HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 13, 1980 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 13, 1980
Mayor Harbeck presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2] Establishing a Transportation & Energy Ad Hoc Committee - Res. 1615
3] Appointments to the Ad Hoc Cable T.V. Committee
4] Appointments to the Ad Hoc Subdivision Committee
5] Res. No. 1616, Awarding 4th and Minnesota Street Demolition Contract
6] Res. No. 1614, Receiving Report And Calling Hearing on 3rd Avenue
Watermain Project, 80 -5 (Harrison to Webster)
7] Res. No. 1613, Receiving Report And Calling Hearing on Gorman Street -
EagleCreek Blvd. Project, 80 -4 (4th Avenue to E line of Sec. 6)
8] City Engineer status report on public improvements
9] Report on Kmart Project
10] Report on dust coating
11] Discussion of revised Coordination System for Water Improvement Projects
12] Other business:
a]
b]
c]
13] Adjourn to Tuesday, May 20, 1980 at 7:30 P.M.
Douglas S. Reeder
City Administrator
/-
•
.1
TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ADJ.SPECIAL SESSION MAY 13, 1980
Chrm.Hullander presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2] Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project
a] Selection of contractor proposals for homes
b] Establishment of earnest money policy for home purchasers
c] Removal of Smoke ouse from roject site
Q �; ` ion
3] Solicitation of a plicat for Department of Housing and Urban
Development Community Development Bonus Funds
4] Discussion of Chamber of Commerce, 1980 Central Business District
Study
5] Approval of bills:
a] Von Klug and Associates, 4th and Minnesota Neighborhood
Revitalization Project - March Services, $922.50
b]
6] Other'Business:
7] Adjourn
Jeanne Andre
H.R.A. Director
MEMO TO: Shakopee HRA
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director
RE: Earnest Money Policy for 235 Homeownership Participants
DATE: May 8, 1980
I recommend that $500.00 Earnest Money be collected by the HRA
staff from families selected to purchase 235 homes at the time
they make formal mortgage application to the bank.
a) If the mortgage is approved, this money will be applied
to the mortgage closing costs.
b) If the mortgage is not approved, the money would be
refunded.
c) If the buyer choses to withdraw from the purchase of
the home, the money would be paid to the contractor
building the home for which the mortgage application
has been made.
In cases which the purchasing family plans to sell other assets
to facilitate the move, they will be allowed one month from the
date of application to sell their assets. If they are not able
to sell the assets in that period, the home will be made avail-
able to the next eligible family, and the Earnest Money payments
will be refunded.
JA/ j iw
•
f
COVENANTS, MACEY SECOND ADDITION
THIS DECLARATION, made this day of , 1980,
by the City of Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority, herein-
after referred to as "Declarant ".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of Lot 1, Block 1; Lots 2
through 11 inclusive, Block 2; and Lots 1 through 9 inclusive, Block 3;
all being in Macey Second Addition, City of Shakopee, County of Scott,
State of Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Declarant intends to construct two- family residential
units on some of the aforesaid properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the
properties described above shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to
the following easements, restrictions, covenants, and conditions which
are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of, and
which shall run with, the real property and be binding on-all parties
having any right, title or interest in the described properties or any
part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall insure
to the benefit of each owner thereof.
ARTICLE I.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this Declaration, the following terms
shall have the meanings here ascribed to them:
Section 1. "Living Unit" shall mean and refer to any
portion of a residence building situated upon the Properties designed
and intended for use and occupancy as a residence by a single family.
Section 2. "Lot" shall mean and refer to any portion of land
in the Properties upon which a Living Unit is situated, whether or
not the same is a platted lot.
Section 3. "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner,
whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any
Lot which is a part of the Properties, including contract sellers and
vendees, but excluding those having such interest merely as security
. ,Q
vv
Covenants, Macey Second Addition Page -2-
for the performance of an obligation, and excluding those having a
lien upon the property by provision or operation of law.
Section 4. "Properties" shall mean and refer to the real
property hereinbefore described.
ARTICLE II.
BUILDING AND USE RESTRICTIONS
Section 1. Residential Use. No Lot or Living Unit shall be
used except for residential purposes.
Section 2. No Noxious Activity. No noxious or offensive
activities shall be conducted on any Lot or Living Unit, nor shall
anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or
nuisance to other Owners.
Section 3. Garbage and Refuse Removal. No Lot shall be
used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage
or other waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers.
Section 4. No Animals Except Pets. No fowl, animals or
insects shall be kept on any Living Unit or Lot except dogs, cats
and other common household pets, provided that they are not kept,
bred or maintained for any commercial purposes.
Section 5. Prohibited Structures. No structure of a temporary
character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage or other building
except a permanent residence, shall be used on any Lot at any time as a
residence, either temporarily or permanently.
Section 6. Model and Sales Use. All Use herein notwithstanding,
any Living Unit may be used for a model multiple family residence
building, or for a real estate office with customary development signs
during the development period of the Developer, its successors or
assigns.
Section 7. Hazardous Activities Prohibited. No Owner shall
engage in or permit any activities in his Living Unit, or maintain
or permit any conditions in the Living Unit, which would be considered
extra- hazardous by Fire insurance companies or would adversely affect
the insurability of the Living Unit which shares a party wall'with his
Living Unit.
Co7venants, Macey Second Addition Pa _3_
ARTICLE III.
PARTY WALLS
Section 1. General Rules of Law to Apply. Each wall which
is built as part of the original construction of any Living Unit upon
the Properties and placed on the dividing line between two (2) Living
Units shall constitute a party wall and to the extent not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Article, the general rules of law regarding
party walls and of liability for property damage due to negligent or
willful acts or omissions shall apply thereto.
Section 2. Shares of Repair and Maintenance. The cost of
reasonable repair and maintenance of each party wall shall be shared
by the Owners who make use of the wall in proportion to the use.
Section 3. Destruction by Fire or Other Casualty. If a party
wall is destroyed or damaged by fire or other casualty or by physical
deterioration, any Owner who has used the wall may restore it, and
shall have an easement over the adjoining Living Unit for purposes
of making such restoration, and if other Owners thereafter make use
of the wall they shall contribute to the cost of restoration thereof
in proportion to such use without prejudice, however, to the right
of any such Owner to call for a larger contribution from other Owners
under any rule of law regarding liability for negligent or willful
acts of omissions.
Section 4. Right of Entry. An owner shall permit other owners,
or their representatives, when so required, to enter his unit for the
purpose of installing, altering or repairing the mechanical or electrical
services, the party wall, or any facility for which access to the full
building would be necessary to adequately complete the work, provided
that requests for entry are made in advance and that such entry is at
a reasonable hour.
- Section 5. Weatherproofing. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Article, any Owner who by his negligent or willful
act, causes any party wall to be exposed to the elements or excessive
heat or cold, shall bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary
protection against such elements or heat or cold, and of repairing
the party wall from damage caused by such exposure.
Zv
Cavenants, Macey Second Addition Page -4-
Section 6. Right to Contribution Runs with Land. The right
of any Owner to contribution from any other Owner under this Article
shall be. appurtenant to the Lot and shall pass to such Owner's
successors in title.
Section 7. Arbitration. In the event of any dispute arising
concerning a party wall, or under the provisions of this Article,
each party shall choose one arbitrator and such arbitrators shall
choose one additional arbitrator, and the decision of a majority
of all the arbitrators shall be final and conclusive of the question
involved. If either party refuses or fails to promptly appoint an
arbitrator, the same may be appointed by any judge of the state district
court for Scott. Minnesota. Arbitration shall be in accordance
with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
Section 8. Encroachment. If any portions of a Living Unit
or any Lot shall actually encroach upon any other Lot, or if any such
encroachment shall hereafter arise because of settling or shifting
or the building, or other cause, there shall be deemed to be an
easement in favor of the owner of the encroaching Living Unit to the
extend of such encroachment so long as the same shall exist.
Section 9. Mechanic's Liens. Each Owner of Living Unit
( "Defaulting Owner ") agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Owner
of an adjoining Living Unit for any mechanic's liens arising from
work done or material supplied to make repairs dr replacements for
which the Defaulting Owner is responsible.
