HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 02, 1980 o
TENTATIVE AGENDA OF SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL
• Reg. Session Shakopee, Minnesota January 2, 1980 i'•
Acting Mayor Reinke presiding •
1) Roll Call at 7:35 PM
2) Administering the Oath of Office to Newly Elected Officials
3) Approval of Minutes of December 4, 1979
4) Communications:
a) City of Columbia Heights
b) Hennepin County Planning & Development
c) Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
' , , d) Minnesota Department of Transportation
e)
5) Liaison Reports from Councilmembers:
a) •Cncl. Hullander from the Shakopee Fire Department
b) Cncl. Lebens from. Recreation Board , 1
c) Cncl. Reinke from Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
d) Cncl:. Leroux from'Shakopee School Board
e) Mayor Harbeck from Scott County Board of Commissioners '
,
6) RECOGNITION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ANYONE PRESENT IN THE AUDIENCE '....',
, WHO DESIRES TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. ,'
7) Old Business . ' . , .
usiness .
a) Ordinance 35, Amending City Code - Appeal Process for
Variances and Conditional Use Permits (tbld. 12/18).
b) Approve and authorize Purchase of 1980 Squad Cars
8) Routine Resolutions and Ordinances: '
a) Resolution No. 1542, A Res. Requesting the County of Scott.
to Adopt an Official Map for the Shakopee Bypass on Behalf
of the City of,Shakopee •
b) Resolution No 1543, A Res. Setting Garbage Fees
' c) Resolution No 1544, A Resolution Designating Official
Depositories of City Funds.
d). Resolution No. 1545, A Resolution Authorizing a Lease Agreement
Between the City of Shakopee and 200 Levee Drive Associates; '
e) Resolution No 1546, A Resolution Authorizing Lease of Office.."
Equipment..
9) New Business :
. a) Election of Acting Mayor • •
b) Legal Counsel for Planning Commission
•
c) . Contract Amendment for Kmart Water Tank : . .
•• d) 8:115 PM PUBLIC HEARING - Jefferson Requests, Appealed
e)' 8:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING - 1980 Pool Table Licenses. .
f) Designating Official Newspaper for the City of Shakopee .
g) Authorizing Purchase of. Truck for Parks Department '
• h) Appointee. to Scott County Criminal Justice Advisory Committee
•i) City Engineer's status report on Public Improvements
j) 1980 City Employee Salaries
. /,) x:00 / n
f — /1%0 0 w ,4,Z a���G
Douglas S. Reeder
City Administrator
d 4 441 i1 0/
TENTATIVE AGENDA
•
SHAKOPEE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Annual Meeting Shakopee, Minnesota January 2, 1980
•
Chrmn. Hullander presiding
1) Roll • Gal l at 7:30 PM
• 2) Administering of Oath of Office
3) Approval of December 4, 1979, minutes
•
4) Election of Officers: Chairman, Vice - Chairman, Secretary
•
5) ',Approve Plans and Specs. for Senior Citizen Highris6
6) Discussion on the Metropolitan Council Public Hearing:
'a) Amendments to the Housing Chapter of the Metropolitan
Development Guide
b) 1980 -1982 Subsidized Housing Allocation Plan
•
6) Approval of Bills:
a) Von Klug and Associates, August Services on Neighborhood
Revitalization Project - $150.00
•
b) Scott County HRA -
Services under August 8, 1978, agreement - $1200.00
- Administrative fees for Metro Council HRA Section 8
Existing Program - $280.50
c) National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials
• ( NAHRO) annual membership - $30.00
d) Minnesota Chapter of NAHRO annual membership - $25.00
Jeanne Andre
Executive Director ,
•
•
•
3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
•
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota December 4, 1979
The meeting was called to order by Chrmn. Hullander at 7 :40 PM
with Comm. Reinke, Lebens, Ward and Leroux present. Also present:
Mayor Walt Harbeck; City Admin., Douglas S. Reeder; City Eng., H. R.
Spurrier; Finance Director, Gregg Voxland;
Administrative Assistant, Jeanne Andre and City Attorney, Julius
A. Coller, II.
•
City Admin. updated the HRA on the status of the Menden property
in conjunction with the Elderly Highrise Project. He stated the
closing is scheduled for Friday, December 7th at 9 :00 AM.
Leroux /Lebens moved to amend the minutes of October 16th, page 1,
paragraph 2, deleting same and amend paragraph 3, by striking
the words "as amended ". Motion carried unanimously.
• Lebens /Ward moved to approve the minutes of October 2, October 16, •
November 7 and November 20, 1979, as kept. Motion carried
unanimously.
• . Resolution No. 79 - 31, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifica
tions for the Kmart Warehouse and the authorization for payment
to Kmart for advances on Kmart Project were.deleted from the agenda•
per the request by the City Admin., who stated there was a slight
. problem with the driveway which had not yet been solved in the Kmart
Project. City Admin. stated that all the specifications from
Kmart had been received.
Wand /Reinke moved to approve the payment of $22.50 to VonKlug & •
Asso., Inc., for the Section 8 Housing Project, September Services.
Roll Call: Ayes - unanimous
•
Noes - none Motion carried
•
Reinke /Lebens moved to approve the payment of $723.68, to VonKlug •
& Asso., Inc., for Neighborhood Revitalization Project, September
Services.
Roll Call - Ayes - unanimous
Noes none Motion carried.
•
Reinke /Lebens moved to approve the payment of $254.81, to VonKlug &
Asso., Inc., for Section 8 Housing Project, October Services.
, Roll Call: Ayes - unanimous
Noes - none Motion carried
•
•
Proceedings of the December 4, 1979
Shakopee HRA Page -2-
Lebens /Reinke moved to approve the payment of $1,132.42, to Von
Klug & Asso., Inc. for Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG Project,
October Services.
Roll Call: Ayes - unanimous
Noes - none Motion carried
Ward /Leroux moved to authorize payment of a residential relocation
claim in the amount of $15,000.00 to Leroy and Sharon Heitz.
Roll Calla Ayes - unanimous
Noes - none Motion carried
City Admin. suggested that Jeanne Andre not be appointed HRA Director
until after the completion of the Kmart and Elderly Highrise
Projects thus maintaining continuity in signatures. City Council
concurred with this recommendation.
• Ward /Leroux moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
• adjourned at 7 =59 PM.
•
•
Douglas S. Reeder
Deputy HRA Director /Administrator
CZY/e4 Ica/I
•
o
3 t
. 16
MEMO TO: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant '
RE: Metropolitan Couna.il 1980 -1982 Subsidized Housing
Allocation Plan
DATE: December 24, 1979
The Metropolitan Council's Subsidized Housing Allocation Plan
for the next three years estimates HUD will make available
to the seven county area $24,000,000.00 for subsidized housing.
Based on the Met Council's fair share formula, $135,279..00,;
would be directed to Shakopee. Various formulas are applied
to establish goals as to the direction Shakopee should take in
providing subsidized housing, over this three year period.
The Met Council will judge Shakopee's performance in meeting
these goals when considering future allocations.
The major thrust of the goals established for the City involves
the construction of new rental units to be occupied by
families, a more detailed breakdown is attached. We must
now decide if we consider these goals appropriate for our
City and if the manner in which the goals were established is
an effective means for determining goals.
JA /jiw
Attachment
City of Shakopee 1980 -1982, Subsidized Housing Allocation Plan*
Dollar Allocation: $135,279 (29 -39 units)
Household Type
Family $84,698 (19 -24 units)
Large Family 19,557 (3 - 5 units)
Elderly 31,024 (7 - 10 units)
Housing Tenure
Rental 83.4% $112,823 (24 -32 units)
Owner Occupied 16.6% 22,456 (5 - 7 units)
Housing Program Type
Existing 25.0% $ 33,820 (7 -10 units)
Substantial
Rehabilitation 5.0% 6,764 (2 units)
New
Construction 70.0% 94,695 (20 -27 units)
*As proposed in Public Hearing Draft: Amendments to Housing
Chapter, Metropolitan Development Guide and 1980 -1982
Subsidized Allocation Plan, November 1979.
•
c -
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
-'k 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
•
MEMO
TO: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator •
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant •
SUBJECT: Elderly Highrise, 200 Levee Drive
''DATE: January 2, 1980
I -have reviewed the plans and specifications for the proposed
elderly highrise at 200 Levee Drive. The building has six- stories,
• 66 units, and a community area for the Shakopee Senior Center.
The plans are consistent with the proposal for an elderly highrise •
originally approved by the Shakopee City Council. I, therefore,
recommend that the Council approve the plans and specifications
-submitted by Arvid Elness Architects, Inc. for the Elderly
Highrise at 200 Levee Drive. This will not constitute a final
approval for construction, which will be given by the Shakopee
Building Inspector when he has determined that the proposed plans
and specifications meet all code, health and safety requirements.
• of the City, State and appropriate Federal agencies.
•
JA /ljw
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o litai Cti a
kb
kw
IN C iT I �
•
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291 -6359
November 26, 1979
r ' J
To: Metropolitan Area Citizens and Local' Officials
The Metropolitan Council will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m.
on January 7,,1980 in the Council offices to hear comments on
amendments to the Housing Chapter of the Metropolitan Development
Guide.
The attached document outlines proposed amendments to the text
and policies in the Housing Chapter of the Metropolitan Development
Guide. These amendments will change and consolidate the text and
policies relating to the allocation of subsidized housing in the
Metropolitan Area and Council review of subsidized housing plans
and proposals.
The document also outlines and explains the Revised Subsidized
Housing Allocation Plan for 1980 -1982. The Plan gives a brief
history of subsidized housing allocations in the Area, outlines
major changes in the Plan, and explains how numerical goals were
determined and how they will be applied. • It also lists the three
sets of percentage goals for each•community.
You are encouraged to attend the hearing and make comments or
to submit written comments.
Sincerely, •
Charles R. Weaver
Chairman
•
CRW /dimp
enclosure
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT:
AMENDMENTS TO HOUSING CHAPTER
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
AND 1980 -1982 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN
Public Hearing
January 7, 1980 - 7 p.m.
Metropolitan Council Chambers
November 1979
Housing Division
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota Tel: 612 291 -6464
Publication No. 19 -79 -104
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
Page
I. AMENDMENTS '10 HOUSING CHAPTER, METROPOLITAN
DEVELOPMENT GUIDE 1
II. SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN, 1980 -1982 . . . • 7
Background 7
Allocation Plan Coverage 7
Changes in the Allocation Plan 8
Subsidized Housing Goals 9
• Development and Application of Goals for Communities 10
. Household Type Goals 10
Housing Tenure Goals 16
Housing Program Mix Goals 19
LIST OF TABLES
1. Household Type Goals for Communities 12
2. Housing Tenure Goals for Communities 16
3. Subsidized Housing Program Mix Goals for -
Communities . . . 21
I. AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING CHAPTER, METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
The Metropolitan Council hereby amends parts of the Housing chapter of
the Metropolitan Development Guide relating to the provision of housing
throughout the Metropolitan Region. Changes follow.
•
1. Policy No. 1, page 5, is amended to read:
"Communities within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area have the responsibility
to provide adequate land for projected housing growth and to provide an
appropriate share of housing for persons of a range of incases. These
communities should undertake specific planning and implementation activities
and programs directed toward providing low- and moderate - incase and modest -cost
market -rate housing to meet their appropriate share of projected area -wide
needs. Communities within the Rural Service Area are expected to plan for
limited residential growth."
•
2. Introductory text to Policy No. 7, page 8, first paragraph, is amended to
read:
"Council policy does not encourage urban scale residential development in the
Rural Service Area. Council policy does, however, support the provision of
limited amounts of subsidized housing in rural areas."
3. Policy No. 7, Part B, page 8, is amended to read:
"Communities within the Rural Service Area are eligible for subsidized housing
on a limited basis as specified in the subsidized housing allocation plan, on a
local option basis."
4. Introductory text to Policy No. 25, pages 24 to 25, is amended to read:
"A primary emphasis of the Metropolitan Council's housing program is to broaden
the choice of residential location for low - incase and minority people
throughout the Twin Cities Region. Like most of the nation's large metro-
politan areas, this Region has concentrations of subsidized and lower- priced
housing in the central cities and limited housing opportunities for lower -
income people in suburban and rural areas. The Council's housing policies
support central city revitalization, neighborhood preservation, managed growth,
and modest -cost market -rate housing. Concern with expanding the supply and
distribution of subsidized housing has always been the central theme
of the Council's housing program, however.
"To deal with the problem of concentrations of subsidized and lower -cost
housing, the Metropolitan Council has adopted a subsidized housing allocation
plan. The plan is designed to be consistent with the Areawide Housing
Opportunity Plan regulations published by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) . The primary objective of the Council's subsidized
housing allocation plan is to broaden housing choices for low- and moderate
incase people. This is to be accomplished by encouraging development of
subsidized housing in well- serviced areas where such opportunities are limited.
The plan is not designed to force people to move. It is intended to make it
possible for them to move to places where they may not now be able to find
housing they can afford. It is also designed to allow low- and moderate - incase
suburban and rural residents to remain in their home communities in decent
housing units they can afford.
1
•
"The allocation plan assigns a set of subsidized housing goals to each
participating community. The goals will be used to determine each community's
share of dollars for subsidized units. Prior allocation plans have assigned
communities a 'fair share' number of units. This has been changed to an
allocation of dollars to comply with HUD practice and regulations, which
require a fair share distribution of subsidy dollars among communities.
"The subsidy dollars are allocated to communities using a two -step process.
The first step divides all the available subsidy dollars for the Region into
four categories: family, large family, elderly, and special needs. The
percentage of money going into each category reflects its proportion of the
identified area -wide need for assistance. Thus, the largest anount is
allocated to family and large family needs. Together, these two categories
receive 51 percent of all available subsidy funds. Elderly needs represent 34
percent of the total. Fifteen percent of the total subsidy funds are set aside
for special needs.
"Funds set aside for special needs will be used to enable communities to
exceed their subsidized housing goals under certain conditions. Those
conditions are (1) to assist households with a handicapped member; (2) to
assist displaced households; (3) to provide for financially feasible projects
not otherwise possible using only the initial allocation of funds.
"The second step allocates funds to communities. Each community is assigned
goals for a fair share of funds available to subsidize family, large family,
and elderly housing units. These goals are determined using formulas that
weigh various factors. Each community will have goals for a share of family,
large family, and elderly subsidy dollars. Additionally, the Council will
apply the sane process to data for the rural portion of the Region. This will
make a limited amount of subsidized housing resources available to the two
proposed Freestanding Growth Centers and the 29 Rural Centers on a local option
basis. Subsidized housing has not previously been available to these
communities, except for Farmers Home Administration units. In addition to such
units, the allocation plan will provide funds to subsidize existing rental
units through the Section 8 program.
"The Metropolitan Council will use the allocation plan for reviewing proposals
for subsidized housing and for reviewing local housing assistance plans.
Communities applying for Community Development funds must adopt housing
assistance plans (HAPs), which indicate goals for subsidized housing. The
federal government requires communities to demonstrate progress toward meeting
their goals to continue to receive funding. To carry out federal and
metropolitan policies, which say that receipt of public funds should be
related to housing performance, the Council will require (1) that all HAPs be
consistent with the allocation plan and (2) that communities receiving funds
demonstrate meaningful progress toward meeting their goals. The Council, upon
concurrence with the HAP goals, will cooperate fully to assist the community in
carrying out its plans.
"Subsidized housing proposals are referred to the Council for review and •
comment by HUD, Farmers Hane Administration and the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency. The Council will compare these proposals with the allocation plan
goals for the community in which the project is to be located. Priority will
be given to applications that most clearly reflect the Council's allocation
plan and related policies. The Council's first priority in the ranking process
is .provision of housing for the unmet needs of low- and moderate - income
2
families and large families. To effect this priority, communities will be able
to transfer their allocated funding from elderly assistance to family and large
family assistance. Furthermore, the Council will not recommend funding of
elderly subsidized housing in communities that have not made substantial
progress toward providing family housing consistent with the allocation plan
goals.
"The Council will also give priority to proposals for economically integrated
subsidized housing. When Congress enacted the Section 8 New Construction
program in 1974, a priority was established in the law for family developments
containing no more than 20 percent subsidized units. Economic mix within
developments, as well as within neighborhoods and communities is an essential
element of the allocation plan in furthering the provision of subsidized
housing outside areas of concentration. In considering proposed subsidized
developments for funding, then, the Council will give preference to'projects
that contain an economic mix.
"The goals for percentage shares of funds allocated to each community are
intended to be adhered to fairly strictly. These goals will facilitate a more
equitable distribution of subsidized housing throughout the Region. While the
Council will emphasize compliance with these goals, it will use sane flexi-
bility in applying than. A community will be permitted to exceed its share of
subsidized dollars under four circumstances. (1) A community may exceed its
family or large.family goal if it transfers resources from its elderly share.
(2) A community with small goals may exceed its goal if resources are needed to
support a financially feasible project. (3) Some communities may rapidly use
up their share of subsidy dollars but still have unmet special housing needs.
The Council may vary from a community's share to provide for the special needs
of handicapped people or displaced households. (4) A community may exceed its
goal if it is a participant in a multi- jurisdictional Section 8 Existing
program.
"Some flexibility is necessary for the Council to make its allocation plan
effective. Strict adherence to the goals will not be possible, or desirable,
in all cases. Flexibility will allow the Council to guide effectively the
distribution of subsidy resources. In addition, flexibility is necessary to
ensure that funds are not returned to HUD simply to adhere to these goals."
5. Policy No. 25, page 25, is amended to read:
POLICY 25
A. "The Council shall adopt a subsidized housing allocation plan. The plan
shall assign individual goals to communities responsible for subsidized
housing. (These shall include communities within the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area and the Freestanding Growth Centers.) The goals shall be used to
determine each community's share of dollars for subsidized housing.
Additionally, the Council shall use the sane process to determine an aggregate
share of subsidized resources to be used in Rural Centers. These resources
will be used to fund Farmers Hame Administration units as well as Section 8
Existing rental units.
"The subsidized housing dollars shall be allocated to communities through a two -
step process. First, the Region's subsidy funds are reserved on the basis of
3
•
identified area -wide needs for housing assistance. The Council shall reserve
subsidy funds for the following area -wide needs in the following percents:
Family 42.5%
Large Family 8.5%
Elderly 34.0%
• Special Needs 15.0%
"Funds from the special needs reservation will be available to communities to
exceed their subsidized housing goals under the following conditions:
1. To assist households with a handicapped member;
2. To assist displaced households (displacement means involuntary
movement of people from their dwellings because of circumstances
beyond their control); and
3. To provide for financially feasible projects not otherwise possible
using only the initial allocation of funds.
"The second step allocates to each community a "fair share" of funds available
to subsidize family, large family, and elderly housing units. This share is
determined by a mathematical formula that combines factors for each community,
such as number of households, forecasted household growth, employment,
employment growth, tax base, number of households needing housing assistance,
and number of subsidized units provided ins the community. Application of the
formula to data for each community results in the percentage share of the
resources reserved to subsidize units for family, large family, and elderly
households.
B. "The Council shall use the subsidized housing allocation plan as the
standard for reviewing subsidized housing proposals referred to the Council by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Farmers Home
Administration, and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The plan shall also
be used in the review of housing assistance plans in Community Development
Block Grant applications. The Council will recommend for funding those
subsidized housing proposals and applications that are consistent with and
carry out the allocation plan.
C. "In making funding recommendations during review of subsidized housing
proposals, the Council will interpret the allocation plan goals with sane
degree of flexibility. Flexibility is necessary to operate the subsidized
housing funding process effectively. It is also necessary so that subsidized
housing resources are not lost to the Area simply to achieve the recommended
distribution of funds. Further, the Council places a high priority on
assisting families and encouraging economically integrated projects. To
maintain flexibility, assist families, and encourage economic integration, the
Council will observe the following guidelines in its use of the allocation plan
goals for reviews:
1. A community's available funding shares are its three -year goals. A
single proposed development might require a community's entire three -
year allocation, or more, particularly in communities allocated a
small share of subsidy dollars. The Council may vary from a
community's share in this instance to provide for a financially
feasible family or large family project.
4
2. Some communities may rapidly use up their share of subsidy dollars,
but still have unmet special housing needs. The Council may vary from
a community's share so that the community can provide for the special
needs of handicapped people or displaced households.
3. The Council may vary from allocation plan goals for communities
participating in a multi - jurisdictional Section 8 Existing program.
4. Because the Council places a high priority on assisting families,
particularly families with children, the Council will allow
communities to transfer resources from the elderly category to assist
families and large families. Further, no elderly projects will be
approved for funding in a community that has not already made
substantial progress toward providing family and large family housing
consistent with allocation plan goals.
5. When ranking proposed subsidized housing developments, the Council
will give priority to proposals for large families and to proposals
for economically integrated developments.
D. "The 1980 -1982 subsidized housing allocation plan and subsidized housing
plan review guidelines, dated July 1977, including any amendments thereto made
from time to time, are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof."
6. Introductory text to Policy No. 26, page 25, is deleted.
7. Policy No. 26, page 26, is deleted.
8. Introductory text to Policy No. 30, 31 and 32, pages 27 and 29, is deleted.
9. Policy No. 30, page 29, is deleted.
10. Policy No. 31, page 29, is deleted.
11. Policy No. 32, page 29, is deleted.
12. Introductory text to Policy No. 40, pages 33 through 34, is deleted.
13. Policy No. 40, page 34 is deleted.
14. Policy Numbers 26, 30, 31, and 40 are reserved for future use.
15. Amend text on page 72 to read:
HOUSING ALLOCATION PLANS
"This section contains plans for the area -wide distribution of new housing
units and for rehabilitation funds. The Distribution Plan for new housing
units describes the number of new units that will be needed to meet the Area's
needs for new housing over the next ten years by metropolitan rings and
sectors.
"The Rehabilitation Allocation Plan describes the share and dollar amounts that
each community will be recommended to receive from the state rehabilitation
loan and grant program. The Rehabilitation Plan is for a three -year period."
5
16. The Subsidized Housing Allocation Plan, pages 75 through 84, is deleted.
17. Part IV: Housing Review Guidelines, pages 105 through 150, is deleted.
Except as amended hereby, the provisions and policies of the Housing Chapter
shall remain in force and effect without change.
6
II. SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN, 1980 -1982
BACKGROUND
In January, 1972, the Metropolitan Council adopted a subsidized housing •
allocation plan that identified parts of the Metropolitan Area where housing
for low- and moderate - income people should be developed. The Council's goal
was to increase locational choice in areas offering high levels of basic
support services, such as transit and hospitals.
