HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 21, 2026 - Council PacketPliaill
SHAKOPE E
Shakopee City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 21, 2026
7:00 PM
City Hall, 485 Gorman Street
Vision: Shakopee is a distinctive river town with a variety of business, cultural, and
recreational opportunities in a safe, welcoming, and attractive environment. Our vision
is for Shakopee to continue being the place people want to live, work, and play!
Mission: Our mission is to deliver high quality services essential to maintaining a safe
and sustainable community. We commit to doing this cost-effectively, with integrity and
transparency.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these unless a council member or staff requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the consent agenda for separate discussion & action.
5.a Declare Surplus Equipment in Public Works
5.b Authorize Final Acceptance and Payment for the 2025 SCADA System
Expansion Project
5.c Approve a Budget Amendment and Authorize Execution of a Change Order for
the Lions Park Parking Lot Improvement Project
5.d Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation's Quarterly Grant Award
5.e Minnesota Department of Safety's DWI/Traffic Safety Officer Program Grant
Application
5.f Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Toward Zero Deaths Enforcement
1
Program Grant Application
5.g Approve a Cooperative Agreement with Scott County for the Marschall Road
(CH 17) Trail Extension Project
5.h Approval of the July 7, 2026, City Council Minutes
5.i Scheduled Network Switch Replacement
5.j Approve Temporary Liquor Licenses for BHB2 LLC. dba Badger Hill Brewing.
5.k Approval of an updated Rhythm on the Rails Special Event Permit and
Temporary Liquor License for the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce
5.1 Approve On -Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses for Valleyfair LLC. dba Valleyfair.
6. Public Comment
Individuals may address the City Council about any item not on the regular agenda. Speakers are
requested to come to the center table, state their name and address for the clerk's record, and limit their
remarks to three minutes. The City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but
may refer the matter to staff for a follow up report or direct that matter be scheduled on an upcoming
agenda.
7. Business removed from consent agenda
8. General Business
8.a Appeal of Decision by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to Allow Dog
Daycare and Boarding at 1424 Primrose Lane.
8.b Appeal of Revocation of Hotel License for American Group of Properties LLC
(Baymont Hotel)
9. Reports
Liaison and Administration
9.a City Bill List
10. Other Business
11. Adjourn to August 4, 2026, at 7:00 pm
2
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.a
July 21, 2026
Declare Surplus Equipment in Public Works
Bill Egan, Public Works Director
Action to be considered:
Declare certain vehicles and equipment as surplus (see attached list).
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
Certain vehicles and equipment within the Public Works Department have been replaced and are no
longer being used. The attached inventory list includes vehicles and equipment which has been
evaluated by the Public Works Equipment Committee and has been determined that the useful lives for
city purposes have been expended. The vehicles and equipment are considered surplus and are
recommended to be sold at auction.
Recommendation:
Approve the requested action.
Budget Impact:
Revenues from the sales will be deposited into the Equipment Internal Services Fund.
Attachments:
2026 surplus list.xlsx
3
Unit ID
SK1016
SK1019
SK1275
SK1075
SK1238
SK1080FM
SK1245
SK1040
VIN or Serial #
1 GNSK2E04BR245638
1 FM5K8AR6DGC73237
1 FM5K8AR2HGC35445
1 FTW F31586EC75048
TRF96-1743
2GNFLFEK6G6301573
Description
2011 Chevy Tahoe
2013 Ford Explorer
2017 Ford Explorer
2006 Ford F350
467300499 2011 Bobcat FC200 flail mower
431110037 2016 Seppi CF 22 Flail mower
2013 Tiger 3pt Flail mower
2016 Chevy Equinox
4
Miles
101924
107482
107913
75756
n/a
n/a
n/a
64553
5
WI"LAI
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.b
July 21, 2026
Authorize Final Acceptance and Payment for the 2025 SCADA System
Expansion Project
Josiah Ferguson, Graduate Engineer
Alex Jordan, City Engineer
Action to be considered:
Adopt Resolution R2026-108, accepting work on the 2025 SCADA System Expansion
Project, Sewer -25-002, and authorize final payment of $45,258.25 to Vinco, Inc.
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
On April 15, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution R2025-049 accepting bids and
awarding the contract for the 2025 SCADA System Expansion Project (Sewer -25-002) to
Vinco, Inc.
All of the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the contract
documents. Attached is the Certificate of Completion showing the original contract
amount of $315,200.00 with actual final costs of $301,747.90. All required project
documentation has been received and is compliant. The project will be closed out upon
issuance of final payment to Vinco, Inc. in the amount of $45,258.25
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution R2026-108.
Budget Impact:
The total final project amount is $397,129.30. The project is funded by the Sanitary Sewer
Fund. The following table provides a summary of the costs and funding comparing the
estimated amount based on bid award versus the final actual amounts.
6
Estimate Based on Bid Award
Final Project Costs
Costs
Construction Costs
$315,200.00
$301,747.90
Contingency
$20,000.00
$10,768.40
Subtotal
$335,200.00
$312,516.30
Eng/Admin/Legal
$58,020.00
$63,196.35
Archeological
$23,750.00
$21,416.65
Total Estimated Project Cost
$416,970.00
$397,129.30
Funding
Sanitary Sewer Fund
$375,000.00
$375,000.00
Sanitary Sewer Fund
remaining from L16 Levee
Rehabilitation Project
$41,970.00
$22,129.30
Total Funding
$416,970.00
$397,129.30
The final contingency amount covered the cost of the electric connection by Shakopee
Public Utilities which was not included in the project estimate at time of award.
Attachments:
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION - 2025 SCADA Expansion.docx
Resolution_R2026-108_REVISED.docx
7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
CONTRACT NO(S): SEWER -25-002, DATE: July 15, 2026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2025 SCADA System Expansion
CONTRACTOR: Vinco, Inc.
PO Box 907
Forest Lake MN, 55025
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 315,200.00
QUANTITY CHANGE AMOUNT $ - /-
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 THRU NO. 2 AMOUNT $ -(13,452.10)
FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 301,747.90
LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS $ 256,489.65
FINAL PAYMENT $ 45,258.25
I, hereby certify that the above described work was inspected under my direct supervision and
that, to the best of my belief and knowledge, I find that the same has been fully completed in all
respects according to the contract, together with any modifications approved by City Council.
I, therefore, recommend above specified final payment be made to the above named
Contractor.
Dok".;
Darin Manning
8
RESOLUTION R2026-108
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ACCEPTING WORK
ON THE 2025 SCADA SYSTEM EXPANSION PROJECT, SEWER -25-002,
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Shakopee on April 15, 2025,
Vinco, Inc., has satisfactorily completed THE 2025 SCADA System Expansion Project in accordance with
such contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: The work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: The City Clerk and Mayor are hereby directed to issue
a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of $45,258.25, taking the
contractor's receipt in full.
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 21St
day of July 2026.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared by:
City of Shakopee
485 Gorman Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
9
WILLA!
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.c
July 21, 2026
Approve a Budget Amendment and Authorize Execution of a Change
Order for the Lions Park Parking Lot Improvement Project
Alex Enyi, Project Coordinator
Alex Jordan, City Engineer
Action to be considered:
Approve a budget amendment and authorize staff to execute a change order for the
Lions Park Parking Lot Improvement Project (PA -26-003; PR -26-002).
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
At its May 5, 2026 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution R2026-068, accepting bids
and awarding a contract to S.M. Hentges and Sons, Inc. for the Lions Park Parking Lot
Improvements. The project include an expansion of the parking lot near SandVenture and
Tommy's Malt Shop, reconstruction of the parking lot near the splash pad, improvements
to the drainage outlet from the splash pad and a mill and overlay of the existing entrance
drive and main parking lot.
Construction of the improvements began in June, starting with the parking lot expansion.
During excavation, it was discovered that the in place soils beneath the expanded parking
lot were not suitable for supporting the parking lot improvements. Multiple soil borings
were collected and analyzed during the project design, which identified a topsoil layer
varying in depth from seven to twelve inches. During construction however, the
unsuitable soils ranged from two feet to four feet in certain areas. Those soils were
required to be removed and replaced with a sand cushion to properly construct the
parking lot. Additionally, during installation of the storm sewer and watermain
improvements within the existing parking lot, unsuitable soils were discovered beneath
the pavement. Due to these soils, the city expects to need to be perform more pavement
patching then anticipated following milling of the pavement surface. This pavement
patching will remove the underlying degraded pavements to allow for an overlay that will
last its expected life.
10
Recommendation:
Approve the budget amendment.
Budget Impact:
The total amount of the budget amendment is $60,000, increasing the total project cost
from $1,183,777.30 to $1,243,777.30. The additional costs will be shared by the Park
Asset Fund ($23,000) and the Capital Improvement Fund ($37,000). The amended Park
Asset Fund budget matches the programmed funding amount in the adopted Capital
Improvement Plan. The additional CIF budget will be allocated from cost savings realized
from 2026 city projects.
Attachments:
11
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.d
July 21, 2026
Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation's Quarterly Grant Award
Andrea Harrell, Grants and Special Projects Coordinator
Chelsea Petersen, Assistant City Administrator
Action to be considered:
Adopt Resolution R2026-103, accepting the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation's
2026 quarterly grant award and authorizing the City Administrator to execute the
necessary contracts and agreements applicable to accepting this award.
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
At its October 7th, 2025 meeting, Council approved the application to the Firehouse Subs
Public Safety Foundation Quarterly Grant Program. The Firehouse Subs Public Safety
Foundation provides grants quarterly to local public safety organizations, nonprofits, and
schools to support their communities by creating lifesaving impacts. The Firehouse Subs
Safety Foundation grant has been awarded for 5 AEDs and 5 AED Training Units to be
provided via direct vendor purchase or grant funding.
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution R2026-103.
Budget Impact:
A 0% match is required.
Attachments:
Resolution R2026-103 AWARD.docx
Resolution R2025-110.pdf
12
RESOLUTION R2026-103
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING
THE FIREHOUSE SUBS PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION'S
QUARTERLY GRANT PROGRAM GRANT AWARD AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee applied to the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation's
Quarterly Grant Program, previously approved via Resolution R2025-110 on 7th day of October 2025,
and
WHEREAS, the grant is to provide AED and AED training equipment for the Fire Department, and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee was awarded the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation grant
for $13,650.00 to be provided in equipment or funding, and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee recognized a 0% match is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: the City of Shakopee recognizes it has been awarded a grant by the
Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation, agrees to accept the grant award and grant agreement for the
above -referenced project, and authorizes the City Administrator to execute the necessary contracts and
agreements applicable to accepting this award. The City of Shakopee will comply with all applicable
laws, requirements, and regulations as stated in the grant agreement.
Adopted in the regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this
21St day of July 2026.
Matt Lehman,
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
Richard Parsons
City Clerk
13
RESOLUTION R2025-110
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING
THE CITY TO SUBMIT FIREHOUSE SUBS PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION'S
QUARTERLY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee supports the application made to the Firehouse Subs Public
Safety Foundation's quarterly grant program, and
WHEREAS, the application is to obtain funding for the purchase of lifesaving equipment and
prevention education tools to be utilized by the Fire Department, and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee recognizes a 0% match is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: if the City of Shakopee is awarded a grant by the Firehouse Subs Public
Safety Foundation, the City of Shakopee agrees to accept the grant award and may enter into an
agreement with Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation for the above -referenced project. The City of
Shakopee will comply with all applicable laws, requirements, and regulations as stated in the grant
agreement.
Adopted in the regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this
7th day of October 2025.
Matt Lehman,
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
Richard Parsons
City Clerk
Prepared by:
City of Shakopee
485 Gorman Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
14
WILLA!
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.e
July 21, 2026
Minnesota Department of Safety's DWI/Traffic Safety Officer Program
Grant Application
Andrea Harrell, Grants and Special Projects Coordinator
Chelsea Petersen, Assistant City Administrator
Action to be considered:
Adopt Resolution R2026-105, approving an application to the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety's (MN DPS) DWI/Traffic Safety Officer (DWI/TSO) program grant.
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
The MN DPS's DWI/TSO program awards funding to law enforcement agencies to hire an
officer to work during peak nights and times when data indicates impaired driving will
most likely occur. While primarily seeking to detect and interdict impaired drivers, the
DWI/TS Officer will also focus on the dangerous driving behaviors of speeding, distracted
driving, and occupant protection.
The Shakopee Police Department has been awarded this grant annually since 2022, and
is applying to continue receiving funding. The previous years' funding allowed the
Shakopee PD to hire a DWI/TS Officer, but funding will end in September 2026. Data is
currently being collected and will continue to be collected to analyze the effectiveness of
the program. The funding will continue to be utilized to provide the officer's salary,
benefits, and overtime relating to duties performed within the scope of this grant.
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution R2026-105.
Budget Impact:
A 0% match is required.
Attachments:
Resolution R2026-105.docx
15
RESOLUTION R2026-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING
THE CITY TO SUBMIT THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY'S
DWI/TRAFFIC SAFETY OFFICER PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee supports the application to the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety's DWI/Traffic Safety Officer program grant.
WHEREAS, the application is to obtain funding to continue the employment of the DWI/Traffic
Safety Officer position for one year, and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee recognizes a 0% match is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: if the City of Shakopee is awarded a grant by MN Department of Safety, the
City of Shakopee agrees to accept the grant award and may enter into an agreement with MN
Department of Safety for the above -referenced project. The City of Shakopee will comply with all
applicable laws, requirements, and regulations as stated in the grant agreement.
Adopted in the regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this
21st day of July 2026.
Matt Lehman,
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
Richard Parsons
City Clerk
16
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.f
July 21, 2026
Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Toward Zero Deaths
Enforcement Program Grant Application
Andrea Harrell, Grants and Special Projects Coordinator
Chelsea Petersen, Assistant City Administrator
Action to be considered:
Adopt Resolution R2026-104, approving an application to the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety's (MN DPS) Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Enforcement program.
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
The MN DPS's Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has a mandate to promote the safety of those
who use public roadways. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provides
federal funding to the MN DPS's OTS to design and implement Minnesota's highway
safety program to reduce traffic crashes and the deaths, injuries, and property damage
resulting from those crashes to fulfill this mandate.
The City of Shakopee has been awarded this grant for the past several years, and the MN
DPS TZD grant will provide funding to pay for all officer overtime while conducting traffic
safety initiatives.
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution R2026-104.
Budget Impact:
A 0% match is required.
Attachments:
Resolution R2026-104.docx
17
RESOLUTION R2026-104
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING
THE CITY TO SUBMIT A MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY'S
TOWARD ZERO DEATHS ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee supports the application made to the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety's Toward Zero Deaths Traffic Enforcement grant program, and
WHEREAS, the application is to obtain funding to provide officer overtime while conducting
traffic safety initiatives focusing on reducing impaired driving, speeding, and traffic accidents while
increasing seat belt usage, and
WHEREAS, each year the City enters into a cooperative agreement to continue to participate
when funding is awarded; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee recognizes a 0% match is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: if the City of Shakopee is awarded a grant by the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety, the City of Shakopee agrees to accept the grant award and may enter into an agreement
with Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the above -referenced project. The City of Shakopee will
comply with all applicable laws, requirements, and regulations as stated in the grant agreement.
Adopted in the regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this
21st day of July 2026.