ARTICLE,IV. •
OTHER PROVISIONS GOVERNING RELATIONSHIP
AMONG OWNERS OF ADJOINING LIVING UNITS
Section 1. Insurance- Replacement. Each Owner shall maintain
fire and extended coverage insurance on his Living Unit in the full
replacement cost thereof, and shall, in the event of damage to or
destruction of his Living Unit, restore it to the condition in which
it was prior to 'the damage or destruction.
Section 2. Maintenance. Each owner of a Living Unit shall
maintain his Lot and the exterior of his Living Unit in good condition
and repair and in a clean and neat condition.
Covenants, Macey Second Addition Page -5-
Section 3. Architectural Control. (a) The Owner of a
Living Unit may replace exterior components of his Living Units with
similar components of the same design. and color, and may paint the
exterior of his Living Unit with paint of the existing color of
the exterior, but he may not, either in the course of ordinary
replacement or remodeling or restoration after damage or destruction,
employ different siding or roofing material or a different color
scheme, without the consent of the Owner of the adjoining Living Unit.
(b) In the event of.any dispute arising concerning a change in siding
or roofing material or color scheme, each party shall choose one
arbitrator and such arbitrator shall choose one additional arbitrator,
and the decision of a majority of all arbitrators shall be final and
conclusive of the question involved. The arbitrators' decision shall
be based on their decision of whether the proposed siding or roofing
material or color scheme is in harmony with the design of the adjoining
Living Unit. If either party refuses or fails to promptly appoint
an arbitrator, the same may be appointed by the judge of the state
district court for-Scott. County, Minnesota. Arbitration shall be in
accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
ARTICLE V.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Enforcement. Any Owner shall have the right to
enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, or both, all of the
terms and provisions of Article II. of this. Declaration, and the
Owner of the Living Unit involved shall have the right to enforce,
by any proceeding at law or equity, or both, all of the terms and
provisions of Article III. and IV. of this Declaration. Enforcement
shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or
persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant either to
restrain,violation or to recover damages.
Section 2. Severability. Invalidation of any of these
covenants by judgment or court order shall in no way • affect any of the
other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect.
•
Covenants Macey Sscond Addition Page -
Section 3. Amendments. These covenants are to run with the
land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under
them for a period of thirty (30) years from the date these covenants
are recorded, after which time said covenants shall be automatically
extended for successive periods of ten (10) years unless an instrument
signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots has been recorded
agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the Declarant herein,
has caused these presents to be executed in its name by its Chairman
and Executive Director and its seal affixed hereunto this day
of , 1980.
•
In the Presence of: SHAKOPEE'S HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY:
By
Its
and
•
•
By
Its
•
STATE:OF MINNESOTA) • •
) ss.
• COUNTY OF SCOTT )
On this day of , 1980, before me, a notary
public within and for said county and state, personally appeared
and to me personally
known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively
the and of The Shakopee
Housing and Redevelopment Authority,.named in the foregoing instrument,
and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the official seal of said
Authority, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of
said Authority by authority of its Commissioners and said
and , acknowledged said instrument to be the
free act and deed of said Authority.
•
•
•
3
MEMO TO: Shakopee HRA
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director
RE: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Development Bonus Funds
DATE: May 8, 1980
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has awarded
the Minneapolis /St. Paul Metropolitan Area bonus community
development funds because the Metropolitan Council has an innova-
tive area -wide housing plan. I attended a meeting to explain '
the application procedure for these funds and the type of applica-
tion most- likely to be funded.
Not all activities eligible to be funded under general community
development funds are eligible for these bonus funds. The two
main groups of eligible activities are as follows:
1) Activities-which facilitate the construction, rehabilitation
or acquisition of housing for low and moderate income families
and persons outside areas of concentration, and
2) Outreach programs designed to facilitate movement of low and
moderate income and minority families and persons to housing
outside areas of concentration.
The criteria the Metropolitan Council has for rating
projects in their review process are listed below:
1) Applications for CD Bonus Funds shall be ranked according to
the type of activity proposed and the relationship of the
activity to the Allocation Plan goals for the community.
2) Applications which will facilitate new or rehabilitated family
housing opportunities in a community shall receive priority
over applications proposing outreach types of activities.
3) Activities which have the least cost of CD funds per dwelling
unit to be assisted shall receive the highest priority.
4) Applications requesting over $250,000 in CD funds shall receive
lowest priority.
5) Other items to be considered in the review and ranking process
shall include the extent and availability of other funds to
achieve the same purpose in the community; the extent of local
approval or appropriate zoning for a proposed project or
activity to proceed; and the status of the project to receive
funding through HUD or MHFA.
Shakopee HRA -2- May 8, 1980
HUD has indicated that its main priority is projects in which
the community has a demonstrated ability to perform in an
efficient and timely manner, as they will have no chance to
recapture funds which the community is unable to spend.
Given the above considerations, I propose the HRA indicate to the
City Council its willingness to undertake a project as outlined
below:
1) Purchase 4 - 6 empty City lots currently served by
municipal water and sewer, scattered in various parts of the
City.
2) Provide any site improvements necessary for construction.. on
these lots.
3) Build 235 or state housing finance one and two family homes
on these lots for sale to low and moderate income families.
My rational for this project is that it would provide more homes
to low and moderate income families at a time when mortgage rates
are excluding many deserving families. It would provide work to
contractors who currently have little private sector work. It
would also improve Shakopee's housing performance ratings with
little additional administrative work. By using scattered,
existing lots, we would avoid concentrations of low and moderate
income families.
I feel this project would receive a high rating under the Metropolitan
Council Review Criteria and our experience with the 235 program
on Fourth and Minnesota demonstrates to HUD our ability to conduct
such a project.
I informally discussed this project with our IHUD representative
and she strongly encouraged such an application by the City.
I would like to solicit your comments on this project, and if
you support such an application, suggestion of possible lots which
could be acquired.
JA/ j iw
•
� v
MEMO TO: Shakopee HRA
FROM: Jeanne Andre
HRA Director
RE: Payments to VonKlug and Associates for Relocation
Services - Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood •
Revitalization Project
DATE: May 7, 1980
The original contract with VonKlug and Associates for relocation
services for the Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization
Project established a contract maximum of $11,395.00. On
March 4, 1980, the maximum limit was revised to $14,890.00 to
reflect additional services added to the original contract.
Payments for services from December 1978, through February 1980,
total $11,219.57. There is, therefore, $3,670.43 which remain
before the contract maximum is reached. If the March Statement
of Contract Services in the amount of $922.50 is paid, $2,747.93
will remain before the contract limit is reached.
JA/ j iw
•
�I
MEMO TO: City Council
FROM: W. C. Harbeck, Mayor
RE: Appointments to Ad Hoc Subdivision Review Committee
DATE: May 13, 1980
I recommend the following for appointment to the Ad Hoc Subdivision
Committee. They have all agreed to serve on the Committee:
Dean Colligan, representing the City Council
Gloria Vierling, representing the Planning Commission
Gary Eastlund, representing the Industrial Commercial Commission
Dick Wiggins, representing the builders and contractors
Clete Link, representing the builders and contractors
Phil Kanning, legal representation
Anne Tuttle, at large
I also recommend that the first meeting be set for Thursday,
May 29th, 1980.
WCH /jsc
v
MEMO TO: Shakopee HRA
FROM: Jeanne Andre
Executive Director HRA
RE: Relocation Claim for Albert Rybak
Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project
DATE: May 13, 1980
I have just received a claim from Albert Rybak on behalf of
his business, Rybak Sewer and Water, formerly of 408 Minnesota
Street in Shakopee.
I' recommend that we pay Mr. Rybak $1754.22, the full amount
of his claim. This claim includes: 1) An undocumented self -
move costing $1254.22, based on the lowest of three moving
estimates, and; 2) The maximum allowable searching expense
of $500.00, based on verification by Mr. Rybak of the hours
he spent searching for a new location.
JA/ j iw
•
•
•
•
•
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shakopee Planning Commission
RE: Letter from R. 0. Lyman dated May 6, 1980
DATE: May 13 1980
Upon dealing with the Subdivision known as Weinandt Acres,
the Planning Commission was led to believe that the Lyman
parcel was land - locked. Therefore, the basic issue under
consideration was granting access to Lyman Acres.