In 1973, the Council adopted a revised allocation plan that included numerical
goals for distribution of subsidized housing by subsectors within the
Metropolitan Area. This was a short -range plan, because the Council wanted the
flexibility to respond to changes in subsidy programs and levels of services
offered in the subsectors.
The current 1977 -1979 plan, adopted in December 1976, includes numerical goals
for communities. This change gave communities a better basis for local
planning and enabled the Council to review local housing assistance plans
required by the federal government. The plan has been used to indicate the
share of subsidized units that each community can realistically expect, given
the amount of federal funds anticipated.
The intent of the Council's subsidized housing allocation plan is to broaden
housing choice for low- and moderate - incase people by encouraging development
of subsidized housing in areas that currently have limited low- and moderate-
income housing opportunities. It is not to force people to move. It is to
make it possible for them to move to communities where they may not now be able
to find a have they can afford, or to allow the suburban poor and moderate-
income residents to stay in their home communities.
ALLOCATION PLAN COVERAGE
This revised allocation plan is fora three -year period from 1980 through 1982.
The plan will guide any local plans developed during the three years, although
they may cover a planning period extending beyond 1982. In particular,
communities will be developing three -year housing assistance plans that cover
time periods beyond 1982. The allocation plan applies to all federal and state
subsidized housing for low- and moderate - incase people to be funded in the
Area, including Section 8 Existing, New Construction, and Substantial
Rehabilitation programs, Farmers Hane Administration and any subsidized low -
and moderate - income homeownership programs.
The allocation plan does not pertain to state or local rehabilitation funds,
which are covered by a separate allocation plan. The state rehabilitation loan
and grant program generally serves people with higher incases and people who
currently own their own homes. Such rehabilitated units cannot be counted as
part of a community's performance in achieving its subsidized housing
allocation plan goals.
There is one exception. Rehabilitated units may be considered in evaluating
local housing performance when a community can demonstrate to the Council's
satisfaction that it is operating a rehabilitation program that: (1) serves
people within the incase levels established for federally subsidized low- and
moderate- income housing, and (2) rehabilitates units that are not owner-
7
•
occupied, providing an opportunity for a nonresident to purchase them. Such a
program would involve purchase of a substandard unit, rehabilitation and resale
to a low- or moderate- incane family. This program must be operated without
residency preferences. Only rehabilitation programs that serve lower- income
levels and provide the opportunity for mobility can be considered to serve
objectives of the subsidized housing allocation plan.
CHANGES IN THE ALLOCATION PLAN
There are five major changes in this plan from previous allocation plans.
First, the concept of priority areas has been eliminated. The priority areas
made numerical goals difficult to follow, in some instances, because first and
second priority communities were allowed to exceed their goals. This change
gives all communities a better opportunity to receive a share of subsidized
housing funds.
The second major change involves making a limited amount of subsidized housing
resources available in the rural part of the Metropolitan Area. Units are now
available to, the two proposed Freestanding Growth Centers (large outlying
cities) and the 29 Rural Centers (shall towns) on a local option basis. The
only subsidized housing available to these communities has been Farmers Home
Administration units. This allocation plan provides funds to subsidize
existing rental units through the Section 8 Existing program, which can be
operated at an appropriate scale for these rural communities. Resources also
will be used to fund Farmers Home Administration units.
The third major change is that this plan includes more detailed percentage
goals for communities. These goals are included to meet requirements of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for area -wide housing
opportunity plans. The percentage goals include:
1. Household type (family /large family /elderly);
2. Housing tenure (owner /renter); and
3. Housing' program type (existing/new construction/substantial
rehabilition).
The detailed goals correspond closely to the types of goals communities must
develop when preparing a housing assistance plan, as part of a Community
Development Block Grant application. These goals, while complex, will give
necessary guidance to local communities, developers, the Council, and the
funding agencies in deciding how best to meet the Area's housing assistance
needs with limited resources.
•
The fourth major change involves allocating subsidy dollars rather than units.
This change aligns the Council's allocation plan more closely with the HUD
system of allocating dollars. Further, allocating dollars recognizes that
subsidized programs have different costs, with Section 8 Existing the least
costly and Section 8 New Construction the most costly.
The fifth major change is that the Council will reserve 15 percent of the 1980-
1982 subsidized housing funds to meet special housing needs. Funds set aside
for special housing needs will be available to communities to exceed their
subsidized housing goals under the following conditions:
8
•
1. To assist households with a handicapped member;
2. To assist households displaced involuntarily by public or private
actions; and
3. To provide for financially feasible projects not otherwise possible
using only the initial allocation of funds.
This special reserve will be used as an accounting mechanism by the Council in
its review of subsidized housing proposals.
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING GOALS
The allocation plan establishes three sets of percentage goals for each
community within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and for the
Freestanding Growth Centers. These goals are:
1. Housing type (family /large family /elderly);
2. Housing tenure (owner /renter); and
3. Housing program mix (existing/new construction/substantial
rehabilitation).
Household type goals are used to determine each community's share of subsidy
dollars available for family, large family and elderly units.
Housing tenure goals are used as general guidelines to indicate whether
communities should focus efforts on assisting owner households or renter
households. These goals will be applied particularly in review of
Community Development Block Grant applications.
Housing program mix goals are used for general guidance on program mix for
community developers, the Council and the funding agencies. These goals will
help decide what mix of subsidized housing programs is most appropriate for a
community.
The three sets of percentage goals provide a useful planning tool for local
governments, developers, the Council, and the funding agencies - HUD and the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. These goals represent the types of
subsidized housing planning decisions communities must make in developing a
housing assistance plan (HAP). The HAP is required as part of an application
for Community Development Block Grant funds fran HUD.
The three sets of goals are meant to be applied with varying degrees of
flexibility in considering specific subsidized housing project proposals or
subsidized housing plans. The following section tells how the goals were
developed and how they will be applied, and gives the community goals.
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES
•
HOUSEHOLD TYPE GOALS
Household type goals have been used to determine each community's share of
housing dollars available for subsidized units. Two basic steps were used to
allocate subsidized housing funds in this Region. First, funds were divided
9
into categories of need. Then, these categorical funds were allocated to each
community.
Step one: Available funds were divided in categories based on identified needs
for housing assistance. Included are the categories of family, large family,
elderly, and special needs. Special needs funds provide for handicapped
people, displaced households, and financially feasible projects. Funds have.
been reserved for identified needs as follows:
Family 42.5%
Large Family 8.5%
Elderly 34.0%
Special Needs 15.0%
Step two: Funds were allocated to communities. Separate formulas, or mini
allocation plans were used to produce percentage goals for family, large
family, and elderly units for each community. These goals were applied to
the funds for family, large family, and elderly assistance Dram Step 1. •
The family and large family goals were determined by applying seven - factor
formulas that compare each community to the total Area with regard to:
1) total number of households; 2) anticipated growth in number of households to
1990; 3) number of jobs; 4) anticipated growth in number of jobs to 1990;
5) commercial, residential and industrial tax base; 6) the number of family or
large family income - eligible /inadequately housed households; and 7) existing
supply of family or large family subsidized housing. The formulas are:
Family Formula Large Family Formula
Households Households
+ Household Growth + Household Growth
+ Employment + Employment
+ Employment Growth + Employment Growth
+ Tax Base + Tax Base
+ 3 x Family Needs + 3 x Large Family Needs
- Family Subsidized Units Large Family Subsidied Units
• 7 : 7
These formulas provided percentage goals that reflect the general growth and
development of the Area (including land available for housing and ability to
provide necessary facilities and services), the community's low- and moderate -
incane households needing housing assistance, and the community's supply of
existing subsidized housing. The formulas emphasize community need through
triple weighting. They consider the housing needs of both current residents •
and people who might wish to live there or can be expected to reside there,
particularly those seeking housing close to employment opportunities.
The elderly goal was determined by applying a four - factor formula that
compares each community to the total Area with regard to 1) total number of
households; 2) commercial, residential, and industrial tax base; 3) number
• of incase eligible /inadequately housed elderly households; and 4) existing
supply of elderly subsidized units. This formula, which also makes communtiy
need the most important consideration, follows:
10
Elderly Formula
Households
+ Tax Base
+ 2 x Elderly Need
- Elderly Subsidized
3
The numerical goals for family, large family and elderly that resulted frctn
,these formulas were expressed as a percentage share for each community. This
established the community's "fair share" of the housing dollars available to
the Area to subsidize family, large family, and elderly units.
Table 1 shows each community's household type goals for family, large family
and elderly. These goals have been applied to an assured funding level of
$8,000,000 per year or $24,000,000 over the three -year period of the allocation
plan. (The funding level of $24,000,000 is based on information provided to
the Council by the HUD Area Office.) The assumed $24,000,000 funding has been
divided into needs categories as follows:
Family 42.5% - $10,200,000
Large Fanily 8.5% - $ 2,040,000
Elderly 34.0% - $ 8,160,000
Special Needs 15.0% - $ 3,600,000
The table also shows the number of units that could be subsidized with the
available dollars. The Section 8 Existing program would provide the most
units because it is the least costly program. The Section 8 New Construction
program would provide the least units because it is the most expensive program.
Please note, the number of possible units for Existing and New Construction
are not additive. The table assures all the money will be used for either New
Construction or Existing, not for both. The estimated annual cost to
subsidize various types of units is as follows:
New Construction or
Substantial Rehabilitation Existing
Elderly 5+ Story, Elevator, 1BR, $4,939 /Year 1 BR, $3,187 /Year
2-4 Story, Elevator, 1BR, $4,485/Year
Family Walk -Up, 2 BR, $4,344 /Year 2 BR, $3,576 /Year
Large
Family Semi- detached /Row 3 BR, $5,856/Year 3 BR, $4,116/Year
11
Table 1
HOUSEHOLD TYPE GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES
FAMILY LARGE FAMILY' ELDERLY s {
$10,200,000 $2,040,000 $8,160,000
•
Possible Possible Possible Possibl= Possible Possibl= Total Total
Fair Dollar Units Units Fair Dollar Units Units Fair Dollar Units Units Possible Possib
Share Fair New Exist. Share Fair New Exist. Share Fair New Exist. Units Unit
Anoka County Percent Share Const. Hsng. Percent Share Const. Hsnq. lercent Share Const. psng. N. Con. Exist
Andover .26% $ 26,600 6 7 .28% $ 5,722 1 1 .26% $ 21,042 4 7 11 15
Anoka .85 87,002 20 24 .91 18,648 3 5 .64 52,569 11. 16 34 45
Blaine 1.25 127,832 29 36 1.21 24,692 4 6 .71 58,148 12 18 45 60
Circle Pines .08 7,797 2 2 .08 1,551 0 0 .09 7,148 2 2 4 4
Columbia Heights .79 80,975 19 23 .84 17,116 3 4 .95 77,196 16 24 38 51
Coon Rapids 1.33 135,752 31 38 1.39 28,345 5 7 .82 67,301 14 21 50 66
Fridley 1.68 171,428 39 48 1.88 38,427 7 9 1.19 97,069 21' 30 67 87
Hilltop .13 13,250 3 4 .08 1,706 0 0 .16 13,391 3 4 • 6 8
Lexington .04 4,195 1 1 .04 872 0 0 .05 4,268 1 1 2 2
Spring Lake Park .21 21,086 5 6 .31 6,383 1 2 .20 16,649 4 5 10 13
COUNTY TOTAL 6.62% $675,917 185 189 7.02% $143,462 24 34 5.078 $414,781 88 128 267 351
•
Carver County
Chanhassen .48 48,586 11 14 .53 10,865 2 3 .34 28,051 6 9 19 26
Chaska .63 64,515 15 18 .71 14,576 2 4 .49 40,134 9 13 26 35
Victoria .06 6,165 1 2 .06 1,233 0 0 .04 3,560 1P 1 2 3
Waconia .15 15,167 3 4 .19 3,873 1 1 .16 13,461 3 4 7 9
COUNTY TOTAL 1.32% $134,433 30 38 1.49% $30,547 5 8 1.03% $85,206 19 27 54 73
;Dakota County
Apple Valley 1.24 126,703 29 35 1.31 26,798 5 7 .52 42,685 9 13 43 55
Burnsville 1.88 191,444 44 54 1.96 40,078 7 10 1.12 91,319 19 29 70 93
Eagan 1.49 151,949 35 42 1.91 38,926 7 9 .62 50,888 11 16 53 67
Farmington .23 23,010 5 6 .29 5,934 1 1 .20 16,051 3 5 9 12
Hastings .43 43,738 10 12 .60 12,154 2 3 .39 31,541 7 10 19 25
Inver Grove Hts. .67 68,253 . 16 19 .71 14,423 2 4 .49 39,794 8 12 26 35
Lakeville .57 57,921 13 16 .61 12,380 2 3 .41 33,266 7 10 22 29
Lilydale .03 3,561 1 1 .03 712 0 0 .03 • 2,073 Q 1 1 2
Mendota .02 1,846 0 1 .02 312 0 0 .01 1,161 0 0 0 1
Mendota Hts. .37 38,176 9 11 .38 •7,699 1 2 .28 23,226 5 7 15 20
Rosemount .33 33,548 8 9 .32 ' 6,549 2 .23 18,531 4 . 6 13 17
South St. Paul .67 67,920 16 19 .80 16,239 1 4 .49 . 39,989 8 13 27 36
Sunfish Lake .02 1,861 0 1 .02 372 0 0 .02 1,346 0 0 0 1
West St. Paul .83 84,249 19 24 .87 17,648 3 4 1.33 108,882 23 34 45 62
COUNTY TOTAL 8.78% $894,179 205 250 9.8T% $200,224 IT IT 6714 $500,752 IOW 156 343 455
Hennepin County
Bloomington 4.58 466,912 107 131 4.29 87,501 15 21 3.50 285,736 61 90 183 242
Brooklyn Center 1.55 158,270 36 44 1.52 30,969 , 5 8 1.39 . 113,525 , 24 • 36 65 88
Brooklyn Park 2.53 257,871 59 72 2.:40 57,050 d 10 14 1.04 84,782 1 18 27 87 113
Champlin .36 36,901 8 10 .43 8,685 '; 1 2 .30 24,681 I 5 8 14 20
Crystal .92 93,636 22 26 .84 17,066 3 4 1.05 85,789 18 27 43 57
Deephaven .12 11,864 3 3 .12 2,417 ' 0 1 .18 14,778 3 5 6 9
Eden Prarie 1.05 107,345 25 30 1.33 27,108 5 7 .68 55,292 12 17 42 54
Edina 2.56 260,830 60 73 2.60 53,061 9 13 4.06 330,918 70 104 139 190
1
.
Table 1 (Cont.)
HOUSEHOLD TYPE GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES 1.
FAMILY . LARGE FAMILY ELDERLY
$10,200,000 $2,040,000 $8,160,000
Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Total Total
Fair Dollar Units Units Fair Dollar Units Units Fair Dollar Units Units Possible Possil
Hennepin County Share Fair New Exist. Share Fair New Exist. Share Fair New Exist. Units Units
Continued Percent Share Const. Hsng. Percent Share Const. Hsng. Percent Share Const. Hsng. N. Con Exist.
Excelsior .19% $ 19,744 5 6 .31% $ 6,260 1 2 .39% $ 32,014 7 10 13 18
Golden Valley 1.23 125,865 29 35 1.35 27,475 5 , 7 1.33 •108,740 23 34 • 57 76
Greenwood .02 2,103 0 1 .02 508 0 0 .04 3,275 1 1 • 1 2
Hopkins 1.39 141,564 33 40 1.21 24,760 4 6 1.21 99,068 21 31 58 77
Long Lake .08 8,447 2 2 .09 1,934 0 0 .13 10,875 2 3 4 5
Maple Grove 1.10 112,295 26 31 1.17 23,817 4 6 .59 48,402 10 15 40 52
Medicine Lake .02 1,781 0 1 .02 445 0 0 .02 1,711 0 1 0 2
Minneapolis 24.76 2,525,014 581 706 20.86 425,498 73 103 26.23 2,140,567 454 672 1108 1481
Minnetonka 1.79 182,271 42 51 1.80 36,786 6 9 1.49 121,551 26 38 74 98
Minnetonka Beach .02 1,762 0 0 .02 352 0 0 .04 2,875 1 1 1 1
Minnetrista .08 8,323 2 2 .09 14752 0 0 .13 10,725 2 3 4 5
Mound .33 33,300 8 9 .39 7,884 1 2 .38 31,125 7 10 16 21
New Hope .87 89,053 21 25 .98 19,897 3 5 1.21 98,913 21 31 45 61
Orono .24 24,550 6 7 .26 5,312 1 1 .37 30,189 6 9 13 17
Osseo .14 14,563 3 4 .21 4,256 1 1 .15 12,033 3 4 7 9
Plymouth 2.15 218,873 50 61 2.12 43,200 7 10 1.14 93,125 20 29 77 100
Richfield 1.87 190,817 44 53 1.48 30,266 5 7 1.86 151,621 1 32 48 81 108
F ,Robbinsdale .50 50,806 12 14 .47 9,605 2 2 .87 • 71,229 ' 15 22 29 38
1 --)St. Anthony .61 61,939 14 17 .54 10,963 2 3 .48 38,915 8 12 24 32
St. Louis Park 2.24 228,699 53 64 1.83. 37,370 6 9 3.51 286,715 61 90 120 163
Shorewood .22 22,570 5 6 .23 4,767 1 1 .22 18,034 4 6 10 13
Spring Park .17 17,719 4 5 .24 4,937 1 1 .19 15,586 3 5 8 11
Tonka Bay .04 4,514 1 1 .05 990 0 0 .07 '6,008 1 2 2 3
Wayzata .25 25,786 6 7 .28 5,748 1 1 .17 13,997 3 4 10 12
Woodland .01 1,387 0 0 .01 277 0 0 .03 2,285 0 1 0 1
COUNTY TOTAL 53.99% $5,507,382 1,267 1,537 49.96% $1,118,916 17Y 246 54.45% $4,445,079 942. 1396 2381 3179
Ramsey County
Arden Hills .63 64,592 15 18 .62 12,656 2 3 .24 19,935 4 6 21 27
Falcon Iieights .26 26,014 6 7 .24 4,941 1 1 .24 19,184 4 6 11 14
Gem Lake .04 3,856 1 1 .05 937 0 0 .02 1,297 0 0 1 1
Lauderdale .17 17,745 4 5 .10 2,115 0 1 .09 7,640 2 2 6 8
Little Canada .57 57,717 13 16 .59 11,949 2 . 3 .40 32,722 7 10 22 29
Maplewood 1.56 159,378 37 45 1.84 37,605 6 9 1.06 86,760 18 27 61 81
Moundsview .47 47,584 11 13 .58 11,872 2 3 .37 29,991 6 9 19 25
New Brighton 1.06 108,505 25 30 1.08 22,094 4 5 .64 51,827 11 16 40 51
North Oaks .10 10,646 2 3 .11 2,329 0 1 .13 10,646 2 3 4 7
North St. Paul .32 32,145 7 9 .37 7,621 1 2 .21 17,245 4 5 12 16
Roseville 2.00 203,901 47 57 1.74 35,441 6 9 1.85 151,101 32 47 85 113
St. Paul 10.42 1,063,028 245 297 10.95 223,284 38 54 18.00 1,468,797 312 461 595 812
Shoreview .90 92,243 21 26 .85 17,373 3 4 .53 43,449 I 9 14 33 44
Vadnais Heights .39 39,757 9 11 .44 9,059 2 2 .15 12,468 I 3 4 14 17
White Bear Lake .48 48,478 11 14 .70 14,318 i 2 3 .64 51,840 i 11 16 24 33
White Bear Twp. .17 17,465 4 5 .18 3,624 i 1 1 .17 13,592 ' 3 4 8 10
COUNTY TOTAL 19.54% $1,993,054 458 557 20.44% $417,218 70 TUT 24.74% $2,018,494 428 630 956 1288
Table 1 (cont d
HOUSEHOLD TYPE GOALS. FOR COMMUNITIES
FAMILY LARGE FAMILY ELDERLY
$10,200,000 $2,040,000 $8,160,000
possible Possible possible possible Possible Possible Total Total
Fair Dollar Units Units Fair Dollar Units Units Fair Dollar Units Units Possible Possi
Share Fair New Exist. Share Fair New Exist. Share Fair New Exist. Units Unit:
Scott County Percent Share Const. Hsng. Percent ' Share Const.. Hsng. Percent Share Const. Hsn
N. Con. Exist
Belle Plaine .11 11,478 3 3 .13 2,643 0 1 .19 15,743 3 5 6 9
Jordan .11 11,501 3 3 .13 2,592 0 1 .13 10,208 2 3 5 7
Prior Lake .26 26,020 6 7 .30 6,174 1 2 .29 23,520 5 7 12 16
Savage .51 52,397 12 15 .57 11,630 2 3 .14 11,421 2 4 16 22
Shakopee .83 84,698 19 24 .96 19,557 3 5 .38 31,024 7 10 29 39
COUNTY TOTAL 1.82% $186,094 4T 52 2.09% '$1 6 If 1.138 $51751T I9 29 68 93
Washington County
Birchwood .02 2,027 0 1 .03 606 0 0 .03 2,826 1 1 1 2
Cottage Grove .85 86,269 20 24 .89 18,186 3 4 .50 40,430 9 13 32 41
Forest Lake .29 29,892 7 8 .42 8,569 1 2 .11 9,204 2 3 10 13
Landfall .01 1,074 0 0 .01 215 0 0 .02 1,401 0 - 0 0 0
Mahtomedi .14 14,133 3 4 .14 2,870 0 1 .12 9,901 2 3 5 8
Newport .19 19,475 4 5 .32 6,626 1 2 .14 11,410 2 4 7 11
Oakdale .87 88,255 20 25 1.25 25,557 4 6 .35 28,606 6 9 30 40
Pine Springs .01 944 0 0 .02 355 0 0 .01 432 0 0 0 0
St. Paul Park .15 14,825 3 4 .20 4,032 1 1. .16 13,257 3 4 7 9
Stillwater .32 32,204 7 9 .43 8,781 1 2 .24 19,342 4 6 . 12 17
Willernie .02 1,894 0 1 .03 659 0 0 .02 1,390• 0 0 0 1
Woodbury 1.01 102,525 24 29 1.07 21,741 4 5 .44 36,258 8 11 36 45
COUNTY TOTAL 3.88% $393 7 8$ ITU 41f% $98,197 1 YI 2.148 $174,457 37 ITT 140 ITT
H
•
Balance of
Metro Area 4.07 415,131 96 116 4.36 88,846 15 22 5.26 429,254 91 135 202 273
•
•
1
•
Because the actual need for lower- incane housing substantially exceeds even the
most optimistic estimates of available funding, the Council will not recommend
that funds be returned to the federal government simply to achieve the
recommended distribution of units.
