 7 - 75- 47. .: • ,...'.....:. ; s'..".•:'• .... •• • •;" •.''•.•;I •••:...,,...'::..1.::....•1 II:..:.fI . 7 : .\..:... .:::,....,...,...:,..,..r..:;.......,.........,.;... . . . •• • •• • .... _. ... • wrjure., gfr. _ .... .. . ... • ....• • . :'..:•-:,..,.--... 3 i /Y1 ei44—f, 4fL7 Oot • • 1 ...,%,:,-.F.:,,,. -,.:,.. -----•---4.--- •-• • ,"'.....,:;-;:,•::;:--:' 94, .....ci ,---)71-q,‘ - -..s53 , . ,....... ..„,.., ...-: f;•..:: r'r a:" •••• • -- 1 '''•••.•' :'r..1..•`-%'.:1. .4..st........ i‘+.#; .::".,•••.L.:•,...rjr.. I,Zt,,tiitt.,,::•..7•1:r.:/•:!s)..‘•'''F•i-t:'•••••••'-'‘-:••-- 1•:.'" *•- •;:e...• •.,-,:.•••i e'•,••• =.....••,:,,: .. •,,..-..t...:::•-•.z..- i-!....-;:bi....::.....:!,-. 1 , •:,.t.-.•,..):cr.':,•._;'-.•. -..--'5i",•!';:•7-t`c4 ).7i-;••••.., .-iv."'•.•••.-t•-;4:i:-.•:•• ,•••'.4."-'''"•••.% l';':•*.ZIF..t•-•'.;....-5::57:::.%t4•`,Z..q:::•?=;ti"•,Ff!...?rr;• - 7:.•,..:•.:. ., 6qp-: lo owl, Pitexii_J ea...EA-sie=„1,... ,..,.::....:.:,::.,.,:: .:.......:.,.... ....1,_. ...,..,. -. .... ..: ...., ..:.• ...,;....,..,.....:...,,....,.•. ,..... .,,,, ..... •... ... .,. ..„....,:,......: „,:.._,..,.. .,..,,,:.:::.,::.,. ...•:::• ..._._ afro-Lai- - ;e;•tez#ga..eLe._. -ril_.-v ::.„,, ........:!..„ ................r.:....,.. ,.... .:4,.._. • r...., . .,...:....:...........:.,...;:...i..,:... ....•...:.- ci,v ,c., Gix)...q._. al.ill (rae ;:;"-:.:!...7:;::,::1:%:',.,..;.:-..,;,,''..-...f:. ...- :,-:••-: .. Zi-',.!;,,;?:.? •:•.; ;•*.i:::.‘,:::i......*.';--.'--,-...--•;•,...:-. ••-.,.:.-.:.-....:-:. ......A•,••,.;•-•4•,...;„,,e.:1".—•....- •••••••-•..-..r.-.-..•-. --";:g.ZIt ,•it; ILs...:.`=14 4:1,'•4744.;1"7..•:-'1;4•1!Ai_ 'at' - , irai -,..*--• _ , e •-2 ..•• ••,V,7:-.• 4--4: •9-1 --i: 1 9_,ft q, . .., ....„..i..._.....),_„,..,. „......,„.........., ----.4.?.7= ..,.,,•.----..,-,,..--•;r-_,---,-,....,-_.:.:..-37.0 1 ....s;37 :•...'.;.n.:. Il '7 ill__ Fi4f...1',=-'_-.-;'.'....r:.-^.f"•:.:---"r;.:r.•77,1_-_,,2*--."'4--Y--4:- .1--- i=lf;,:i:..•1-.s-,t),.'7.:: L an-J2 A'A ,.0.__4..f-:.s.L-r•:".Ri.i.•.-Mh•Z..iF..v..Si.w".r.CiA-,.1t":.,.-,tWa14l,r.i4v4t,.-7,....;.:.r:.:..:_;i-..4•-..„1.: •,‘. f.d"-.';',, 4.,t:1140-,..,...,•:::••• -,.i.,-"......t.".---& " "-?tsei...‘!1...f•T:e.:3.-0": 4.4,44c$:•.)fz,i;&-• • \ ':;.:.."17‘,.....).-3;?,,,. .77:;•.C.,;:'4:..--•%;,1•iief.-7,-::-A ,-;;;•4•;.. L -,....•-,-(A4-411:.-. _...-;t•,..1.•,.'",ti'''...../.4',1?•4,ie...-•._ ..;",114'.:::: / t. , 21,... 6.....„...e( / to.t)..1 ...:';:•••:s- ..7---.- ' '-. 11.,...1-kir.,•:...2.: 77:: ty . . • r-.7-=2,,, •-%i.7. ... :14....• .. t r t ....."i,....•,,,•z-Ate.:44....11.....".:, *14.,..t 1.......:t t• :4?-4.1":.!,-;•.:-:•-:%.; ..00::".....,..--_,:-..,......-...g;.•„ .. / eh... r.....1,&-.4.14:.':'::'''',......',/fl_..Z:cr::;...:fir.:fit,.•V:11:;1:1,::..;Pt1:::,...r:-.17:7'...:,:t:•.;?.0.:::',:l.:?. ,...)..;a 71:-...41 ..: 0 t • • .' y.../2.,e4 ) ,..,4:•.*•.:14:::„.,:i.5.:://,:,.....-.....-:-...••••...,•• ;,... ,... :_.:.:•1-4-e:, 1-..,.'i.-'F....;-:.:"..'".1.:t:•t'r 3'.''',''‘• -. -- ) I • , tr:"..f f,:t;;"•/...Z:Nt- f ..,--.:'..,•_,Ail.•'i:•!:• I • j ‘72-: q:30 4 7,-.';1:Cli..Z. l'''il%...-;,::',7t•:3'-' , cl) '?7:.:*.:-Z" .".:_ct,_-=•:: , • CI" ?\41- ' ..1-44-4'' vo---te.b."144,-11••A''--. ---,• •• •-...- :.--'.....-:--,41-7-.V••i!-:•,4•,?:,.1,•:!...' •-.,L':•:11-1•7::41-:1:-: fa. 1 ...1.",z,r,..r-e,.............-.r.-1„--...-.<-._ - .:..•- ••• • ,*-••-— f.::,•_;,---.•••-•-•:, 4::::,,,,,...,.-4:,:.--:...._.-.e. .,..„:-. •:.!,--;,....11.••ri••••'="7- rzV'-:?•,:er,-,*-!.,..."-:.te.••••‘..c,-,,..:1•:•--*-: :-. '.....,ir..4 a.t.,••!:::, .... re:S.-".> t ,4.7'f.•.t'••=•• . . ••'- V t...,: .1.!'it.411.11...7"..:ZI \'-::1•t:.••••••'..%:,.: .-44;•.'7.:y....-AIT...'• 0,,_; ..2a,•,,',..f.:: 74,..4.17......1.•'. .t.;....A.Z...ii&i.!i• "s::.:z,;k. .•.2,* i"...E}!:•.ti'..,...4.! 9" ..-....."••••• U ( ,,,,.,...,..,.:,:;,,,.....,...,....:,•,..., ;,...:.„. ........,,.c......,..,,,....,,,:,.:.:.. . ....,...,.......,........,_ •:•••.,/,:;.::"..,,,,,,-s.c• :,.:• .,-.:!•1..1-:',.:". "--‘•-l'a.-1"e14•••.;,r,--..,--,-,•••••4---,..:-.:;L.-itr- ..,,...)4......,,,,,...;:. ,:........,...a4,-...s.,..:....4,,,,..--,z,..-?,--....,...-.-.:::,....-.., ,,.."..„..„ \ , k. -.:-I..,: -- ".;.•:*-:••••:;..:'•• .!.r*- - ::::" -..--'".•::.-•'.:•c: •r-J - . ..... • s ;':.'-':("•-:-1 -..:..•-z.r::-,...: lt, ..t.::•,•:-.•;:•-,:r••••,:•.?-4 :f 4' ';'!.1,e,-....: • . :••••;••,-..-•4:Lii•7:•!-•':•:• -...•,;(-,-•,•.••••;.-.P.:',:l. .'''• •"...I. .: .i...! S)0 • ' •• r ....5:•. - •:•• ''''-'"-- _. . • • - • . + •• . ...... • • . . . . . . . I . . •. . .