Upon referring to the exhibits provided by, the referenced
memo, it is obvious that the parcel is not land- locked and
with any request for development there exists the opportunity
to develop 200- plus -foot depth lots along the access to
County Road 17. To ask the City to insist that Weinandt Acres
provide access to County Road 17 when the applicant has already
made his own provision, appears to'create an unfair economic
burden on the developer of Weinandt`cAcres. It should also
be pointed out that both the existing and the proposed sub-
division ordinances would not have prohibited Mr. Lyman from
subdividing his parcel in the manner he has taken as all
parcels are in excess of 20 acres, which is in excess of the
minimum provided by either of the ordinances.
If Mr. Lyman wishes to pursue access through Weinandt Acres
1st Addition, it is the recommendation of the Planning
Commission that he come to an economic agreement with the
developer to secure access, if he so desires.
JP/ j iw
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 110
tea
SHAKOPEE, M N. 55379 )
(612 - 445 -7750, Ext. 100
May 7, 1980
JOSEPH F. RIES
Administrator MAY 8 1980
JAMES M. SULERUD
Asst. Administrator CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Honorable Norbert Theis, Chairman
Jackson Township Board of Supervisors
Route 2
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: Shakopee By -Pass Project
Dear Chairman Theis:
Enclosed please find a copy of Resolution No. 80037, adopted by the County
Board yesterday. The resolution is a commitment on the part, of the county to
Jackson Township permitting the relocation of the fifty -three (53) displaced
lots outlined in Mr. Hoffstedt's letter of April 21, 1980.
In recognition of Mr. Hoffstedt's letter, the letter of Mr. W.M. Crawford,
MnDOT District #5 Engineer, dated April 25, 1980 and the letter of Mr. Doug
Reeder, City of Shakopee Administrator, dated April 21, 1980, under which two
resolutions were conveyed, this action by the Scott County Board of Commissioners
appears to complete those commitments to Jackson Township made by these jurisdic-
tions in our meeting on April 14, 1980.
If in the process of altering the comprehensive plan for Jackson Township
to provide land use accomodations for those replacement sites in question, you
should desire the assistance of the county in any way, Jon Westlake, Planning
Director, has expressed his willingness to work with you.
At which point you begin the preparation of Jackson Township's resolution
requesting the county to adopt an official map by the by -pass of its behalf, I
would be happy to assist you with this task. Needless to say, it is in our
mutual interest to move the process for the adoption of the official map as
expeditiously as possible in order to maintain the priority given this project
by the federal and state governments.
We truly appreciate the many concerns with the by -pass project that Jackson
Township has raised and have made every effort to resolve them to your satisfac-
tion. Thank you for your continued cooperation in this matter.
Si- ncerely,
J�. • Ries
•
//. Administrator
Encl.
cc: Comm. Dennis L. Hron, Chai 'man (ltr. only)
Y
Mr. James Daly, Metropolitan Council (3 ltrs. /resolutinn)
Mr. Ghaleb Abdul - Rahman, Trans. Ping. Pro.Mgr. (3 ltrs. /resolution)
Mr. Wm. Crawford, MnDot #5 Engr. (resolution)
Mr. Doug Reeder, An Equal Opportunity Employer
City of Shakopee Admin. (2 ltrs. /resolution)
001ES0 •
v0 * 2 ° Minnesota Department of Transportation
District Five
0 TRP��ao 5801 Duluth Street
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
•
April 21, 1980 (612)545 - 3761
•
Mr. Norbert Theis _
Chairman, Jackson Township
Route 2
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
In Reply Refer To 315
S.P. 7005 -42 (T.H. 101)
Dear Mr. Theis:
As per our discussion on April 18, 1980, the number of Jackson
Township lots within the proposed T.H. 101 right of way are
listed below. •
Location Number and Type of Lot
Mobile Manor • /_ • 2 Trailer house lots
Theis Addition Area 8 Residential lots
Andy's 1 Commercial lot
Gopher State Truck Stop 1 Commercial lot (5 acres)
Monument Business 1 Combined house/business lot
Chiropractic Business 1 Combined house/business lot
Photography Business. 1 Combined house/business lot
West Side of T.H. 169 near Bonnevista 1 Trailer house lot
" n tenon 4 Residential lots
n n n n n T° 2 Commercial lots
•
Along County Road 15 1 Trailer house lot
" 1 Multi- family lot
" 3 Residential lots
P & V Addition 2 Residentail lots
Davies Addition 24 Residential lots
• ..... Total a 53 Lots •
• I am also enclosing a copy of the layout plan County Road 69 and
County Road 15 vicinity, which you requested.
Sincerely,
at 9 f
Carl J. Hoffstedt, P.E. •
District Transportation Planning Engineer
Enclosure
An Equal Opportunity Employer
,Nf! ESO
't n t ` , - Minnesota
f a Department of Transportation
I 1 ' t' District 5
` fcp 2055 No. Lilac Drive
OF TO Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422.
(612) 545-3761
Apri1.25, 1980
Mr. Norbert Theis, Chairman
Jackson Township
Route 2
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
7005 -42 (T.11_ 101) •
Dear Mr. Theis:
As discussed at the T.H. 101 By -Pass meeting on April 14, 1980, this letter
is written to address two items, relating to Mn /DOT, in the Jackson Township
resolution presented at the November 1, 1977 public hearing. One item dealt
with the noise abatement concerns and the other item dealt with the right of
•way acquisition.
Pages 75 -85 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement discuss the noise
analysis for the various land uses along the By -Pass. The analysis also
covers the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise standards that have
to be met in order to receive Federal Aid Funds to construct the project.
Present residential areas have been identified where noise abatement pro-
visions will have to be made. Prior to letting any roadway construction
contracts, Mn /DOT. will prepare a more detailed Noise Analysis Report. This
report preparation will involve the people affected for coordination of the
specific noise mitigation designs to be provided. These designs may con-
sist of earth mounds, an earth mound -wall combination or a wall which can
be constructed with various materials such as wood, concrete or metal. The
design process will also involve an update of the ambient noise levels and
a determination of the noise barrier locations and heights needed to weet
the applicable noise standards. Norbert, you can be assured that Mn /DOT
will install noise barriers to suppress the noise in sensitive areas as part
of the project construction.
Turning to the next item, right of way acquisition, pages 56 -62 of the _
Final Environmental Impact Statement discuss the relocation analysis for
the project. In addition to that, pages 13 -20 of the November 1, 1977
Public Hearing Transcript cover the right of way acquisition - relocation
process very thoroughly. The process is based on Federal and State legis-
lation to assist residents and businesses displaced by highway projects.
Now, you must realize that the dollar values associated with the reloca-
tion items will" change to be reflective of the economy at the time of
An Equal Opportunity Employer
•
Norbert Theis
April 29, 1980
Page 2
•
relocation. Property purchase will be based on the fair market value of
the property at the time of acquisition. • In the case of agricultural land
severed by highway right of way acquistion, damages will also be allowed
for this severance. So you see, Norbert, Mn /DOT can give a firm commit-
ment that displaced residents, businesses and agricultural owners will
receive fair market value for their property and relocation assistance
will be provided. Mn /DOT cannot, however, make any commitment as to the
dollar value that property owners will receive when the property is acquired
for highway right of way purposes. Nor can a commitment be made to the
dollar value of the items covered as part of the relocation assistance.
With our current rate of inflation, I'm sure you can understand the reason -
ing concerning the dollar value.
For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a letter sent to a resident
of the Davies Addition after the first public hearing held in May of 1977.
The letter responded to a question raised at the public hearing concerning
property acquisition.
