Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/23/1996
TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 23, 1996 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jeff Henderson presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] Approval of the Minutes of January 9, 1996 4] Scott County presentation on providing prosecution services 5] Other Business: 6] Recess 7] Convene Economic Development Authority in Committee of the Whole: a] Approval of the Minutes of January 9, 1996 b] Development of Blocks 3 and 4 - public input c] Adjourn 8] Convene City Council in Committee of the Whole: a] Approval of the Minutes of January 9, 1996 b] Rural Versus Urban Taxing Districts c] Adjourn 9) Convene City Council in Executive Session to discuss matters covered under attorney-client privilege 10] Re-convene the City Council 11] Adjourn. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 9, 1996 Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. with Councilmembers DuBois, Zorn, Sweeney, and Link present. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk;Paul Bilotta, Community Development Director/Planning Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer(at 7:35 P.M.); Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer(at 7:35 P.M.); and Nicole Bennett, Planner. Items added to the agenda: 3a)Bureau of Mediation Services communication and labor issues Items deleted from the agenda: 7) labor negotiations Sweeney/Zorn moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 4375, Amending Resolution No. 4365, A Resolution Setting Fees For City Licenses, Permits, Services and Documents, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. With reference to the Maintenance of Status Quo Order received from the Bureau of Mediation Services, Mayor Henderson stated that he has been in communication with Mr. Peter Obermeyer from the Bureau of Mediation Services regarding the status of Mr. Kraft and Ms. Marty. He explained that the procedure to follow is for the City Council to take a position as to what status we feel the City Administrator and the City Attorney or any other City positions should be in regards to this bargaining unit. If the individuals challenge the City then it goes to a hearing. Discussion followed. Zorn/Sweeney moved to designate the City Administrator position as exempt from the bargaining unit as stated in the Maintenance of Status Quo Order(confidential, supervisory and professional employees). Motion carried unanimously. Zorn/DuBois moved to designate the City Attorney position as exempt from the bargaining unit as stated in the Maintenance of Status Quo Order. Motion carried with Cncl.Sweeney opposed. Zorn/DuBois moved to designate the Assistant City Attorney position as exempt from the bargaining unit as stated in the Maintenance of Status Quo Order. Motion carried with Cncl.Sweeney opposed. DuBois/Link moved to designate the Executive Secretary position as exempt from the bargaining unit as stated in the Maintenance of Status Quo Order. Motion carried with Cncl.Zorn and Sweeney opposed. In response to questions raised by Councilmembers, Mr. Kraft explained that typically the Bureau of Mediation Services attempts to move these matter along rather quickly. He stated that he thought that they would respond within one to two weeks on the City's designation of specific Official Proceedings of the January 9, 1996 Shakopee City Council Page -2- employees exempt from the bargaining unit. Mayor Henderson recessed the meeting at 7:19 P.M. (An Economic Development Authority Committee of the Whole meeting followed.) Mayor Henderson re-convened the meeting at 8:48 P.M. Mayor Henderson initiated discussion on setting E.D.A. Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for January 23rd at 5:00 P.M. Zorn/DuBois moved that the City Council direct the E.D.A. to meet on January 23rd at the same time as the City Council. Motion defeated unanimously. Mayor Henderson recessed the meeting at 9:54 P.M. (A City Council Committee of the Whole meeting followed.) Mayor Henderson re-convened the meeting at 10:08 P.M. Zorn/Sweeney moved that a memorandum be drafted to the County stating the City's opposition to the Scott County Economic Development Planning Board (S.C.E.D.P.B.) as it currently is written and acknowledging the requirement and the need to coordinate, cooperate and have dialogue about the matters within that E.D.P.B. Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Zorn/Link moved to direct City staff to have further discussion with the County and the litigants of Mr. Kelly's group accompanied by one or two City Councilmembers, appointed by the Mayor or volunteering, prior to the next meeting, to discuss the viability of possibly looking at some alternatives relating to constructing CR-18 to a four lane roadway. Discussion followed. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Henderson recessed the meeting at 10:25 P.M. for an executive session to discuss matters permitted under attorney-client privilege. Mayor Henderson re-convened the meeting at 11:36 P.M. and stated that no action was taken during the executive session. Zorn/DuBois moved to drop the law suit against Indrehus attempting to recoup costs to recap a well. Motion carried with Cncl.Sweeney opposed and Mayor Henderson abstaining. DuBois/Sweeney moved to adjourn to January 16, 1996 at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:38 P.M. dith S. Cox,Qity Clerk ecording Secretary C o ZR. EC -TtAD OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 9, 1996 Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. with Councilmembers DuBois, Zorn, Sweeney, and Link present. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Paul Bilotta, Community Development Director/Planning Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer(at 7:35 P.M.); Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer(at 7:35 P.M.); and Nicole Bennett, Planner. Items added to the agenda: 3a)Bureau of Mediation Services communication and labor issues Items deleted from the agenda: 7) labor negotiations Sweeney/Zorn moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 4375, Amending Resolution No. 4365, A Resolution Setting Fees For City Licenses, Permits, Services and Documents, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. With reference to the Maintenance of Status Quo Order received from the Bureau of Mediation Services, Mayor Henderson stated that he has been in communication with Mr. Peter Obermeyer from the Bureau of Mediation Services regarding the status of Mr. Kraft and Ms. Marty. He explained that the procedure to follow is for the City Council to take a position as to what status we feel the City Administrator and the City Attorney or any other City positions should be in regards to this bargaining unit. If the individuals challenge the City then it goes to a hearing. Discussion followed. Zorn/Sweeney moved to designate the City Administrator position as exempt from the bargaining unit as stated in the Maintenance of Status Quo Order(confidential, supervisory and professional employees). Motion carried unanimously. Zorn/DuBois moved to designate the City Attorney position as exempt from the bargaining unit as stated in the Maintenance of Status Quo Order. Motion carried with Cncl.Sweeney opposed. Zorn/DuBois moved to designate the Assistant City.Attorney-Administrator position as exempt from the bargaining unit as stated in the Maintenance of Status Quo Order. Motion carried with Cncl.Sweeney opposed. DuBois/Link moved to designate the Executive Secretary position as exempt from the bargaining unit as stated in the Maintenance of Status Quo Order. Motion carried with Cncl.Zorn and Sweeney opposed. In response to questions raised by Councilmembers, Mr. Kraft explained that typically the Bureau of Mediation Services attempts to move these matter along rather quickly. He stated that he thought that they would respond within one to two weeks on the City's designation of specific t MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorne . 4 DATE: January 23, 1996 RE: Prosecution At your last meeting various questions were raised regarding prosecution costs and number of cases . Some answers and related information are set forth below. Cost to prosecute: Since no two agencies keep records exactly alike, it is difficult to "compare apples with apples" . In order to provide one set of consistent figures, I have obtained the attached reports from the Scott County Court Administrator' s office. The Court Administrator' s reports show that Shakopee disposed of more cases "with trial" than Savage and Prior Lake put together. If Scott Joint Prosecution can halve the Shakopee cases being set for trial, then Shakopee' s costs may be similar to those of Savage or Prior Lake. Shakopee has budgeted $85, 000 to 90, 000 for in-house prosecution in 1996 . (Separate budgets for civil legal work and prosecution were not established, but this is the estimated share of the legal budget which is for prosecution. ) Recovery of prosecution costs : According to the Finance Department, Shakopee' s 1995 fine revenue through November was $74, 000 . This includes approximately $2, 000 in prosecution costs . A judge sometimes will award a City prosecution costs. A City can get additional prosecution costs through plea bargains . Many defendants offer to pay prosecution costs if, in return, they can get less time inrjail, have a ticket kept off their driving record, or have a case dismissed. It has been the policy of previous City Councils to refuse to agree to that, under the reasoning that a person should not be allowed to "buy their way out" of taking responsibility for their actions and accepting the consequences of their actions. If the City Council prefers to maximize revenue instead of other penalties, it seems likely that prosecution cost recovery would increase. This could occur whether prosecution was handled by Scott Joint Prosecution, by Scott County, or in-house. [23CCLSTF] CASE DISPOSITION ANALYSIS REPORT RUN DATE 10-13-95 PROSECUTOR MARK A. ERICKSON ADULTS NO TRIAL 1992 1993 1994 PLEAD GUILTY AS CHARGED 2,362 1,918 2,016 PLEAD GUILTY TO LESSER CHARGE 177 25 8 CASE DISMISSED (ALL TYPES) 425 389 619 ALL OTHERS (TRANSFER VENUE) 0 0 0 TOTAL DISPOSED MITHOUT TRIAL 2,964 2,332 2,643 TO TRIAL (JURY AND COURT TRIALS) FOUND GUILTY 136 149 193 FOUND NOT GUILTY 13 8 4 CASE DISMISSED 193 242 390 ALL OTHERS (TRANSFER, ETC.) 0 0 0 TOTAL DISPOSED WITH TRIAL 342 399 587 TOTAL DISPOSED, ALL MEANS 3,306 2,731 3,230 CASE DISPOSITION ANALYSIS REPORT RUN DATE 10-13-95 PROSECUTOR PATRICK CILIBERT ADULTS • 1v NO TRIAL , \/ 1992 1993 1994 PLEAD GUILTY AS CHARGED 1,405 1,627 1,432 PLEAD GUILTY TO LESSER CHARGE 124 36 13 CASE DISMISSED (ALL TYPES) 294 298 325 • ALL OTHERS (TRANSFER VENUE) 0 0 0 TOTAL DISPOSED VITHOUT TRIAL 1,823 1,961 1,770 TO TRIAL (JURY AND COURT TRIALS) FOUND GUILTY 90 83 69 FOUND NOT GUILTY 2 1 2 CASE DISMISSED 141 139 119 ALL OTHERS (TRANSFER, ETC.) 0 0 0 TOTAL DISPOSED WITH TRIAL 233 223 190 TOTAL DISPOSED, ALL MEANS 2,056 2,184 1,960 CASE DISPOSITION ANALYSIS REPORT V\\ RUN DATE 10-13-95 PROSECUTOR .PATRICK CILIBERTO f ADULTS NO TRIAL 1992 1993 1994 PLEAD GUILTY AS CHARGED 1,851 1,676 1,899 PLEAD GUILTY TO LESSER CHARGE 114 26 10 CASE DISMISSED (ALL TYPES) 255 271 431 • ALL OTHERS (TRANSFER VENUE) 0 0 0 TOTAL DISPOSED WITHOUT TRIAL 2,220 1,973 2,340 TO TRIAL (JURY AND COURT TRIALS) FOUND GUILTY 98 129 95 FOUND NOT GUILTY 4 2 3 CASE DISMISSED 133 130 194 ALL OTHERS (TRANSFER, ETC.) 0 0 0 TOTAL DISPOSED WITH TRIAL 235 261 292 TOTAL DISPOSED, ALL MEANS 2,455 2,234 2,632 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JANUARY 9, 1996 President Zorn called the meeting to order at 7:19 P.M. with Commissioners Morke, VanHorn, DuBois, Henderson, Sweeney, and Link present. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator and Executive Director;Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator;Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk;Paul Bilotta, Community Development Director/Planning Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer(at 7:35 P.M.);Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer(at 7:35 P.M.); and Nicole Bennett, Planner. Ms. Marty advised the E.D.A. of the policies adopted previously by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (H.R.A.) and asked the Commissioners if they wished to adopt them for the Economic Development Authority(E.D.A.). Discussion followed. Sweeney/Morke directed staff to prepare an updated version of H.R.A. Resolution No. 86-10, adopting a set of property acquisition policies and procedures, for our review. Motion carried unanimously. Morke/Henderson directed staff to re-write H.R.A. Resolution No. 76-1, requiring certain disclosures as herein provided, on full disclosure. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock explained that the purpose of the meeting tonight is to give background on the development in downtown Shakopee since 1980. He then explained the various actions and studies that have taken place since 1980. He stated that there were various options considered by the Community Development Commission (C.D.C.) during this time. Discussion followed. Mr. Morke stated that the problem with finding someone to develop Blocks 3 and 4 has been that there are multiple property owners. Mayor Henderson reiterated that the E.D.A. is just being brought up to date tonight and that in two weeks public input would be received. Mayor Henderson asked how the acquisition of Blocks 3 and 4 would be financed. Mr. Stock explained that there are Tax Increment funds available in the amount of $150,000 left from the 1995 funds and there are $750,000 projected from 1996. He acknowledged that there would be a short term financial problem if all of the property is acquired within five months or so. He identified options for the short term financial shortfall. He stated that $1.7 million is needed to cover all of the acquisitions of property in Blocks 3 and 4. Discussion followed. Official Proceedings of the January 9, 1996 Shakopee Economic Development Authority(COW) Page -2- Jon Albinson, member of the Community Development Commission since 1989, approached the podium. He explained that the C.D.C. has looked at a number of alternatives for the development in Blocks 3 and 4. Using the area as a public space was ruled out because of the importance of this area within the downtown and the tax potential if a tax paying development. President Zorn stated that this is a major City project and encouraged everyone to get people to the meeting scheduled for January 23rd. He expressed a desire to see the E.D.A. and the City Council adopt some part of the Brauer Plan for the riverfront area. Comm.Morke stated that he was uncomfortable lumping the riverfront project in with the redevelopment of Blocks 3 and 4. President Zorn stated that he had reviewed Chapter 469 of the state law which allows for the establishment of the Economic Development Authority. It only requires that two members be from the City Council when it is a seven member Authority. He suggested reducing Council participation to two Councilmembers and that the E.D.A. meet at a different time and in the same place (than the City Council). He noted that the Council resolution establishing the E.D.A. severly limits the powers of the E.D.A. The E.D.A. may not exercise any powers without prior approval of the City Council. By limiting participation on the E.D.A. to two City Councilmembers, it would expand the base for some citizen participation and how we develop this City. Brief discussion followed. Henderson/DuBois directed staff to prepare the appropriate document analyzing the impact of reducing the Council membership on the E.D.A. to two for consideration by the E.D.A. and the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:28 P.M. tkoa u th S. Cox . .A. Secretary Recording Secretary MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director, Shakopee EDA FROM: Barry A. Stock,Assistant City Administrator RE: Downtown Redevelopment Forum DATE: January 18, 1996 INTRODUCTION: A Committee of the Whole meeting has been scheduled for the EDA on January 23, 1996 to solicit comments from interested parties regarding the redevelopment potential for Blocks 3 and 4 in downtown Shakopee. BACKGROUND: Shakopee's downtown revitalization efforts began in 1981 with the completion of the downtown revitalization plan. Following is a list of objectives that were originally setforth in the downtown revitalization plan that have been completed: 1. Infrastructure(sewer,water, street, sidewalk)reconstruction. 