• ., . * ... .6 • . • .• . .. . . . • • .• • ayt.r al../1. 0.--- . . . ,. . . . . . .. . .• •. . • • . .;. • • •. . . .. . • . • • _ • . . . • .. • ... • • . .. . . . . . . . ... . . , • . . . . . . • . . . •.. . . . • • ... .. . . . . • . . : .. , . . .. . _ . . . " . .. . . . .. . . _ . . . . . • • . . • • • .. . . . • . •.• • • • . .. • .. . . . .. _ . . . . • 1 . . . 1 . .. . . . . . . • . • _ . _ _ . • . .• .. . . . .., . .. • ... . . •. .. . . • .. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION Special Session Shakopee, Minnesota February 23, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mars, Christensen, Bladow, Link, DuBois and Madigan MEMBERS ABSENT: Joos STAFF PRESENT: Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer Bruce Loney, Public Works Director I. ROLL CALL Chairman Mars called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Director requested that two items be added to the agenda; GTS Seminars and Compensation. These items were added as Items 5A and 5B, respectively. The Agenda was approved as amended. M. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Recognize anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. IV. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: TO REVIEW THE SHAKOPEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY (CITY OF SHAKOPEE) The Planning Director noted that various components of the Comprehensive Plan have been reviewed by various boards. He noted that at the last public hearing, there was some testimony regarding concerns on the urban service area staging concepts. He referred the Commissioners to a memo from staff placed on the table addressing these concerns and asked that they review the memo at this time. The Commission recessed for five minutes. The Planning Director identified maps for use at the meeting including the land useP lan, sanitary sewer plan, and transportation plan. Minutes of the Page - 2 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) The Senior Planner stated that the land use plan does not indicate the decision made on the industrial area on County Road 16, but it would be included. He discussed four main issues raised at the last meeting, which are: 1. The City has always had a policy that residential development must occur directly adjacent to urbanized areas. The justification presented in public comments on this issue was that residents are closer together and shopping, schools, and other services are more conveniently located. He noted that there doesn't seem to be any difference between rural residential areas to the east and south from the urban residential areas. He stated that a policy might want to be considered by the Council in the future addressing this concern. 2. The East Dean Lake area expansion was not in the Shakopee school district. The Senior Planner stated that there was some confusion, because the Shakopee/Burnsville school district line divides the land owned by the East Dean Lake landowner. All of the residential planned areas included with the first stage is in the Shakopee school district. A separate comp plan amendment would be needed for the area to the east in the future. 3. The annexation of Jackson Township was one of the primary reasons for choosing the proposed MUSA expansion strategy. The Senior Planner stated that the issue of Jackson Township's desire to annex or not is more of a policy issue. From the staff's technical point of view; it didn't have much weight in their point of view. Staff's primary technical consideration was cost benefit for the various service areas. He discussed trunk sewer and lateral sewer benefits and differences in cost per acre. 4. The cost issue is largely irrelevant, because developers pay all the costs anyway. If the developers are willing to pay the costs, why shouldn't they be able to. The Senior Planner noted that it does make a difference from the City's perspective in terms of cost. He referred to charts outlining a hypothetical 1200-acre site. The intent is to build one trunk at a time in order to maximize its.use. When it reaches its capacity, another trunk will be constructed. He stated that the City has to be Minutes of the Page - 3 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) concerned with lifetime costs as well as development costs. The Senior Planner reviewed the cash flow analysis for the cost of the trunk services. He explained that they are not paid for entirely by the developers. He reviewed the sewer trunks throughout the city and their initial costs and revenue. He