Sincere y,
t,
District Engineer /
Enclosure:
Letter Copy •
cc:
D. Hron - Scott County Commissioner
J. Reis - Scott County Administrator
C. Weaver -J. Daly - Metropolitan Council
Ghaleb Abdulrahman - Metropolitan Council
•
•
•
•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Date May 6. 1980 Resolution No 80037
Motion by Commissioner W orm Seconded by Commissioner Hron
RESOLUTION NO. 80037 ; COMMITTING TO LAND USES
FOR LOTS IN JACKSON TOWNSHIP DISPLACED BY THE
• PROPOSED SHAKOPEE BY -PASS
•
WHEREAS, on January 15, 1974, the Shakopee By -Pass Task Force of
Scott County was created for the purpose of the joint planning for an
Official Map for a by -pass corridor to the south of the City of
Shakopee by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan
Council, the County of Scott, the cities of Shakopee, Savage, and
Prior Lake and the township of Jackson; and
WHEREAS, in the course of the project events, the Township of
Jackson at a public hearing conducted on November 1, 1977, proposed the
resolution to several conditions being met before that jurisdiction would
become a party to the adoption of an official map; and
WHEREAS, one of these conditions was that the county provide satis-
factory displacement of certain properties in their present land use with-
in Jackson Township; and
WHEREAS, the county recognizes the need for Jackson Township to
maintain its populace and has explored all available means to assist
that jurisdiction in doing so effectively; and
WHEREAS, at a meeting on April 14, 1980, of all jurisdictions with
an interest in the Shakopee By -Pass, action assignments in response to
the concerns of Jackson Township were assumed by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, the County of Scott and the City of Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, within the scope of the action assignments, the county's
role was to provide land use accomodations for replacement sites for
those lots scheduled for displacement in this process.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners in and
for the County of Scott, Minnesota, goes on record herewith expressing
its commitment to Jackson Township to allow the relocation of the fifty -
three (53) displaced lots listed hereunder in their present land uses as
a result of the Shakopee By -Pass Project, to wit:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Date May 6, 1980 Resolution No 80037
•
Motion by Commissioner Seconded by Commissioner
Location Number and Type of Lot
Mobile Manor Land use for 2 trailer house lots
Theis Addition Area Land use for 8 residential lots
Andy's Land use for 1 commerical lot
Gopher State Truck Stop Land use for 1 commerical lot (5 acres)
Momument Business Land use for 1 combined house /business
lot
Chiropractic Business Land use for 1 combined house /business
lot
Photography Business Land use for 1 combined house /business
lot
West Side of T.H. 169 near Land use for 1 trailer house lot
Bonnevista
West Side of T.H. 169 near Land use for . 4 residential lots
Bonnevista
West Side of T.H. 169 near
Bonnevista Land use for 2 commerical lots
Along County Road 15 Land use for 1 trailer house lot
•
Along County Road 15 Land use for 1 multi- family lot
Along County Road 15 Land use for 3 residential lots
P & V Addition Land use for 2 residential lots
fr Davies Addition Land use for 24 residential lots
Total Lots 53
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be directedforthwith
to the Jackson Township Board of Supervisors and all member jurisidictions
to the Shakopee By -Pass Task Force of Scott County by the County Adminis-
trator.
•
YES NO
Koniarski X Koniarski
Worm X Worm
Hron " Hron
HafermannX • Hafermann
•
Boegeman X Boegeman
State of Minnesota }
SS.
County of Scott
I, Joseph F. Pies. Duly appointed. qualified and acting County Administrator for the County of Scott. State of Minnesota. do hereby certify that
I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners.
Scott County. Minnesota. at their session held on the 6 th day of May IS 80, now on file to my office. and have found the same to be a
true and correct copy thereof. 6th April, 1980
Witness my hand and official seal at Shakopee. Minnesota, this day of
/ ? ) e �
County Adm n s:rator
SCA Form 1 6 • JJ
l Deputy Admtn.strator
(112
1 I 4/
RESOLUTION NO. 1614
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING A REPORT
AND CALLING A HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT
80 -5 THIRD AVENUE WATERMAIN
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the City Council adopted
April 8, 1980, a report has been prepared by H. R. Spurrier, City
Engineer, with reference to the improvement of the area between
Adams and Pierce and between 3rd Avenue and 10th Avenue by a 12 inch
Trunk Watermain and this report was received by the Council on May 13,
1980, plemen- to -l=Re -port
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. That the Council will consider the improvement of 3rd;Avnu_e
cExamyHarr_ri:.so —to W:eb:stex.- by= wa= t:exma n, in accordance with said reports
and the assessment of abutting and benefited property for all or a
portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improve-
ments on the 3rd day of June, 1980, in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 129 East First Avenue, at 9:00 P.M. and the clerk shall give
mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as
required by law.
3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of
the 1980 -5 Public Improvement Program.
Adopted in session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
1980.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1980. ,
City Attorney
r- nak 7E1
9 .
/ 5)///
MAY
em p i r is 4 g # , A a rm a il M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY • ;ITY: OF SHM(OPEE
GENERAL CONTRACTORS • 700 MEADOW LANE NORTH
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 710 • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55440 • TELEPHONE (612) 377 -2630
May 7, 1980
•
Barbarossa & Sons, Incorporated
Route 3
P.O. Box AR
Osseo, Minnesota 55369
Attention: Mr. Adrian Knutson
Re: . Kmart Distribution Center
Shakopee, Minnesota
Rough Grading & Site Utility Contract •
Gentlemen:
•
It has been brought to our attention that you subcontractor
• (Wangerin, Inc.) believes it is entitled to additional compen-
sation for work•performed on the subject project. "Blackie" •
Wangerin called this office on the morning of May 5, 1980
alledging a claim of approximately $30,000 and later at a coun-
cil meeting in the City of Shakopee on Tuesday, May 6 1980,
which I•tattended, he made further representations that Wangerin,
Inc. is entitled to an additional sum of approximately $145,000.
As I explained to your Paul Flygt in a telephone conversation
on May 6,.-1980, M. A. Mortenson Company holds Barbarossa & Sons
.responsible to administer its own subcontracts. Not being
knowledgeable of subcontract, which we assume exists between
Barbarossa & Sons and Wangerin, Inc., neither M. A. Mortenson •
Company,.nor Kmart Corporation, nor the City of Shakopee is in
a position. to comment on any claim which Wangerin, Inc. may •
pursue against'Barbarossa & Sons. We expect Barbarossa & Sons
to respond to and to settle any claims arising out of agreements
between Barbarossa & Sons and. Wangerin, Inc.
We request that you take steps to resolve any differences which
may exist between you and your subcontractor and to keep M. A.
Mortenson Company fully informed.
Very truly yours, •
•
•
David G. Turney ,
DGT:lo •
•
cc: Kmart Corporation
mien • Owner's Representative
Ctyf R`Sfiakope
Jobsite �'
•
•
`` ,�pf: Pt. et,/ CITY OF SHAKO r'EE
�•;.•I���, � • 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 /
MEMO
TO: Douglas S. Reeder, Administrator
Jim Karkanen & Bo Spurrier
FROM:
SUBJECT: Dust Control
DATE: May 13, 1980)
•
•
As per your request, we have conducted some research regarding a dust control •
•
program for the City of Shakopee. Addmittedly there have been more than the
normal dust complaints because of the unusually dry spring -this year.
Because there are more than 30 blocks of gravel streets in the urban area of
Shakopee, we don't recommend dust control for the city streets because these
streets should be paved. They should be surfaced by petition or council
initiative. If we start a dust control program on these streets, it would
be very difficult to encourage anyone to want to pay for a frontage assessment
to improve the street. Also we have many miles of alleys which would also be
subject to dust control (a "cost per front foot" assessment for dust control,
however could be considered.)
However a dust control program could initated on the rural roads (only)
because of the improbability of these roads being paved because of the
extreme cost. The recommendation would be to initiate a dust control program •
as utilized by the Scott County Hwy. Dept. It mtist be pointed out that once we've
committed ourselves to a dust control program, it will be very difficult to
terminate such a program. The county has indicated that they're sorry - to be
involved in such a program. •
The Scott Co. Hwy. Dept. opened bids for dust control on Friday, May 9, 1980.
The two bidders were:
• 1. Dust Coating, Inc. (Larry Johnson) S0.545 per gallon.
2. Van Waters & Rogers ( ° , 0 ).55 1 4 per gallon.
The County policy is as follows: •
1. The daily traffic count in question must he 150 cars or more.
(This count is too high for the city roads.)
2. Homes must be situated within 175 ft. of the road T9 W.
3. Length of road treated is 300 ft. per home. The width for our .roads is
• recommended at 22 ft. in width.
4. A maximum of two (2) calcuim Chloride treatment will be applied per calen-
der year. •
5. The Calcium Chloride liquid solution is applied with a distributor
at a rate of 0.18 gallons per sq. yd.
6. The County .& Municipalities shall be given 3 days notice prior to
application to allow time for road surface preparation, grading, etc. .
7, First application shall be between May 27 & June 6 and the second
application shall be between Aug. 18 & Aug. 29, 1980.
