The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/19/1999 TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 19, 1999 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7.00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report 5] Approval of Consent Business- (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor,there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS - (Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) *7] Approval of Minutes of May 26, September 7, and September 21, 1999 *8] Approve Bills in the Amount of$958,093.35 9.A.] Tobacco Violation Hearings 9.B.] Public Input on Valley Green Grading 10] Public Hearings A. Proposed Assessments for the 1998 Reconstruction Project, Project No. 1998-1 -Res. 5244 B. Increasing Tax Rates and Levies for Payable 2000 -Res.No. 5243 11] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 12] Recess for an Economic Development Authority Meeting 13] Re-convene TENTATIVE AGENDA October 19, 1999 Page -2- 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: A] Rezoning request of Valley Green Business Park for property located south of Highway 169, east of County Road 83, and north/south of County Road 16 - Ord.No. 559 *B] Shakopee Community Access Corporation Audit 15] General Business A] Police and Fire 1. Y2K Emergency Operation Plan- Res.No. 5251 2. City Ordinance - Discharge of Firearms B] Parks and Recreation C] Community Development 1. Vanpool Ridership Rate Increase *2. Appointment of Community Development Secretary D] Public Works and Engineering *1. Snow Emergency Routes - Ord.No. 560 2. Authorize Feasibility Report for Trunk Watermain Extension from Southbridge Parkway to Stagecoach Road-Res.No. 5245 *3. Set Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments for 17th Ave. West, 1998-4 -Res.5247 - memo on table *4. Set Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments for McGuire Circle, McGuire Court and Muhlenhardt Road, 1999-2 - Res.5248 *5. Set Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments for 1999 Street Overlay and Block 6 Alley, 1999-7 - Res. No. 5249 - memo on table 6. Excess MnDOT Property- Parcel+75 (Southbridge) - memo on table E] General Administration *1. Massage Center License - Knead It Or Knot *2. Off Sale 3.2 Beer License - Speedway SuperAmerica LLC 3. City Facilities Architect *4. Authorize Filling the Position of Customer Service Representative 5. Employee Health Insurance Anticipated Premium Increase *6. Set Public Hearing Date for Business Subsidy Policy 7. Accept Bid for Downtown Parking Identification Signs 16] Other Business 17] Adjourn TENTATIVE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA i Regular Meeting October 5, 1999 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Consent Business-(All items noted by an 4 are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the President,there will be an opportunity for members of the EDA to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion.Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda.Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 4 A.)Approval of Minutes: '5 E.pt rj � o1� 4. Financial 4 A.)Approval of Bills 5. TIF Documentation and Analysis 6. Resolution 99-2,A Resolution Establishing the Economic Development Advisory Committee-o-t-"b�� 7. Other Business: 8. Adjourn edagenda.doc OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION September 7, 1999 Members Present: Brekke, DuBois, Sweeney, Link, and President Amundson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director Others Present: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; and Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; and Gregg Voxland, Finance Director. I. Roll Call President Amundson called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. Roll was taken as noted above. H. Approval of Agenda Link/Sweeney moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. III. Consent Business Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the Consent Business. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Minutes None V. Financial A. Approval of Bills Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve bills in the amount of$342.48 for the EDA General Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Business.) B. 2000 Tag Levy and Budget Adoption Resolution Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 99-1, A Resolution Setting the Tax Levy for 1999/00 by the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee and Adopting the 2000 Budget, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Economic Development Advisory Committee Paul Snook stated that the EDA previously directed staff to arrive at options for an Advisory Committee that would provide recommendations to the EDA regarding economic development issues and programming. The City Council is asked to designate the EDA Advisory Committee, which provides recommendations to the EDA regarding EDA issues and programming; to direct staff to draft a job description for potential members of the Advisory Committee; to direct staff to contact representatives from the key economic development stockholder groups to determine their willingness and desire to potentially serve on the Advisory Committee, with the goal of having five members; and Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page -2- to appoint one EDA member to work with the EDA Executive Director and Economic Development Coordinator to conduct interviews of the representatives from the key economic development stockholder groups. Paul Snook recommended that committee members come from areas such as the local utilities, banks, downtown retailers/merchants; City and County Administrators; representatives from local school districts; directors of the Chamber of Commerce and the Convention& Visitors Bureau; and the Commercial/Industrial Realtors and/or developers. The basic responsibilities of the advisory committee with the EDA, would encompass the following: Creating a sound economic development policy, developing an effective strategic plan for putting the economic development policy into action, and ensuring the economic development program has adequate funding. A discussion ensued regarding the areas recommended for encompassing committee members. Gary Morke, 1042 Merrifield, approached the podium and stated that there is a vast group of talented people in Shakopee who have some feeling and desire to see some economic growth in the City. Brekke/Sweeney moved to designate the name"Economic Development Advisory Committee" for an advisory committee to be formed by the EDA that will be providing recommendations to the EDA regarding economic development issues and programming. Motion carried unanimously. Brekke/Sweeney moved to direct staff to draft a job description for members of the Economic Development Advisory Committee, to be brought back to the EDA for approval. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. Other Business None. IX. Adiournment Brekke/Link moved to adjourn to September 21, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. � 14 . th S. Cox, A. Secretary Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ADJOURNED REGULAR SESSION September 21, 1999 Members Present: Brekke, DuBois, Sweeney, Link, and President Amundson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director Others Present: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; and Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; and Gregg Voxland, Finance Director. L Roll Call President Amundson called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. Roll was taken as noted above. H. Approval of Agenda Link/DuBois moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. III. Consent Business SweeneyBrekke moved to approve the Consent Business. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Minutes SweeneyBrekke moved to approve the Minutes of June 15, 1999. (Motion carved under the Consent Agenda). V. Financial A. Approval of Bills SweeneyBrekke moved to approve bills in the amount of$20.92 for the EDA General Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). VI. EDA Committee; Member Job Description Mr. Snook stated that the EDA previously approved the creation of a five member Economic Development Advisory Committee and directed staff to draft a job description to bring back for approval. The duties and responsibilities include creating a sound economic development policy, developing an effective strategic plan and related programs for implementing the economic development policy to carry out strategic plan and programs accordingly; advising the EDA on funding for the program; and maintaining an effective committee by keeping meetings focused around a planned agenda. A discussion ensued regarding meeting dates and the length of terms. The recommendation was to meet on Wednesdays. There was a consensus to appoint 1/3 of the members for one 3-year term, one 2-year term, and a single year term. Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee Economic Development Commission Page -2- Brekke/Link moved to approve the proposed job description for members of the Economic Development Advisory committee. Motion carried unanimously. Link/DuBois moved to direct staff to advertise for the five openings on the Economic Development Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to direct the EDA Chairperson to appoint one EDA Member to work with the EDA Executive Director and Economic Development Coordinator to conduct interviews of applicants. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. DuBois volunteered to work with the EDA Executive Director and Economic Development Coordinator to conduct interviews of applicants. VII. Other Business None. VIII. Adiournment Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m. J dith S. Cox, .D.A. Secretary Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE : October 14 , 1999 Introduction Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA for the period 10/01/99 to 10/14/99 . Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $115 . 38 for the EDA General Fund. ACTIVITY REPORT as of 10/14/99 CHECK TRANS SUB FND DIV PROG OBJ DATE NO VENDOR DESCRIPTION REF SYST DEBIT CREDIT 115 19 0191 4132 10/07/1999 063207 2436 NATIONAL ADMINI LIFE/LTD OCTOBER 199 IP 20.48 0.00 115 19 0191 4310 10/13/1999 063249 1102 EXPRESS MESSENG PROFESSIONAL S 265532 OH 11.02 0.00 115 19 0191 4310 10/14/1999 063348 1861 KENNEDY & GRAVE PROFESSIONAL S SEPT. 199 IP 62.50 0.00 115 19 0191 4321 10/13/1999 063330 581 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 007683 OH 21.38 0.00 TOTAL FOR PROGRAM 0191 115.38 0.00 TOTAL FOR DIVISION 19 115.38 0.00 ****TOTAL FOR FUND 115**** 115.38 0.00 *****GRAND TOTAL***** 115.38 0.00 RXACT824 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: EDA Chair and Commissioners Mark McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: TIF Documentation and Analysis DATE: October 15, 1999 Introduction The State Auditor will come to Shakopee at some point to audit in great detail the TIF plans/budgets/activity. The EDA is requested to consider retaining a third party to review and improve documentation in preparation for the audit . Background Many cities are utilizing the above approach to take a "preemptive strike" before the State Auditor arrives . I 1 safe in saying that ever city in the state with a TIF fee sa y g y y district will be found in non-compliance by the State Auditor. A TIF audit is different than the annual financial audit . We are proposing a three part action plan in preparation for the TIF audit. 1 . Retain temporary clerical assistance to create separate accounting files/documentation for each TIF district utilizing existing budgeted funds in the Finance budget . 2 . Retain the city' s auditors to analyze, document and tie the above files to the Annual Report, TIF reports and TIF budgets . 3 . Retain a firm (Springsted or Ehlers) with TIF expertise to analyze the above plus TIF plans and developers agreements for legal compliance and make recommendations for corrective action. Both firms have full-time staff working only on such TIF projects . This approach will be the most cost effective by using lower cost sources for steps 1 and 2 as opposed to using the firm selected for step 3 doing the whole project . Finance does not have the resources to accomplish the review and a third party review would be very beneficial . The cost for step 1 is not known but expected to be about $1, 000 and Finance has money budgeted for temporary help. The cost for step 2 has quoted figure of not to exceed $8, 000 . Step 3 has one quote for $125 per hour with expected cost of $20, 000 to $30, 000, not to exceed $30, 000 . Staff is expecting to receive another quote before the meeting of the 19th. TIF is primarily an EDA function and therefore would be an EDA cost . The city is the fiscal agent for the EDA and therefore could also cover the cost . This would also be an eligible administrative cost to be paid for by TIF after a budget amendment is done but would result in less money available for the Chaska Interceptor payment . While this is an out of pocket cost now, it will be at least partially offset by reduced cost/effort when the audit takes place . Staff desires to move immediately on this project because from now to the end of the year is the best time to accomplish as much as possible. Next year would be more appropriate time from the budget process standpoint but the conversion to new software for financial/payroll/human resources is planned for next year and is a major task. The State Auditor may chose to come in at any time and it is desired to have the TIF review completed before that event . Alternatives Step 1 is being started and needs to be done in any event . l .A. Do only step 1 . B. Do step 1 and 2 . C. Do step 1, 2 and 3 . 2 .A. EDA pay for the cost . B. City pay for the cost . C. TIF pay for the cost. D. Combination of above . Recommendation Proceed with the whole review process - Alt . 1 .C. Use Alt . 2 .C. for funding step 2 and 3 . Action Move to authorize staff to proceed with a full tax increment financing review with funding from Tax increment . ,9V Gregg Voxland Finance Director I:\finance\docs\taxinc\review REVISED CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: EDA Chair and Commissioners Mark McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: TIF Documentation and Analysis DATE: October 15, 1999 Introduction The State Auditor will come to Shakopee at some point to audit in great detail the TIF plans/budgets/activity. The EDA is requested to consider retaining a third party to review and improve documentation in preparation for the audit . Background Many cities are utilizing the above approach to take a "preemptive strike" before the State Auditor arrives . I feel safe in saying that every city in the state with a TIF district will be found in non-compliance by the State Auditor. A TIF audit is different than the annual financial audit . We are proposing a three part action plan in preparation for the TIF audit . 1 . Retain temporary clerical assistance to create separate accounting files/documentation for each TIF district utilizing existing budgeted funds in the Finance budget . 2 . Retain the city' s auditors to analyze, document and tie the above files to the Annual Report, TIF reports and TIF budgets . 3 . Retain a financial advisory firm with TIF expertise to analyze the above plus TIF plans and developers agreements for legal compliance, do a cash flow analysis and make recommendations for corrective action. Both firms have full-time staff working only on such TIF projects . This approach will be the most cost effective by using lower cost sources for steps 1 and 2 as opposed to using the firm selected for step 3 doing the whole project . Finance does not have the resources to accomplish the review and a third party review would be very beneficial . The cost for step 1 is not known but expected to be about $1, 000 and Finance has money budgeted for temporary help. The cost for step 2 has quoted figure of not to exceed $8, 000 . Step 3 has one quote for $125 per hour with revised expected cost of $10, 000 to $15, 000, not to exceed $15, 000 . Staff has received a quote from Springsted of not to exceed $3 , 000 without further authorization. TIF is primarily an EDA function and therefore would be an EDA cost . The city is the fiscal agent for the EDA and therefore could also cover the cost . This would also be an eligible administrative cost to be paid for by TIF after a budget amendment is done but would result in less money available for the Chaska Interceptor payment . While this is an out of pocket cost now, it will be at least partially offset by reduced cost/effort when the audit takes place. Staff desires to move immediately on this project because from now to the end of the year is the best time to accomplish as much as possible. Next year would be more appropriate time from the budget process standpoint but the conversion to new software for financial/payroll/human resources is planned for next year and is a major task. The State Auditor may chose to come in at any time and it is desired to have the TIF review completed before that event . Alternatives Step 1 is being started and needs to be done in any event . 1 .A. Do only step 1 . B. Do step 1 and 2 . C. Do step 1, 2 and 3 . 2 .A. EDA pay for the cost . B. City pay for the cost . C. TIF pay for the cost . D. Combination of above . Recommendation Proceed with the whole review process - Alt . 1 .C. Use Alt . 2 .C. for funding step 2 and 3 . Action Move to authorize staff to proceed with a full tax increment financing review using the City' s auditors and Springsted with funding from Tax increment . Vbxl Je'gg and d Finance Director is\finance\docs\taxinc\review CITY OF SHAKOPEE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 99-2 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS,the Economic Development Authority of the City of Shakopee would like to be more actively involved in identification of economic development issues, and development and implementation of economic development strategies; and WHEREAS, The Economic Development Authority has determined that establishing an economic development advisory committee would provide more concentrated and dedicated work in these areas; and WHEREAS,the Economic Development Authority and City Council are comprised of the same members and an advisory committee would be of assistance to the Economic Development Authority; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Advisory Committee would not replace the Economic Development Authority and would not have the legal powers of an EDA, but would simply offer recommendations to the Economic Development Authority and City Council regarding economic development issues, strategy development and implementation, and other initiatives that can be undertaken by the City to expand and strengthen its economy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that: 1. The Economic Development Advisory Committee is hereby established, composed of five members, to be appointed by the Economic Development Authority and to include representatives from throughout the community. 2. Terms of the committee shall be three years in duration, to be calculated from March 1, 2000. Terms of the initial appointments shall be evenly divided between 1, 2, and 3 years as to provide orderly transition for new appointees in the future. 3. The committee shall continue to exist as long as the Economic Development Authority desires special input in the areas of economic development issue identification, strategy development and implementation. Upon resignation of a member, a new member shall be selected and appointed by the Economic Development Authority. 4. Members of the Committee shall serve without compensation and shall not personally benefit from any projects of the Committee. They shall, at the first meeting or first meeting each March select a Chairperson, Vice Chair and Secretary from their own number with duties in addition to committee membership implied by these titles. The Committee will also develop and adopt a program of action for the upcoming year to be submitted to the Economic Development Authority for approval. A majority shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Where not otherwise stated, the business of the Committee shall be governed by Roberts Rules of Order, Revised. res99-2.doc 1 5. The Committee shall have the following charges: a.) Create a sound economic development policy in the following areas: • Business Retention& Expansion • Business Attraction/Target Marketing • Prospect Response • New Business/Entrepreneurial Development • Redevelopment • Tourism Development • Data Collection/Research b.) Develop an effective strategic plan for implementing the economic development policy. c.) Based on the strategic plan, recommend to the Economic Development Authority and City Council programs that can be undertaken by the City to expand and strengthen the local economy. d.) Advise the Economic Development Authority on funding for economic development programs/projects and the Authority's budget. e.) Maintain an effective committee by keeping meetings focused around a planned agenda. Adopted in session of the Economic Development Authority of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 11999. President of the Economic Development Authority of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk res99-2.doc 2 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REG SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA MAY 26, 1999 Acting Mayor Sweeney called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Amundson, Link and DuBois present. Mayor Brekke was absent. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator and R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director. Cncl. DuBois wanted a few minutes devoted to discussion on the Memorial Park issue. This was added to the agenda. It was added under item# 3 OTHER BUSINESS. Cncl. Link asked if an assessment of the letter written by Dave Hutton should be addressed . This letter involved Riva Ridge. This is being addressed by City staff. Amundson/Link moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion on the upkeep of Memorial Park ensued. The lack of upkeep on the Indian Burial Mounds was a point of discussion along with the grass cutting. Mark McNeill said the park was scheduled to be mowed. The Native Americans want to maintain the burial mounds. The flag pole area is now mounded with blue chips and hopefully soon a retaining wall will be in place. It was wondered if the orange barriers would come down at some time. Yes,they will come down. A fence is being looked at for around the Indian Burial Mounds with the plan to grow wild flowers on the mounds so that they would not need to be mowed. The Shakopee Mdewakaton Native Americans should have to pay for this improvement. There are several mounds within the public park. The Native Americans need to make a decision as to what they are going to do with these mounds. They do not want the city to mow the mounds;that is definite. The city is giving up usable park land to honor the Native Americans ancestors memory,therefore,they should keep it looking nice. State law does allow for a fence to be erected around the mounds with the property owners permission. The City desires this but the native Americans have not approved of this suggestion. Hopefully a proposal will be accepted by them soon. The City is the property owner. Cncl. DuBois had a comment or two on Riva Ridge. It has been one entire year plus since the storms of last year, and Riva Ridge still is not resided. This is somewhat offensive to some people. It was wondered if this was a code issue. This probably is not a code issue but an issue that needs to be taken care of by frequent reminders to Riva Ridge that the residing job needs to be completed. Cncl. DuBois wanted to know what the City had in place for an eyesore such as Riva Ridge, at this time. Any tool that could be used to force Riva Ridge to get the residing done could also be used against any property owner in the City which still had storm damage to repair. Riva Ridge cannot be singled out alone. If Riva Ridge were made to repair the storm damage then any other property in the City that still needed storm damage repaired would also have to be singled out. Cncl. Sweeney thought friendly persuasion would be the best route to take with Riva Ridge. Some people may see this as an eyesore but the owners may not. Riva Ridge is having insurance reimbursement problems along with many others. Mr. Leek does not believe this is a code enforcement issue, other than the City's overall code or the building code. There is a problem getting supplies and contractors. This is just not a problem for Riva Ridge but a problem through out the City. Friendly persuasion is the way to go here,not by edict. Official Proceedings of the May 26, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mark McQuillan approached the podium to discuss the swimming pool issue. There were three quotes submitted for a new chlorinating system for the swimming pool. It was recommended by US Aquatics that Aqua Logic be chosen to provide the Chlorination Unit for the swimming pool. Actually Aqua Logic was not low bid. Their bid was in the middle. However, Aqua Logic committed to getting the chlorinating unit in on our time frame. Cncl. Link wanted to know why the low bid was not taken. Greg Stoks of Olympic pools was spoken with. He said Olympic Pools were bidding comparable materials with Aqua Logic. Olympic Pools was low bidder. The Council wanted Olympic Pools checked with to see if they could meet the City's time frame and if they could the council wanted Olympic Pools to do the job. Cncl. Link suggested a motion that Olympic Pools be asked if they could meet the City's time frame. If they could then they should be given the bid. DuBois/Amundson moved to see if Olympic Pools were able to meet the same time frame as Aqua Logic. If Olympic Pools could meet that time frame have Olympic Pools do the job; if they can not meet the time frame then give the bid to Aqua Logic. Motion carried unanimously. Pool closing policies were discussed in case these policies were needed in the future. It was recommended that the hours of the Pool being open be reduced in an attempt to keep the water at an acceptable level of use. It was recommended that the water quality be checked at 9:00 a.m., 12:30 p.m., and 4:00 p.m. there are no state codes regulating chlorine or pH levels for swimming ponds or lakes. Because of the kind of bottom,this is a swimming pond. Previous to this meeting, Council decided to close the pool until the minimum state standards for pools were met. The City recently agreed to water quality tests to determine if the pond could meet the minimum pool standards with a new Chlorination system. It was decided that a standard for the water quality of 7.25 be adopted. The condition of the water needed to be announced after each reading. The City has no lab to document these water readings. There really is nothing scientific about the readings. Not only should the hours of operation be adjusted but also the number of people in the pool at one time should be looked at. It was announced that there would be no organized groups of people coming to the pool this summer. The council was concerned for the health of the people and also concerned about lawsuits. Mark McNeill, City Administrator, said if the city took reasonable precautions like: water testing, and adding a new Chlorination unit, and the pond/pool would be completely rebuild as of 9-1-99 then the City should be on pretty stable ground. There is a recreational immunity if the condition of the pool is made known. This is a known risk. It was unnecessary to put up a sign. However, Cncl. Amundson thought signage should be stated stating the pool would close if the water was below the quality of the adopted standard. The insurance Attorney recommended not to put up signage. There are several factors that contribute to the water quality. Some of these factors are: rain(down poor),temperature,water evaporation, and the number of people in the pool. This pool policy did not have to be adopted tonight,the information letting was the purpose tonight. DuBois/Amundson moved to direct staff to come back with a firm recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan wanted the state standard number for water quality stated along with our standard for our pond/pool. He said he was looking for some flexibility. Calling it a pond which it is, allows for flexibility. Actually the chlorine level we adopted, was higher than required. Official Proceedings of the May 26, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -3- There are other items to complicate this issue. These items are cost, staffing,and routine repairs. These are all budgeted costs except for additional costs for the repair of the pool/pond. Cncl. Sweeney then turned the meeting to the joint workshop with the Planning Commission to work on the action strategies for the residential moratorium. Also present for the worksession were Planning Commission members: Larry Meilleur,Mary Romansky, Michael Willard,Gary Morke, and Cory Bullard. Mr. Leek presented. He gave the members the opportunity to break into small groups if they desired or they could discuss the issues in one large group. Mr. Leek had some proposals or suggestions based on the outcome of the last workshop on this topic. These proposals regarded: Zoning Districts, Commercial Districts, PUD control, Disclosure statements, Mixed Use Zoning, and Open Space. Staff is interested in the reaction to these concepts and also ideas to refine these concepts. He was looking for some more specific direction. Mr. Leek felt perhaps the community needed to adjust either up/down the notion of what an allowable density ceiling is. In the proposed zoning Code, Mr. Leek is proposing that there be three (3) single family residential districts including the RIC district. He proposed a split in the medium and high density zones. When staff figured density,they subtracted out the streets,ponding areas, and parks. Actually the density in Shakopee is slightly higher than what the Met Council expects. Southbridge and Centex are typical developments we are talking about. To reach the medium and higher density,the lots need to become smaller. In the medium density there would/could be attached homes and also medium density would contain detached single family homes. Low density would be the single family detached homes. Cncl. Link said it appeared that the high density gives the Planning Commission and the City Council the most problems. They have concerns regarding parking and green space. In the R-3 Zone (high density)the density is 11-18 units per acre. The high end of the density is a potential problem, also. So far Shakopee has not seen a density of 18. If we do not take some action; this could be seen. This could happen in a three(3) story unit. Cncl. Link said it seemed that it was the high density issues that brought people to the Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings with objections. We are not really backing down from 18 density units to 15 density units. We are fixing the density with a PUD. Cncl.Amundson said not to back down too far,because we still need to be able to build apartments if that is what the market dictates. Cncl. Link and Commissioner Willard wondered if developments being built today allowed places for guest parking and parking for RN.'s and boats,etc. A few members believe people are moving out to Shakopee, so they will not have to look at clutter out in the yards. Basically we are granting variances with our CUPS and PUD's. The ordinance allows this type of building. Before the 90's the buildings were being built in the vertical,now in today's market,buildings are being built on the ground. There was discussion on the footprint of the building along with discussion on the ordinance. If the variance was not granted then the unit could not be built strictly on the ground. Reality is that the raw footprint on the ground is where the market is today. Official Proceedings of the May 26, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page-4- When buffering was looked at for a way to control density, it appeared that the burden for this was on the commercial developer not on the residential developer and this did not seem fair. Jon Albinson was in attendance and spoke regarding the R-3 density. He wanted a purpose put into the ordinance. Perhaps density should be directed at the vertical. The purpose would tell us what you want us to do. Cncl. DuBois also felt there was too much emphasis on the commercial. It seems most of our complaints are coming from the residents. We need to put our emphasis on the residential. We do need to see that there are proper berms and screening in place for the residents from commercial establishments. Proper berming and screening were more of an issue for Cncl. DuBois than density was. Cncl. Sweeney brought up affordable housing. He did say the cost of the land was a large factor in affordable housing. To get the cost of the land down,there needs to be smaller lots and therefore a higher density. Cncl. Amundson asked others their opinion of affordable housing. According to Cncl. Sweeney, affordable housing to him is what you can afford on a controlled salary. He felt it was the City's duty to provide affordable housing to all. Commissioner Morke said rental housing was expensive in Shakopee. What can we do about this? Part of this is the density issue. Cncl. DuBois said it was today's reality that most families have two wage earners. Two adults needed full-time jobs to secure a home. We do have affordable homes in Shakopee. If you use 3 or 4 times your annual income,there is affordable housing. However,the interest rates are not what they used to be. We need all price ranges for affordable housing. Mr. Leek said the answer was not as simple as it was stated. The size of the family needs to be taken into consideration,also. There was more discussion on affordable housing.What is affordable to one is not affordable to another. We need a range. Commissioner Meilleur concurred with Mr. Sweeney,the City is responsible for providing affordable housing. Cncl.Amundson felt affordable housing was possible if the density was raised. Perhaps this type housing should be scattered throughout the city. This is where the mixed use zoning fits in. It was felt that this mixed use zoning could be achieved with redrafting the PUD ordinance. There does not need to be an additional zoning district or a new mechanism added. There is too much competition for the limited amount of land that we have available to build on. All of our MUSA land is located in the southeast section of the city. The land containing MUSA is what is desirable land for developments. The MUSA land is approved by the Met Council. If we do not have MUSA land available,then we cannot have affordable housing. Government policies also have a bearing on the increase cost of the Official Proceedings of the May 26, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page-5- land. Commissioner Morke and Cncl. DuBois felt the cost of housing would increase because of the moratorium. Cncl. Sweeney felt the meeting should progress forward. A recess was taken at 6:45. The meeting reconvened at 6:55. Cncl. Sweeney asked Mr. Leek if he was satisfied with the direction so far. The answer was YES. Everyone else was satisfied with what was being proposed. There was discussion of residential next to commercial and residential next to a collector street. A fence/berm/landscaping and the safety issues were discussed relating to the residential/commercial residents and residential/collector street residents. Traffic is a factor along with the perception of safety. There needs to be a sensitivity to the adjacency of the residents. We need something to separate the uses. Mr. Leek said the purpose of the site design review was to be sensitive to adjacency of the residential/commercial residents and the residential/collector street residents along with taking a look at single projects to see if certain mechanisms are needed. Cncl. Link wondered if any more zoning districts,especially commercial, should be added without a site plan being submitted. The purpose of the"new commercial"was to provide neighborhood service and to allow us to build a favorable neighborhood. The"new commercial"would be a convenience for the neighborhood. Within the neighborhood, we are looking into the future to foresee what this neighborhood may need commercially. Cncl. DuBois agreed this concept was a wonderful idea,but asked if the lots were large enough to accommodate this concept. It was determined that this was a viable concept. With a PUD, and the control it offers, along with a Design Review process this is a viable way to go. The Design Review process would be the first item to be looked at. Mr. Leek was unsure of what to do with disclosure statements. It seemed the public was surprised at the majority of new ventures. They do not seem to know what is going on. He would like some direction on this item. Cncl.Amundson asked just what is the PUD process?There is the formal application. Perhaps the formal application needed to be more specific. There is the platting process and a site plan advisory review at the Planning Commission. This was thought to also help the planning commission by being a better procedural tool. The final step is to go before the City Council for final approval/disapproval. The purpose of this disclosure was to make the process more friendly and also so people could know what was going on. It was hoped that there could be a progress update for the Planning Commission and the City Council. There is a narrow review window so only perhaps would this update be possible. The neighborhood review meeting will help this situation. Official Proceedings of the May 26, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page-6- Cncl. DuBois felt all pieces of the puzzle were needed at one time so an informed decision could be made. She preferred to see most if not all the processes of one development be handled at one meeting. This was the consensus of the group. However,according to Mr. Leek this is not always possible. There are some items that are contingent upon the outcome of previous decisions and time needs to be given. The proposed action for this would be to look at a different structure where the process could be streamlined. We would need to look at how this new structure would affect other functions. Commissioner Willard sees long laundry lists of conditions attached to PUD's and CUP's . He was wondering if this could be streamlined or if streamlining would lead to missing points. Perhaps this process needs to be changed. It was determined that there needs to be a more aggressive approach to the developers. They need to dot their is and cross their is more often. They also need consistency. This consistency will also help staff. As far as, informational signs were concerned, it was suggested that signs be erected to say"this site being proposed for rezoning". The mixed use of the zone would be addressed early on in the development process. The nature of the open space would be specifically addressed. The open space is truly wanted,the members do not want this to happen just by accident. Open space would be required in medium and high density zones. The worksession was adjourned to June 22, 1999. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. J th S. Cox ity Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Amundson, Link, Sweeney, and DuBois present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Paul Snook, Economic Development Authority Coordinator; and Jim Thomson, City Attorney. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following change was made to agenda: 15.E.2. Purchase of Parcel No. 43 (SW of Shakopee Town Square) was deferred to the October Meeting. DuBois/Link moved to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda: 15.A.1. Request for Waiver of Subdivision Criteria for Lot 6, Block 3, Orchard Park 3rd. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda: 15.B.4. Holmes Park Trail Paving. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve the Minutes of June 22, 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve Bills in the amount of$1,207,473.30. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Sweeney reported that projected rates for public utilities will not be as high as originally expected. However, he explained that in order for the system to continue to function it must be added to. He explained that a computer error was attributed to erroneous charges at United Power Association. As a result, the Public Utility will receive a refund. This refund is sufficient to reduce the projected rate changes for 2000. He cautioned that there will be a rate increase next year and likely several years thereafter. He said the Public Utility is maintaining a rate substantially lower than Northern States and Commercial Industrial. A recess was taken at 7:12 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. Official Proceedings of the September 21, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -2- The meeting re-convened at 7:24 p.m. Michael Leek explained that there was an error in staking the boundary between lots 6 and 7 in Orchard Park West 3rd Addition. As a result, one of the homes was constructed with a 5 foot setback. The applicants would like to go through the minor subdivision process to correct this error rather than going through the platting process. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the waiver request for subdivision criteria for Lots 6 and 7 in Orchard Park West 3rd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve Ordinance No. 556, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Zoning Map Adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 by Rezoning Land Generally Located North of CSAH 42 and East of CSAH 17 (Marschall Road) from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Rural Residential (RR), and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cindy Sparrow, Representing Jordan residents opposing the Residential Academy, approached the podium. She explained that the proposed academy will serve 250 at risk youth on 100 acres of land in St. Lawrence Township. She said there are safety, budget and local community issues not being addressed by Catholic Charities. She said this academy will effect all Scott County residents, and only 1-3% of placements will be from Scott County. The issues of concern are that the site will not be fenced in, the students will not be restricted to the property, there is a railroad on one side of the property, and easy access to Highway 169. She said the proposed institution is tax exempt and the residents are concerned about the impact to their community and County. They have asked for a compromise to locate a site with more acreage that is not within a neighborhood. Ms. Sparrow invited the City Council to attend a public meeting to be held Wednesday, September 29, 1999 at the Jordan High School at 7:00 p.M. Mayor Brekke stated that staff has been working with the Planning Commission and the Subdivision Review Committee to shape a new set of subdivision regulations to regulate future development of housing in the city. Michael Leek said the proposed Ordinance would change the process for review and make the requirements for submitting applications for preliminary and final plats more explicit. It makes the requirements for security more explicit. It does not deal with issues that are part of the engineering and design criteria. Those will be brought back separately. The main issue in the design criteria has been street width. Mr. Leek stated that at the last discussion on the subdivision ordinance there were issues on whether or not the variance procedure should mirror that in the zoning code. That provision has been amended. The provision relating to security has been amended as suggested by the city clerk. Consistent with the last discussion on this ordinance regarding the release of Official Proceedings of the September 21, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -3- security, he recommended the deletion of Sec. 12.50, Subdivision 1B thereby retaining our existing policy for the release of security, as recommended by Mr. Loney. Sweeney/Amundson offered Ordinance No. 557, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Replacing Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, and the ordinance summary, with the proposed amendment by the staff, and moved its adoption. A discussion ensued as to how the plan addresses environmental issues such as sod and topsoil and tree issues. Mr. Leek explained that they will be addressed in the design criteria which will be coming to council at a later date. Mr. Loney stated that sodding for residential lots would be addressed with the building code and incorporated in with the building permit review. Michael Leek explained that the Ordinance addresses grading and erosion control in Sec. 12.61-12.62. This is enforced by the Public Works Engineering review of the subdivision improvements and also in conjunction with building inspection review of building permits. Mr. Leek summarized that the ordinance talks about grading plans and erosion control consistent with the criteria which will be coming back to the Council before the end of the moratorium period. Implementation will be through on site inspections for the subdivision, and building permits within the subdivision. Bruce Loney explained that currently, at least four inches of top soil is required to be replaced when grading. A discussion ensued regarding a requirement to place trees in new developments. Michael Leek said that if the Ordinance passes he will come back with sample ordinances from other communities that include a provision for trees as a requirement for the certificate of occupancy. Sweeney/Link moved the previous question. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. DuBois opposed. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. DuBois asked if there was anything in the ordinance that addresses noise mitigation along Highway 169. Mr. Leek stated that staff will need to come back to Council with additional provisions based on the recommendation of the City Attorney, as staff has asked the City Attorney for additional input on what we can and should do in the future. There is nothing new in the proposed ordinance beyond what is in the current ordinance on noise mitigation. Motion carried unanimously. Regarding the 2000 CIP Project, Bruce Loney stated that the City has three main projects proposed that will impact the City's tax levy. The first project is the 2000 Street Reconstruction on 3rd Avenue. The City tax levy portion for this project is estimated at $566,000. The existing paved streets will be assessed at 25%, with the remaining 75% funded by the City's general tax levy. Official Proceedings of the September 21, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -4- The second project is Gorman Street Reconstruction. The City's tax levy for both the assessments on City property and the tax levy is approximately $310,000. The City would also contribute funds from its Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund and Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund to pay for improvements as used. The third project is Vierling Drive Extension, from Orchard Park West to C.R. 15. The City would need to contribute approximately $75,000 for street oversizing and would be assessed for the street adjacent to Lions Park of approximately $207,000. This project is necessary to complete the City's collector street north of T.H. 169. The total City tax levy, including assessments, for these projects is approximately $1.1 million dollars and has been included in the proposed 2000 budget expenditures. The recent loss of assessment or possible loss of assessments in the Sarazin Street Project, if funded by the CIF, would not impact the City's ability to do these projects in the year 2000. Bruce Loney said that in his opinion, the $300,000 short fall is affecting new construction and not reconstruction. A discussion ensued regarding the these projects. The Gorman Street project will be brought back at a later date for discussion. The Vierling Drive Extension will not be done until a development proposal and waivers are received. Sweeney/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5223, A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for the 1998 Reconstruction Project No. 1998-1, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mark McNeill reported that the base bid from Wanzek Construction for the swimming pond was $758,000. The unit costs for repair of the liner are $250 a lineal foot for a tear and $350 per square foot for a whole. The base bid from Olympic Pools was $855,000 but had a lineal repair cost of $8.00 per lineal foot, as well as $8.00 per square foot. The estimate was $916,000. Tom Schaeffer stated that both bidders were spoken to regarding the difference in bids. He said it is difficult to make a comparison, and explained that the project was bid with three different swim pond bottom materials. Wanzek did not turn in a bid on one of those materials. Mr. Schaeffer recommended rebidding the project. Mark McNeill explained that staff recommends rejecting all bids, going with a 10-day bid and holding a special meeting on Tuesday, October 12, 1999. Staff anticipates continuing with construction this fall and opening the pool as scheduled in June. Sweeney/DuBois moved to reject all bids on the swim pond improvements. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the September 21, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Sweeney/Link moved to rebid the swim pond project with the intent to award bids on October 12, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Loney stated that in November, 1996, a feasibility report was ordered for the Dean Lake Outlet Improvement. The purpose of the feasibility report was to analyze the necessary improvements needed to regulate Dean Lake and to establish a 100 year flood elevation in order to protect existing and developing properties around Dean Lake as the Dean Lake watershed area develops. In order to regulate the high water mark on Dean Lake, a control structure will need to be constructed near T.H. 169 and additional channel excavation is needed upstream in that area to ensure a steady flow out of Dean Lake. A preliminary design and cost estimate, which includes 30% contingency for administration, engineering and legal costs are estimated at $195,540. In order to complete the project, final plans and specifications must be completed and final permits with various agencies obtained. An extension agreement with WSB & Associates has been drafted to do the final design work at a cost not-to-exceed $9,700. This extension agreement has a cost reimbursement for obtaining the various permits at an hourly basis due to the unknown involvement with each agency. Information as to Prior Lake's cost participation is forthcoming. DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5236, A Resolution Receiving a Report Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans & Specifications for the Dean Lake Outlet Improvement Project No. 1999-8, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Link/DuBois moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for the preparation of plans and specifications for the Dean Lake Outlet Project. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to authorize staff to contract with Expert Asphalt Company for the paving of Holmes Park trails for the low quote of$8,325, with payment to come out of the existing Park Maintenance Budget. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mark McNeill stated that the current Scott County Emergency Management Plan has not been updated since 1997 and a number of procedures and personnel changes have taken place that necessitate implementing an updated plan. The Shakopee Police Department has been working with the Scott County officials in designing an updated Emergency Management Plan. Police Chief, Dan Hughes, approached the podium and briefly described various sections of the plan. This plan has been approved by the Scott County Emergency Manager. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5218, A Resolution of the Shakopee City council Adopting an Updated Emergency Management Plan for the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the September 21, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Fire Chief, Marvin Athmann, approached the podium and stated that both the fire department and the police department are responding to a significant amount of unnecessary false alarms. Currently, there is no method in place to encourage business owners to maintain their systems. He said there were 47 false fire alarms in the past year and a much higher number for the police department. In order to encourage adequate safety alarm systems, many cities have adopted ordinances which penalize those with excessive numbers of false alarms. The Shakopee Fire and Police Chiefs are proposing an ordinance which would be similar to other communities, wherein a building owner would be entitled to three "free" false alarms a year for Police responses, and three "free" false fire alarms. False police alarms in excess of three per year would be subject to a $100 fine per false alarm after the first three, and a user fee of $300 per false alarm in excess of three false alarms in a calendar year for fire systems. Sweeney/DuBois offered Ordinance No. 557, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Relating to Regulation of Alarm Systems and Amending Chapter 4 by Adding Section 4.41 to the City Code, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to waive the building permit fees for the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Improvement Project. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mark McNeill stated that the City has been involved in negotiations with MnDOT regarding the acquisition of a 50.24 acre parcel of "excess" property in the Southbridge Addition that was previously identified for park property. Originally, the land was offered to the City for $725,000 or approximately $14,431 per acre. However, the City was aware that MnDOT had, on occasion, provided some excess land to the host cities, if it was to be used for a public purpose. The City approached MnDOT regarding this and received a letter stating that they would do this. However, recently, MnDOT sent a letter rescinding that offer as a mistake was made. As a compromise they asked that the City consider accepting 25 acres at no cost, as long as it is used for a public purpose. The remaining acres could be purchased at $14,400 per acre. The 25 acre parcel to be used for a public purpose would have a clause attached, should it cease to be used for a public purpose that the land would go back to MnDOT or the City would pay the appraised value at that time. The remaining acres could be used for any purpose the City wishes. The issue is the assessments against the entire parcel. There is some question as to the right-of- way acquisition as well as a question as to whether there should be some consideration in the assessments of the City's reduced cost on the entire parcel. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to inform MnDOT that the City has chosen the 25.12 acres north of the parcel to be used for a public purpose, and that the City will pay for the southern 25 acres. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the September 21, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct staff to discuss the assessments for Southbridge Parkway with the developers, a possible compromise and to come back with options for consideration. Steve Soltau approached the podium and asked whether the monetary amount that MnDOT is seeking could be established and the deed not be based on an equal split. He said the characteristics of the land need to be considered when evaluating the value of land. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to authorize the proper city officials to execute the assessment agreement with Scott County for the 2000 assessment year in the amount of$59,500. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/DuBois moved to adjourn at 9:02 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Ju ith S. Cox ity Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. with Councilmembers Amundson, Link, DuBois and Sweeney present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Paul Snook, Economic Development Authority Coordinator; Mark McQuillan, Park & Recreation Director; and Jim Thomson, City Attorney. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following items were added the agenda: 16.A. Set Budget Hearing Dates; 16.B. Finalize 5-Year CIP; 16.C. Park Referendum Levy Proposal for 2000; 16.D. Resolution No. 5221, Consent to Levy for E.D.A.; 16. E. Resolution No. 5223, Canceling Debt Service Levys for 1999-2000; and 16.F. Resolution No. 5222, Setting the Proposed Maximum 1999 Tax Levy Collectible in 2000 . i Sweeney/Link moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke reported that the Administrative Law Judges ruled in favor of Shakopee by setting train speeds at 10 mph in downtown Shakopee. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda: 15.C.1. Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) Application for Pedestrian Bridges, Railroad Crossings, and Improvements on CR 83 and CR 16; 15.E.11. Resolutions Relating to Small Cities Development Program, Nos. 5228, 5229 and 5230; 16.A. Setting Budget Hearing Dates; 16.D. Resolution No. 5221, Consent to Levy for E.D.A.; and 16.E. Resolution No. 5223, Canceling Debt Service Levys for 1999-2000. The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda: 15.B.3. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan and Addition of MUSA -Resolution No. 5224; 15.E. 6. City Hall Roof Repair. Link/Amundson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson moved to approve the Minutes of May 12, May 18, June 1 and August 19, 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to approve Bills in the amount of$326,463.49. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mayor Brekke asked if there were any interested citizens present in the audience who wished to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda. Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mike Kirby, 1765 Stone Ct, approached the podium and proposed a sound barrier wall between Hwy 169 and Marystown Rd. He said the noise levels are high and that he had the Mn Dept. of Transportation conduct a noise level test during the daytime hours. Over a period of time the levels averaged 65 decibels (which is the maximum allowed). He said he was concerned about the hours between 10:00 p.m. and midnight. The Mn Dept. of Transportation has stated that noise attenuation is the responsibility of the developer and the City. Michael Leek explained that there is no indication that the noise standard for the interior of the units has been violated. He said the structures within the development were set back appropriately under the subdivision code. At this point, there is no authority to require additional sound mitigation measures under the plat approval of the developer RDI. Mike Kirby was directed to meet with City staff to discuss the issues. Staff was also directed to report back to the Council. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed improvements to CSAH 17 from STH 169 to St. Francis Avenue; 17th Avenue from CSAH 17 to Sarazin Street and Sarazin Street from 17th Avenue to the north plat line of Brittany Village, Project No. 1999-7 -Res. No. 5217. Bruce Loney stated that this project began with a petition from the Shakopee Valley Marketplace Plat. Since that time the developer's agreement has been revised and the developer will now install the improvements to 17th Avenue and Sarazin Street. Therefore, the focus of this public hearing will be on improvements to County Road 17 from TH 169 and St. Francis Avenue. Mr. Loney explained that the improvement project is for the widening of County Road 17 to an urban 4-lane divided arterial with duel left turn lanes at CSAH 17 and 17th Avenue intersection with a traffic control signal at that intersection. There will also be a concrete median providing a divided barrier extending past St. Francis Avenue with a left turn lane from CSAH 17 to St. Francis Avenue. An alternate project would included improvements to CSAH 17, from T.H. 169 to south of St. Francis Avenue. Staff has worked with Scott County to develop a cost participation policy. County Road 17 is not in the County's Capital Improvement Program. However, funds are available for transportation signals and this signal would be paid for as part of the cost participation policy. Both the City and the County would be responsible for upgrading County Road 17 to a 4-lane undivided roadway. The County would reimburse the City its share of the costs in the year that the project would be programmed, and that has been indicated to be in five to ten years from 1999. The County would pay their J Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -3- portion of the traffic control signal costs in this year's budget. The left and right turn lanes, and widening associated would be the responsibility of the developers with commercial property. The City would pay for the City trail to be built along County Road 17. The left turn lane into St. Francis Avenue would be assessed to the St. Francis Regional Medical Center. Petitions and waivers of assessment hearing have been sent to the property owners of commercial property north of 17th Avenue and on either side of CSAH 17. The property owners west of CSAH 17 have indicated a willingness to execute the petitions. Of the project cost, $777,094 will be assessed. The City's responsibility will be $153,000 and the County's cost will be $164,000. Petitions were received by Eldon Greenwood and the developers of Shakopee Valley Market Place. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to address the City Council on this matter. There was no response. Mayor Brekke closed the public hearing. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5217, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for County State Aid Highway 17(Marschall Road) from Trunk Highway 169 to St. Francis Avenue, Project No. 1999-7, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for the design of this project in an amount not-to- exceed $54,000.00. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 7:47 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting was re-convened at 8:02 p.m. Michael Leek stated that Shakopee Services would like to see the barricades removed from Pheasant Run Street, which is currently barricaded to prevent access to Valley View Road. They would like the barricade removed in order to facilitate school bus access. He explained that the Planning Commission was concerned about turning movements at Valley View Road until Valley View Road is improved. They put a condition in the plat approval prohibiting access to Valley View Road. Jean Marshall, 600 Hennes Avenue, approached the podium and stated that with the opening of Sunpath Elementary there are 11 busses, Dial-A-Ride, special transportation busses, and parents picking up their children. These vehicles are all exiting onto Marschall Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Road at the same time. She expressed safety concerns and efficiency concerns. She said Valley View Road is used by the buses and is a City street so they should have access to it from Pheasant Run. Police Chief, Dan Hughes, reported that they have been monitoring this intersection and stopped 60 vehicles, 40 of those were in the neighborhood of County Road 17 and 17th Avenue. Most of those vehicles made illegal passes on the right, heading south. They also spoke to the bus company and recommended entering from St. Francis Avenue rather than at 17th Avenue as there is a passing lane for southbound traffic. He also spoke with former Fire Chief, Terry Link, who was comfortable with the traffic design for busses having good view leaving Valley View Road and entering Marschall Rd. He said that the Police Department is okay with removing the Valley View Road barricades. Bruce Loney suggested some temporary paving over the existing Valley View Rd to handle the traffic. He said he would like to see a re-routing of Valley View Rd. in the future through the Beta Seed property. He said the best option at this time is to improve Valley View Rd. and Sarazin to the east. DuBois/Link moved to remove the barricades on Pheasant Run Street and allow full access onto Valley View Road and directed staff to proceed with the amendment to the resolution approving the plat of Pheasant Run. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Sweeney opposed. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5215, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat of Condominiums of Shenandoah Place 2, subject to conditions, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5216, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat of Southbridge Cove 2nd Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Michael Leek reported that Jeffrey Boldt, applicant and Robert and Clara Boldt, property owners are requesting to rezone a portion of their property on the west side of Marschall Rd. from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Rural Residential (RR). The Planning Commission reviewed this request and recommended denial of the request to rezone. The property is outside the MUSA and is in the area which the Metropolitan Council's growth blueprint indicates for urban development after the year 2020. Rezoning this parcel from Agricultural to Rural Residential would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Jeffrey Boldt, 971 Miller Street, approached the podium and explained that he was told to subdivide a portion of this property he has to rezone it to subdivide it into 10 acre lots. Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -5- He said he has no current plans to place a home on this property. He said he believes he followed the directions in the paperwork he has completed but told that MUSA is the important factor. He said he was not sure what he was doing wrong. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, explained that the minimum lot size under the Agricultural district is 40 acres. Therefore, without rezoning a subdivision of one ten acre parcel would not meet the minimum lot size in the AG district. Link/DuBois moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the request of Jeffrey Boldt to rezone property west of Marschall Road and south of Blue Heron Trail from Agricultural Preservation (AG)to Rural Residential (RR)Zone. A discussion ensued relating to shadow platting and access. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 8:40 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 8:53 p.m. Mark McQuillan stated that in August, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's Chairperson, Jeff Kaley, requested another attempt to pass a park bond referendum at the November 2, 1999 General Election. He proposed a $7.1 million referendum. He was directed to "fine tune" the proposal by selecting better projects and reducing the bond amount. The projects were reviewed to determine which projects were a high priority and the bond amount was reduced to $6.5 million. Mr. McQuillan explained that the projects selected for the proposed referendum include the following: Community Center expansion, Land Acquisition (Sun Path site), Trail to O'Dowd Park, and Play fields on new 10 acres at Tahpah. The bond impact on an average home valued at $115,000 at a rate of 6.5 % on a 20 year term is $74 for the first year. An estimated 3,500 memberships are needed in order to break-even if additional facilities are added to the Community Center. It would take two to four years to accomplish that goal. A discussion ensued relating to reducing the bond amount further and calling the referendum a Community Center referendum. Sweeney/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5213, A Resolution Determining the Necessity for the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds and Calling a Special Election Thereon, and moved its adoption. Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -6- DuBois/Amundson moved to amend Resolution No. 5213, in the first "whereas" by deleting the words from "neighborhood parks" through "including." Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Amundson moved to amend Resolution No. 5213, in the third "whereas" by changing the not to exceed amount to $5.5 million. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to make the appropriate changes to exhibits A and B to the Resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 5213 carried unanimously as amended. A discussion ensued relating to the park referendum levy and the truth in taxation statement. Sweeney/DuBois moved to add the proposed levy amount for the park bond referendum to the proposed truth and taxation statement for pay 2000. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5224, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Amending its Comprehensive Plan to Guide Property for Business Use and to Amend its MUSA Boundary, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to direct city staff to implement Resolution No. 5224. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson moved to authorize the Inspection division to contract with LOGIS for the PIMS building permit tracking software. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Michael Leek stated that SPUC has indicated that the easement over certain properties in Sections 7 and 18, in what is generally known as Shakopee Valley Marketplace, is no longer needed. Council is asked to set a public hearing to consider the vacation of a blanket easement. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5231, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of a Blanket Easement over Property in Sections 7 and 18, Township 115, Range 22, City of Shakopee, Scott County, State of Minnesota, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. A discussion ensued relating to setting workshop dates for the purpose of discussing items that should be discussed and/or resolved prior to the expiration of the moratorium period. A workshop was scheduled for September 14, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the residential moratorium. Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Link/Amundson moved to direct staff to proceed on submitting the T.H. 169 bridges, the rail crossing safety improvements at Sommerville Street and Spencer Street and C.R. 16 and C.R. 83 improvements for TEA-21 funding to the Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to grant approval for the Shakopee Fire Department to purchase the ISG K90 Thermal Imaging System from Front Line Plus for $23,815.95. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to authorize the Police Department to make application to the MDP for a COPS overtime grant. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to approve the hiring of Jacob Theisen, Erik Bender, Thomas Nendick and Mark Brandon as Shakopee Fire Fighters to a one-year probationary period. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to authorize WSB to engineer and specify the equipment needed to outfit 2 intersections, and to authorize the Fire Department to let bids for the purchase and installation of the specified equipment for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption System. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Amundson moved to adopt the proposed job description for the Fire Code Inspector. (CC Doc. #273) Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5226, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 5034, for the Fire Code Inspector position in Grade H, Which Adopted the 1999 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to authorize City staff to take the necessary steps to advertise the Fire Code Inspector position through Scott County Human Resources, utilizing Step 1, Grade H of the City's pay plan (salary range $34,471 to $46,838), with a starting salary not to exceed Step 1. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson moved to approve the applications and grant on sale and Sunday on sale intoxicating liquor licenses to Gregorio's LLC, 132 South Holmes Street, effective October 1, 1999, upon compliance with requirements of the city code. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5214, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Premises Permit for the Multiple Sclerosis Minneapolis Chapter Minnesota, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). i Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5219, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Platting of Southbridge 4th Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to authorize the payment of the LOGIS assessment for new financial software in 1999 in the amount of $14,515 and a 1999 budget amendment be prepared. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5220, A Resolution Adopting an Investment Policy and Repealing Resolution No. 4374, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Sweeney moved to accept the quote of Meisner Roofing Co. of Madison Lake, Mn, for repairs to the City Hall roof in the amount of$6900. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5225, A Resolution Changing the November 2, 1999 Council Meeting Date to Wednesday, November 3, 1999, and moved its adoption.. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to authorize the proper city officials to take all action necessary to obtain a city credit card. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5227, A Resolution Repealing Resolutions 2983 and 3040, and Adopting an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy for the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to place the City Administrator at Step 6 Grade Q of the 1999 City of Shakopee Pay Plan, retroactive to July 22, 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to place the City Administrator on the same cost of living adjustment schedule as are other non-contract employees. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5228, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, Adopting Drug-Free Workplace Policies, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5229, A Resolution Adopting the City of Shakopee Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5230, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, Adopting Policies Applicable to Use of Excessive Force, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to accept with regret the resignation of Bryan Freeman as a member of the Shakopee Community Access Corporation, and the Shakopee Cable Communication Advisory Commission, effective August 5, 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to set the budget hearing dates for December 6th and 13th, 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Discussion ensued on the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program and those improvements proposed for 2000: Gorman Street, West 3rd Avenue and Vierling Drive extension to the west. Staff will bring back the estimated costs for the three projects for next year and how they will impact the City's tax levy. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5 22 1, A Resolution Levying a Tax at the Request of, and Consenting to the Levy of a Tax by, the Economic Redevelopment Authority for the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5223, A Resolution Canceling the Debt Service Levys for 1999-2000, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5222 A Resolution Setting the Maximum 1999 Y g u Tax Levy, Collectible in 2000, and moved its adoption. Sweeney/Amundson moved to amend Resolution No. 5222 to include the Park Referendum Debt Service Levy. Motion carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously on main motion as amended. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to make any adjustments consistent with Council direction so that the final numbers are entered by staff by September 15, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to adjourn to Tuesday, September 14, 1999, at 5:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the September 7, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -10- The meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. J ith S. Cox it, Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: City Bill List DATE: October 14, 1999 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1999 based on data entered as of 10/14/99 . Also attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval . Included in the check list but under the control of the EDA are checks for the EDA General Fund (code 0191) in the amount of $115 .38 . Also included in the check list but under the control of the S.W. Metro Drug Task Force (code 9825) are checks in the amount of $18, 634 . 04 . Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $958, 093 .35 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 10/14/99 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 74,080 38,821 82,180 111 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 219,200 7,867 150,033 66 13 CITY CLERK 201,220 7,491 141,907 71 15 FINANCE 348,770 15,459 291,958 84 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 269,000 50,958 305,323 114 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 737,468 10,454 424,492 58 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 232,230 12,679 147,261 63 31 POLICE 1,930,119 66,351 1,449,154 75 32 FIRE 618,420 40,872 417,349 67 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 340,962 14,283 260,172 76 41 ENGINEERING 507,620 17,656 386,175 76 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 827,730 16,858 549,132 66 44 SHOP 145,330 7,429 110,'831 76 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 492,090 23,910 354,083 72 91 UNALLOCATED 589,550 -286 141,660 24 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7,533,789 330,803 5,211,709 69 --------- ------- --------- --- --------- ------- --------- --- 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 676,180 26,474 454,279 67 TOTAL TRANSIT 676,180 26,474 454,279 67 --------- ------- --------- --- --------- ------- --------- --- 19 EDA 403,170 2,408 135,518 34 TOTAL EDA 403,170 2,408 135,518 34 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 1 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63197 1999/10/07 $7.85 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 0321-4321 006032 IP 1999/10/07 $535.13 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 0912-2189 006033 IP 1999/10/07 $297.55 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 0311-4321 006034 IP 1999/10/07 $8.48 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 0751-4321 006035 IP 1999/10/07 $283.21 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 9825-4321 006036 IP <*> $1,132.22* 63198 1999/10/07 $3,900.58 CARVER COUNTY TREASURER WAGES FT REG 9825-4101 3615 IP <*> $3,900.58* 63199 1999/10/07 $46.69 CITY SQUARE PHOTO PRINTING/PUBLISHING 9825-4350 006037 IP <*> $46.69* 63200 1999/10/07 $1,061.85 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MN DENTAL INSURANCE 0912-2186 OCTOBER ' 99 IP <*> k'' $1,061.85* 63201 1999/10/07 $49.69 MBA MBA Insurance Payable 0912-2187 006038 IP <*> $49.69* 63202 1999/10/07 $734.03 MCLEOD CO LAW ENFORCEMENT WAGES FT REG 9825-4101 SEPT. 199 IP <*> $734.03* 63203 1999/10/07 $146,605.07 METRO COUNCIL ENVIRO SERV CURRENT USE CHARGES 0711-4385 692399 IP 1999/10/07 $119,542.50 METRO COUNCIL ENVIRO SERV METRO SAC CHARGES 9710-3730 692399 IP <*> $266,147.57* 63204 1999/10/07 $5,728.82 MINGER CONSTRUCTION INC IMPROVEMENTS 6660-4530 006039 IP <*> $5,728.82* 63205 1999/10/07 $4,606.42 MOUND POLICE DEPT WAGES FT REG 9825-4101 SEPT. 199 IP <*> $4,606.42* 63207 1999/10/07 $47.92 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0120-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $52.89 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0130-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $82.24 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0150-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $93.19 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0170-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $14.00 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0180-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $20.48 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0191-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $534.77 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0310-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $104.94 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0330-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $158.37 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0410-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $112.65 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0420-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $34.23 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0440-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $78.75 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0620-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $118.57 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE/LTD 0750-4132 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $36.00 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE PAYABLE 0912-2166 OCTOBER 199 IP 1999/10/07 $34.80 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE S LIFE PAYABLE 0912-2166 OCTOBER 199 IP <*> $1,523.80* 63208 1999/10/07 $36.67 PAGING NETWORK OF MN INC TELEPHONE 9825-4321 006040 IP <*> $36.67* 63209 1999/10/07 $335.30 SUPERAMERICA MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS 9825-4222 006041 IP <*> $335.30* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 2 , ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63210 1999/10/07 $24.59 SPRINT TELEPHONE 9825-4321 006042 IP <*> $24.59* 63211 1999/10/07 $4,249.58 W HENNEPIN PUBLIC SAFETY WAGES FT REG 9825-4101 SEPT. '99 IP <*> $4,249.58* 63212 1999/10/14 $33.49 A T & T TELEPHONE 0751-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $6.32 A T & T TELEPHONE 0181-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $10.34 A T & T TELEPHONE 0324-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $1.85 A T & T TELEPHONE 0421-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14,•. $68.84 A T & T TELEPHONE 0121-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $1.02 A T & T TELEPHONE 0151-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $1.41 A T & T TELEPHONE 0171-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $0.19 A T & T TELEPHONE 0172-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $2.23 A T & T TELEPHONE 0131-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $0.65 A T & T TELEPHONE 0181-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $2.97 A T & T TELEPHONE 0331-4321 007651 OH 1999/10/14 $58.26 A T & T TELEPHONE 0311-4321 007651 OH <*> $187.57* 63213 1999/10/14 $806.74 AGRIBIOTECH INC OPERATING SUPPLIES 0624-4210 70524 OH <*> $806.74* 63214 1999/10/14 $70.00 AL'S AUTOMOTIVE DETAILING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0331-4240 007652 OH <*> $70.00* 63215 1999/10/14 $170.00 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0321-4240 6354 OH <*> $170.00* 63216 1999/10/14 $25.00 ARCHERD, KENT YOUTH ACTIVITIES 7800-3477 19790 OH <*> $25.00* 63217 1999/10/14 $65.00 ASSOC MECH CONTR INC BUILDING MAINT 0183-4230 5826 OH 1999/10/14 $130.00 ASSOC MECH CONTR INC BUILDING MAINT 0754-4230 5827 OH 1999/10/14 $143.88 ASSOC MECH CONTR INC BUILDING MAINT 0753-4230 5917 OH <*> $338.88* 63218 1999/10/14 $50.00 BCA/TRAINING & DEV CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAININ 0311-4390 T008191 OH <*> $50.00* 63219 1999/10/14 $11.20 BERENS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0111-4210 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $2.02 BERENS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0311-4210 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $33.39 BERENS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0324-4210 SEPT. '99 OH <*> $46.61* 63220 1999/10/14 $11.10 BEST EXPRESSION INC OPERATING SUPPLIES 9113-4210 003840 OH 1999/10/14 $185.00 BEST EXPRESSION INC OPERATING SUPPLIES 9113-4210 003840 OH <*> $196.10* 63221 1999/10/14 $332.31 BIFFS INC RENTALS 0624-4410 007653 OH <*> $332.31* 63222 1999/10/14 $425.00 BOLTON & MENK INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6662-4310 49076 OH <*> $425.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 3 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63223 1999/10/14 $56.18 BOYER TRUCK PARTS MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 892910X1 OH <*> $56.18* 63224 1999/10/14 $600.00 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0411-4310 181148 OR <*> $600.00* 63225 1999/10/14 $8,503.22 BRAUN TURF FARMS IMPROVEMENTS 6650-4530 007654 OH <*> $8,503.22* 63226 1999/10/14 $25.00 BREKKE, JON & BARB YOUTH ACTIVITIES 7800-3477 19886 OR <*> $25.00* 63227 1999/10/14 $430.24 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS MATERIALS 0427-4215 9/30/99 OH <*> $430.24* 63228 1999/10/14 $248.96 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0911-4210 007655 OR 1999/10/14 $8.69 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0411-4210 007655 OH 1999/10/14 $43.22 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0421-4210 007655 OH 1999/10/14 $6.36 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0331-4210 007655 OH 1999/10/14 $28.70 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0311-4210 007655 OR 1999/10/14 $79.30 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0754-4210 007655 OR 1999/10/14 $84.50 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0351-4210 007655 OH 1999/10/14 $66.20 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0321-4210 007655 OH 1999/10/14 $4.68 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0751-4210 007655 OH 1999/10/14 $23.96 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0171-4210 007655 OR 1999/10/14 $10.00 BT OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0151-4210 007655 OR <*> $604.57* 63229 1999/10/14 $63.26 C.H. CARP. LUMBER OPERATING SUPPLIES 0622-4210 9/30/99 OH <*> $63.26* 63230 1999/10/14 $260.00 SCOTT-CARVER-DAKOTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0184-4310 SEPTEMBER ' 9 OH <*> $260.00* 63231 1999/10/14 $46.88 CARLSON TRACTOR MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 1014933 OR 1999/10/14 $805.06 CARLSON TRACTOR MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 1014941 OH <*> $851.94* 63232 1999/10/14 $450.00 CENTEX HOMES 6708 CARLISLE CURVE 9840-2210 14190 OH 1999/10/14 $450.00 CENTEX HOMES 6778 CARLISLE CURVE 9840-2210 14234 OH <*> $900.00* 63233 1999/10/14 $504.00 CHANHASSEN DINNER THEATRE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0751-4310 G21235 OR <*> $504.00* 63234 1999/10/14 $31.68 CHASKA HOME BUILDING MAINT 0181-4230 9/30/99 OH 1999/10/14 $17.01 CHASKA HOME OPERATING SUPPLIES 0754-4210 SEPT. ' 99 OH 1999/10/14 $22.66 CHASKA HOME OPERATING SUPPLIES 0753-4210 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $129.05 CHASKA HOME BUILDING MAINT 0630-4230 SEPT. ' 99 OH 1999/10/14 $33.17 CHASKA HOME BUILDING MAINT 0181-4230 SEPT. ' 99 OH <*> $233.57* 63235 1999/10/14 $170.22 CHEMSEARCH OPERATING SUPPLIES 0624-4210 397612 OR <*> $170.22* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (Oy:31) page 4 , ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63236 1999/10/14 $277.72 CINTAS - 754 OPERATING SUPPLIES 0421-4210 007656 OH 1999/10/14 $101.55 CINTAS - 754 OPERATING SUPPLIES 0441-4210 007656 OH 1999/10/14 $198.28 CINTAS - 754 OPERATING SUPPLIES 0621-4210 007656 OH 1999/10/14 $61.30 CINTAS - 754 BUILDING MAINT 0421-4230 007656 OH 1999/10/14 $96.08 CINTAS - 754 BUILDING MAINT 0311-4230 007656 OH <*> $734.93* 63237 1999/10/14 $9,702.00 CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIP INC OPERATING SUPPLIES 0321-4210 21998 OH <*> $9,702.00* 63238 1999/10/14 $232.87 CLARK, BRIAN TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0311-4330 9/27/99 OH <*> $232.87* 63239 1999/10/14 $52.00 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO MATERIALS 0427-4215 9/30/99 OH <*> $52.00* 63240 1999/10/14 $63.88 DAVIS BUSINESS MACHINES OPERATING SUPPLIES 9825-4210 141292 OH <*> $63.88* 63241 1999/10/14 $45.50 DAVIS, JIM OPERATING SUPPLIES 0331-4210 007657 OH 1999/10/14 $35.34 DAVIS, JIM TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0331-4330 007657 OH <*> $80.84* 63242 1999/10/14 $750.00 DCA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0123-4310 301144 OH <*> $750.00* 63243 1999/10/14 $36.00 DORN, ROBERT ADULT ACTIVITIES 7850-3478 20243 OH <*> $36.00* 63244 1999/10/14 $492.03 DUBBES TURF FARM OPERATING SUPPLIES 0732-4210 9/29/99 OH <*> $492.03* 63245 1999/10/14 $120.00 EGAN-MCKAY ELEC CONTRACTO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0427-4310 JC3001054 OH <*> $120.00* 63246 1999/10/14 $125.00 ELECTRIC SYS OF ANOKA INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0351-4240 10152 OH <*> $125.00* 63247 1999/10/14 $118.98 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0713-4210 151292 OH <*> $118.98* 63248 1999/10/14 $3,182.00 EXPERT ASPHALT CO PAVEMENT PRESERVATION 0621-4242 9/27/99 OH <*> $3,182.00* 63249 1999/10/14 $11.02 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0191-4310 265532 OH <*> $11.02* 63250 1999/10/14 $579.90 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT 0181-4230 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $426.00 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT 0182-4230 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $659.00 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT 0318-4230 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $90.53 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT 0321-4230 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $133.13 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT 0324-4230 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $319.50 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT 0421-4230 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $532.50 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT 0628-4230 SEPT. '99 OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 5 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63250 1999/10/14 $213.00 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT 0630-4230 SEPT. 199 OH 1999/10/14 $1,278.00 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT 0754-4230 SEPT. ' 99 OH <*> $4,231.56* 63251 1999/10/14 $49.14 GENUINE PARTS CO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0321-4240 007658 OH 1999/10/14 $74.33 GENUINE PARTS CO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0426-4240 007658 OH 1999/10/14 $18.51 GENUINE PARTS CO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0625-4240 007658 OH 1999/10/14 $141.01 GENUINE PARTS CO OPERATING SUPPLIES 0441-4210 007658 OH 1999/10/14 $623.96 GENUINE PARTS CO MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 007658 OH <*> $906.95* 63252 1999/10/14 $653.50 GRAFIX SHOPPE INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0321-4240 6727, 6412 OH <*> $653.50* 63253 1999/10/14 $20,273.00 GREYSTONE CONST INC IMPROVEMENTS 6669-4530 9/28/99 OH <*> $20,273.00* 63254 1999/10/14 $44.00 HEARTLAND TIRE INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0311-4240 46204 OH 1999/10/14 $195.22 HEARTLAND TIRE INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0311-4240 46204 OH 1999/10/14 $21.00 HEARTLAND TIRE INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 46657 OH 1999/10/14 $79.56 HEARTLAND TIRE INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 46657 OH <*> $339.78* 63255 1999/10/14 $300.00 HEUERMAN PHD, TOM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0421-4310 SEPT. ' 99 OH <*> $300.00* 63256 1999/10/14 $42.64 HUEBSCH CO BUILDING MAINT 0753-4230 SEPT. 199 OH 1999/10/14 $42.61 HUEBSCH CO BUILDING MAINT 0754-4230 SEPT. 199 OH 1999/10/14 $20.94 HUEBSCH CO BUILDING MAINT 0630-4230 SEPT. 199 OH 1999/10/14 $55.19 HUEBSCH CO BUILDING MAINT 0324-4230 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $22.27 HUEBSCH CO BUILDING MAINT 0321-4230 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $8.52 HUEBSCH CO BUILDING MAINT 0184-4230 SEPT. 199 OH 1999/10/14 $119.20 HUEBSCH CO BUILDING MAINT 0182-4230 SEPT. '99 OH 1999/10/14 $110.24 HUEBSCH CO BUILDING MAINT 0181-4230 SEPT. 199 OH <*> $421.61* 63257 1999/10/14 $199.32 INACOM —CENTRAL AREA EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0172-4240 10886637 OR <*> $199.32* 63258 1999/10/14 $268.35 IND.SCHOOL DIST. 720 POSTAGE 0751-4320 FALL 1999 OH 1999/10/14 -$486.31 IND.SCHOOL DIST. 720 PRINTING/PUBLISHING 0751-4350 FALL 1999 OH 1999/10/14 $1,534.41 IND.SCHOOL DIST. 720 PRINTING/PUBLISHING 0751-4350 FALL 1999 OH <*> $1,316.45* 63259 1999/10/14 $78.00 J & R RADIATOR CORP MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 189745 OH <*> $78.00* 63260 1999/10/14 $450.00 JIM CARLSON LEASING CO RENTALS 0363-4410 8428-3097 OH <*> $450.00* 63261 1999/10/14 $52,944.55 K A WITT CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS 6662-4530 007659 OH <*> $52,944.55* 63262 1999/10/14 $450.00 KEYLAND HOMES 2257 MERIDIAN DR 9840-2210 13144 OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (0y:31) page 6 . ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63262 1999/10/14 $440.10 KEYLAND HOMES 2084 MERIDIAN COURT 9840-2210 13170 OH 1999/10/14 $450.00 KEYLAND HOMES 2187 GROVELAND WAY 9840-2210 13927 OH 1999/10/14 $450.00 KEYLAND HOMES 2123 MATHIAS ROAD 9840-2210 14201 OH 1999/10/14 $450.00 KEYLAND HOMES 823/833 ALYSHEBA RD 9840-2210 14274 OH <*> $2,240.10* 63263 1999/10/14 $87.00 KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0427-4310 9867 OH <*> $87.00* 63264 1999/10/14 $6.60 KLIMEK, EILEEN TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0151-4330 007660 OH <*> $6.60* 63265 1999/10/14 $108.63 KOEHNENS STANDARD EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0311-4240 AUG/SEPT OH <*> $108.63* 63266 1999/10/14 $3,160.00 KROMINGA, TERRY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0331-4310 007661 OH <*> $3,160.00* 63267 1999/10/14 $804.00 L S A DESIGN INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0142-4310 99124 OH 1999/10/14 $300.00 L S A DESIGN INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0142-4310 99145 OH <*> $1,104.00* 63268 1999/10/14 $24,486.89 LAIDLAW TRANSIT SERV INC UTILITY SERVICE 0142-4380 9808901 OH 1999/10/14 -$1,809.50 LAIDLAW TRANSIT SERV INC TRANSIT FARES 0142-3437 9808901 OH <*> $22,677.39* 63269 1999/10/14 $50.89 LAKELAND ENVELOPE CO INC OPERATING SUPPLIES 0754-4210 87707 OH <*> $50.89* 63270 1999/10/14 $450.00 LAURENT BLDRS INC 2465 CAMBRIDGE WAY 9840-2210 14088 OH 1999/10/ 4, $418.50 LAURENT BLDRS INC 1519 HARVEST LANE 9840-2210 14196 OH <*> 4 . $868.50* 63271 1999/10/14 $8,774.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES DUES 0111-4433 9/1/99 OH <*> $8,774.00* 63272 1999/10/14 $31.32 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/PUBLICATION 0123-4435 007640 OH <*> $31.32* 63273 1999/10/14 $105.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAININ 0123-4390 007662 OH <*> $105.00* 63274 1999/10/14 $298.30 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 180324 OH <*> $298.30* 63275 1999/10/14 $716.67 MCALLISTER, ROBERT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0361-4310 SEPTEMBER '9 OH <*> $716.67* 63276 1999/10/14 $6,900.00 MEISNER ROOFING BUILDING MAINT 0181-4230 007663 OH <*> $6,900.00* 63277 1999/10/14 $6.02 MINN COMM INC TELEPHONE 0181-4321 007664 OH 1999/10/14 $6.02 MINN COMM INC TELEPHONE 0121-4321 007664 OH 1999/10/14 $6.02 MINN COMM INC TELEPHONE 0421-4321 007664 OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 7 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63277 1999/10/14 $6.02 MINN COMM INC TELEPHONE 0171-4321 007664 OH 1999/10/14 $18.06 MINN COMM INC TELEPHONE 0751-4321 007664 OH <*> $42.14* 63278 1999/10/14 $10.10 MINNEGASCO A/P UTILITY SERVICE 0626-4380 007665 OH <*> $10.10* 63279 1999/10/14 $69.95 MN COMMERCE DEPT DEPOSITS PAYABLE 9840-2200 10/5/99 OH <*> $69.95* 63280 1999/10/14 $301.51 MN STATE TREASURER PLUMBING PERMIT-SURCHARGE 0913-2082 3RD QTR '99 OH 1999/10/14 $219.00 MN STATE TREASURER ELECTRIC PERMIT-SURCHARGE 0913-2083 3RD QTR ' 99 OH 1999/10/14 $228.17 MN STATE TREASURER HEATING PERMIT-SURCHARGE 0913-2084 3RD QTR ' 99 OH 1999/10/14 $115.68 MN STATE TREASURER W & S PERMIT-SURCHARGE 0913-2085 3RD QTR '99 OR 1999/10/14 $42,102.74 MN STATE TREASURER BLDG PERMIT - SURCHARGE 0913-2081 3RD QTR ' 99 OH 1999/10/14 -$1,718.68 MN STATE TREASURER ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES 9001-3404 3RD QTR ' 99 OR <*> $41,248.42* 63281 1999/10/14 $1,296.00 MN TEAMSTERS #320 UNION DUES PAYABLE 0912-2175 SEPT '99 OR <*> $1,296.00* 63282 1999/10/14 $30,000.00 MN VALLEY RESTORATION INC DESIGNATED MISCELLANEOUS 0111-4430 007666 OR <*> $30,000.00* 63283 1999/10/14 $60.68 MOTOR PARTS OPERATING SUPPLIES 0441-4210 SEPT ' 99 OR 1999/10/14 $216.73 MOTOR PARTS MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 SEPT ' 99 OH 1999/10/14 $31.87 MOTOR PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0625-4240 SEPT '99 OH <*> $309.28* 63284 1999/10/14 $550.00 MRPA CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAININ 0751-4390 007667 OH <*> $550.00* 63285 1999/10/14 $211.02 NARDINI FIRE EQUIP CO OPERATING SUPPLIES 0753-4210 036027 OH 1999/10/14 $211.03 NARDINI FIRE EQUIP CO OPERATING SUPPLIES 0754-4210 036027 OH <*> $422.05* 63286 1999/10/14 $7,070.89 NORTHSHORE ADVISORS LLC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0151-4310 007668 OH <*> $7,070.89* 63287 1999/10/14 $50.00 NORTHSTAR CHPTR ICBO CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAININ 0331-4390 007669 OH <*> $50.00* 63288 1999/10/14 $81,184.70 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC IMPROVEMENTS 6661-4530 007670 OH <*> $81,184.70* 63289 1999/10/14 $382.50 NOVAK-FLECK 1141 SCOTT STREET 9840-2210 13375 OH 1999/10/14 $392.11 NOVAK-FLECK 1138 SCOTT STREET 9840-2210 13571 OH <*> $774.61* 63290 1999/10/14 $72.73 NSP UTILITY SERVICE 0427-4380 007642 OH <*> $72.73* 63291 1999/10/14 $450.00 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES 2112 GROVELAND WAY 9840-2210 14208 OH <*> $450.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 8 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63292 1999/10/14 $108.61 PITSCHNEIDER, TOM TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0321-4330 007634 OH <*> $108.61* 63293 1999/10/14 $75.00 POOLE, ANNIE CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAININ 0752-4390 007671 OH <*> $75.00* 63294 1999/10/14 $1,010.00 PRECISION METAL FAB EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0321-4240 1562/91399 OH <*> $1,010.00* 63295 1999/10/14 $450.00 PULTE HOMES CORP 2003, 2007, 2011 BLDR PT 9840-2210 13988 OH <*> $450.00* 63296 1999/10/14, $9.57 RADIO SHACK A/R96062 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0311-4240 007672 OH <*> $9.57* 63297 1999/10/14 $14,771.28 RAHR MALTING CO SEWER CHARGES 9710-3720 007643 OH <*> $14,771.28* 63298 1999/10/14 $15.19 REMER, MARILYN TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0153-4330 007673 OH <*> $15.19* 63299 1999/10/14 $19.17 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY C OPERATING SUPPLIES 0441-4210 007674 OH <*> $19.17* 63300 1999/10/14 $39.58 RIVER VALLEY SPORTS CTR OPERATING SUPPLIES 0311-4210 007675 OH <*> $39.58* 63301 1999/10/14 $2,750.00 RYBAK - KUPFER D & T BUILDING MAINT 0628-4230 10/06/99 OH <*> $2,750.00* 63302 1999/10/14 $450.00 RYLAND GROUP 1491 - 1519 YORKSHIRE LN 9840-2210 14016 OH <*> $450.00* 63303 1999/10/14 $9,569.92 S M HENTGES & SONS INC IMPROVEMENTS 6651-4530 007676 OH <*> $9,569.92* 63304 1999/10/14 $21.03 SAV-ON PRINTING CO OPERATING SUPPLIES 9113-4210 46533 OH 1999/10/14 $71.75 SAV-ON PRINTING CO OPERATING SUPPLIES 9113-4210 46533 OH <*> $92.78* 63305 1999/10/14 $28.50 SCOTT CO RECORDER OPERATING SUPPLIES 0411-4210 007677 OH 1999/10/14 $34.50 SCOTT CO RECORDER FILING FEES 0131-4316 007678 OH 1999/10/14 $208.50 SCOTT CO RECORDER FILING FEES 0131-4316 007679 OH <*> $271.50* 63306 1999/10/14 $265.06 SCOTT CO TREASURER OPERATING SUPPLIES 0411-4210 120413 OH 1999/10/14 $53.00 SCOTT CO TREASURER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0311-4310 120970 OH <*> $318.06* 63307 1999/10/14 $1,758.88 SCOTT CO TREASURER TRANSFER IN CAPITAL PROJE 9442-3925 007644 OH <*> $1,758.88* 63308 1999/10/14 $45,106.78 SCOTT JOINT PROSECUTION A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0163-4310 99-24 OH <*> $45,106.78* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 9 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63309 1999/10/14 $9.00 SHAKOPEE BAKERY OPERATING SUPPLIES 0111-4210 007635 OH 1999/10/14 $7.50 SHAKOPEE BAKERY OPERATING SUPPLIES 0121-4210 007635 OH 1999/10/14 $5.25 SHAKOPEE BAKERY OPERATING SUPPLIES 0311-4210 007635 OH <*> $21.75* 63310 1999/10/14 $116.49 SHAKOPEE FORD INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 007636 OH <*> $116.49* 63312 1999/10/14 $59,426.00 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM WATER CONNECTS 0913-2072 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $24,142.00 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM WATER METERS 0913-2073 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $2,140.67 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0181-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $619.20 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0182-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $1,097.31 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0311-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $436.49 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0321-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $1,492.94 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0324-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $39.94 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0351-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $2,328.03 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0421-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $1,691.56 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0427-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $218.63 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0622-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $1,282.23 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0624-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $5,447.34 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0628-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $103.06 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0630-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $3,070.18 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0752-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $5,355.38 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0753-4380 007680 OH 1999/10/14 $2,883.66 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 0754-4380 007680 OH <*> $111,774.62* 63313 1999/10/14 $159.75 SHAKOPEE TOWING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0331-4310 35008 OH <*> $159.75* 63314 1999/10/14 $362.09 SHAKOPEE VACUUM OPERATING SUPPLIES 0753-4210 5587 OH <*> $362.09* 63315 1999/10/14 $60.00 SHAKOPEE, CITY OF DESIGNATED MISCELLANEOUS 9825-4430 OCTOBER ' 99 OH 1999/10/14 $4,293.09 SHAKOPEE, CITY OF WAGES FT REG 9825-4101 OCTOBER ' 99 OH <*> $4,353.09* 63316 1999/10/14 $1,800.00 SHUTROP, NORMAN ROW 6650-4511 007681 OH <*> $1,800.00* 63317 1999/10/14 $84.14 SIEMON IMPLEMENT INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 144144 OH 1999/10/14 -$41.54 SIEMON IMPLEMENT INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 144152 OH <*> $42.60* 63318 1999/10/14 $22.63 SNYDER DRUG STORE #90 INC OPERATING SUPPLIES 6651-4210 007637 OH 1999/10/14 $32.09 SNYDER DRUG STORE #90 INC OPERATING SUPPLIES 6650-4210 007637 OH 1999/10/14 $6.38 SNYDER DRUG STORE #90 INC OPERATING SUPPLIES 0411-4210 007637 OH 1999/10/14 $24.68 SNYDER DRUG STORE #90 INC OPERATING SUPPLIES 0751-4210 007637 OH 1999/10/14 $45.93 SNYDER DRUG STORE #90 INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0311-4310 007637 OH <*> $131.71* 63319 1999/10/14 $267.50 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0142-4240 007682 OH 1999/10/14 $267.50 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0143-4240 007682 OH 1999/10/14 $210.60 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC PRINTING/PUBLISHING 0142-4350 007682 OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 10 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63319 1999/10/14 $267.50 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC PRINTING/PUBLISHING 0741-4350 007682 OH 1999/10/14 $267.50 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC PRINTING/PUBLISHING 0742-4350 007682 OH 1999/10/14 $98.42 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC PRINTING/PUBLISHING 6655-4350 007682 OH 1999/10/14 $112.48 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC PRINTING/PUBLISHING 6666-4350 007682 OH 1999/10/14 $1,409.56 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC PRINTING/PUBLISHING 0131-4350 007682 OH <*> $2, 901.06* 63320 1999/10/14 $64.51 SUPERAMERICA MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS 0311-4222 007645 OH <*> $64.51* 63321 1999/10/14 -$1,210.00 STEVE TUPYS TIRE SERV INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0426-4240 346-CM OH 1999/10/14 $47.93 STEVE TUPYS TIRE SERV INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 68184 OH 1999/10/14 $165.82 STEVE TUPYS TIRE SERV INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 68964 OH 1999/10/14 $21.14 STEVE TUPYS TIRE SERV INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 69324 OH 1999/10/14 $923.59 STEVE TUPYS TIRE SERV INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 69375 OH 1999/10/14 $88.00 STEVE TUPYS TIRE SERV INC MERCHANDISE 0441-4250 70118 OH <*> $36.48* 63322 1999/10/14 $23.56 STICHA, GREG TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0151-4330 007638 OH <*> $23.56* 63323 1999/10/14 $228.84 STREICHERS OPERATING SUPPLIES 9845-4210 129915.1 OH 1999/10/14 $26.57 STREICHERS OPERATING SUPPLIES 9845-4210 129915.2 OH <*> $255.41* 63324 1999/10/14 $1,481.22 SW/WC SERVICE COOPERATIVE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 0912-1150 NOVEMBER 199 OH 1999/10/14 $28, 085.94 SW/WC SERVICE COOPERATIVE HEALTH PAYABLE 0912-2176 NOVEMBER '99 OH <*> $29,567.16* 63325 1999/10/14 $212.00 TEAM CENTRAL SPORTING GOO OPERATING SUPPLIES 0753-4210 80746 OH <*> $212.00* 63326 1999/10/14 $274.13 THERMOGAS CO OPERATING SUPPLIES 0753-4210 007646 OH <*> $274.13* 63327 1999/10/14 $278.95 TREADWAY GRAPHICS OPERATING SUPPLIES 9113-4210 102172 OH 1999/10/14 $21.30 TREADWAY GRAPHICS OPERATING SUPPLIES 9113-4210 103171 OH 1999/10/14 $68.34 TREADWAY GRAPHICS OPERATING SUPPLIES 9113-4210 103821 OH <*> $368.59* 63328 1999/10/14 $16.19 TUCCI,GREG MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS 0311-4222 007647 OH <*> $16.19* 63330 1999/10/14 $128.28 