Matt Lehman,
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
Richard Parsons
City Clerk
18
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.g
July 21, 2026
Approve a Cooperative Agreement with Scott County for the Marschall
Road (CH 17) Trail Extension Project
Micah Heckman, Assistant City Engineer
Alex Jordan, City Engineer
Action to be considered:
Approve a Cooperative Agreement with Scott County for the Construction and
Maintenance of a multi -use trail along the west side of Marschall Road (County Highway
17) from 17th Avenue (County Highway 16) to approximately 800 feet south of 17th
Avenue.
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
The Scott County adopted Transportation Capital Improvement Plan programs the
construction of an eight -foot wide multi -use trail on the west side of Marschall Road
(County Highway 17) from 17th Avenue (County Highway 16) to approximately 800 feet
south of 17th Avenue. The improvements are proposed to address a gap in the county
trail system. Scott County is in the process of preparing plans and specifications for the
improvements and construction is planned for fall 2026.
The Cooperative Agreement will establish the cost participation and maintenance
responsibilities for the improvements. Scott County and the City will share maintenance
responsibilities while snow removal will be done at our discretion.
Recommendation:
Approval of the Agreement
Budget Impact:
The City's share of the project costs is estimated to be $61,119.51, which is calculated
based upon 50% of the final actual construction costs of the trail improvements, including
engineering. This project is included in the adopted 2026-2030 CIP with funds allocated
from the Capital Improvement Fund.
Attachments:
19
ShakopeeCOOP_CH 17Trai I(CP17-41)-FI NAL
20
CP 17-41
City of Shakopee
County of Scott
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, 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".
RECITALS:
A. County has programmed plans to complete a trail gap along a portion of County
Highway (CH) 17 from CH 16 to 825 feet south, County Project (CP) 17-41. The
plans include construction of an eight -foot -wide bituminous trail, concrete walk,
and concrete curb replacement, together referred to as the "Project".
B. The above -described Project lies within the corporate limits of the City.
C. City supports the planned Project and is willing to cooperate with County to
complete the Project and share costs related to the Project.
D. The Scott County Cost Participation Policy states the City and the County will split
equally the cost of the walk, trail, and ADA improvements associated with all
County -led projects and all pedestrian amenities, which apply to this Project.
E. The County Engineer has prepared an estimate of the City's cost share for the
Project in the sum of sixty-one thousand one hundred nineteen dollars and fifty-
one cents ($61,119.51) (Exhibit A).
F. It is contemplated that the Project shall be carried out by the parties under the
provisions of Minn. Stat. §162.17, subd.1 and Minn. Stat. §471.59.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreement
contained within this Agreement, the County and City hereby agree as follows:
1. Incorporation
The recitals set out above are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully restated
herein.
2. Scope of Services
a. County shall advertise for bids for the work and construction of the aforesaid
Project, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a
contract (Contract) with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the
bid of such bidder, according to law in such case provided for counties. The
Contract will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County or its
agents, which plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof.
b. County shall have overall authority to administer the Contract and inspect the
construction of the Contract work for the Project. County shall have ultimate
authority in initiating and determining change orders, supplemental agreements,
1
21
CP 17-41
City of Shakopee
County of Scott
and final quantities. The City Engineer shall cooperate with the County Engineer
and his staff at their request to the extent necessary but shall have no other
responsibility for the supervision of the work.
c. The County Engineer shall prepare monthly progress reports and furnish to the
City upon request.
3. Payment
a. It is specifically agreed that the estimate(s) mentioned in this Agreement is only
a preliminary estimate of the cost for the work on the Project and that the unit
prices set forth in the Contract and the final quantities as measured by the County
Engineer shall govern in computing the total final construction cost for
apportioning the cost of the Project according to the provisions of this section.
b. Based upon the total final construction costs, the City shall reimburse the County
fifty percent (50%) of the final actual construction costs of the Project.
c. City further agrees to pay a 50% share of Engineering, and Contract Administration
costs based on the actual costs of planning, design, environmental review,
permits, preparation of bid, specifications and contract administration related to
the Project.
d. City shall, based on the Contract price, deposit with the Scott County Treasurer
ninety-five percent (95%) of the estimated City's share of the construction,
engineering, and administration costs as partial payment within thirty (30) days
after award of Contract or execution of this Agreement, whichever is later. The
final amount of the City's share of construction, engineering, and administration
costs of the Project shall be determined upon completion of the Project and any
amount remaining due to the County shall be reflected in the County's final,
itemized statement of the Project costs submitted to the City. In the event the initial
payment exceeds the City's share of these final costs, such overpayment shall be
returned to the City by the County. County will submit an invoice to City for the
payment due, and City shall pay all amounts due within thirty (30) days.
4. Ongoing Maintenance Items
a. Future Modifications. County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a
period of five (5) years after completion of the Project for any service cuts in the
roadway surfacing of the County Highway included in the Project for any installation
of underground utilities which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall
be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing underground utilities.
b. Pavement Striping and Markings. Initial pavement striping and markings shall
be included as part of the Project. The County shall be responsible for all
subsequent pavement striping and markings on its county roads as required
after the initial work and shall be responsible for one hundred percent (100%) of
the subsequent related costs. The City shall be responsible for all subsequent
striping and markings on its city roads, including pedestrian markings across its
City roadway intersection legs, as required after the initial work and shall be
responsible for one hundred percent (100%) of the subsequent related costs.
c. Snow and Ice Control. Upon completion of the Project, the City, at its expense and
discretion, shall perform snow, ice, and debris removal on all trails and sidewalks
constructed with the Project.
2
22
CP 17-41
City of Shakopee
County of Scott
d. Trail Maintenance. All future maintenance costs of Trail improvements
constructed under this Agreement will be shared equally between the County and
City regardless of which party performs the maintenance work. Either party can
initiate and complete such maintenance work with notice given to the other party.
Upon completion of such work the initiating party will invoice the other for fifty
percent (50%) of the actual total cost. The preventative maintenance on trails
constructed with this project, including sealcoating, will be cost shared equally
between the County and City with County administering the process.
e. A future County Global Maintenance Agreement, upon execution, may supersede
maintenance responsibilities stated in this Agreement.
5. Effective Date of Contract
This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by all parties to the Agreement.
6. Term of Contract
This Agreement will terminate upon County's project completion and close out, provided
that the Ongoing Maintenance section shall survive the Agreement termination.
7. Authorized Agents
The Parties shall appoint an authorized agent for the purpose of administration of this
Agreement. City is notified of the authorized agent of County as follows:
Nathan Thomas, or his successor
Highway Division Program Manager
Scott County Transportation Services
200 Fourth Avenue West
Shakopee, MN 55379
(952) 496-8479
nthomas@co.scott.mn.us
The County is notified the authorized agent for City is as follows:
Alex Jordan, or his successor
City Engineer
City of Shakopee
485 Gorman Street
Shakopee, mN 55379
(952) 233-9361
ajordan@shakopeemn.gov
8. County and State Audit
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 16C.05, subd. 5, the books, records, documents, and
accounting procedures and practices of the County and City pursuant to this Agreement
shall be subject to examination by the County, City and the State Auditor. Complete and
accurate records of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be kept by the
County and City for a minimum of six (6) years following termination of this Agreement for
such auditing purposes. The retention period shall be automatically extended during the
3
23
CP 17-41
City of Shakopee
County of Scott
course of any administrative or judicial action involving the County or the City regarding
matters to which the records are relevant. The retention period shall be automatically
extended until the administrative or judicial action is finally completed or until the
authorized agent of the County or City notifies each party in writing that the records no
longer need to be kept.
9. Liability and Indemnity
a. Neither party, its officers, agents or employees, either in their individual or official
capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to the other party 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 described maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement
work by the other party, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any
contract let by the other party for the performance of said work; and each party
agrees to defend, save, keep and hold harmless the other, its officers, agents and
employees harmless from all claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out
of negligent performance by its officers, agents or employees.
b. It is further agreed that neither party to this Agreement shall be responsible or liable
to the other or to any other person or entity 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 or 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 and indemnify the other party for 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. Each party's obligation to indemnify the other under this clause
shall be limited in accordance with the statutory tort liability limitation as set forth in
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 to limit each party's total liability for all claims
arising from a single occurrence, including the other party's claim for indemnification,
to the limits prescribed under §466.04. It is further understood and agreed that the
Parties' total liability shall be limited by Minn. Stat. §471.59, Subdivision la. as a
single governmental unit.
c. It is further agreed that any and all employees of each party and all other persons
engaged by a party in the performance of any work or services required or provided
herein to be performed by the party shall not be considered employees, agents or
independent contractors of the other party, 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 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 employees while so engaged shall be the sole
responsibility of the employing party and shall not be the obligation or responsibility
of the other party.
10. Insurance
Since each party is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, each party shall
maintain a program of self-insurance or insurance covering general liability and
4
24
CP 17-41
City of Shakopee
County of Scott
automobile liability coverage protecting itself, its officers, agents, employees and duly
authorized volunteers against any usual and customary public liability claims to the limits
prescribed under Minn. Stat. Sec. 466.04 and Workers' Compensation in accordance
with the Minnesota statutory requirements. Said coverage shall be kept in effect during
the entire term of this Agreement.
11. Data Practices
All records kept by the City and the County with respect to the Project shall be subject
to examination by the representatives of each party. All data collected, created, received,
maintained or disseminated for any purpose by the activities of the County or City
pursuant to this Agreement shall be governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as
amended, and the Minnesota Rules implementing such Act now in force or hereafter
adopted.
12. Equal Employment and Americans with Disabilities
In connection with the work under this Agreement, City agrees to comply with the
applicable provisions of state and federal equal employment opportunity and
nondiscrimination statutes and regulations. In addition, upon entering into this
Agreement, City certifies that it has been made fully aware of Scott County's Equal
Employment Opportunity and Americans With Disabilities Act Policies, that it supports
these policies and that it will conduct its own employment practices in accordance
therewith. Failure on the part of City to conduct its own employment practices in
accordance with County Policy may result in the withholding of all or part of regular
payments by the County due under this Agreement unless or until City complies with the
County policy, and/or suspension or termination of this Agreement.
13. Controlling Law
The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations
between the parties and performance under it. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction
for any litigation hereunder shall be those courts located with the County of Scott, State of
Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties shall be in the
appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota.
14. Changes/Amendments
The parties agree that no change or modification to this Agreement, or any attachments
hereto, shall have any force or effect unless the change is reduced to writing, dated, and
made part of this Agreement. The execution of the change shall be authorized and signed
in the same manner as this Agreement, or according to other written policies of the
original parties.
15. Severability
In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable,
the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the parties unless such
invalidity or non -enforceability would cause the Agreement to fail its purpose. One or
more waivers by either party of any provision, term, condition or covenant shall not be
construed by the other party as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same by the
5
25
CP 17-41
City of Shakopee
County of Scott
other party.
16. Entire Agreement
It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained herein
and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the
parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently
in effect between the County and City relating to the subject matter hereof.
6
26
CP 17-41
City of Shakopee
County of Scott
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to be executed intending to be bound thereby.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By And
Matt Lehman, Mayor William H. Reynolds, City Administrator
Date Date
COUNTY OF SCOTT
By
Lezlie Vermillion, County Administrator
Date
Upon proper execution, this agreement RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL:
will be legally valid and binding.
By By
Jeanne Andersen, Assistant County Attorney Anthony J. Winiecki, County Engineer
Date Date
7
27
EXHIBIT A
Division of Cost Summary
Project Construction Costs & Engineering/Administration Services to be shared 50% with the City of Shakopee
Estimated Costs - CH 17 Trail Project (CP 17-41)
Construction Costs
Item
Est. Quant. Unit Unit Price Amount
MOBILIZATION 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
CLEARING & GRUBBING 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
SALVAGE SIGN 1 EACH $ 20.00 $ 20.00
REMOVE CURB & GUTTER 74 LIN FT $ 16.00 $ 1,184.00
SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH 38 LIN FT $ 6.00 $ 228.00
REMOVE FENCE 338 LIN FT $ 4.00 $ 1,352.00
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 1809 SQ FT $ 0.75 $ 1,356.75
SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) 264 CU YD $ 25.00 $ 6,600.00
COMMON EXCAVATION (CV) 830 CU YD $ 15.00 $ 12,450.00
COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) 661 CU YD $ 4.00 $ 2,644.00
AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 151 CU YD $ 50.00 $ 7,550.00
BITUMINOUS SEAL COAT - TRAIL 708 SQ YD $ 2.75 $ 1,947.00
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2;B) 120 TON $ 110.00 $ 13,200.00
6" CONCRETE WALK 561 SQ FT $ 10.00 $ 5,610.00
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 74 LIN FT $ 40.00 $ 2,960.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
INSTALL SIGN 1 EACH $ 20.00 $ 20.00
STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION 6 EACH $ 150.00 $ 900.00
SILT FENCE; TYPE MS 105 LIN FT $ 2.50 $ 262.50
SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW 1815 LIN FT $ 3.50 $ 6,352.50
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
SOIL BED PREP 0.5 ACRE $ 275.00 $ 137.50
FERTILIZER TYPE 3 100 POUND $ 1.25 $ 125.00
ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CAT 20 2378 SQ YD $ 2.00 $ 4,756.00
SEEDING 0.5 ACRE $ 300.00 $ 150.00
SOUTHERN BOULEVARD SEED MIX 80 POUND $ 4.00 $ 320.00
Total Estimated Construction Costs
50% of Total Estimated Construction Costs
$ 110,125.25
$ 55,062.63
Contract Work Percentage Costs
I
Engineering/Design - Five Percent (5%)
Contract Administration - Three Percent (3%)
Construction Inspection - Three Percent (3%)
$ 2,753.13
$ 1,651.88
$ 1,651.88
Total Estimated Contract Work Percentage Costs $ 6,056.89
ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL $ 61,119.51
28
SHAKOPEE
Shakopee City Council 5.h
July 21, 2026
Agenda Item: Approval of the July 7, 2026, City Council Minutes
Prepared by: Rick Parsons
Reviewed by:
Action to be considered:
Approve the July 7, 2026, City Council minutes
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
N/A
Recommendation:
Approve the July 7, 2026, City Council minutes.
Budget Impact:
N/A
Attachments:
07/07/2026 City Council Minutes
29
SHAKOPEE
City Council
City Hall
485 Gorman Street
Shakopee, MN, 55379
Tuesday, July 7, 2026
7:00 p.m.
Vision: Shakopee is a place where people want to be! A distinctive river town, with a
multitude of business, cultural and recreational opportunities in a safe, welcoming, and
attractive environment for residents and visitors.
Mission: Our mission is to deliver high quality services essential to maintaining a safe
and sustainable community. We commit to doing this cost-effectively, with integrity and
transparency.
1) Call to Order
2) Roll Call
PRESENT:
Mayor Lehman, Council Member Contreras, Council Member Whiting, Council
Member DuLaney, and Council Member Lara
ABSENT:
None.
ALSO PRESENT:
None.
3) Pledge of Allegiance
4) Special Presentations
Council Member Whiting made a motion to approve the agenda with the
modification of adding item 4.a) Legislative Overview from Representative
Bakeberg, and moving the Elections Update from Scott County to item 4.b),
second by Council Member Contreras and the motion passed. 5 - 0
4.a) Legislative Overview from Representative Bakeberg
1,3,0
4.b) Elections Update from Scott County.