noted that to developers, all four trunks cost the same. He explained how services are funded. A question asked if there are other examples where the initial costs would be very expensive and the fee revenue would not be up to par. The Senior Planner replied that half of the trunks within the City will be above F and half below. Once F is completed, trunks will be built that don't pay for themselves. Commissioner DuBois questioned the location of Trunks F and O. The Senior Planner noted the locations. He also noted the location of Area H, I, and K which he stated would not need benefits at this time. The Senior Planner reviewed costs associated with going with one trunk vs. two trunks. He stated that the most cost effective method is to construct one trunk and bring it to capacity before another is constructed. The Senior Planner noted that sewer systems do not last forever and eventually must be replaced. He discussed the City's policy to put money aside to replace these services. He reviewed the costs for replacement. The Senior Planner discussed long term maintenance costs for the system. Chairman Mars opened the public hearing for comments and questions. Lloyd Cheme, Edina asked if in Area F it would be necessary to construct in an area where there is a hill. The Senior Planner replied that the point of the sanitary sewer system is to service the total area rather than just the northern portion. He stated that the intent is to identify the areas up front that would be needed to serve the entire area. Cheme was concerned about the size of the pipe going in. He noted that the pipe is cheap, it's the labor that is expensive. He questioned density in the area. The Senior Planner stated that the pipe will be laid in stages; the cost of the system is costly per linear foot. He noted that the City must determine what area will be serviced to make the decision regarding pipe sizes. Minutes of the- _ Page 4 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) Cheme was concerned about fees that will be collected and the different costs to various areas. The Senior Planner explained how fees are determined on a per acre basis. Cheme questioned how the difference in Areas F-and H were determined. The Senior Planner explained the costs over a 50-year period. Dave Brown. 1227 Pioneer Lane introduced members of the Shakopee- Jackson Coalition. He stated that the current MUSA extension will include areas in the Burnsville school district in the future. A future commercial area will be in the Burnsville school district. He discussed development planned in this area. He discussed his concerns about commercial development in this area and that it would compete with commercial development planned at CR 17 and the Bypass. Commissioner Bladow questioned where the Shakopee- Jackson Coalition was when the comprehensive plan was first discussed. Brown replied that they have not seen a concrete proposal prior to the previous day. He stated that the process has gone awry. He noted that there have been a lot of closed door meetings and lobbying outside. He felt that they are being timely right now at the public hearing. Steve Schwanke. RLK Associates noted that his group has been retained by Mr. Brown's coalition to evaluate the comprehensive plan. He stated that there is some material that is not included in the document. The concern is that the document has just been made available and would like additional time to review it. Schwanke requested a continuance of this public hearing to give him time to review the document and ask questions of city staff. In response to a statement from Mars, Schwanke noted that some of the maps that have been worked on are not included in the document. Norbert Theis. 12466 Marystown Road noted that he is Chairman of the Jackson Township Board. He stated that he was unaware of the city's plans to extend sewer lines into the township. He believed that the city should work with the township. He stated that Jackson Township is not opposed to future annexation. He referenced an article in a Jordan newspaper and discussed his concerns about the proposed comprehensive plan. Commissioner Mars asked Theis if the last annexation was favorable. Theis replied that III Minutes of the Page - 5 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) it was. He noted that they would not be in favor of annexation if they are not made aware of what is planned for the area that is annexed and that it be developed in a timely manner. The Senior Planner summarized comments made between