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0181-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 •, $74.83 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0131-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14k $21.38 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0111-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $42.77 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0121-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $106.90 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0171-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $247.48 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0411-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $117.59 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0331-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $85.52 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0151-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $21.38 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0191-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $233.19 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0421-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $119.14 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0182-4321 007683 OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 11 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63330 1999/10/14 $108.49 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0321-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $176.12 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0324-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $128.80 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0753-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $489.21 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0754-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $870.78 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0311-4321 007683 OH 1999/10/14 $58.73 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 0751-4321 007683 OH <*> $3, 030.59* 63331 1999/10/14 $109.13 U S WEST COMMUCATIONS TELEPHONE 0151-4321 007684 OH 1999/10/14 $242.16 U S WEST COMMUCATIONS TELEPHONE 0172-4321 007684 OH 1999/10/14 $35.46 U S WEST COMMUCATIONS TELEPHONE 0311-4321 007684 OH <*> $386.75* 63332 1999/10/14 $4,229.10 US AQUATICS INC IMPROVEMENTS 6668-4530 10886 OH <*> $4,229.10* 63333 1999/10/14 $1,178.00 US-CAN TRAVEL TOURS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0751-4310 007648 OH <*> $1,178.00* 63334 1999/10/14 $35.53 VOXLAND, GREGG TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0151-4330 007639 OH <*> $35.53* 63336 1999/10/14 $57.92 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0324-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 -$125.00 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0752-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $52.77 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0630-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $244.77 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0628-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $70.79 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0311-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $227.56 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0421-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $28.96 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0181-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $57.92 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0321-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $101.30 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0182-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $20.59 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0184-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $82.37 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0631-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $234.23 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0622-4380 007685 OH 1999/10/14 $172.64 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 0753-4380 007685 OH <*> $1,226.82* 63337 1999/10/14 $10,121.30 WM MUELLER & SONS IMPROVEMENTS 6667-4530 007686 OH <*> $10,121.30* 63338 1999/10/14 $556.89 WM MUELLER & SONS MATERIALS 0427-4215 007649 OH <*> $556.89* 63339 1999/10/14 $132.00 XEROX CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0754-4240 70960053 OH <*> $132.00* 63340 1999/10/14 $15.24 YARUSSOS HDW CO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0321-4240 007650 OH 1999/10/14 $12.77 YARUSSOS HDW CO BUILDING MAINT 0321-4230 007650 OH 1999/10/14 $65.91 YARUSSOS HDW CO OPERATING SUPPLIES 0321-4210 007650 OH 1999/10/14 $31.24 YARUSSOS HDW CO OPERATING SUPPLIES 0311-4210 007650 OH <*> $125.16* 63341 1999/10/14 $785.97 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0732-4240 71243 OH <*> $785.97* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 12 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63342 1999/10/14 $51,275.00 BOYER TRUCKS EQUIPMENT 9780-1640 X1748S IP <*> $51,275.00* 63343 1999/10/14 $40.00 BREUER, BARB NEW REFUSE COUPONS 0741-3453 006043 IP <*> $40.00* 63344 1999/10/14 $50.00 BURWITZ-BUSCHMAN, RENADA NEW REFUSE COUPONS 0741-3453 006044 IP <*> $50.00* 63345 1999/10/14 $422.22 FORBERG, ROBERT TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0311-4330 006045 IP <*> $422.22* 63346 1999/10/14 $1,173.66 FREEDOM SERVICES INC MISC MEDICAL EXPENSE 0912-2185 FD1 24166 IP 1999/10/14 $1,013.77 FREEDOM SERVICES INC DEPENDENT CARE 0912-2184 FD1 24166 IP 1999/10/14 $17.55 FREEDOM SERVICES INC Outside Premiums-Payroll 0912-2188 FD1 24166 IP 1999/10/14 -$97.00 FREEDOM SERVICES INC Outside Premiums-Payroll 0912-2188 FD1 24166 IP <*> $2,107.98* 63347 1999/10/14 $615.40 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 4366 0912-2178 435 IP <*> $615.40* 63348 1999/10/14 $62.50 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHRTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0191-4310 SEPT. 199 IP 1999/10/14 $668.50 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHRTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6666-4310 SEPT. 199 IP 1999/10/14 , $89.00 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHRTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6651-4310 SEPT. '99 IP 1999/10/14 $137.50 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHRTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0142-4310 SEPT. '99 IP 1999/10/14 $50.00 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHRTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6659-4310 SEPT. '99 IP 1999/10/14 $3,916.14 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHRTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6626-4310 SEPT. '99 IP 1.999/10/14 $5,851.27 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHRTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0161-4310 SEPT. '99 IP <*> $10,774.91* 63349 1999/10/14 $75.00 L E C C CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAININ 0311-4390 006046 IP <*> $75.00* 63350 1999/10/14 $7.98 MCNEILL, MARK OPERATING SUPPLIES 0121-4210 006047 IP 1999/10/14 $5.33 MCNEILL, MARK TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0111-4330 006047 IP 1999/10/14 $479.91 MCNEILL, MARK TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0121-4330 006047 IP <*> $493.22* 63351 1999/10/14 $162.00 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT 001078498501 0912-2181 006048 IP 1999/10/14 $216.50 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT 001182880101 0912-2181 006049 IP <*> $378.50* 63352 1999/10/14 $14,827.95 P E R A 7578-00 0912-2183 006050 IP <*> $14,827.95* 63353 1999/10/14 $24.83 POOLE,GERALD OPERATING SUPPLIES 0311-4210 006051 IP 1999/10/14 $62.58 POOLE,GERALD POSTAGE 0311-4320 006051 IP <*> $87.41* 63354 1999/10/14 $46.90 QUALITY SCAFFOLD SOLUTION OPERATING SUPPLIES 0441-4210 9827 IP <*> $46.90* 63355 1999/10/14 $405.45 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED OPERATING SUPPLIES 0311-4210 119048 IP 1999/10/14 $10.54 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED OPERATING SUPPLIES 0311-4210 478873 IP COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 14-OCT-1999 (09:31) page 13 ACCOUNT PO CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <*> $415.99* 63356 1999/10/14 $6,258.49 USCM/MIDWEST 2309 0912-2178 435 IP <*> $6,258.49* 63357 1999/10/14 $5,195.00 USCM/MIDWEST 2344 OBRA 0912-2178 435 IP <*> $5,195.00* $958,093.35* 1 - COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 14-OCT-1999 (09:32) page _ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FUND # 001 GENERAL FUND $352,659.55 FUND # 113 DARE $657.47 FUND # 114 TRANSIT $24,664 .49 FUND # 115 EDA $115.38 FUND # 420 PARK RESERVE FUND $20,273 .00 FUND # 421 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND $63,490.85 FUND # 437 1994/95 IMPROVEMENT $3,916 .14 FUND # 442 TIF DIST #1 $1,758 .88 FUND # 448 EAST DEAN'S LAKE $10,335.31 FUND # 449 1998 IMPROVEMENTS $9,829.97 FUND # 452 1999 IMPROVEMENTS $81, 965.68 FUND # 710 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY $286,766 .65 FUND # 730 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY $1,278 .00 FUND # 740 REFUSE FUND $625.00 FUND # 750 RECREATION FUND $19,160.27 FUND # 780 INTERNAL SERVICE FUND $51,275.00 FUND # 781 BUILDING FUND $4,229.10 FUND # 825 SW METRO DRUG TASK FORCE $18,634.04 FUND # 840 ESCROW $6,203 .16 FUND # 845 LOCAL LAW ENFORCE BLOCK GRANT $255.41 $958, 093.35* MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Thomson, City Attorney DATE: October 13, 1999 RE: Tobacco License Hearings The City Council has scheduled the hearings regarding the sales of tobacco products to minors for October 19, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. Notices of the hearings have been sent to the following four licensees: 1. Tom Thumb #250, 590 S. Marschall Road 2. Canterbury Park Concessions, Inc., 1100 Canterbury Road 3. Budget Liquor, 6268 Highway 101 4. Koehnen's Amoco, 804 East 1 st Avenue The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether action should be taken against the licensees because of alleged violations on August 13, 1999. The City's tobacco ordinance provides that the first violation is punishable by a civil penalty of $200 and a suspension of the license for a minimum of one day but no more than 10 days. A second violation within any 36-month period is punishable by a civil penalty of $500 and a suspension of the license for a minimum of one day but no more than 20 days. The Tom Thumb and Koehnen's Amoco hearings involve a second offense. The previous hearings for these matters were held on November 10, 1998 and related to violations that occurred on November 21, 1997. The City Council imposed a $200 administrative penalty and a one-day license suspension on Tom Thumb #250. With respect to the previous violation for Koehnen's Amoco, the City Council imposed $200 administrative penalty and a one-day license suspension, but suspended both of these penalties for one year. Here is my suggestion as to the procedure for conducting the meeting: JJT-162074 1 SH155-23 1. I will give a preliminary statement setting forth the purpose of the hearing and a summary of the penalties that can be imposed by the City Council. As part of my preliminary statement, I will inform the licensees that when their matter is called, they have the option of either admitting that the violation occurred or requesting the opportunity to challenge the violation. If they admit the violation, they will be allowed to describe any extenuating circumstances that they might feel are applicable to them. If they request a hearing, the hearing will be conducted that evening after the City Council deals with the other licensees who have admitted the violations. 2. After I have made my preliminary statement, the Mayor should ask if anyone has any questions regarding the procedure that is going to be followed. 3. I will then call the first case. The representative of the licensee will come to the podium. The Mayor should ask the licensee whether they admit the violation. If the licensee admits the violation, they should be given the opportunity to explain any extenuating or mitigating circumstances. If the violation is admitted, the Council then needs to decide whether it wants to impose a suspension longer than the one-day minimum . 4. In deciding the length of the suspension, the City Council can consider any factors it believes to be relevant. 5. For those licensees who request a hearing, I will summarize the particular facts of the violation as set forth in the police report. We will then give the licensee an opportunity to present any facts they would like to present. It is also possible that the police officer who was involved with the incidents will be asked to provide information on the violation. 6. After the hearing is completed, the City Council will then make a decision as to whether a violation occurred and, if so, the length of the license suspension. (The amount of the civil penalty is set forth in the Ordinance.) I will be prepared to answer any questions regarding the hearings. JJT-162074 2 SH 155-23 TOBACCO VIOLATIONS November 21, 1997 violations occurred. November 10, 1998 City Council imposed civil penalties as follows: 1. Bret-Becca Inc. dba/Pullman $200 administrative fine and a 10 day suspension 2. Shakopee Council 1685 Home Association dba/Knights of Columbus $200 administrative fine suspended for 1 year-told Council not renewing license 3. Tom Thumb #250 $200 administrative fine and 1 day suspension 4. Berens Market $200 administrative fine and 1 day suspension 5. Superamerica#4035 $200 administrative fine suspended for 1 year and 1 day suspension suspended for 1 year 6. Keohnen's Amoco $200 administrative fine suspended for 1 year and 1 day suspension suspended for 1 year 7. Corp-Tool Inc. dba/Arnies Friendly Folks Club $200 administrative fine- has no current license 8. Shakopee Eagles $200 administrative fine suspended for 1 year-told Council they are no longer selling and will not be renewing license) 9. Kmart#9638 $200 administrative fine of which $100 was suspended for 1 year and 1 day suspension 10. Hennen's ICO $200 administrative fine and 1 day suspension December 12, 1998 violations occurred. May 4, 1999 City Council imposed civil penalties as follows: 1. Total Mart Store, 234 West 1st Avenue $200 administrative fine and a 3 day suspension 2. Twin Cities Stores, Inc., Oasis Market, 1147 Canterbury Road $200 administrative fine and a 3 day suspension 3. Kmart, 1200 Shakopee Town Square $500 administrative fine and a 20 day suspension (2nd violation) August 13, 1999 violations occurred. Hearing set by Council for 10/19/99 1. Tom Thumb 9250, 590 S. Marschall Road 2. Canterbury Park Concessions, Inc., 1100 Canterbury Road 3. Budget Liquor, 6268 Highway 101 4. Koehnen's Amoco, 804 East 1 st Avenue i:\clerk\jeanette\licenses\tobavioI CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing for the 1998 Street Reconstruction Project No. 1998-1 DATE: October 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5244, a resolution which adopts the assessments for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: This project has been essentially completed except for minor punch list items and all project costs identified. The final project costs are $1,112,312.40, which consists of construction costs, right-of- way costs and engineering/administration costs. A breakdown of the project costs is as follows: DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE Assessed Costs $ 229,207.47 Assessments City Street Costs $ 552,416.32 Tax Levy Sanitary Sewer Replacement $ 90,543.77 Sanitary Sewer Fund Watermain Replacement $ 175,579.89 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Storm Sewer $ 64,564.96 Storm Drainage Fund TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1,112,312.40 Included in this project were street reconstruction improvements to the following: • 5th Avenue, from Scott Street to Holmes Street • 6th Avenue, from Scott Street to Spencer Street • Fuller Street, from 6th Avenue to 5th Avenue • Sommerville Street, from 6th Avenue to 5th Avenue The assessment roll for this project is attached for Council review and approval. Each street segment assessment rate was calculated based upon the costs associated on each street. On this project, the overall assessments were lower than the feasibility report, except for Sommerville Street, due to subgrade correction of the existing soils. The assessments were for the street, sanitary sewer service replacement and new sanitary sewer main. The assessment roll also includes a sanitary sewer main assessment on 6th Avenue for the sanitary sewer main installed to replace long sewer services. As per the Assessment Policy, the City pays for 50% of this sewer main cost and 50% is assessed to benefiting properties. The City's tax levy and storm drainage costs were slightly higher than estimated in the feasibility as well as SPUC's watermain cost. A presentation of the final project costs as compared to the feasibility report will be made at the Council meeting. Also included on the assessment roll are credits to some properties for previous sidewalk replacement program assessments. These credits are prorated based upon a 20 year life cycle. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5244. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5244. 3. Table Resolution No. 5244. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5244, A Resolution Adopting Assessment for the 1998 Street Reconstruction Project No. 1998-1 and move its adoption. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5244 RESOLUTION NO. 5244 A Resolution Adopting Assessments For The 1998 Street Reconstruction Project Project No. 1998-1 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of: 5th Avenue, from Scott Street to Holmes Street; 6th Avenue, from Scott Street to Spencer Street; Fuller Street, from 6th Avenue to 5th Avenue; sommerville Street, from 6th Avenue to 5th Avenue all by reconstruction of street, curb & gutter, sanitary sewer, watermain, water services, sidewalk and all other appurtenant work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2000, and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.75 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2000 and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; the owner may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in her office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before November 30th of each year the total amount of installments and interest on assessments on each parcel of land which are to become due in the following year. i I Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota, held this day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk 5TH AVE.,6TH AVE., FULLER ST. &SOMMERVILLE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT ROLL P.I.D. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001424-0 SCOTT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BLOCK LYING BET BLKS 56& $7,820.26 428 HOLMES ST S 57 AKA COURTHOUSE SQUARE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001425-0 SCOTT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR LOT 1 BLK 57 $34,681.12 428 HOLMES ST S CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 E1/2 OF LOTS 1-10&VACAT 27-001433-0 SCOTT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR LOT 1 BLK 57 $3,910.13 428 HOLMES ST S CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 W1/2 OF LOTS 1-10 27-001434-0 SCOTT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR LOT 1 BLK 58 $7,820.26 428 HOLMES ST S CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001541-0 DONALD W HEGEMAN II LOT 6 BLK 71 $2,526.61 306 5TH AVE. W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 & E 15'OF LOT 7 27-001542-0 TODD L& HEIDI M ROEHL LOT 7 BLK 71 CITY OF SHAK. $1,513.86 3165AVW & LOT 8 EX E 15' OF LOT 7 SHAKOPEE MN 55379 & EX W 50'OF LOT 8 27-001543-0 PAUL L&JUDY L KELLER LOT 8 BLK 71 $1,363.09 322 5 AV W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 W 50'OF 27-001544-0 DEAN J & DONNA M MCDONALD LOT 9 BLK 71 $2,135.60 330 W 5TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001545-0 LEROY R& LORETTA M LEBENS LOT 10 BLK 71 $1,585.32 340 W 5TH ST CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001552-0 MARY L ERNST LOT 6 BLK 72 $3,154.40 202 W 5TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001553-0 SHIRLEY MAE HENNEN TRUST LOT 7 BLK 72 $3,154.40 212 5 AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001554-0 JAMES C& CONNIE W HEINE LOT 8 BLK 72 $2,626.36 220 5 AV W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001555-0 MARK WERMERSKIRCHEN LOT 9 BLK 72 $2,098.33 228 5 AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001556-0 JANICE C NEISEN LOT 10 BLK 72 $1,092.06 238 5 AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001562-0 ROBERT 0&JUANITA SWEENEY LOT 6 BLK 73 $1,955.06 506 HOLMES ST CITY OF SHAKOPEE & SHAKOPEE MN 55379 LOT 7 (EX S 67'OF LOTS) 27-001564-0 JOSEPH M KREBSBACH LOT 8 BLK 73 $2,231.36 223 HOLMES ST. PO BOX 300 CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001565-0 KEVIN M LAKE LOT 9 BLK 73 $2,545.08 128 W 5TH CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 E 50' OF 27-001566-0 MADGE W TOBIAS LOT 10 BLK 73 $3,109.00 138 5 AV W APT 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 &W 10' OF LOT 9 27-001536-0 BRAD SIEFERT LOT 1 BLK 71 $2,096.78 335 6 AV W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001537-0 DEAN M &JANICE S ERICKSON LOT 2 BLK 71 $2,056.71 327 6 AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001538-0 KEVIN P& MARY S KIRLEY LOT 3 BLK 71 $2,056.71 319 W 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001539-0 DOROTHY BREIMHORST LOT 4 BLK 71 $1,562.51 313 W 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001540-0 CHARLES C& SUZANNE CLUCKEY LOT 5 BLK 71 $1,876.86 532 ATWOOD ST S CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001546-0 KEITH N &THERESA L THEIS LOT 1 BLK 72 $1,562.51 235 W 6TH CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001547-0 PETER C& BEVERLY PLOUMEN LOT 2 BLK 72 $2,248.37 227 6 AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001548-0 CAROL G TAYLOR LOT 3 BLK 72 $2,192.11 219 6 AV W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 &W 3.9'OF 4 27-001549-0 SCOTT M & LINDA L VANDERWERF LOT 4 BLK 72 $2,517.01 211 6 AV W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 (EX W 3.9') 27-001551-0 DONALD L BITTNER LOT 5 BLK 72 $3,132.97 203 W 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001557-0 MICHAEL J STRUNK LOT 1 BLK 73 $2,618.58 135 6 AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001558-0 WILLIS E SMITH LOT 2 BLK 73 $2,618.58 127 6 AV W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001559-0 ALVINA A KOPISCA LOT 3 BLK 73 $2,619.23 119 W 6TH ST CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001561-0 THOMAS F BERENS LOT 5 BLK 73 $2,135.43 534 HOLMES ST S CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 S 82'OF LOTS 4&5 27-001567-0 ISD 720 LOT 1-10 BLK 74 $19,911.64 505 HOLMES ST S CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001568-0 ST MARYS CHURCH LOT 1 BLK 75 $25,118.54 535 S LEWIS CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 & LOTS 2-10 27-001570-0 THOMAS R& LEA ANN QUINN LOT 2 BLK 76 $3,172.36 537 S SOMMERVILLE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 S1/2 OF LOTS 1 &2 27-001571-0 STEVE& CHERYL TUTTLE LOT 3 BLK 76 $2,518.06 319 6 AV E CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001572-0 PHILIP R& CAROL L JONES LOT 4 BLK 76 $1,562.51 327 E 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001572-1 RICHARD E &TAMATHA CARLSON LOT 5 BLK 76 $1,562.51 532 S SPENCER CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001599-0 CAROLYN J VONHOLTUM LOT 6 BLK 79 $1,562.51 604 SPENCER ST S CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 N 71' OF 27-001600-0 SANDRA K COZINE LOT 7 BLK 79 $2,123.50 330 E 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001601-0 DUANE J & DARLENE F RANDALL LOT 8 BLK 79 $2,123.50 322 E 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001602-0 EILEEN KERKOW LOT 9 BLK 79 $1,848.97 605 S SOMMERVILLE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 N1/2 OF LOTS 9& 10 27-001610-0 PAUL J WERNER LOT 6 BLK 80 $1,848.97 234 E 6TH ST CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 & LOT 7(N 71' OF LOTS) 27-001612-0 JOYCE C ROBBINS LOT 8 BLK 80 $3,480.93 222 E 6TH CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001613-0 DONALD W TIMM LOT 9 BLK 80 $924.48 605 LEWIS CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 & LOT 10 (N1/2 OF LOTS) 27-001620-0 KEVIN T& LORIANN GILLICK LOT 6 BLK 81 $781.25 136 6TH AVE. E CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001622-0 CARLETON & MARY OLSON LOT 7 BLK 81 $3,507.64 PO BOX 508 CITY OF SHAKOPEE PORT ANGELES WA 98362 27-001623-0 THOMAS J & LORETTA A HARGATH LOT 8 BLK 81 $3,442.20 118 6 AV E CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 E 58'OF 27-001624-0 MICHELE A DAVIDSON LOT 9 BLK 81 $3,259.24 112 6 AV E CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 W 2'OF 8& E 50'OF 9 27-001625-0 THOMAS A& FRANCES M BERENS LOT 10 BLK 81 $1,822.93 106 6 AVE E CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 &W 10'OF LOT 9 27-001631-0 CARSON K PRIEST LOT 6 BLK 82 $1,562.51 PO BOX 146 CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 N 1/2 OF 27-001633-0 SYLVESTER G UNZE ET AL LOT 7 BLK 82 $2,056.71 112 W 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 N 1/2 OF 27-001634-0 JANET A PETERS LOT 9 BLK 82 $2,221.40 128 6TH AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 &W 5'OF LOT 8 27-001635-0 ROBERT T&JODY L BRENNAN LOT 8 BLK 82 $1,926.50 122 W 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 EX W 5' 27-001636-0 JACOB B&TRACY J HAESSLY LOT 10 BLK 82 $2,091.19 138 6 AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001643-0 MARGARET M REKOSKE LOT 6 BLK 83 $1,562.51 206 W 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001644-0 LEE M & HELEN L MILLER LOT 7 BLK 83 $2,105.48 212 6 AV W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001645-0 DOUGLAS& BONNIE J SMITH LOT 8 BLK 83 $1,562.51 222 W 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001646-0 BRYAN D& DONIA E CAMPBELL LOT 9 BLK 83 $1,562.51 230 6 ST W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001647-0 PHILAMINE HENNEN LOT 10 BLK 83 $1,989.93 240 6 AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001652-0 JAMES M JENSEN LOT 6 BLK 84 $1,562.51 306 W 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001653-0 EDWARD J &VIRGINIA L HENNEN LOT 7 BLK 84 $1,562.51 312 W 6TH ST CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001654-0 KARL E& LORI L BROWN LOT 8 BLK 84 $1,562.51 322 6 AV W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001655-0 CHARLES F & IRENE SCHLEICHER LOT 9 BLK 84 $1,948.31 330 W 6TH AVE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001656-0 JAY J FORSTER LOT 10 BLK 84 $2,110.14 338 6 AVE W CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001569-0 KENNETH J & CAROL M MANSKE LOT 1 BLK 76 $1,323.39 728 EAST BLUFF CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 N1/2 OF LOTS 1 &2 27-001574-0 JOHN J &JANE C DUBOIS LOT 7&8 BLK 76 $661.70 322 5 AVE E CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001575-0 ROBERT E& LYNN CUPERUS LOT 9 BLK 76 $1,323.39 314 E 5TH ST CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 27-001576-0 JOSEPH R BISEK LOT 10 BLK 76 $1,323.39 505 SOMMERVILLE CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 TOTAL=> $229,207.47 I� October 17, 1999 City of Shakopee Judith Cox, City Clerk Shakopee MN 55379 Dear Ms. Cox: I wish to file an appeal regarding the improvement assessment to parcel number 27-001552-0. I would like to see a breakdown of how the city arrived at the proposed assessment amount and how the city determined the assessed amount to each individual property owner. Also, is it possible to set up a payment plan for the assessed amount? It would be expecting alot from the property owners to have to come up with several thousand dollars within a month time period. Few families have the resources available to pay the amount in full at such short notice. Interest should not be charged if the payments are made in a timely manner. Will these concerns and questions be addressed at the public meeting on the evening of October 19? Consider this as my formal, written objection to the assessment proposed. Sincerely, Mary L. Ernst Cain 202 W. Fifth Avenue Shakopee MN 55379 2 n T 1999 City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE : Increasing Tax Rates and Levies DATE : September 21, 1999 Introduction The legislature has passed a new mandate for cities this year. Cities must hold a public hearing and pass a resolution to increase tax levies and rates . This is calculated by taking the pay 99 non-debt tax levy and dividing it into the pay 2000 tax capacity to get a calculated tax rate . In a growing city with an increasing levy, this will result in the calculated tax rate being lowered because of the growth in the tax capacity. The City is intending to increase the dollar amount of the general operating tax levy for pay 2000 compared to 1999 . Due to growth in the city, the tax rate will go down next year but not as much as if the dollar amount of the levy did not increase. The rate for 1999 is 23 . 358 . If the tax levy did not change it would be 18 . 566 . Anticipated rate for 2000 is about 21 . 986 . Attached is Resolution No. 5243 which needs to be forwarded to the county by 10/20/99 . Action 1 . Open public hearing 2 . Receive comment 3 . Close hearing 4 . Offer Resolution No. 5243 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TAX RATE INCREASE FOR THE 1999 TAX LEVY, COLLECTABLE IN 2000, and move its adoption. Gre" gg Voxland Finance Director n:\budget\budreS00 RESOLUTION NO. 5243 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TAX RATE INCREASE FOR THE 1999 TAX LEVY, COLLECTABLE IN 2000 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the county auditor is authorized to fix a property tax rate for taxes payable in the year 2000 that is higher than the tax rate calculated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 204B. 135 for the city for taxes levied in 1998, collectable in 1999 . Adoption of this resolution does not prohibit the city from certifying a final levy that will result in no tax rate increase or a tax rate decrease . The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the county auditor of Scott county, Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of October, 1999 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map-Rezone property from Agricultural Preservation(AG)and Light Industrial(I1)to Business Park(BP) and Highway Business(B1) MEETING DATE: October 19, 1999 DISCUSSION Valley Green Business Park, applicant and property owner, and the City of Shakopee, property owner are requesting that the City amend the Official Zoning Map by rezoning property currently zoned as Agricultural Preservation(AG)and Light Industrial(I1)to Business Park(BP)and Highway Business (B 1). A copy of the memorandum from the October 7, 1999 Planning Commission agenda is included for the Council's information. Staff has received comment from one of the citizens present at the public hearing that this citizen felt there was insufficient discussion regarding the rezoning of Agricultural Preservation(AG)zone property. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation(AG)and Light Industrial(I1)to Business Park(BP)and Highway Business(B 1). 2. Deny the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation(AG)and Light Industrial(I1)to Business Park(BP)and Highway Business(B1). 3. Table the matter for additional information from the applicant or staff. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed the request at its October 7, 1999 meeting, and unanimously recommended approval of the requested rezoning. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Ordinance No. 559, An Ordinance Approving the Rezoning of Property from Agricultural Preservation(AG)and Light Industrial(I1)to Business Park(BP)and Highway Business(B1). ` � ulie Klima Planner II i Acommdev\cc\19 9 9\cc 1019\tzvgcc.doc ORDINANCE NO. 559, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SECTION 11.03 BY REZONING LAND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 16, EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 83 AND WEST OF DEAN LAKE FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION(AG)AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL(I1) TO BUSINESS PARK(BP)AND HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B1) WHEREAS, Valley Green Business Park, applicant and property owner, and City of Shakopee, property owner, have requested the rezoning of land from Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Light Industrial (I1)to Business Park(BP) and Highway Business (B 1); and WHEREAS,the subject property is described as attached on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 7, 1999, at which time all person present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Preservation(AG) and Light Industrial (I1)to Business Park(BP) and Highway Business (B1). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Section 11.03 is hereby amended by rezoning land referenced in Exhibit A, from Agricultural Preservation(AG) and Light Industrial (I1) to Business Park(BP) and Highway Business (B 1). Section 2 -Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1999. Jon Brekke, Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1999. 2 EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 559 PROPERTIES REZONED FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I1) TO BUSINESS PARK (BP) Government Lots 1 and 2, and the west 601.13 feet of Government Lot 3, Section 10, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, including the accretions and relictions thereto, including that part thereof lying south of the south section line of Section 10 and northerly of the shore of Dean Lake. Except that part of Government Lots 1 and 2 shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat No. 70-12 and that part of Government Lot 3 shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat No. 70-13, all in Section 10, Township 115, Range 22 on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota. The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. The northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. Except that part shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat No. 70-12 on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota. PROPERTY REZONED FROM HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B1), LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I1), AND AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION(AG)TO HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B1) The southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. Except the following: Commencing at a point 32 rods north of the southwest corner of the southeast quarter, thence running east 13 rods, thence north 10 rods, thence in a northwesterly direction about 13.70 rods to a point 46 rods north of said southwest corner of the southeast quarter, thence south 14 rods to the place of the beginning; Except that part shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat No. 70-11 on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota. PROPERTY REZONED FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (AG) TO HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B 1) That part of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point 32 rods north of the southwest corner of the southeast quarter, thence running east 13 rods, thence north 10 rods, thence in a northwesterly direction about 13.71 rods to a point 46 rods north of said southwest corner of the southeast quarter, thence south 14 rods to the place of beginning. 