•
An underlying assumption of the allocation plan is that all canmunities will
use their subsidized resources within the period of the plan. While that is
desirable and consistent with Council policy, not all urbanized communities
will be able to achieve it. This is true particularly with the New Construc-
tion program, which involves private developers almost exclusively. Therefore,
the plan includes additional guidelines for Council application of household
type percentage goals to reflect realities of the funding process.
The Council will use the following guidelines:
1. A community's available funding shares are its three -year goals. A
single project might utilize more than a community's entire three -year
allocation, particularly in communities allocated a rather low share
of subsidy dollars. The Council may vary from a community's share in
this instance to provide for a financially feasible project.
2. Sane communities may rapidly use up their share of subsidy dollars,
but still have unmet special housing needs. In this instance, the
Council may vary from a community's share to provide for the special
needs of handicapped people or displaced households.
3. The Council may vary from allocation plan goals for communities
participating in a multi - jurisdictional Section 8 Existing program.
Many Area communities participate in the multi- community Section 8
Existing programs of Metro HRA, Dakota County HRA, and Scott County
HRA. These programs operate under HUD "Finders Keepers" guidelines.
Applicants are able to choose a unit in any communities involved in a
multi- jurisidictional program, so sane communities may end up with
more Section 8 contract holders than others and substantially exceed
allocation plan goals. This will be acceptable. Similarly, a family
or large family Section 8 New Construction project may be proposed In
• a community that has used up a substantial share of its resources
through a multi- jurisdictional Section 8 Existing program. The
Council will also consider a variance in this instance.
4. The Council places a continuing high priority on assisting families,
particularly families with children. To reinforce this priority, the
Council will allow canmunities to transfer resources from the elderly
category to assist families and large families. Further, no elderly
projects will be approved for funding in a community that has not
already made substantial progress toward providing family and large
family housing consistent with allocation plan goals.
5. When ranking proposed subsidized housing developments, the Council
will give priority to proposals for large families and to proposals
for economically integrated developments.
15
HOUSING TENURE GOALS
The Council determined housing tenure goals for communities by a
calculation using the recent Council report, "Estimated Current Housing
Assistance Needs of Lower - Incase Households." The needs estimate includes
total households, renter households, and owner households needing assistance.
Tenure goals were calculated based on this information, as follows:
Estimated Renter Needs = Percent Renter
Estimated Total Needs
Estimated Owner Needs = Percent Owner
Esimated Total Needs
This calculation shows each community's relative percent of renters and
owners needing housing assistance. For example:
Community X
530 Renter Needs = 64%
830 Total Needs
300 Owner Needs = 36%
830 Total Needs
Thus, 64 percent of Community X's assisted housing efforts should be focused on
renters and 36 percent on owners. As stated previously, these goals will be
used for general guidance to determine where best to focus assisted housing
efforts. The goals will be applied particularly to review of Community
Development Block Grant applications as standards to judge the proposed
proportions of housing assistance for owners and renters.
•
Table 2 shows each community's housing tenure goals for renter and owner
assistance.
Table 2
HOUSING TENURE GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES
Percent of Total Percent of Total
Needs For Needs For
Renters Owners
Anoka County
Andover 50.0% 50.0%
Anoka 73.1 26.9
Blaine 39.4 60.6
Circle Pines 0 100.0
Columbia Heights 67.9 32.1
Coon Rapids 65.6 34.4
Fridley 87.6 12.4
Hilltop 100.0 0
Lexington 100.0 0
Spring Lake Park 65.5 34.5
16
Table 2 (cont.)
HOUSING TENURE GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES
Percent of Total Percent of Total
Needs For Needs For
Renters Owners
Carver County •
Chanhassen 82.9% 17.1%
Chaska 84.5 15.5
Victoria 20.0 80.0
Waconia 88.6 11.4
Dakota County
Apple Valley 80.3 • 19.7
Burnsville 84.1 15.9
Eagan 85.3 14.7
Farmington 88.3 11.7 •
Hastings 63.5 36.5
Inver Grove Heights 72.9 27.1
Lakeville 49.5 50.5
Lilydale 0 0
Mendota 77.8 22.2
Mendota Heights 48.5 51.5
Rosemount 74.2 25.8
South St. Paul 65.0 35.0
Sunfish Lake 0 0
West St., Paul 82.3 17.7
Hennepin County
Bloomington 90.5 9.5
Brooklyn Center 85.0 15.0
Brooklyn Park 90.4 9.6
Champlin 79.5 20.5
Crystal 80.2 19.8
Deephaven 27.0 73.0
Eden Prarie 81.8 18.2
Edina 94.8 5.2
Excelsior 96.0 4.0
Golden Valley 89.4 10.6
Greenwood 70.0 30.0
Hopkins 94.2 5.8
Long Lake 85.0 15.0
Maple Grove 64.8 35.2
Medicine Lake 83.3 16.7
Minneapolis 89.2 10.8
Minnetonka 79.8 20.2
Minnetonka Bech 33.3 66.7
Minnetrista 37.5 62.5
Mound 76.8 23.2
New Hope 90.5 9.5
17
•
Table 2 (cont.)
HOUSING TENURE GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES
Percent of Total Percent of Total
Needs For Needs For
Renters Owners
Hennepin County (Cont.)
Orono 63.0% 37.0%
Osseo 84.4 15.6
Plymouth 89.2 10.8
Richfield 88.8 11.2
Robbinsdale 79.4 20.6
St. Anthony 89.6 10.4
St. Louis Park 95.2 4.8
Shorewood 65.9 34.1
Spring Park 95.0 5.0
Tonka Bay 58.3 41.7
Wayzata 90.1 9.9
Woodland 0 100.0 '
Ramsey County
Arden Hills 56.0 44.0
Falcon Heights 76.2 23.8
Gem Lake 50.0 50.0
Lauderdale 84.5 15.5
Little Canada 89.2 10.8
Maplewood 82.3 17.7
Moundsview 73.2 26.8
New Brighton 86.6 13.4
North Oaks 33.3 66.7
North St. Paul 73.5 26.5
Roseville 90.0 10.0
St. Paul 83.4 16.6
Shoreview 68.3 31.7
Vadnais Heights 83.0 17.0
White Bear Lake 76.1 23.9
White Bear Twp. 47.4 52.6
Scott County
Belle Plain 82.7 17.3
Jordan 80.3 19.7
Prior Lake 75.3 24.7
Savage 41.6 58.4
Shakopee 83.4 16.6
•
18
Table 2 (cont.)
HOUSING TENURE GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES
Percent of Total Percent of Total
Needs For Needs For
Renters Owners
Washington County -
Birchwood 40.0% 60.0%
Cottage Grove 27.2 72.8
Forest Lake 90.3 9.7
Landfall 0 100.0
Mahtcmedi 36.6 63.4 -
Newport 59.7 40.3
Oakdale 84.2 15.8
Pine Springs 100.0 0
St. Paul Park 56.5 43.5
Stillwater 59.3 40.7
Willernie 37.5 62.5
Woodbury 77.6 22.4
Balance of
Metropolitan Area 15.2 84.8
HOUSING PROGRAM MIX GOALS
Program mix refers to community's use of three subsidized housing programs
(Existing, New Construction, and Substantial Rehabilitation) to meet the
asistance needs of renter households. Program mix goals can be used by local
communities, developers, funding agencies and the Metropoltan Council to
indicate which housing programs might be most successful in a community.
To determine program mix goals, the Council assembled data that broadly
measures the capacity of Area communities to use New Construction, Substantial
Rehabilitation or Existing subsidized housing programs. Three factors were
used to represent this capacity:
1. Forecasted household growth between 1978 and 1990 to represent land
availability or the capacity for new construction subsidized units.
2. Total pre -1940 multifamily units, to represent the number of older
' rental units that potentially could be used for substantial
rehabilitation subsidy units.
3. Total multifamily units, to represent potential capacity to provide
rent assistance in existing rental units.
19
These three factors were totaled. Then each factor was divided by the total
capacity to give a percent.
For example: Community X
•
Step 1 - Total the program mix data: -
New Construction (household growth) 1,000
Substantial Rehabilitation (pre -1940 multifamily units) 500
Existing (multifamily units) 800
,
Step 2 - Divide the program mix data by the total:
New Construction percent - 1000 _ 43%
2300
Substantial Rehabilitation percent - 500 = 22%
2300
Existing percent 800 - 35%
2300
Community X, then, could consider planning for 43 percent of its assisted
housing efforts in New Construction, 22 percent in Substantial Rehabilitation,
and 35 percent in the Existing program.
These goals are advisory and can be modified to account for actual conditions
or changing market conditions in a particular community. Conditions can change
in the following ways:
1. A clearance program may free additional land for new construction.
2. Older rental units may not be suitable for rehabilitation.
Alternatively, there may also be rental units built after 1939 that
could be used in the Substantial Rehabilitation program.
3. Use of the rent assistance program for existing housing depends on
vacancy rates and rental rates in existing units in the community.
A low vacancy rate or high rental costs may make the Existing program
unworkable.
Over the three -year term of the allocation plan, the Council will consult with
communities periodically to see if changed local conditions warrant changing
the progran mix goals.
Table 3 gives the progran mix goals for Existing, New Construction and
Substantial Rehabilitation subsidized programs.
20
Table 3
•
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM MIX GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES
Substantial
Existing Rehabilitation New Construction
Anoka County
,
Andover 7% 3% • 90%
Anoka 50 14 36
Blaine 6 1 93
Circle Pines 1 2 97
Columbia Heights 75 8 17
Coon Rapids 17 1 82
Fridley 58 1 41
Hilltop 78 4 18
Lexington 73 3 24
Spring Lake Park 51 2 47
•
Carver County
Chanhassen 19 4 77
Chaska 16 6 78
Victoria 4 6 90
Waconia 49 15 36
Dakota County
Apple Valley 7 0 93
Burnsville 32 0 68
Eagan 22 1 77
Farmington 40 17 43
Hastings 35 15 50
Inver Grove Heights 31 2 67
Lakeville 9 6' 85
Lil yd ale 56 0 44
Mendota 39 20 41
Mendota Heights 10 4 86
Rosemount 12 2 86
South St. Paul 60 27 13
Sunfish Lake 10 0 90
West St. Paul 70 6 24
Hennepin County
Bloomington 60 2 38
Brooklyn Center 62 1 37
Brooklyn Park 43 0 57
Champlin 25 2 73
Crystal 83 3 14
Deephaven 7 9 84
Eden Prarie 15 1 84
21
Table 3 (cont.)
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM MIX GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES
Substantial
Existing Rehabilitation New Construction
Hennepin County
Continued •
Edina 66% 1% 33%
Excelsior 76 18 6
Golden Valley 51 4 45
. Greenwood 51 18 31
Hopkins 72 8 20
Long Lake 42 17 41
Maple Grove 6 1 93
Medicine Lake 33 58 9
Minneapolis* 11 23 66
Minnetonka* 20 0 80
Minnetonka Beach 50 0 50
Minnetrista 6 . 13 81
Mound 72 15 13
New Hope 80 0 20
Orono 10 18 72
Osseo 75 6 19
Plymouth 23 1 76
Richfield 92 2 6
Robbinsdale 69 12 19
St. Anthony 68 2 30
St. Louis Park 68 2 30
Shorewood 11 6 83
Spring Park 83 3 14
Tonka Bay 7 21 72
Wayzata 77 9 14
Woodland 0 0 100
Ramsey County
Arden Hills 12 1 87
Falcon Heights 79 5 16
Gem Lake 6 0 94
Lauderdale 89 4 7
Little Canada 44 9 56
Maplewood 32 2 66
Mounds View 53 0 47
New Brighton 61 1 38
North Oaks 1 2 97
No. St. Paul 67 6 27
Roseville 82 2 16
• St. Paul* 50 20 30
Shoreview 31 1 68
Vadnais Heights 20 1 79
White Bear Lake 50 10 40
White Bear Twp. 11 7 82
*Indicates local review and change of preliminary program mix goals.
22
•
Table 3 (cont.)
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM MIX GOALS FOR COMMUNITIES
Substantial
Existing Rehabilitation New Construction
Scott County
Belle Plaine 36% 18% 46%
Jordan 24 27 49
Prior Lake 18 5 77
Savage 7 2 91
Shakopee 25 5 70
Washington County
Birchwood 15 18 67
Cottage Grove 3 - 1 96
Forest Lake 50 6 44
Landfall 0 0 100
Mahtaned i 11 13 76
Newport 55 9 36
Oakdale 22 1 77
Pine Springs 15 0 85
St. Paul Park 50 19 31
Stillwater 42 25 33
Willernie 46 46 8
Woodbury 12 1 87
•
23
MEMO TO:: Shakopee HRA
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant
RE: approval of Bills
DATE: December. 28, 1979
If you would like an explanation of any of the bills
submitted for approval at the January 2, 1980, annual meeting,
please contact_ me prior to the meeting and I will provide
documentation.
JA /ljw -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota December 4, 1979
Mayor Harbeck called the meeting to order at 7:59 PM with Cncl.
Ward, Leroux, Hullander, Reinke and Lebens present. Also present:
City Admin., Douglas S. Reeder; City Eng., H. R. Spurrier; Finance
Director, Gregg Voxland; City Attorney, Julius A. Coller, II and
Councilman- Elect, Dean Colligan.
City Admin. reported on a letter from the Metropolitan Council
concerning a legislation which has '.peen proposed on the law to amend
the Green Acres Legislation. A meetingis to be held-on this at the'
Senior High School on December 11th.
• Mayor Harbeck reported on a letter received from the Boy Scouts
asking for permission to conduct fund drives.
Mayor Harbeck also reported on receiving a list of appointments to
be made by the Governor and asked anyone interested to consider
submitting an application.
Cncl. Hullander stated that a meeting had been held by the County
concerning Energy on November 19th. He suggested that the City
of Shakopee form a Local Energy Board to come.up with some ideas
in this area. Discussion was held on various ways to conserve
energy and Mayor Harbeck suggested that the Council as well as City.
staff write down all energy conserving ideas and submit this to
the. Council to be passed on to the local residents.
Cncl. Ward reported on the Joint Seven Man Committee! which would be •
having a meeting on December 12th. He requested that someone be
appointed to replace him since his term of office is'up'in January.
Mayor Harbeck asked Cncl. Hullander to take on this responsibility
and attend this meeting until a replacement could be made.
Cncl. Ward also reported on the monitoring of the wells in the
Shakopee area. He stated that the level of the water had increased'
since the dewatering progress by the Shiely Gravel Pit had been
' stopped.
Mayor Harbeck reported on the National League of Cities Convention
which he had just attended.
Mayor Harbeck also reported on a "Bypass meeting scheduled for
December 17th.
Mayor Harbeck recognized anyone in the audience wishing to speak
on any item not on the agenda.
Jerry Regan, a memljer of the St. John's Lutheran Church, questioned '
; the elimination of the angle parking by the church.
Cncl. Hullander stated that it was the intent of the.Council to
exclude St. John's'. Lutheran Church as well as Mt. Olive from this
policy due to the insets by their locations.
Lucy Rein of Jim and Lucy's asked for reconsideration of the
angle parking by Jim and Lucy's. She stated that this was really
the only parking available for their customers.
Corman Suel submitted a letter to the Council regarding the elimination
of the angle parking by the Post Office and asked for comments.
He stated that the people really did not want this type of parking
eliminated in this area. He asked that for the benefit of the
community, the Post Office be reconsidered and allow for angle parking.•
Official Proceedings of the December 4, 1979 •
City Council Page -2-
Cncl. Lebens questioned the use of the parking facilities in
back of the Post Office.
Mr.. Suel stated that this could not be used by the public due to
security and safety reasons.
Cncl. Ward suggested that the elimination of the angle parking be
at least tried, as had been adopted, until spring, and then if need .
be, it could be brought back for reconsideration.
Mark Myers, Firestone, stated that the Council had iriformed him
that he could not put in a curb cut by hit property because this
would result in the Post Office having less parking spaces and he
now questioned if angle parking was going to be eliminated in front
of the Post Office thus creating fewer parking spaces why had he
not been allowed to curb -cut.
Hullander /Reinke moved to clarify the intent of the Council on the,
two churches (St. John's Lutheran Church and Mt. Olive) •and that
it was not the intent of the Council to include them in the
elimination of the angle parking action of which was done on
August 21, 1979. Discussion held.
•
Mr. Suel then asked if the signs restricting angle parking could::
be moved from the lawn.
City Eng. stated he felt moving the signs to the curb and cutting
through cement for something which might have to be reconsidered in
the spring was a big waste of money.
•
Cncl. Ward stated that if a "Peace Officer" had indeed parked
illegally in front of the Post Office, as reported by Mr. Suel, that •,
this officer should be seriously reprimanded.
Cncl. Leroux 'stated that Jim and Lucy's had the same indention as
the churches so they too should be excluded from the elimination of
the angle parking.
Ward /Leroux moved to amend the motion to include the permitting of
angle parking on both sides of the street on Fuller Street north of
First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Upon question'from the chair, shall the rnain motion as amended now,
pass? Motion carried unanimously.
. Further discussion was held and Mr. Suel asked if an action such as
this could be done by just a motion or if a resolution or ordinance e
• wasn't needed.
•
Harbeck /Ward moved to table the situation until such time would be ".
needed to clarify the elimination of angle parking by ordinance or
by motion. Motion carried unanimously.
' Ward /Leroux moved for a 5- minute recess at 9:05 PM. Motion carried.
unanimously.
Ward /Leroux.moved to reconvene at 9115 PM. Motion : carried
unanimously..
Hullander /Reinke moved to remove the parking issue off the table.
Motion carried unanimously.
City Attorney stated that •according to Section 9.05 of the Shakopee
City Code, provisions made for angle or diagonal parking can be
changed by a motion or resolution. He also stated that this would
then become effective upon the posting of the official signs.
•
:.
Official 'Proceedings of the December 4, 1979
' 1 City Council Page -3-
•
•
Hullander/Ward moved to authorize angle parking at St. John's
• Lutheran Church, ,8th and Fuller; Mt. Olive Lutherarn Church,
.Shakopee Avenue and Dakota; Jim and Lucy's and Shakopee Motors,
Fuller north of First but south of the alley; and directed the
City staff to so mark it thereby, making it effective immediately
upon posting. Motion carried unanimously.
City Admin. stated that as requested by the City Council, actions
made by the Planning Commission on Variances and Conditional Use
Permit applications would be submitted to them.
Hullander /Lebens offered Resolution No. 1522, A Resolution Approving
1979 Fund Transfers, and moved for its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes - unanimous
•
Noes - none •: Motion carried
Ward /Harbeck offered Resolution No. 1530, A Resolution Relating
to a Project Under the Municipal Industrial Development Act; Calling
for a Public Hearing Thereon (Ziegler, Inc.), and moved for its
adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
.Leroux/Ward offered Resolution No. 1524, A Resolution Relating to •
a Project. Under the Municipal Industrial Development Act; Calling
for a Public Hearing Thereon (Kmart retail), and moved for its
adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Ward /Leroux offered Resolution No. 1525, A .Resolution Relating to
a Project Under the Municipal Industrial Development. Act, Calling
for a Public-Hearing Thereon (Ashland Oil, Inc.), and moved for its
adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was held on the letter received from Scott County regarding
the request by the City of Shakopee for street light on CR 79. '
Ward /Leroux moved to request that the Shakopee Public Utilities'
Commission install a high intensity sodium street light north •
of the intersection of P & V Addition on County Road 79. Motion
. carried unanimously.
Discussion was held on the lack of sidewalks on the east side of
Marschall Road and how this particularly affects the senior citizens.
Ward /Leroux moved that staff be directed to place upon the construction.','
scheduIe•,for 1980', sidewalks on the east side of County Road 17
• from First Avenue to Tenth. Motion carried unanimously. •
Leroux/Ward moved to approve the appointment of Timothy Keane to
the position of City Planner at a salary of $15,500 per annum with
a six month probationary period, effective January 2,'1980.
Roll Call: Ayes - unanimous '
Noes"- none Motion carried
City Admin. reported on a questionnaire to be sent out by the
`Census Bureau for the 1980 Census, which is to be returned by tho.`
residents. The Census Bureau has requested that a committee be
Set up.to " make sure'these questionnairs are returned and that the
• count'is accurate. Further discussion was held and the Council .
emphasized the need for an accurate count and'for these to be
returned because it was through this census which would determine
the amsbunt of money allowable for each city.
Hullander /Reinke moved to authorize the purchase of a four -wheel
drive vehicle from Shakopee Motors in the amount of $8,619.45.
Roll Call: Ayes - unanimous •
Noes - none Motion carried
,Official Proceedings of the December 4, 1979 :3
City Council Page -4-
Reinke /Hullander moved to accept quotation of Weber & Troseth
• Company for the purchase of a fire hose at a cost of $3,060.00,
• and authorize purchase of same.
Roll Call: Ayes - unanimous
Noes - none Motion carried
• Discussion was held on some type of fire fighting equipment for the
north side of town should the long coal trains through the City of
Shakopee be a reality.
Hullander /Ward moved to concur with the recommendation of the City
. • Administrator for the approval of James Karkanen to carry over 20
days maximum of vacation into 1980 from 1979. Motion carried
unanimously.
Hullander/Ward offered Resolution No; 1527, A Resolution Authorizing
Filing of Application for Grant to Acquire and Develop Open Space
• Under the Provision of the Federal Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act and the State Natural Resource Fund, and moved for its
adoption. •
• Roll Call :. Ayes - unanimous
Noes - none Motion carried
Ward /Hullander offered Resolution No. 1528, A Resolution Adopting
. the City . of Shakopee's Five -Year Action Plan for Parks and Open
;Spaces, and moved for its adoption. City Admin. read the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux /Hullander offered Resolution No. 1529, A Resolution Authorizing,
the Sale of City Land to the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment
Authority for the Purpose of Providing Land for an Elderly Highrise,
• and moved for its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes - Hullander, Reinke, Ward, Leroux, Harbeck
Noes - Lebens Motion carried
Dave Czaja was present and reported on the monitoring of the wells
in the area. He stated that lakes and wells are both coming up as
well as springs.
City Attorney gave a progress report on the Link Suit. He stated ,
*that this case is in the Supreme Court and that a prehearing
'conference is set for December 28.