5) Approval of Agenda
Council Member Lara made a motion to approve the agenda, second by
Council Member DuLaney and the motion passed. 5 - 0
6) Consent Agenda
6.a) Authorize Final Acceptance and Payment for Phase II of the Downtown
ADA, Lighting and Tree Rehab Improvement Project
6.b) Approve an Agreement with the Metropolitan Council to participate in
the 2026 Community -Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) for water
quality sampling
6.c) Accept Minnesota State Fire Marshal's MN Fire Department Turnout
Gear Washer, Extractor, Dryer Grant Award
6.d) Approve a Gambling Premises Permit for Climb Theatre Inc.
6.e) Resolution moving City Council and EDA meeting from August 5 to
August 4, 2026
6.f) Purchase Thermal Imaging Cameras
6.g) Approve a Tobacco License for Schwaesdall Pub LLC. dba Arnie's
6.h) Parks and Recreation Premier Sponsorship -Metropolitan Dance Alliance
6.i) AED Donation from the Hearts on Duty Program
6.j) Approval of the June 16, 2026, City Council Minutes
6.k) Disposal of Police Department Surplus Property
Council Member Whiting made a motion to approve the consent agenda,
second by Council Member Contreras and the motion passed. 5 - 0
7) Public Comment
8) Business removed from consent agenda
9) Recess for Economic Development Authority Meeting
Council Member Contreras made a motion to recess to the EDA Meeting,
second by Council Member DuLaney and the motion passed. 5 - 0
10) Reconvene
11) Reports
11.a) City Bill List
11.b) News and Announcements
12) Other Business
13) Adjourn to July 21, 2026, at 7:00 pm
Council Member Lara made a motion to adjourn to July 21, 2026, at 7:00 pm,
second by Council Member DuLaney and the motion passed. 5 - 0
SHAKOPEE
WILLA!
Shakopee City Council 5.i
July 21, 2026
Agenda Item: Scheduled Network Switch Replacement
Prepared by: Andy Hutson, I.T. Director
Reviewed by: Chelsea Petersen, Assistant City Administrator
Action to be considered:
Approve the replacement of end -of -life network switches to maintain a secure, reliable,
and resilient network infrastructure critical to city operations.
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
The City's network infrastructure relies on network switches to provide connectivity for all
City operations. Several of these switches have reached the manufacturer's end -of -life
(EOL) and end -of -support (EOS) milestones.
Once equipment reaches EOL/EOS status, the manufacturer no longer provides software
updates, security patches, hardware replacement, or technical support. Continuing to
operate unsupported equipment increases operational and cybersecurity risks and may
affect the City's ability to maintain reliable services.
Recommendation:
Approval of the network switch quote.
Budget Impact:
The Information Technology (IT) Department budgets yearly for the replacement of
equipment as it comes due. The cost of this replacement is $28,934.42 with a request of
up to a 10% contingency ($2,893) for any additional unforeseen components that may be
required to complete this project. The pricing from this vendor comes from the State of
Minnesota contract with Cisco. This project will be paid for from the IT Fund.
Attachments:
Network Switches - LogisHeartland.pdf
33
CD BUSINESS SYSTEMS
HEARTLAND
SR-0034784/Logis-Shakopee Switches
Prepared For:
LOGIS
Lori Hackett
5750 Duluth St.
Golden Valley, MN 55422
P: (763) 543-2606
E: lhackett@logismn.gov
Public Contract Vehicles
Cisco - #260552 - MN
Total Discount off list = 54.75%
SR -0034784
Prepared by:
Minneapolis Area Office
Luke Possis
605 US -169
Minneapolis, MN 55441
P: 952-715-2929
E: Ipossis@hbs.net
Quote #414084 v1
Date Issued:
07.08.2026
Expires:
08.06.2026
Hardware/Software
Price Ext. Price
C9300X-12Y-A Catalyst 9300X 12x25G Fiber Ports, modular uplink Switch
$11,916.29
2
$23,832.58
TE-C9K-SW TE agent for IOSXE on C9K
$0.00
2
$0.00
PWR-C1-715WAC- 715W AC 80+ platinum Config 1 Power Supply
P
$0.00
2
$0.00
PWR-C1-715WAC- 715W AC 80+ platinum Config 1 SecondaryPower Supply
P/2
$688.00
2
$1,376.00
CAB -TA -NA North America AC Type A Power Cable
$0.00
4
$0.00
C9300-SSD-NONE No SSD Card Selected
$0.00
2
$0.00
C9K-ACC-RBFT RUBBER FEET FOR TABLE TOP SETUP 9200 and 93xx
$0.00
2
$0.00
C9K-ACC-SCR-4 12-24 and 10-32 SCREWS FOR RACK INSTALLATION, QTY 4
$0.00
2
$0.00
CAB-GUIDE-1RU 1RU CABLE MANAGEMENT GUIDES 9200 and 9300
$0.00
2
$0.00
C9300X-NM-NONE Catalyst 9300 No -Network Module Selection
$0.00
2
$0.00
C9300 -STACK- No Stack Cable Selected
NONE
$0.00
2
$0.00
C9300-SPWR- No Stack Power Cable Selected
NONE
$0.00
2
$0.00
C9300X-DNA-12Y- C9300 DNA Advantage, Term License
A
$0.00
2
$0.00
C9300 -DNA -L -A -5Y DNA Advantage 5 Year License
$1,862.45
2
$3,724.90
TE-EMBEDDED-T Cisco ThousandEyes Enterprise Agent IBN Embedded
$0.00
2
$0.00
TE-EMBEDDED-T- ThousandEyes - Enterprise Agents
5Y
$0.00
2
$0.00
D-DNAS-EXT-S-T Cisco DNA Spaces Extend Term License for Catalyst Switches
$0.00
2
$0.00
D-DNAS-EXT-S-5Y Cisco DNA Spaces Extend for Catalyst Switching - 5Year
$0.00
2
$0.00
34
CD BUSINESS SYSTEMS
HEARTLAND
Hardware/Software
Price
Qty Ext. Fir;:
C9300X-NW-A-12 C9300 Network Advantage, 12 -port license
$0.00
2
$0.00
C9000-HSEC U.S. Export Restriction Compliance license for Catalyst 9000
$0.47
2
$0.94
NETWORK-PNP- Network Plug -n -Play Connect for zero -touch device deployment
LIC
$0.00
2
$0.00
SC9300UK9-1718 CAT9300/9400/9500/9600 UNIVERSAL
$0.00
2
$0.00
C9300X-NM- Catalyst 9300 Network Module Blank Module
BLANK
$0.00
2
$0.00
Subtotal:
$28,934.42
Non-Returnable/Non-Refundable Language
Cisco/Meraki Note:
All new Cisco and Meraki orders submitted for hardware, and any attached software, will be non -cancellable and cannot be modified starting 45 days prior to the
current estimated ship date. Meraki license -only orders are not impacted by this policy change. Non -cancellable orders are not eligible for RMA credit and are not
eligible for an RMA exception.
Hardware/Software
$28,934.42
Total:I $28,934.42
This Quote does not include any federal or state prevailing wage rates, unless specifically noted. If this project requires compliance with any federal or state
prevailing wage laws, the customer must immediately notify Heartland in writing prior to acceptance so that Heartland can provide an updated Quote. Any
modifications made after the project commencement will result in additional charges and delays.
This quote may not include applicable sales tax, telecommunications taxes, shipping, handling, and delivery charges. Final applicable sales tax,
telecommunications taxes, shipping, handling, and delivery charges are calculated and applied at invoice. The above prices are for hardware/software only, and
do not include delivery, setup or installation by Heartland ("HBS") unless otherwise noted. Installation by HBS is available at our regular hourly rates, or pursuant
to a prepaid HBSFlex Agreement. This configuration is presented for convenience only. HBS is not responsible for typographical or other errors/omissions
regarding prices or other information. Prices and configurations are subject to change without notice, and may be changed by HBS at any time up until shipment.
HBS may modify or cancel this quote if the pricing is impacted by a tariff. A 20% restocking fee will be charged on any returned part. Customer is responsible for
all costs associated with return of product and a $25.00 processing fee. No returns, cancellations or order changes are accepted by HBS without prior written
approval. This quote and any attached agreement are not subject to termination without cause or for convenience. This quote expressly limits acceptance to the
terms of this quote, and HBS disclaims any additional terms. Customer may issue a purchase order for administrative purposes only. By providing your "E -
Signature," you acknowledge that your electronic signature is the legal equivalent of your manual signature, and you warrant that you have express authority to
execute this agreement and legally bind your organization to this proposal and all attached documents. Any purchase that the customer makes from HBS is
governed by HBS' Standard Terms and Conditions ("ST&Cs") located at http://www.hbs.net/standard-terms-and-conditions, which are incorporated herein by
reference. The ST&Cs are subject to change. When a new order is placed, the ST&Cs on the above -stated website at that time shall apply. If customer has
signed HBS' ST&Cs version 2022.v1.0 or later, or the parties have executed a current master services agreement, the signed agreement shall control over any
conflicting terms in the version on the website. If a current master services agreement does not cover the purchase of products, the ST&Cs located on the website
shall govern the purchase of products. Certain purchases also require customer to be bound by end user terms and conditions. A list of end user terms and
conditions related to various manufacturers and vendors is set forth at https://www.hbs.net/End-User-Agreements. Any purchase that customer makes is also
governed by the applicable end user terms and conditions, which are incorporated herein by reference. If customer has questions about whether end user terms
and conditions apply to a purchase, customer shall contact HBS. Any order(s) that exceeds the credit limit assigned by HBS shall require upfront payment from
customer in an amount determined by HBS. HBS shall make this determination at the time of the order, unless customer has previously submitted the required
onboarding paperwork. In such event, HBS shall make this determination at the time of quoting. Customer shall ensure that all invoices are timely paid as stated
in Section 2 of the ST&Cs, regardless of whether Customer has a financing or leasing company or other third -party issue the purchase order. In the event that a
third -party issues the purchase order, Customer shall be required to sign this Quote for purposes of approving the order. QT.2026.v1.0
Quote #414084 vi
35
Page: 2 -
CD BUSINESS SYSTEMS
HEARTLAND
Acceptance
Minneapolis Area Office
Luke Possis
Signature / Name
07/08/2026
Date
LOGIS
Lori Hackett
Signature / Name
Initials
Date
Quote #414084 vi
Page: 336
_
WILLA!
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.j
July 21, 2026
Approve Temporary Liquor Licenses for BHB2 LLC. dba Badger Hill
Brewing.
Heidi Emerson, Deputy City Clerk
Action to be considered:
Approve temporary liquor licenses for BHB2 LLC. dba Badger Hill Brewing for events
being held at their production facility, located at 4571 Valley Industrial Boulevard South
#500.
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
BHB2 LLC. dba Badger Hill Brewing has submitted applications for temporary liquor
licenses for events they are holding at their production facility located at 4571 Valley
Industrial Boulevard South #500. The date of the events are as follows:
July 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31st
August 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9th
The applications are in order, and the fees have been paid.
Recommendation:
Approve the above requested motion.
Budget Impact:
N/A
Attachments:
37
WILLA!
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.k
July 21, 2026
Approval of an updated Rhythm on the Rails Special Event Permit and
Temporary Liquor License for the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce
Heidi Emerson, Deputy City Clerk
Action to be considered:
Approve an updated Rhythm on the Rails Special Event Permit and Temporary Liquor
License for the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce for August 5, 2026.
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
The Shakopee Chamber of Commerce has applied for an updated special event permit
and temporary liquor license to add an event on August 5, 2026. This additional date is
the makeup date for the event that was canceled on June 17, 2026, due to weather.
Recommendation:
Approve the above requested motion.
Budget Impact:
Staff time will be needed to drop off and pick up street barricades and garbage cans, post
street closing signs and clear the streets. Most of this can be accomplished during normal
working hours.
Attachments:
Map of Downtown Barricades
38
rn
M
Barriers for downtown Events
a
a
'or)
ro
OD a
Ii
O
a
o a
E
o .§
E o
< H
V)
a
a
U
(U
CO
a
i)
Ln
a
cmi
t:1
r
ro
o Li)
CC
0
13 —NON —Pivot
PD will take care of the lights on the barriers
WILLA!
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 5.1
July 21, 2026
Approve On -Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses for Valleyfair LLC. dba
Valleyfair.
Heidi Emerson, Deputy City Clerk
Action to be considered:
Approve on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Valleyfair LLC. dba Valleyfair, located at 1
Valleyfair Drive.
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
Staff has received on -sale and Sunday liquor license applications for Valleyfair LLC. dba
Valleyfair, located at 1 Valleyfair Drive. The applications are in order, and the fees will be
required to be paid prior to issuance of the licenses.
The Police Department performed a background investigation and found nothing that
would prohibit issuance of the licenses.
Recommendation:
Approve the above requested motion.
Budget Impact:
N/A
Attachments:
40
WILLA!
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 8.a
July 21, 2026
Appeal of Decision by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to Allow
Dog Daycare and Boarding at 1424 Primrose Lane.
Michael Kerski, Planning and Development Director
Michael Kerski, Planning & Development Director
Action to be considered:
Approve Resolution
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
In 2025, the City Council adopted amendments to the Home Occupation Ordinance
allowing limited dog daycare and boarding businesses to operate within residential
neighborhoods under an annual Home Occupation Permit. The ordinance was developed
to balance the ability of residents to operate small home -based businesses while
protecting the character of residential neighborhoods through objective operational
standards and ongoing City oversight.
The ordinance establishes specific standards regulating the operation of home -based dog
daycare and boarding businesses, including limitations on the number of animals,
parking, outdoor activity, fencing, annual inspections, annual licensing, and compliance
with nuisance and noise regulations.
Allison Neustadter submitted an application to operate Barks, Belly Rubs, and Beyond Pet
Sitting from her residence at 1424 Primrose Lane.
During the administrative review process, neighboring property owners submitted
written comments expressing concerns regarding barking, traffic, parking, odors,
neighborhood character, and other potential impacts associated with the proposed
business. Because objections were received, staff denied the application.
The applicant appealed the administrative decision to the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals (BOAA).
Following a duly noticed public hearing, the BOAA considered testimony from City staff,
the applicant, and neighboring property owners. After reviewing the evidence, the BOAA
41
unanimously voted 6-0 to overturn the staff decision and approve the Home Occupation
Permit.
Two neighboring property owners subsequently appealed the BOAA decision to the City
Council.
The City Council is acting as an appellate body in reviewing the BOAA decision.
The Council is not conducting a new permit review or determining whether individual
Council Members would independently approve or deny the application. Rather, the
Council's responsibility is to determine whether:
• the BOAA correctly interpreted and applied the Home Occupation Ordinance;
• the BOAA acted within its authority;
• the BOAA's decision is supported by substantial evidence contained within the
administrative record; and
• the BOAA's decision was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or contrary to law.
If the Council finds the BOAA properly applied the ordinance and its decision is supported
by substantial evidence, the BOAA decision should be upheld.
The Home Occupation Ordinance establishes objective approval standards for home
occupations. Unlike a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development, approval of a
Home Occupation Permit is not based upon broad discretionary findings regarding
compatibility with surrounding properties. Instead, the ordinance establishes
measurable standards that an applicant must satisfy. Importantly, the ordinance provides
that an application meeting the required standards shall be approved.
The ordinance regulates, among other things: the maximum number of dogs permitted;
hours of operation; outdoor activity; fencing; parking; employees; exterior appearance;
storage; annual inspections; annual licensing; and compliance with nuisance, noise, and
animal control regulations.