3 s CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner H SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map-Rezone property from Agricultural Preservation(AG)and Light Industrial(I1)to Highway Business (B1)and Business Park(BP) DATE: October 5, 1999 Site Information• Applicant: Valley Green Business Park City of Shakopee Property Owner: Valley Green Business Park City of Shakopee Location: South of Highway 169, north and south of County Road 16, east of County Road 83 Adjacent Zoning: North: Highway 169 Right of Way South: Rural Residential (RR)&Agricultural(AG) East: Dean Lake West: County Road 83 MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning Area Map Exhibit B: Proposed Zoning Sketch Exhibit C: City Code Section 11.36 Highway Business(BI)Regulations Exhibit D: City Code Section 11.47 Business Park(BP)Regulations Introduction The applicant is requesting that the City amend the Official Zoning Map by rezoning property currently zoned as Agricultural Preservation(AG) and Light Industrial (I1)to Highway Business (B1) and Business Park(BP). Please see Exhibit A for the location of the subject site. Exhibit B is a sketch from the current Zoning map identifying which parcels are requested to be rezoned to Highway Business(B 1)and Business Park(BP). Considerations 1. The Comprehensive Plan has set basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibits C and D provide a listing of the uses, both permitted and conditional, that are allowed in the Highway Business (B1)and Business Park(BP)zones. 2. On September 1, 1999, the Metropolitan Council granted approval to a Comprehensive Plan amendment allowing the addition of 554 acres of land into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area WSA). This amendment also included designating these areas for commercial and business park uses. On September 7, 1999, the Shakopee City Council also granted its approval to this amendment. The proposed rezoning request is in compliance with the approved Comprehensive Plan and recent amendment. Findings The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with staff findings. Criteria#1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding#I The original Zoning Ordinance is not in error. Criteria#2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding#2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. With the opening of Highway 169, the City has experienced significant growth and demand for commercial and office sites The rezoning of these properties would provide additional developable property for these types of uses. Criteria#3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3 Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred With the construction and opening of Highway 169, this portion of Shakopee has experienced increased visibility and improved access, which has led to sign cant development for the area Criteria#4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4 The recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Business Park uses The impacts of Business Park and Commercial uses are similar, therefore the request to rezone to Highway Business (BI) and Business Park (BP) would be in compliance with the Comprehensive P1= Alternatives 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Light Industrial (11) to Highway Business (B 1) and Business Park(BP). 2 F- 2. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Light Industrial (I1) and Highway Business (B 1) and Business Park(BP). 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation(AG) and Light Industrial (11)to Highway Business (B 1) and Business Park (BP)Zone. Action Requested: Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation(AG) and Light Industrial (11)to Highway Business (B1) and Business Park(BP)Zone. i ulie Klima Planner II i:\conundev\boaa-pc\1999\1007\rzvgcc.doc 3 r, - 1 _►11111 NMI m $= I•��.•.,,•/ - _ l��:L;,.• .�� ,�" Diu�n• Mi � I • 1 's arty•'.o:r�.rd3�;.c?.�..+��9�.�...� '#�� • � �,�'� �` aiia.g-?"dar�':S�cgm.°��..�.��g1F„�4 �;;�.��r Y� �L��•f�1� � , •i��4�`�°:�'��tf%Y "�pr 9�'��'� ��m �r� ;��8 °•o`�� i� �'1. MM l�� ' � '._ "'?17'x• ..:�_ ' 3r _. _.•'12� Lam.._ -2^Y::j�z�� '�i�\ EXRIBIT C.- §11.36 SEC.11.36. HIGHWAY BUSINESS ZONE(8-1). Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the highway business zone is to provide an area for business uses fronting on or with immediate access to arterial and collector streets. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the highway business zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses: A. motels and hotels; B. restaurants, class I; C. retail establishments; D. utility services; E. administrative, executive and professional offices; F. financial institutions; G. medical or dental clinics; H. public buildings; I. dwellings when combined in the same structure with another, permitted use within the Highway Business Zone (B-1) along the County Road 69/State Highway 101/First Avenue.corridor west of County Road 17/Marschall Road and east of Webster Street or a line running northwesterly along the eastern boundary of the Webster Street right-of-way. (Ord.525, December 31, 1998) Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the highway business zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. taverns; S. C41U11.t, C. animal hospitals and veterinary clinics: D. open sales lots or any use having exterior storage of goods for sale; E. gas stations; F. restaurants, class II; G. private lodges and clubs; H. commercial recreation, major or minor, 1. bed and breakfast inns; page revised in 1990 1171 §11.36 J. uses having a drive-up or drive-through window; K. vehicle sales,service, or repair; including general repair, rebuilding or reconditioning of engines or vehicles, including body work, frame work and major painting service, replacement of any part or repair of any part, incidental body and fender work, painting or upholstering; L. car washes; M. hospitals; N. theaters; O. funeral homes; P. utility service structures; Q. day care facilities; R. adult day care centers as conditional use, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care centers shall: 1. serve thirteen (13) or more persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization, the center may share a common space with the multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usabie indoor space available,a center must not count: a. hallways. stairways, closets, offices, restroorns and urtiiity and storage areas; b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff;or C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and page revised in 1997 1172 §11.36 6. comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord.482, May 15, 1997) S. relocated structures; T. structures over thirty-five(35)feet in height; U. developments containing more than one(1)principal structure per lot; V. retail centers; or W. other uses similar to those permitted by the subdivision, upon a determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may be allowed upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. (Ord. 528, October 29, 1998) Subd. 4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the highway business zone the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use; B. parking and loading spaces; C. temporary construction buildings; D. decorative landscape features; E. communication service apparatus/device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be co-located on an existing tower or an existing structure; 2. must not exceed 175 feet in total height (including the extension of any communication service device(s)apparatus); 3. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 4. sig aye sf;all not be allowed on the communication service devices)/apparatus other than danger or warning type signs; 5. must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; 6. shall be located and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility off-site to the maximum extent possible; 7, applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted,shall be complied with; page revised in 1998 1173 §11.36 S. all obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed,the site shall be restored to its original or an approved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site; 9. the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication devices(s)/apparatus; 10. wireless telecommunication towers and antennas will only be considered for City parks when the following conditions exist and if those areas are recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the City Council: • City parks of sufficient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; • commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults; 11. all revenue generated through the lease of a City park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund; or(Ord.479, March 13, 1997) F. other accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd. S. Design Standards. Within the highway business zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following minimum requirements: A. minimum lot size(new lots): one(1)acre (Ord.485,June 12, 1997) B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 75% C. Lot specifications: minimum lot width: (new lots): 100 feet (existing lots): 60 feet minimum front yard setback: 30 feet minimum side yard setback: 20 feet minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet minimum side or rear yard setback from residential zones: 75 feet page revised in 1997 1174 §11.37 D. Maximum height: Thirty-Five (35) feet without a conditional use permit. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 150, October 4, 1984; Ord. 158, January 31, 1985; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 246, June 17, 1988; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 275, September 22, 1989; Ord. 279, December 1, 1989; Ord. 292, September 7, 1990; Ord. 320, October 31, 1991; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 434, November 30, 1995) SEC.11.37. Reserved. page revised in 1997 1175 ORDINANCE NO. 547, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ZONING, BY CREATING A BUSINESS PARK (PB) ZONE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, is hereby amended by adding the following language: SEC. 11.47. BUSINESS PARK ZONE (BP) Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Business Park zone is to provide areas for the development of office,business and light industrial uses meeting high standards of design and construction and having close proximity to major transportation corridors and/or other industrial zones. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the Business Park zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. offices and office buildings: B. research laboratories conducted entirely within an enclosed building: except those involving a project that fits within one of the Mandatory EIS Categories under Minnesota Rules 4410.4400; C. manufacturing, fabrication, processing, and assembly operations conducted entirely within an enclosed building, except those involving a project that fits within one the Mandatory EIS Categories under Minnesota Rules 4410.4400; D. warehousing and wholesaling operations conducted entirely within an enclosed building, except those involving a project that fits within one of the Mandatory EIS Categories tinder Linnesom Rules 4410.44011; E. office-warehouse and office-showroom facilities; F. medical or dental clinics; G. agricultural uses, but limited to the growing of field crops: H. utility services; and I. public buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the Business Park zone, no structure or land shall be used for any of the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. health and athletic club facilities; B. commercial vehicle rental facilities; C. industrial or technical training schools; D. restaurants, class I or class II, contained within a principal structure, oriented toward serving employees, and not exceeding 10%of the gross floor area of the building; E. manufacturing,fabrication, processing,and assembly operations; warehousing and wholesaling operations; and research laboratories, that fit within one of the Mandatory EIS Categories under Minnesota Rules 4410.4400; F. retail establishments not exceeding 10%of the gross floor area of the building; G. developments containing more than one principal structure per lot; H. hotels; 1. heliports; J. communication service towers, subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be a monopole structure; 2. the location of the tower shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the zone in which it is to be located. Towers located closer to a property line than a distance equal to the height of the tower shall be designed and engineered to collapse within the distance between the tower and the property line and supporting documentation shall be provided to prove this by a professional engineer; 3. shall not exceed 175 feet in total height(including the extension of any antenna); 4. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 5. shall be protected with corrosive resistant material; 6. signage shall not be allowed on the tower other than danger or warning type signs; 7. must provide proof from a professional engineer that die equipment is not able to be co-located on any existing or approved towers and prove that the planned tower will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; 8. must be built to accommodate antennas being placed at varying heights on the tower; 9. existing vegetation on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible; 10. shall be surrounded by a security fence 6 feet in height with a lockable gate; 11. shall be located and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility off-site to the greatest extent possible; 12. applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; 13. equipment and buildings shall be screened from view by suitable landscaping, except where a design of non-vegetative screening better reflects and compliments the architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood; 14. no tower shall be permitted unless the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within one- half(1/2) mile search radius of the proposed tower for any of the following reasons: • the necessary equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified, licensed professional engineer. • the necessary equipment would cause interference as to significantly impact the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the tower, structure or building and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified, licensed structural engineer. • existing or approved towers and buildings witliin the 1/2 mile search radius cannot or will not accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably, as certified by a qualified, licensed professional engineer. • the applicant, after a good faith effort. is unable to lease space on an existing or approved tower or building. 15. all obsolete or unused towers and accompanving accessory facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the city. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an improved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site. 16. The applicant shall submit a plan illustrating anticipated sites for future location for communication towers and/or communication device(s)/apparatus. 17. When towers are to be located in city parks, no towers should be located in designated conservation areas such as forest areas. marsh lands, wildlife preserves, nature center parks, picnic area, near historical structures, scenic open space areas, and areas of intense recreational play for children(playfields, swimming pool, playground equipment). 18. Wireless telecommunication towers and antennas will only be considered for city parks when the following conditions exist and if those areas are recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the City Council: • City parks of sufficient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; • Commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults. 19. All revenue generated through the lease of a city park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund. K. structures over 45 feet in height;and L. other uses similar to those in this subdivision,upon a determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals may be allowed upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Subd.4. Permitted Accessory Uses. A. parking and loading spaces; B. temporary construction buildings; C. decorative landscape features; D. communication tower service apparatus/devices subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be co-located on an existing tower or an existing structure; 2. must not exceed 175 feet in total height(including the extension of any communication service devices)/apparatus; 3. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 4. signage shall not be allowed on the communication service device(s)/apparatus other than danger or warning type signs; 5. must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; 6. shall be located and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility_ off-site to the maximum extent possible; 7. applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied%vitlh; 8. all obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the city. After[he facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an improved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site; 9, the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication devices(s)/apparatus. 10. Wireless telecommunication towers and antennas will only be considered for city parks when the following conditions exist and if those areas are recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the City Council: • City parks of sufficient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; • Commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults. 11. All revenue generated through the lease of a city park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund. E. other accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted or conditional use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd.5. Design Standards. A. Minimum lot area: 1 acre B. Maximum impervious surface coverage: 80% C. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width: 100 feet Building setbacks: minimum front yard setback: 50 feet minimum side yard setback: 20 feet minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet minimum side or rear yard setback from residential zone: 100 feet D. Dumpsters, trash handling equipment, and recycling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, or within an accessory structure constructed of the same materials as the principal structure. E. Lighting fixtures shall be of downcast, cutoff type parking or drive aisle setbacks: minimum front yard setback: 50 feet minimum side yard setback: 20 feet minimum rear yard setback: 10 feet minimum side or rear yard setback from residential zone: 100 feet D. Maximum height: 45 feet without a conditional use permit Subd. 6. Construction Materials. In the business park zone only the following materials may be used for the exterior finish of any principal or accessory building: face brick, stone, glass, decorative concrete block,architecturally treated concrete, cast in place or precast concrete, stucco, and materials substantially similar to these as determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Steel,aluminum, copper, or other high quality, durable metal, and wood may be used, but only as an accent, trim or frame, and not as siding for a substantial portion of any building facade. Section 2 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in cj,,�1P_,� • session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the�T Jday of , 1999. �r, yor of the City of Shakopee ATTE T:— Ci lerk Pu fished in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1999. I p��u�.�-� � l o•r q 9 9• To: Council Members, City of Shakopee From: K.L. Gerlach, Citizen Subj: Valley Green Business Park Development, Dean Lake cc: Planning Commission, City of Shakopee, Mr. Bruce Loney, City Engineer, Mr. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Project Director I respectfully submit the following for your review before the October 19, 1999 city council meeting: Over 50 acres of mature trees and wetland around Dean Lake will be clear cut, graded, burned and gone by the end of next week. These are for the most part, contiguous and on the east and north edges of this 300 acre business park development. Please read this with the urgency in which it was written. Although I realize this particular meeting has to do with the rezoning of these acres, I believe issues of zoning, grading, tree removal, wetland delineation, road realignment and notification are all vital components of the same project and should be able to be discussed together. This is a huge project, that will greatly affect my neighborhood and the whole community. For me, this project moved front and center when the bulldozers began tree removal and burning the week before the October 7th Planning Commission meeting where those within 350 feet of the site were invited to discuss a proposed zoning change. Since that time I have tried to play "catch up", educating myself on the history, current realities and opportunities for input with this massive development. I realize now that this part of a decade-old "vision" for the area bordered by County Road 18 to the east the 101 to the north County Road 83 to the west and County Road 16 to the south. It is my opinion and that of others that the "vision" should include a much larger preserved 3vetland/tivooded area for future enjoyment and wildlife preservation. I am disappointed that council members, commissions and city employees past and present squandered someplace very,very special within our borders and our jurisdiction. Up until the 1999 text amendment to the Shoreland Ordinance this type of industrial development would not have been allowed at all within the Shoreland. I feel this was a mistake made bigger by the fact that the grading can commence before there is a reviewed plan. I am angry with myself for not paying more attention years ago and for wrongly thinking that DNR land meant "Public and not available for development" Dean Lake is a rare, and surprisingly clean place of peace and solitude, alive with a varied abundance of plants and animals. There are few areas with significant natural features like this one left within Shakopee. An addition to a community center or a new ballfield can be added in a season, this stand of trees is irreplaceable in a couple lifetimes. (Assuming there were even plans to try). It seems to me that we wrongly turned our burden and the responsibility of a long range vision over to Valley Green and others. They may be careful and sensitive but the bottom line is profit and the priorities we hold as citizens who live here may differ. These trees must go because the land they "consume" to valuable to the developer. In hopes of saving a few acres I made countless phone calls and found out a couple things--Mr. Albinson does, indeed, "play it by the book" (as he says), and "the book" could use a few updates making it easier for us to be the type of land stewards and futuristic planners we ought to be. When we can argue about, and put the kibosh on the loss of a two foot strip of grass outside a proposed Wallgreens, but ignore 50 acres of trees, most within shoreland, and our ordinances and consciences allow us to do so, this is a problem! Incidentally, I have taken the time to contact other municipalities experienced in "growing pains", including Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and Maple Grove. They have shared a fine array of ideas and actual copies of ordinances designed to further protect wetlands, preserve and replace trees and prevent erosion as well as developing grassroots level Open Space Committees. Of course, none of this will help the Dean Lake area just now. I want to stop here and say I am not opposed to development in general or to this specific business park. I truly thought it's boundaries ended quite a bit west of where they do. I don't like government intrusion into personal matters and private ownership, but I think you'll agree our definition of progress is not merely more pavement, flattop roofs and jobs to make more money for more pavement, flattop roofs...but local government needs to play a vital role where community well-being at stake--water and air quality, much needed green spaces for a fast growing east Shakopee population, as well as issues of traffic, lights and noise. I believe in thoughtful co-existence and cooperation, leading to responsible development where common sense is used in notifying and involving stakeholders significantly affected For this reason, I have not resorted to editorials, media or some sort of circus event (ala highway 55 extension). I know a few acres of trees have been saved ( for now), but I am asking one final time if there is im'rthing we can yet do to preserve more of this area. With this question I offer the following: - that the $4000 per acre parkland dedication plus the $100,000 C.A.P Agency land sale be asked for as land instead of money or be dedicated as immediately as is legally possible to "purchase" a larger buffer zone for wildlife preservation around Dean Lake. This could be over a million dollars which could purchase (?) wooded acres. -that new homes built in the Southbridge development have should be required to have additional fee monies set aside for purchase to open space around Dean Lake. that a cooperative effort between Shakopee and Valley Green be entered into to create a longer term vision for this wild area that would serve both the community and the business park -that Federal, State, County and private foundational grants and funding sources be investigated -Voluntary contributions be solicited from developers, residents and corporations in Shakopee -that the land currently zoned agricultural. (the parcel to the south of Cty Rd 16) be left agricultural (in a separate vote) until that time that the County Highway Dept. review and comment on the proposed road realignment. This gives the city more time to evaluate options on how and where they may wish to draw boundaries to commercial development. -that ordinances related to the timing of the issuance of grading permits as well as those related to tree preservation and replacement, wetland buffer zones and other concerns be addressed with urgency before the sale of these or other corporate lots to the next owner. Please take seriously my comments and proposals. I believe that if we feel we acted hastily and are having any regrets there may yet be some way to come to a compromise and save part of a truly beautiful area if we have the will to do so. What I have proposed raises legal questions that need to be immediately addressed. It also asks for extraordinary patience and backtracking on the part of Mr. Albinson and Valley Green. What say you? i t ORDINANCE NO. 537, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11,ZONING, SECTION 11.54 (SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONE) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, Section 11.54 (Shoreland Overlay Zone is hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined and deleting the language which is stFuel hr-eugh: Section 1.1 Statutory Authorization This Shoreland Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 4-05 1031, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statures, Chapter 462. Section 5.22 A(1) Design Criteria for Structures, High Water Elevations (1) for lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least ene (1) feet three (3) feet above the highest known water level, or ene-(1) three 3) feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher; Section 5.6 Standards for Commercial, Industrial, Public and Semipublic Uses B. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topographer assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Section 5.64 Extractive and Mining Uses. Extractive and mining uses shall not be allowed in the shoreland district. Section 4.22.A Land Use Districts for Lakes (5) General Use District Uses Recreational Natural Development Environment Lakes Lakes Commercial P C Commercial Planned Unit Development** C C Industrial C N C*** Public, semipublic P C Extractive Uses C C Parks & Historic Sites C C Forest Management P P Mining of metallic minerals & peat P P ***Industrial uses are allowed by conditional use permit on Natural Environment Lakes if properly zoned and if the conditions in Section 9.0 of this ordinance are satisfied. Subd. 9.0 - Industrial Uses on Natural Environment Lakes 9.1 Conditional Use Permit required. Industrial uses are allowed on Natural Environment Lakes by Conditional Use Permit if such uses are allowed by the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance in the underl3 ing zoning district, and if the conditions attached to the development of the site are met. 9.2 Impervious Surface Coverage. Industrial uses on natural Environment Lakes shall be allowed 50% maximum lot coverage with impervious surfaces. This can be increased to 75% maximum lot coverage if the City has an adopted Stormwater Management Plan which adequately addresses stormwater runoff and surface water quality issues in the Cites and a specific site plan is reviewed and approved by the City for the Industrial use in question which follows the policies and procedures in the Stormwater management Plan and which utilizes accepted engineering practices to divert, detain, and/or treat runoff before entering the Natural Environment Lake. 9.3 Building Height. The maximum allowable building height for Industrial uses on Natural Environment Lakes is 35 feet. 9.4 Substantial Screening. "Substantially screened from view of water" as required in Section 5.21(D) of this chapter when applied to Industrial uses on natural Environment Lakes which are considered "uses without water-oriented needs" shall mean screening of at least 75% opacity in summer, leaf-on conditions by either vegetation or topography, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 9.5 Trails in shore impact zone. Trails may be allowed in the shore impact zone as part of a conditional use permit. Section 2 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the +fin day of 1999. (a, M or of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: it Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the I'K day of 1999. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum C6AIS I TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Shakopee Cable Access Corporation Audit DATE: October 14, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to review and receive the audit for the Shakopee Cable Access Corporation(SCAC) for the year ended March 31, 1999. BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the most recent annual audit of the SCAC, performed by CPA James Streefland. The financial statements and accompanying management letter dated August 19th were reviewed by the SCAC at their meeting of October 13th. Mr. Streefland noted several issues, which have been directed to be resolved. At its November meeting, it is expected that the Treasurer for the SCAC will have recommended modifications to the SCAC's operating policies that will address the issues identified for Petty Cash Records, Fixed Asset Records, and Accounts Payable. The City Administrator was directed to work with the City Attorney to put together lease agreements for the cable access studio in the Community Center, and a written contract with the equipment maintenance person. Note that the other items listed- including Public Entity Corporation-will mean that the SCAC should submit its report to the State Auditor. The Organizational Structure finding is one that is not easily remedied, other than the Board of Directors continuing to maintain involvement in the financial affairs of the organization. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the City Council receive and file the audit for the SCAC. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, receive and file the audit for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, for the Shakopee Cable Access Corporation. Mark McNeill City Administrator MMAW CC: SCAC i JAMES STREEFLAND CPA CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 1240 EAST THIRD AVENUE P.O. BOX 127 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 Telephone: (612)496-3773 Fax: (612)496-0057 August 19, 1999 To the Management and The Board of Directors of Shakopee Community Access Corporation In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of Shakopee Community Access Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1999 I considered the Organization's internal control structure to plan auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing my opinion on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on internal control structure. However, during my audit, I noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and other matters that are presented for your consideration. This letter does not affect our report dated August 19, 1999, on the financial statements of Shakopee Community Access Corporation. I will review the status of these comments during my next audit engagement. My comments and recommendations, all of which have been discussed with appropriate members of management, are intended to improve the internal control structure or result in other operating efficiencies. I will be pleased to discuss these comments in further detail at your convenience, to perform any additional study of these matters, or to assist you in implementing the recommendations. Our comments are summarized as follows: Corporation Created by Public Entity In 1997, the legislature passed Minn. Stat 465.715 which stated that Counties, Cities, Towns, School Districts and other political subdivisions may not create corporations, whether for profit or non profit, unless explicitly authorized to do so by law. In 1998, the legislature amended this law permitting corporations created prior to July 1, 1997 to continue until July 1, 1999. The State Auditor will conduct a survey of corporations that have been created by public entities and report back to the legislature. Any corporate entity that does not report to the state auditor, will not be authorized to receive public funds or contract with public entities after July 1, 1999. I recommend that the corporation submit its report to the State Auditor. Organizational Structure The size of the Organization's accounting and administrative staff precludes certain internal controls that would be preferred if the office staff were large enough to provide optimum segregation of duties. This situation dictates that the Board of directors remain involved in the financial affairs of the Organization to provide oversight and independent review functions. Petty Cash Records The organization does not retain its records regarding the petty cash bank statements. I would recommend that these records be stored for at least 10 years and be made available. Fixed Asset Records The organization does not maintain a contemporaneous record of fixed assets and only produces such record upon request. I recommend that the accounting manual include proper procedures to document and maintain fixed asset records of the organization. Accounts Payable The organization does not have documented procedures for payment of accounts payable. I recommend that these procedures be developed to prevent double payment of invoices and that all invoices get paid from invoices only not statements. These procedures should also be part of the accounting manual. Accounting software is available to protect against duplicate payments. Contracts and Leases The organization does not have written lease agreements for its space in the building, nor written agreements with its maintenance people. I recommend that the organization enter into such agreements to protect itself from having contractors being classified as employees and to be certain that everyone understands the agreements to be just what they are. Sometimes verbal agreements contain information that not everyone is aware of. I wish to thank the Treasurer for his support and assistance during my audit. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors, management, and others within the Organization. V 4t� Shakopee, Minnesota August 19, 1999 SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MARCH 31, 1999 CPA JAMES STREEFLAND CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379 JAMES STREEFLAND CPA CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 1240 EAST THIRD AVENUE P.O. BOX 127 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 Telephone: (612)496-3773 Fax: (612)496-0057 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To the Board of Directors Shakopee Community Access Corporation I have audited the accompanying statement of financial position of the Shakopee Community Access Corporation (a nonprofit organization) as of March 31, 1999, and the related statements of activities and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Organization's management. My responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on my audit. I conducted my audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that I plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. I believe that my audit provides a reasonable basis for my opinion. In my opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Shakopee Community Access Corporation as of March 31, 1999, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Shakopee, Minnesota August 19, 1999 SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION MARCH 31, 1999 ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents $ 161, 500 Accounts receivable 44, 287 Property and equipment 84, 959 TOTAL ASSETS $ 290, 746 LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 1, 405 TOTAL LIABILITIES 1, 405 NET ASSETS Unrestricted net assets 289, 341 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $ 290, 746 See accompanying notes to financial statements (1) SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS REVENUES AND GAINS Franchise fees $ 82, 843 Access fees 19, 662 Maintenance fees 2, 900 Interest income 3, 711 Rent 24,000 TOTAL REVENUE $ 133, 116 EXPENSES Program grants 400 Maintenance of equipment 3,743 Access Management 22,368 Government Access Operations and technician 5, 425 Legal and accounting 3, 275 Studio rent 7,200 City support staff 3, 315 Insurance 321 Studio supplies 1,788 Telephone 856 Depreciation 12,528 Miscellaneous expense 468 TOTAL EXPENSES 61, 687 INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS 71, 429 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR 217, 912 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS AT END OF YEAR $ 289, 341 See accompanying notes to financial statements (2) SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES ' Cash received from: Fees and rents $ 122,560 Interest income 1,254 Cash paid for: Program grants (500) Maintenance of equipment (3, 440) Access management (22,368) Government Access operations and technicians (5, 385) Legal and accounting (3,275) Studio rent (7,200) City support staff (3,060) Insurance (321) Studio supplies (1,788) Telephone (849) Miscellaneous expense (468) NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES 75, 160 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Purchase of fixed assets (8,295) NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES (8,295) NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH 66, 865 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF YEAR 94, 635 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF YEAR $ 161, 500 RECONCILIATION OF CHANGE IN NET ASSETS TO NET CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Change in net assets $ 71, 429 Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash used in operating activities: Depreciation 12, 528 Increase in accounts receivable (9,303) Increase in accounts payable 606 Decrease in grants payable (100) NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES $ 75, 160 See accompanying notes to financial statements (3) II SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE A-NATURE OF ACTIVITIES AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Nature of Activities The Shakopee Community Access Corporation is a nonprofit organization exempt from federal income taxes under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Corporation was formed for the purpose of providing public access to communication media, to educate the community by training and conducting public programs, and to provide means and make available equipment so that the community can produce television programs within the City of Shakopee. Resources for the Corporation activities are primarily provided by fees. Basis of Accounting The accounts of the Corporation are maintained, and the financial statements are prepared, on the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, revenues are recognized when earned, and expenses are recognized when incurred. Use of Estimates The financial statements include estimates and assumptions made by management that affect the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses. Actual results may differ from those estimates. Cash and Cash Equivalents For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Corporation considers all unrestricted highly liquid investments within an initial maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. Property and Equipment Property and equipment are stated at cost. Acquisitions are capitalized at estimated costs. Property and equipment are depreciated on the straight-line method using 10 year lives. Grants Payable Grants payable represents all unconditional grants that have been authorized prior to year end, but remain unpaid as of the statement of financial position to date. Conditional grants are expensed and considered payable in the period the conditions are substantially satisfied. There were no conditional grants or grants payable at March 31, 1999. (4) SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Leases The corporation leases its premises at the rate of $7,200 per year. The lease is a month to month agreement. Financial Statement Presentation The Organization has adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No 117, "Financial Statements of Not-for-Profit Organizations. " Under SFAS No. 117, the Organization is required to report information regarding its financial position and activities according to three classes of net assets: unre- stricted net assests, temporarily restricted net assets, and permanently restricted net assets. In addition, the Organization is required to present a statement of cash flows. As permitted by the statement, the Organization does not use fund accounting. Contributions The Organization has also adopted SFAS No. 116, "Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made. " Contributions received are recorded as unrestricted, temporarily restricted, or permanently restricted support depending on the existence or nature of any donor restrictions. NOTE B-PROPERTY, FURNITURE, AND EQUIPMENT Property and equipment include the following at March 31, 1999. Equipment $ 125,280 Less accumulated depreciation (40, 321) Net property and equipment $ 84, 959 NOTE C-UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS There are no donor restrictions on the Corporation's net assets. (5) - - SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION NOTES FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE D-INCOME TAXES The Corporation is exempt from federal income taxes under Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c) (3) and therefore has made no provision for federal income taxes. NOTE E-CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK The Corporation maintains cash at on financial instituitions located in Shakopee, Minnesota. The accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to $100, 000. At March 31, 1999 the Corporation's uninsured cash balances totaled $61,500. (6) SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MARCH 31, 1999 JAMES STREEFLAND CPA CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 1240 EAST THIRD AVENUE P.O. BOX 127 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 Telephone: (612)496-3773 Fax: (612) 496-0057 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To the Board of Directors Shakopee Community Access Corporation I have audited the accompanying statement of financial position of the Shakopee Community Access Corporation (a nonprofit organization) as of March 31, 1999, and the related statements of activities and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Organization's management. My responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on my audit. I conducted my audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that I plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. I believe that my audit provides a reasonable basis for my opinion. In my opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Shakopee Community Access Corporation as of March 31, 1999, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. 11 �- �4z Shakopee, Minnesota August 19, 1999 SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION MARCH 31, 1999 ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents $ 161, 500 Accounts receivable 44, 287 Property and equipment 84, 959 TOTAL ASSETS $ 290, 746 LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 1, 405 TOTAL LIABILITIES 1, 405 NET ASSETS Unrestricted net assets 289, 341 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $ 290, 746 See accompanying notes to financial statements (1) SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS REVENUES AND GAINS Franchise fees $ 82, 843 Access fees 19, 662 Maintenance fees 2, 900 Interest income 3,711 Rent 24, 000 TOTAL REVENUE $ 133, 116 EXPENSES Program grants 400 Maintenance of equipment 3,743 Access Management 22,368 Government Access Operations and technician 5, 425 Legal and accounting 3,275 Studio rent 7,200 City support staff 3,315 Insurance 321 Studio supplies 1,788 Telephone 856 Depreciation 12,528 Miscellaneous expense 468 TOTAL EXPENSES 61, 687 INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS 71, 429 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR 217, 912 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS AT END OF YEAR $ 289,341 See accompanying notes to financial statements (2) SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash received from: Fees and rents $ 122, 560 Interest income 1,254 Cash paid for: Program grants (500) Maintenance of equipment (3, 440) Access management (22, 368) Government Access operations and technicians (5, 385) Legal and accounting (3, 275) Studio rent (7,200) City support staff (3, 060) Insurance (321) Studio supplies (1,788) Telephone (849) Miscellaneous expense (468) NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES 75, 160 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Purchase of fixed assets (8,295) NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES (8,295) NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH 66, 865 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF YEAR 94, 635 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF YEAR $ 161, 500 RECONCILIATION OF CHANGE IN NET ASSETS TO NET CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Change in net assets $ 71, 429 Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash used in operating activities: Depreciation 12, 528 Increase in accounts receivable (9, 303) Increase in accounts payable 606 Decrease in grants payable (100) NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES $ 75, 160 See accompanying notes to financial statements (3) SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE A-NATURE OF ACTIVITIES AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Nature of Activities The Shakopee Community Access Corporation is a nonprofit organization exempt from federal income taxes under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Corporation was formed for the purpose of providing public access to communication media, to educate the community by training and conducting public programs, and to provide means and make available equipment. so that the community can produce television programs within the City of Shakopee. Resources for the Corporation activities are primarily provided by fees. Basis of Accounting The accounts of the Corporation are maintained, and the financial statements are prepared, on the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, revenues are recognized when earned, and expenses are recognized when incurred. Use of Estimates The financial statements include estimates and assumptions made by management that affect the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses. Actual results may differ from those estimates. Cash and Cash Equivalents For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Corporation considers all unrestricted highly liquid investments within an initial maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. Property and Equipment Property and equipment are stated at cost. Acquisitions are capitalized at estimated costs. Property and equipment are depreciated on. the straight-line method using 10 year lives. Grants Payable Grants payable represents all unconditional grants that have been authorized prior to year end, but remain unpaid as of the statement of financial position to date. Conditional grants are expensed and considered payable in the period the conditions are substantially satisfied. There were no conditional grants or grants payable at March 31, 1999. (4) SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Leases The corporation leases its premises at the rate of $7,200 per year. The lease is a month to month agreement. Financial Statement Presentation The Organization has adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No 117, "Financial Statements of Not-for-Profit Organizations. " Under SFAS No. 117, the Organization is required to report information regarding its financial position and activities according to three classes of net assets: unre- stricted net assests, temporarily restricted net assets, and permanently restricted net assets. In addition, the Organization is required to present a statement of cash flows. As permitted by the statement, the Organization does not use fund accounting. Contributions The Organization has also adopted SFAS No. 116, "Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made. " Contributions received are recorded as unrestricted, temporarily restricted, or permanently restricted support depending on the existence or nature of any donor restrictions. NOTE B-PROPERTY, FURNITURE, AND EQUIPMENT Property and equipment include the following at March 31, 1999. Equipment $ 125,280 Less accumulated depreciation (40, 321) Net property and equipment $ 84, 959 NOTE C-UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS There are no donor restrictions on the Corporation's net assets. (5) SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION NOTES FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE D-INCOME TAXES The Corporation is exempt from federal income taxes under Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c) (3) and therefore has made no provision for federal income taxes. NOTE E-CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK The Corporation maintains cash at on financial instituitions located in Shakopee, Minnesota. The accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to $100, 000. At March 31, 1999 the Corporation's uninsured cash balances totaled $61, 500. (6) CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum J TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Y2K Emergency Management Plan DATE: October 14, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to adopt an Emergency Management Plan for Year 2000 issues. The Council is also asked to approve application for Y2K contingency insurance through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust(LMCIT). BACKGROUND: The City's Y2K Coordinating Committee met October 13th, and reviewed a plan for dealing with Y2K-related problems. This plan was patterned closely after the one formulated by Scott County, who had put it together following discussions and input from State Emergency Management Agencies. The main part of this document speaks of preparation, most of which is already been done, and also focuses on specific actions to be taken the evening of December 31 st. City Emergency Management Director/Police Chief Dan Hughes recommends that the City of Shakopee join others designated by Scott County at the County's Emergency Operation Center in the Courthouse beginning at 8:00 PM on December 31 st, to be available to address any issues as they come up. Available in person will be the City Administrator, Community Development Director (and MIS Director), Public Works Director, Police Chief, Deputy Police Chief, Fire Chief, and, available by pager, the Mayor. The SPUC Director will also be available that evening. This group will be able to monitor any difficulties which appear as the date changes across different time zones. DISCUSSION: The City will be Y2K-ready. At this time, we expect the major problems with public services will be that of communications - experts expect the telephone system nationally to be most vulnerable (it is not designed to handle large volumes, as evidenced when the Minnesota Twins won the World Series, and tied up lines for hours). In order to address this, we will advertise that both Fire Stations and the Police Station will be staffed beginning the evening of December 31 st and into January 1 st, so that if a resident is in need of emergency help, they can go to one of those three locations. Emergency communications, and/or assistance will be available to the resident there. The City is not designating emergency shelters. INSURANCE: The other issue which the Council should consider is whether to apply for insurance coverage through the LMCIT for possible Y2K related issues. For most communities, the major exposure would be in sewage lift stations which fail if there is no power. Because Shakopee does not have a lift station serving anything but Murphy's Landing, that exposure is not there. To be covered, Y2K insurance would be a prudent investment, even though we expect no major issues. The application for the Y2K insurance must be made by November 1, 1999. BUDGET IMPACT: The guideline from the LMCIT regarding costs is that the Y2K supplemental insurance will be 5% of the annual premium paid. In 1999, that amounted to nearly $211,000. The estimated cost for Y2K insurance would, therefore, be $10,550. The actual amount will be determined by the LMCIT after reviewing the City's application/preparation. Funding for this would come from the General Fund operating budget. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Council adopt the Y2K Emergency Management Plan, and further authorize application for the LMCIT insurance. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the following items: 1. Adopt the Y2K Emergency Management Plan. 2. Authorize staff to make application for Y2K insurance to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. U� QU�l� Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: Michael Leek Gregg Voxland Dan Hughes ;0/12/99 08:53 CAPESIUS AGENCY 4 4456718 N0.016 P05 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Aone: (651) 281.1200 • (800) 925.1122 TDD (651) 281-1290 Legg"a of M'sncsorn C;fics LMC Fax: (651) 281-1299 • LMCIT Fax: (651) 281-1298 Cities promotinyaxrallvRCV Web Site: http://www.Imnc.org September 1, 1999 To: LMCIT member cities and agents From: Pete Trite and Mike Wozniak C, 7 1999 Re: Expanded Y2k coverage—Application deadline Pj We've now set a deadline of November 1 for applications for LMCIT's Expanded Y2k Coverage. To be assured of receiving Expanded Y2k coverage, the city must submit a complete application showing that the city meets the underwriting guidelines by that date. Will LMCIT still accept applications after November 1? Yes, we will accept late applications and we will do our best to process them. However, we cannot promise that we will be able to review and evaluate a late application and issue coverage before the end of the year. What if we get our application in on time, but it's not complete or doesn't meet the underwriting guidelines? Our goal is to get the expanded coverage in place for every city, so we'll do everything we can to help the city complete its preparations and qualify for coverage. If additional information is needed or if there are any additional steps the city needs to take to qualify, the LMCIT underwriters will let you know as soon as possible. Cities who get their apps in before November 1 will have priority over apps that come in later. Again though, if we don't have a completed and qualifying app by November 1, we'll do our best but we can't guarantee that we'll have enough time to process it and issue coverage. Where can I get more information? The July issue of the League's Y2k Action News answers many frequently asked questions about the expanded Y2k coverage. For specific questions, contact your regular LMCIT underwriter or Mike Wozniak, or Pete Tritz 651-215-4090 651-281-1265 mwozniak @lmnc.org ptritz @lmnc.org AN EQUAL OPPORTUNrrY/AFFMMATTVEACnON EMPLOI'M 10/12/99 08:53 CAPESIUS AGENCY 4 4456718 N0.016 D02 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST Year 2000 Expanded Coverage Application City - Date 1. Year 2000 (Y2k) Coordinator Y2k coordinator's name: THE APPOINTMENT OF A Y2k COORDINATOR IS MANDATOR Y TO MEET THE YEAR 2000 UNDERWRMNG CRITERIA. 2. Inventory of systems Pages 16 and 17 of the LMC "Year 2000 Action Gttide" contain a checklist to help the city• identify major systems or subsystems that need to be checked for possible Y2k problems. The city may use u different format as long as it provides similar information. Has your city conducted a complete Y2k inventory of all of its major systems and subsystems? Yes_ No — If yes,please attach a copy of this completer) Y2k inventory to this application. THIS INVENTOR)'I S:VIA NDA TOR 1 TU MEET THE )'EAR 2000 UNDER WRITING CRITERIA. 3. Assessment Sheets Pe{ges 33 and 34 of the )'car 2010:1 rtion Chide contain u model "Year 2000 Assessment l orkcheel" that is designed to serve as u rrcord of the city's actions and progress in idenlifl'ing and addressing )'?k prohlents, 10/12/99 08:53 CAPESIUS AGENCY 4 4456718 N0.016 903 Please attach copies of these assessment sheets to the application when the following steps have been completed. a. Assessment worksheets are set up for each department or function. b. The city has made inquiries (in writing, by phone or in person) to all the manufacturers, suppliers, or vendors of each component with potential Y2k problems. .. ..C. The city has developed contingency plans for each component. COMPLETION OF THE STEPS LISTED ABO�E FOR THESE ASSESSMENT SHEETS-- ON ALL DEPARTMENTS OR FUNCTIONS-- IS MANDATORY TO MEET THE YEAR 2000 UNDERWRITING CRITERIA. PLEASE NOTE: THE ASSESSMENT SHEETS PROVIDE A CONVENIENT WAY FOR THE CITY TO RECORD ITS OVERALL PROGRESS INADDRESSING Y2k PROBLEMS. THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS. THE CITYSHOULD CONTINUE ITS EFFORTS IN ALL AREAS OUTLINED IN THE ASSESSMENT SHEET, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY QUALIFIES FOR EXPANDED Y2k COVERAGE. 4. Contingency Plans a. Please list below (or attach) the names and titles of all staff who will be on duty or on call during the transition from 12/31/99 to 1/1/2000: THIS LIST I•t ,t t.-lNDATORY TO •ti1E T 711E YEAR 2000 UNDERWRITING CRITERIA. 2 10/12/99 08:53 CAPESIUS AGENCY 4 4456718 N0.016 D04 t b. Have contingency plans been developed for all components ? Yes No THESE CONTINGENCY PLANS ARE MANDATORY TO MEET THE YEAR 1000 UNDER W=NG CRITERIA. Additional Information LMCIT may need to request additional information after we've reviewed your city's application and assessment sheets. The purpose of this process is to confirm that the city has taken reasonable steps and followed reasonable procedures to identify and correct as many Y2k problems as possible and has contingency plans in place in case of Y2k-related malfunctions or failures. By: ( Signature and Title of Authorized City Representative ) 3 RESOLUTION NO. 5251 A RESOLUTION OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE Y2K STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THE SHAKOPEE EMERGENCY OPERATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Unlike other disaster, (tornado, flood, etc.), the potential consequences of the Y2K"bug" are more challenging to the emergency community for several reasons; and WHEREAS, the effects of the Y2K conversion may have a rapid onset and could potentially impact every community and state in the United States as well as every country in the world; and WHEREAS, the interdependent nature of vulnerable systems could result in an incremental or cascading effect. Loss of functionality of one essential service could cause disruptions in other essential services; and WHEREAS, this hazard has the potential to adversely affect all levels of government, both in day-to-day operations as well as in response to the consequences of other natural or technological disasters and/or emergencies that could occur simultaneously; and WHEREAS, the potential for increased risk of civil disturbance due to unusual behavior of citizens based on misinformation and fear as to the perceived or real threat due to this event; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That this Y2K Standard Operating Procedure be adopted and incorporated into the City of Shakopee Emergency Operation Plan. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 19th day of October, 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 L PURPOSE This Standard Operating Procedure Supplement to Shakopee's Emergency Operations Plan describes the requirements necessary to manage the potential consequences of the Year 2000 (Y2K)disruptions that may occur and require government response to protect life,public health and safety,property and the environment. II. BACKGROUND Unlike other disasters,(tornado, flood, etc.),the potential consequences of the Y2K"Bug"are more challenging to the emergency management community for several reasons. A. The effects of the Y2K conversion may have a rapid onset and could potentially impact every community and State in the United States as well as every country in the world. B. The interdependent nature of vulnerable systems could result in an incremental or cascading effect. Loss of functionality of one essential service could cause disruptions in other essential services. C. This hazard has the potential to adversely affect all levels of government,both in day-to- day operations as well as in response to the consequences of other natural or technological disasters and/or emergencies that could occur simultaneously. D. The potential for increased risk of civil disturbance due to unusual behavior of citizens based on misinformation and fear as to the perceived or real threat due to this event. III CITY'S ROLE A. Shakopee's Task Force consists of representatives from each City Department or Office, and was created to coordinate the City's efforts to address the Y2K issue. Specific tasks of the City's Task Force include: 1) Ensure that City Departments are Y2K compliant or have the ability to make the necessary changes to become compliant. 2) Ensure the City services will be available and effective to the public after the turn of the century. B. Shakopee's Emergency Management Division will be the coordinating agency for the City's preparedness,response,and recovery from the effects of Y2K. 1.) To provide clear,accurate information to the public on what potential disruptions may occur and what strategies have been adopted to mitigate their effects. 2.) To develop an emergency response plan for the City's public health and safety in the event other local agencies experience disruptions or need additional assistance during the millennium change. C. All City Departments and Offices will be expected to use their appropriate authority and resources to address Y2K preparedness and response efforts. i Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 D. The City of Shakopee Emergency Operations Center,(EOC),will be activated at 20:00 hours on December 31, 1999.City of Shakopee Departments and Offices will provide support and decision making staff in the City of Shakopee EOC.At a minimum,the following departments and offices will be required to provide at least one staff person in the City of Shakopee EOC or readily accessible via pager,or telephone during the EOC's activation: Jon Brekke - Mayor Mark McNeill - City Administrator Michael Leek - Y2K Coordinator Community Development Director Dan Hughes - Emergency Management Coordinator Chief of Police Jerry Poole - Deputy Chief of Police Mary Athmann - Fire Chief Lou Van Hout - Public Utilities Manager Bruce Loney - Public Works Director(Engineering) When requested by Emergency Management, EOC staff will provide additional expertise in the areas of Planning,Logistics,Operations,Finance and Public Information. E. All departments are expected to support EOC activities from their base budgets using the established cost code as determined by Finance. If a prolonged EOC activation is warranted,financial arrangements(budget considerations)will be addressed by Administration. IV. SCOPE This Standard Operating Procedure Supplement applies to all City Departments for: A. Operational Preparedness: Situation monitoring,increased readiness, and the planning for the City's response to manage the consequences of the Y2K event. B. Consequence Management: Provides for City support to local jurisdictions,based on pre-established criteria,and heightened situation monitoring. IV. AUTHORITIES In the event that Shakopee would need to provide assistance to manage the consequences of a Y2K emergency,that assistance would be provided in accordance with the following: A. Shakopee Emergency Plan ii Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 B. Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan C. Agency(Police,Fire,EMS,etc.)Standard Operating Procedures. D. Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 12,as amended. E. City of Shakopee Common Organization Contract F. Resolutions of the Shakopee City Council. V. AUTHENTICATION Prepared by: Emergency Management Coordinator Date Approved by: City Y2K Coordinator Date Attested by: City Administrator Date iii Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 I. RESPONSE PROCEDURES/POLICIES A. Response to Y2k issues should be handled at the city level prior to requesting County assistance,when possible, local response should be fully utilized. B. A City "Emergency"rather than a"Disaster"declaration should be considered to support local response in accordance with the City of Shakopee Plan and the Stafford Act. The "Emergency" declaration denotes a shorter duration incident and a narrower scope of hazards than that of a disaster. C. Except in life-threatening situations,City of Shakopee response resources may not be deployed until after an initial City of Shakopee wide needs assessment is conducted following the rollover to January 1,2000.This is consistent with the State recommendation of committing resources only after a complete Statewide assessment is conducted. (Some cities may need more resources or assistance than others,and the State will need to make the determination of who gets what,when). D. City of Shakopee Operations(e.g.,policy making,resource allocation,etc.),will be centralized and coordinated through the City Emergency Operations Center(EOC)to the maximum extent possible. E. Critical resource allocations will be prioritized based upon: 1) Immediate threat to life 2) Public health and safety concern 3) Environmental impact 4) Property conservation F. Continuity of operations between the City of Shakopee and local units of government will be coordinated through the City's EOC. II. SITUATION A. Conditions 1) It is anticipated that there will be no major nationwide,statewide, countywide or citywide catastrophic disruptions resulting from the Y2K conversion.There could be smaller disruptions occurring simultaneously throughout the City of Shakopee. It is anticipated that these disruptions will be localized, limited in duration,and vary from area to area. The unique aspect of the Y2K disruption for emergency management and emergency responders is that,while each Y2K disruption in and of itself might not constitute an "emergency",the cumulative effect of several events may stress the ability of government,at all levels,to mount an effective and efficient response. 2) Continuity of City of Shakopee Operations should be addressed on an individual departmental/office level. Each department/office should be prepared to initiate their plan for sustained operations and staffing,if necessary. At a minimum,each City of Shakopee Department/Office should develop and maintain a written plan defining the following: a.) Line of succession b.) Emergency Action Steps 1 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 c.) Alternate Operating Sites for Critical Functions d.) Safety of Vital Records e.) Alternate Facility for Resumption of Normal Business f.) Protection of Facilities,Personnel,and Resources. 3) Due to the wide ranging consequences of computer conversion problems,the overall Y2K situation assessment is centered around the operational condition of those services which are critical to the well-being of our City of Shakopee. The sectors are described as follows: a.) Energy-The generation stations,transmission and distribution networks that create and supply electricity to the consumers to maintain functionality, including the transportation and storage of fuel essential to the system. b.) Communications-Computers,telecommunications equipment,mass media, software,processes,and people who support the processing, storage,and transmission of data and information;the processes and people who convert data into information,and information into knowledge; and the data and information itself. c.) Transportation-The physical distribution system critical to supporting the national security and economic well-being of State and local jurisdictions including the airlines,aircraft,and airports;roads and highways,trucking and personal vehicles;ports and waterways and vessels operating thereon;mass transit,both rail and bus;pipelines,including natural gas,petroleum,and other hazardous materials, freight and long haul passenger rail;and delivery services. d.) Health Services-This critical factor addresses the impacts on the Health Services and Care community,at large,including managed care organizations, health care providers, laboratories,pharmaceutical companies,medical equipment providers,ambulance services,and supply organizations,etc. e.) Water and Sewer-The sources of water,holding facilities;and other transport systems;the filtration, cleaning and treatment systems;the pipelines;and the cooling systems,and other delivery mechanisms that provide for domestic and industrial application, including systems for dealing with water runoff, waste water,solid waste,and fire fighting. f.) Public Works-Infrastructure sustainment including roadways,bridges,water and sewer systems. g.) Emergency Services-The medical,police,fire,and rescue systems and personnel who are called upon when an individual or community requests a response to an emergency. These services are typically provided at the municipal level. h.) Financial Services-The retail and commercial organizations, investment institutions,exchange boards,trading houses and reserve systems,associated operational organizations,government,and support entities involved in all manner of monetary transactions,including its storage,savings,investments, payment purposes,and disbursements. 