Jackson Township and the City of Shakopee. The Planning Director discussed the long term planning approach utilized in the comprehensive sewer plan addressing Jackson Township. He noted that there have been good discussions with Mr. Theis dating back to last summer on the sewer planning effort. Gene Brown, 610 McDevitt Street stated that whatever decision is made must be lived with for the next 30-40 years. He suggested that the decision not be made rapidly. Commissioner Christensen questioned the process. The Senior Planner stated that the total MUSA area will ultimately be determined by the Met Council. Figures could be adjusted quite drastically. He stated that the City is trying to develop in the cheapest areas first where there isn't any trunk sewer presently. Commissioner Christensen understood that the staff recommendations are based solely and strictly on the cost benefit analysis in terms of installing the trunk system, and the policy where the MUSA line should go is strictly up to us. The Senior Planner noted that sewers drive planning. There are also a series of levels that are reviewed and of concern such as the sewer system, mining operations, existing commercial and industrial areas, issues of transportation, environmental concerns, and areas without access to any services. He reviewed areas of the city which will be cut by the Shakopee Bypass. He stated that it will be ultimately up to the Planning Commission and City Council to determine which areas will be serviced. He noted that the sewer system is a major infrastructure investment. Once it goes in, it can't be moved. Commissioner Mars referenced the Met Council Blueprint, a plan for the region. He noted that the number one driving force behind it would be the cost of the sewer system followed by traffic concerns. He discussed the city's role to plan growth and have fiscal responsibility. He questioned if this would be a fair assessment of how the city and Met Council's roles would criss-cross. Staff agreed with his assessment.- fl - I Minutes of the Page - 6 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) Commissioner DuBois asked the Senior Planner to restate the number of acres that will be serviced on the east and central areas. The Senior Planner referenced the MUSA analysis section in the comp plan and identified acreage amounts. Area H and G totals 550 acres for the MUSA expansion area. The East Dean Lake area totals 430 acres. Commissioner DuBois questioned how many acres would be in the Jackson Township area. The Senior Planner replied that it is 1598 acres. He noted that it is three times the size of the proposed MUSA expansion area. Commissioner Christensen asked for clarification on whether the Met Council would want Jackson Township to be totally annexed before services are extended. The Senior Planner stated that the Met Council's primary interest is the size of the pie rather than where it is located. Given that, it is the city's role to determine where the "pieces" are distributed. He stated that they will not be given all the areas. Commissioner Christensen asked how the staging would take place. The Senior Planner stated that there is a big difference between MUSA expansion area and the staging area. He noted that not all of Area H is being proposed for MUSA expansion. He discussed the need for criteria that will allow decisions to be made without favoritism. Commissioner DuBois asked what would happen if the absorption rate isn't moving quickly on one end and is faster on another. The Senior Planner noted that the Met Council looks at vacant land available in the MUSA, and where it is located doesn't matter. If there is a lack of absorption in another city, that could be used as criteria to not allow further MUSA expansion in Shakopee. He stated that the Met Council expects cities to move the MUSA area when the area is slow. Commissioner DuBois asked what the current zoning is s in the East Dean Lake area. The Senior Planner replied that it is zoned industrial. He stated that there aren't any plans to rezone it currently. Commissioner Bladow asked why the city couldn't go to the Met Council and ask for more acreage than is needed. The Senior Planner stated that at the present time, the Met Council has indicated that they will give us 160 of the 900 acres being requested. He reviewed the discrepancy in the city's and Met Council's population projections for the year 2000. Commissioner Bladow felt that the population projections were way too low. Commissioner Christensen asked if the MUSA