2. Streetscape improvements(historic lighting,planters,brick pavers, trees). 3. Parking improvements. 4. Re-route traffic(mini-bypass). 5. Uniform facade improvements(Rehab Grant Program). 6. Elimination of blighted structures(Opera House, Pelham Hotel) 7. Connection to riverfront(Pedestrian underpass). 8. Retention of City Hall in downtown. 9. Underground overhead utilities/alley improvements. Over the past two years,the City has focused its downtown redevelopment efforts on Blocks 3 and 4. A number of development concepts have been discussed including demolition,building relocation's,building rehabilitation,new construction and various combinations thereof. In March of 1994, the Shakopee City Council approved an ordinance placing a development moratorium on Blocks 3 and 4. The moratorium is now scheduled to expire on September 17, 1996. This past August the Shakopee Economic Development Authority selected a consulting firm to assist the City of Shakopee in the acquisition/relocation process for the parcels located within Blocks 3 and 4. The Executive Director of the EDA has been authorized to execute purchase agreements on behalf of the EDA for parcels located within Blocks 3 and 4. Currently,the City has received four executed purchase agreements. (See Attachment#1) It is important to note that the purchase agreements that have been executed are at or near the appraised value. Funding for the consultant costs and acquisitions is being allocated from the Tax Increment Fund. A summary of the projected tax increment revenues available in the next four years is shown in Attachment#2. In addition to the Tax Increment Trust Fund, the EDA has a fund balance of approximately$300,000.00. The availability of funds for acquisition of all of the parcels in Blocks 3 and 4 within the next six months does present some problems. If all the property were to be acquired within the next six months,the EDA would have a short term gap financing problem in the amount of nearly$1 million. Options to cover the shortage include bonding and/or borrowing from other City funds. The question of financing this project will need to be discussed in greater detail by the EDA before a final development concept is pursued. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to solicit comments from both residents, property owners and tenants to determine what development approach would be most suitable for the EDA to pursue. ACTION REQUESTED: Solicit comments and questions from the audience. Following audience input, provide direction to staff as deemed appropriate. H:Tami\Admin\EDAMEMO Attachment#1 Purchase Agreements In Hand Property Original Appraised Value Purchase Agreement Amount 1. 125 E. 1st. Ave. $87,000 $90,500 2. 137 E. 1st. Ave. $122,000 $122,000 3. 213 E. 1st. Ave. $135,000 $135,000 4. 115 E. 1st.Ave. $67,000 $67,440 Attachment #2 0 01010(O€0u Z NPi 8pbV0 + W om €O €O r 7nA I00Opb0WaI 0U pV at ` 00 ` ' o wv=�o _ _ n Atn� f OON000b b 1C a Tw NMN 0 co o opp404040 O �7OO10 tD b 10 7 EF g. q N-O €001 V OI 8 O O 4010 t0 S. C O 3 7 3.p N O 40 Co V Of ,c st w 1 3 n C1 Q - C -O+0 O Q a Z 1 q N o0 a N • _ a O 0�O p O N n 4 1p m a A A J.O O O O O p5O D H pOO O O O p O A� ?0'Tm ON! W CO NOOf W W O N m j N 0u. O O O O A 7 a.CO Q A V o+ tm0 tOO 100 00 0 - a s.71 3 2 N 0 a O 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 _ 10 1 0 3 � a °a ? pvp 9 7 o -di O .a p .Z1 0 0 3 0 0 a� mR. -vm o. 0 10 10 hi 10 hi 00000 W�O na -) O O 2 o m o O 0 0 0 0 0 v O d 8 00000 2 a'.o m 3 w. —w w Er m 0 As 3 N'3 m °° o 0 �� a VVVVV USA (p� 1$ ' er+ A A AAA 7C o 0 9 m co w O'7 C! U t0 f0 1D U C W 0 0 ° Ey°' 0 G. 00000 .Z A 3g arc c v m O 7 0 0 S 0f CO 5-3 m A O O V m a O 0 V V v V V 01 '0 Cr 0 0 o w 3 V CJ to W U U '7:. 3. 0 0 00000 11 n U w L 0 = o a a w o 0 0 0 o V 7 O m 0 0 0 O1 01 w N O 0 0 Co W W 4.131 W O 10 0 v Ci CO N y O 0 V V V V V 0 p W m 0 00f 000 3 N 00000000 b N O ..hi N A W N W. c 0 000 C)C)W W W A v W W W 0Nd 0€0 C)m 0 ea 0 0 0 O 5000 mg0" N O0)000 w.� 0 �a O O C4 GS O o V Z A 01 N 000(4(4 ((..��� ---1 S.' W 00-4-I TO f 0 A 01 V U W A 0.T N O n 0 o O O o m m(4 V W 0 7 CD C1 wA A TT 0i0 U O U 0 0 0 C 0 a 0 0 oc g O 33 m o N O Q V W W W W W A A W C -4 m O m W W W W W _i w CO 04.04004040000 1D 0.1 U C,T W 3 V 00.1 N O+W CO V V '� •_i A 0)V f0 0 CO 0 Co 7 > N V 01 01 0 0 T? ✓ CA 0€N-.100300 00A 00 8 V N W 0000a 8 OD W W CO 0 N A A 0 CO ZI w O S V 7 W ON1 ONE W j -i 0 m m W W N N OI j j .i 0 1p0 05 0 p' V 000N N U co co O NN N 3 T m m m CD cm V co 00 01 i)N W V U V 0 W 0 U U N N 10 N A/0 0 0 U O t) y 1i�1�00 0 404000-44.4114114 O CO V T 0 10 €O N OC W OC W ncr N N V N 0 N Co 0 07 0 4 Co 00 10 N V N Co N W 'O A COW 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 O 0 A 0 O 0000b O. M O 0 0 0 0 00 0 O [D N.� 0 -. C1 3 N 0C O 0 0 U Co A j ... 8 d 0 V W A 000 ,1V N O 0 64 _ m 3 N + Co W d C m�u u A o � 8 m i)10 In A'01-Co 0 0 00104400 • O 10 10 -. U 0 N iy.r. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JANUARY 9, 1996 Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 9:54 P.M. with Councilmembers DuBois, Zorn, Sweeney and Link present. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator;Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk;Paul Bilotta, Community Development Director/Planning Director;Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer and Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer. Present from Scott County: Art Bannerman, County Commissioner; Tom Harbinson, County Attorney; and Scott Merkley, County Engineering Coordinator. Mr. Merkley approached the podium to talk about the proposed improvements to CR-18. He provided Councilmembers with handouts on the history of the project. He addressed issues raised by the Council at their January 2nd meeting. Mr. Merkley reported on traffic studies on the amount of traffic along CR-18 and stated that the traffic today and in the future warrants a four lane roadway. The proposed improvements to CR-18 will be rural north of CR-16 and urban south from CR-16 to CR- 42. It is being constructed to four lanes for safety purposes and for the adjacent property owners. Also, it is less costly if built to four lanes at the time of constructing two lanes. CR-18 will be needed even when CR-21 is completed to handle traffic in the future. Mr. Merkley explained that CR-21 couldn't be constructed for at lease five years. An Environmental Impact Statement is required, which takes two years, and design and acquisition of property will take one to two years. The estimated cost for constructing CR-21 is $10,000,000 which is two times the County's construction budget for one year. He stated that he believes that CR-18 will provide adequate access until CR-21 is constructed. Discussion followed. Mr. Merkley explained that CR-18 is being constructed with an urban design within the existing 100 foot corridor. Construction according to rural design would require additional right-of-way. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of construction kl stated that this is against with a third lane used for turning. Mr. Merkley g two lanes g County policy because of safety. Joe Kelly, 8920 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium. He provided a brief history of the proposed construction of CR-89 beginning in 1989. He asked the City Council to reconsider asking the County to consider constructing a two lane roadway. He said that other counties use a three lane road and that he would be satisfied with a three lane road. He feels that three lanes will satisfy the traffic needs. Official Proceedings of the January 9, 1996 Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -2- Mayor Henderson acknowledged a petition received from Mr. Kelly signed by over 200 individuals asking the County that CR-18 remain at two lanes. He also explained that the City is in a contractual obligation with Scott County and that the City only wants to explore alternatives at this time. Dave McGuire, neighbor of Mr. Kelly, stated that he and the balance of the neighbors support Mr. Kelly asking the City Council to revisit the issue. They have been willing since the start of the law suit to negotiate with the County. John Grzybek, legal counsel representing Mr. Kelly and Mr. McGuire, stated that there is a permanent injunction in place and that he hopes it stays in place. The County is pursuing a variance to lift environmental standards and that there is court thereafter. The County is unwilling to explore further; and, he is happy that the City Council is exploring the number of lanes for CR-18. There is a benefit of economics. Mr. Loney explained that the cost to the City for the four lane urban section will be based on bids and quantities when the road is constructed. The City is not locked into the $291,000 estimate in the contract. Mr. Harbinson, County Attorney, stated that Scott County has reviewed the contracts and resolution that the Council has approved. He considers the resolution and contract approved by the City as binding documents for successor City Councils. He appraised the Council of the County negotiations with Mr.Kelly regarding CR-18. He feels that public interest is justified to build CR-18 at a four lane road. Discussion continued on the proposed construction to CR-18. Mayor Henderson stated that he hopes the matter can be resolved without litigation and that negotiations can be reopened and the matter resolved. Mr. Kraft updated the Councilmembers on a recent meeting involving Cities within Scott County and the legislators regarding the County proposal to establish a Scott County Economic Development Planning Board. He stated that the legislators indicated that they would not offer a pilot project to the coming legislature without the support of the Cities. The Cities would like to play a more active role . The proposal will be evaluated by the Cities and be discussed during the next year. Mayor Henderson adjourned the meeting at 10:08 P.M. tA ,IA,.tL J. 0,.?, ith S. Cox ty Clerk Recording Secretary TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Rural Vs Urban Tax District DATE: January 17, 1996 Introduction Council is requested to review the status of the urban versus rural taxing districts. background The rural taxing district was set up in 1967 by ordinance and modified in 1978 . The rural district is property classified by the assessor as agricultural homestead or agricultural non-homestead. Also, it must be open, rural in nature and maintained in farm crops or seeded. The City Council at that time judged that the ratio which existed between the benefits resulting from tax supported municipal services received by parcels in the rural district compared to parcels in the urban district was 50% plus any taxes levied for the payment of debt service and judgments . Further, no city services beyond that normally provided by the townships will normally be provided by the city in the rural district except fire, police and planning services and such additional services as the City Council shall prescribe. The above material is from Ord. 15, fourth series, a copy of which is attached. Shakopee and Prior Lake are the only cities in Scott County with a rural taxing district. It is reportedly rare in the metro area. The ratio set for Prior Lake is 70% compared to Shakopee' s 50% Also attached is a copy of the memo dated September 28, 1978 from the City Administrator on this subject. The ordinance was revised after the date on the memo. The ordinance or the memo do not have specific financial analysis of the service differential and the ratio set appears to be based on the subjective perceptions of a majority of Council at that time. Since 1978, several things have changed that impact this issue. The city has made a general effort over the years to fund operations more by appropriate user fees and reduce the reliance on taxes. Storm drainage used to be funded by taxes and is now funded by utility bills. Infrastructure construction and replacement in now more heavily reliant on user fees and assessments as opposed to taxes. Agricultural property already has tax differentials in place in the form of; Lower tax capacity assessment rate set by the state. The assessment rate for agricultural property is 1 . 5% of market value. The rate for residential is 1% for the first $72, 000 of market value and 2% for the balance. The rate for commercial and industrial is 3% for the first $100, 000 and 4 . 6% for the balance. Green acres status generally reduces market values for agricultural property. The value of a usual "farm house" is less when included in the value of the whole farm. Stated differently, the value of the house and buildings plus the value of the acreage when each is valued separately, is more than the value of the whole as farm. The effect is a reduction in value for the whole farm and therefore lower taxes. The classification of agricultural by the assessor includes property that generally is; at least 10 acres either by itself or with contiguous land that is agricultural, used for woods, wetland, wasteland or unusable, farmed for crops/livestock/animals/fish, or in a federal or state agricultural program. There are about 360 parcels in Shakopee that are classified as agricultural and qualify for the rural tax district if the other criteria set by Council are met . Verifying the 2 compliance with the other subjective criteria would be a manual, parcel by parcel process . Someone on city staff would have to identify each parcel on a map and visit the site to determine compliance. The status quo language is vague and very subjective. If Council wishes to continue the rural district differential, Council may wish to consider substituting other more objective criteria such as; minimum parcel size of (10?) acres; outside of the MUSA area; in an area zoned agricultural; not finally platted for development . Upon checking closer with the county for impact on the payable 1996 taxes, it has been determined that the time frames in place would not permit changes for 1996 . Any changes in the rural taxing district status would affect pay 1997 taxes. When the truth in taxation proposed property tax notices were sent out in November 1995, there were about 450 parcels included in the rural district that should not have been. This occurred because the old software used by the county automatically removed a parcel from the rural district what its classification changed from agricultural to something else. The new software (since pay 1994 taxes) does not change the rural district designation when the agricultural classification changes and a manual intervention is needed. Consequently there was about 2 or 3 years of changes to the rural district that had not occurred because staff was not aware that the software did not take care of the classification change. Staff reviewed a list of parcels that were incorrectly in the rural district and directed the county to remove them from the rural district in accordance with the existing ordinance. This will be in effect for pay 1996 taxes. The affect is mainly on homes built in the past three years, i.e. the Meadows, Prairie Bend, Dalles Townhomes, Homestead and Parkview additions. Attached is a chart ("A") to show the process of calculating property taxes. It attempts to show the parties in the process and display the effect of the rural taxing district . This will be walked through and explained at the council meeting. 