• Cncl. Hullander asked that a letter be sent to the County •
Commissioner who represents the Fourth Ward area of Shakopee and •
ask him to attend a City Council meeting to discuss some related items..
of interest to the City and County.
Reinke/Lebens moved to adjourn to Tuesday, December 20th, 1979,
at 7:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
10 :40 PM.
Douglas S. Reeder
• • • City Administrator
• MEMO TO: Shakopee Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: Joint Agreement for Suburban Police Recruitment System
DATE: December 27, 1979
•
The attached letter was received from Nawrocki of
Columbia Heights concerning the Police Recruitment System
which the City Council has authorized us to join. The letter
brings up two concerns of the City of Columbia Heights.
The first point raised is that the individual cities should
be allowed to appoint anyone they choose as representatives
of the city. The current language requires that the two
representatives be the Chief Administrative official and the
Police Chief. It is my feeling from working in a similar
type of organization, namely Logis, that the proposed repre-
sentatives are the best to represent the interest of the
city. By having high -level professional staff members
representing all of these cities, the operation of the Recruit-
ment System will be more efficiently carried out than if
the representatives consisted of a mixture of elected and
appointed officials, as suggested. Under the Logis system
and the system proposed here, the governing bodies for each
city have full power to direct their staff representatives
in any.direction they should choose.
. The second point brought up in Mayor Nawrocki's letter concerns
the ability of the Joint Powers Organization to establish and
collect dues and set service charges. I do not see this as
a serious problem. I would think that the people appointed
to the executive board would be capable of recommending any
changes which may need to be made in the operation of the
organization. I would also think that this would be more of
a problem if the organization were moved into the political
arena, as suggested by the first point of this letter.
•
, DSR /jiw
Attachment
•
•
~ CITY OF CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS (ice
.. a•JP,L..L`: b;rclw'i7.ou't �t °, r . ! x ;a'ii51 •. r , •_'�P't "u .> ,:ii:dt1 fi ? 4 a,✓ i5,
.f1.. �..:` xUl i�' .�.ce:�Ci..',�5.^3.23ti'iib.'.t} "`dig Sti ,s�'•�f1s!M'I�' I.tiiL1itt44i.miw+lfid'!1i
'• _Y5�90 , 4 u 0th L Ave. N. E.
�1� to ui, yi...1..f' ., ., .. .:'i ..,.!,zi.!�.x t k . ^CoIumbie:: sleights �,`� i �ry,�� i.? iz: li � : o _ C 'Yfititir.
1�!l �..ms "� ::M�4.5ur1�"�.�13 {��ife3$1�itdKdf3�ii.,�rf�
2 ; (612) 788'- 9221
1,0A tva g'y+ . • .. i4i'..11:E dict, 41 Wa . , , A:;i,1,.r.2H:;li:- ';el64?; :aili• t. . ' �+;1 y; �, y3b ,} ;
"SERVICE IS OUR BUSINESS" • �, z r
DEC
• •
TO: SUBURBAN MAYORS AND CITY MANAGERS ., �-�'"" �: #; i.;;.
FROM: BRUCE G. NAWROCKI, MAYOR c?/1 -.:4/e/ ^' �
• SUBJECT: PROPOSED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT • •
• SUBURBAN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM
•
DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1979
•
The Council of the City of Columbia Heights has discussed the
above proposed joint police recruitment program, and is in general
agreement with the concept as proposed, with two items that we
think should be reviewed by all concerned, and hopefully changed.
The first item is the requirement for eligibility as a director
or alternate director for the Board of Governors of the group
• (IV Section 2). The agreement limits directors to the chief
•
administrative officer, assistant chief administrative officer,
chief of police, or chief's first assistant. While it may be
in many •cases that a community may choose one of these people to
represent them, we feel rather strongly that a community should
have the option to select whomever they might desire to represent
their interests: In particular, this might be an elected official,
other city staff such as a personnel officer, or someone from a
police civil service commission. In the case of Columbia Heights,
we have some people on our Police and Fire Civil Service Commission
that have many years of involvement in the testing and recruiting '
process, and would undoubtedly be the best representatives for our
community on such a board.
The second item that concerns us is the language in VI Section 3 that
gives the board the authority to establish and collect dues and various
service charges without any apparent restrictions. Since withdrawal
• from the organization is allowable only thirty days after written
notice through the board, it means that a community could be obligated
to pay fees or charges that it might feel were not justified without
any recourse. As a practical matter, I am sure that the people involved .•
. in this organization would not exercise such authority to levy
unreasonable charges, but as a matter of principle we feel there should
be some limits placed on the authority of the board to commit communities.
•
•
• Bruce G. Nawrocki, Mayor .
' • E. "Sebe" Heintz, Councilmember Walter Logacz, Councilmember •
•
Gayle R. Ngrberg, Councilmember Kenneth E. Hentges, Councilmember
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
•
Ct
r',. 4 -2 - .
•
tr ,
to various financial obligations. The Suburban Rate Authority, for
example, requires any fees as proposed by that body for member
municipalities be established prior to the time of the year communities
are normally considering budgets for the coming year. This allows the
municipalities to provide for such financial commitments within their
budgets for the coming year, and also allows enough time for a
community to drop out without obligation if they feel that charges
are not justified.
We would appreciate your discussing these two items with others on
your Council, and if you agree, conveying that information to the
' people involved in putting this proposal together. We would appreciate
a copy of your comments for help in our further deliberations on this
subject.
BGN /lah
cc: Public Management Consultants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. .
ysie .
• OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ,, t''" .
` •
C -2353 Government Center 1 "'
. . .
• Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 ;. `�
HENNEPIN . •
. .....FL (612) 348 -6418
•
•
December 11, 1979
• .
Walter C. Harbeck, Mayor
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
•
Shakopee, MN 55379 . •
Dear Mayor Harbeck:
,.This letter acknowledges receipt of the City of Shakopee
' Comprehensive Plan submitted for review pursuant to Metropolitan
. Land Planning Act requirements. Hennepin County will review the .
material relative to County plans and programmatic activities.
• The plan review process being followed by Hennepin County is coordinated ,
. by the Office of Planning and Development, which also has specific
responsibilities in areas of human services, public facilities and
housing. Your questions should be addressed to:
.
Robert Isaacson, Planning Supervisor
. Office of Planning and Development
C -2353 Government Center
. Minneapolis, MN 55487
348 -4544
Should you have questions specifically related to the following plan
elements you may direct them to:
Transportation: James M. Wold.
• ' Planning and Programming Chief
• Transportation Department
• 320 Washington Avenue South
• . Hopkins, MN 55343 . . '
935 -3381 •
Solid Waste: Luther D. Nelson, Director •
• Environment and Energy Department
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, MN 55343
.. 935 -3381
H ENNEPIN COUNTY
an G :•.,ai o ::,:;�oru dty employer
4 .-
• -2-
•
Parks and Open Space: John Sunde
• Director of Planning Engineering
Hennepin County Park Reserve District
Box 296
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Thank you.
Sincerely,
kablICAO
Robert Isaacson
Planning Supervisor
mah .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
\"
iC-DA Y .
"* !
association of Kt;
metropolitan
municipalities
p
TO: MAYORS, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL
FROM: DAVID HOZZA, AMM PRESIDENT
NOTICE: GENERAL' MEMBERSHIP MEETING AND LEVY LIMIT WORKSHOP
DATE: Wednesday, January 9, 1980
PLACE: Nino's Steak Roundup Restaurant
2480 Cleveland Ave. No. (Roseville) 9'
TIME: Levy Limit Workshop 1:30 PM
Social Hour (Cash Bar) 5:00 PM %k
Dinner (cost $9.25 per person) 6:00 PM n/
Legislative Policy Business Meeting 7:30 PM
�•
'AGENDA- ' L'e'vy Limit Workshop
•
1 :30 PM - Levy Limit Task Force Data Presentation
3 :00 PM - Coffee Break
3 :15 PM - Lobby Techniques Presentation
4 :15 PM - Legislation and General Discussion Period .
'AGENDA' -- Legislative Policy Business Meeting
7 :30 PM - Consideration of policy modifieation';for 1.980. .
Other Business which may come before the Delegates.
•
'PLEASE NOTE:
A. ALL OFFICIALS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND THE LEVY LIMIT WORKSHOP. The
AMM and LMC are gearing up to obtain Levy Limit Law changes in 1980,
and need your individual assistance. •
B. PLEASE ADVISE ODELIA CONLON (222 -2861) BY FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1980
HOW MANY PERSONS FROM YOUR CITY WILL ATTEND (1)' LEVY L'IMI WORKSHOP,
(2)' D'I'NNER (and selection), AND /OR (3)' BUSINES'S' MEETING.
C. We request that the administrative official receiving this notice
distribute the enclosed copies of the proposed Legislative Policy
to the appropriate city officials and notify the AMM as per note "B"
(over)
300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 222 -2861
I TA.y�.}
• �' " Jf
•
above of the names of the voting delegates or alternate delegates
that will be attending the business meeting.
DINNER SELECTION
Prime Rib )
Lite Filet Mignon ) To be phoned in with
your reservation by Jan. 4
Shrimp and Steak )
L3Sw
Clovelei ,
Av...
C 1' ) J' Cam. �.
ii e/Ifly
/4 ve, A vc:.
t
A/ INO S
c •
1 2(,:;) Lt. Snell 111,7
ue ,
Nino's Steak Roundup Restaurant
2480 Cleveland Ave. No. (Roseville)
SECTION I
Municipal Revenues and Taxes
I -C . LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATE AID (Replacement)
The 1979 Legislature passed a new Local Government State Aid
formula supported by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
and the League of Minnesota Cities which, in our opinion, eliminated
• many of the inequities created by the previous formulas. Although
the new formula is definitely a move in the right direction, even
its most ardent supporters felt that additional indepth study of
cities and their needs was necessary and that this study was beyond
the financial capability of the League. Provisions requesting state
studies were included in the aids formula package and partially
adopted. The Association is aware that the Tax Study Commission,
the Department of Revenue, and the State Planning Agency are conduct-
ing separate studies related to various aspects of cities and aids.
It is our hope that these studies will be coordinated and that the
AMM will be allowed to participate. Thus,
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES URGES THE LEGISLA-
TIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO UNIFY AND CO-
ORDINATE STUDIES RELATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT - NEEDS AND STATE AIDS,
AND FURTHER, THAT THE AMM BE INCLUDED AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN
THESE ACTIVITIES.
I -D -2 PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION 3CC, TITLE II, AND OTHER SUBSIDIZED
HOUSING (Modification)
Minnesota has had a classified property tax system since 1913,
and there are presently over 30 different classifications. It is via •
the classification system and the differing assessed market value per-
centage that enables the Legislature to promote various social goals
through use of the property tax. Since there are so many classes
and the relative mix of classes varies so drastically in any given tax-
ing district, it makes it difficult to significantly reduce the number
of classes without causing substantial shifts in the incidence of taxa-
tion. Paraplegic veterans, blind persons, and certain disabled persons
are given a classification of 3CC. This results in less revenue to
local governmental units due to the lower assessment percentage rates for
this classification. However, the services provided to this kind of pro-
perty by local government are the same as services to any other property.
More import'antly, the 'cost' for pro!iding services' 'to 'these property
'clas'se's' 'is b'eiii.' '.'aid' for '.'ri'mar'il' ' b' 'other 're's'id'en't'ial' '.'ro •'ert ' 't'ax
'payers. The older, developed central cities tend to have a larger
percentage concentration of this kind of property owner because of
the generally higher level of social and other services provided in
these areas which leads to an increased burden for the mature cities.
-1-
CLASSIFICATION 3CC SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AND A DIRECT REIMBURSE-
MENT SHOULD BE MADE FROM STATE REVENUES FOR CLASS 3CC,' TITLE II
AND OTHER FEDERAL OR STATE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS IN THE UN-
NUMBERED CLASSIFICATION. THIS REIMBURSEMENT SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED
IN THE SAME MANNER AS LOW INCOME SENIOR CITIZENS AID IS HANDLED
THROUGH INCOME TAX CREDIT OR REBATE.
_I -D-7' PROPERTY TAX DI_STRIBUTION FROM COUNTY (New)
Property taxes are collected by the county auditor and distributed
to the individual local units 30 to 45 days after the May 31- October 31
due dates In many counties where computer accounting capability
exists, especially in the metropolitan area, this money is virtually
100% available within one working week after the due date, whereas,
the county may collect interest up to the 45 days and need only dis-
tribute 70% by 30 days. At the same time, many cities are borrow-
ing money and paying market interest rates to meet payroll based on
revenue not available until July 1 or later. It is not practical nor
possible in most cases for cities to accumulate enough reserve funds
to cover normal costs for 6 months.
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES URGES THE LEGISLATURE
TO MODIFY MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 276.11 TO REQUIRE COUNTIES WITH
COMPUTER CAPABILITY TO DISTRIBUTE 90% OF THE PERIOD PAYMENT TO CITIES
WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR TAXES PAYABLE, AND THAT THE RE-
MAINDER BE DISTRIBUTED WITHIN 30 DAYS, ALSO, THAT INTEREST AT THE
PRIME RATE BE PAID ON ALL FUNDS NOT DISTRIBUTED AFTER 15 DAYS,
THE ABOVE CALCULATION SHOULD INCLUDE ALL FUNDS PAID THROUGH THE DUE
DATE.
I -E -2 SALES RATIO PENALTY EQUALIZATION (Modification)
Te -sns e- equity - ong -valale .s- evePlapp lag - taxing- u124edUet ems
and -fsp- state- ald.- purpeses9
THE- LROZSLATJRE- SHHOULD- OEVEL ®P -A- PENALTY -PROW 8,-1OAT-E®R-AD-VALBR,EM-TAX-
T JURSA NSrA�7m�PT�IDT7- gTr'lTmTDQ- N 4 - {CRTETN Yi
EVE- A-- REAS
O�NABLE- S �R 7 BASED
OY9 rESTZMY'STED siSt dti`rE'..15:-Mm`"i'4 LUE- NOT - LIMITED- MRKET- `TLUE v -- THE- Y°EYiALTY -Y: RO-
VISIQN°°SHQULP- APPLY - ONLY -TO- THE -JURIS IGTZ®N- RESPQNg4BLE -FGR- PROPERTY
ARSESSMRNT--.( 4yee � 'T'HE� T�
Y53`E- GO��:TT'YYJK3P- b1�7� ERE- A- �i -� A� SSESSQR- r�'YSTEiM��sT� AS -BEEN
Y3 PQPTED D mY'HE -G` T T`Ti YY -E- 7� gILIT7c'- YD 4NS -A P- THE- LWAL- LEV`.EL41.-
(Replace with the following new language)
Whereas, taxing units in the seven - county metropolitan area are
subject (1) to certain area -wide levies and (2) to Fiscal Disparity
allocations, it is necessary to ensure tax equalization among these
various tax units, therefore,
THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ENACT LEGISLATION WHICH MANDATES AT LEAST A
90% SALES RATIO FOR ALL CITIES WITHIN THE SEVEN - COUNTY METROPOLITAN
-2-
V
AREA, THE SALES RATIO-SAMPLE TO BE EITHER DONE OR AUDITED BY THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND REQUIRING THAT THE COMMISSIONER
OF REVENUE SHALL MAKE AGGREGATE INCREASES IN THOSE CITIES BELOW
90%. ALL COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSIONER SHALL BE PAID BY THE
ASSESSING JURISDICTION. THE SALES RATIO DETERMINATION FOR THESE
PURPOSES TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF A 12 -MONTH PERIOD SAMPLE, BE- '
GINNING NO MORE.THAN 18 MONTHS BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT DATE.
FURTHER, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD DEVELOP LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THAT •
SALES RATIO STUDIES AND CALCULATIONS CONSIDER ALL FACTORS OF SALES
AND BE ACCURATE AS TO ACTUAL SALE PRICE OF PROPERTY.
I -F -1 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (Replacement)
The 1979 Legislature passed a comprehensive revision to the
Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Statutes based on many suggestions
made by local government through the League of Minnesota Cities, the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, and the Association of
Housing and Redevelopment officials. The new legislation will pro-
vide greater protection for the public and correct the past perceived
abuses. Although some technical modification may be needed in the
near future:
THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO MONITOR AND CONTINUE THE PRESENT
LEGISLATION WITH NO CHANGES IN 1980 TO DETERMINE ITS EFFECTIVENESS.
THE CITY ORGANIZATIONS WILL ALSO MONITOR THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND WORK WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DEVELOP ANY NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS FOR POSSIBLE
CHANGE IN 1981 -1982.
• I -F -7" FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING (New)
The federal general revenue sharing program provides vitally
needed funds to cities in Minnesota. CONTINUATION OF THIS PROGRAM IS
ESSENTIAL FOR FISCAL STABILITY OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
In considering legislation to re -enact the program, the Administra-
tion and the congress should take account of the fact that although in-
flation has continued to expand the demands upon hard pressed local
budgets, revenue sharing funds have received no significant increase
since the inception of the program. RE- ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE SHAR-
ING LAW SHOULD REMEDY THIS SHORTFALL BY PROVIDING SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO
RESTORE THE PROGRAM TO ITS 1972 LEVEL AND PROJECT AN APPROPRIATE IN-
FLATIONARY FACTOR FOR FUTURE YEARS OF FUNDING.
CONTINUED MULTI -YEAR FUNDING OF THE PROGRAM IS ESSENTIAL TO SOUND
FISCAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND SHOULD BE A
PART OF THE RE- ENACTMENT LEGISLATION.
Congress and the Administration should resist the temptation to use
the ;revenue;rshar ng• program- AP, to .governmental and. ; other reforms
at the local level. REVENUE SHARING SHOULD BE A FLEXIBLE, DECENTRAL-
IZED PROGRAM FREE OF BUREAUCRATIC ENTANGLEMENTS. The dangerous
-3-
tendency of the imposition of difficult procedural and other re-
quirements is apparent in the Revenue Sharing Amendments of 1976.
Significant questions concerning the continued participation of
state government in the revenue sharing program have been raised.
An across - the -board answer is not appropriate to this question. State
participation might be gauged on a level of fiscal efforts basis.
THOSE STATES WITH THE HIGHEST TAX EFFORT SHOULD BE CONTINUED AT FULL
FUNDING WHILE THOSE WITH ONLY MINIMAL EFFORT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED FOR
A CHANGE IN STATUS.
-4- •
SECTION II
General Legislation
II -F VETERANS PREFERENCE (Modification)
In 1975, the Legislature adopted a uniform veterans preference
law for state and local government which modified preference in em-
ployment and promotion, and in the Legislature terminated
veterans preference for persons who enter military service after 1976.
F -1. THE AMM SUPPORTS THESE MODIFICATIONS AND BE-
LIEVES THAT THESE PROVISIONS SHOULD NOT BE
AMENDED FURTHER.
F -2. VETERANS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST
UNJUST DISMISSALS, BUT WHEN A VETERAN'S EMPLOYMENT
IS TERMINATED AND HE OR SHE DOES NOT REQUEST A HEAR-
' ING WITHIN TEN DAYS, OR WHEN AN IMPARTIAL HEARING
BODY DETERMINES THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS FOR JUST
CAUSE, THE LAW SHOULD NOT REQUIRE THAT THE VETERAN
RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR ANY PERIOD WHEN SERVICES
WERE NOT ACTUALLY PERFORMED.
F -3. FURTHER, THE LAW SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE
PETITION PROCEDURE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO LOCAL AD-
MINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. THE HEARING BODY NEED NOT
BE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (AT ITS OPTION) IN
THOSE CITIES THAT HAVE SUCH A COMMISSION.
II -K SIGNAL LIGHT MAINTENANCE - STATE TRUNK HIGHWAYS (New)
It is the policy of the MNDOT that the cost of maintenance
for traffic signal lights on state highways, which are also city
streets, is the responsibility of the local city. Many of the
smaller cities, however, do not have the equipment to perform this
maintenance and must contract back with the MNDOT to actually per-
form such maintenance. This procedure leads to additional administra-
tive costs . in addition to. the actual cost of maintenance. Such costs
are ultimately bourne by the taxpayer.
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES URGES THE MNDOT TO
CHANGE ITS POLICY AND TO PROVIDE THE MAINTENANCE FOR THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHTS AT NO COST TO THE LOCAL CITY.
' 'IT -L ' OPPOSE ELIMINATION OF SALE OF 3.2 BEER' 'IN MINNES (New)
Legislation has been proposed which would eliminate the manu-
facture and sale of 3.2 beer in Minnesota and provide that places
currently selling 3.2 beer could sell strong beer. Cities would
still have the authority to license. This could cause problems of
control and policing the sale of a strong alcoholic beverage to
minors in the multitude of grocery stores and service stations
-5-
throughout the cities. Therefore,
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES OPPOSES THE ELIMINA-
TION OF 3.2 BEER MANUFACTURE AND SALES IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA,
AND FURTHER OPPOSES THE REPLACEMENT OF 3.2 BEER WITH STRONG BEER
AS AN OPTION FOR SALE AT CURRENT 3.2 BEER SALES LOCATIONS.
II -M 'SPECIAL ELECTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL' VA'CANC (New)
Since 1974, statutory cities have had uniform terms of office
for elective officials of 4 years for council members and 2 or 4
years for mayor. Unlike other levels of government, the only pro-
vision for filling any vacancy which might occur is by appointment
by the remaining council members. This can lead to long term ser-
vice by appointment to an elective office. The prevailing mood of
the general public is one that suggests that these positions should
be elected at the first opportunity.
THE AMM.SUGGESTS THAT VACANCIES IN ELECTIVE OFFICE IN STATUTORY
CITIES BE FILLED BY ELECTION AT THE NEXT REGULAR CITY OR GENERAL
ELECTION, CONSISTENT WITH FILING AND ABSENTEE BALLOT REQUIREMENTS,
FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM. TERM LENGTH AND CANDIDATES SHOULD
BE IDENTIFIED ON THE BALLOT. FURTHER, CITY COUNCILS SHOULD RETAIN
THE AUTHORITY TO FILL THE VACANCY BY APPOINTMENT UNTIL THE ELECTION
IS HELD AND A SUCCESSOR QUALIFIES.
II -N LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUNDS (New)
Legislation has been proposed which would provide reimburse-
ment to cities for part of local police and fire relief association
costs. Also legislation has been proposed which would increase
most employee contributions and which would change benefits for
new employees hired after passage of the act.