expansion area must be shown to the Met Council or if the city can just ask for a certain number of acres. The Senior Planner stated Minutes of the Page - 7 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) that it must be shown where it will go. The city must also show that it will not have adverse effects on transportation systems, and park systems. They also want to make sure the city is not exceeding the capacity of the interceptor in that area. He stated that it is highly discouraged to expand 50-100 acres at a time. The Met Council is concerned about cities coming back for expansions over and over again. IIII'', The Planning Commission recessed for 10 minutes. Commissioner Mars asked the Planning Director to review further steps in this process. The Planning Director stated that staff has held four public hearings on this proposal. The Committee of the Whole meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 28. The City Council could take action, if they receive a recommendation for approval, at their first meeting in March. The Planning Director noted that the purpose of the February 28 meeting is to meet as a committee as a whole and make a recommendation to the City Council. In response to a request from Commissioner Mars, the Planning Director noted that the City of Shakopee covers 18,000 acres. 6,000 acres are in the City's MUSA area. He noted that Jackson Township covers another 5,000 to 6,000 acres. He illustrated that the city is land rich in terms of the acres of land located in the rural service area. The Planning Director noted that there is a relationship between the size of an area and the size of the trunk pipe. He noted that there are no trunk costs associated with Area K. Area H is also cost effective from that perspective in that it has a low trunk cost. • The Planning Director discussed the Met Council's goal for a mixture of housing in communities. He stated that the City currently has a good mix of housing in the area. He discussed opportunities in various areas for a mix of development. The Senior Planner reviewed the proposed MUSA expansion areas again. He stated that one area should not be pitted against another. If one area is not able to be expanded, the area should be added to the other one. He stated that Areas F, H, I and K were identified as areas most likely to be developed. He stated that growth will be monitored on an annual basis to determine whether it is increasing more rapidly than proposed in order to expand into other areas. Commissioner Mars asked if the Met Council approved an expansion in the areas Minutes of the _ Page S Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) identified, where would be the most logical next expansion. The Senior Planner replied that Area I and Area K would be likely choices. He noted that the mine in Area I would be in use for twenty more years. Commissioner Mars asked which area would be the most expensive. The Senior Planner replied that Area A would be the most expensive. He noted that Jackson Township would not be as expensive. Commissioner DuBois asked if the area in the proposed expansion to the east would be commercial. The Senior Planner replied that it is all single family residential with this staging concept. She discussed her concerns about the commercial areas being in the Burnsville school district. She suggested that meetings be held to look at this. We're missing an opportunity for a lot of money. The Senior Planner stated that the City is concerned with the school tax issue and the impact on commercial areas in the City and region. Commissioner DuBois stated that the development of the commercial area would prompt the need for urban services in Area K. The Senior Planner discussed development in Area K which will be less dense. Commissioner Christensen stated that she is concerned about the tax dollars from the commercial area going to another school district. She believed that it is a major policy issue and needs to be addressed by the City Council. The Planning Director stated that based on earlier discussion made by the Commissioner that the Burnsville school district is open for discussion on bourdary changes. He added that Met Council is encouraging cooperation between cities. The Senior Planner stated that it is large policy issue. He pointed out that there are a lot _ of changes in the comprehensive plan document that reflect this issue. He noted that this area cannot be rezoned to commercial until urban services are available. He encouraged the Planning Commission to direct