•
J
•
The City Roads recommended for dust control are:
(Each location etc. -300 ft,:x 22 ft)
Valley View Road
Fire Numbers 0 -141
0 -142
0 -148
0 -161
0 -167
0 -176
Roger 4arschall Rd. N -481
Hauer Addt. (East Hill) N -585
Mc Kenna Rd. N -766 (2 houses - 400 ft.) .
E. 13th Ave. near the Stewart's Addt. has had oil applied to the surface by
a oil distributor in the area. A dust control application is not recommended
at this time, however, it may need an application in August.
Pike Lake Rd. - -the 3 houses belong to'Prior Lake
It must be mentioned that Calcium Chloride isn't too effective on the first
application, nor is it very effective in extremely dry soil or sandy soils.
Calcium Chloride should be re- applied later in the summer season. (Generally
in•August)
Each location shown on the enclosed map will require approximately 132.gallons
of Calcium Chloride at each location. This will amount to 372.00 per application
However, Calcium Chloride must be applied twice a year for a total cost of
approximately 3153.00 per location each year.
There are 10 locations involved, for a total of approximately 3,000 ft. x 22 ft.
This amounts to approximately 2640 gallons per season at .545 cents per gallon
or 31438.80.
Calcium Chloride:
Example: 3O0 x 22 ft. = 4 = 733 sq. y ds.
733 sq. yds. x 0.18 per gallon (per sq. yd.) = 132 gallon (per application)
132 gallons (per application) @ .54 cents per gallon
OR: 371.94 per 300 x 22 ft. application
Calcium Chloride must be applied twice per year. However, the first application could
• be increased to .25 gallons per sq. yd. - at a total cost of $99.91 per
location - The second application could then be reduced to .16 gallon per
sq. yd. for a cost of 63.94 per location.
OIL
Example
733 sq. yds. x 30 per gallon = 2.19.9 gallons per application.
219.9 gallons per application @ .48 cents per gallon
OR: 3105.55 per 300 x 22 ft. application
OIL can be Applied Once per season:
May 5, 1980
/1
..COORDINATION OF WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
A. Project Initiative
1. By Utility Commission with or without a request from a citizen or
property owner or the City.
B. The'proposed project including proposed financing is sent to the City Council
for review and approval or denial if:
1. The proposed project is on City right -of -way.
2. The proposed project is on City property.
3. The proposed project financing requires City action.
4. The proposed project affects the approved Comprehensive Plan.
C. After the project is approved by the City Council, the Utility Commission will
proceed to construct or the City will proceed to follow the Chapter 429 require-
ments, if required and construct the project in conjunction with other public
improvements if appropriate with the Utility Commission undertaking all necessary
engineering required for the preparation of bid documents and submitting them to
the City for approval and submitting the required documents to other appropriate
agencies.
D. If the project is denied by the Council, the Utility. Commission may modify
the project and resubmit it to the Council, request a joint meeting or drop the
project.
E. After approval of the plans and specifications, the project will be bid and let
by the appropriate body.
F. If the project required initial approval, during construction of the
project, inspection and "field changes" will be coordinated with the staff of both
bodies and Change Orders will be prepared by the Utility Commission and approved
by the City.
G. If the project required initial Council approval, final payment and project
approval will be recommended by Utility Commission and approved by the City
Council.
Administration
1. The attached check list will be utilized to insure that all procedures are followed.
2. Building Permits and Plumbing Permits which have major impacts on the water and
electrical utility system will be sent to the Utility Commission when reviewed.
3. All required Public Hearings will be joint Public Hearings with the City and the
Shakopee Public Utilities_ Commission.
4. The City will prepare guidelines for the approval of water projects that require
City approval in accordance with Paragraph B, listed above.
Ii1;4 :lisww.....,... ..4t hex.. r+w* :. 1414%
May 5, 1980
WATER IMPROVEMENT CHECK LIST
l
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
DATE ACTION TAKEN
PROJECT REQUESTED BY: CITIZEN(S) CITY COUNCIL UTILITY
COMMISSION DEVELOPER
UTILITY COMMISSION INITIATES PROJECT AND REQUIRES FEASIBILITY STUDY
FEASIBILITY STUDY PRESENTED TO UTILITY COMMISSION
UTILITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDS PROJECT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL ACTS ON PROJECT (APPROVED /DENIED)
JOINT MEETING, IF REQUIRED
JOINT UTILITY COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING HELD IF
CHAPTER 429 PROJECT. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS AND ACCEPTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SETS HEARING.
ORDER PROJECT AND DIRECT UTILITY COMMISSION TO PREPARE PLANS AND
SPECS.
CITY COUNCIL ACTS ON PLANS AND SPECS. (APPROVED OR DENIED)
JOINT MEETING, IF NEEDED
PLANS AND SPECS SENT TO STATE /SEWER BOARD /FEDERAL GOV'T.
METRO COUNCIL /OTHER
PLANS AND SPECS APPROVED AND BID LETTING DATE SET
BID AWARDED (PROJECT COMMENCES)
. CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL OR UTILITY COMMISSION
CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY UTILITY COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION CHANGE ORDER (APPROVED /DENIED)
JOINT MEETING, IF NEEDED
PROJECT ACCEPTED AND FINAL PAYMENT APPROVED BY UTILITY COMMISSION
PROJECT ACCEPTED AND FINAL PAYMENT APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
PROCEDURE FOR LEVYING ASSESSMENTS COMMENCES, IF REQUIRED
COORDINATION CHART FOR WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 11
May 6, 1980
SPUC 1,
CITIZEN I ( PROJECT INITIATION REQUESTED
COUNCIL
DEVELOPER
SPUC INITIATE PROJECT AND
REQUESTS FEASIBILITY STUDY
FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED 1
1SPUC RECOMMENDS PROJECT
!COUNCIL CONSIDERS PROJECT
COUNCIL APPROVES] COUNCIL DENIES
PROJECT PROJECT
JOINT MEETING IF
:REQUESTED BY
1
PUBLIC HEARING, IF NEEDED 1
COUNCIL ACCEPTS FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND ORDERS PLANS AND SPECS
PLANS AND SPECS PRESENTED TO SPUC �.
!COUNCIL CONSIDERS PLANS AND SPECS 1
COUNCIL APPROVED PLANS & SPECS COUNCIL DENIES
AND ORDERS PROJECT PLANS AND SPECS
(OR COMMISSION IF COUNCIL
ACTION NOT REQUIRED)
JOINT MEETING IF
REQUESTED BY SPUC
INSPECTION AND FIELD CHANGES
COORDINATED BY STAFFS
CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY SPUC
(CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY COUNCIL )CHANGE ORDER DENIED BY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING IF
REQUESTED BY SPUC
r - -
IFINAL PAYMENT AND APPROVAL BY SPUC
FINAL PAYMENT AND APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL!
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CHECK LIST '7?
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Cid1/10J.
DATE ACTION TAKEN
PROJECT INITIATED BY: CITIZEN(S) CITY COUNCIL
UTILITY COMMISSION
UTILITY COMMISSION INITIAL CONSIDERATION
CITY COUNCIL INITIAL CONSIDERATION
JOINT MEETING
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REPORT REQUESTED
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REPORT COMPLETED
UTILITY COMMISSION CONSIDERS ENGINEERING REPORT
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS ENGINEERING REPORT
JOINT MEETING
FEASIBILITY STUDY ORDERED FROM:
FEASIBILITY STUDY PRESENTED TO UTILITY COMMISSION
FEASIBILITY STUDY PRESENTED,TO CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTS FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SETS HEARING
` PUBLIC HEARING HELD - (UTILITY COMMISSION INVITED)
ORDER PROJECT AND DIRECT PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECS
PLANS AND SPECS PRESENTED TO UTILITY COMMISSION
PLANS AND SPECS PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
PLANS AND SPECS SENT TO STATE /SEWER BOARD /FEDERAL GOV'T.