The financing of said local police and firefighters relief
associations continues to be one of the most serious public pension'
problems in Minnesota. Furthermore, while a number of local laws
have been passed phasing out local retirement associations, it is
still highly desirable to establish certain uniform policies govern-
ing all of these relief associations. It is also desirable that
financial assistance be provided to reduce the amount of property
taxes which must be raised for local police and fire pensions.
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING
ACTIONS CONCERNING PAID LOCAL POLICE /FIRE PENSION FUNDS:
1. ALL NEWLY HIRED POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS SHOULD BECOME MEMBERS
OF THE PERA POLICE AND FIRE FUND. .
2. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO ALL
CITIES WHICH ARE PLACING ALL OF THEIR NEW EMPLOYEES IN THE
-6-
f_ Chi
PERA POLICE AND FIRE FUND OR WHICH HAVE MERGED THEIR LOCAL
FUND WITH THE PERA POLICE AND FIRE FUND.
3. EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTIONS SHOULD BE INCREASED TO AT LEAST 8
PERCENT OF THE CURRENT SALARY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE BASE
SALARY UPON WHICH PENSION BENEFITS ARE CALCULATED, AND
PREFERABLY TO 40 %.OF THE NORMAL COSTS OF FINANCING THE
BENEFITS, IF THIS IS GREATER THAN 8% OF THE SALARY. FURTHER-
MORE, ANY INCREASE IN BENEFITS FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES INCLUD-
ING ANY RESULTING DEFICIT, SHOULD BE FINANCED 50% BY THE
EMPLOYING CITY AND 50% BY EMPLOYEES ON A CURRENT BASIS.
4. IF POSSIBLE, SOME LIMITED FORM OF PORTABILITY INTO THE PERA
POLICE AND FIRE FUND SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF LOCAL
POLICE AND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIONS IF THEY TAKE A PUBLIC
SAFETY POSITION IN ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNIT BEFORE THEIR
PENSION BENEFITS ARE VESTED. THE PERA LAW SHOULD ALSO BE
AMENDED TO PERMIT A MEMBER OF THE PERA POLICE AND FIRE FUND
TO CONTINUE PERA COVERAGE WHEN THE MEMBER TAKES A PUBLIC
SAFETY POSITION IN A CITY WITH A LOCAL RELIEF ASSOCIATION..
-7-
SECTION III
Housing: 'in Metropolitan Area
II -J BONUS A'IDS' TO MUNICIPAL'ITIES FOR HOUSING PERFORMANCE (New)
In many cases, lower -cost housing may provide less of a
financial advantage for the municipality in which such housing
is located. This can include reduced property taxes collected
for certain kinds of subsidized housing, as well as lower taxes
collected on a $50,000 home on a lot that could support a $75,000
home. These are disincentives which should be counteracted by some
positive financial incentives. Currently, the only incentive is
that if a community scores well through the Metropolitan. Council's
application of its Policy 39 during the Federal A -95 Review Process,
its grant application for federal funding gets a higher rating
than some other community with a lower Policy 39 rating.
THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE LEGISLATURE CONSIDER PROVIDING "BONUS"
STATE AIDS TO MUNICIPALITIES THAT PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RE-
DUCED COST HOUSING. AS PART OF THIS CONSIDERATION, CRITERIA WOULD
NEED TO BE DEVELOPED TO MEASURE PERFORMANCE ON AN OBJECTIVE BASIS.
•
-8-
SECTION IV
Metropolitan Area Issues and Concerns
1V -B -5 AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL' 'COMPREHENSIVE PLANS (New)
The current process for amending Comprehensive Plans has
two major time steps for review and comment /or approval by the
Metropolitan Council:
1. Local governmental units submit their proposed amend-
ments to adjacent governmental units for review and
comment at least six months prior to submitting the
proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Council,
2. The Metropolitan Council then has up to 120 days follow-
ing receipt of the amendment to approve or disapprove.
This is the same process as is prescribed for adopting
the initial comprehensive plan and could take up to ten
months even for the most trivial amendment. Amendments normally
will be simpler and shorter and oftentimes will have no impact
outside .of the unit submitting the amendment. While major amend-
ments do need to be thoroughly analyzed, many minor amendments
need no such attention. Consequently, a revised process is
needed for expediting the processing of comprehensive plan amend-
ments. The major elements of a revised process should encompass
the following improvements:
1. A short time period to determine if the proposed
amendment has impact outside of the unit whose plan
is being amended.
2. A reduction in the amount of time required to get amend-
ments-approved or rejected by the Metropolitan Council.
30 A very short period of time for processing amendments
which do not impact Metropolitan System Plans and /or
. adjacent units .of government.
THEREFORE, THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO AMEND THE LAND USE
PLANNING ACT CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES:
'1. ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS WILL
BE SENT TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND ADJACENT COMMUNITIES
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
2. ADJACENT COMMUNITIES WILL HAVE UP TO 30 DAYS IN WHICH TO ADVISE
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE PROPOSING COMMUNITY THAT THE
.AMENDMENT HAS PROBABLE IMPACT ON THEIR COMMUNITY.
- 9-
3. THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY CLAIMING IMPACT WILL THEN HAVE UP
TO 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT.
4. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL HAVE 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF
AMENDMENT TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS PROBABLY IMPACT ON A
METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLAN. IF S0, THE COMMUNITY MUST BE
NOTIFIED.
5. FOR AMENDMENTS WITH NO CLAIMED PROBABLE IMPACT ON ADJACENT
COMMUNITIES OR ON METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS, THE COUNCIL
MUST COMPLETE ITS REVIEW AND RETURN ITS COMMENTS, IF ANY,
TO THE PROPOSING COMMUNITY WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF
SUCH AMENDMENT. IF NO COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE SUBMITTING
COMMUNITY WITHIN 45 DAYS, THE AMENDMENT IS APPROVED.
6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL JUDGES
TO HAVE A PROBABLE IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS,
OR ON ADJACENT COMMUNITIES, WILL BE PROCESSED IN A SIMILAR
MANNER, EXCEPT THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL HAVE A TOTAL
OF 120 DAYS (FROM DATE OF RECEIPT) TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT AND ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON IT AND RETURN TO THE
COMMUNITY WHICH PROPOSED THE AMENDMENT ITS DECISION, IF ANY,
TO REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS.
7. WHILE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS BEING REVIEWED, AS IN 1 -6
ABOVE, THE PROPOSING UNIT MAY CONTINUE THE PROCESS OF
ADOPTING THE AMENDMENT INTERNALLY, BUT NO IMPLEMENTATION
ACTION COULD BE TAKEN UNTIL AFTER THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
REVIEW IS COMPELTED, OR UNTIL 120 DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE
AMENDMENT TO THE COUNCIL AND ADJACENT COMMUNITIES, OR WHICH-
EVER OCCURS FIRST.
IV-B-6 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING:-ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS (New)
At regional, state, and federal governmental levels, a variety
of special - purpose and environmental reviews may be necessary for
a proposed development. Each of these reviews represents a response
to a need or a public concern. Environmental review is a good example.
Environmental reviews can cause significant delay, which creates un-
certainty and usually higher costs to the developer and ultimately
the consumer. The process of environmental review can also be abused
and can take months or years if a lawsuit is brought to stop the
proposal. For example, residents opposed to a proposed project can
initiate the state environmental review process by bringing a
petition signed by 500 persons. There is no requirement for the
petitioners to show proof or any kind of substantiation of possible
adverse environmental effects. Also, the petitioners are not even
required to be residents of the vicinity of the proposed project or
even the same city.
-10-
Recent attempts have been made to simplify the state environ-
mental review process, administered by the Environmental Quality
Board. In 1976 the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was
introduced. The worksheet is a brief document, a worksheet format,
to aid in determining whether a proposed action has potential
for significant environmental effects that would require the thorough
evaluation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In most cases,
an EIS is not required, and the environmental review process is
complete when the EAW is cleared. The intent of this process was to
simplify environmental review. Now that the EAW process has been
in use for a few years, the EQB is evaluating it to determine if
the objectives of the program are being met.
A variation of the EAW is the related- actions EAW. This process
authorizes the preparation of a single EAW for a specified large
area within a community. The area must be an area for which de-
velopment plans are fairly certain. Once the related- actions EAW
is prepared, ,a proposal within,the area covered by the EAW need no
additional environmental review, provided the proposal does not
deviate substantially from what is outlined in the related- actions
EAW. The related - actions EAW simplifies environmental review for
rapidly - developing areas where there are sufficient environmental
considerations to warrant the preparation. Environmental review
is then completed before individual proposals are made for develop-
ment in the area.
Another approach would be to incorporate the environmental review
process into the planning process, via the comprehensive plan. Each
metropolitan area community must prepare a comprehensive plan by
mid -1980, and the plan is an excellent vehicle for such an approach.
Using the planning process as the environmental review process may
meet the real intent of environmental review better than the present
method. Such a comprehensive approach might alleviate much of the
delay in the development process caused by the presentation and re-
argument of the same issues to various agencies at different
governmental levels. It may also separate the environmental issues
from the more emotional issues often attached to certain types of
proposals.
•
THEREFORE, THE AMM SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF ALLOWING LOCAL COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLANS WHICH CONTAIN ACCEPTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS TO
BE USED TO SATISFY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE EAW AND
EIS PROCESS. FURTHER, THE ENTIRE STATE'S ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY
SYSTEM SHOULD BE STREAMLINED IN SUCH A MANNER TO ENABLE A "ONE- STEP"
PERMIT SYSTEM FOR ALL STATE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. IN THE SEVEN
COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA, THIS "ONE- STOP AUTHORITY COULD POSSIBLY
BE DELEGATED TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED
IN IMPLEMENTING THESE GOALS ARE COMPLEX AND IMPLEMENTATION WOULD
REQUIRE CHANGE IN STATE LAW AND REGULATION, THE LEGISLATURE AND OTHER
AFFECTED AND INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL UNITS AND AGENCIES SHOULD GIVE
THIS MATTER EARLY CONSIDERATION. THE AMM PLEDGES ITS SUPPORT AND
COOPERATION.
-11-
a
IV -B -7 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND PLAT APPROVAL (New)
Minnesota law provides a device whereby a city can prohibit
the effective transfer of property when such a transfer is
carried out by means of a metes and bounds or unapproved land
survey. There are some problems with the specific enforcement
. procedures, however. Also, in those divisions of land, when
the parcels sold and remaining are five acres or greater, the
division and transfer of such parcels can be carried out without
city review or approval and without a contribution to park dedica-
tion and for other public purposes as is required when the re-
sulting parcels are less than five acres. Furthermore, under
existing law, a city must act on application for a plat within
sixty days after the first public hearing date, or it is deemed
approved. This often does not allow enough time for adequate
review by the city staff, planning commission,. and a city council,
especially when environmental judgments must be made.
THEREFORE, THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATUTES BE AMENDED TO:
1. REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES TO PRECLUDE
THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY MEANS OF METES AND BOUNDS
OR UNAPPROVED LAND SURVEY WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND
APPROVAL BY THE CITY.
2. PROVIDE FOR CITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ALL DIVISIONS
OF LANDS WHEN ANY PARCEL SOLD AND REMAINING IS TWENTY
ACRES OR LESS (CURRENTLY FIVE ACRES OR LESS).
3. CHANGE THE TIME PERIOD CITIES HAVE TO ACT ON PLAT APPROVALS
FROM SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO
SIXTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AFTER SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
IV -F ENERGY AND MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES (New)
The energy shortage appears to be reaching near crisis pro-
portions in the United States. This shortage seems to be even
more severe when one considers that energy which is derived from
oil. One of the heaviest users of this form of energy, of course,
is the automobile. Alternative means of transportation, such as
mass transit, which could utilize non -oil derived forms of energy,
may soon become a necessity both from a supply and a cost standpoint.
Within this national setting, a mass transit system not dependent on
products derived from oil might become a must for the Twin City
Metropolitan area. Possibilities include a fixed guideway and /or
light rail transit system or'a combination thereof; Electricity,
which can be generated from sources other than oil, is most often
used to power such systems. Coincidently, as the energy shortage
worsens, it appears that more and more railroad trackage and
right -of -ways are being abandoned or considered for abandonment.
-12-
L
Unfortunately, the Metropolitan Council's existing Trans-
portation Policy Plan states that "no fixed guideway for the
exclusive use of transit (buses and automated or semi - automated
technologies) is to be provided for regional or subregional service."
This policy would seem to preclude consideration of mass transit
systems which could utilize electricity for power. Adherence to
this policy would also preclude or discourage appropriate govern-
mental agencies from acquiring and preserving railroad trackage
and right -of -ways which are abandoned. If such right -of -ways are
abandoned and not preserved for public purposes now, many undoubtedly
will be developed for other purposes by the private sector. The
right -of -ways would not then be available in the future when it
becomes a necessity to have a transit system not dependent on oil.
IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT:
1. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND OTHER APPROPRIATE
AGENCIES ASSESS THE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION POLICY
PLAN WHICH PROHIBITS OR SEEMS TO PROHIBIT THE CON-
SIDERATION OF MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS OTHER THAN THE
CURRENT BUS SYSTEM: AND
2. AS PART OF 1 ABOVE, THE POSSIBILITY AND FEASIBILITY
OF UTILIZING EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKAGE AS PART OF
A FIXED GUIDEWAY AND /OR LIGHT RAIL MASS TRANSIT
SYSTEM SHOULD BE ADDRESSED: AND
3. IF EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKAGE /RIGHT�OF -WAYS IN THE
METROPOLITAN AREA ARE PETITIONED FOR ABANDONMENT
PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT CALLED
FOR IN 1 AND 2 ABOVE, CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN
BY THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (MN DOT,
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, AND METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION)
TO PRESERVE SUCH TRACKAGE /RIGHT -OF -WAYS UNTIL THEY ARE
EXCLUDED BY SUCH ASSESSMENT.'
-13-
tl .
•
•
\N
� o q �lit>>1(. S ( ' )1�a
n r L3 ' � )�al°t nlc.'.fat Of Transportation
• x
o •T ransI)ortatiorl liuilc.iin�;
Fti e Q St. 1'�)ui, Minnesota 55155
r OF Tfox
office of commis: Loner usl2) 2963000
December 11, 1979
•
Mayor Walt Harbeck
City Hall
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379'
Dear Mayor Harbeck:
From time to time, many have expressed concern about rules and standards in
effect for the State Aid program with cities and counties. In addition, many
questions have been asked about standards for bridge replacements, and to
greater degree, bridge replacements on the township road system. NOW IS YOUR
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT INTO THE RULES THAT GOVERN THESE STANDARDS.
. As a result of these questions, including the requirement of parallel parking
currently in the rules, the cities and counties through their City and County
Engineers requested that the Local Road Research Board conduct research on '
roadway design standards. The results of this research will•be used to deter- '
mine if changes should be made to standards'now in use and if so, what changes
should occur.
•
The Local Road Research Board, with Mn /DOT assistance, conducted Phase I of the
study during 1977. The Board then decided to engage the services of a Consultant
Firm for Phase II.
On December 2, 1977, proposals were requested and in March, 1978, Jack E. Leisch
and Associates of Evanston, Illinois, was selected to undertake the research.
On June 8, 1979, the Executive Summary Draft report was received.
On June 11, 1979, letters went to the League of Cities and the Minnesota Associ-
ation of Counties requesting that they appoint the members of the committee to
advise in establishing rules for the operation of State Aid within Minnesota
•Statutes 162.02, Subd. 2, and 162.09, Subd. 2. Additional letters were sent to
the Association of Minnesota Counties on August 21, 1979 and again on October 24,'`
1979, requesting the names of the committee members. On November 1, 1979, the
requested list.was received by.Mn /DOI'.
Please keep in mind that the role of the Commissioner of Transportation is to ••
promulgate rules and standards on behalf of counties and cities..
• An Equal Opportunity Employer
• • °0
•
•
, December 11, 1979
'Page 2
•
Attached is the list of names and addresses of the committee members. If you
have concerns that you wish to have addressed, please contact any or all of
the committee members. This is your opportunity for input to the process of
developing rules and standards for State Aid operations.
Following this action, the proposed rules and standards will be heard within
the requirements of Chapter 15, with a public hearing by the State Hearing
• • •Officer.
•
• The meeting of the Committee will be held on December 18th, 1979, in the Depart-
ment of Transportation Building, ,in Golden Valley, Minnesota. •
Sincerely,
Richard P. Braun •
Commissioner
• Attachment:
List
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
, . , . tf '\-. .
. Advisory Committee to Revise State Aid Rules and Standards
Municipal Representatives
Alexander Madich, Councilmember Carl Wyczawski, Mayor
• ' 13 S.W. 3rd Avenue 912 South Minnesota Street
Chisholm, Minnesota 55719 New Ulna, Minnesota 56073
(218) 254 -4346 (507) 354 -4411
James Caven, Mayor Duane Aden, City Engineer
• St. Hilaire, Minnesota 56754 ^ Municipal Building
(218) 964 -5345 344 West Main Street
Marshall, Minnesota 56258
•
Mark Johnson, City Engineer (507)•532 -2612
104 North Benton Drive
Sauk Rapids, Minnesota 56379 • Willis Warkentien, Mayor
• (612) 251-1022 1794 North Albert
Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113
' • K. M: Freeman; Mayor (612) 644 -2908
• P. 0. Box 266 '
Detroit Lakes, Minnesota 56501 ' • Paul Davidson, City Engr. /Public Works Dir.
(218) 847 -8370 Room 201 - City Hall
'? Duluth, Minnesota. 55802
Don Asmus, City Engineer (218) 723 -3297
• 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 . Dick Wheeler, Asst. Dir. /City Engr. .,
'(612) 933 -2511 600 City Hall Annex
25 West 4th Street
Jan Allen, Councilmember St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
203 East 6th Street • (612) 298 -5221
Winona, Minnesota 55987
• '. (507) 452 -5139 Perry Smith, Director, Public Works • .
• 203 City Hall ,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 •
(612) 348 -2443
• County Representatives
• .James C. Thompson. Walter F. Benson, County Engineer ..' • '
' . Cook County Commissioner • Box "D" .
Grand aarais,..Minnesota 55604 • Carlton County Courthouse
Carlton, Minnesota 53718 ••
'• • • Paul Beyer'
'FaribaultCounty Commissioner Robert Witty
R.F.D. Martin County Engineer •
Easton, Minnesota 56025 12th and Marcus Street
• •,Fairmont, Minnesota 56031
•Earl.Larson • ' • Bernard L..Lieder .
. Kandiyohi County Commissioner Polk 'County Engineer ' .
' Route, 1 '1 . .' Box 27
Willmar,: Minnesota 56291 Crookston, Minnesota 56716 .
Richard` P. Gumaings r John K. Dolan •
,, .Mower County Comfaissiva Olmsted County Engineer • •
Lansing,, ' Minnesota • 55950 , • , 1421 - 3rd Avenue S.E.
' ' Rochester, Minnesota 5
Glenn Tara
Pennington County Commissioner
•Route; # 2 n
• 'Tat 1_ Minnesota 56684 ' .
' 1 ,8
•
. MEMO T0: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator.
•
FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1.980 Squad Cars
. - DATE: December 21, 1979 .
Per Council. directive, I have contacted the three local
automobile dealers. Shakopee Ford and Shakopee Motors can not
meet the specifications as stated. Malkerson Motors declines ,
• to quote a price until they can get more information from the •
• factory which will be in January.
If we go with the cooperative, the purchase needs to be
. • authorized by 1/2/80. If we do not, Malkerson's can get
factory support by bidding our•cars with Scott County, in
which case the determination would have to be made today so .
• notice can be published 12/26/79. If this date is not made,
. the cost will be higher because of no factory support for
orders of only three cars. ••
• GMV /ljw
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. • •
' - ---:•, CITY OF SHAKOPEE
• IA ; J
p
'� 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
ti
MEMO
TO: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
. SUBJECT: 1980 Squad Cars
• DATE: December 17, 1979 '
• Recommend the City of Shakopee purchase three ]980 Malibu squad cars , •
under,the Hennepin County Contract #0306. Price for three units
is $21,123.00 from Iten Chevrolet. The units would be equipped as .
follows:
Police•Package • •
' . 350 CID - 4V •
• • Bucket Seats, •
A/C
•Tilt Wheel
Rear Window Defroster
Exterior Mirrors •
. • Power Deck Release
• LH Spotlight .
120 MPH Speedometer •
Power Windows •
Intermittent Wiper
Positraction .
' Block Heater
Trunk & 'Underhood Lights •
Auxiliary Transmission Cooler
• Action: Authorize purchase of three squad cars under Hennepin County .
Contract #0306 in the amount of $21,123.
•.• GMV•nap
•
•
•
.
•
• a
•
•
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
•
' RE: . Meeting of Bypass Committee
DATE: December 20, 1979
•
The Shakopee Bypass Committee met on December 19th and the
following are the actions of that meeting:
,1) The Committee paid the final bills for the consultant
who designed the bypass.
• 2) Joe'Ries presented a draft of a proposed resolution which
sets forth a request from Shakopee and Jackson Township
• to Scott, County to have Scott County adopt the official '
map for .the Bypass.
•
3) .Norbert Theis made the following comments:
a) The committee has ignored the requests made by
•
residents of Jackson Township concerning various
•
. relocation concerns.
• b) Shakopee should give back the Shopping Center.
c) Everytime we come into Shakopee we 'get dumped on.
•
• d) .Shakopee erects stop signs which are designed to •
get Jackson Township residents.
•
e)' No ,funds are available to build the Bypass so why
-adopt the official map. ' ,"
4)• The Committee passed a motion unanimously requesting Shakopee`
and Jackson Township to consider the attached resolution
requesting'Scott County to adopt the official Map.
I believe' the meeting was good. It was attended by Jim Daly,
' Bill Crawford, Gallop, Charles Weaver and others.. Jim Daly
has agreed to work with Jackson Township to try to get an
` • approval of . some kind of resolution similar to the attached.
Recommendation:
The City Council should adopt resolution No 1542.
•
DSR /jiw
Attachment:. Resolution No 1542
•
•
•
. .. . .
,,.....,.... . . .
. sta'•; • . .
,,„ . .
. . .
: :, • .
• .
, • , .
. , . .
, . . .
..
. . • . .
.:.. .. . •• ,.., •• . . . .. ,
. RESOLUTION NO. 1542 •
•
. A Resolution Requesting The
. 'County Of Scott To Adopt An Official, Map For The
Shakopee By -Pass On Behalf Of The
. City of Shakopee
.
• 'WHEREAS, the Corridor Location Study for Trunk Highways .