These standards provide the framework for evaluating the application.
Evidence Before the BOAA
The BOAA considered testimony from City staff, the applicant, and neighboring property
owners. Neighbors expressed concerns regarding:
• barking;
• increased traffic;
42
• parking availability;
• odors;
• impacts on neighborhood character;
• property values; and
• concerns that the business could expand in the future.
Staff believes these concerns were genuine and were appropriately considered by the
BOAA.
The applicant explained how the business would operate and testified that the operation
would comply with all applicable ordinance requirements. No evidence was presented
demonstrating that the applicant exceeded any numerical limitation established by the
ordinance or failed to satisfy any objective requirement contained within the Home
Occupation Ordinance.
Compliance with the Ordinance
The record before the BOAA demonstrated that:
• the applicant resides at the property;
• the proposed operation complies with the maximum number of dogs permitted
under the ordinance;
• required off-street parking is available;
• required fencing is provided;
• dogs will be housed primarily indoors;
• no outdoor kennels are proposed;
• the property complies with the physical standards established by the ordinance; and
• the permit remains subject to annual inspection and annual renewal.
Based upon the evidence presented, the BOAA concluded that the applicant satisfied the
objective approval standards established by the Home Occupation Ordinance. Staff
agrees with that conclusion.
The concerns expressed by neighboring property owners deserve careful consideration.
However, the Home Occupation Ordinance intentionally establishes objective approval
criteria rather than discretionary compatibility standards. The ordinance does not
authorize denial simply because neighboring property owners oppose a proposed home
occupation or believe future impacts may occur.
Rather, approval depends upon whether the applicant satisfies the objective standards
established by the ordinance.
The Council should distinguish between evidence demonstrating noncompliance with the
ordinance and speculation regarding possible future violations.
43
Although neighbors expressed concerns regarding barking, traffic, and other operational
issues, those concerns do not establish that the applicant failed to satisfy the approval
standards. The ordinance also contains significant enforcement mechanisms should
problems arise after the permit is issued.
Approval of the Home Occupation Permit does not exempt the applicant from
compliance with City regulations. The property remains subject to: nuisance regulations;
barking regulations; noise regulations; parking regulations; animal control regulations;
annual inspections; annual permit renewal; and permit suspension or revocation if
violations occur.
Accordingly, approval of the permit does not prevent the City from taking enforcement
action if the operation fails to comply with City Code.
BOAA Decision
Following its public hearing, the BOAA determined that:
• the applicant satisfied the objective requirements of the Home Occupation
Ordinance; and
• concerns expressed by neighboring property owners did not establish that the
ordinance standards had not been met; and
• future operational issues could be addressed through existing enforcement
authority; and
• the Home Occupation Permit should therefore be approved.
The BOAA approved the application by a unanimous vote of 6-0.
Staff has reviewed the complete administrative record developed before the BOAA.
Although staff originally denied the application during the administrative review process,
the BOAA subsequently considered additional testimony and determined that the
applicant satisfied the objective approval standards established by the ordinance.
After reviewing the complete record, staff concludes that the BOAA correctly interpreted
and applied the Home Occupation Ordinance.
The BOAA's decision is supported by substantial evidence contained within the
administrative record. The record does not demonstrate that the applicant failed to
satisfy any mandatory approval criterion. Likewise, the record does not establish that the
BOAA acted outside its authority or that its decision was arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, or contrary to law.
44
Because the ordinance provides that qualifying applications shall be approved, staff
concludes there is no factual or legal basis for the City Council to reverse the BOAA's
decision.
Conclusion
The City Council's role in this appeal is limited to determining whether the BOAA properly
interpreted and applied the Home Occupation Ordinance and whether its decision is
supported by substantial evidence.
The record demonstrates that the applicant satisfied the objective approval standards
established by the ordinance. While neighboring property owners expressed legitimate
concerns regarding potential future impacts, those concerns do not establish that the
applicant failed to comply with the ordinance.
The Home Occupation Permit remains subject to ongoing City oversight through annual
licensing, nuisance enforcement, and permit revocation should violations occur.
Based upon the complete administrative record, staff concludes that the BOAA properly
interpreted the ordinance, acted within its authority, and reached a decision supported
by substantial evidence. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the
decision of the BOAA.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution R2026-107 Upholding the Decision by the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals to Allow Dog Daycare and Boarding at 1424 Primrose Lane.
Budget Impact:
None
Attachments:
Resolution R2026-107 for Appeal of Dog Daycare.pdf
Appeal Application
Additional Comments on Appeal from Applicant
Resolution_PC2026_016 - Approving.pdf
OCC-000369-2026 Staff Determination Letter.pdf
Home Occupaion Narrative_v1.pdf
RE Neighbor Permit Concerns.pdf
Site Plan_v1 (2)_v1.pdf
45
RESOLUTION NO. R2026-107
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, UPHOLDING THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
APPROVING A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR BARKS, BELLY
RUBS, AND BEYOND PET SITTING LOCATED AT 1424 PRIMROSE
LANE
WHEREAS, the City received an application from Allison Neustadter for a Home Occupation
Permit to operate Barks, Belly Rubs, and Beyond Pet Sitting at 1424 Primrose Lane; and
WHEREAS, the application was reviewed pursuant to the Home Occupation provisions of the
Shakopee City Code; and
WHEREAS, following administrative denial, the applicant appealed to the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals; and
WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing, the BOAA voted 6-0 to approve the permit;
and
WHEREAS, neighboring property owners appealed the BOAA decision to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the administrative record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City Council has jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
2. The City Council is acting in an appellate capacity.
3. The Council's responsibility is to determine whether the BOAA correctly interpreted and
applied the ordinance and whether its decision is supported by substantial evidence.
4. The Home Occupation Ordinance establishes objective approval standards.
5. The ordinance provides that an application meeting those standards shall be approved.
6. The applicant demonstrated compliance with the objective requirements of the ordinance.
7. No evidence was presented demonstrating that the applicant failed to satisfy any
mandatory approval criterion.
8. Neighboring property owners expressed concerns regarding barking, traffic, parking,
odors, neighborhood character, property values, and future impacts.
9. The Council finds those concerns were sincerely expressed.
10. The Council further finds that those concerns do not establish that the ordinance
standards have not been satisfied.
11. The permit remains subject to an annual license, nuisance enforcement, noise regulations,
barking regulations, parking regulations, and revocation.
12. The BOAA correctly interpreted the ordinance.
13. The BOAA acted within its authority.
46
14. The BOAA's decision is supported by substantial evidence contained within the
administrative record.
15. The BOAA's decision is not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or contrary to law.
16. The City Council has independently reviewed the entire administrative record and
concludes there is no factual or legal basis to reverse or modify the BOAA's decision.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The applicant satisfied the Home Occupation Ordinance.
2. The BOAA properly approved the permit.
3. The appeal should be denied.
4. The BOAA decision should be upheld.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
The City Council of the City of Shakopee hereby:
1. Adopts these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
2. Upholds and affirms the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approving the
Home Occupation Permit for Allison Neustadter, doing business as Barks, Belly Rubs,
and Beyond Pet Sitting, located at 1424 Primrose Lane.
3. Directs that the Home Occupation Permit remain subject to all provisions of the
Shakopee City Code, including to an annual license, nuisance enforcement, noise
regulations, barking regulations, parking regulations, and revocation.
4. Directs the City Clerk to provide a copy of this Resolution to the applicant and appellant.
5. Declares this Resolution to be the final decision of the City Council regarding this appeal.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee this 21st day of July, 2026.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
47
Gmail
Appeal of application approval for 1424 Primrose Ln
Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 10:08 AM
Appeal of application approval for 1424 Primrose Lane
1, Recent committee meeting of BOAA
Why were the neighbors objecting to the permit not at the meeting.
• Email from city staff to neighbors of applicant stated
- Meeting is not a public meeting and there is no guarantee if you attend that you
will be allowed to speak. (why would I take the time to attend with these
ambiguous & conflicting instructions. Not public, I assume I am the public)
- Any information you want to provide to the committee should be submitted to
Amanda Schwabe, staff will forward to committee members
2. Non-compliance issues; owner has been made aware of by neighbors of following:
• dogs loose and not on a leash (in neighbor's garage) (picture submitted)
• dogs relieving themselves in neighbor's yards
• neighbors have communicated to owner about excessive dog barking
3. Owner/applicant has stated she has 2 jobs
• how would this person be able to adequately monitor 6 dogs for noise / safety and
at same time work 2 jobs? (2 personal dogs plus 4 more)
• how is it possible to monitor & attend to the dogs when they are outdoors in the
backyard when the owner might be on a conference call?
4. How often are the 6 dogs exercised
• question was asked by council / planning person; how often do you walk the
dogs.
• the owner did not answer the question directly on walking dogs, only stated she
monitors the dogs with cameras and video screens.
• dog owners on the block walk their dogs frequently, almost daily as viewed by
other homeowners_ any walkers must use the street and are in plain sight.
• I am retired for 2 years, live directly across the street and I have never observed
any dog being walked by the dog boarding owner. *I can identify all the dog owners /
walkers in the neighborhood and the type of dog they walk.
5. How are the neighbors expected to monitor non-compliance to nuisance issues and
provide evidence C proof of non-compliance?
is this an intrusion on my privacy / rights if I must take time to watch & document
noncompliance. is it fair to force this monitoring responsibility on neighbors
6. what are the legal requirements for the following
• Business Owner: required to have insurance or bond for liability & risk to address
any damage or harm caused to neighbors & property?
• Pet Owner: required to have or recommended to have an insurance liability policy
for any damage or harm caused to neighbors & property?
• The following scenarios have been observed: people walking dogs have been
48
charged by other dogs in the neighborhood not on leash. small children have been
charged by dogs and injured falling off bikes or scooters.
7. Shakopee City Council article from Star Tribune
• Shakopee is attempting to regulate at-home boarding businesses in response to a
rash of gripes about canines barking at all hours
• The Shakopee Police Department received enough canine -related complaints over
the last six months to fill 43 pages.
8. Financial Impact
• Searching Goggle Al on the impact to real estate prices near a at-home dog
boarding business: Living next to an at-home dog boarding house can decrease
nearbyprop_ rty values by an estimated 2% to 10%.
• The primary drivers of this depreciation are noise pollution from barking, traffic
congestion from drop-offs, and lingering odors. In some states, real estate agents are
legally required to disclose these nuisance factors to potential buyers
• I talked to a real estate agent about a dog boarding house across the street.
Agent responded: "oh, that is not good". He had just sold a house in Shakopee and
said that I could potentially sell my house for $425k.
Now instead of expecting to receive $25,000 more from the sale of my house, I
can now expect $20-25K less than market average. (market average of area homes
is app. $400k C 5% discount)
• can it be explained why neighbors must accept a reduction in values forced upon
them by dog day care owners who will be increasing their income at the same time
0)- ,* trze14i,
49
Amanda Schwabe
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Categories:
Monday, June 15, 2026 12:30 PM
Amanda Schwabe;
Michael Kerski
Re: APPL-000407-2026
New
hi all, to be clear on this point; this observation is not about the permit applicant and any dogs in their
care currently. it is only what i have observed by other neighbors dogs to attest how dogs can be
excited/anxious and cause unintended harm or nuisance.
• The following scenarios have been observed: people walking dogs have been charged by
other dogs in the neighborhood not on leash. small children have been charged by dogs and
injured falling off bikes or scooters,
I
50
RESOLUTION PC2026-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, REVERSING THE
DENIAL OF A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR DOG DAYCARE AND BOARDING
AT 1424 PRIMROSE LANE
WHEREAS, City of Shakopee staff administratively reviewed and denied a request from
Allison Neustadter, owner of Barks, Boofs, and Beyond Pet Sitting LLC DBA Barks, Belly Rubs, and
Beyond Pet Sitting for a Home Occupation permit to provide dog daycare and boarding services up to
180 calendar days per year for up to four (4) dogs not owned by the property owner and 2 small animals
at 1424 Primrose Lane Storage on April 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as
Lot 16, Block 3, The Meadows 8th Addition, Scott County, Minnestoa; and
WHEREAS, the Administrative Review process includes notification of property owners
within 500 feet of the subject property and allows 15 days for recipients to provide comment on the
request; and
WHEREAS, staff received four (4) emails and one (1) voicemail during the Administrative
Review period all in opposition to the request citing concerns about current barking occurring at the
property and potentially more barking from a total of six (6) dogs at the property, dogs not being leashed
when outside the fenced area on the property, traffic, odor, and concerns regarding the operation of a
commercial business in a residential neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, staff determined that this request did not meet the intent of City Code Section
151.007 G. as the proposed home occupation would likely cause objectionable noise discernable at the
property line and other nuisances including, but not limited to odor and traffic; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the denial of Home Occupation Permit OCC-000369-
2026 per City Code Section 151.016 A.; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 151.016 allows the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to
determine if an error was made in the staff denial of the request for a Home Occupation permit for dog
and small animal daycare and boarding based on submitted neighbor comments and concerns; and
51
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals reviewed the request and the provided
information; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota that the denial of Home Occupation permit OCC-000369-2026 to provide dog
daycare and boarding services up to 180 calendar days per year for up to four (4) dogs not owned by
the property owner and 2 small animals at 1424 Primrose Lane Storage has been reversed.
Adopted in regular session of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held on the 4th day of June, 2026.
Chairperson,
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
ATTEST:
Michael Kerski,
Director of Planning and Development
PREPARED BY:
City of Shakopee
485 Gorman Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
52
SHAKOPE E
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
April 30, 2026
Allison Neustadter
Barks, Belly Rubs, and Beyond Pet Sitting AKA
Barks, Boofs, and Beyond Pet Sitting LLC
1424 Primrose Lane
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Ms. Neustadter:
Thank you for submitting your request for a home occupation permit (OCC-000369-2026). As part of the
administrative review process, notices were sent to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property. During the 15 -day comment period staff received comments not in support of the request from
five (5) different property owners citing concerns related to barking dogs at the property currently and the
effects of having additional dogs at the site, as well as other nuisance concerns related to traffic, and odor in
the residential area.
This letter informs you that your request to conduct dog daycare and boarding 1424 Primrose Lane in
Shakopee has been DENIED. As a result, all business operations at the property shall cease immediately.
You have the right to appeal this decision by applying via the ePortal for an appeal to the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals (BOAA) within seven (7) days of the date of this letter. The appeal shall specify what error
allegedly was made in an order, requirement, decision, or determination. The application fee for an appeal
is currently $515.00.
Pet daycare and boarding facilities are a conditional use in our Highway Business (B-1), Light Industry (I-1),
and Heavy Industry (I-2) zoning districts should you want to pursue operating the business outside of the
residential setting. Additional information is available at www.ShakopeeMN.gov.