3 Also attached is a chart ("B") to show the tax dollar effects of the rural district versus not having a rural district . This will be walked through and explained at the council meeting. If any council member has an interest in property affected by this issue they may want to consider participating in the discussion and voting in an appropriate manner. Alternatives 1. Status Quo. 2 . Eliminate rural taxing district. Those parcels in the rural district would see their city taxes about double. Other parcels in the city would see a slight decrease. The city would receive the same amount of tax dollars either way. 3 . Change ratio. Council could change the ratio to set it at what is currently judged to be the differential in municipal service benefits received compared to urban parcels. 4 . Phase out rural district over a number of years (3?) . This is the same as alternative 1 but spreads the impact over more than one year. 5 . Classify all agricultural use land as being in the rural district. This would remove the subjective criteria for inclusion in the rural district and be easier to administer. However, this may not adequately address the policy goals of Council regarding paying for municipal services. 6 . Classify all agricultural use land south of the MUSA line (bypass) as being in the rural district . This would remove the subjective criteria for inclusion in the rural district and be easier to administer. However, this may not adequately address the policy goals of Council regarding paying for municipal services. 7 . Other options using factors mentioned above. Recommendation Eliminating the rural district is certainly the simplest administratively and staff does not see that the former rational of less service received currently exists, or is at least diminished. Agricultural land generally has lower taxes already due to factors cited above. Some of the agricultural land in the developing areas takes more services from Community Development and Engineering than other areas. Eliminating the subjectivity of the current criteria is recommended and requested. Action Requested Discuss and give staff direction. doc/gregg/rural ro N Fa N AI -4 a �1 0 k< t '< I 0 to W x m W o n W o co to I-I N I- 01 W 0 til l t i 1 (D ft X o X o Iv Iv ,t) 10 v - F., V � in- -TA 0 r n arw co x 02 C H. CD al P) hi ct atU, U1 N N 01 0 Cl < 00 CO CO Ln U1 [t c0i P) N 0 N) N) U1 U1 H- H Cr F--I II 0 0 0 0 n O�0 0 0 0 0 c- 0 >4 >4 >4 DC v D4 v v H v A) v >4 v v C) v0 v C] 4. r V H- V 1CrCD "C I- V v H N v 0 X v I-I N I-I r VV N U1 Ui Ui 01 V I'' Cj or d° d° d° V Q) ""GG V II II II II v II v H C/r 411 4 -CA V 0 v ct v H IL v v N 1✓ v >C H n v n -> X V �' v 0 rr § P) 00 0o t,.) w v n ,)` 1 -1 -1 CO CO V r- W W N N Vrr a) o 0 N to v r- o 0 o 0 V v 1*.< v DS DC >4 DS v >4 II C) C) H. H- ct cr o o 0 0 0 X 4--- X0.I. 4. N 01 N U1 'P h cn N) cn N) Cot Cit N & N IP fD tD W U1 t)! U1 II II II II II II F-i C) -cii- -UT ter \ H. N) Ct I< C) N N H- H 1-4 N) IP torr to O O co m I--. W N U1 H l0 l0 a) 01 X l0 z y o (D p, a rto K II w d H id o �' d X rt n H. (D H [TJ W A) H I r4 II SD r `D A) yX X d aoPi Z _ '� 9) Xn "- m ((DD m N H Pi Id rr m a m (D n n P• H r• rr 0 r• n N 0 rt rr f] m k rr K rt P• Q 0 ri, A) 0 1-' 9) N N N N N N N N N N N r n N N N N N N N N N N N F,• H l-' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H rr r o l0 co - 01 U7 iP W N r k< r) rb 74 4 Ca PcI Ci ,'c1 4 4 XI Ci H H N O 0 l0 O 0 0 -.l 00 14). IP Ul r Ul N • • 0 U1 IP H -4 10 0 Ul r 0l 01 N r H N W co U1 W O1 0 O\ to co N CA ^d • w o iP Co r rn o a 111. r a) U1 01 H F0i1 ,A) 00 l0 CO IP Ul 10 W -1 Ul N Ul r W N N -.l 01 IP 0 01 0 IP r 01 O 01 01 N N) co r J r r (0 °w r l0 \ l0 l0 01 IP a) H 01 U'1 iP to N r to a) u, O r co ko U1 Ul O r N IP 01 0 -.1 Ul Ul O r W N a) N) 0 0 0 -1 l0 -4 l0 00 or 1 i/! O H H ;b N r r 0 y .4 w w w rr 0 or N 0 0 0 N A7 Ui N r N W W W h+ Co W • W • . . rkl • l0 0 l0 r -1 -4 Al N r co r W N N rr o IA r rn of 0 iR r H N r O l0 0 0 0 -1 r r l0 Ul N) l0 •� N • • 0 0 W -1 -1 as O1 U1 r Ol Ci) 01 N r H N W W N H Ul -1 Ol FP ao l0 ,d N 10. • N) IP • s - 0 9) • W O r W r CO Ul N O -1 U1 N U1 O 1-11 .•< l0 ,P 03 J Ul IP W 0 4). O1 J ao 01 03 0 FP N IP 0 N 0 IP r r r O r 01 (a l0 01 0, r r H d° \ 10 H l0 CO 0 r N H l0 W 01 N N l0 H 01 N UI N W ,P a) U1 U1 0 Cr) O1 03 N -4 IP Ul co 0 0 O1 -4 N) F-. O N co co 03 0 0a or O r r k1 N r r H O O -.l N N W rt N 0 W W N A) U1 N r N W O1 O1 N • 0 0 O r w w 07 CO Ut CO CO W IP iP 1t N -.1 0 -1 r N N (D ORDINANCE NO. 1.5 FOURTH SERIES An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 13 entitled "Urban and Rural Service District" by Repealing Subsections 3, 4,_5,_6, 7 and 8 and by Adopting a New Subsection 3 defining and describing What Shall Constitute a Rural Service District; by Adopting a New Subsection 4 Establishing a New Benefit Ratio Figure and by Adopting a New Subsection 5 defining City Services Normally Provided in a Rural Service District • THE CITY'COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1: REPEAL The! Shakopee. City Code is hereby amended by repealing Subsections 3, 4, 5, 6, i .. . ... . ._.. 7 and48'.of'Chapter. 13. • t SECTION 2: NEW PROVISIONS ADDED. TO CHAPTER 13 • Subd. 3 A. The rural service district shall include only such land which is classified by: the City Assessor as Agricultural Homestead or Agricultural Non-homestead land. B. Land in a rural service district must be open, rural in nature and main- tained in farm crops or seeded and any fill hauled therein shall be graded off and seededat least once a year. Subd. 4 On ..a:+.judgment of the Shakopee City Council the ratio which exists between the benefits resulting from tax supported municipal service to parcels in the i rural service district to parcels in the urban service districts is 50% plus any municipal property taxes levied-for the payment of bonds and judgments and interest thereon. .Subd. 5 No city services beyond that normally provided by the townships of Scott Countywill normally be provided by the city in a rural service district except fire, police and planning services and such additional services as the Shakopee City Council shall, from time to time, prescribe. • SECTION 3: Effective Date After the adoption, signing and attestion, this Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and shall be in force and effect after the date following such. publication. !f �. ftt N. ,-, ,. .r0i 3 . -::« I , li n 9 Ili ; t # Adopted by the Shakopee City Council this / day of C•.Ti14t11978. Mayor of the City of Shakopee • ATTEST: . S'�.7tw, )i 1`' i .!'!"':�`.':c.. . City C1 r / ✓ A.• ! r Prepared"and` approved•as to !form• • thi 6thda •of .October `1978:•, • `': ..:........., . R . City Attorney _ . Published in Shakopee Valley News: Nov. 8, 1978. k i a 1 4 .,411•1•?!. r,,x,•,1,. ' (!ik t? € jE ;;st-tJ EI!: '; -..i+i- - a •;t" S'i;i ';l'aii tilvi•7 el e;:..•1 1.)4 it•, 'Id xj :;:;. •p.