169, 212 and 41 prepared by the firm of Howard, Needles, Tammen • '
and Bergendoff, Consulting Engineers, on behalf of•the Minnesota
Department of Highways and completed in:February,'•1970, offered .
. three' corridor system design options for the study area; and
. WHEREAS, those representatives' of communities within Scott'
County directly affected by the study,. as well as the county ,
itself, offering testimony' at the public hearing on the corridor.
options conducted on June 3, 1969, favored a composite system.
identified as.Unique System•D, and
. . WHEREAS, the Unique System D plan provides for a trunk • .. " . • '
,highway by- passing the City of Shakopee to the south
and passing through the Township of Jackson and.•the Cities of .
• , Shakopee and 'Savage; and
,WHEREAS, in recognition of the need to study and define
,' the Shakopee : by -pass corridor described in the Corridor Location
;, Study,,: the Sco.t.t County Board of Commissioners by Resolution' • •
No. 74017 adopted, on January 1,5 1974:,.created the Shakopee By -pass
H
Task •Force 'of - Scott County ' with, that ' charge and appointed ' .
representatives thereto from'the county, the City of Shakopee, '
, ' the City of •Prior.',,Lake, the City of Savage, the Township of
r .
Jackson, :the citizenry at large, the Minnesota Highway Department
and the Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, following the organization of the Task Force,
said body assumed the tasks of establishing a centerline for
the by -pass corridor, and preparing an Official Map for adoption
by those jurisdictions required to do so, andtiin the manner
prescribed by MSA 394.32, Subdivision 3; and
•
•
ce ,
Resolution No 1542
• ' WHEREAS, upon the recomiendations of the Shakopee By -Pass
Task :Force,.the Scott County Board of Commissioners authorized by
.Resolution No 75119 adopted on July 29, 1975, the conduct, of a
•, Location Study Report, an Environmental.lmpact Statement and a
Preliminary Design for a trunk highway By -Pass around the City
of Shakopee; and
• WHEREAS, an agreement with the firm of Howard, Needles,. .'
•
Tammen and Bergendoff to conduct these studies was authorized •
by Resolution No. 75223 adopted on January 20, 1976, upon the,
recommendations of the Task Force; and
WHEREAS., pending the adoption of these studies, a series
'of meetings and hearings were conducted which offered
. input from all citizens, property holder:; and 'Public officials
•
.having an interest in this project; and
' "WHEREAS,' throughout thecourse of activities of the Shakopee
By =Pass Task Farce, the, comprehensive plans for. those jurisdictions'
affected : by the by -pass corridor were consulted on a regular
basis; and
WHEREAS, in.the present state of the revised comprehensive
• .plans.•fo'r those jurisdictions, the need for the Shakopee By -Pass
is addressed and
WHEREAS,•the adoption of the Official Map may facilitate '
.state assistance l to people who own property, within the, proposed
corridor and who are caused ,har.dship because of the proposed
highway an <l •
WHEREAS, further delay in the adoption of the Official
May•may cause, more,.; delay in'the actual construction of the •
B " P ss. because 'som'e" of t•he ' stud ies already com leted may become
y y . p y
outdated;. and
WHEREAS, at a meeting of the Shakopee By -Pass Task Force'
held on December 19, 1979, the Official Map for this project, in
its completed form, was reviewed and recommended for adoption
by the several governmental jurisdictions affected.
•
• Resolution No 1542 Page -3=
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that pursuant to the provisions
of MSA 394.32, Subdivision 3, the Scott County Board of
Commissioners is requested herewith to adopt on behalf of. the '
.City of Shakopee, the Official Map (Official Controls) for the'
Shakopee By -Pass as was conveyed to Scott County under a letter •
from William M. Crawford, P. E., District 5 Engineer, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, dated September 7, 1979.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the commitment of. .'.4''
the immediate past Chairman of the Metropolitan Council to resolve%. '..
• the issue of sewer interceptor needs for the City of Shakopee the..
Township of Jackson, this request conditioned on the county's'
assurance that it will'pursue a commitment from the Metropolitan.
. Council that the planning for the construction of the by -pass and the :'.
sewer interceptor(s) take place simultaneously. •
BE.'ITFINALLY RESOLVED, that upon the completion of all ``
environmental studies related to this project by the Metropolitan;
Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the Scott
County Board of Commissioners is requested and urged to pursue t.he'
leadership .of the Metropolitan Council in re- evaluating the impact
of this project on all other systems planned in the area to insure
compatible planning of both the sewers and the by -pass as well •
as other related projects.. •
•
.' • Mayor Of the City .of 'Shakopee ,
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved 'as` to form this
day of 19
City Attorney
MINUTES
•
SHAKOPEE BY -PASS TASK FORCE
DECEMBER 19, 1979
The Shakopee By -Pass Task Force met on Wednesday, December 19,
1979 at the Scott County Civil Defense Assembly Room of the Scott County
Court House.
PRESENT WERE: Dennis L. Hron, Chairman of the Task Force and
Scott County Commissioner
• Joseph A. Theis, Shakopee, Secretary of Shakopee By-
Pass Task Force •
• Joseph F. Ries, Scott County Administrator
• Norbert Theis, Chairman, Jackson Township
•
Carl Hoffstedt, Minnesota Department of Transportation
William Schmokel, Scott County Surveyor ,
•
William Crawford, District V, Engineer MHD
E. W. Prenevost, Scott County Highway Engineer
Charles Weaver, Chairman, Metro Council
Douglas Reeder, Shakopee City Administrator,
Walt Harbeck, Mayor, City of Shakopee
Ghaleb Abdul-Rahman, Metropolitan Council
LeRoy Bauer, Jackson Township
James Daly, Metropolitan Council #16 Representative'
Richard Beckman, Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff
James Barton, Metropolitan Council 0
The meeting of the Shakopee By -Pass Task Force was called • to order by
Chairman Hron at 3:10 p.m.
Chairman Hron read the minutes of the July 17, 1978 meeting. On
' motion by Mr. Harbeck, seconded by Mr. Prenevost, the minutes of the '
Shakopee By -Pass Task Force meeting were approved as presented. Motion
Carried.
•
Agenda Items: . •
A. Recommend approvals of Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff
• Invoices No. 14 and 15. Amounts - - $171.76 #15 - $7,073.24.
Motion was made by Mr. Ries, seconded by Mr. Harbeck Motion carried.
B. Mr. Joseph F. Ries presented to the Task Force a proposed draft
• resolution for the participating municipalities and townships to be adopted
by ,.Scott Cqunty to establish the official Map for the Shakopee By -Pass.
, Discussion followed centering on the problems posed by following
concerns:. '
' 1. Displacement of Jackson Township residents
• 2. Concerns for hardship cases (property owners who need to Sell
their property) which may surface when the project is ready to move.
•
•
•
•
0
•
Minutes - Shakopee By -Pass Task Force -2- December 19, 1979
•
• 3. Need for the proposed Jackson -Sewer Interceptor and its
relationship to the proposed Highway By -Pass.
Action taken:
• On motion by Mr. Ries, seconded by Mr. Ghaleb Abdul Rahman, a
request was made that Jackson Township and the City of Shakopee review
the proposed resolution draft with Jim Daly, Metro Council, and other
Metro Council Staff in the interest of arriving at the necessary amend -
ments to reflect the needs and concerns of those jurisdictions. Motion
carried.
The meeting was adjourned on ration of Mr. Harbeck, seconded by
Mr. Hoffstedt at 4 :00 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully,
•
JAT: np . Joseph A. Theis, Secretary
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e946
RESOLUTION NO. 1543
A RESOLUTION SETTING GARBAGE FEES
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has previously entered into a
contract for garbage and refuse collection; and
WHEREAS, said contract contains increased costs for the City,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
'SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that garbage and refuse collection fees shall
be $3.63 per month for urban residences and $2.35 per month for
senior citizens in urban residences.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 1371 is hereby
repealed in its entirety.
This resolution shall be in force and effect for bills sent
out on, or about, March 1, 1980..
Adopted in Regular Session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 2nd day of January, 1980.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
•
ATTEST:
' City Clerk •
Approved as to form this
*day of , 1980.
•
City Attorney •
•
gel
IZESULU'1'IUN N0.
/54
A Resolution Designatini;
• ,
. Official Depositories of. City Funds
WHEREAS, M.S. 427.02 provides that the City 'Council designate
depositories; and •
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota Statutes 118.005 and 475.66 .
provide that cities may invest in time deposits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of.Shakopee, Minnesota, that the following institutions are '
designated as depositories' with the respective dollar amounts as
limits and as secured . by insurance and /or collateral.
First National.Bank of. Shakopee $ 500,000.00 - '
Citizens State Bank of Shakopee 300,000.00 . ,
,
First National Bank of St. Paul : 1',000,000.00 •
First National Bank of Minneapolis 500,000.00
Northwestern National Bank 1
Peoples Savings and Loan Association 100,000.00
"Minnesota; Federal Savings and Loan 100;000.00
Midwest, Federal 'Savings and Loan Association 1,195,000.00:
Marquette National Bank • . . .500,000.00 • ' . '
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota; held this day of s' •
19,80'
• Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST: ;
City C1 erk
Approved as to.form this
day of 1980. ,
•
•
City Attorney
Flat
•
•
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council •
' FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: Lease of Senior Citizen Center •
DATE: December 27, 1979
•
•
At the HRA meeting held December 18, 1979,,the Shakopee
• Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved by Resolution
No. 79 -32 the above mentioned lease agreement.
For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the
Lease, Agreement.
• ,ACTION: City Council to authorize, by resolution, the
City of Shakopee to enter into a-Lease Agreement with
200 Levee Drive Associates, LTD.
jiw
Attachment •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
# .
:MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: ; Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator .
RE: Lease of Senior Citizen Center .
DATE: December 13, 1979 .
A major part of the Senior Citizen Highrise. Project is the •
' - provision of a Senior Center for the use anr. enjoyment•of all , '
Shakopee' Senior Citizens whether or not ey live in the
• Highrise. Throughout the negotiations with the developer, we'
have attempted to get the best most complete facility possible '
at the least possible long -range cost to the City of Shakopee.
The proposed building does include about 2,700 square feet of
•.. space which can . be leased by the City cf Shakopee for the
• . purpose of providing a Senior Citizen Center. The attached
lease agreement provides for the following:
Developer: ,.
1) Will build the space
:2)' Will lease it to HRA at a of $1.00 per year for the" , .
first 15 years under three, five -year leases
•.
3) Allows the HRA to lease the space for another three,
.. ;five -year lease renewals at a cost of 70 percent of the •'
' • .fair market. rent at that time and under the same conditions
' ' : , specified in the leaser This would start in 1996
HRA
:.1)• Will attempt to get grants to furnish the Center including
the equipping of a kitchen and tables and chairs.
2•) Will.pay.the utility costs.
•' ' 3)'. Will repaint and recarpet'as needed. •
• • The hope' that the HRA can lease the space and give'it.to '
Scott County who will operate the Senior Citizen Center at
their cost.' There 'has never been any contemplation that the
Shakopee HRA cr the City would ever be involved in the staffing' .
• or management of the Senior Center.
Shakopee HRA -2- December 13, 1979. •
Lease of Senior Citizen Center (!Ai
It is hoped that grants will be secured even before the building
is completed to build the kitchen which would allow a congre-
gate dining program to be held there.
.
The last 15 years of the lease agreement, where the HRA will
pay 70 percent of the fair market rent, is a negotiated agree -
' ment reached by John Bergstad, his attorney, the City Administrator,
• Commissioner Hullander and Commissioner Leroux. We wanted to ;
pay less and they wanted more. The reason they•wanted more is
• that at the 15 or 16 year point, the building can be sold
and the increased rent would assist in the sale. I think the •
• negotiated settlement is fair and should be approved.
Recommended: :'
It is recommended that the HRA authorize the Deputy Director
and the Chairman to enter into the lease agreement with 200'
Levee Drive Associates, Ltd., which is attached to this memo.
DSR /jiw
Attachment .
•
•
•
•
•
g �'
DORSEY, WINDHORST, HANNAFORD, WHITNEY a HALLADAY '
2300 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
• . M I N N E A P O L I S, M I N N E S O TA 55402
• 1468 W-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (612) 340 -2600 115 THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST
. ST. PAUL.M$NNESOTA 55101 - CABLE: DOROW ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA 55901
• (6(2) 227-8017 • (507, 288 -3156 '
TELEX' 29 -0605
TELECOPIER: ,6121 340 -2868 _
December 10, 1979 ROBERT J. SILVERMAN • •
16121 340 -27
Phillip R. Krass, Esq.
Shakopee City. Attorney •
Krass, Meyer & Kanning .
185 Shakopee Professional Building '
•1221 East Fourth Avenue '
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 •_.., '
Re: 200 Levee Drive Associates ,
•
' City of Shakopee •
Dear Rod:
I enclose at this time a revised draft of the Lease Agreement . •
between 200 Levee Drive Associates, Ltd. and the City of Shakopee. I
• believe this reflects the substance of our agreements and discussions.
The matter is subject to review and appr•val by MHFA and John Bergstad.
• Very ruly yours, •
•
•
•
Rot Silverman
RJS:ph
' Enclosure .
• cc* Mr, John Bergstad (enc.) . •
Mr. Douglas S. Reeder (enc.)
Ms, 'Diane Orbison (enc.) • • '
Karl J. Herman, Esq.. (enc.) '
•
•
•
•
•
LEASE AGREEMENT •
• THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this 18th day of December,
1979, by and between 200 LEVEE DRIVE ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Minnesota limited , •
partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Lessor "), and the CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"Lessee ");
WITNESSETH THAT:
• WHEREAS, Lessor proposes to construct on certain property located
in the City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, legally
described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, a housing
development for occupancy.by elderly persons (the "Development "); and
• WHEREAS, Lessee desires to use a portion of the Development for
a senior citizen center.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agree-
ments herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
1. The Premises. Lessor does hereby demise, lease, and let unto
Lessee, and Lessee does hereby hire and take from Lessor, that portion of
the Development consisting of approximately 2,749 square feet on the ground '..
floor of the'Development identified on the Floor Plan attached hereto as
' • Exhibit B and made a part hereof (the "Premises ").
2. .Construction of the Premises. Lessor expects to commence
construction of the Development on or about January, 1980, and expects to
;complete the Development on or about December, 1980. Performance of this .
Lease shall be contingent upon Lessor's completion of the Development on or•'
• ' before December 1,,1981. At or prior to completion of the Development,
.Lessor shall cause the Premises to be prepared for occupancy by Lessee in •
accordance with the Specifications therefor attached hereto as Exhibit C
and made . a part hereof.., "Completion" shall be determined by the certificate
thereof issued by Lessor's mortgagee, the Minnesota Housing. Finance Agency
(the "MHFA "); and the "Completion Date" shall be the date MHFA shall certi-
fy that the Development and the Premises have been completed in accordance
with the Plans and Specifications on file with MHFA. As soon as possible
after the Complation Date, the Lessee shall work with the Lessor to
seek grants to pay for the installation on the Premises of the equip-
ment, furnishings and other items identified on Exhibit D
attached hereto and made a part hereof. Lessor acknowledges that
•
•
•
•
Lessee shall not be financially obligated to pay for such equipment,' furnish -,.
ings and other items or installation thereof. Lessor shall attempt to allow
• • Lessee to enter on the Premises prior to the Completion Date for the purpose
of installing such equipment and other items; provided, however, that such
entry by Lessee shall not interfere with the completion of construction in'•
accordance with established timetables.
'3. The Term. The term of this Lease shall be five (5) years
• commencing on the Completion Date and continuing.thereafter to and until
the last day of the sixtieth (60th) month after the Completion Date.
4. Permitted Uses. Lessee shall be entitled to the nonexclu-
sive use of the Premises for the purpose of providing a meeting center,
arts and crafts center, dining facility and other uses. Lessee may enter • •
into agreements with any senior citizen organization or any other organize
• 'tion providing services or programs for senior citizens for'the use of the
' and may charge any such organization a fee for the use of the
Premises. Lessee may enter into agreements with any organization furnish-
ing a meal program for senior citizens to serve meals in the Premises. '
Any group or organization using the Premises will be required to be respon-
sible for the cleanup of the Premises after each use and will.be responsible
for breakage of any equipment used or any excessive wear and tear. Lessee
shall make this a condition of any permitted use of the Premises. No use •
of thePremises'by,any other organization shall relieve Lessee of its obli- '•
gations hereunder. No activities shall be carried on within the Premises. • . , •
;,before•6:00 A.M. or after 10:00 P.M. of any day without Lessor's prior written
approval. Lessee agrees that its leasing of the Premises is not-exclusive •
and that Lessor's tenants shall have the right to use the Premises, equipment
and furnishings in common with Lessee and senior citizens living outside the
'Development. In order to assure that both the tenants of the Lessor and the
. senior citizens living outside the Development are each reserved sufficient
time and space to have some activities separate and apart from the other groups
using the facility, an Advisory Council will be appointed to adopt rules and
regulations for the orderly use and maintenance of the Premises and for the
scheduling of activities. The Advisory Council will consist of a represen-
tative from the Lessee, a representative of the Lessor's tenants and the •
-2-
•
•
•
•
• .Resident Manager of the Development. If a dispute arises over the use or , •
maintenance of the Premises, the matter shall be referred to a conference '
with the Mayor of the City of Shakopee and the Lessor or their respective
• representatives, Lessee's use shall be further subject to such reasonable
rules and regulations as Lessor, or its management agent, may enact for .
the general safety and welfare of the persons who shall use the Development.
5. Rental. As and for rental of the Premises, Lessee agrees to
pay Lessor at Lessor's offices in Shakopee, Minnesota, or at such.other
place as Lessor shall direct in writing, a fixed annual rental of One Dollar
($1.00) per year payable in advance on the Commencement Date of this Lease
• and on each anniversary of such date. As additional rent, Lessee shall pay
• utilities, insurance, taxes and other costs'imposed by this Lease upon
Lessee.
6. Utilities. Lessor shall furnish heat to the Premises and
shall furnish electricity for lighting of the Premises except for the
kitchen area. The electricity for lighting and operation of the equipment,
• in the kitchen and the natural gas for the stoves, in the kitchen shall be
separately metered and paid for by the Lessee. If possible, the cost of
• the gas and electricity for the kitchen will be billed directly to the
• Lessee by the Utility companies. Lessee shall pay•the cost of any telephone
in:the Premises. Lessor shall provide water and 'sanitary sewer facilities.
Lessee shall pay to Lessor, within twenty'(20) days-of billing by Lessor,
' Lessee's share of the cost of heat,'sewer, water and 'other utilities not
separately metered to Lessee, but used within the Premises, which share is
hereby determined to be, 5.057% of the total of such costs. •
' '7. .'Relationship of the Parties. It is expressly agreed and
understood that. the, relationship between the parties hereto is and shall at
all times remain that of Lessor and Lessee. Neither party shall be construed
to be a partner or associate of the other in the conduct of its affairs, nor
shall either party be liable for any debts incurred by the other party in
-3-
the conduct of its activities. Nothing herein shall be deemed to obli-
gate either party to participate in or assist in the management or
operation of either party's programs, or to compel residents of Lessor's
facilities to use or participate in Lessee's programs.
8. Responsibility for Maintenance and Repair of the Premises.
• During the term of this Lease, Lessor shall maintain the structural •
portion of the Development, including all heating and other mechanical
and'electrical systems serving the Premises. Lessee shall maintain and
repair the•Premises and keep the same in a neat, clean and orderly condi-
tion, and shall be responsible for compliance with all applicable
. ordinances, rules and regulations of governmental bodies. Lessee
•
shall further be responsible and shall pay for all costs of trash •
removal, extermination service, maintenance, repair and replacement of
• equipment, restrooms, heating and ventilating equipment, light fixtures,•
light bulbs, florescent fixture ballasts, and other items located within
the Premises. After the initial installation pursuant to Paragraph 2 '
hereof, Lessee shall attempt to secure for the Premises sufficient
kitchen 'equipment, pots and pans, dishes and furniture as may be neces-
. sary to operate the same'as a senior citizen center, but shall not be
' financially obligated to supply such equipment. Should Lessee fail to
perform the requirements of this Lease, Lessor shall have the right to
perform such services on behalf of Lessee and the amount expended by
Lessor for such activities shall be additional rent hereunder.
9 Alterations; Lessee shall not make any alterations,
additions or improvements to the Premises, nor permit any person to
perform or do any remodelling, reconstruction, new construction, or
other improvement to. the` Premises or the Development without first
obtaining the prior, written consent of Lessor and MHFA. Any work per -
formed by or at the request of Lessee shall be performed free and clear
of all claims for mechanics' liens and Lessee shall promptly satisfy
any mechanic's lien which may attach to or against the Development or
the Premises. Lessee shall from time to time cause the interior of
the Premises to be repainted, cleaned or refloored in order that the
Premises and the Development will be maintained in a comparable fashion.
-4-
7 •
•
. 10. Insurance. Lessor shall, at its cost and expense, maintain
fire and extended coverage insurance on the Development and liability ,
insurance in the minimum amounts of $250,000 for injury or death to any
one person and $500,000 for injury or death resulting from any one occur-
rence. Lessee shall maintain contents insurance on all equipment, furni-
ture and furnishings located within the Premises and shall maintain
' liability insurance in an aggregate amount of $300,000 per occurrence. '
• Lessor's and Lessee's policies of liablity insurance shall each name the •
other as additional insured and shall each contain waivers of subrogation
rights. All insurance policies shall have mortgagee clauses in favor of
Lessor's mortgagee. Lessee shall maintain workmen's compensation insur-
ance covering all of its employees to the extent required by law.
11. Real Estate Taxes. Lessor intends to make application for
'real estate tax abatement for the Development, as provided by Minnesota.
Statutes 271.13, Subd. (17). If the use and occupancy of the Premises
by Lessee shall cause said tax abatement to be denied to Lessor and
cause the Lessor to receive a tax statement which does not recognize said •
tax abatement, then both Lessor and Lessee reserve the right to terminate
this Lease, provided, however, that Lessee shall have the option in lieu ,
of said termination to pay'the increased taxes and contest the denial, of
said tax statement on behalf of itself and Lessor. To the extent that the
real estate taxes payable with respect to, the Development shall be
increased by reason of the use to be made by Lessee of. the Premises Here-
. y.
under; Lessee shall pay the amount of such increase in real estate taxes
to Lessor for each; assessment year during which Lessee is occupying the
Premises hereunder, such payments to be made on or before the 15th of
'. May and 15th of October ofeach year for which such taxes shall be
paid. The amount ,payable by Lessee with respect to such taxes shall
' be determined from data supplied by local taxing authorities.