Thank you,
Amanda Schwabe
Planner, Department of Planning and Development
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
Department of Planning and Development 1485 Gorman St., Shakopee MN 55379 I Phone: 952-233-9300 I Fax: 952-233-3801 I www.ShakopeeMN.gov
53
Barks, Boofs, and Beyond Pet Sitting, LLC
dba Barks, Belly Rubs, and Beyond Pet Sitting
1424 Primrose Ln, Shakopee, MN 55379
Home Occupation Narrative — Dog Sitting / Boarding Business
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
This home -based dog sitting and boarding business is operated in a manner that
prioritizes safety, sanitation, neighborhood compatibility, and minimal impact on
surrounding properties. The business is solely owned and operated by Allison Neustadter,
with no employees. The homeowner has two personal dogs residing in the home: a terrier
mix named Belle and a moyen poodle named Oreo, both of whom are licensed with the
City of Shakopee. All pet waste is picked up a minimum of twice daily, weather permitting,
and disposed of in the exterior trash receptacle located on the side of the home. This
ensures proper sanitation and odor control. Dogs are allowed off -leash only within the fully
fenced backyard and are supervised at all times while outdoors. Outdoor time is structured
to minimize disturbance to neighbors; dogs are typically not taken outside earlier than 6:00
a.m. and not later than 11:00 p.m. If any dog begins to bark while outside, the dog is
immediately brought indoors to reduce noise. Dogs are never left unattended outdoors and
are not permitted to bark outside for longer than approximately one minute. The business
maintains a low -volume operation. No more than four (4) dogs are present at any given
time for boarding and/or daycare. In addition, no more than two (2) small animals are
boarded at any given time. Small animals are accepted for boarding only and not for
daycare. Cats are not and will not be boarded; services are limited to dogs and small
animals only. Dogs are permitted to free roam within the home under supervision.
Separation between dogs is managed as needed using baby gates to ensure safety and
comfort. Any dogs requiring crate or kennel confinement while the operator is away or
during nighttime hours are housed in the designated office area of the home. Indoor
cameras are installed on each level of the residence to monitor pet safety and wellbeing.
Outdoor cameras are planned for installation in the near future to further enhance security
and operational oversight. Client traffic is limited to scheduled drop-off and pick-up times.
Clients are permitted to park in the driveway or on the street directly in front of the home.
All clients are informed that dogs must remain leashed while entering and exiting the
residence to ensure safety and neighborhood courtesy. Hours of operation for drop-off and
pick-up are between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Comprehensive vaccination records are
maintained for all pets in care. Proof of rabies, distemper, and bordetella vaccinations is
required for all dogs as part of the business's health and safety protocols.
Insurance Coverage
The business maintains active commercial pet care liability insurance through Pet Care
Insurance (PCI). Coverage includes animal bailee coverage of $15,000 per occurrence
and $30,000 aggregate, broadened property damage coverage, employee dishonesty
coverage, and veterinary reimbursement coverage of $1,000 per occurrence and $5,000
aggregate. The business owner also maintains separate personal umbrella liability
coverage through Westfield Insurance for additional protection and risk mitigation.
Emergency and Incident Protocol
54
In the event of an emergency, injury, illness, or unexpected incident involving a pet, the
business operator will immediately assess the situation and take appropriate action. This
may include contacting the pet's owner, transporting the pet to the designated emergency
veterinary clinic, or calling emergency services if necessary. Clients are required to
provide emergency contact information and veterinary authorization prior to services being
rendered. If an incident occurs that could impact neighboring properties or public safety,
appropriate authorities will be notified as required. Any aggressive or unsafe behavior
displayed by a dog will result in immediate intervention, separation from other animals,
and potential termination of services if necessary to maintain a safe environment.
Fire Safety and Emergency Evacuation
The residence contains four (4) accessible exits, including three (3) exits on the main level
and one (1) exit in the basement. Multiple fire extinguishers are located throughout the
home. During tornado warnings or severe weather events, all dogs are brought to the
lower -level office and utility area until conditions are safe.
Allison Neustadter, Owner/Operator
Date:
55
Barks, Boofs, and Beyond Pet Sitting LLC
dba Barks, Belly Rubs and Beyond Pet Sitting
1424 Primrose Ln
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Neighbor Comments/Concerns Regarding Permit
I appreciate all of my neighbors taking the time to share their concerns regarding my home -
based pet sitting and daycare business. I understand the importance of maintaining a
peaceful residential environment and being considerate of surrounding neighbors. I would
like to clarify that my business has already been operating for over a year, and during that
time, there have not been ongoing issues related to noise, traffic, sanitation, safety, or
disruption associated with my residence or business operations. My business is
intentionally structured on a small scale and designed to comply with City of Shakopee
home occupation requirements.
Firstly, I would like to address the comment from the neighbor who raised specific
concerns about barking currently at my residence from my two dogs inside my home. I
want to acknowledge that dogs may occasionally bark, as this is a natural behavior.
However, excessive or prolonged barking is not permitted or tolerated in my care. I work
remotely from home and I am present throughout the day, allowing for continuous
supervision and immediate intervention if barking occurs. All dogs are usually in the
office/basement with me from about 7am-5pm while I am working. In the past four and a
half years at this residence, only one concern regarding barking was brought directly to my
attention by this neighbor, which occurred more than two years ago and prior to my
business operations. I had gotten stuck on a call, my patio door was open, one of my dogs
started barking at a passerby, and I couldn't get to him immediately. After that interaction,
implemented additional management measures (use of an e -collar, indoor cameras, and
keeping him confined to an area that I can closely supervise) with no further concerns
raised to my knowledge. Additionally, there has never been any police visits, citations, or
documented nuisance complaints related to my residence or business.
All dogs are temperament screened prior to acceptance, supervised continuously while in
my care, and managed using structured procedures intended to minimize disruption to the
neighborhood. Pick-up and drop-off times are staggered to avoid traffic or parking impacts,
dogs remain either supervised in my fenced yard or leashed, and waste is picked up
multiple times daily and disposed of properly to prevent odor concerns. I also utilize
56
preventative measures indoors and outdoors to maintain safety and prevent dogs from
leaving the property:
1. There is only one gate to the fenced yard which is closed at all times. Before dogs
are let out, the outdoor cameras are checked or the gate is physically inspected to
ensure it is closed before they enter the yard
2. The fence is inspected a couple of times a month to check for weak spots. Any weak
spots are reinforced with fencing stakes and any gaps under the fence are reinforced
with additional fencing materials
3. All dogs who stay at my home, whether it be for daycare or boarding, have an AirTag
placed on their collar or harness
4. Any dog that is taken for a walk is always leashed and security of the
collar/harness/gentle leader is ensured before leaving the house to make sure the
dog cannot slip out of it.
5. Indoor baby gates are used inside the home to restrict dogs to certain areas to
prevent them from accessing the front and garage doors
I also believe it is important to distinguish my property and operations from unrelated
barking concerns involving other residences in the neighborhood. While I understand how
existing neighborhood noise concerns may contribute to broader apprehension, those
circumstances are separate from my home and business operations.
I take responsible pet ownership and responsible business operations very seriously and
remain committed to ensuring that my business continues to operate in a manner that is
respectful of my neighbors, compliant with applicable regulations, and compatible with the
residential nature of the neighborhood.
Allison Neustadter
Owner
57
This was the site plan for when the fence was installed and it is pretty accurate
—■
° - 'IV
,4s-
4r•
The
for•
■
■
mower is
determining
responsible
the
property lines.
Ire 'till
have your public
utilities marked.
•
.
(� --.—...--
fie will follow
sour
direction
3 74
on the location
of
the fence. if
the property
Pkase
trim and or clear
all lines prior to
the start date.
■
pins are not
be
exposed.
Roweser,
-
`
�sy�,•�
-�
see cannot
for any property
responsible
line disputes
TVe will pull
sour permit
t
•� iidShotl•s••rw
■
(�
in the future.
I will
email you
-
a video showing
you
Please
near
flag your sprinklers
the fence lute.
that are
Ili appal
.
■
13'
how to do this
if
you decide to
z
•
O
locate the pins
on
sour mot. 1
IO
A
Chain link
posts
are driven.
Flame patio
y,
10'
`
•,
■
ti
Cs
J
,
,
=
Iwo
woo
Primrose
Lane
4'H Residential Black Vinyl Coated Chain Link
J
L_
-
--ill
II
II
58
WILLA!
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 8.b
July 21, 2026
Appeal of Revocation of Hotel License for American Group of Properties
LLC (Baymont Hotel)
Michael Kerski, Planning and Development Director
Michael Kerski
Action to be considered:
Approve
Motion Type:
Simple Majority
Background:
The City of Shakopee licenses hotels to protect the health, safety, and welfare of hotel
guests, employees, neighboring properties, and the general public. A hotel license is
conditioned upon the licensee's continued compliance with City Code and other
applicable laws and the responsible operation and management of the licensed
premises.
The Baymont Hotel has been the subject of continuing concerns involving management
practices, public safety, police calls for service, disturbances, criminal activity, fire and life -
safety concerns, and repeated demands upon City resources.
The City has communicated its concerns to hotel ownership and management and has
provided the licensee with notice and opportunities to correct conditions at the property.
Despite these efforts, significant incidents and operational concerns have continued.
Police records document 84 incidents associated with the Baymont during 2025 and
2026, including 41 incidents in 2025 and 43 incidents in 2026. The incidents include
disturbances, assaults, threats, suspicious persons and vehicles, unwanted guests,
intoxicated persons, welfare checks, theft, warrants, domestic incidents, criminal sexual
conduct, fire alarms, and other calls requiring police, fire, emergency medical, and City
staff responses.
Two incidents are particularly significant.
First, following a private adult -lifestyle event for which the entire hotel had reportedly
been rented, two attendees were found deceased in a hotel room on New Year's Day.
59
Illegal narcotics and drug paraphernalia were reportedly located near the bodies, and
substances recovered from the room tested positive for fentanyl, methamphetamine,
and cocaine.
Second, on March 28 and 29, 2026, the hotel knowingly permitted the entire property to
be used for a 24 -hour event that resulted in threats of potential gang violence, assaults,
disturbances, repeated fire alarms, suspected ordinance violations, the assignment of
additional Shakopee police officers on overtime, and 16 calls for service.
Following review of the operational history of the property, the City initiated proceedings
to revoke the hotel license.
The licensee requested a hearing regarding the revocation. By letter dated May 5, 2026,
the City scheduled the hearing before the City Council for July 16, 2026. The letter advised
the licensee that the City expected full compliance with all applicable ordinances and
licensing conditions during the interim period, including Chapter 118 of the City Code,
and reserved the right to take additional enforcement action if additional violations,
criminal activity, or nuisance -related events occurred before the hearing.
After the event, staff identified the following violations at the property:
• Prostitution, prostitution -related activity, sex trafficking, or other forms of human
trafficking;
• Maintaining a public nuisance in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.74, clauses (1) or (3);
• Permitting a public nuisance in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.745;
• Unlawful sale, possession, storage, delivery, manufacture, cultivation, or use of
controlled substances;
• Unlicensed sale of alcoholic beverages;
• Unlicensed sale of cannabis or low -potency hemp products;
• Unlawful sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages, cannabis, or low -potency hemp
products, or unlawful possession or
consumption by persons under 21 years of age;
• Unlawful use or possession of a firearm, firearm parts, or ammunition;
• Violations of state law or City ordinance related to the licensed activity;
• Disorderly conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.72.
The matter is now before the City Council to determine whether the revocation should be
upheld.
History of Public Safety and Operational Concerns
The Baymont Hotel has generated a continuing pattern of police calls for service and
60
incidents requiring City intervention.
Police records document 84 incidents associated with the property during 2025 and 2026.
There were 41 documented incidents in 2025 and 43 documented incidents in 2026.
The incidents include disturbances, assaults, threats, suspicious persons and vehicles,
unwanted guests, intoxicated individuals, welfare checks, theft, warrants, domestic
incidents, criminal sexual conduct, fire alarms, and other incidents requiring police, fire,
emergency medical, and other City responses.
Staff recognizes that hotels are public accommodations and that police calls will
occasionally occur at any hotel. The City does not attribute every criminal act, medical
emergency, disturbance, or request for assistance occurring at the property to hotel
ownership or management.
The issue before the City Council is not simply the number of calls for service occurring at
the hotel.
The issue is the totality of the record, including:
• The frequency, nature, and seriousness of incidents occurring at the property;
• The concentration of incidents associated with certain events;
• Management's knowledge of recurring public safety and operational problems;
• The adequacy of management, security, supervision, and operational practices;
• The licensee's response to prior City concerns and warnings;
• The use of the property for large private events presenting heightened public safety
risks;
• The burden placed upon City police, fire, inspection, and other resources; and
• Whether the licensee has demonstrated the ability and willingness to responsibly
operate the hotel.
Staff believes the totality of the record demonstrates that the licensee has failed to meet
the responsibilities associated with holding a City -issued hotel license.
New Year's Day Double -Fatality Incident
Shakopee police officers were dispatched to the Baymont Hotel to conduct a welfare
check after family members of 47 -year -old Josh Quale became concerned that they had
not heard from him and located his work vehicle in the hotel parking lot.
The victims had reportedly attended the "Big O" Frozen Fantasy Event, a private adult -
lifestyle gathering organized by Midwest Euphoria. Midwest Euphoria had reportedly
61
rented the entire hotel for the event.
Mr. Quale had reportedly failed to check out of his hotel room as scheduled. When
officers entered the room, they found two deceased individuals. The deceased were
subsequently identified as Mr. Quale and 54 -year -old Shantelle Denise Bresson. Because
of the condition of the bodies, the individuals could not immediately be identified. Police
also located suspected illegal narcotics and drug paraphernalia near the deceased
individuals.
Field testing of substances recovered from the room reportedly produced positive results
for fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine. The available evidence suggested the
deaths were the result of drug overdoses.
Midwest Euphoria subsequently stated that it maintains a zero -tolerance policy for illegal
drugs and prostitution at its events.
The City does not assert that hotel ownership or management supplied the illegal
narcotics, caused the deaths, or was directly responsible for the criminal activity occurring
inside the hotel room.
The incident is nevertheless relevant to the City Council's consideration of the hotel
license.
The incident occurred in connection with a private event for which the entire hotel had
reportedly been rented. Two attendees remained deceased in a guest room after the
event and were not discovered until police conducted a welfare check. Illegal narcotics
and drug paraphernalia were reportedly located near the bodies. The incident raises
legitimate concerns regarding the hotel's screening of large private events, monitoring of
activities occurring on the premises, control of guests and visitors, enforcement of hotel
policies, procedures for identifying guests who fail to check out, and coordination with
public safety officials.
The incident is particularly significant when considered with the subsequent March 28-29
event.
March 28-29, 2026, 24 -Hour Lock -In Event
On Saturday, March 28, 2026, beginning at approximately 11:00 a.m., the Baymont Hotel
hosted what was advertised as the second annual 24 -hour lock -in "Spring Break Edition."
The event continued until approximately 11:00 a.m. Sunday. The event organizers rented
the entire hotel. Information obtained by the Shakopee Police Department indicated that
rooms were being rented for approximately $1,000 per room for the event.
62
The event included live musical performances and was advertised as including live
entertainment, exotic dancers, a wet T-shirt contest with a $1,000 prize, and vendors.
Upon learning of the event, the Police Department began gathering intelligence regarding
the anticipated activities.
City officials served hotel management with written notice explaining potential ordinance
violations associated with the event and the activities being advertised. Despite receiving
the City's warning and being advised of the potential violations, hotel management
allowed the event to proceed. Police personnel also contacted the event organizer. The
event organizers reportedly provided approximately 80 armed private security personnel.
Despite the size, duration, nature, and security concerns associated with the event, the
City did not learn of the event until shortly before it was scheduled to occur.
The organizer cooperated with police, provided contact information, requested additional
police patrols, and invited officers to walk through the event.