• V. I • <a 9 MEMO TO: Mayor an�Cit Council Y y U FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator RE: Urban and Rural Service Districts DATE: September 28, 1978 Attached is a copy of Chapter 13 of the City Code which incorporates old ordinances 270 and 272 adopted in 1967 . These ordinances were apparently adopted at the time or before the annexations of Eagle Creek property and were an attempt to lesson the increase in tax burden on the annexed property. The old City Charter set the tax rate on agricultural property at 5O7 of the urban mill levy while resolutions 270 and 272 set the agricul- tural tax rate at 30% of -the urban mill levy for property over 10 acres. At the same time , Prior Lake , which also annexed part of Eagle Creek Township sets the tax rate on' agricultural property at 70% of the urban mill levy for property over 10 acres . The theory behind all the tax breaks is that the agricultural properties do not receive as much city services as the urban areas . In fact I believethere was and is some truth to the theory, however, I believe a case can be made that for some services, the rural areas are more expensive to serve . Specifically, it takes more police pat-roling to cover the same number of homes in the rural area than in the urban area. For fire protection, we have to drive the equipment further to provide service and in fact have to buy special equipment - a water truck. I believe that generally the difference between the services received by the rural properties and' those received by the urban properties are becoming more alike as time goes • on and therefore I believe that this policy on rural tax benefits should be examined. At this time and for the last three or four years , Scott County has been using the agricultural tax rate of 50% of the urban mill levy for the rural property in Shakopee over 10 acres , however, there does not appear to be a resolution or ordinance on record calling fcr this amount of tax relief. In fact , the new City Code calls for the agricultural tax rate to be 30% of the urban mill levy and the County will go back to this rate unless the City Council takes some a:'tion to reduce the tax break. RECOMMENDATION a . It is recommended that the City Council set a public hearing on October 17th to determine what the rural tax rate should be and that we notify key people interested in this subject . b. It is further recommended that the Council should set :he rural tax rate at 70% df the urban rate . This recommendation is made for the following reasons : Jt, • Urban and Rural Service Districts September 28, 1978 Page -2- 1 . Prior Lake has set their' s at 70% and Savage is apparently about that . The agricultural rate in Shakopee is the lowest in the County. 2. The 1966 Charter set 50% and it is my opinion that the cost of services to the rural area is increasing. In addition it is my understanding that the rural areas used to pay directly for some of the services they received like police and fire . 3. If the Council does nothing and the rural rate returns to 30% (from 50%) the mill rate for the rest of Shakopee will be increased and the tax decrease you have attempted to give will be somewhat diluted. 4. With the tax reduction this year, the increase 'from 50% to 70% would not be felt as much in the rural areas . . 5. The rural agricultural properties over 10 acres now already enjoy substantially lower taxes than the urban area because of the state law for green acres and agricultural properties and therefore even if the urban and rural services areas were receiving the same tax rate, the rural areas would pay less for the services they enjoy. For your information, I have also attached some data on random properties who now enjoy the rural tax rate. DSR/jsc 1L 63, CHAPTER 13 URBAN AND RURAL SERVICE DISTRICTS SECTION 13 .01. URBAN AND RURAL SERVICE DISTRICTS . Subd. 1. The City hereby divides the area within its limits into an Urban Service District and a Rural Service Dis- trict, constituting separate taxing districts for the purpose of all municipal property taxes except those levied for the payment of bonds and judgments and interest thereon. Subd. 2 .. The Urban Service District shall include all properties within the limits of the City, except those set forth herein as Rural Service District. Subd. 3. The Rural Service District shall include only such unplatted lands which need not be contiguous to one another as in the judgment of the Council at the time of adoption of this Section are rural in nature, and are not developed for commer- cial, industrial or urban residential purposes and for these rea- sons are not benefited to the same degree as other lands by muni- cipal services financed by general taxation. This Section may include lands outside the City which, if annexed, shall be in- cluded in the Rural Service District. Subd. 4. The following lands are included in the Rural Service District: • A. All of Government Lot 1, Section 1, Township 115 , Range 23 , Scott County, Minnesota. B. The North Half of the Northwest Quarter and Government Lot 4 and a strip of land Southwesterly of the Shak- opee-Chaska Road in Lot 2 , and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, all in Section 1 , Township 115 , Range 23, Scott County, Minnesota. C . 13 acres in Lot 7, Section 2 , Township 115 , Range 23 , Scott County, Minnesota. Source: Ordinance No. 270 Effective Date : 10-7-67 D. All that part of the West 2/3rds of the South- west Quarter and Government Lot 5 lying South on the line of Sec- ond Street extended Easterly in a direct line from the East line of said Second Street in the City of Shakopee , all in Section 6, Township 115 , Range 22 , Scott County, Minnesota. Source: Ordinance No. 272 Effective Date: 12-2-67 4-1-78 -360- • ' V 411 E. A tract of land in the East 3/4ths of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6 , Township 115 , Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. F. A triangular tract of land in the East 3/4ths of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter North of Shakopee and Credit River Road, Section 6 , Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. G. 19 acres in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 6, Township 115 , Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. H. The North Half of the Northeast Quarter East of Highway No. 17 except 4.15 acres and except 1 acre , Section 7 , Township 115 , Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. I. The North Half of the Northeast Quarter West of Highway No. 17, Section 7, Township 115 , Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. J. The East 16 .12 acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, except 10 acres , and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the East 2 rods , all in Section 7 , Township 115 , Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. K. The West Half of the Northeast Quarter, except 24 acres , and except 4.76 acres , the highway and 15 .94 acres and 2 .06 acres , Section 11, Township 115, Range 23, Scott County, Minnesota. Source: Ordinance No. 270 Effective Date: 10-7-67 Subd. 5 . Whenever ,any parcel of land included in the Rural Service District is platted in whole or in part; or when- ever application is made for a permit for construction of a com- mercial, industrial, or residential building or improvement; or whenever such improvement or building is commenced without a per- mit, the governing body shall make and enter an order by resolu- tion transferring said parcel or part thereof from the Rural Ser- vice District to the Urban Service District. No parcel shall be included in a Rural Service District of ten acres or less and no parcel shall remain in a Rural Service District unless such par- cel consists of ten acres or more. Source: Ordinance No. 272 Effective Date : 12-2-67 Subd. 6 . In the judgment of the Council, the ratio which exists between the benefits resulting from tax supported municipal service to parcels in the Rural Service District to parcels in the Urban Service District is 30%, plus