12. Destruction of Premises. If, during the term of this Lease,
the Premises shall be damaged or destroyed by fire or the elements, or
through any other cause so as to render the Premises unfit for occupancy,
-5-
•
or make it impossible to conduct the regular activities of the Lessee '
'. therein, or to such an extent that the Premises cannot be repaired with •
• reasonable diligence within 120 days of the happening of such damage, then •
Lessor may, by written notice, terminate this Lease and Lessee shall immedi-
ately surrender the Premises and all interest therein to Lessor, and Lessee
• shall pay rent only up to the time of such surrender. Should Lessor not '
elect to terminate this Lease, then this Lease shall not end or terminate
• on account of such damage, but rent shall not run or accrue after, the
.damage and during the process of repairs, and up to the time when such . •
repairs shall be completed, except only that Lessee shall during such time
. pay a pro rata portion of such rent applied to the portion of the Premises •
.which are in condition.for occupancy or which may be actually occupied
. during such repairing. If, however, the Premises shall be so slightly .
. injured by any cause aforesaid as not to be rendered unfit for occupancy,.
then Lessor shall repair the same with reasonable promptness, and in that '
case the rent shall not cease or abated during such repairing period. ,
Lessor's obligation to repair the Development shall be contingent upon
Lessor receiving proceeds of insurance for•such purpose. •
. 13. Eminent Domain. If any part of the Premises shall be taken
• or condemned for a public or quasi - public use, and •a part thereof remains ,
which is susceptible for occupation hereunder, this Lease shall, as to the ..
'part so taken, terminate as of the date title shall vest in the condemnor, .
at which time Lessee's, obligations hereunder shall be adjusted proportion
at If all of the Premises, or such a great part thereof, be taken or •
condemned so that there does not remain a portion susceptible for occupation
hereunder, this Lease shall terminate. All compensation awarded upon such
c.ondemnation'or taking shall belong to Lessor and Lessee shall have no claim
thereto and hereby irrevocably assigns and transfers to Lessor any right
to compensation or damages to which the Lessee would otherwise become
entitled during the term hereof by reason of the condemnation of all or a
part of the Premises; provided, however, Lessee may recover from the con-
demning authority damages for taking of its equipment and personal property.
•
-6-
i ry 0�
•
14. Subletting or Assigning of Premises. Lessee shall not assign
this Lease or sublet the Premises without the prior written consent of Lessor,
•
except to .the extent provided for in Paragraph 4 hereof. Any assignment,
•
sale, bankruptcy or insolvency of Lessee may, at the option of Lessor, be
•
• considered as an assignment within the meaning of this Lease or as a
• breach of the covenants hereof. Assignment or subletting without first
H. obtaining Lessor's written consent and endorsement will authorize Lessor,
at its sole option,•to terminate the tenancy created hereunder and to re -enter
and take possession of the Premises without such re -entry constituting an •
election of remedies or a waiver of money damages.
• 15.' Subordination. This Lease shall be subject and subordinate
to all existing mortgages or any mortgage which may now or hereafter affect
the Premises, including specificallyaa mortgage to the MHFA. This Lease
shall also be subject and subordinate to all renewals, modifications, consol
. idations and replacements of any such mortgages. Although no instrument or
act on the part of Lessee shall be necessary to effectuate such subordination,
Lessee will, nevertheless, execute and deliver such further instruments con -
firming such subordination of this Lease as may be desired by the holders
. • of any mortgage, including the MHFA. Lessee hereby appoints Lessor attorney
in- fact,'irrevocably, to execute and deliver any such instrument of Lessee.
16. - Waiver of Subrogation. Lessor and Lessee, both on their own
• behalf and on behalf of anyone claiming through or under either of them,
hereby mutually waive and release all claims, liabilities and causes of
• action the other and the agents, servants, employees and invitees
of such other, for loss or damage to, or destruction of, the Premises or any
portion thereof,or the Development or any portion thereof, as well as the
• improvements,. fixtures , equipment, supplies, merchandise and other property
• located in, upon or about the Premises or the Development resulting from
fire, explosion or other perils included in standard fire and extended
coverage insurance, whether caused by the negligence of any of said persons
or entities or otherwise. Provided, however, that this mutual release and
-7-
•
waiver shall be applicable and in force and effect only for so long as the
'insurance required by Paragraph 10 above shall remain in full force and
effect and shall specifically evidence the existence of a waiver of subro-
gation as to each policy. Both Lessor and Lessee shall advise their insur-
ance carriers of said mutual waiver and shall obtain necessary endorsements
to their respective insurance policies.
17. Default by Lessee. If Lessee shall fail to pay any install- • ,
ment of fixed annual rental, or additional rent, within twenty (20) days
after the due date thereof, or shall default in the performance of any other
of its obligations pursuant to this Lease Agreement, and if defaults not ,.•
•related to rent payments shall continue for thirty (30) days after written
notice thereof by Lessor to Lessee, or if the Lessee shall be adjudicated
'bankrupt or insolvent according to law, then in any of said cases Lessor
. may lawfully enter into and upon the Premises or any part thereof and
repossess.the same as the former estate of Lessor and expel Lessee and
.those claiming under Lessee without being deemed guilty of any manner of
trespass and without prejudice to any remedies which might otherwise be used,
for arrears of rent or breach of covenant.' Such re -entry shall not be
deemed to relieve Lessee from any covenant or obligation arising out of
this Lease; provided, however, that as to covenants and obligations hereunder
which would require possession of the Premises to perform or fulfill, Lessor
may perform.or fulfill such covenant or obligation and Lessee shall pay
• Lessor the cost of same upon demand: No re -entry or retaking of possession
shall be deemed to constitute a termination of this Lease unless Lessor •
„ gives Lessee. notice. to that effect either prior or subsequent to such re-
entry or retaking of possession. In addition to any remedy provided for
herein; Lessor shall have any other remedy provided by law. Every power
and remedy given by this Lease Agreement may be exercised from time to time
and as often as the occasion may arise. No delay or omission of Lessor to
exercise any power, right or remedy shall impair any such power, right or
remedy. No waiver of any breach of any covenant, agreement or provision
of this Lease Agreement shall be construed or held to be a waiver of any
-8-
•
•
.other breach, covenant, agreement or provision. Lessee waives any demand
for possession of said Premises in the,event of forfeiture of Lessee's rights
hereunder, and waives any demand of payment for rent hereunder, and any
notice of intention of Lessor to terminate this Lease Agreement or to re
enter said Premises, other than the notice of the defaults hereinabove
provided for. Lessor shall have the right but not the obligation in the
case of any default by Lessee hereunder of curing such default at Lessee's
expense. Any amount expended by Lessor in the curing of any such default • '.
shall be immediately due and payable by Lessee to Lessor as further adds-
tional rent.
If Lessor shall default in the performance of any of its covenants
and'agreements hereunder, and such default shall continue for thirty (30)
.days after written notice thereof by Lessee to Lessor, Lessee may terminate
this Lease and:quit the Premises without further liability for.rent hereunder.
• Provided,' however, that if such Lessor default cannot be cured by the payment
of money, the•initiation of good•faith efforts to cure said default within '
said thirty (30) day period and diligent efforts by Lessor to complete the • 2 '
• .same thereafter shall be deemed to constitute a cure of said default.
18.. Quiet Possession and Enjoyment. Lessor agrees that Lessee,
upon paying the specified rental and performing the covenants herein agreed•
by it to be performed, shall and may peaceably and quietly have, hold and
enjoy.the said Premises for the term specified.' Lessor shall have the right
•
at all reasonable times during the term of this Lease Agreement to enter the
Premises for the purpose of examining or inspecting the same and for the '
further purpose of making such repairs and replacements therein as Lessor
•shall deem necessary;' provided, however, that Lessor shall use all reason-
• .able efforts not to disturb Lessee's use and occupancy.
19. Condition of Premises Upon Surrender. At the expiration of
the term hereof, Lessee shall quit and surrender the Premises hereby demised
in as good a state and condition as when received, reasonable wear and tear
excepted. Lessee shall have the right to remove any equipment, fixtures and
-9-
•
4
personal property installed by it, provided it shall repair any damage to
the Development caused by such removal. Any such equipment, fixtures and
personal property not so removed at the expiration or earlier termination
of this Lease shall be deemed abandoned and shall be the property of Lessor.
20. Arbitration. Any disagreement between the parties with
respect to the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Lease'
or the obligations of the parties hereunder shall be determined by arbitra
tion. Sich arbitration shall be conducted, upon request of Lessor or Lessee,
. before three arbitrators (unless the parties mutually agree to submit the
matter to one arbitrator) designated by the American Arbitration Association
and in accordance with the rules of such Association. The arbitrators desig-
nated and acting hereunder shall make their award in strict conformity with •
such rules and shall have no power to depart from or change any of the pro-
• visions thereof. The expenses of arbitration proceedings conducted hereunder
shall be borne equally by the parties; but each party shall pay the fees of
legal counsel and witnesses selected by it in connection with such arbitra-
tion proceedings. All arbitration proceedings hereunder shall be conducted
in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota.
21. Notices. Whenever any notice, demand, approval, consent,
request or election is given or made pursuant to this Lease Agreement, it '
• shall be in writing. Communications and payments to Lessor shall be
addressed:
•
•
or such other'address as may have been specified by prior notice to Lessee,
• and communications and payments to Lessee shall be addressed:
Attn:
or such other address as may have been specified by prior-notice to Lessor.
Any communications so addressed shall be duly served if mailed by registered
or certified mail, return receipt requested.
-10-
•
•
22. Options to Renew. Lessee shall have the right and option
to renew this Lease for five (5) successive renewal terms, each such
• • renewal terms to be five (5) years in length and to commence on the
. expiration date of the then current term and continue for five (5) years •
thereafter. For the first two renewal terms under this paragraph, said
Lease shall be deemed to have been renewed unless Lessee gives Lessor ' •
notice of intent not to renew said Lease at least 60 days prior to the
expiration of the then current term. For the remaining three renewals, • •
such options shall be exercised,) f at all, by Lessee giving written notice .
• to Lessor.not less than six months prior to the expiration of the then
current term; provided, however, that should Lessee neglect or fail for ,
. • any reason to give said notice as provided in this sentence, Lessor
shall six months prior to the expiration of the then current term, give
Lessee written notice of Lessee's option to renew under the terms herein-
after set forth, and Lessee shall have thirty days after receipt of such' '
• written notice by Lessor to give written notice of Lessee's intent to
exercise such option. Any such exercise by Lessee shall be of no force
and effect if, as of the date of exercise of such option, this Lease
shall be in default. If this Lease shall be renewed as set forth above,
then the renewal term shall be subject to the same terms and conditions •
as set forth in this Agreement, except that the monetary rent payable
pursuant to Paragraph 5 hereof shall be as follows:
(a) During the first and second renewal terms, the monetary rent pay
able shall be $1.00 per year, payable in advance on the first day
of each year during such renewal term. .
(b) During the third, fourth and fifth renewal terms, the monetary rent •
payable pursuant to Paragraph 5 hereof shall be equal to 70% of the
Fair Market Rental (as hereinafter defined) determined as of the j
date five.(5) months prior to the commencement date of that renewal
term, and shall be payable in sixty (60) equal. installments each on
the first day of each month during the renewal term.
For purposes hereof, the term "Fair Market Rental" shall mean the amount
expressed in dollars for which a lessor willing, but not obligated to
lease, would lease to a tenant, willing, but not obligated to lease, the
Premises in accordance with the terms set forth in this Lease. In the
-11-
•
event Lessor and Lessee shall be unable to agree to the amount of the
• •Fair Market,Rental within fifteen (15) days of the date of exercise of any
option to renew hereunder by Lessee, such dispute shall be submitted to
arbitration by one or more arbitrators, as herein set forth. The first ,.
such arbitrator shall be appointed by written notice given by Lessor
•
or Lessee at any time after the expiration of the fifteen (15) days after '
the notice by Lessee to exercise the option to renew. The second such .
arbitrator shall be appointed by the other party within five (5) days '
:.after; the appointment of the first arbitrator. • If the second, arbitrator
is'not•selected within such time period, the initial arbitrator appointed
shall decide the matter. Within ten (10) days of the date. both.arbitra
tors are appointed, such arbitrators shall appoint a third arbitrator.
Should said arbitratorsfail to appoint a third arbitrator within said.
ten (10) days, either arbitrator may apply to the senior judge of the ,.
First Judicial District for the appointment of such arbitrator and any
'appointment by said judge shall be final and binding on both parties.
"The. arbitrators thus appointed shall convene within ten (10) days of the
•
date'of appointment* of the last arbitrator and shall hear.such testimony"
. end evidence ' as either party to this Lease shall choose to submit. 'The
•
•decision of a majority of the arbitrators :shall be made within ten (10) '
days', of the conclusion of any such hearing'and shall'be expressed in
.'wr-iting,to the parties'and shall be binding upon the parties. If Lessee
shall that the FairMarket Rental, as determined by arbitration ",
(and;a$ a result thereof the rent payable pursuant to Subparagraph.(b)
above), 'shall' be too high, then Lessee shall have the' option to withdraw
its exercise to extend the term, of this. Lease,. provided, however,. such
withdrawal .shall be in writing and shall ' be given , ' to Lessor within ten •
•
(10,) 'days • of the written decision of the, arbitrators' and not l ess. than
four (4) months prior to the expiration the then current term. Alkl
••' arbitrators selected hereunder shall be disinterested, and shall be'per- '
sons knowledgeable in real estate values and leasing in the City of
• Shakopee, Minnesota. The cost of any such arbitration shall be divided
equally between the parties, provided each party shall pay all their own '
attorneys and witness fees.
-12-
23. Paragraph Titles. The paragraph titles herein have been ,
inserted for convenience only and shall not be construed to modify,
limit or amplify the meaning of the terms and provisions hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Lessor and Lessee have caused this Lease
Agreement to be executed by duly authorized officers, all as of the day
and year first above written.
• 200 LEVEE DRIVE ASSOCIATES, LTD: •
• By
Its General Partner
•
And
Its General Parther.
•
•
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA' •
• By;
• Its
Approved:
•
•
•
•
Its•
•
•
•
•
-13-
,
RESOLUTION NO 1546
•
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LEASING OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT
•
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Administrator is
authorized to enter into a lease with Copy Duplicating Products,•
Incorporated, for the use of a Savin 600 copier. Said lease to be
a three .(3) year, cancellable at 12 month intervals. Lease, payments'
to be $4,333.33 per year plus $.009 per copy for usage over 7,000
copies per month.. •
Adopted in Regular Session of the City Council of the City •
' of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 2nd day of January, 1980.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee •
ATTEST:. •
•
•
City Clerk •
•
Approved as to • form this
day of , 1980. •.
•
•
•
City Attorney
•
•
•
•
MEMO TO Mayor and City Council
• FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: Legal Counsel to the Planning Commission
DATE: December 20', 1979
•
• You have requested that the City supply legal counsel
• for the Planning Commission meeting as they consider
matters which do not now need to go to the, City Council,
. It is my recommendation that you consider the following
options:
•
1) Having an attorney at each meeting of the Planning Commission.'
2) Having an attorney at the Planning Commission meetings • ' •
only when the City Planner or a member of the Planning
Commission sees the need for a particular item.
Under this alternative, when an item came up at .a
-meeting which requires a 'legal interpretation, then '
the Planning Commission would table the matter and '
request a written opinion.
. It is my recommendation that the second alternative if carried
out well by staff and the Planning Commission,' will serve
the need. I believe a full time attorney at the Planning.
Commission meetings would be costly and unnecessary.
DSR /jiw '
•
•
•
•
.
r Cr
`` 0E � : CITY OF SHAKOPEE & :•$
'' 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
if!,
. MEMO
TO: City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder,City Administrator
SUBJECT: 1,500,000 Gallon Elevated Storage Reservior
DATE:
December 28, 1979
At a joint meeting with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
December 18, 1979, it was the concensus of the Utilities
Commission and Council to extend the project completion date
from October 17, 1980 to October 26, 1980. Therefore, it is
the recommendation of staff that Council approve Contract
Ammendment #1 of the 1,500,000 Gallon Elevated Storage Reservior,
Project 79 -9 and that the Mayor be authorized to execute
contract ammendment #1.
HRS:nae
•
•
•
. \. .
7C;
• fE "4,, CITY OF SHAKOPEE
4ti
( L
129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO
TO: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
FROM:H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer
SUBJECT: 1,500,000 Gallon Elevated Storage Reservior
DATE: December 17, 1979
Pittsburg -Des Moines Steel Company held their bid nine additional days '
from November 12th through November 20th. In consideration of that
extension, it is also appropriate to extend the project completion date
from October 17, 1980 to October 26, 1980.
Pittsburg -Des Moines Steel Company has agreed to the terms of this change
at the original contract price.
I recommend that this matter be brought before the joint meeting of
Utility Commission and Council for approval.
cc:, .Lou VanHout
•
•
•
r q'
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. OAHLIN
, LARRY L. HANSON SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
JACK E. GILL
RODNEYB. GORDON` s ENGINEERS ANO SURVEYORS
THEODORE D. KEMNA `
JOHN W. EMOND
KENNETH E. ADOLF
WILLIAM R ENGELHARDT (612) 938 -7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
BRUCE C. SUNDING
R. SCOTT HARRI OFFICES AT HURON. SOUTH DAKOTA AND DENTON, TEXAS
DENNIS W. SAARI
GERALD L. BACKMAN
December 13, 1979
•
City of Shakopee
c/o Mr. H. R. Spurrier,
City Engineer
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 •
Subject: 1,500,000 Gallon Elevated Tank
Improvement Project No. 79 -9
Gentlemen:
Herewith are eight (8) copies of Contract Amendment No. 1
for the subject project. This Amendment extends the project
completion date by nine days which equals the contract award date
extension granted to the City by the Contractor. Please review
•
and sign all copies, return three copies to our office and retain
the remaining five copies for your records.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
KEAdolf:mkr ,k w 1`� `-"`- j'`
enclosures
cc: Mr. Lou Van Hout
•
CONTRACT AMENDMENT l/ 1
DATED December 7, 1979
PROJECT: 1,500,000 GALLON ELEVATED TANK
OWNER: City of Shakopee
OWNER'S PROJECT NO. 79 -9
TO: PITTSBURGH -DES MOINES STEEL COMPANY
You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject son ract.
OWNER: City of Shakopee BY: \ ./ 'C'?' �"` - -.
Dgnglas '. Reeder, Administrator
BY: DATE:
(Walter Harbeck, Mayor)
DATE:
Nature of Change: Extension of the project completion date from October 17, 1980,
to October 26, 1980.
Original Contract Price . $979,200.00
Total of Previously Authorized Change Orders $ 0.00
Net Increase Resulting from this Change Order $ 0.00
Current Contract Price Including All Change Orders $979,200.00
•
The'above changes are approved:
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. PITTSBURGH -DES MOINES STEEL COMPANY
ENGINEER CONTRACTOR
BY: i/ ) ' - / BY: /a - L. . /
DATE: /0'7 -/ 79 DATE: December 11,1979 _!
H. R. Spur. r, ity Engineer Julius A. Coller, City Attorney
DATE: • DATE:
- — — - —
fat
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: Public Hearing on Jefferson Request
DATE: December 27, 1979
At the Planning Commission meeting held December 13,
1979, the Shakopee Planning Commission approved a request
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a home occupation
comprised of carpentry and related wood working in an R -2
zone, with conditions." For your information, I have
high - lighted this part of the Planning Commission meeting
on the attached minutes. See these minutes for the Planning
Commission's conditions.
At the meeting of the Shakopee Board of Adjustments and
Appeals, they approved Mr. Walter Jefferson's Variance
request. There were no conditions on this approval.
Minutes again attached and high -- lighted.
On December 17, 1979, the City of Shakopee received an •
appeal to the Planning Commission decision4 by Mr. Dale
Huber. Therefor:, we will be holding a public hearing
on January 2, 1980, at 8:15 PM to consider the appeal to
the Jefferson requests.
jiw
Attachments
•
•
q
• Affidavit of Publication • • '
M t
- State of Minnesota
ss.
County of Scott .
John F. Neely ,
• . , being duly sworn, on oath says he is and dur- .
• ins all the times herein stated has been the publisher and printer of the newspaper known as
, , • I pubgskedNo<tce• The Shakopee Valley News and has full knowledge of the facto herein stated as follows: (1) . .
^__ Said newspaper 1s printed In the English language In newspaper format and In column and
'` `NOTICEOFPUBLICPIEARIN(3 ;. sheet form equivalent In printed space to at least 900 square inches. (2) Said newspaper is a
TO WROMIITMMAYCONCERN:' •• weekly and hi distributed at least once each week.. (3) Said newspaper has 50% of its news
�,, Mr Walter;)ef arson of 1157.) on Street has
r columns devoted to news of local Interest to the community which It purports to serve and
"
v ace tad ( rota froth I �he Cite ' of Shakopee a five foot lleside'yardsetbackrequirements in does not wholly duplicate any other publication and Is not made up entirely of patents, plate I
thlthetr !Vl addsnattachedgaragebehindhis matter and advertisements. (4) Said newspaper is circulated in and near the municipality
n6g�rp4ei hasiequeate(laconditionaluse which it purports to serve, has at least 600 copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers, .
par( n, jt to carpentry and related wood- ,
yor1iing home lion ,The Shakopee Planning has an average of at least 75% of Its total circulation currently paid or no mere than three
Cqmm *, alterholding a pdbIic bean on both months in arrears and has entry as second -class matter in Its local post - office. • (6) Said
f ved path r eatlfWith ttions gn newspaper purports to serve the City of Shakopee In the County of Scott and It has Its known ,
tbahtpna caaditlu8erequeal' office of issue in the City of Shakopee In said county, established and open during Its reg-
• la .a ree de , an appeal. Sha ular business hours for the gathering of news, sale of advertisements n the
p twig s ea decisions , ppe etu Shakopee ts and sale of subacrlD
a nd t Wx a public h'eartq hat been lions and maintained by the managing officer of said newspaper, persons In its employ and
4e fls •2, 198 iWedn at 8 15 subject to his direction and control during all such regular business hours and at which said
b l irin ip t hq , ebe ethe City Council at• Ctt tla4 y .,Hal) ,Sane •' newspaper la printed. (6) Said newspaper files a copy of each issue immediately with the ,
Mg ,Which time ,
(pg�y' drtfl ' bebef conaitkP' ilia' Planning Cgtnmission'c • + State Historical. Society. (7) Said newspaper has complied with all the foregoing conditions
dectsloh •and WIII silo' consider t cop plenta of ' for at least two years preceding the day or dates of publication mentioned •
below. (8) Said '
to res rest en(li in`.atgattdagc€ at the ,plthli , newspaper has filed with the Secretary of State of Minnesota prior to 'January 1, 1986 and
i , .All rson desa log to be heard rega ei • each January 1 thereafter an affidavit In the form prescribed by the Secretary of State it ;oaIec (t jl�(fijepemil and signed by the managing officer of said newspaper and sworn to before a notary public
pat atthispublichearilig I, ; , stating that the newspaper is a legal newspaper.
i i { "'" r °'�1 " ° Not of Pub i c Hear i n 9'
4
tgini¢trator r: • % . ,. ) He furt states on oath that the printe a • '( ?' � �•• 19 (9isi' A,pppaI from Jefferson Requests hereto attached as a part
. hereon was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published therein • •
• in the English language, once each week, for one successive weeks; that it was
first so published on .Wednesday.. the 1 day of , • ecember 19.79 • •
and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including the '
day of 19 .... . and that the following Is a printed ropy of the lower case
alphabet from A to Z, both Inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind ■
of type used in the composition and publication of said notice, to wit: •
pbcdefghljklmnopgrotuvwxyz _ ■
• abcd '',
- . E.-.. L. f -II .. r 1
•
Subscribed and sworn to before me this .... rldac of .Decerrther 19
}. i . ! CS I: 1'Y .s
r J 6 }:,. F; : ") i •d `t
•
• (Notarial Sent)^"' • Notary pulil County, Mfnneeota
' My Commission Expires 19
•
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Ses: ion Shakopee, Minnesota • December 13, 1979
Vice Chrmn. Coller called the meeting to order at 7:59 PIVI, with
Comm. Marsclall, Perusich and Colligan present. Absent: Comm.