However, the organizer did not alter or cancel the planned event. At approximately 3:00
p.m. on Saturday, the Police Department received information that rival gangs were
discussing coming to the event to "shoot it up." The receipt of a specific threat of potential
gang violence substantially changed the public safety circumstances surrounding the
event. The Police Department determined that additional personnel were necessary to
protect the public and reduce the risk of a major incident. Two patrol officers and one
detective were called in on overtime specifically to provide additional coverage for the
event.
Although a mass -casualty incident was avoided, the event generated significant police
and fire activity. A total of 16 calls for service were generated at the property during the
event. The incidents included assaults, disturbances, and other calls requiring police
intervention. One individual was arrested and taken to jail. The Shakopee Fire
Department responded to three fire alarm calls.
According to information provided by public safety personnel, fire alarms were
repeatedly activated because of the amount of marijuana smoke accumulating within the
hotel.
Photographs and online videos reviewed by City staff showed substantial smoke inside
the hotel and crowded interior conditions.
The Fire Department spent significant time responding to and addressing fire alarm
activations at the property. The City's public safety response was necessary despite the
presence of approximately 80 armed private security personnel.
The private security personnel were unable to adequately prevent, control, or resolve the
63
incidents occurring at the property without repeated intervention by City police and fire
personnel. The Police Department subsequently indicated its intent to pursue criminal
charges for ordinance violations associated with the event and to work with the Scott
County Attorney's Office to determine whether charges should be pursued against hotel
ownership, hotel management, event organizers, or other responsible parties.
Hotel Management's Knowledge and Responsibility
The circumstances surrounding the March 28-29 event are particularly significant
because hotel management was aware of the event and knowingly permitted it to
proceed. This was not a spontaneous gathering of hotel guests that unexpectedly
became disorderly. The entire hotel had been rented for a planned, advertised, 24 -hour
event.
Hotel management had the ability to obtain information regarding the event, determine
the expected attendance and activities, evaluate potential security and life -safety risks,
establish conditions for use of the property, require adequate professional security and
operational plans, prohibit activities that violated City Code, notify City public safety
officials in advance, or decline to host the event.
Instead, the City learned of the event shortly before it was scheduled to begin. After the
Police Department learned of the event, City officials specifically advised hotel
management of potential ordinance violations associated with the activities being
advertised.
Hotel management nevertheless allowed the event to proceed. The Police Department's
account indicates that management did not intend to interrupt or materially alter the
event despite the City's warnings.
The event organizer requested additional police patrols, further demonstrating that those
responsible for the event recognized the potential for significant public safety concerns.
The City Council should consider whether a hotel operator that knowingly permits an
event of this scale and nature, fails to provide meaningful advance notice to the City,
proceeds after receiving warnings regarding potential ordinance violations, and
subsequently requires extraordinary police and fire responses has demonstrated the
judgment and management practices expected of the holder of a City -issued hotel
license. Staff believes it has not.
Failure of Private Security and Inadequate Event Planning
The reported presence of approximately 80 armed private security personnel does not
mitigate the hotel's responsibility.
64
The circumstances raise additional concerns regarding management's judgment and
oversight. An event requiring approximately 80 armed security personnel, should have
caused a reasonable hotel operator to recognize the extraordinary nature of the event
and the potential risks to hotel employees, guests, neighboring properties, emergency
responders, and the public.
Despite this level of private security, the event generated 16 calls for service, three fire
alarm responses, assaults, disturbances, an arrest, and the need for additional Shakopee
police officers to work overtime. Online videos and photographs showed significant
smoke and crowded conditions within the hotel. Fire alarm activations are not minor
inconveniences. Each activation requires an emergency response, consumes Fire
Department resources, creates risks for responding personnel, and potentially reduces
the availability of emergency services elsewhere in the community. Repeated fire alarm
activations caused by activities knowingly permitted to occur at a licensed hotel are
evidence of inadequate management and control of the premises.
The combination of crowded conditions, substantial smoke, repeated alarm activations,
intoxicated individuals, disturbances, assaults, threats of potential gang violence, and the
presence of firearms created significant risks to guests, employees, public safety
personnel, and the public.
The private security personnel could not adequately manage the event without
substantial assistance from City public safety agencies. The record does not demonstrate
that the hotel presented the City with a comprehensive event management plan, crowd
management plan, emergency response plan, fire and life -safety plan, security plan, or
other operational plan before allowing the event to proceed.
The circumstances demonstrate a significant failure of management judgment, advance
planning, coordination with public safety agencies, and oversight of activities occurring on
the licensed premises.
Fire and Life -Safety Concerns
Pattern of Whole -Hotel Private Events
The Midwest Euphoria deaths and the March 28-29 event cannot be considered in
isolation.
Both incidents occurred in connection with private organizations renting or reportedly
renting the entire hotel for large gatherings.
Both involved circumstances creating substantial public safety and operational concerns.
Following the first event, two attendees were found deceased in a hotel room. Suspected
65
illegal narcotics and drug paraphernalia were found near the bodies, and substances
recovered from the room reportedly tested positive for fentanyl, methamphetamine, and
cocaine.
The second event involved threats of potential gang violence, approximately 80 armed
private security personnel, assaults, disturbances, repeated fire alarms, extensive
marijuana smoke, an arrest, 16 calls for service, and the assignment of additional
Shakopee police officers on overtime.
The City is not suggesting that all private events or whole -hotel rentals are inherently
problematic.
The relevant licensing issue is the judgment exercised by the licensee when evaluating
proposed events, the adequacy of advance planning and coordination, the hotel's ability
to control activities occurring on the premises, the effectiveness of security measures,
and management's response when the City identifies significant concerns.
The record demonstrates a pattern in which the hotel permitted large private events
presenting heightened and foreseeable public safety risks without adequate advance
planning, monitoring, control, coordination with City public safety officials, or effective
security measures.
Continuing Pattern of Problems
The two major events occurred against a broader background of continuing public safety
and operational concerns at the Baymont.
During 2025, police responded to incidents involving disturbances, unwanted guests,
suspicious persons and vehicles, intoxicated individuals, welfare checks, criminal sexual
conduct, theft, warrants, a DWI -related incident, and other calls for service. During 2026,
police continued to respond to disturbances, assaults, threats, suspicious activity, welfare
checks, unwanted guests, domestic incidents, and other calls requiring intervention.
Police records document 13 disturbance calls and three assault incidents during 2026.
The recurring problems demonstrate more than the unavoidable risks associated with
operating a hotel. The record reflects a pattern of management permitting activities at
the property that present foreseeable and heightened public safety risks without
adequate advance planning, oversight, security, policy enforcement, or coordination with
the City.
Management Responsibility
66
The City does not expect a hotel operator to prevent every criminal act, disturbance,
medical emergency, or request for police assistance occurring at the property. The City
does expect a licensed hotel operator to responsibly manage the premises.
Responsible management includes maintaining adequate staffing, monitoring guests and
visitors, controlling access to the property, promptly addressing disruptive behavior,
enforcing hotel policies, evaluating the risks associated with large events, maintaining
appropriate security procedures, coordinating with public safety officials, complying with
applicable City Code requirements, and taking effective corrective action when recurring
problems are identified.
The record demonstrates that significant problems have continued despite the City's
involvement and the licensee's awareness of the City's concerns.
The licensee has not demonstrated implementation of effective and sustainable
operational changes sufficient to address the recurring problems at the property.
Promises of future improvement are not a substitute for demonstrated compliance.
The City must evaluate the licensee based upon the actual operating history of the
property and whether the licensee has demonstrated the ability and willingness to
responsibly operate the hotel.
Based upon the record, staff does not believe that standard has been met.
Notice and Opportunity for Corrective Action
The City has communicated concerns regarding the operation of the property to hotel
ownership and management.
The licensee has been aware of the City's concerns regarding public safety incidents,
security, management practices, property operations, and the repeated use of City
resources.
The City provided the licensee with opportunities to address these concerns.
Following the initiation of the revocation process, the licensee requested a hearing.
By letter dated May 5, 2026, the City scheduled the hearing before the City Council for July
16, 2026, consistent with the licensee's availability. The letter advised that the City
expected full compliance with all applicable ordinances and licensing conditions during
the interim period, including Chapter 118 of the City Code and all related public safety
requirements contained in the original Notice of Intent. The City also expressly reserved
67
its right to advance the hearing or take additional enforcement action if further violations,
criminal activity, or nuisance -related events occurred before the hearing.
The licensee has therefore received notice of the City's concerns, notice of the licensing
action, an opportunity to request a hearing, and an opportunity to appear before the City
Council, submit evidence, provide testimony, respond to the City's evidence, and present
arguments regarding the revocation.
Burden on City Resources
The operation of the Baymont has required repeated responses from the Shakopee
Police Department, Shakopee Fire Department, emergency medical services, inspection
personnel, and other City staff.
The March 28-29 event provides a particularly significant example. The Police
Department was required to gather intelligence regarding the event, investigate potential
threats, communicate with hotel management and event organizers, provide additional
patrols, assign two patrol officers and a detective on overtime, respond to 16 calls for
service, investigate assaults and disturbances, make an arrest, and conduct follow-up
investigations regarding potential ordinance violations. The Fire Department responded
to three fire alarms and spent substantial time at the property addressing conditions
associated with smoke inside the hotel.
The Midwest Euphoria incident required police officers to conduct a welfare check,
investigate two unattended deaths, secure and process the scene, identify the deceased
individuals, recover and test suspected illegal narcotics, obtain judicial authorization for
further investigation where necessary, and investigate the source of the suspected
controlled substances.
These responses impose direct costs upon the City and divert limited police and fire
resources from residents, businesses, and other emergencies.
The City does not expect a licensed business to eliminate every request for public safety
assistance.
The City can reasonably expect a licensed hotel operator to manage its premises in a
manner that does not create recurring and disproportionate demands upon public
resources. The Baymont has failed to meet that expectation.
Consideration of the Licensee's Evidence and Corrective Actions
The City Council should consider all evidence, testimony, explanations, security measures,
68
management changes, corrective action plans, and other materials submitted by or on
behalf of the licensee.
The relevant question is not simply whether the licensee has proposed changes following
the initiation of revocation proceedings.
The relevant question is whether the licensee's actual operating history demonstrates
sustained compliance and whether proposed corrective measures provide reasonable
assurance that the recurring conditions documented at the property will not continue.
The City has previously communicated concerns to hotel ownership and management
and provided opportunities for corrective action.
The March 28-29 event is particularly relevant because hotel management allowed the
event to proceed despite receiving advance warnings from the City regarding potential
ordinance violations.
Consideration of Lesser Sanctions
License revocation is a serious enforcement action.
Staff has considered whether warnings, additional license conditions, probation,
suspension, event restrictions, enhanced security requirements, operational plans, or
other lesser sanctions would adequately address the continuing problems at the
property.
The City's prior efforts to obtain corrective action have not resulted in sustained
improvement.
The City should not be required to continue repeated cycles of serious incidents,
warnings, promises of corrective action, temporary improvements, and renewed
incidents before taking effective licensing action.
Based upon the operational history of the property, the seriousness of the incidents,
management's decisions regarding large private events, the risks created for the public
and emergency responders, and the continuing burden upon City resources, staff does
not believe that lesser sanctions will adequately protect the public health, safety, and
welfare.
The decision before the City Council is not whether every police call occurring at the
Baymont is attributable to hotel management.
The decision is whether, based upon the totality of the administrative record, the licensee
has demonstrated the ability and willingness to responsibly operate a hotel under a
license issued by the City of Shakopee.
69
The record demonstrates a continuing pattern of public safety incidents and demands
upon City services. More significantly, the record includes two serious whole -hotel
private events.
City officials warned hotel management of potential ordinance violations. Management
allowed the event to proceed.
These incidents did not occur in isolation. They occurred against a broader background of
84 documented incidents at the property during 2025 and 2026.The City has provided
notice, opportunities for corrective action, and an opportunity for the licensee to appeal
the revocation and be heard by the City Council.
The licensee has failed to demonstrate sustained improvement or that additional
warnings or lesser sanctions are reasonably likely to achieve compliance.
The licensing issue is whether management exercised reasonable judgment, maintained
adequate control over the premises, responded effectively to recurring problems,
coordinated appropriately with public safety officials, and demonstrated the ability and
willingness to responsibly operate the hotel.
Based upon the totality of the administrative record, staff concludes that it has not.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution R2026-106 Upholding the Revocation of the Hotel License for the
Baymont Hotel and Adopting Findings of Face, Conclusions and Order
Budget Impact:
Reduction in the calls for service.
Attachments:
RESOLUTION on Baymont for City Council.docx
Baymont Revocation.pdf
Request for Hearing by Baymont
City Acknowledgement
70
RESOLUTION NO. R2026-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, DENYING
THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE REVOCATION OF THE HOTEL
LICENSE FOR THE BAYMONT HOTEL AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee ("City") licenses hotels pursuant to Chapter 118 of the
Shakopee City Code and its authority to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Baymont Hotel ("Baymont" or "Licensed Premises") is located at 1280 Disc
Drive, Shakopee, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, American Group of Properties LLC and/or the entity identified in City licensing
records ("Licensee") is the holder of the hotel license for the Licensed Premises; and
WHEREAS, the continued possession of a hotel license is conditioned upon compliance with
the Shakopee City Code, applicable laws and regulations, licensing conditions, and the
responsible operation and management of the Licensed Premises; and
WHEREAS, the Licensed Premises has been the subject of recurring public safety incidents,
disturbances, criminal activity, fire and life -safety concerns, management concerns, and repeated
demands upon City police, fire, inspection, and other resources; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously communicated concerns regarding the operation of the
Licensed Premises to the Licensee and provided notice and opportunities for corrective action;
and
WHEREAS, police records document 84 incidents associated with the Licensed Premises during
2025 and 2026, including 41 incidents in 2025 and 43 incidents in 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated proceedings to revoke the hotel license based upon the
operational history of the property, continuing public safety concerns, the Licensee's failure to
achieve sustained compliance, and other evidence contained in the administrative record; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee requested a hearing regarding the revocation; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated May 5, 2026, the City scheduled the hearing before the City Council
for July 16, 2026, consistent with the Licensee's availability, advised the Licensee that full
compliance with Chapter 118 and all applicable licensing conditions was required during the
interim period, and reserved the City's right to take additional enforcement action if further
violations, criminal activity, or nuisance -related events occurred before the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing on July 16, 2026, at which the
Licensee was provided an opportunity to appear, be represented by counsel, present testimony
71
and evidence, respond to the City's evidence, and provide argument regarding the revocation;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the staff report, police calls -for -service data, police
reports and summaries, fire response information, inspection and enforcement records,
correspondence between the City and Licensee, the original Notice of Intent to Revoke, the May
5, 2026, hearing letter, materials and testimony submitted by the Licensee, testimony presented
by City staff and public safety personnel, and all other evidence contained in the administrative
record; and
WHEREAS, based upon the entire administrative record, the City Council makes the following
Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Licensed Premises and Responsibility of the Licensee
1. The Baymont Hotel is a hotel operating within the City of Shakopee and is subject to
Chapter 118 of the Shakopee City Code.
2. The Licensee is responsible for the operation and management of the Licensed Premises
and for compliance with applicable City Code provisions, licensing requirements, and
other laws and regulations.
3. The Licensee is responsible for operating and managing the Licensed Premises in a
manner consistent with the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of hotel guests,
employees, neighboring properties, responding public safety personnel, and the general
public.
4. The City does not expect a hotel operator to prevent every criminal act, disturbance,
medical emergency, fire alarm, or request for police assistance occurring at a hotel.