any municipal property taxes levied for payment of bonds , and judgments , and interest thereon. Subd. 7 . Any parcel within a Rural Service District for ten (10) years without development shall be considered by the Council for exclusion from the Rural Service District. By amendment hereof such parcel shall be included in the Urban-Ser- vice District if any area adjacent thereto is determined by the Council to be substantially developed as urban property. -361- 41-78 • 111 Subd. 8. The following provisions shall apply: d A. No City service beyond that normally provided by the townships of Scott County will be provided by the City in a Rural Service District, except fire , police and planning ser- vices ; B. Land in a Rural Service District must be open, ' rural in nature and maintained in farm crops or seeded; C. Grading is not considered as development pro- vided grading is such as to hold storm runoff on the land and not produce storm runoff problems and provided graded areas are cropped or reseeded within one (1) year; D. Any fill hauled in shall be graded 'off and seeded at least once each year. Source: Ordinance No. 270 Effective Date: 10-7-67 (Sections 13.02 through 13.99, inclusive, reserved for fu- ture expansion. ) • • 4-1-78 410 -362- . • r a .'• � -4, �w 1t-2j i wa 4"��g�f,y.'rS+`.�•�e�t,-. .4 3{ • tr Y . 'a Zj • r t p4r ., r; 47. ..6 .�.•". j^% ORDIijA_NCE :.272 Li- Ani Ordinance Amendin7 Ordinance „27O as Herein Set Torth - THE"CO;i:• 011 COJi'OII. Oe. THE CITY O SHAI;OPEE FOES ORDAIN: E3TIO;; I: Amending Ordinance ,1270 A`. Ordinance #270 shall be, and hereby is, amended by doietin and strikin ; the words 'or a:riculture' as contained in Section oC said Ordinance ,x270. D. Ordinance .:270 is further amended by striking all of Subsection 0 of Section 1 11 of said Ordinance :1270. C. Ordinance , 270 is further amended by inserting in lieu of said Subsection D, Section I'i, the follouin:;: 3 ds of the Southwest Quarter and "Ail that Hart of the '.:est 2/ outh • '� .3overnment Lot 5 lyilv South on the line of Second Street extended Easterly in a direct line from the Last line of said Second Street in the City of Shakopee, all in-Section 6, Township 115, Ran e 22, `• Scott County, annesota. SECTION II: Effective date This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after 30 days after its r passa~e and publication. SECTION III: Recordin- and Film- The City Recorder of the City oC Shakopee is authorized and instructed to cause a certified cony hereof to be recorded and/or filed or both with the ae r;ister of Deeds an- tho ite:::istrar of Titles of Scott County, a':innesota, as may be required, i meiiately upon this ordinance bec:o-ne effective. Passed in "�/i]��:���'-���- session of the Common Council of the City of Shakopee held .1 this r.L• ow/ of G%c i c.:Pet; 1967. : Presit ent Co:nmon Council - r 71" c. [ • ;it-' :lecor cr Anoro• r1 this _ ;t��.;t " CC" y'� V 7• : fill ,azrer of he City of Shakopee ;;. ORDINANCE 12?° rdinance Setting FAL Urban and Rural Service Dis•cts in the City of Shako "Pee,' • Minnesota. Pursuant to Chanter 71.4 of the Laws of 196 _4s Amended • - r COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DOES ORDAIN: •-• '• SECTION I: The City of Shakopee hereby devides the area within its limits into an Urban Service District and a Rural Service District, constituting separate taxing districts for the purpose of all municipal property taxes except those levied for the payment of bonds and judgments and interest. thereon. SECTION TI: The Urban Service District shall include all properties within the limits of the City of Shakopee,, except those set forth by ordinance as Rural. Service District. . SECTION III: The Rural Service District shall include only such unpiatted lands which need not be contiguous to one another as in the judgment of the •Commop Council of the City of Shakopee at the time of adoption of the ordinance are rural in character, and are not developed for commercial, industrial or urban re¢idential• purposes and for these reasons are not benefited to the same degree as othgr..lands:by.municipal • services financed by general taxation. This ordinance may' inc4:uda' lands outside the City of Shakopee which, if annexed, shall be included in .the Riumae. Service District. SECTION IV: The following lands are included in the Rural 'Seryi,Ge Digtricta • A. All of Government Lot 1, Section 1, Township U5i. 4q. 2 ,.,$cott County, Minnesota. B. The North Half of the Northwest Quarter aid Government Lot 4 and a strip of land Southwesterly of the Shakopee7Chaska .Road In loot . 2, and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast. Quarter;.all 'in •• . • • Section 1, Township 115, Range 23, Scott County, )innlggta.' C. 13 acres in Lot 7, Section 2, Township 115,' Range* 23,, gcQtt . • - County, Minnesota. .. . D. All that part of the West 2/3rds of the Southwest Quarter and • • Government Lot 5 lying South on the line of Secgnd. $trget ' : Easterly in a direct line 'from the East linep '. .id 4econd • Street in the City of Shakopee, all in Sec4on. 6, Township;115, Range 23, Scott County, Minnesota. . ;:• w-. E. A tract of land in the Past. 3/4ths of 'the Southoeat 'Q44rter, of Section 6;' Township 115, Ran0 22, Scott c0nty,Xlpesota F. A triangular tract of land in 'the East 3/4ths of the $oath Half • of the Southeast Quarter North of Shakopee and'Creditiiver .Road, • . . Section 6, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, 4Innesotai • 6 !IQ. 19 acres in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest4uarter, Section 6, Township 115, ;Range 22, 'Scott County, Minnesota. -01717- iTpi-atLactQL .6UaL uva ...iw..... ...•� +.o.•-�.7 -- , except 4.:15 acres and except 1 acre, Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, ..Scott Cot , Minnesota• . I. The North Ralf of the Northeast Quarter West of Highway #17, . • • Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,- MLggesota. • • J. The East 16.12 acres of the Northwest Quarter of •the Northwest • 'Quarter, except 10 acres, and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, except the East 2 rods, all ip' Spction 7, Township 1,15, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota•' - . • K. The West Half of the Northeast Quarter, except 2*' acres, and . except 4}76 acres, the highway and 15.94 acres and 2,Q6 acres, . Section 11, Township 115, Range 23, Scott County, .Minnesota. ' . : SECTION V: Whenever any parcel of land included in the Rural Service District is platted in whole or in part; or whenever application is'made for a permit for con.. struction of a commercial, industrial, residential'or agricultural building or improvement; or whenever such improvement or building is cgmmenced wphoute. permit, the governing body shall make and enter an order by resolution transferring said parcel or part thereof from the Rural Service District to the Urban Service District. No parcel shall be included in a Rural Service District of ten acres or less and no parcel shall remain in a Rural Service District unless such parcel•. •+ .. consists of ten acres or more. SECTION VI: In the judgment of the Common Council of the City•of Shakopee, they:ratio which exists between the benefits resulting from tax supported wunicipal,servicilQ ' .. •parcels in the Rural Service District to parcels in the Urban Service District ie -•• ' 30%, . plus any municipal property taxes levied for payment of 1)011.0, and' udAep1e, . . - and interest thereon. . , ' SECTION VII: Any parcel within a Rural Service District for ten years without._ development shall be considered by the Common Council -of the' City of Shakopee •for. exclusion from the Rural Service District. . By amendment hereof' puck: parcWe)4l • ' ' be included in the Urban Service District if any area•adjacent thereto Effdsteiined by the Comm') Council of the City orShakopee: to be substantial;. r deve1Qpe0e'R 041 property. , SECTION VIII: 1. No City service beyond that.normally provided by thetownehipe of Scott County will be provided by the City in a Rural Service Districti '�exoept.fl.ro, police and planning services; B. Land in a Rural $ervicq .District must be open, rural in character and maintained in farm cropsor seeded; ' C. .