staff to remove that area from the plan document itself. Norbert Theis stated that Jackson Township could work with the City of Shakopee to request more MUSA area. Dave Brown pointed out that the absorption rate for the four quadrants for the County Road 17 area will be fast. He noted that there are people who want to build a major commercial area. He stated that it is a pipe dream that Burnsville will give up tax money to Shakopee by moving the school district boundary. Minutes of the Page - 9 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) Virgil Herrich, attorney stated that he believed that the city of Shakopee should get as much land as they can into the MUSA area as quickly as they can. He discussed MUSA expansion and interceptor construction are separate issues. He didn't see why the areas discussed could not be put into the MUSA area and then prioritized regarding utility expansion. He was surprised that the comprehensive plan has just been completed and understood that it is still not complete. He discussed his concerns about information not being included in the plan. He found it very difficult to believe that the Planning Commission is ready to make decisions on this document. Herrich discussed his concern about the city's policy that residential development must occur next to urbanized areas. He was concerned about bypassing areas close to the downtown area in favor of other areas farther out. He requested that this item not be acted on to allow them time to examine figures presented tonight in order to have further discussion relating to information presented. He suggested that a proposal be generated where each of these areas would have an opportunity to be in the MUSA area. Herrich stated that affected landowners must be given the opportunity to comment on the document. Commissioner Mars asked what timeframe the parties would need to comment on information provided. Herrich replied that two weeks would be sufficient. Steve Soltau, representing Shakopee Crossings stated that commercial property discussion is a non-issue. He discussed how trade areas for commercial developments are determined. In response to a question from the Commission, Soltau characterized himself as a developer withan emphasis on retail. Commissioner Mars asked Soltau if he believed that commercial would be built if there weren't any houses built. Soltau believed that it would not be built right away. He noted that growth on the part of-the residential area has to mature somewhat before commercial property comes in. Commissioner Mars noted that commercial property is demand driven. Solten believed that the commercial property would not go in until there is residential development. He noted that retailers he has talked with have noted that they intend to wait. He noted that thebridge crossing is-a major infrastructure investment. Minutes of the Page - 10 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) Commissioner DuBois asked Soltau if he had a feel when commercial development would occur. Soltau replied that there won't be any interest until there is a more mature market which would involve the Bypass, expansion of County Road 21, and more residential development. Commissioner DuBois asked if the landowners of Shakopee Crossings would be interested in annexing property to be allowed to be in another school district. Soltau replied that they would be willing to help out. He discussed the proper timing to approach the school district. He noted that the issue isn't on the table yet. Commissioner DuBois noted that if it's not on the table real soon and residential development occurs, it will be more difficult to get Burnsville to let go of the school tax dollars. Commissioner Link stated that it would be naive to believe that we're not going to get any pressure for commercial development out there real soon in spite of what is done with mapping or zoning. The Senior Planner stated that in order to separate the commercial issue from the residential, it has already established the number of residences in the East Dean Lake area which are nowhere near what you would need to support a commercial area. There are a number of controls in the comprehensive plan that indicate that it should develop in a deliberate fashion. It has also been established that there will be a lot of market pressure in the area. Utilities are not necessary to be extended from the residential to the commercial area. He requested that the two issues be separated. He noted that whether or not the residential occurs in that area won't make any difference. • Commissioner Bladow asked Mr. Theis what he believed the chances were that the Met - Council would give more MUSA area. Theis believed that there would be a possibility to negotiate additional land. - Commissioner Christensen commended Mr. Soltau for his offer of assistance to move forward to get the commercial land back into the school district. Commissioner Christensen believed that putting this issue on the back burner will not be politically wise. She urged city staff and the developers to start making plans for how this might happen. Soltau assured her that this issue would be addressed in a timely fashion. 