2 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 i.) Other Essential Government Services-The systems that support the collection, storage,distribution of information pertaining to the disbursement of benefits (e.g. Social Security, Medicare,welfare,etc.);the collection of revenue and disbursement of funds(accounts payable,refunds,etc.). J.) Technological Hazards-Chemical releases and/or nuclear power plant emergencies. k.) Domestic Preparedness-Terrorist acts. B. PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS 1.) The City of Shakopee Emergency Operations Plan,with the year 2000(Y2K) Conversion Supplement,will serve as the basis for the City's response to Y2K emergencies. Local governments are expected to have prepared and tested their individual Y2K-specific emergency operations plans before the date change. 2.) By January 1,2000,most State,County and City mission critical emergency response systems will likely be Y2K compliant. The State,County and City of Shakopee Emergency Operation Centers and communications centers are expected to function properly. 3.) Y2k disruptions, like natural disasters,may temporarily interfere with normal supplies of food, water,power, communications,and other day-to-day necessities. For prudent planning, information is being provided to individuals, families,businesses, and governmental agencies on how to plan and prepare for these potential disruptions. Information on how to develop and stock an emergency supplies kit with the essential items necessary for a reasonable period of time(generally 72 hours)has been made available and distributed to the public upon request.This information is consistent with the normal emergency preparedness measures one may encounter from a winter storm, flood or tornado. Last minute provisioning by the public may lead to temporary shortages of certain items. 4.) Due to the potential for a number of Y2K-related emergencies to occur simultaneously,the City of Shakopee may quickly feel overwhelmed.As a result,the City of Shakopee may receive a large number of requests for assistance at one time.The State and Federal expectation is that local governments will be self-sufficient to the maximum extent possible and explore all available sources of assistance including mutual aid prior to seeking the next level of assistance. 5.) It is possible that a natural disaster(e.g.winter storm,etc.)or technical disaster (e.g.terrorist event,chemical release, etc.)could occur concurrently with Y2K- related disruptions,requiring State or Federal assistance. 6.) In the event of numerous requests for assistance,the State Government may experience temporary shortages of critical response resources, leading to resource allocation and prioritization among the City,municipalities and County. 3 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 7.) Certain National Guard assets may not be available for response to domestic Y2K disruptions if the United States is actively engaged in combat, extensive peacekeeping operations,or humanitarian relief efforts abroad. 8.) Many foreign countries are not expected to be fully Y2K compliant,and this may affect the United States. III. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS A. Operational Preparedness 1.) Public Information One of the most important actions the City of Shakopee can take in preparing the public for the Y2K transition is to ensure dissemination of accurate, consistent,and timely information regarding Y2K and the steps being taken to address it. Public information dissemination has been assigned to the responsibility of the City of Shakopee Administrator's Office,and will be performed by the City of Shakopee Administrator or his designee. The primary goals are to: a.) Assure the public that the City of Shakopee Government systems have been tested and upgraded or replaced according to vendor/manufacturers recommendation. b.) Allay concerns regarding major Y2K disruptions and acknowledge the potential for localized events. C.) Disseminate information on prudent measures that individuals, families,and businesses should take to prepare themselves for this event. d.) Inform community members of the County telephone"Hotlines"for citizens to obtain real time up-to-date information. e.) Establish a public safety information network to ensure reliable, accurate communication capabilities between the City of Shakopee and Local EOC's f.) Scott County and the City of Shakopee will share press release information with the State as needed, so a coordinated effort will be realized. g.) Rumor control will be dealt with as swiftly as possible. If a rumor is reported,the Public Information staff will gather the correct information and issue a formal statement through the appropriate media outlets. 4 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 2.) Monitoring and Activation a.) As part of normal operations,many City of Shakopee Departments/Offices will be monitoring for possible Y2K-related problems leading up to the end of the year.Most Y2K computer and equipment problems are expected to occur on January 1,2000,or shortly thereafter. However,there are several dates other than January 1,when failures could occur(e.g.9/9/99,2/29/00,etc.). The Y2K Coordinator is responsible for supporting the City of Shakopee specific computer related systems/programs.They are currently,and will continue testing and upgrading and repairing non- compliant computer applications throughout the Y2K event. The Y2K Coordinator is not responsible for supporting all computer applications used by the City of Shakopee. Numerous computer applications are supported by the specific vendor or manufacturer and require that the vendor perform maintenance or programming changes per the license agreement. b.) Beginning December 30, 1999, in coordination with the State EOC activation,City of Shakopee Y2K monitoring efforts will begin to intensify. In addition to monitoring the situation via the State EOC the City of Shakopee and County of Scott will begin maintaining status boards and situation reports of our local City of Shakopee situation. The scope of the updates will be geared toward the 10 critical sectors identified above,(Energy, Communications,Transportation,Health Services, Water and Sewer, Public Works,Emergency Services, Essential Government Services,Financial Services and Technological Hazards). This information will be passed along to the State EOC every two hours beginning at 00:01 or as needed if significant incidents occur. Obtaining this information will assist the City of Shakopee in monitoring the events as they unfold in our city. C.) If requested by Scott County,a State Emergency Management Liaison will respond to the City of Shakopee EOC to provide a direct link back to the State EOC,as well as provide information on available State assistance and advice on requesting an Emergency Declaration, if needed.The Scott County Emergency Management Director may request other agency liaison's to report to the City of Shakopee EOC to assist in response coordination if necessary(e.g. Red Cross,National Guard,Amateur Radio,etc.).A list of local EOC activation's, including Points of Contact,dates/hours of operation,telephone numbers,etc. will be developed and maintained in the City of Shakopee EOC.The Scott County Emergency Management Director along with the Deputy Emergency Management Director will develop this contact list and coordinate with the State. 5 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 3.) Y2K "EARLY WARNING" SYSTEM a.) The State has developed a process to monitor the Y2K rollover worldwide and disseminate vital information to the Counties regarding disruptions or significant events due to the date change.During the rollover between December 31,and January 1,various Federal and State agencies will begin gathering and analyzing information from other countries that will experience consequences of the Y2K conversion prior to the U.S.,taking advantage of time zone differences. (1.) The Department of State(DOS),with its extensive network of embassies and missions abroad,will play a lead role in collecting"early warning"information,along with the Agency for International Development(AID), DOD,CIA. (2.) FEMA will establish a direct line to communication with its emergency management counterparts in a number of countries to obtain information on critical infrastructure elements. (1) The State Division of Emergency Management will establish a direct line with FEMA Region V(Chicago)and the State's emergency management counterparts to obtain information on critical infrastructure elements. (4.) The State EOC will provide constantly updated information to Scott County and City of Shakopee Emergency Managers. b.) The information collected will: (1.) Provide vital, up-front intelligence to assist in analyzing risks and consequences in Minnesota alerting local jurisdictions of potential problems. (2.) Keep the media and public well informed of the potential impacts on the Y2K situation based on events in foreign countries. (3.) Provide the private sector with valuable information as it relates to their continuity of operations and the cascading effect of foreign Y2K impacts. (4.) Allow the State and Local Governments to better plan for the potential need for types of emergencies that may affect us. 4.) Emergency Communications Uninterrupted communications is vital for assessing Y2K events as they occur throughout the City of Shakopee. Scott County/City of Shakopee's 9-1-1 Communications Center is capable of two-way radio communications with all emergency services providers throughout the City of Shakopee. Several 6 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 additional methods of communication are available through either the dispatch center or the EOC including: - Public Safety two-way radio frequencies - Telephones - Cellular Telephones - Mobile Data Terminal(MDT)Communications - Radio frequency pagers - Telephone alpha/numeric pagers - Amateur Radio Contacts - Intemet/E-Mail capability - Fax capability - "Face to face or Runner" if necessary 4.) System Test A test should be conducted of the emergency communications system immediately following the millennium change(00:01 hours on January I )to ensure continuity of operations.This test should include the following to identify potential failures. a.) Public Safety Radio Frequency check to determine radio system integrity. - Dispatch b.) Conduct test page using various radio towers to determine status of two- way radio frequency paging for Fire and EMS agencies. -Dispatch c.) Conduct a test alpha page of essential City of Shakopee staff to ensure telephone paging capabilities. (Sheriff Personnel,EOC staff using,etc.)- Dispatch d.) Issue test MDT message. - Dispatch e.) Issue test fax from EOC.-EOC Staff f.) Issue test Intemet/E-mail Message. -EOC Staff g.) Telephone test internal/external.-EOC Staff Any problems or failure must be immediately reported to EOC. B. Consequence Management 1.) City of Shakopee Response Effective leadership is vital in managing the consequences of any disaster situation including those created by the Y2K conversion.Overall policy setting and strategic oversight ultimately resides with the City of Shakopee Mayor of Commissioners. The Emergency Management Coordinator will serve in a staff capacity to the Mayor working directly with other City of Shakopee departments/offices and the City of Shakopee Administrator in coordinating the City's response activities to this event. (1.) The City of Shakopee Y2K Task Force will advise the Mayor on the recommended level of preparedness and response level prior to the Y2K event. (2.) The City of Shakopee Emergency Operations Center(EOC) will be the primary point of contact and interface between the 7 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 local emergency response agencies within the City of Shakopee, Scott County and the State EOC. (a.) During the Y2K rollover,the City of Shakopee EOC will be activated. (b.) EOC staff will be briefed by the Scott County Emergency Management Director to ensure they are fully informed of activities throughout the Y2K response operations. (c.) The responsibility of the Emergency Management Director/Coordinator and the EOC staff includes the following: Communicate City of Shakopee actions to the county EOC's for implementation after coordinating with the City of Shakopee Administrator and the City Y2K Coordinator. Provide situation status reports to Scott County jurisdictions and the State Division of Emergency Management. Coordinate and develop the big picture strategy covering all critical sectors. Prioritize and resolve conflicting resource requests and ensure resources are being appropriately utilized to the maximum extent possible. (3.) EOC staff may be tasked to execute numerous assignments, procurements,and transportation arrangements given the potential volume of Y2K activity. (a.) The Planning Section's responsibility to consolidate information will increase with the rising volume of data, larger number of information sources, and potential conflicting information received. Directing and managing this information flow is critical to ensuring the availability of clear,standardized, reliable information for decision-making. (b.) A significant impact on the Planning Section workload will be potential for careful prioritization of needs due to limited resources being distributed among multiple State and local agencies. (4.) The DEM Central Region Program Coordinator(RPC)will be the initial contact and primary conduit for our City of 8 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 Shakopee to convey information and requests for assistance to the State EOC. Kim Ketterhagan DEM Central Region Program Coordinator Office: 651-215-6942 Pager: 612-539-5490 Duty Officer 651.-649-5451 (a.) The State RPC will interact with our City of Shakopee EOC and Scott County to provide secondary control of State resources during the Y2K transition and initial response operations,prior to an emergency declaration. (b.) The State RPC will provide alternate coordination support to our EOC in the absence of communications capability to the State EOC(See attached State Plan) (c.) Unresolved resource issues among Counties and Cities will be addressed by the State RPC staff initially and then the State EOC if needed. (5.) City of Shakopee Emergency Management Coordinator (a.) Staff to the City of Shakopee Mayor/City of Shakopee Administrator. (b.) Located in the City of Shakopee EOC. (c.) Consistent with the magnitude, severity, and expected duration of the event,the Emergency Management Coordinator, in consultation with other City of Shakopee EOC staff(Administrator,etc.)will recommend if City of Shakopee personnel should remain on duty or be released. (d.) The responsibilities of the City of Shakopee Emergency Management Coordinator for the Y2K conversion will be consistent with all other types of disaster events,including the following: • Assist in coordination of City of Shakopee preparedness,response,and recovery to the incident. • Act as liaison between the local (City/Township)county governments and the State response agencies. • Make recommendations regarding City of Shakopee resource allocation and response activities. 5.) Emergency Declaration During the Year 2000 Millennium change we do not expect that significant physical damage to public or private property 9 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 will occur as a result of natural causes or fire,flood,or explosion.An emergency declaration rather than a major disaster declaration may be more appropriate should State or Federal assistance be necessary.The declaration process proceeds as follows: (a.) Determine the need for the declaration via:reports, anticipated time frame(extended response event?), actual disruptions,realized costs,etc. (b.) Prepare documentation to support request. (c.) Consult with Mayor/City of Shakopee Administrator (d.) Present resolution to the Mayor(see attached) (e.) Forward declaration to the State Division of Emergency Management. (6.) Resource Administration (a.) Within two hours(0200)following the rollover to January 1,2000,the City of Shakopee/County of Scott will provide the State with an initial assessment of our anticipated or unmet resource needs, if any. (b.) Requests for resources will be prioritized and allocated to address the most immediate needs based on: • Life Safety • Protection of Public Health and Safety • Prevention of Property and Environmental Damage (7.) Resource Needs Assessment In the event of numerous emergency requests,the City of Shakopee may experience temporary shortages of response resources. To the extent possible, allocation of resources should be handled at the City of Shakopee EOC. In the event the resources are not readily available,the City of Shakopee will request State assistance through the State EOC. If these resources are not readily available from the State,the State will request Federal assistance through FEMA. (8.) The City of Shakopee could receive numerous requests for assistance which will complicate resource acquisition,storage, deployment,tracking, security,accountability and reutilization.The City of Shakopee EOC Logistics Section will assist in coordinating resources through staging procedure in an attempt to track and deploy requested or needed resources. 10 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 C. Federal Response The Federal Response will be coordinated through the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA).FEMA Regional offices will be activated and will be monitoring Federal Response activities and staying in contact with the State agencies in their respective regions.The Regional office for our City of Shakopee/State is FEMA Region V,located in Chicago, IL. D. Funding Considerations 1.) Individual preparedness for the Y2K event will be based on the City's 1999 approved budget. It is not anticipated that additional requests for funding will be needed to increase the City's preparedness for this event. 2.) Funding for the response or consequence management portion of this situation will be consistent with the support received for other types of disasters/emergencies (tornado, floods, etc.). Initially no State or Federal assistance is available and City of Shakopee and Local Governments will be responsible for the response costs for their existing annual operating budgets. If long term consequence management activities are needed,requests for assistance from the State/Federal Government may become necessary. This request will be made through the emergency/disaster declaration process as defined in State and Federal law. 3.) Federal funding for State and local support to Y2K consequence management will be consistent for support to other types of disasters/emergencies based on the outcomes and impacts of the Y2K event,i.e.,generally,based on public property damage and cost of emergency response resources needed to protect life and property. 11 Standard Operating Procedure Supplement CITY OF SHAKOPEE Year 2000(Y2K)Conversion EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN October 1999 City of Shakopee Emergency Operations Center Communications Capabilities Telephone(Hardline) City of Shakopee/County of Scott Sheriffs Dispatch Emergency. ......................................................................................... 9-1-1 Non-Emergency.....................................................................................612-445-1411 Non-Emergency......................................................................................612-496-83 31 Emergency Operations Center(EOC).............................................................612-496-8181 Emergency Management Director(EOC Office).................................................612-496-8381 EOC Disaster Information Hotline(Voice Mail).................................................612-496-8585 EOCFax................................................................................................612-445-4622 EOC E-Mail Address eocAco.Scott.mn.us Additional Communications Resources Available Cellular Telephones Internet E-Mail Alpha-numeric and Standard Pagers CJIS Teletype System 12 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Y2K Insurance Coverage DATE : October 14, 1999 Introduction The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) offers special coverage for Y2K liability. This coverage was not taken at renewal time . Council is requested to consider taking the coverage at this time. Background LMCIT offers extended Y2K liability insurance at the limits of $750, 000 plus $25, 000 for related expenses . The insurance would pay 85% and the city pay 15% of any claims . Staff is not aware of any situations on the city' s part that would give rise to a claim, but anyone can sue any time . Cost would be about $6, 000 for the city and SPUC. The existing 1999 budget for insurance can cover the cost . See attached information from LMCIT. Alternatives 1 . Status Quo 2 . Take the Y2K coverage . Recommendation The action listed below is drafted to enable this item to be on consent . If council does not agree with the action, it should be removed from consent and discussed. Action Move to obtain the extended Y2K coverage from the League of Minnesota Insurance Trust . i regg Voxland Finance Director I:\finance\docs\insure\y2kins the city can still be liable for the excess. We suggest that as a minimum any city involved in liquor or leer soles should have at least$500,000 of coverage, whether from LMCIT or from a private insurer. fear 2000 Coverage ,-Member cities will automatically receive the Basic Y2K Coverage. Under this very limited coverage: • %there will be a $25,000 annual aggregate limit on liability coverage for claims relating to Y2K problems—both damages and defense costs are included within this limit; and • the coverage is subject to a 15% city co-pay. A city has the option to purchase Expanded Y2K Coverage if it meets the Y2K Underwriting Criteria and submits the Y2k Application. Under the Expanded Y2K Coverage: • there is a $750,000 annual aggregate coverage limit for Y2K liability claims—both damages and defense costs are included within the limit; • the liability coverage is subject to a 15% city co-payment; and • the charge for the Expanded Y2k Coverage is 5% of the city's annual liability premium. Risks related to Year 2000 (Y2k)problems with computers and "embedded chips" (found in many electronic systems and equipment) are of concern for all cities, regardless of size. Electronic equipment and controls with potential Y2k problems may be found in a wide variety of city systems, including fire, water, sewer, and dispatching, systems. In addition, Y2k failures in other parties' systems, such as electric utilities, could also result in liability claims against the city. These Y2k exposures are unpredictable and present significant loss potential. Consequently, cities should seriously consider the extra protection provided by LMCIT's Expanded Y2K Coverage. The very limited Basic Y2k Coverage is not expected to adequately protect cities from the Y2k claims they will likely experience. Even if a city chooses not purchase the Expanded Y2k Coverage, it should still take the steps needed to qualify for the coverage. By qualifying for the coverage, the city would very likely be in a better position to defend against Y2k-related claims, since to qualify cities have to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to prepare for Y2k problems. OTHER ISSUES Bond Limits and Forms A number of things can go wrong with cities' bond coverage. Many cities, especially small cities, carry very low limits on their bond coverage. $5000 or$10,000 limits are common, especially in smaller cities. Unfortunately, we've seen a couple instances where those limits turned out not to be adequate. Both involved small cities in which a trusted employee misappropriated relatively small amounts of money at a time over a period of many years. In one case, nearly $100,000 was missing by 12 SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Chief Dan Hughes SUBJECT: City Ordinance-Discharge of Firearms DATE: October 11, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to give direction on the city's current ordinances regarding discharge of firearms within the City. BACKGROUND: Mr. Richard Woodruff, who resides at 8296 Horizon Drive, approached the City early this year concerning what he believes to be outdated firearms ordinances in the City of Shakopee and the surrounding two cities. He wrote a letter to Council on September 7, 1999, outlining his concerns. Enclosed with this memorandum are the responses that were sent to Mr. Woodruff from the cities of Savage and Prior Lake, regarding their specific ordinances. The current City of Shakopee ordinance allows discharge of shotguns south of County Road 16 when the person has written permission of the land owner and is hunting on forty continuous acres; and further, no discharges are allowed within 500 feet of the property, border or a building. The Police Department received 20 hunting complaints in 1997, 42 in 1998, and 19 year-to-date in 1999. As the City of Shakopee develops, there are a number of parcels of land where it is still legal to discharge shotguns according to City Ordinance. At the Council meeting, Deputy Chief Poole will provide an overview of the current ordinances, and where legal discharge of firearms are allowed within the city. I've also invited Mr. Woodruff to address the Council at this particular meeting. ALTERNATIVES: • Take no official action. • Direct Staff to begin the research for restrictions concerning this ordinance. ACTION REQUIRED: There is no official action that is recommended by staff. Council is asked to give direction to city staff regarding their preference in addressing Mr. Woodruff s issue regarding legal firearms discharge within city limits. Attachments: 1. City map 2. Letters of response from Savage and Prior Lake DH:Exn [M-cchun2l I (Shaded area hunting allowed under existing ordinance) CITY OF SHAKOPEE & T.115N. - R.22% L'ITY OF PRIOR LAKE Hennepin County n Mtttn�`t't �., ProC �„ -:;;•�:sraRa ,•5> 214.15 .- Wr'• T 525 :•'• 46.4 �,^ •'131 1AN01MG n.5 ( 25 ..� 91Z•C . J. Bye • w.,... .. Ciry d 4- sh.e•n.• I' FH L T 'l 4 £•i 1t 1 -ti, r,n � .y+• •,•c„ Henn ie •a,:3JCC Nenn .I+.7o9D �. 19`. M.a faNl,*.K •, County : . l.. 89 County Hr. hiC �• Vallev Fair 101 ' " j O 146.76 Park ParkfSlte}'' ' ��„�, Plant Gray '^•�^ Res Dist l9P ' o'..9a VtctrrtPe,i;:a. Res Dist Lake....;,, W - r Sewer Board 2 T*. 9 - - - ^- - 1 08.37 45.16 CiC•• �Ilxv •. loaph&Mund •�._� Ir- am• . 18 M... S,'dl E4..ara Koskovich e„ �.� ^' 101 476.•13 Chmtun 11R.8h • a1`I }s.e• 7t.66 '�:. �_• Valley 1 orrh f.. .... .� Park Nester y' ? . Cretex Ird p °"""'°"d'"'P F(17 ,... Add, 9d+e.t.er Canterbun•Park `� 1 R �� +t 35.87 Holding Corp c,r-n,- ILSh ., _ Park _ Ziegler 16 Rw c N4.r Jtl.37> Addn j Luuks �� s°- ::e', I ,83 Valley sh.cl>C npany R. aj Euglm.•1 • 4S.= 40 , t 31 Hauer E.o` 120 .��k- .-.� j G,ur.ty x. o.dn.,. N. !!lull 34.44 wY �•+• Vallev • North American �orthemStates SD Aadn IndustrialDev Power Co �S•� is na Life 8�Casualri' 1 e9.a Go Heritage Canterbury Park 855 09 9XDdSS Un 8f Viead ws Place .I .-,-,-. -,-,-.1e.-•-'- -- -}�-�- i Win statr5 r,rvew >`� Shakoree ,- ` - 16.74 Vallev Green `�alley Green state x•••�• "-' Industrial Park Industrial ark of MN l.'U`SinQS SHAKOPEE ' P RLS- ROW Hills = _. 142.18 i fI7.89 r 103.1_ _ } ROK •u' -- '� t x / IC >z7a 16 Stuvor •. R A rte • North Star ` n. •- - to Resear^: c n 74.49 Gi,.a•'•..a•d St F-n 397e 146.3 ^� Beruced R�onal Ham& s Terrance tnc Marx Rarmoed " Idella Hatuon s 6a62 Mars,*Wl 1 ShutroP 1 7456_ J 5m. Taut an • lama+ v Ena,n ' p.7 J Zoechke !r. o� 70 >,o Meadow Ir c .9 - s �.�• � 103.97 j ' j --K WM w R�,,,, SCol BlClCrltll .1.Q Jr. Raymond 17 � fEw,- Coup Fann V-5. 1'Stat(s M,nchall r• Sdp"u1v `•� 38.5 Rurl - v~ 3558 •i t• e=I i'� ,75 In.or. r 39.85 Titus �,r Horvnn i>:' =_ + 76.D3 rrs ,. crc Ad tt> 1 'V H"siK' it -'•' won a ��j. �Stonebtokt t A L S an Addn t<,.,n Ir ID.9 Aoalonu a - rish Assn Ha.l 4 :0.1• `xaG(''' - t ... 1..]•• - . 1 • s Traw t -` b .o°o - t I ViLeerlo i n8 16( w�MU Res •v Tr- Ray Peterson 30-5 DNR ° �- 157.29 it 116.41 24.61 2203 1 -,,�nK �•� Y5' n t qh K ^ r n Robert t..nsmar..:CM �;:` '1 -• ` Realm 1 �'• :7 a h.e St.6B s_ ail Jeffers Fanny • , _ ;s F I P R 1 O R t criteth rC ;cold Nugget Dey �r a Vierling N 99.14 8o c...., tuC c a +, n..,,... =.7 - M 80 ;,� The ;5.2? 'T IMA IM�OO•,.i r'+;:1•'' Dee:vL r. 38.. Carnage Hills •"' s` '`+�`' Wilds Addn I 72.93 ,1•' 1r S:.. , ;1 Acres c. Westndje[Jlte .�.,,,.,. e.�.•••o...� �i-DOLM at .mo LAKE lds Z'1 I i fiat. Estaxs i. sterling Swth ,. ',- W= • rV.TTI if }, ✓ 51181*-�W Big Mdewakantun miles •» '+ �' •C gnla ter•• • • 1 _ $IOUx COtmt1_. Village •....., 1 1 Tr ust 1 28.1,4 R.re•r. (i 1 .. ! Addn Uunm•x •, �� ? 214.13 .• 82 r.. - �� i...n•tx.n. ' KimRrly J 17, i as ......, Shun&Yc,k., Rcn 24 Ni.w. j• „�,-,,. �•t'•".i 1' r,.. �•- -.. .k ' akwna n3.8N Tsxmcr 4a.0!f au `"•' 1te ^y„.. at scoltwunw erux •.I j .f.. . r".' LH •• t 13[3". 1 ubes I Rauer j i ,. Admnutrawr V �'' 1 9. 'J9 .. - y ! 1 � t.." ? �� s ,. X IKIJ3J 4A SEP-20-1999 14:56 PRIOR LAKE POLICE DEPT. 6124403666 P.02iO3 OF P KIp� v M POLICE DEPARTMENT WILLIAM J. O'ROURKE Chief of Police September 15, 1999 Mr. Richard Woodruff 8296 Horizon Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Woodruff I have been asked to respond to the issues you raised in your letter of September 7, 1999, to the city councils of Prior Lake, Savage and Shakopee, with respect to the discharging of firearms within those communities. I will attempt to answer your questions as they relate to the City of Prior Lake. By ordinance, the City of Prior Lake does allow the discharge of firearms for hunting and target practice, but only in the unplatted portion of the City and as long as the hunting is in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Those "unplatted" portions of the City are in the areas zoned for agricultural uses, some of which is located near County Roads 42 and 18. There are additional restrictions placed on the discharge of the firearms. Specifically, section 804.301 of the Prior Lake City Code addresses the hunting of game or fowl. This section authorizes, "The owner, tenant or person having possession or control of land, or a member of the household of the same, or an authorized guest of said person who has written consent of said landowner or person having possession may upon such land discharge a shotgun in the hunting of game or fowl in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota, but in no event shall said person discharge a shotgun where the projectile or pellets will leave the premises upon which he is authorized to hunt onto some other premises." Section 804.302, is concerned with target practice, both rifle and shotgun, and allows "the owner, tenant or person having possession or control of land, or a member of the household of the same, or an authorized guest who has written consent of the landowner or possessor, tenant or person in control of the land" to practice only after having obtained permission and a permit from the Chief of Police. I have not issued such a permit in my two years as the Chief of the Prior Lake Police Department. 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.,Prior Lake,Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 440-3555 / Fax(612) 440-3666 SEP-20-1999 14.56 PRIOR LAKE POLICE DEPT. 6124403666 P.03iO3 pr (� •�..:f�MA:�1r ,y"�'N ESO.�¢ The issues you raise are without a doubt further examples of the growing pains being experienced in each of the three communities. There is an ever increasing push - pull between the drive toward urbanization and the efforts to retain a rural flavor to our communities. The City of Prior Lake is currently exploring various means, including topic specific town meetings, to give our citizens more opportunities to express their opinions on issues such as this. If you would like to share your concerns with the City Council in the immediate future, you are invited to attend a City Council Forum. Forums are conducted on the first and third Monday of the month, from 7:00 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. at the Fire Station City Council Chambers. I hope this has answered your questions. If you would like to discuss this further please do not hesitate to call me at 440-3555. S cerely, William J. O rke c.c. City Manager 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax(612) 447.4245 Copy to. Steve King, City Administrator Savage City Council .Amy Barnett, Comm. Specialist September 10, 1999 Mr. Richard Woodruff 8296 Horizon Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Woodruff, I have received a copy of your letter to the Savage City Council addressing a concern about the discharging of firearms in the City of Savage. I am enclosing a copy of the City of Savage Firearms Ordinance. We feel the City of Savage has addressed the problem of discharging of firearms. The ordinance briefly states you may not discharge a firearm within the City of Savage unless you have the expressed(written) permission of the landowner(s) and shall not discharge a firearm within 750 feet of any building on adjoining property or occupied residence. With this in mind,you can infer that there are limited, if any, locations within the city where discharging of firearms could happen. Our firearms ordinance was updated in 1997. Our population growth, demographics and community environment dictated that an update was necessary. Our police officers diligently monitor and act if violations happen in Savage. Thank you for your letter of concern about the discharge of firearms within the City of Savage. Please do not hesitate contacting me regarding any future concerns. Sincerely, Gordon J. VUsak Chief of Police Savage Police Department cc: Stephen King,City Administrator Chapter 3 FIREARMS Section: 5-5-1: Definitions 5-5-2 : Intent 5-5-3: Permitted Use of Firearms 5-5-4: Prohibited Use of Firearms 5-5-5: Seizing, Impounding and Destroying Firearms and Dangerous Weapons 5-5-6: Violations 5-5-1: INTENT: It is the intent of this chapter to regulate the carrying and shooting of firearms, and other dangerous weapons, in order to safeguard residents of this community. It is not the intent of the chapter to regulate ownership of firearms and other dangerous weapons, by law-abiding citizens. 5-5-2: DEFINITIONS: The following terms shall have the following meanings within this part. A. "Carrying" shall mean the handling or physical transportation of a firearm concealed or otherwise. B. "Firearm" means shotgun, rifles, air rifles, B. B. guns, handguns, bow and pointed-tip arrows, all instruments used to expel a high velocity pellet of any kind. C. "Shooting" shall mean the firing of firearms of any kind whatsoever, regardless of the method of the propulsion of the ammunition, and shall include but shall not be limited to the firing of shotguns, handguns, air guns, pellet guns, B. B. guns and rifles . D. "Person" shall mean any individual regardless of age or residence. E. "Landowner" shall mean any person, group, partnership, association, firm or corporation owning, leasing, or legally controlling any lands within the corporate or geographical boundaries of the City of Savage. F. "Encased firearm" shall mean any weapon included in the above definition of "firearm" placed in a case and unloaded in both chambers and magazines so as to make the shooting of said "cased firearm" impossible, except a handgun when contained in a holster. G. "Dismantled firearm" shall mean any weapon included in the above definition of "firearm" which is dismantled in such manner as to make shooting impossible, or any weapon with vital parts missing so as to render it inoperable. H. "Expressed invitation" shall mean actual written notice signed by the "landowner" with said landowner's name, address, and telephone number clearly imprinted on same, and carried on the person of at least one ( 1) specifically named individual on said notice in any group or party on said lands, said notice to also include an effective date and date of expiration. 