('aging is not cop_' "" sidered as developmentprovided 1. p grading is such as to hold storq� runoff 'on the l& � • ''. . and not produce storm runoff problems and provided graded areas are Gro d or i:1, 1 , reseeded within one year; D.' Anypt , �iil .hauled i.n $�� be �rad���ofd ap�i•:sepd,c� •: :. '1 at least once' each year. r � SECTION IX: • . • ' • '` :�! This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after 30 date ' •r:, s4er, its passage and publication. ' . After due notice and public hearing held this za day of gut , 1967, as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 272.67 (Subd. 3 and 4), anafter duly conforming with all of the requirements of said Section 272.67, the finafadoption of this ordinance was adopted passed and approved by the Common 'Council. of.tho city • of Shakopee this���ay of. 967. �' • President of a v..1,..4 1,..1 Councildir' r . . / ." . .g. ir . .,.... 4. .....- .,... my ItAlcctrder prove is f „ ' 17 ;1 +1, rgnared and annrnverl +h;r t�li A r-. ! H0 /44i67. ' ... r 7::- AttpEh § Z i !-e= i • ._r R n► pR Li ' .. g -0Z iw7 rC x• / ^ i . ;- Tr 7_3 -, 9 i. i ! nG [ ' ityX i .7 5... . 5 s .nw3 • a 44 V .. & M N N J. P J. .. u S V v v VP N • Y V P O V N N- . . .vW >CONN y = to E • E ..pV O N P N N y V V y O OO NP NVpWPOO aP M - _ O P 01 N .p W Vp 'I. Zf \ / ... -. J N J O V V 4 p N - L N P 3 .1ryN M N '. .o PS : ZDN V S M V N V N d p V N VNP . V o P PN �e .Np I... .. IV N -. .. N N FP V1.• U Y V 4N w ov T t H -' O $ 1r • R � r N I > ,i n • 4 ZZ 3 = .p , �j a U g R O O • O S , n m • -. o .o v P P t S .. i Z .c n n - c w r - ,. n R R II i w - p .� (1 . m ii P. - F 3 r .^. o' n r a .r a e w a r R1 Q t - Y r N < QQ A r r % - A Q r n a v „ > _ - 0 01 xO C pp >r F - �- r Z H r '. A •r - H X C w r �. w w N .i do l to - r iy N M 3 _ < o 2 'a` A D ¢ .: "' N Y f. �i M N _ } ... A H I O 4^ N �n V Y O •.. . b r R • ; �4, .O S P O V N V ^ .e( yW. P I.. .O V N •pa N P .>•1 w p 1r� !.• w O . . . . . . • YVi O Z • o '' & : ?: '" S 3 ; N y S N O M N P O . . O .. N . Em, I I • W d N V i S P . Z 61— flMQt' M a€$v ^Elo ; • Co 6 • obo y'cs N o fi R7 o Q• „ o on O Di 0 cn^3.Q• o n„ TN § _ D � m ow PT ^ Oi c r cry � Q.q o � • OO o N N .-. .b C „ .h� - Na'y0tio :mi Ya -i , „ „OG2 .... 00 EHC =�� _ (7) z1". a JNzC() - f9 RW �+, E.J C o cr 3, " 0' " C„� O . p, .1NU9 !oS (o8 ..; - • O H 5 O . - :$b .2N. () .+ 2, p '- i < H .4 p� .i /D •-• ,o.,�Gy ti C `J o 0 N gip' pN•. . r J <n C Nip n p 0p o 0 C N O n Q, 00 0 _ pa "d �'t�ID `O' e: iii'^ m 0'p °'0 5 `rr^�o• re %c C N N H • on "O o•• N h (D O-- .^. lD R O bA.. v� a. a. F. r G. -, °0+•� Ci O �`r'C N W� a fDfl0 „ Nt4.210 c"�o5 Ar' f7'< '.. 0Q N r*.C O b C .r v & „,-0 i - ttr A_ K R 00 N r..'++ 9 wcr n' 2"1 .wb dvpi _ o =O d'0L � O. - — °'°hto ov `ei Na-• . . <� tr .. D 1.4 G• re tr si Q+ E.i O ^N M. 0 R. o rz}• �►-0 co A N Nog p C . V/ • V) • t• so ik' •. •• • 0 pa • r) 0 t:I. I.-' FI-' I-J• ((DD (• CD U) r. W fp t]. '1 a ? 0 () ' F-'• I-' II-. 0 .% 'S p) , A• 0 0 H. 0 < fir:, °' I-I (I) A• Oo DO ()• i• 4 120 rt W .4 O 11P4.. 0 • Ci Iy . 11rt F' '< 't ••< ,- < « < 1-< ' c x }', rn (D (D (D (D (D 0 In (I) UI U) U) co co U) . If Etr; '.< I'< 0 0 0 0 0 (/) U) UT . > t: iv 10. It W N) 01 0 F-' I-' V U1 V U1 V 9 0) 0 A N U1 Co to CO 00 co A n I` I., G.) G) 0 0 0 0 0 (O A 00 CO (D t, N U1 U1 (0 W I-' 0 to N CO V U) j', :4 I-. M - E. 1. I-' A 0 I--' ci• 0 0 0 0) A (0 A (0 . V V CO N A W CD N) W V A (31 A CO CO 01 I-' CO I--' to U1 00 0) W co 7C rA V ) N) 01 (0 A (O A 0) A CO el- i. to I-. Co A 0 00 U1 O) W V 0) G I. r r r s'' I-'. I-' N (0 F-' o (0 V 0) CO V N W (.11 V 0) `i N CO N 0) 00 CO 0) A co Gu co i 00 V 0) W 0 U1 (0 A CO CO 00 7C r V N CO U1 N V N CO O . 0) to ct to 00 I-' A to A CO 00 I-' 0) 0) G - ri i O I a !J • A A A • j 0) U1 N N U1 O I'• 00 N F- V • ' O I-' • (.) W (0 0 N N W N I-' N) I-' ,D I-, N) 1--' 0 (0 N V V 0) 0 (0 U) U) CO 0) U1 01 CO A W CO N V A r co 0 co V co 0 co N N to 0 A• Ni 0) A 0 (0 CO 00 0) CO CO CO j. O I-' .I-' I-' N N I-' ) -' O N GF co U1 V U) V CO 01 . a • F-, co V V F-3 A F-' 00 N I-' N A CO N N N I-' N N N I-' (O (0 0) N CO 00 , 01 O 0) .01 U1 U1 A O1 N X N, 0) 01 (n V (0 CO W V COCOO 0 . O W { O • I- . • 6 • • • • • • I * (0MIH) O A CO V I . (n IN , 0 W 1-' O) O V O ! N D) A 0) N) 01 N) 0 00 U1 NV , 'A00 01 CO ct v v cD 0 I, ct f0 I-, Cn +' i O 0 .• - .-. .^ �i (3) 00 F A N A -) Ut CO N A N W N '5J N S1) (D U1 O -,1N O (J 1 O) U1 w U1 N A (.0 N O X (D N) 01 N) I-' I-' (y) Cu1 () 0 W 01 00 V 0) I-' • • I--' A ;Ti 0) 0) A 0 A '"n (,a 0 0) 01 I\) V .I A) ;r BlVIS ne CFS hGq� BUREAU OF MEDIATION SERVICES 'AN 2 Opz , State of Minnesota �S /a eipe I9g6+ IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINATION OF PUBLICEMPLOYEES'APPROPRIATE UNIT AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE January 17, 1996 Shakopee Management Association, Prior Lake, Minnesota - and - City of Shakopee, Minnesota BMS Case No. 96-PCE-993 AMENDED MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO ORDER A petition requesting certification as exclusive representative for collective bargaining purposes was filed with the Bureau of Mediation Services on December 26, 1995, by the Shakopee Management Association, Prior Lake, Minnesota. The petition raises questions as to the representation of the following described employee group: All confidential and supervisory employees of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, who are public employees within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 179A. 03, subd. 14 . This Order is issued to preserve existing conditions and promote a free and fair environment for the resolution of this question of representation. This Order is applicable to all employees within the above described employee group. It shall remain in full force and effect until an investigation and/or hearing has been conducted and the matter is disposed of by a determination issued by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services. ORDER 1 . Wages, hours and all existing conditions of employment of the employees shall not be changed as of the date of this Order. 2 . Negotiations shall not be carried on. 3. Threats or promises as to changes in wages, hours and (612)649-5421 FAX: (612)643-3013 1380 Energy Lane•Suite #2•St. Paul, MN 55108-5253 An Equal Opportunity Employer .ate;y Amended Maintenance of Status Quo Order BMS Case No. 96-PCE-993 Page Two. . .January 17, 1996 conditions of employment are prohibited. 4 . Employees shall not be questioned by the employer with respect to membership in a labor organization. 5. Employees shall not be discriminated against as a result of the filing of the petition. 6. The Employer shall post this Maintenance of Status Quo Order at the work locations of all employees involved. This Order shall not conflict with provisions of an existing labor- management contract or applicable law. STATE OF MINNESOTA Bureau of Mediation Services p .,fir, TIF�,i� L. DEEB Representation Specialist TLD cc: Barry Stock Dennis Kraft (2) (Includes Posting Copy) Jeff Henderson PLEASE SIGN IN EDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 23, 1996 Development of Blocks 3 & 4 -Public Input NAME (Please Print) ADDRESS .' 1:6 N c 0.�/S�s,y -C,,2 Yo (1/�- j :<-;;)2, f G C-'/� • v 1149/ex A 5/14 h Afo d 1©8-7 -4�rrescnn (S-( tcat_ /72 9L/ Arri S,) 6_1_5%gge, 5ic-Xceij C'2.u.S t ca., I S flki1 0(K) ,S (n a(/LQ-ke —36,7 lx-4,,,,/,/: „P 4 /1 Y\e r-,i k(r c 4,o, /3! J G; L c w f _14 ‘cA c/^ 1/ 1/ �� 2 ' ,.