4mimr Minutes of the Page - 11 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) Jon Albin son, Valley Green Business Park business director stated that the MUSA expansion will be a very difficult process and commented on Met Council discussions of the process. He discussed his philosophy when marketing the City indirectly through the marketing of the business park. He stated that it is in the City's best interest to create residential development. Mr. Cheme discussed his concerns about not expanding the MUSA area adjacent to the downtown area. He focused his comments on expansion of the urban services into Area F, costs and fee revenue. He discussed the need to find out how costs were determined. The Senior Planner discussed issues raised by Mr. Cheme. He explained how trunk sewers are funded in the City. He stated that the initial MUSA will determine what size pipes are used. He stated that the actual cost to construct each individual interceptor has not been provided yet and can be if requested. The Senior Planner stated that staff would be willing to get together with interested persons who have additional questions. Commissioner DuBois stated that she doesn't feel comfortable with voting on this until all the information has been reviewed. She felt that a continuance is certainly in order. Mr. Herrich believed that the comprehensive plan needs to be distributed to organizations throughout the City, including the Chamber of Commerce, and all interested residents. He addressed the issue of changing school boundaries and problems associated with such a difficult issue. He suggested that the City Attorney become involved in the process. Bruce Pankinon. Orrin Thompson Homes encouraged the Planning Commission to move on with this process which Orrin Thompson is eager to begin construction on. Motion: Commissionr DuBois/Link moved that -this public hearing be continued to the next Planning Commission on March 9, 1995. The Planning Director noted that a meeting is scheduled on February 28, 1995 for the Committee of the Whole. March 9 is the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. He noted that the document and decision of the Planning Commission will be brought to the Committee of the Whole meeting since it has already been scheduled. He discussed other options the Planning Commission would have relating to this issue. Commissioner Mars noted that this document has been discussed for some time now. He questioned if this was recommended to be moved_forward to the City Council, that is where the political issues will be brought up. He stated that this document has been Minutes of the - Page - 12 Shakopee Planning Commission February 23, 1995 IV. Comprehensive Plan (Continued) reviewed several times by the Commission and other boards. He felt that this should be moved forward to the City Council for more public testimony. Commissioner DuBois felt that this needs further consideration because of its monumental ramifications. She stated that she has not had time to review the entire document and didn't believe that two weeks would be too much of a delay. Commissioner Christensen stated that there is more information that came to light this evening that needs to be considered. She stated that there are several issues that need to be reviewed. Vote: Motion carried. This will be discussed at the next meeting on March 9, 1995. It will also be discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting at 5:30 p.m. on February 28, 1995. Mr. Herrich asked if the City Council would have a public hearing on this item. The Planning Director noted that the City Council is not required to hold a public hearing by State law. He noted that the required public notice had been provided for the Planning Commission public hearings and that it was up to the City Council to determine if they wanted an additional hearing. V. OTHER BUSINESS A. Government Training Service Brochures were made available. B. Compensation A brief discussion on the Council approved resolution on the Commission compensation was made. - VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Commissioner DuBois/Bladow move to adjourn the meeting. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. - OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota February 9,1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mars, Joos, Madigan, Bladow, Link, Christensen MEMBERS ABSENT: DuBois STAFF PRESENT: Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planner Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer Bruce Loney, Public Works Director I. ROLL CALL Chrmn. Mars called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. III. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 5, 1995. MEETING MINUTES The minutes were approved as presented. IV. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Recognize anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. V. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NORTHSTAR AUTO AUCTION TO MOVE A MODULAR OFFICE ONTO THE NORTHSTAR AUTO AUCTION SITE. (NORTHSTAR AUTO AUCTION) Chrmn. Mars opened the public hearing regarding this matter. The Assistant City Planner stated that, last October, the City approved a Conditional Use Permit to move a modular office onto the Northstar Auto Auction Site. This permit allowed the structure to be located close to the storage area for rental vehicles. Due to obstacles involved in providing utilities to this site, the applicants have requested an amendment to the permit to locate this structure close to an existing building. N Minutes of the - _- Page- 2 - Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 9, 1995 She added that the structure is to be used as an office for the administrative personnel, computers, and inspectors of Intermodal Transportation Services, Inc. I.T.S. was hired by General Motors to inspect rental vehicles being turned back to them by local rental companies. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the six conditions discussed in the staff report. Chairman Mars asked the applicant to approach the podium. Mr. Vince Heinz, 2928 Marcia Lane, Shakopee, approached the podium. He stated that he was representing Mr. Kelly Conger. Chairman Joos asked staff if the applicant would have any problems located the structure adjacent to the principal structure. The Assistant Planner responded that setbacks required by the Fire Code would be enforced at the Building Permit stage. Motion: Comm. Christensen / Joos offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Comm. Joos / Bladow offered a motion to adopt Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC-711, A Resolution Approving a conditional Use Permit to Northstar Auto Auction to move a modular office onto the Northstar Auto Auction Site, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC-711 shall cause Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC-697 (approved on October 6, 1994) to become null and void. 2. Prior to the release of the Building Permit, the applicant shall post a financial guarantee (cash, cashier's check, or letter of credit) to ensure bringing the structure into compliance with the Building Code. 3. Prior to the release of the Building Permit, the applicant shall obtain-a Moving Permit from the City of Shakopee, and Moving Permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or the Scott County Highway Department. 4. The modular office shall meet all the requirements of the Building Code within six (6) months after it is moved. If the structure is not in full compliance with the Building Code after six months, the City, in its sole discretion, may draw on the financial guarantee and take whatever steps it deems necessary to bring the _ relocated structure into compliance with.the Building Code. In the event the City draws on the financial guarantee, 10% of the total guarantee shall be paid to the City as its administrative fee. 5. The Conditional Use Permit shall be renewed every five years. - Minutes of the _ Page- 3 Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 9, 1995 6. The CityAdministrator has the e authonty to require the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to review the permit if complaints are received. Vote Motion carried unanimously. VI. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to be discussed. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:36 p.m. {Terrie\boaamin.209} ..J