5. The City does expect a licensed hotel operator to exercise reasonable judgment, maintain
adequate management practices, staffing, supervision, security measures, access controls,
event -screening procedures, operational procedures, policy enforcement, and cooperation
with City officials sufficient to address recurring public safety and operational concerns.
II. History of Public Safety Incidents and Calls for Service
6. The Licensed Premises has generated a continuing pattern of police calls for service and
other incidents requiring City intervention.
7. Police records contained in the administrative record document 84 incidents associated
with the Licensed Premises during 2025 and 2026.
8. Police records document 41 incidents associated with the Licensed Premises during 2025.
9. Police records document 43 incidents associated with the Licensed Premises during 2026.
10. The documented incidents include disturbances, assaults, threats, suspicious persons and
vehicles, unwanted guests, intoxicated individuals, welfare checks, theft, warrants,
domestic incidents, criminal sexual conduct, fire alarms, and other incidents requiring
police, fire, emergency medical, and other City responses.
72
11. During 2026, police records document 13 disturbance calls and three assault incidents
associated with the Licensed Premises.
12. The City Council finds that the basis for revocation is not merely the number of police
calls for service occurring at the Licensed Premises.
13. The City Council has considered the nature and seriousness of the incidents, the
frequency and concentration of incidents, the recurring nature of the problems,
management practices, the Licensee's response to City warnings and concerns, the
operation of large private events at the property, the burden placed upon City resources,
and the Licensee's failure to demonstrate sustained operational improvement.
III. New Year's Day Double -Fatality Incident
14. On New Year's Day, Shakopee police officers were dispatched to the Licensed Premises
to conduct a welfare check after family members of 47 -year -old Josh Quale became
concerned that they had not heard from him and located his work vehicle in the hotel
parking lot.
15. Mr. Quale had reportedly failed to check out of his hotel room as scheduled.
16. Upon entering the room, police officers discovered two deceased individuals.
17. The deceased individuals were subsequently identified as Josh Quale and 54 -year -old
Shantelle Denise Bresson.
18. Because of the condition of the bodies, the individuals could not immediately be
identified.
19. Police located suspected illegal narcotics and drug paraphernalia near the deceased
individuals.
20. Field testing of substances recovered from the room reportedly produced positive results
for fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine.
21. The available evidence indicated that the deaths were suspected drug overdoses, subject
to the completion of the investigation, toxicology testing, and final determinations by the
appropriate authorities.
22. The two deceased individuals had reportedly attended the "Big O" Frozen Fantasy Event,
a private adult -lifestyle gathering organized by Midwest Euphoria.
23. Midwest Euphoria had reportedly rented the entire hotel for the event.
24. Midwest Euphoria subsequently stated that it maintains a zero -tolerance policy for illegal
drugs and prostitution at its events.
25. The City Council does not find that the Licensee supplied illegal narcotics, directly
caused the deaths, or was responsible for the individual criminal conduct occurring inside
the hotel room.
26. The City Council finds that the incident is nevertheless relevant to the licensing decision
because it occurred in connection with a large private event occupying the entire hotel
and raises concerns regarding the Licensee's event -screening practices, monitoring of
activities occurring on the premises, control of guests and visitors, enforcement of hotel
policies, procedures for addressing guests who fail to timely check out, and coordination
with public safety officials.
27. The City Council finds the incident particularly relevant when considered together with
the subsequent March 28-29, 2026, event and the broader operational history of the
property.
73
IV. March 28-29, 2026, 24 -Hour Lock -In Event
28. On March 28 and March 29, 2026, the Licensee permitted the entire Licensed Premises to
be used for an advertised 24 -hour lock -in event referred to as the "Spring Break Edition."
29. The event began at approximately 11:00 a.m. Saturday and continued until approximately
11:00 a.m. Sunday.
30. The event organizers rented the entire hotel.
31. Information obtained by the Shakopee Police Department indicated that rooms were
being rented for approximately $1,000 per room for the event.
32. The event included live musical performances and was advertised as including live
entertainment, exotic dancers, a wet T-shirt contest with a $1,000 prize, and vendors.
33. The event organizers reportedly provided approximately 80 armed private security
personnel, including a sniper.
34. Despite the size, duration, nature, and potential risks associated with the event, the City
did not learn of the event until shortly before it was scheduled to occur.
35. Upon learning of the event, the Police Department gathered intelligence regarding the
anticipated activities and potential public safety concerns.
36. City officials served hotel management with written notice explaining potential ordinance
violations associated with the event and the activities being advertised.
37. Despite receiving the City's warning and being advised of potential violations, hotel
management allowed the event to proceed.
38. Police personnel also communicated directly with the event organizer.
39. The event organizer cooperated with police, provided contact information, requested
additional police patrols, and invited officers to walk through the event.
40. The event organizer did not materially alter or cancel the planned event.
41. At approximately 3:00 p.m. Saturday, the Police Department received information that
rival gangs were discussing coming to the event to "shoot it up."
42. The receipt of information concerning potential gang violence substantially increased the
public safety risks associated with the event.
43. The Police Department determined that additional personnel were necessary to protect
the public and reduce the risk of a major incident.
44. Two patrol officers and one detective were called in on overtime specifically to provide
additional coverage for the event.
45. Although a mass -casualty incident was avoided, the event generated substantial police
and fire activity.
46. Sixteen calls for service were generated at the Licensed Premises during the event.
47. Incidents associated with the event included assaults, disturbances, and other calls
requiring police intervention.
48. One individual was arrested and taken to jail.
49. The Shakopee Fire Department responded to three fire alarm calls during the event.
50. Public safety personnel reported that the alarms were repeatedly activated because of the
amount of marijuana smoke accumulating within the hotel.
51. Photographs and online videos reviewed by City staff showed substantial smoke and
crowded interior conditions within the hotel.
52. The Fire Department spent significant time responding to and addressing the fire alarm
activations at the property.
74
53. The City's public safety response was necessary despite the reported presence of
approximately 80 armed private security personnel.
54. The private security personnel were unable to adequately prevent, control, or resolve the
incidents occurring at the property without repeated intervention by City police and fire
personnel.
55. The Police Department indicated its intent to pursue criminal charges for ordinance
violations associated with the event and to work with the Scott County Attorney's Office
to determine whether charges should be pursued and against whom.
V. Management Knowledge, Judgment, and Responsibility
56. The March 28-29 event was not a spontaneous gathering of hotel guests that
unexpectedly became disorderly.
57. The entire hotel had been rented for a planned, advertised, 24 -hour event.
58. Hotel management had the ability to obtain infoiniation regarding the nature of the event,
anticipated attendance, planned activities, security arrangements, and potential risks
before agreeing to host the event.
59. Hotel management had the ability to establish conditions for use of the property, require
appropriate event management and security plans, prohibit unlawful activities, notify City
public safety officials in advance, require modifications to the event, or decline to host
the event.
60. The City learned of the event only shortly before it was scheduled to occur.
61. City officials specifically advised hotel management of potential ordinance violations
associated with activities being advertised for the event.
62. Hotel management nevertheless permitted the event to proceed.
63. The event organizer's request for additional police patrols demonstrates that those
responsible for the event recognized the potential for significant public safety concerns.
64. The circumstances became substantially more serious when police received information
concerning potential gang violence and were required to assign additional officers on
overtime.
65. The City Council finds that the Licensee failed to exercise reasonable management
judgment in permitting the event to proceed under these circumstances.
66. The City Council finds that the Licensee failed to demonstrate adequate advance
planning, supervision, coordination with public safety officials, operational control, and
effective security measures for the event.
67. The City Council finds that knowingly permitting an event of this scale and nature to
proceed after receiving City warnings regarding potential violations is inconsistent with
the level of judgment and responsibility expected of the holder of a City -issued hotel
license.
VI. Failure of Private Security and Inadequate Event Planning
68. The reported presence of approximately 80 -armed private security personnel does not
relieve the Licensee of responsibility for the operation and management of the Licensed
Premises.
75
69. An event requiring approximately 80 -armed security personnel, including a sniper,
should have alerted a reasonable hotel operator to the extraordinary nature of the event
and the potential risks to guests, employees, neighboring properties, emergency
responders, and the public. The security personnel were not licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
70. Despite the presence of private security, the event generated 16 calls for service, three
fire alarm responses, assaults, disturbances, an arrest, and the need for additional
Shakopee police officers to work overtime.
71. The private security personnel were unable to adequately manage the event without
substantial intervention by City public safety agencies.
72. The administrative record does not demonstrate that the Licensee provided the City with
a comprehensive event management plan, crowd management plan, emergency response
plan, fire and life -safety plan, security plan, or other adequate operational plan before
permitting the event to proceed.
73. The City Council finds that the circumstances demonstrate significant deficiencies in
management judgment, advance planning, coordination with public safety agencies,
security arrangements, and oversight of activities occurring at the Licensed Premises.
VII. Fire and Life -Safety Concerns
74. Three fire alarm responses occurred during the March 28-29 event.
75. Public safety personnel reported that the alarms were activated because of substantial
marijuana smoke inside the hotel.
76. Photographs and online videos reviewed by City staff showed significant smoke and
crowded interior conditions.
77. Each fire alarm activation required an emergency response, consumed Fire Department
resources, created risks for responding personnel, and potentially reduced the availability
of emergency resources elsewhere in the community.
78. The City Council finds that repeated fire alarm activations caused by activities occurring
during an event knowingly permitted at the Licensed Premises demonstrate inadequate
management and control of the property.
79. The combination of crowded conditions, substantial smoke, repeated alarm activations,
intoxicated individuals, assaults, disturbances, threats of potential gang violence, and the
presence of firearms created significant risks to hotel guests, employees, responding
public safety personnel, neighboring properties, and the public.
VIII. Pattern of Large Private Events Presenting Heightened Public Safety
Risks
80. The New Year's Day double -fatality incident and the March 28-29 event cannot be
considered in isolation.
81. Both incidents occurred in connection with private organizations renting or reportedly
renting the entire hotel for large gatherings.
82. Both events involved circumstances creating significant public safety and operational
concerns.
76
83. Following the first event, two attendees were found deceased in a hotel room, suspected
illegal narcotics and drug paraphernalia were found near the bodies, and substances
recovered from the room reportedly tested positive for fentanyl, methamphetamine, and
cocaine.
84. The subsequent March event involved threats of potential gang violence, approximately
80 armed private security personnel, assaults, disturbances, repeated fire alarms,
substantial marijuana smoke, an arrest, 16 calls for service, and the assignment of
additional Shakopee police officers on overtime.
85. The City Council does not find that all private events or whole -hotel rentals are
inherently problematic.
86. The relevant licensing issue is the judgment exercised by the Licensee in evaluating
proposed events, the adequacy of advance planning and coordination, the ability of
management to control activities occurring on the premises, the effectiveness of security
measures, the enforcement of hotel policies, and the Licensee's response when the City
identifies significant concerns.
87. The City Council finds that the record demonstrates a pattern in which the Licensee
permitted large private events presenting heightened and foreseeable public safety risks
without adequate advance planning, monitoring, control, coordination with public safety
officials, or effective security measures.
IX. Continuing Pattern of Problems
88. The two major private events occurred against a broader background of continuing public
safety and operational concerns at the Licensed Premises.
89. During 2025, police responded to incidents involving disturbances, unwanted guests,
suspicious persons and vehicles, intoxicated individuals, welfare checks, criminal sexual
conduct, theft, warrants, a DWI -related incident, and other calls for service.
90. During 2026, police continued to respond to disturbances, assaults, threats, suspicious
activity, welfare checks, unwanted guests, domestic incidents, and other calls requiring
police intervention.
91. The City Council finds that the recurring incidents demonstrate more than the
unavoidable risks associated with operating a hotel.
92. The City Council finds that the record demonstrates recurring deficiencies in
management practices, security, supervision, policy enforcement, event screening,
operational control, and coordination with City public safety officials.
93. The City Council finds that the public safety and operational concerns at the Licensed
Premises have not been effectively or sustainably corrected.
X. Notice and Opportunity for Corrective Action
94. City staff and public safety personnel previously communicated concerns regarding the
operation of the Licensed Premises to the Licensee.
95. The Licensee was aware of the City's concerns regarding public safety incidents,
security, management practices, property operations, and repeated demands upon City
resources.
77
96. The City provided the Licensee with opportunities to address identified concerns and
improve operations at the Licensed Premises.
97. Despite notice of the City's concerns and opportunities for corrective action, significant
public safety incidents and operational problems continued.
98. The City initiated proceedings to revoke the hotel license.
99. The Licensee requested a hearing regarding the revocation.
100. By letter dated May 5, 2026, the City scheduled the hearing before the City
Council for July 16, 2026, consistent with the Licensee's availability, required continued
compliance with applicable ordinances and licensing conditions during the interim
period, and reserved the right to take additional enforcement action if additional
violations or nuisance -related events occurred.
101. The Licensee was provided notice of the licensing action, notice of the grounds
relied upon by the City, an opportunity to request a hearing, and an opportunity to appear
before the City Council, submit evidence, present testimony, respond to the City's
evidence, and provide argument.
102. The City Council finds that the Licensee received adequate notice and a
meaningful opportunity to be heard.
XI. Management Responsibility and Failure to Achieve Sustained Compliance
103. The City Council recognizes that not every criminal act, disturbance, medical
emergency, fire alarm, or police call occurring at a hotel is caused by hotel management.
104. The City Council has not attributed every incident occurring at the Licensed
Premises to the Licensee.
105. The City Council has considered whether the Licensee exercised reasonable
judgment, took effective steps to prevent recurring problems, promptly responded to
incidents, cooperated with City officials, implemented corrective measures, maintained
adequate management and security practices, appropriately screened large private events,
and enforced hotel policies.
106. The administrative record demonstrates continuing incidents and management
concerns despite the Licensee's knowledge of the City's concerns and opportunities for
corrective action.
107. The Licensee has failed to demonstrate implementation of effective and
sustainable operational changes sufficient to address the recurring problems at the
Licensed Premises.
108. The City Council finds that temporary improvements, promises of future
corrective action, proposed management changes, or remedial measures implemented
only after commencement of license enforcement proceedings do not establish sustained
compliance.
109. The City Council finds that the Licensee's actual operating history is the most
reliable evidence of whether the Licensee has demonstrated the ability and willingness to
responsibly operate the Licensed Premises.
110. Based upon the administrative record, the City Council finds that the Licensee has
failed to demonstrate the ability and willingness to responsibly operate the hotel
consistent with the responsibilities associated with holding a City -issued hotel license.
78
XII. Burden on City Resources and Impact on the Public
111. The operation of the Licensed Premises has required repeated responses from the
Shakopee Police Department, Shakopee Fire Department, emergency medical services,
inspection personnel, and other City staff.
112. The March 28-29 event required the Police Department to gather intelligence,
investigate threats, communicate with hotel management and event organizers, assign
additional personnel on overtime, provide additional patrol coverage, respond to 16 calls
for service, investigate assaults and disturbances, make an arrest, and conduct follow-up
investigations regarding potential ordinance violations.
113. The Fire Department responded to three fire alarms and spent significant time
addressing conditions associated with smoke inside the hotel.
114. The New Year's Day incident required police officers to conduct a welfare check,
investigate two unattended deaths, secure and process the scene, identify the deceased
individuals, recover and test suspected illegal narcotics, obtain judicial authorization for
additional investigation where necessary, and investigate the source of the suspected
controlled substances.