METRO COUNCIL /OTHER
PLANS AND SPECS APPROVED AND BID LETTING DATE SET
BID AWARDED -- project commences
CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED
CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY UTILITY COMMISSION
CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
•
JOINT MEETING
AS BUILT DRAWINGS COMPLETED
PROJECT ACCEPTED AND FINAL PAYMENT APPROVED BY UTILITY
COMMISSION
PROJECT ACCEPTED AND FINAL PAYMENT APPROVED BY CITY
COUNCIL
PROCEDURE FOR LEVYING ASSESSMENTS COMMENCES
1 U.TILITY COMMISSION' ' MEM COUN I
I PROJECT INITIATION RESUESTED
UTILITY COMMISSION COUNCIL
CONSIDER CONSIDER
!JOINT MEETING IF NEEDED]
-�' [ EER E ART PENT PREPARE REPORT
• SETTING FORTH SCOPE OF
FEASIBILITY STUDY
UTILITY COMM SSION CONSIDER
ENGINEER REPORT ,�
JOINT MEE9
- I F NEEDED
COUNCIL CONSIDER ENGINEER REPORT
COUNCIL ORDER STUDY
1 FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED - 1
..JM
UTILITY COMMISSION CONSIDER ■
4' FEASIBILITY STUDY JOINT MEET
IF NEEDED
COUNCIL CONSIDER _
• FEASIBILITY STUDY
!
PUBLIC HEARING
IF NEEDED
LCOUNCIL ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND ORDER PLANS AND SPECS
PLANS AND SPECS PRESENTED
TO UTILITY _COMMISSION -
JOINT MEET
, I F NEEDED
COUNCIL CONSIDER PLANS AND SPECS
PLANS AND SPEC' APPROVED AND
PROJECT ORDERED AND AWARD BID
(COUNCIL 'OR COMMISSION)
INSPECTION AND FIELD CHANGES
COORDINATED BY STAFFS
HANGS RDER APPROVED B
UTILITY COMMISSION
"'�' -- JOINT MEET
IF NEEDED
1 CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY COUNCIL
•
AS BUILT DRAWINGS •
COMPLETED
FINAL PAYMENT AND APPROVAL!
BY UTILITY COMMISSION
FINAL PAYMENT AND APPROVAL
BY COUNCIL
- II C
C
RESOLUTION NO. 1357
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A .
COORDINATION SYSTEM OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
•
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission both have responsibilities in the construction
and maintenance of public improvements; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of both organizations
to coordinate the planning; and construction of public improvement
projects.
NOW 'THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY '1'IIE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE
CITY OF M.INNESO'IA, That the ;attached coordination system
will be used by the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commi.ssi on for all public works projects; and that
changes to this coordination system shall be made from time to
time as. needed by mutual consent of both bodies.
Adopted in __ - session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, M.i anesoLa, held this /( -' day of
-- il1:►L19. _ , 1979.
___,,.. -- 1 a.,
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
____C/Le.e_c.4— •
City C rk .
Approved • t form this k____ day of � _ - - 1979.
• , ....
, 9 , „
,,,
City ' f Lorney .
Pat of Resolution No. 1357 • 1!
•
...Adopted 1/16/79 •
• •
COORDINATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Initiative
1. By Utility Commission
2. By citizen /property owner request or petition
3. By City Council
A. If a proposed project is suggested to either body that
body will consider project and
1. Agree with proposed project and request concurrance
from other body.
2. Raise appropriate questions concerning the project
and request a joint meeting.
•
B. If the proposed project is agreeable to both bodies then
the Engineering Department will prepare a report setting
forth the 'scope of the feasibility study that will be
requested and a recommendation of who should do the
feasibility study and submit this report to the Utility
Commission at least five clays before their. meeting.
C. Utility Commission will review this Engineering Department
report and recommend agreement or appropriate changes.
D. City Council will consider. the Engineering Department
report and the Utility Commission comments and either
order feasibility study if both bodies are in agree-
ment or defer to next joint meeting of Utility Commission
and Council.
E. The feasibility report when received will be first •
presented to the Utility Commission for their review and
recommendation and then to the City Council with the
comments of the Utility Commission.
F. If the City Council does not agree with the comments of
the Utility Commission then this project would be brought
up at the next joint meeting of the Utility Commission
and the City Council.
•
•
�• Coordination of Public Improvement Projects • ' l(
Page 2
G. Feasibility study is approved and the project,ordered
and completed plans and specifications sent to the
Utility Commission for review and approval and then to
the City Council with the recommendation of the Utility
Commission.
H. After approval of the plans and specifications the project
will be bid and let by the appropriate body.
I. During construction of the project inspection and "field
changes" will be coordinated with the staff of both
bodies.
J. Change orders will be approved by the Utility Commission
first and then presented to the City Council.
K. As built drawings will be secured and distributed to both
bodies for filing.
L. Final payment and project approval will be approved by
the Utility Commission first and then the City Council.
Administration
1. The City Engineer will attend all Shakopee Public Utility
meetings at which public improvements are discussed.
2. Joint meetings of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission
and the Shakopee City Council will be regularly held on
the third Tuesday of each month. The agenda for the
joint meeting will be sent out by the City of Shakopee
and if no items are ready for the agenda, no meeting will
be held and no agenda sent. Additional joint meetings
may be called by either body as needed and will be
arranged by staff at mutually convenient times.
3. A check list will be prepared to insure that all appropriate
coordinations asset forth in this procedure is carried out.
4. Building permits and plumbing permits which have major
impacts on the water and electrical utility system will be
sent to the Utility Commission when reviewed.
5. The Utility Commission will be invited to any public hearing
held by the City for a public improvement project.
RECEIVED •
VA SPRINGSTED
INCORPORATED MY 51980
„ PUBLIC FINANCE
ADVISORS CITY OF SHAKOPEE
I May 1980
•
• CLIENT BULLETIN
Effective Thursday, April 24 the statutory limit for Minnesota bonds issued under
Chapter 475 was increased from 7% to 12%. Assessments may carry a rate of
interest up to 13 %. This is of course good news for you who have to come to
market and couldn't sell within the 7% lid. Of equally good news though is that the
market has shown remarkable strength. After rising 11 consecutive weeks from
7.28% to 9.44% the BBI on April 10 dropped 37 basis points to 9.07%, then to 7.89%
the next week, but climbed back to 8.1 I% on the 24th of April. .
A relatively light calendar of offerings has been a major contribution to the
improvement as well as a wringing out of the panic of late February into early
April.
With Treasury Bills declining in yield (9I -Day Treasury Bills had a bond equivalent
yield of I I.24% last Monday versus 17.49% on March 24) and the prime rate backing
down, there is hope for a further lowering of rates. However, we do not foresee a
dramatic change over the next 30 -60 days.
Following are some recent general obligation sales:
Average Net
Issuer Amount Maturity Rating Interest
Washington Co., MN $ 275,000 1 1 .46 A 8.35
Eden Prairie City, MN $15,020,000 11.06 A 8.29
Hibbing City, MN $ 350,000 8.33 A 7.57
St. Paul City, MN . $ 6,630,000 6.14 Aa 6.75
St. Paul City, MN $ 4,080,000 13.01 Aa 6.92
White Bear Town, MN $ 3,260,000 12.44 Baa- I 8.10
Eau Claire City, WI $16,330,000 10.75 Aa 8.44
Westby S /D, WI $ 450,000 5.46 A 7.87
Hudson City, WI $ 870,000 7.59 A 7.25
Marathon Co., WI $ 4,100,000 7.70 Aa 6.55
•
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222 -4241
,vt.>w.. _�s.: ->.w w ._...,• s .... ,_:• _. . _ i ,aa.. . -ati _ .aF _..,,.1:. ......ase.a.M.:,.c .. .i :... ._.. .. -. ..... r'
. /3 v
. SPRINGSTED
, '' INCORPORATED
r ` PUBLIC FINANCE
ADVISORS . " : 1
MAy .9 1980
8 May 1980 -
c o OF 5 g!d0PE .:
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
99 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
Attn: Ms. Fran Laserson
Assistant Vice President
RE: $2,900,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980, Series A
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Laserson:
We are enclosing two copies of the Official Statement for the above - captioned
issue, a rating agreement signed by our firm, the City's latest available financial
statement, and other pertinent information.
Although we are making the rating application, we ask that you send the billing for
your services directly to the Issuer who has been advised of your fee and has agreed
to pay for the rating. The mailing address of the Issuer is:
Mr. Douglas S. Reeder
Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
We shall appreciate your assigning a provisional rating to this offering and notifying
us of it by telephone. We also request that you send written notification of the
rating to the Issuer at the address shown immediately above with a copy to this
off ice.