Rockne and Chrmn. Schmitt. Late: Comm. Koehnen. Also present:
• Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator and H. R. Spurrier, City
Engineer.
Marschall/Perusich mov. ?d to approve the minutes of November 8, and
November 15 -. ---- 9. 7_ 9,— as _ke_pt..._.Moti_on_carr_i-ed unan moos -1 -yo
C olligan /Perusich moved to open the public hearing on the r.quPq
for akConcit .oral- Use— Permit..t.o allow a home occupation comp'rise'd
of carpentry and related wood •working in an R -2 zone , Motion carried
unanimously'. "'
City Admin. stated that the applicant is CWalter"Je`fferson_o.f 1�1 7
CJI91Mrstrilia He also stated that this permit was needed in order
for .Mr. Jefferson to conduct the business of carpentry in his garage.
He stated that this would employ only Mr. Jefferson and this could
be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit as a Home Occupation.
Walter Jefferson was present for discussion and stated that this '
would be an.occasional type business for building wood cabinets,
furniture, etc. He stated he would only be using small power
portable type equipment. He 'stated that he had concern for his
• neighbors opinion and any conditions they might like to set forth
. would be taken into consideration by him. He stated that a vacum
type system would not be needed to removed dust because there wasn't
that much and any dust that would fall would be swept up.
•
Vice Chrmn. Coller asked for comments from the audience.
Wally Welter had concerns with the new addition and the added noise •'
level.. He stated he has had concerns about the noise in the past
but has never so stated these concerns but his concern now is that
with the addition to the garage, the noise perhaps would be more
frequent. -r also questioned the resale value of his property if-this
became an area with a high noise level.
•
Dale Huber stated his concern with the resale value of his home also..
He wanted some assurances that this would not decrease the value
of his property. He also stated that a Protective Covenants had
been adopted in 1966 that stated this area was to be used for only
residential use.
•
•
1 •
- Proceedings ecember 13•, 1979 the -2- 979 '.
Planning Commission ..
City Admin. stated that he was not aware of the Protective Covenants and
it could not be enforceable by the City and thi_: ii,ust ha'.•, nc en a '
.: part of Mr. Jefferson's Purchase A,.;reetnent.
•
Vice Chrmn. C:ollcr :stated that the Protective C w r,_r only
to protect this area as residenti.ai and that the Planning commission
." could grant the Conditional Use Permit, but it would be up to the ,
neighboring residents if they so chose to enforce the I'rta cct i.ve
Covenants.
.. Mr. 'Jefferson sugge.:ted his hours of operation to be frog: 8:00 AM. tc,
8:00 PM, six days a week excluding Sunday. •
Mr. Huber stated he had no objection to these hours but was objecting..
because of the adoption of the. Protective Covenants to protect this ',,
area from any home occupation. . •
. .
Mr. Welter stated that these hours would be acceptable to him in the '
",:•':
winter months: but not in the summer or spring.
Wilbert Welter asked for the duration of the Conditional Use Permit. ;�,
He questioned if Mr. Jefferson's home was sold if the Conditional
Use Permit would be still in effect„
*City Admin. respond.d that a Conditional Use Permit's duration was up ••
to the Planning Commission and that: this would be a' Conditional.Use,
Permit for Mr, Jefferson to conduct the business he has applied for
• and not•a permit that would allow any other business to be. conducted •
• at' that location. . • .
Wally Welter sugge s'.:ed a six month trial perioa for the Con.H.tional ' '
Use Permit,..:
' Bruce Strphschein, 1190 Jefferson, stated he did not feel that the '
• noise level • would bE: that bad. However, he did state that the ,:
Protective :Covenants for this area had impressed him at the time he •
purchased his home.
Wally Welter asked if conditions could be placed on the Conditional
Use Permit to restrict Mr. Jefferson from creating this part-time.,
. business into a full -time occupation. .. ,
Vice Chrmn..Coller asked for any further questions from the audience. `•
• : There Were none, ' •
Colligan /Marschall moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously..
•' 'Comm. Colligan stated that he had received calls regarding this
Conditional Use Permit and stated that a precedent should not be set-."
allowing a 'business in a residential area
•
•
J 9
4
' December 13, 1979
' , Proceedings of the -3-
Planning Commission
. ,
• Marschall /Perusich offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
236; request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a home occupation .
comprised of carpentry and related wood working in an R -2 zone, .
applicant, Walter Jefferson, and moved for its adoption with the' .
• following conditions:
1) Business to be carried out only by Mr. Jefferson.
2) Business conducted totally within the garage. • . ,
3) No exterior storage of equipment of supplies be permitted at
any time.
4) Hours of operation be allowed between 8 :00 AM and 8:00 PIVI
October through April and 8 :00 AM to 5:00 PM, May through
September for six days a week excluding Sunday.
51 That the noise caused by the business be kept at an acceptable
level and that the structure tie designed to specifically reduce
the outside noise level. The doors to the business would have
• to be closed when noisy equipment is in operation.
. 6) Renewal of Conditional Use Permit be in nine months. .
• 7) The business may be operated for only 20% of the allotted time
• during the nine -month period. .
c_M o ar_r;i e d. Kith C o.mm. —Col i _an v oting.n o„
•
' City Admin. stated that according ;.o City Code, the :-es.i..L nts could •
. have up to seven days to write the City for an appeal wh..h would then
be hoard by the City Council if an lone did not ..igr.el_' with the Planning
Commission's decision.
• Colligan /Perusich moved to open the public hear i .l :ig or tr request
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a nursery ;school ii, a church •
building in an R -2 zone. Motion carried. .
City Admin. stated that the applicant is the Pumpkin Patch Nursery '
School which has been operating for the past few years without a
Conditional Use Permit but they are now aware of the need for one .
and since there has been nO complaints
the against
ranting
of the school
Conditional
past, staff could see no problem
Use Permit.
Larry Simons, owner of the Pumpkin Patch Nursery School, was present • '
• and for the past seven years they had been located in
another. church and at that time no Conditional Use Permit had been ,
required, but since the move to Christ Lutheran, they now became
aware of the need for the Conditional Use Permit due to the changes
•• in the City. Code. •
• Vice Chrrnn. Coller asked for quest ions from the: .cud :enct•. There were .
none.
PNOCEEDINGS OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota December 13, 1979
Vice Chrmn. Coller called the meeting to order at 7 :30 PIVI with
Comm. Colligan, Marschall and Perusich present. Absents Chrmn.
Schmitt, Comm. Rockne and Comm. Koehnen. Also present:
Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator and H. R. Spurrier, City
Engineer.
Colligan /Perusich moved to approve the minutes of November 8, 1979,
• as kept. Motion carried. _
• Colligan/Marschall "moved to, open the public hearing on the request
for a five foot variance from the side yard setback requirements
to" add an attached garage behind existing garage. Motion carried.
•
City Admin. gave the report on this request. The applicant is
Walter Jefferson, 1157 Jefferson. He stated that the reason a
five foot variance is needed was due to the change in the City Code
now requiring a ten foot sideyard setback. The City Admin.stated
• that he could see no problem with the granting of the Variance.
• Vice Chrmn. Coller asked for comments from the audience. There '
were none.
•
Vice Chrmn. Coller asked for questions from the Commission. There
were no further questions.
Colligan /Perusich moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Perusich / Marschall offered Resolution No. 233, a request
for a five foot variance from the side yard setback requirements to
add an attached garage behind existing garage, applicant, Walter
Jefferson, and moved for its.adoption. Motion parried.
R---- �"-'Colligan /Marschall moved to open the public hearing on the request
for a six foot variance to allow the construction of a building 31
feet high. ,Motion carried.
•
City Admin. stated that this request is being made by Rauenhorst
Corp. for the Ziegler Addn. He stated that this is for a six foot
variance and that staff recommends approval as they could see no
problems with this request.
Vice Chrmn.: Coller asked for questions from the Commission. There
were no further concerns.
,Vice Chrmn. Coller asked for comments from the audience. There were
none. •
•
•
•
.4�
•
•
December 17, 1979
•
The Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Shakopee City Council
City Hall
129 East First Avenue .
Shakopee, MN 55379
Attention: Douglas Reeder, City Administrator 0
Re: Variance Resolution No 233 and Conditional , .'s
' Use Permit No 236
. By Walter Jefferson
1157 Jefferson Street
Gentlemen:
•
•
I hereby formally appeal the following actions taken by the Board of Adjust -. •
ments and Appeals and the Shakopee Planning Commission on December 13, 1979,
and request that the be revoked:
A. Variance Resolution No. 233 granted Mr. Walter Jefferson,.
.1157 Jefferson Street, Shakopee, on December 13, 1979 by
• the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
B, Conditional Use Permit No 236 granted Mr. Walter Jefferson,
• • 1157 Jefferson Street, Shakopee on December 13, 1979 by
the Shakopee Planning Commission.
I making this appeal and request for the following reasons:
1. Granting of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit has a
'.detrimental effect on the value of my home and those in
the neighborhood,
2.. The neighborhood in which these actions were granted is
zoned R -2 and this zoning should be retained for this
• highest and best use
3. Granting of these actions infringe on my property rights
and those of other. property owners in the neighborhood. ..
4. The area in which these actions were granted is covered
by'Protective Covenants which limits the area use to
• .residential purposes. I am enclosing a copy of these .
covenants for your review. By the actions of these
•
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Sahkopee City Council -2- December 17, 1979 1
"
committees the city has granted its implied consent to .
• Mr. Jefferson to break these covenants.
• I am extremely displeased by the way these actions were forced upon me and the .`` ' .
. neighborhood by the actions of the above two committees. I am also extremely
displeased by the lack of respect demonstrated by Mr. Walter Jefferson for my
property rights and those of the neighborhood by his actions and the fact that
he started construction the middle of November. Letting these actions stand
can only be detrimental to the City of Shakopee. . ;
• Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.
e
, . / i :Oral .4, ' "
1165 Jefferson Street
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ,
. 445 -4299
DEH:C
• . cc: Walter C. Harbeck
.1305 West Sixth Street
Shakopee, MN 55379 0 ,,
Dean Colligan
1098 Tyler
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dick Hullander
938 S.' Lewis . ,
. . •
, .
Shakopee, MN 55379
• • Delores Lebens • '' '
538 West Fourth Street -
Shakopee, MN 55379
John G. Leroux ..
1941 Swift .
Shakopee, MN' 55379 '
Eldon A. Reinke
.3071 Hauer Trail. . '•
• Shakopee, MN 55379 •
' • Ronald E. Ward. ,
8464' Eagle Creek Blvd. ' :
Shakopee, MN 55379' . .'
•
•
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: Designation of Official Newspaper
• • DATE: December 27, 1979
Requesting motion from City Council to designate the
"Shakopee Valley•News" as the official newspaper for
the City of Shakopee for the calendar year of 1980.
•
DSR /1j.w
•
•
•
•
•
•
,-,,,44,. u CITY OF SHAKOPEE • tt..„,,..:
I. 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 . ,
• ..
..
�,����1� 0,.
MEMO
TO: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
FROM:' Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director '
SUBJECT: Heavy Truck Specifications
DATE: December 27, 1979
We have a heavy truck budgeted for 1980. Hennepin County
Purchasing Cooperative has drawn up specifications for the truck
that the Street Department feels that it needs. These specifica
tions are attached. One of the benefits of belonging to the
Cooperative is having an experienced person to write specifications.
This person is in contact with the manufacturers and goes to
regional and national meetings with manufacturers.
The Cooperative has taken bids on trucks a tabulations of
• bids for the truck we need is attached. Malkerson Motors had the
opportunity to bid on the truck package but they did not bid. •
Shakopee Ford will not bid on our needs because it is their policy
not to, supply a bid bond..
The low bid, as per the tabulation, is from Towns Edge Ford
at .$35,267.00. We had $33,000.00 budgeted for the truck plus
plows. This is probably the best price we can get and will have .
to make other arrangements to fund the purchase of the plows.,
To purchase under this bid, authorization must be given by
1/15/80. '
•
Action: ' . .•
Authorize purchase of 46,000# GVW truck from Towns Edge Ford. • GMV /ljw .
Attachments.
•
•
•
•
•
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
�� 1 1Y , /
_�,�,�� - • MEMO
•
TO:
Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
FROM: Jim Karkanen, Public Works
SUBJECT: Tandem Axle Truck
DATE: January 2, 1980
After several consultations with Dick Schuetzler (the Hennepin
County equipment purchaser), I'm recommending the City instruct
the Hennepin County Joint purchasing group to accept the apparent
low bid of $35,267.00 from Towns Edge Ford for the tandem axle
dump truck as specified. Because of the obvious discrepancies
of one of the bidders, much discussion was conducted with Mr. Schuetzler
'because of his expertise with purchasing tandem trucks. As a result
of these discussions, I'm proceeding with this recommendation for the
following reasons:
1. Gasoline saddle tank is mounted on the right side of the
truck.• This prohibits the installation of the truck plow
which is also mounted on the right side of the vehicle.
2. International Harvester offers a 14" single plate clutch
instead of a double plate clutch as required for urban
"stop and go �� driving. A single plate clutch in a vehicle
of this size would probably result in more clutch replace-
, ments than normal.
3. The Hennepin County purchaser (Schuetzler) who provided us with
the 'specifications for the tandem axle truck, informs us that
International Harvester bid a smaller truck than specified.
• If International Harvester had met all specifications, they
• would have to bid their Model F 2575 truck. In the bid
return, the International Harvester people bid their smaller
Model F1924. This was the reason that their bid price was
considerably smaller.
4. If'we reject the bids, as presented to the Hennepin County
purchasing group, we could write up similar specifications and
• re- advertise and end up with similar results, or write specifi-
cations for a smaller truck to accomodate International Harvester.
The problem with this action is that we would probably be faced
with higher prices because we won't be bidding in quantity and
we'll be facing a 6% price increase projected in the next month.
JK /lj
•
•
•
•
•
TANDEM AXLE DUMP TRUCK - GAS
G.V.W.: 46,000 #.
WHEELBASE: 204" - 210 ", 126" C.A.
FRAME: Section modulus including reinforcements 19.8 minimum with a resisting
bending moment of not less than 2,178,000 inch lbs. Furnish extended front
frame .
ENGINE: Gasoline driven, V8 design•, 477 CID minimum, full flow oil filter, fuel
filter, air cleaner, governor.
TRANSMISSION: Fuller RT613.
CLUTCH: 14" 2 plate angle spring with ceramic facing.
' AXLES: Front.- 16,000# capacity minimum.
Rear - 34,000# capacity minimum, single reduction, driver controlled
power divider, inter -axle differential lockout with warning light, 6.4 ratio,
wet type seals front and rear.
SPRINGS:, Front - 8,000# capacity each minimum at ground.
Rear. - Hendrickson RT340.
BRAKES: Service - Full air, 12 cfm.compressor minimum, dual air tanks with
wet tank located at low point in system, low air pressure buzzer, 'S' cam
brakes. Furnish & install air dryer with electric heating element.
Parking - Spring set parking brakes.
STEERING: Power assist.
CAB: Standard cab shall include the following:
Bostrom Westcoaster drivers seat
Bostrom companion seat
Dual sunvisors
Dual exterior rear view mirrors, 6" X 16" 'Retrac'
8" R.H. convex mirror
Dual exterior grab handles
Insulated headliner
Heavy duty insulated rubber floor mat
Arm rests on doors
ELECTRICAL: Alternator 75 amp minimum
Battery - 12 volt, 77 amp hour minimum, maintenance free.
1 .
WHEELS & TIRES: Cast spoke design wheels, first line tube type tires 10.00 X 20
-14 PR regular tread front, mud and snow tread rear, rim size 8.0 2 pc, furnish
spare rim. Furnish mechanical backup alarm R.R.
•
•
•
k , ,„„ 1 e
•
Tandem Dump - Gas
Page (2)
FUEL TANK: Step tank, 50 gallon capacity minimum, left hand mount. •
BUMPER: Front, swept back design.
BODY: Length - 15'
Width - 7'
Capacity - 10 yards water level with sideboard pockets front and rear. •
• Body shall be mounted to allow 9" space between cab and box for snow plow wing
frame.
• BODY CONSTRUCTION: Shall be constructed of hi- tensile steel, box section type •
side braces, one piece corner posts, tapered running boards interlaced under -
structure. Shall have double acting reinforced tailgate with spreader chains,
offset hinges, down hook latches, chain slots welded to exterior of body, re -•
inforced box top edge. All welds shall be continuous. Furnish and install
• safety leg for protection in working under raised box, half cab shield, electric
box vibrator under left front corner of box.
HOIST: Telescopic, frameless. Shall be driven from central hydraulic system.
Cable pull out to limit dump angle, Heil HPT63 or equal hoist.
•
HYDRAULICS: Furnish and install between front frame rail extensions a 'Commer
cial' 33 gpm pump. Pump to be driven through a drive shaft mounted to PTO
adapter on front of engine. Furnish and install a 'Gresen' valve bank with the
following configuration:
0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0-
Driver 3 way spool 3 way spool 3 way w /detest 4 way spool 4 way spool 4 way spool
Ports in spool shall be 3/4 " pipe thread. Positive rod action to valve. Box
shall raise when lever is pulled back and lower when pushed ahead. Furnish
reservoir and disposable type filter in system.
COLOR: Indian turquoise - Dupont #83350.
RUSTPROOF: Ziebart or equal 5 year warranty on entire unit.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
, ., . .
• T oi,,,,,S To i ' • •
..
..
...,. , , , ,� � k)G. SUPTRIkA f KO WAY IIN: I
`10 ,0 0 0 T,w -(,As 3 1 0 3 5,, (D1 • 3 / ?,1 1 3 ) 0(Lf -t,
PA1; as . - • 2.:3 z 23
o ` 4'� .. ,..1: ` t ,
s�,`f`� 35 -' 35 53L :30
•
13. WwvYi - aD FMS' 1. ' i> R E b . r
314'i63
. 3 4 .
7c, 1` 3s ?(7 3 ),99 3(o,2y2 30,17 -2, 00 _ -
fJ L - (`/o0 LI `!000 LT 900 FI`l2`1 •
110 0 '15 =(:,o 110 150 - -I`1O 12o -ISo .
. N. MAN .•+.l S P ALTy (t°1o)
-1 ?0 Fvr. LATt. •
N .
• 'S5,017 Z J(.LJ D
•
-------
•
. . ■
9 4 / . '
. .
, .
'.I , • ,
' •
. .
. , . .. - . .
. •
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
4IlsiCORPORATICD 1870 • d: 'f ,
. ,
129 Et First Ave., Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 ,
• 5P, :,
. .
. ' December 14, 1979
. . .
. '. • •
. .
. . . . . , .
, . . .
. . . .
. . .
Doug Hafermann , •
, .
* ' Scott County CommiSsioner . • .
. .
• Scott County Courthouse
- ' 428 South Holmes Street • •
•
Shakopee, MN 55379 •
.
•
Dear Mr. Hafermann: • - • ,..
. .
The Shakopee City Council has requested that I invite
you to meet with the. City Council at your convenience. The,
.next two meetings of the City Council will be on December 18th
and January 2nd. If you can let me know when you might be
• available I will try to arrange the City COuncil schedule so
• that you will not be kept waiting.
• .
•
, ; The Council will like to discuss with you any matters which ,
•the County Board is now considering which may be important to
.- Shakopee in general or specifically to the twenty, or so, square
'miles within Shakopee which are in your district.
• . , ,
Several specific topics, which I am sure are of interest to
our City Council, are the following:
. •
• 1. The Shakopee By-pass Official mapping
•
2. Construction of the Human Services Building and . .
. . associated parking facilities • .
3. O'Dowd Lake Regional Park •
' . 4. The Jackson interceptor ..
We look forward to meeting with you in the near future. •
Please call me at 445-3650 to discuss a convenient time.
. , .
SincerEly, •
' .
Douglas S. Reeder ' ..
• . . .
City Administrator
. . . ,
. ,
. "
DSR/ljw
. . .
, . .
cc: City Council '
• .
. , .
, . . .
. .
• 1 ;- . • •<, •• ! - i i• r 0 ./ v •2 ,-: 4." 1 ' t 2 I
Aft Equal Opportunitl; !Employer
/00U
MEMO TO: Douglas S. Reeder
City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland
Finance Director
RE: Mileage Allowance
DATE: December 31, 1979
On June 19, 1979, the City Council authorized the payment
of 20¢ per mile for employee use of personal vehicles.
It has come to my attention that a law was passed this year
which contained a clause restricting the rate we can pay
to what the State Personnel Agency pays. I suggest the
Council lower the City rate to 19¢ per mile. •
ACTION: Motion that the City pay 19¢ per mile for employee
use of personal vehicles on City business.
GV /jiw