115. These responses consume limited City resources and reduce the availability of
those resources to respond to other emergencies and public safety needs throughout the
community.
116. The City Council recognizes that hotels and other licensed businesses will
occasionally require police, fire, and emergency services.
117. The City Council finds, however, that the frequency, nature, seriousness, and
concentration of incidents associated with the Licensed Premises demonstrate an
unreasonable and continuing burden upon City services.
118. The City Council finds that continued operation of the Licensed Premises under
the Licensee's demonstrated management practices creates an unacceptable risk of
continued public safety incidents and demands upon City resources.
XIII. Consideration of the Licensee's Evidence
119. The City Council considered all evidence, testimony, explanations, corrective
action plans, security measures, management changes, and other materials submitted by
or on behalf of the Licensee.
120. The City Council considered evidence presented by the Licensee regarding
improvements to hotel operations, changes in management, security personnel, guest
policies, event policies, surveillance systems, cooperation with police, or other corrective
actions.
121. The City Council finds that the Licensee's evidence does not outweigh the
documented operating history of the Licensed Premises or establish that sustained
compliance has been achieved.
122. The City Council finds that proposed or recently implemented corrective actions
do not provide sufficient assurance that the recurring conditions documented in the
administrative record will not continue.
79
XIV. Consideration of Lesser Sanctions
123. License revocation is a serious enforcement action.
124. The City Council considered whether a warning, additional license conditions,
probation, suspension, increased security requirements, event restrictions, operational
plans, management plans, or other lesser sanctions would adequately protect the public
and achieve sustained compliance.
125. The City's prior communications with the Licensee and opportunities for
corrective action have not resulted in sustained improvement.
126. The two major whole -hotel private events are particularly significant.
127. Following one event, two attendees were found deceased in a hotel room with
suspected illegal narcotics and drug paraphernalia near the bodies.
128. The subsequent March 28-29 event proceeded despite advance warnings from the
City and generated threats of potential gang violence, assaults, disturbances, repeated fire
alarms, an arrest, 16 calls for service, and substantial demands upon police and fire
resources.
129. The City Council finds that additional warnings, conditions, temporary corrective
measures, or other lesser sanctions are not reasonably likely to result in sustained
compliance.
130. The City Council finds that the City is not required to continue repeated cycles of
serious incidents, warnings, promises of improvement, temporary corrective actions, and
renewed incidents before taking effective licensing action.
131. Based upon the totality of the administrative record, the City Council finds that
revocation is reasonable and necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The City Council has jurisdiction and authority under Chapter 118 of the Shakopee City
Code and other applicable law to review the Licensee's appeal and determine whether the
revocation of the hotel license should be upheld.
2. The Licensee received notice of the City's concerns, notice of the licensing action, notice
of the hearing, and a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and argument to the
City Council.
3. The City Council's decision is based upon the administrative record and not upon public
opposition, generalized concerns regarding hotels or particular types of private events,
unsupported allegations, or the mere existence of police calls for service.
4. The administrative record establishes a continuing pattern of public safety incidents,
disturbances, operational concerns, inadequate management practices, and repeated
demands upon City resources associated with the Licensed Premises.
5. The City Council has not attributed every criminal act, medical emergency, disturbance,
or police call occurring at the Licensed Premises to the Licensee.
6. The relevant licensing issue is whether the Licensee exercised reasonable management
judgment, maintained adequate control of the Licensed Premises, effectively addressed
recurring public safety concerns, appropriately evaluated and managed large private
events, coordinated with City officials, complied with licensing requirements, and
demonstrated the ability and willingness to responsibly operate the hotel.
80
7. The Licensee was aware of the City's concerns and was provided opportunities to collect
conditions at the Licensed Premises.
8. The Licensee failed to demonstrate sustained compliance or the implementation of
effective management and operational practices sufficient to address the recurring
conditions documented in the administrative record.
9. The New Year's Day double -fatality incident is relevant to the licensing determination
because it occurred following a large private event occupying the entire hotel, involved
two deceased attendees and suspected illegal narcotics, and raises concerns regarding
event screening, monitoring, policy enforcement, operational controls, and management
oversight.
10. The City Council does not conclude that the Licensee supplied the narcotics or directly
caused the deaths associated with the New Year's Day incident.
11. The March 28-29, 2026, event demonstrates significant deficiencies in the Licensee's
judgment, advance planning, supervision, security, coordination with public safety
officials, and management of activities occurring at the Licensed Premises.
12. The Licensee knowingly permitted the March 28-29 event to proceed after receiving City
warnings regarding potential ordinance violations.
13. The March 28-29 event generated threats of potential gang violence, 16 calls for service,
assaults, disturbances, an arrest, three fire alarm responses, and substantial demands upon
police and fire resources despite the reported presence of approximately 80 armed private
security personnel.
14. The two major whole -hotel private events, considered together with the broader operating
history of the property, demonstrate recurring deficiencies in the Licensee's management
judgment, oversight, event -screening practices, security measures, policy enforcement,
and operational control.
15. The frequency, seriousness, and concentration of incidents associated with the Licensed
Premises have imposed an unreasonable burden upon City services and created risks to
the public health, safety, and welfare.
16. The City Council considered the evidence and corrective actions presented by the
Licensee and concludes that they do not outweigh the documented operating history of
the property or establish sustained compliance.
17. The City Council considered lesser sanctions and reasonably concludes that lesser
sanctions are not likely to result in sustained compliance or adequately protect the public.
18. Revocation of the hotel license is supported by substantial evidence contained in the
administrative record.
19. Revocation is not arbitrary or capricious but is based upon the documented operational
history of the Licensed Premises, the Licensee's failure to achieve sustained compliance
after notice and opportunities for corrective action, the seriousness of the incidents
associated with large private events, the inadequacy of lesser sanctions, and the City's
responsibility to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
20. The City Council concludes that the Licensee has failed to demonstrate the ability and
willingness to responsibly operate the Licensed Premises consistent with the
requirements and responsibilities associated with holding a City -issued hotel license.
21. The City Council therefore concludes that the Licensee's appeal should be denied and the
revocation of the hotel license should be upheld.
81
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The recitals, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions set forth above are hereby adopted and
incorporated into this Resolution.
2. The appeal of the revocation of the hotel license for the Baymont Hotel is denied.
3. The City Council upholds the revocation of the hotel license for the Baymont Hotel.
4. The hotel license shall remain revoked and the Licensee shall cease all hotel operations at
the Licensed Premises in accordance with Chapter 118 of the Shakopee City Code, the
effective date established by the City's revocation notice, and any lawful implementation
period established by the City Council or required by applicable law.
5. The Licensee shall not accept new hotel reservations, enter into new agreements for the
rental of guest rooms, or permit new hotel guests to occupy the Licensed Premises after
the effective date of the revocation.
6. City staff may establish reasonable procedures and deadlines necessary to peanut lawful
guests occupying the Licensed Premises as of the effective date of the revocation to
vacate the property in an orderly manner consistent with public safety and applicable law.
7. Nothing in this Resolution prohibits the City from taking additional enforcement action
necessary to address violations of City Code, State law, building or fire codes, nuisance
conditions, unlawful occupancy, or other conditions occurring at the property.
8. Nothing in this Resolution constitutes a determination regarding criminal liability for any
person or entity associated with incidents occurring at the Licensed Premises.
9. The City Administrator, City Attorney, Chief of Police, Fire Chief, Planning and
Development Director, and other appropriate City officials are authorized to take all
actions reasonably necessary to implement and enforce this Resolution.
10. The City Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Licensee and its
legal counsel, if any.
11. This Resolution constitutes the City Council's final decision regarding the Licensee's
administrative appeal of the hotel license revocation.
12. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption, subject to any notice,
implementation, or effective -date requirements contained in Chapter 118 of the Shakopee
City Code or other applicable law.
82
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 21st
day of July, 2026.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
83
SHAKOPEE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVOKE HOTEL LICENSE
April 20, 2026
AMERICAN GROUP OF PROPERTIES LLC
1244 Canterbury Rd S
Shakopee, MN 55379
jas(ai?multistarhotels.com
Via Certified Mail and Email
ATTENTION: Jasvarinder Singh
Re: Revocation of Hotel License — Baymont Hotel, 1244 Canterbury Rd S, Shakopee, MN
Dear Mr. Singh:
Pursuant to the authority granted under the City of Shakopee Code of Ordinances, including
Chapter 118 (Hotel Licensing), the City provides formal notice of its intent to revoke the hotel
license issued to AMERICAN GROUP OF PROPERTIES LLC for the operation of the
Baymont Hotel located at 1244 Canterbury Road South, Shakopee, Minnesota.
The City has determined, based upon police reports, inspections, and other competent evidence,
that one or more nuisance -related and unlawful activities have occurred on the licensed premises.
Such activities constitute violations of City ordinance and state law and provide sufficient
grounds for revocation under Chapter 118, including but not limited to the following:
• Prostitution, prostitution -related activity, sex trafficking, or other forms of human
trafficking;
• Maintaining a public nuisance in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.74, clauses (1) or (3);
• Permitting a public nuisance in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.745;
• Unlawful sale, possession, storage, delivery, manufacture, cultivation, or use of
controlled substances;
• Unlicensed sale of alcoholic beverages;
• Unlicensed sale of cannabis or low -potency hemp products;
• Unlawful sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages, cannabis, or low -potency hemp
products, or unlawful possession or consumption by persons under 21 years of age;
• Unlawful use or possession of a firearm, firearm parts, or ammunition;
• Violations of state law or City ordinance related to the licensed activity;
• Disorderly conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.72.
The above -described conduct also constitutes violations, including but not limited to, of the
following City Code provisions and Minnesota Statutes:
INNOVATING. ENTERTAINING.THRIVING.
Department of Planning and Development 1485 Gorman St., Shakopee, MN 55379 I Phone: 952-233-9300 I Fax: 952-233-3801 I www.ShakopeeMN.gov
84
• City Code Chapter 114 — Alcohol Regulations, including Sections 114.14, 114.15,
114.20, and 114.23;
• City Code Section 130.11 — Public Nuisance;
• City Code Section 110.305 — Cannabis: Penalties, Administration, and Enforcement;
• Minn. Stat. §§ 609.74 and 609.745 (Public Nuisance);
• Minn. Stat. § 609.321, Subd. 12 (Prostitution and Sex Trafficking);
• Minn. Stat. § 609.33 (Disorderly House);
• Minn. Stat. § 609.681 and § 327.742 (Smoking -related violations, if applicable).
The City finds that the foregoing conduct adversely affects the public health, safety, and welfare
and constitutes sufficient cause for revocation of your hotel license.
Pursuant to applicable provisions of the City Code and due process requirements, you may
request a hearing before the Shakopee City Council to contest this revocation.
• You must submit a written request for a hearing within ten (10) calendar days after
you receive this Notice.
• Your request must be directed to the City of Shakopee at the address listed below.
• Upon timely receipt of a request, the City will schedule a hearing before the City Council
and provide written notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing.
Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a waiver of your opportunity for a hearing and
revocation of your license will then be final ten (10) calendar days after you receive this Notice.
The City expressly reserves all rights and remedies available under applicable law, including the
right to pursue additional enforcement actions or legal proceedings arising out of the violations
identified herein or any continued unlawful operation of the premises.
All communications, including any request for hearing, shall be directed to:
William Reynolds, City Administrator
City of Shakopee
485 Gorman St, Shakopee, MN 55379
breynolds(a shakopeemn.gov
Sincerely,
Michael Kerski
Director of Planning & Development
cc: Jonathan Williams, Baymont by Wyndham
James Thomson, City Attorney
INNOVATING. ENTERTAINING.THRIVING.
Department of Planning and Development 1485 Gorman St., Shakopee, MN 55379 I Phone: 952-233-9300 I Fax: 952-233-3801 I www.ShakopeeMN.gov
85
aaerical t ,kTcu�n o� rues
April 28, 2026
Shakopee City Administrator
485 Gorman St.
Shakopee, MN -55379
breynolds@shakopeemn.gov
Via By Hand and Email
Subject: Request for Hearing - Notice of Intent to Revoke Hotel License (Baymont Hotel)
Dear City Administrator,
I am writing to formally acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Intent dated April 20, 2026 to Revoke the hotel license
for the Baymont Hotel, operated by American Group of Properties LLC, located in Shakopee, MN.
Please accept this written communication as our formal request for a hearing to contest this revocation, as
outlined in the notice.
I am currently requesting an accommodation regarding the scheduling of this hearing. I am presently in India
attending to family matters following the recent passing of my father. I am scheduled to return to the United States
on July 2, 2026.
Given these extenuating circumstances, I respectfully request that the hearing be scheduled for a date after July 15,
2026. This will allow me to return to the country, retain legal counsel, and adequately prepare to address the city's
concerns regarding the events that transpired at the property.
Please confirm receipt of this hearing request and advise on the scheduling. You can reach me via this email address
while I am overseas.
Sincerely,
Jas Singh
CEO & Managing Partner
American Group of Properties LLC / Baymont Hotel
571-439-0499
jas@multistarhotels.com
86
SHAKOPE E
May 5, 2026
Jas Singh
CEO & Managing Partner
American Group of Properties LLC/Baymont Hotel
1280 Disc Drive
Shakopee, MN 55379
jas@multistarhotels.com
RE: Revocation Hearing for Baymont Hotel, Shakopee
Dear Mr. Singh,
I am writing in response to your correspondence dated April 28, 2026, requesting a hearing
regarding the Notice of Intent to Revoke the hotel license for the Baymont Hotel.
The City acknowledges your request and will proceed with scheduling the hearing before the
Shakopee City Council on July 16, 2026, consistent with your availability. The City Council will
conduct the hearing as part of its regular meeting that night. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at Shakopee City Hall, 485 Gorman Street, Shakopee, MN 55379
Please be advised, however, that the City expects full compliance with all applicable ordinances
and licensing conditions during the interim period. This includes, but is not limited to, adherence
to Chapter 118 (Hotel Licensing) and all related public safety requirements outlined in the
original Notice of Intent.
If the City becomes aware of any additional violations of license conditions, or any criminal
activity or nuisance -related events occurring on the premises prior to the scheduled hearing date,
the City reserves the right to advance the hearing to an earlier date and proceed with enforcement
actions without delay.
The City remains committed to protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the
community and will continue to monitor the property accordingly.
Please confirm receipt of this correspondence.
INNOVATING. ENTERTAINING.THRIVING.
City of Shakopee 1485 Gorman St., Shakopee, MN 55379 I Phone: 952-233-9300 I Fax: 952-233-3801 I www.ShakopeeMN.gov
87
Sincerely,
William ReyfioYds, City Administrator
cc: Michael Kerski, City of Shakopee
Jonathan Williams, Baymont by Wyndham
James Thomson, City Attorney
Jamie Pearson, Chief of Police
INNOVATING. ENTERTAINING. THRIVING.
City of Shakopee 1485 Gorman St., Shakopee, MN 55379 I Phone: 952-233-9300 I Fax: 952-233-3801 I www.ShakopeeMN.gov
88
WILLA!
SHAKOPEE
Agenda Item:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Shakopee City Council 9.a
July 21, 2026
City Bill List
Becky Smith, Accounting Specialist
Action to be considered:
Review of City Bill List
Motion Type:
Informational only
Background:
The City Bill has been provided to the City Council.
Recommendation:
Review of City Bill List
Budget Impact:
N/A
Attachments:
89