For more than a year now we have asked with each Shakopee bond issue that you
take a special look at upgrading that City's single -A credit rating. With this
$2,900,000 issue, we continue our quest, on behalf of the City, for a higher rating.
Please consider the following:
I. Major construction projects currently underway in the City total
approximately $28 million. This includes the $16.I million K mart
Corporation distribution center, and various other projects, as listed
on page 25 of the Official Statement. This figure only includes
projects now under construction.
2. The tax base is diverse, with . no single type of business or industry
dominating. The range is from various manufacturing concerns to a
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222 -4241
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
8 May 1980
Page 2
major metropolitan entertainment center (Valley Fair) to an
important area medical facility.
3. St. Francis Hospital, a privately run I26 -bed general hospital in the
downtown area, has asked for a Certificate of Need to expand its
emergency and outpatient services. (No new beds would be added.)
Cost of the expansion is estimated to be $5.8 million. St. Francis'
location, south of the Minnesota River, has been a critical factor in
its emergency and outpatient services, which have increased
dramatically over the past three years. All other major metropolitan
medical facilities are located north of the Minnesota River, and the
bridge access element has proven a critical time factor. Further, the
Metropolitan Area Health Board has stated firmly and clearly its
opposition to any additional major health care facilities in the
metropolitan area in the foreseeable future. St. Francis has a
medical staff of 130 active and consulting physicians.
4. The City has recently completed its Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
which includes a long -range Capital Improvement Program (see pages
28 -29 of the Official Statement). The Plan sets out guidelines for the
orderly development of the City, including growth restrictions in its
rural service area. We have included a copy of the Plan for your
review and ask that you return it when your work is completed.
5. Financially, the City has demonstrated excellent fiscal management
and has solid fund balances in every area. Funds on hand in all funds
at the end of March, 1980 totaled $2.9 million. The Public Utilities
Commission has reported retained earnings of $1.7 million and $1.6
million for 1979 and 1978, respectively.
6. Even with the addition of this $2.9 million bond issue, the City's debt
pay -out is 86% within ten years. All financing is definitive, and
requires no future market access for extension of the debt.
7. Tax collections have averaged 98.5% in the year of collection, with
nearly 100% being collected in one to two years subsequent to
scheduled collection. Consider also that only 12% of the City's levy is
paid by the State via homestead credit.
Finally, we should briefly refute several arguments which you have presented in the
past in denying the City a higher rating.
I. The City's debt per capita was higher than other credits: This is to be
expected in a community with such a substantial
commercial /industrial base. Its value per capita is also considerably
higher than other credits.
2. Other higher rated credits had larger employers: We feel this is
really not a valid argument for a metropolitan community.
3. The City must prove its ability to handle additional growth: For how
long must it prove this? Significant growth has taken place over the
past 5 -10 years, and the City has responded by extending the
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
8 May 1980
• Page 3,
• necessary improvements while maintaining relatively low debt ratios
and a rapid debt pay -out. The development of a Comprehensive Plan
and Capital Improvement Program is an important factor here, and I
hope your review of the Plan will leave you with the impression that
the City is clearly concerned about regulation of growth, with the
resultant community benefits.
If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for
your consideration.
Very sincerely yours, 4.W
V tatt,til Robert D. iPulscher
President
/gf
•
•
•
May 5, 1980 0
.COORDINATION OF WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
A. Project Initiative
1. By Utility Commission with or without a request from a citizen or
property owner or the City.
B. The proposed project including proposed financing is sent to the City Council
for review and approval or denial if:
1. The proposed project is on City right -of -way. )'
2. The proposed project is on City property.
3. The proposed project financing requires City action.
4. The proposed project affects the approved Comprehensive Plan.
C. After the project is approved by the City Council, the Utility Commission will
proceed to construct or the City will proceed to follow the Chapter 429 require-
ments, if required and construct the project in conjunction with other public
improvements if appropriate with the Utility Commission undertaking all necessary
engineering required for the preparation of bid documents and submitting them to
the City for approval and submitting the required documents to other appropriate
agencies.
D. If the project is denied by the City Council, the Utility Commission may modify
the project and resubmit it to the Council, request a joint meeting or drop the
project.
E. After approval of the plans and specifications, the project will be bid and let
by the appropriate body.
F. If the project required initial Council approval, during construction of the
project, inspection and "field changes" will be coordinated with the staff of both
bodies and Change Orders will be prepared by the Utility Commission and approved
by the City.
G. If the project required initial Council approval, final payment and project
approval will be recommended by the Utility Commission and approved by the City
Council.
Administration
1. The attached check list will be utilized to insure that all procedures are followed.
2. Building Permits and Plumbing Permits which have major impacts on the water and
electrical utility system will be sent to the Utility Commission when reviewed.
3. All required Public Hearings will be joint Public Hearings with the City and the
Shakopee Public Utilities_ Commission.
4. The City will prepare guidelines for the approval of water projects that require
City approval in accordance with Paragraph B, listed above.
• �etw. w. fw{ MF.( N+ „ nrr.dgkYaMlw�ws+wwew+ib..rw.+ are .lw.+.w...w.�.e�w�w..Lrw•w+ai : _ . ,. _ a�wi ..rYib.lu.rw{.�1wy,wa.,,,y2.�.
..__`___ ....�.._...._......,......wsw �.r....... ...ranw.. i _ w- - "- _ D. �.r•�...r.....�.�.l..r...i.. - �. .w.....1.++.a +r. _
May 5, 1980
WATER IMPROVEMENT CHECK LIST
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
DATE . ACTION TAKEN
PROJECT REQUESTED BY: CITIZEN(S) CITY COUNCIL UTILITY
COMMISSION DEVELOPER
UTILITY COMMISSION INITIATES PROJECT AND REQUIRES FEASIBILITY STUDY
FEASIBILITY STUDY PRESENTED TO UTILITY COMMISSION
UTILITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDS PROJECT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL ACTS ON PROJECT (APPROVED /DENIED)
JOINT MEETING, IF REQUIRED
JOINT UTILITY COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING HELD IF
CHAPTER 429 PROJECT. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS AND ACCEPTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SETS HEARING.
ORDER PROJECT AND DIRECT UTILITY COMMISSION TO PREPARE PLANS AND
SPECS.
CITY COUNCIL ACTS ON PLANS AND SPECS. (APPROVED OR DENIED)
JOINT MEETING, IF NEEDED
PLANS AND SPECS SENT TO STATE /SEWER BOARD /FEDERAL GOV'T.
METRO COUNCIL /OTHER
PLANS AND SPECS APPROVED AND BID LETTING DATE SET
BID AWARDED (PROJECT COMMENCES)
CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL OR UTILITY COMMISSION
CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY UTILITY COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION CHANGE ORDER (APPROVED /DENIED)
JOINT MEETING, IF NEEDED
PROJECT ACCEPTED AND FINAL PAYMENT APPROVED BY UTILITY COMMISSION
PROJECT ACCEPTED AND FINAL PAYMENT APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
PROCEDURE FOR LEVYING ASSESSMENTS COMMENCES, IF REQUIRED
COORDINATION CHART FOR WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
May 6, 1980
SPUC
CITIZEN 1 (PROJECT INITIATION REQUESTED
COUNCIL
DEVELOPER
SPUC INITIATE PROJECT AND
REQUESTS FEASIBILITY STUDY
FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED
1SPUC RECOMMENDS PROJECT 1
COUNCIL CONSIDERS PROJECT
COUNCIL APPROVES] COUNCIL DENIES
PROJECT PROJECT
I .
1 JOINT MEETING IF
1 :REQUESTED BY
1
PUBLIC HEARING, IF NEEDED
COUNCIL ACCEPTS FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND ORDERS PLANS AND SPECS
PLANS AND SPECS PRESENTED TO SPUC
COUNCIL CONSIDERS PLANS AND SPECS
COUNCIL APPROVED PLANS & SPECS COUNCIL DENIES
AND ORDERS PROJECT PLANS AND SPECS
(OR COMMISSION IF COUNCIL
ACTION NOT REQUIRED)
JOINT MEETING IF
REQUESTED BY SPUC
INSPECTION AND FIELD CHANGES
COORDINATED BY STAFFS
TCHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY SPUC 1
CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY COUNCIL . CHANGE ORDER DENIED BY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING IF
REQUESTED BY SPUC
'FINAL PAYMENT AND APPROVAL BY SPUC 1
1FINAL PAYMENT AND APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CHECK LIST
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
DATE ACTION TAKEN
PROJECT INITIATED BY: CITIZEN(S) CITY COUNCIL
UTILITY COMMISSION
UTILITY COMMISSION INITIAL CONSIDERATION
CITY COUNCIL INITIAL CONSIDERATION
JOINT MEETING
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REPORT REQUESTED
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REPORT COMPLETED
UTILITY COMMISSION CONSIDERS ENGINEERING REPORT
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS ENGINEERING REPORT
JOINT MEETING
FEASIBILITY STUDY ORDERED FROM:
FEASIBILITY STUDY PRESENTED TO UTILITY COMMISSION
FEASIBILITY STUDY PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTS FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SETS HEARING
r PUBLIC HEARING HELD - (UTILITY COMMISSION INVITED)
ORDER PROJECT AND DIRECT PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECS
PLANS AND SPECS PRESENTED TO UTILITY COMMISSION
PLANS AND SPECS PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
PLANS AND SPECS SENT TO STATE /SEWER BOARD /FEDERAL GOV'T.
METRO COUNCIL /OTHER
PLANS AND SPECS APPROVED AND BID LETTING DATE SET
BID AWARDED -- project commences
CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED
CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY UTILITY COMMISSION
CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
AS BUILT DRAWINGS COMPLETED
PROJECT ACCEPTED AND FINAL PAYMENT APPROVED BY UTILITY
COMMISSION
PROJECT ACCEPTED AND FINAL PAYMENT APPROVED BY CITY
COUNCIL
•
PROCEDURE FOR LEVYING ASSESSMENTS COMMENCES
,`_� 1 UTILITY COMMISSION' ' CITIZEN f COUNCIIj
3 INITIATION REQUESTED I
UTILITY COMMISSION COUNCIL
CONSIDER CONSIDER
JOINT MEETING IF NEEDED
--- EMTNEEKMPTRTMENT PREPARE REPORT
• SETTING FORTH SCOPE OF
FEASIBILITY STUDY
ti
UTILITY COMM SSION CONSIDER
ENGINEER REPORT
JOINT MEE]
IF NEEDED
COUNCIL CONSIDER ENGINEER REPORT
COUNCIL ORDER STUDY
1 FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED
UTILITY COMMISSION CONSIDER
FEASIBILITY STUDY JOINT MEET
IF NEEDED
COUNCIL CONSIDER
FEASIBILITY STUDY +._
, PUBLIC HEARING
IF NEEDED
R COUNCIL ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND ORDER PLANS AND SPECS
PLANS AND SPECS PRESEN'T'ED
TO UTILITY COMMISSION ]MISSION -
„.1 JOINT. MEET
�.. _ I F NEEDED
COUNCIL CONSIDER PLANS AND SPECS -
PLANS AND SPEC APPROVED AND
PROJECT ORDERED AND AWARD BID
(COUNCIL OR COMMISSION)
INSPECTION AND FIELD CHANGES
Get, k
(CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY (_
UTILITY COMMISSION
JOINT MEET
IF NEEDED
r CHANGE ORDER APPROVED BY COUNCIL L
AS BUILT DRAWINGS
COMPLETED
FINAL PAYMENT AND APPROVAL'
BY UTILITY COMMISSION
FINAL PAYMENT AND APPROVAL]
BY COUNCIL
...,..,
eZZ
r
RESOLUTION NO. 1 357
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A .
COORDINATION SYSTEM OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
•
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Public
Uti[1ties Commission both have responsibilities in the construction
and maintenance of public improvements; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of both organizations
to coordinate the planning and construction of public_ improvement
projects.
NOW 'THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THIS
CITY OF SHAKOPEI , MINNESOTA, That the attached coordination system
will be used by the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission for all public works projects; and that
changes to this coordination system shall be made from time to
time as:needed by mutual consent of hoLh bodies.
Adopted in __ L ..I. ' . _ session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, Mi'tnesota, held this /‘ — _ day of
'L1,:'1Lt _ , 1979.
' ____ces ■41-/C.17„
Mayor of Lhc Ci Ly of Shakopee
ATTEST:
C i t y __f7a..e..,..6Z
C r. k , %
Approved • : to form this /5_
day of _, 1979.
J
City . t torney
Part of Resolution No. 1357
..Adopted 1/16/79
•
COORDINATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Initiative
1. By Utility Commission
2. By'citizen /property owner request or petition
3. By City Council
A. If a proposed project is suggested to either body that
body will consider project and
1. Agree with proposed project and request concurrance
from other body.
2. Raise appropriate questions concerning the project
and request a joint meeting.
•
B. If the proposed project is agreeable to both bodies then
the Engineering Department will prepare a report setting
forth the scope of the feasibility study that will be
requested and a recommendation of who should do the
feasibility study and submit this report to the Utility
• Commission at least five clays before their. meeting.
C. Utility Commission will review this Engineering Department
report and recommend agreement or appropriate changes.
D. City Council will consider. the Engineering Department
report and the Utility Commission comments and either
order feasibility study if both bodies are in agree-
ment or defer to next joint meeting of Utility Commission
and Council.
E. The feasibility report when received will be first •
presented to the Utility Commission for their review and
recommendation and then to the City Council with the
comments of the Utility Commission.
F. If the City Council does not agree with the comments of
the Utility Commission then this project would be brought
up at the next joint meeting of the Utility Commission
and the City Council.
•
•
•
Coordination of Public Improvement Projects •
Page 2
G. Feasibility study is approved and the project ordered
and completed plans and specifications sent to the
Utility Commission for review and approval and then to
the City Council with the recommendation of the Utility
Commission.
H. After approval of the plans and specifications the project
will be bid and let by the appropriate body.
I. During construction of the project inspection and "field
changes" will be coordinated with the staff of both
bodies.
•
J. Change orders will be approved by the Utility Commission
first and then presented to the City Council.
K. As built drawings will be secured and distributed to both
bodies for filing.
L. Final payment and project approval will be approved by
the Utility Commission first and then the City Council.
•
Administration
1. The City Engineer will attend all Shakopee Public Utility
meetings at which public improvements are discussed.
2. Joint meetings of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission
and the Shakopee City Council will be regularly held on
• the third Tuesday of each month. The agenda for the
joint meeting will be sent out by the City of Shakopee
and if no items are ready for the agenda, no meeting will
be held and no agenda sent. Additional joint meetings
may be called by either body as needed and will be
arranged by staff at mutually convenient times.
3. A check list will be prepared to insure that all appropriate
coordinations asset forth in this procedure is carried out.
4. Building permits and plumbing permits which have major
impacts on the water and electrical utility system will be
sent to the Utility Commission when reviewed.
5. The Utility Commission will be invited to any public hearing
held by the City for a public improvement project.
•
ti
..aasi�•
CITY 4:F SHAKOPEE
N C 0 R P 0 RAYLI0 1670 .. ' y.. IM ;IO ,SUINGmrw4i►es a 4 m/+u4a444$040t Nwewva t; q A
129 E. First Ave., Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445 -3650
!it x
May 2, 1980
Glenn Zacharias
2300 Horizon Circle
Burnsville, MN 55378
RE: S. 191.81 of„N= 383.63 and S. 191.81 of N. 575.44 of A E 6/7
EZ SE4 S of arcs Addition Tracts B and C
Dear Mr. Zacharias: •
. This letter is to confirm a conversation LeRoy Houser, City Inspector,
had with you concerning the fill at the above references site,
The City of Shakopee reouests that you dig out and haul to an
appropriate land fill solid waste and demolition rubble that has
been deposited at this site. The City will be out in 30 days to
take test borings to assure that all fill material noted above
has been removed. If the removal of the solid waste and rubble
has not been completed by June 2,, 1980, this matter will be turned
over to the City Attorney.
The City of Shakopee appreciates your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Tim Keane
City Planner
TK:nae
cc LeRoy Houser, Inspector
,/Doug Reeder, City Administrator
Jack Coller, City Attorney
H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer
The Heart of Pro Valle
An Equal Opportunity Employer