5-5-3: PERMITTED USE OF FIREARMS: The shooting or carrying of firearms which are not encased or dismantled is permitted under the following circumstances within the corporate or geographical limits of the City of Savage, unless prohibited by State or Federal Law. A. By law enforcement officers in the line of duty or military personnel in the line of duty. B. By a person discharging any firearm when done in the lawful defence of person, property or family or the necessary enforcement of the law, which that person reasonably believes exposes himself or another in great bodily harm or death. C. By any property owner or his guest engaged in target shooting with inanimate objects as targets within the basement or cellar of an enclosed structure owned by the property owner, provided that no shooting shall be allowed under this paragraph unless suitable measures have been taken to assure health and safety of those in and around the structure, is inspected by the City Building Inspector and complies with the inspection, and is in accordance with the Savage Zoning Ordinance. D. By any person on a game farm, licensed rifle, trap, archery or target range within the City of Savage, as established in accordance with the Savage Zoning Ordinance. E. A private landowner or his guest by expressed invitation upon lands owned by him, may use a bow and pointed-tip arrow, provided that no arrow used shall pass beyond the boundaries of his property, nor shall any shooting of arrows occur within 500 feet of any building on adjoining property or occupied residence, without the permission of that landowner, nor in any event create a nuisance or danger to other persons . F. A private landowner or his guest by expressed invitation upon land owned by him may shoot or carry a firearm other than a rifle or handgun provided that no shot, bullet or ammunition component used shall pass beyond the boundaries of his property, nor shall any discharge of a firearm occur within 750 feet of any building on adjoining property or occupied residence, without the permission of that landowner, nor in any event create a nuisance or danger to other persons . G. By a certified Firearms Safety Instructor in connection with a Department of Natural_ Resources approved Firearms Safety Program. H. By any person in connection with a Department of Natural Resources approved Firearms Safety Program. I. By any person participating in a special hunting season, which season may not conflict with State law or regulations, established by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Hennepin Parks or the City of Savage. The season shall be established by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Hennepin Parks or the City of Savage. The season shall be on and in lands controlled by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Hennepin Parks or the City of Savage, All agencies of the above shall notify the City of Savage of the hunt. J. The possession, transportation or carrying of handguns as specifically allowed by State Law. R. For the reduction of an animal population, destruction of diseased, injured or dangerous birds, animals or reptiles by persons authorized to do so in writing by the Chief of Police in compliance with published State and local regulations . 5-5-4: PROHIBITED ACTIONS: The following is prohibited: A. Except as herein specifically permitted and authorized, all discharging and use of firearms and dangerous weapons are hereby prohibited. B. No minor under the age of fourteen ( 14) shall handle or have in his possession or under his control, except while accompanied by or under the immediate charge of his parent or guardian, any firearm or dangerous weapon. C. Recklessly handles or uses a firearm so as to endanger the safety of another. D. The carrying of a firearm in a motor vehicle, place or area open to the public or any private place or area unless the private place or area is owned by the person carrying the firearm or with the owner's permission which is not encased or dismantled is prohibited. The carrying of a firearm in a motor vehicle shall be in accordance with and as specifically allowed by State Law. 5-5-5: SEIZING, IMPOUNDING AND DESTROYING FIREARMS AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS: Any person violating this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor; and, in addition thereto, any firearm or dangerous weapon used or carried shall be seized and impounded and destroyed on order of any court of competent jurisdiction. 5-5-6: VIOLATIONS: All shooting and use of firearms and other dangerous weapons within the City of Savage, except as herein provided is prohibited, any person who shall violate any provisions of this part shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Jared D. Andrews, Planner I SUBJECT: Vanpool ridership rates MEETING DATE: October 19, 1999 DISCUSSION Due to the increase in lease rates and the fact that the monthly ridership rate has not been raised since it was provided in 1988, staff is proposing a rate increase to help defer the increasing costs of the vanpool program. We currently have 6 vans which run about 50 commuters including the drivers. The current monthly rate for van riders is $52 per month. Staff contacted VPSI commuter vanpools to determine what similar service providers are charging their commuters in the area. SW Metro services, which includes 3 vanpools for the communities of Chanhassen, Chaska, and Eden Prairie, are charging their riders$60/month. Commuter bus passes in our location would be more than $70. In addition,the monthly lease rates have increased an average of 5.5% each year. Therefore, staff has arrived at $60 per month as a reasonable rate with the weekly and daily rate to change accordingly. Attached are the lease rates from 1989, 1994 and 1999 provided by VPSI Commuter vanpools. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve a rate increase as recommended by staff. 2. Approve a rate increase at an alternative level. 3. Leave the rate at the current level. 4. Table the matter for additional information from the applicant or staff. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve a rate increase for vanpool riders from$52 to $60 for the monthly rate, from $15 to $18 for the weekly rate, from$4 to $6 single round trip, and from$2 to $3 one-way. Jared D. Andrews Planner I iAcommdev\cc\1999\cc 1019\vanpool.doc OCT-13-99 04 :33 PM VPSI INC 651 451 8529 P. 02 Gomimter 149 E.Thompson Avenue VWWOWS Suite 208 West St. Paul, MN SS118 Tel: 651.451.8507 Fax: 651.451.8529 www.vanpoolusa.com Date: October 13, 1999 To: Jared Andrews From: Cord Morgan Re: Lease Rates: 1989-1999 Per your request, I am providing you with a ten year price summary (1989, 1994 and 1999 rates) for the two van types you lease from us — 15-passenger split bench and 9-passenger mini. Based on these figures, leasing rates have increased an average of 5.5 percent each year. Van type 1989 Rate 1994 Rate _ 1999 Rate _ _15 Pass SB $680 $910 __$1,055 9 Pass Mini $575 $645 $905 Please rote that all Shakopee vans are leased at the same contract mileage, rate of 1750 monthly miles. %his does not include the hack-up van. Ideally this information will assist you as you analyze your costs for the vanpool program over the past ten years. If it does not, please call me so that I might provide you with additional figures. Very truly yours, Cord Morgan Manager lU/15/yy 1~F(1 023:51 FAX FAX L4000 tQ]OU1 Mrs.Lori Brandon 906 South Apgar Street Shakopee, MN 55379 (612)403-1491 October 14, 1999 Mayor Jon Brekke Mr. Michael Leek 1625 Dallas Drive 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee,MN 55379 Mr.Cletus Link Ms.Jane DuBois 1216 5. Jefferson Street 1305 West Sixth Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Ms. Deb Amundson Mr.Robert Sweeney 1087 Harrison Street 506 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 Shakopee,MN 55379 Re: Proposed Van Pool state Increase Dear Mayor Brekke,Mr.Leek, Mr.Link, Ms. DuBois, Ms.Amundson, and Mr. Sweeney: On the afternoon of Thursday, October 7, 1999,I received a voice mail message from Mr.Greg Sticha indicating that there was a possibility of asking the Shakopee City Council (the'Council")to raise the fares for the Shakopee van pools. Mr.Sticha indicated that a meeting was scheduled for all drivers and riders on Thursday, October 14, 1999,to decide whether or not this issue should be addressed by the Council. I attended that meeting this evening and feel it is essential to write this letter to voice my concerns. I would like to comment first on the fact that Mr. Sticha chose to misrepresent to me the purpose of the meeting in that the issue of a fare increase is already before the Council on Tuesday,October 19, 1999. As I stated above, Mr. Sticha's message indicated that this meeting was to solicit information to determine whether or not the issue needs to be before the Council at all. Scheduling conflicts prohibit me from attending the October 19, 1999,Council meeting,and I ask that you give the same consideration to my written remarks that you would give to me if I were able to appear in person. Mr. Sticha presented the group assembled tonight with four reasons for raising the van pool fare, but he was notable to substantiate any of his claims. I have the following objections based on tonight's meeting. 1. No rate increase since 1988. While I do not dispute that there has been no rate increase,I do dispute that this is a valid reason to raise rates, unless there is documentation that supports a financial need_ When Mr.Sticha and Mr.Jared Andrews notified van pool participants about tonight's meeting,they =.mere asked by at least two people in attendance tonight to be prepared at this meeting with numbers to support a fare increase. Unfortunately the repeated response tonight was"I don't have that information' and"I don't know but I suspect. . ." While I do not doubt that certain costs associated with the van pool 1V/1J/yy rAi VV.oc rtln rnn VUJ system have increased since 1988, the City of Shakopee (the"City") has grown by roughly 68%percent since 19901, which represents a substantial increase in the tax base contributing to the entire Shakopee transit system. When questioned about the fare box recovery rates for the van pool program as well as other transit programs, such as Dial-A-Ride, Mr. Sticha was unable to provide any documentation about this issue and actually suggested that we were"getting off the topic." rare box recovery rates are, however, central to this issue. While I understand that costs increase in many arenas from year-to-year,there are things that I pay the same or a lower price for now than I did in 1988,such as my auto insurance,and I do not believe rate increases should occur"just because-' 2. Cost to lease vehicles has increased. Again, I do not dispute that the cost to lease the VPSI vans has increased,and the lease cost was the one piece of data Mr. 5ticha did provide. However, as I stated above, I do not consider the higher lease cost to be a valid reason to raise the fare without documentation that shows the increased expense isn't being covered either by increased participation in the van pool program, by the additional revenue generated by the increasing tax base, or by some other source. Mr.Sticha's handout stated that on average the lease rates have increased by 5.5%each year. Based on the growth the City has realized during the past ten years, the tax base has grown at a more rapid rate than the lease rates, which suggests to me that it is at least possible that the increased lease rates have not impacted the van pool program and/or the fare box recovery rates in the way Mr. Sticha is guessing it has. 3. Other transit programs have had rate increases. As I stated above,fare box recovery rates are central to this issue. Although other transit programs have had rate increases, no data has been provided about fare box recovery rates. If the van pool program fare box recovery rate exceeds the fare box recovery rates for Dial-A-Ride and/or the shuttle service offered by the City, then raising the van pool fare will essentially mean those utilizing the van pool program will be subsidizing the other transit programs. The real issue is which programs are running efficiently and which are not. Van pool participants should not be penalized for the ineffectiveness of other programs. Whether that is the case or not is unknown,since Mr. Sticha has failed to adequately research this issue. As one attendee pointed out in the meeting, programs such as Dial-A-Ride offer senior citizen rates and other similar discounts, while the van pool charges the same rate regardless of age,etc. 4. Comparable to other communities. I sincerely hope that this City strives to exceed the standards of its neighboring communities in order to be the best place to live and raise our families rather than seeing which city can be more expensive. Charging van pool participants more simply because other communities charge more is ridiculous. The members of this community should be proud that we have services provided to us in Shakopee at a more affordable cost than our neighbors. Although Mr. Sticha named a few communities that charge more for their commuter services, he failed to make an"apples to apples"comparison. Although other cities have identical van pool programs, the overall transit programs in those cities is not necessarily structured the same way as Shakopee, and Mr.Sticha did not bother to collect data about the transit structures or fare box recovery rates in those cities either. So, it is entirely possible that our van pool program is performing better than other cities while operating at a better price. We can't know that for sure, however, because of the lack of reliable data. All we have is Mr. Sticha's word that he'thinks' the fare box recovery rates are similar. One further note, there are Based on population growth statistics published in the October 1999 Shakopee Resident's Gaide. van pool riders who drive to 5hakopee from neighboring cities to utilize our van pool program. Perhaps a more appropriate way to increase revenue is to institute a"non-resident" rate that is higher than the rate for Shakopee residents, since those participant's from other cities do not contribute through taxes to the Shakopee transit system. If reliable data is presented to me that demonstrates a need to raise the monthly van pool fare to $60,I will giodly pay the additional cost. However, no need has been demonstrated up to this point,and I am not interested in paying a higher rate just so the City can give the money away to the Met Council or so other transit programs are subsidized by my increased fare. Based on the complete lack of documentation,I respectfully ask that the issue of a van pool fare increase be tabled by the Council pending the research which should have been completed prior to placing the matter on the Council agenda in the first place. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Lori Brandon f:.ffff` ."�•ff,X+ffJfff. ' SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT MONTHLY COST SUMMARIES Through December, 1997 Ff�fE%f�f.`?' fff,Ff AY��%^lfF.:TFIFFF�F,;2.:fiF�F.:...,F.�ff,Ff ,FiFf,`/f�f `f fFfF,F.I.'f`l.F'/ff„f�,ff:..:/'.(Ff FIFf%`ffY�fl,'FY•'^'l ,;F�ffff.::T.Ffl•FFi�'.IfffFf,.rfF f:ffl`f ..ff SYSTEM - 1997 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item 1 January February March April May June July SYSTEM -- 1210 + 1310 Purchase of Service $ 32,220.30 $ 29,306.78 $ 30,429.68 $ 31,848.99 $ 30,482.26 $ 30,930.12 $ 31,225.72 2020 Revenue $ 5,730.39 $ 4,863.10 $ 4,639.56 $ 5,226.81 $ 5,508.91 $ 5,008.58 $ 6,134.70 Imputed Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 4,438.52 $ 4,438.52 $ 4,457.44 $ 4,457.44 $ 4,457.44 $ 5,473.66 $ 4,751.58 Deficit $ 30,928.43 $ 28,882.20 $ 30,247.56 $ 31,079.62 $ 29,430.79 $ 31,395.20 $ 29,842.60 1000 + 1100 Admin Expenses $ 3,689.64 $ 3,399.56 $ 3,511.22 $ 3,605.40 $ 3,478.10 $ 3,435.72 $ 3,552.05 Passengers 5,520 4,902 4,711 5,168 5,542 4,499 4,644 Hours 1,162.88 1,026.94 1,066.06 1,100.33 1,093.36 1,042.05 1,079.00 Miles 20,307.00 18,592.00 19,201.00 20,699.00 22,206.00 21,139.00 20,440.00 Passengers/Hour 4.75 4.77 4.42 4.70 5.07 4.32 4.30 Passengers/Mile 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.23 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 34.70 $ 36.17 $ 36.02 $ 36.27 $ 35.14 $ 38.23 $ 36.64 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 30.88 $ 31.85 $ 31.84 $ 32.22 $ 31.06 $ 32.98 $ 32.23 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 1.99 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 1.93 $ 1.73 $ 1.88 $ 1.93 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 1.77 $ 1.76 $ 1.77 $ 1.71 $ 1.53 $ 1.63 $ 1.70 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 7.31 $ 7.58 $ 8.15 $ 7.72 $ 6.93 $ 8.86 $ 8.51 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 6.51 $ 6.67 $ 7.20 $ 6.86 $ 6.13 $ 7.64 $ 7.49 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 6.27 $ 6.59 $ 7.17 $ 6.71 $ 5.94 $ 7.74 $ 7.19 ** Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 5.47 $ 5.68 $ 6.22 $ 5.85 $ 5.13 $ 6.53 $ 6.17 Recovery Ratio 17.79% 16.59% 15.25% 16.41% 18.07% 16.19% 19.65% Passengers per Day 229.69 222.44 204.74 215.08 239.26 198.21 195.71 Prepared 7/8/98 Page 1 SYSTEM - 1997 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item August September October November December Totals SYSTEM 1210 + 1310 Purchase of Service $ 29,407.96 $ 27,003.68 $ 30,195.65 $ 26,139.34 $ 26,494.46 $ 355,684.94 2020 Revenue $ 5,367.37 $ 5,543.38 $ 4,955.97 $ 4,686.96 $ 3,968.51 $ 61,634.24 Imputed Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 4,751.58 $ 4,751.58 $ 4,751.58 $ 4,751.58 $ 4,645.99 $ 56,126.91 Deficit $ 28,792.17 $ 26,211.88 $ 29,991.26 $ 26,203.96 $ 27,171.94 $ 350,177.61 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 3,500.07 $ 3,183.08 $ 3,601.45 $ 3,103.17 $ 3,099.54 $ 41,159.00 I Passengers 4,570 4,965 5,406 4,433 4,827 59,187 Hours 1,061.52 951.95 1,061.63 929.04 923.56 12,498.32 Miles 20,158.00 19,783.00 20,498.00 16,171.00 17,645.00 236,839.00 Passengers/Hour 4.31 5.22 5.09 4.77 5.23 4.74 Passengers/Mile 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.25 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 35.48 $ 36.70 $ 36.31 $ 36.59 $ 37.07 $ 36.24 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 31.00 $ 31.71 $ 31.84 $ 31.48 $ 32.04 $ 31.75 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 1.87 $ 1.77 $ 1.88 $ 2.10 $ 1.94 $ 1.91 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 1.63 $ 1.53 $ 1.65 $ 1.81 $ 1.68 $ 1.68 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 8.24 $ 7.04 $ 7.13 $ 7.67 $ 7.09 $ 7.65 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 7.20 $ 6.08 $ 6.25 $ 6.60 $ 6.13 $ 6.70 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 7.07 $ 5.92 $ 6.21 $ 6.61 $ 6.27 $ 6.61 Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 6.03 $ 4.96 $ 5.34 $ 5.54 $ 5.31 $ 5.66 Recovery Ratio 18.25% 20.53% 16.41% 17.93% 14.98% 17.33% Passengers per Day 196.81 216.72 217.08 207.70 201.86 212.11 Prepared 7/8/98 Page 2 DIAL-A-RIDE - 1997 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEEAREA TRANSIT Line Item ; January j February March April May June July i DIAL-A-RIDE _ 1310 + 1360 Purchase of Service $ 24,242.76 $ 21,551.11 $ 22,775.43 $ 24,072.07 $ 22,868.01 $ 22,452.57 $ 22,941.49 2020 Revenue $ 2,990.39 $ 2,535.10 $ 2,527.00 $ 2,877.57 $ 2,643.70 1 $ 2,461.62 1 $ 3,521.15 _ Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 Deficit $ 23,382.37 $ 21,146.01 $ 22,378.43 $ 23,324.50 $ 22,354.31 $ 22,120.95 $ 21,550.34 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 3,065.29 $ 2,796.00 $ 2,918.43 $ 3,048.10 $ 2,927.69 $ 2,886.15 $ 2,935.04 (Apportioned) Passengers 3,034 2,719 2,572 2,836 2,692 2,104 2,200 Hours 837.98 744.94 787.26 832.08 790.46 776.10. 793.00 Miles 10,615.00 9,613.00 9,914.00 10,782.00 10,733.00 10,551.00 10,507.00 Passengers/Hour 3.62 3.65 3.27 3.41 3.41 2.71 2.77 Passengers/Mile 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.21 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 35.13 $ 35.54 $ 35.34 $ 35.15 $ 35.33 $ 35.39 $ 35.32 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 32.59 $ 32.68 $ 32.64 $ 32.59 $ 32.63 $ 32.65 $ 32.63 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 2.77 $ 2.75 $ 2.81 $ 2.71 $ 2.60 $ 2.60 $ 2.67 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 2.57 $ 2.53 $ 2.59 $ 2.52 $ 2.40 $ 2.40 $ 2.46 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 9.70 $ 9.74 $ 10.82 $ 10.31 $ 10.37 $ 13.06 $ 12.73 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 9.00 $ 8.95 $ 9.99 $ 9.56 $ 9.58 $ 12.04 $ 11.76 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 8.72 $ 8.81 ' $ 9.84 $ 9.30 $ 9.39 $ 11.89 $ 11.13 Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 8.02 $ 8.02 $ 9.01 $ 8.55 $ 8.60 $ 10.87 $ 10.16 Goal =$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 12.34% 11.76% 11.10% 11.95% 11.56% 10.96% 15.35% #of Service Days 26 24 25 26 26 25 26 Passengers per Day 116.69 113.29 102.88 109.08 103.54 84.16 84.62 Prepared 7/10/98 Page 1 DIAL-A-RIDE - 1997 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item August September October November December Totals DIAL-A-RIDE 1310+ 1360 Purchase of Service $ 22,522.58 $ 19,352.72 $ 22,460.67 $ 18,856.28 $ 18,618.19 $ 262,713.88 2020 Revenue $ 2,833.38 $ 2,973.61 $ 2,382.30 $ 2,164.11 $ 1,466.35 $ 31,376.28 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 25,560.00 Deficit $ 21,819.20 $ 18,509.11 $ 22,208.37 $ 18,822.17 $ 19,281.84 $ 256,897.60 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 2,893.15 $ 2,576.16 $ 2,886.96 $ 2,526.52 $ 2,502.81 $ 33,962.30 (Apportioned) Passengers 2,272 2,587 2,788 2,337 2,510 30,651 Hours 778.52 668.95 776.38 651.79 643.56 9,081.02 Miles 10,689.00 9,875.00 9,978.00 7,908.00 7,820.00 118,985.00 Passengers/Hour 2.92 3.87 3.59 3.59 3.90 3.38 Passengers/Mile 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.26 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 35.38 $ 35.97 $ 35.39 $ 36.07 $ 36.13 $ 35.48 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 32.65 $ 32.78 $ 32.65 $ 32.81 $ 32.82 $ 32.67 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 2.58 $ 2.44 $ 2.75 $ 2.97 $ 2.97 $ 2.71 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 2.38 $ 2.22 $ 2.54 $ 2.70 $ 2.70 $ 2.49 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 12.12 $ 9.30 $ 9.86 $ 10.06 $ 9.26 $ 10.51 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 11.19 $ 8.48 $ 9.09 $ 9.15 $ 8.41 $ 9.68 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 10.88 $ 8.15 $ 9.00 $ 9.14 $ 8.68 $ 9.49 ** Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 9.94 $ 7.33 $ 8.24 $ 8.22 $ 7.83 $ 8.66 Goal =$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 12.58% 15.37% 10.61% 11.48% 7.88% 11.94% #of Service Days 26 25 27 24 26 306 Passengers per Day 87.38 103.48 103.26 97.38 96.54 100.17 Prepared 7/10/98 Page 2 VANPOOL - 1997 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item January February March April May June July . VANPOOL 1310 + 1360 Purchase of Service $ 5,683.29 $ 5,669.99 $ 5,676.22 $ 6,153.79 $ 6,060.08 $ 6,931.79 $ 6,063.99 2020 Revenue $ 2,706.50 $ 2,318.75 $ 2,085.06 $ 2,343.24 $ 2,855.21 $ 2,513.46 $ 2,575.05 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 2,308.52 $ 2,308.52 $ 2,327.44 $ 2,327.44 $ 2,327.44 $ 3,343.66 $ 2,621.58 Deficit $ 5,285.31 $ 5,659.76 $ 5,918.60 $ 6,137.99 $ 5,532.31 $ 7,761.99 $ 6,110.52 1000 + 1100 Admin Expenses $ 370.28 $ 370.30 $ 370.30 $ 370.30 $ 370.30 $ 370.30 $ 370.30 (Apportioned) Passengers 2,301 2,042 1,915 2,210 2,676 2,268 2,284 Hours 256.70 220.00 220.00 220.00 256.70 220.00 220.00 Miles 9,076.00 8,394.00 8,715.00 9,486.00 11,084.00 9,468.00 8,682.00 Passengers/Hour 8.96 9.28 8.70 10.05 10.42 10.31 10.38 Passengers/Mile 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.26 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 32.58 $ 37.95 $ 38.06 $ 40.23 $ 34.12 $ 48.39 $ 41.16 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 23.58 $ 27.46 $ 27.48 $ 29.65 $ 25.05 $ 33.19 $ 29.25 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 0.92 $ 0.99 $ 0.96 $ 0.93 $ 0.79 $ 1.12 $ 1.04 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 0.67 $ 0.72 $ 0.69 $ 0.69 $ 0.58 $ 0.77 $ 0.74 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 3.63 $ 4.09 $ 4.37 $ 4.01 $ 3.27 $ 4.69 $ 3.96 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 2.63 $ 2.96 $ 3.16 $ 2.95 $ 2.40 $ 3.22 $ 2.82 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 2.46 $ 2.95 $ 3.28 $ 2.94 $ 2.21 $ 3.59 $ 2.84 Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 1.45 $ 1.82 $ 2.07 $ 1.89 $ 1.34 $ 2.11 $ 1.69 Goal =$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 47.62% 40.90% 36.73% 38.08% 47.120/. 36.260/6 42.46% #of Service Days 22 20 21 22 21 21 22 Passengers per Day 104.59 102.10 91.19 100.45 127.43 108.00 103.82 Prepared 7/10/98 Page 1 VANPOOL - 1997 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEEAREA TRANSIT Line Item August September ! October i November I December Totals VANPOOL 1310 + 1360 Purchase of Service $ 4,766.06 $ 5,531.64 $ 5,539.97 $ 5,466.50 $ 5,857.87 $ 69,401.19 2020 Revenue $ 2,495.99 $ 2,524.27 $ 2,553.17 $ 2,500.85 $ 2,443.16 $ 29,914.71 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 2,621.58 $ 2,621.58 $ 2,621.58 $ 2,621.58 $ 2,515.99 $ 30,566.91 Deficit $ 4,891.65 $ 5,628.95 $ 5,608.38 $ 5,587.23 $ 5,930.70 $ 70,053.39 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 370.30 $ 370.30 $ 370.30 $ 370.30 $ 370.30 $ 4,443.58 (Apportioned) Passengers 2,122 2,200 2,378 1,948 2,146 26,490 Hours 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 2,713;40 Miles 8,355.00 8,663.00 9,159.00 7,491.00 8,800.00 107,373.00 Passengers/Hour 9.65 10.00 10.81 8.85 9.75 9.76 Passengers/Mile 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.25 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 35.26 $ 38.74 $ 38.78 $ 38.45 $ 39.75 $ 38.48 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 23.35 $ 26.83 $ 26.86 $ 26.53 $ 28.31 $ 27.21 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 0.93 $ 0.98 $ 0.93 $ 1.13 $ 0.99 $ 0.97 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 0.61 $ 0.68 $ 0.65 $ 0.78 $ 0.71 $ 0.69 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 3.66 $ 3.87 $ 3.59 $ 4.34 $ 4.07 $ 3.94 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 2.42 $ 2.68 $ 2.49 $ 3.00 $ 2.90 $ 2.79 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 2.48 $ 2.73 $ 2.51 $ 3.06 $ 2.94 $ 2.81 Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 1.24 $ 1.54 $ 1.41 $ 1.71 $ 1.76 $ 1.66 Goal =$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 52.37% 45.63% 46.09% 45.75% 41.71% 43.10% #of Service Days 21 21 23 19 22 255 Passengers per Day 101.05 104.76 103.39 102.53 97.55 103.88 Prepared 7/10/98 Page 2 ROUTE 53S - 1997 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEEAREA TRANSIT Line Item January February March i April May June July 53S 1310 + 1360 Purchase of Service $ 2,294.25 $ 2,085.68 $ 1,978.03 $ 1,623.13 $ 1,554.17 $ 1,545.76 $ 2,220.24 2020 Revenue $ 33.50 $ 9.25 $ 27.50 $ 6.00 $ 10.00 $ 33.50 $ 38.50 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Deficit $ 2,260.75 $ 2,076.43 $ 1,950.53 $ 1,617.13 $ 1,544.17 $ 1,512.26 $ 2,181.74 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 254.07 $ 233.26 $ 222.49 $ 187.00 $ 180.11 $ 179.17 $ 246.7.1_ (Apportioned) Passengers 185 141 224 122 174 127 160 Hours 68.20 62.00 58.80 48.25 46.20 45.95• 66.00 Miles 616.00 585.00 572.00 431.00 389.00 1,120.00 1,251.00 Passengers/Hour 2.71 2.27 3.81 2.53 3.77 2.76 2.42 Passengers/Mile 0.30 0.24 0.39 0.28 0.45 0.11 0.13 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 37.37 $ 37.40 $ 37.42 $ 37.52 $ 37.54 $ 37.54 $ 37.38 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 37.37 $ 37.40 $ 37.42 $ 37.52 $ 37.54 $ 37.54 $ 37.38 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 4.14 $ 3.96 $ 3.85 $ 4.20 $ 4.46 $ 1.54 $ 1.97 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 4.14 $ 3.96 $ 3.85 $ 4.20 $ 4.46 $ 1.54 $ 1.97 _ Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 13.77 $ 16.45 $ 9.82 $ 14.84 $ 9.97 $ 13.58 $ 15.42 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 13.77 $ 16.45 $ 9.82 $ 14.84 $ 9.97 $ 13.58 $ 15.42 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 13.59 $ 16.38 $ 9.70 $ 14.79 $ 9.91 $ 13.32 $ 15.18 ** Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 13.59 $ 16.38 $ 9.70 $ 14.79 $ 9.91 $ 13.32 $ 15.18 Goal =$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 1.46% 0.44% 1.39% 0.37% 0.64% 2.17% 1.73% #of Service Days 22 20 21 22 21 21 22 Passengers per Day 8.41 7.05 10.67 5.55 8.29 6.05 7.27 Prepared 7/10/98 Pagel ROUTE 53S - 1997 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item August September October November December Totals 53S 1310 + 1360 Purchase of Service $ 2,119.32 $ 2,119.32 $ 2,195.01 $ 1,816.56 $ 2,018.40 $ 23,569.87 2020 Revenue $ 38.00 $ 45.50 $ 20.50 $ 22.00 $ 59.00 $ 343.25 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Deficit $ 2,081.32 $ 2,073.82 $ 2,174.51 $ 1,794.56---$ 1,959.40 $ 23,226.62 1000 + 1100 Admin Expenses $ 236.62 $ 236.62 $ 244.19 $ 206.35 $ 226.53 $ 2,653.12 (Apportioned) Passengers 176 178 240 148 171 2,046 Hours 63.00 63.00 65.25 57.25 60.00 703.90 Miles 1,114.00 1,245.00 1,361.00 772.00 1,025.00 10,481.00 Passengers/Hour 2.79 2.83 3.68 2.59 2.85 2.91 Passengers/Mile 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.20 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 37.40 $ 37.40 $ 37.38 $ 35.33 $ 37.42 $ 37.25 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 37.40 $ 37.40 $ 37.38 $ 35.33 $ 37.42 $ 37.25 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 2.11 $ 1.89 $ 1.79 $ 2.62 $ 2.19 $ 2.50 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 2.11 $ 1.89 $ 1.79 $ 2.62 $ 2.19 $ 2.50 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 13.39 $ 13.24 $ 10.16 $ 13.67 $ 13.13 $ 12.82 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 13.39 $ 13.24 $ 10.16 $ 13.67 $ 13.13 $ 12.82 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 13.17 $ 12.98 $ 10.08 $ 13.52 $ 12.78 $ 12.65 Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 13.17 $ 12.98 $ 10.08 $ 13.52 $ 12.78 $ 12.65 Goal = $7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 1.79% 2.15% 0.93% 1.21% 2.92% 1.46% #of Service Days 21 21 23 19 22 255 Passengers per Day 8.38 8.48 10.43 7.79 7.77 8.02 Prepared 7/10/98 Page 2 SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT MONTHLY COST SUMMARIES Through December, 1998 SYSTEM - 1998 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEEAREA TRANSIT Line Item January February March April May June July SYSTEM 1210 + 1310 Purchase of Service $ 27,682.84 $ 27,143.46 $ 31,122.12 $ 28,612.32 $ 25,923.98 $ 27,147.48 $ 25,804.58 2020 Revenue $ 4,837.86 $ 4,745.62 $ 6,907.11 $ 4,547.97 $ 4,564.87 $ 4,197.31 $ 3,800.59 Imputed Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 4,645.99 $ 4,645.99 $ 4,645.99 $ 4,645.99 $ 4,645.99 $ 4,645.99 $ 4,645.99 Deficit $ 27,490.97 $ 27,043.83 $ 28,861.00 $ 28,710.34 $ 26,005.10 $ 27,596.16 $ 26,649.98 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 5,851.23 $ 3,119.12 $ 3,347.40 $ 4,030.63 $ 3,450.76 $ 4,614.97 $ 5,208.72 Passengers 4,919 4,528 4,848 5,001 4,461 3,708 3,868 Hours 918.12 893.58 1,036.96 960.29 857.21 909.97 882.22 Miles 17,380.00 16,938.00 19,129.00 18,574.00 17,403.00 18,254.00 17,702.00 Passengers/Hour 5.36 5.07 4.68 5.21 5.20 4.07 4.38 Passengers/Mile 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.20 0.22 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 41.59 $ 39.07 $ 37.72 $ 38.83 $ 39.69 $ 40.01 $ 40.42 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 36.52 $ 33.87 $ 33.24 $ 33.99 $ 34.27 $ 34.90 $ 35.15 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 2.20 $ 2.06 $ 2.04 $ 2.01 $ 1.95 $ 1.99 $ 2.01 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 1.93 $ 1.79 $ 1.80 $ 1.76 $ 1.69 $ 1.74 $ 1.75 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 7.76 $ 7.71 $ 8.07 $ 7.46 $ 7.63 $ 9.82 $ 9.22 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 6.82 $ 6.68 $ 7.11 $ 6.53 $ 6.58 $ 8.57 $ 8.02 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 6.78 $ 6.66 $ 6.64 $ 6.55 $ 6.60 $ 8.69 $ 8.24 Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 5.83 $ 5.64 $ 5.69 $ 5.62 $ 5.56 $ 7.43 $ 7.04 Recovery Ratio 17.48% 17.48% 22.19% 15.90% 17.61% 15.46% 14.73% Passengers per Day 234.24 226.40 220.36 227.32 223.05 168.55 168.17 Prepared 2/10/99 Page 1 SYSTEM - 1998 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item August September October November December Totals SYSTEM - - - - -- 1210 + 1310 Purchase of Service $ 23,268.26 $ 25,199.30 $ 28,105.94 $ 25,457.38 $ 33,700.22 $ 329,167.88 2020 Revenue _ $ 4,268.70 $ 4,500.05 $ 4,713.71 $ 4,584.95 $ 7,057.20 $ 58,725.94 Imputed Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 4,645.99 $ 5,048.69 $ 5,048.69 $ 3,451.19 $ 1,283.51 $ 52,000.00 Deficit $ 23,645.55 $ 25,747.94 $ 28,440.92 $ 24,323.62 $ 27,926.53 $ 322,441.94 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 4,924.88 $ 3,155.98 $ 4,722.59 $ 2,920.31 $ 4,326.39 $ 49,672.98 Passengers 3,796 4,042 4,524 4,233 4,529 52,457 Hours 847.98 895.46 997.52 888.18 989.71 11,077.20 Miles 18,361.00 19,349.00 21,795.00 19,138.00 21,363.00 225,386.00 Passengers/Hour 4.48 4.51 4.54 4.77 4.58 4.74 Passengers/Mile 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.23 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 38.73 $ 37.30 $ 37.97 $ 35.84 $ 39.72 $ 38.89 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 33.25 $ 31.67 $ 32.91 $ 31.95 $ 38.42 $ 34.20 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 1.79 $ 1.73 $ 1.74 $ 1.66 $ 1.84 $ 1.91 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 1.54 $ 1.47 $ 1.51 $ 1.48 $ 1.78 $ 1.68 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 8.65 $ 8.26 $ 8.37 $ 7.52 $ 8.68 $ 8.21 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 7.43 $ 7.02 $ 7.26 $ 6.70 $ 8.40 $ 7.22 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 7.53 $ 7.15 $ 7.33 $ 6.44 $ 7.12 $ 7.09 ** Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 6.30 $ 5.90 $ 6.21 $ 5.62 $ 6.84 $ 6.10 Recovery Ratio 18.35% 17.86% 16.77% 18.01% 20.94% 17.84% Passengers per Day 180.76 192.48 205.64 217.89 215.67 206.71 Prepared 2/10/99 Page 2 DIAL-A-RIDE - 1998 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item January February March April May June July DIAL-A-RIDE 1310 + 1360 Purchase of Service $ 20,043.88 $ 19,685.33 $ 23,332.33 $ 20,950.19 $ 18,555.31 $ 19,853.73 : $ 18,213.86 2020 Revenue $ 2,423.15 $ 2,232.10 $ 4,299.25 $ 1,970.68 $ 2,074.28 $ 1,777.65 ! $ 1,604.11 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 Deficit $ 19,750.73 $ 19,583.23 $ 21,163.08 $ 21,109.51 $ 18,611.03 $ 20,206.08 $ 18,739.75_ I 1000 + 1100 Admin Expenses $ 3,182.50 $ 2,932.70 $ 3,142.34 $ 3,825.57 $ 3,264.34 $ 3,376.51 $ 4,653.55 (Apportioned) Passengers 2,587 2,442 2,533 2,720 2,401 1,641 1,715 Hours 645.12 633.58 750.96 674.29 597.21 638.97• 586.22 Miles 7,818.00 7,969.00 9,363.00 8,711.00 8,585.00 8,257.00 7,808.00 Passengers/Hour 4.01 3.85 3.37 4.03 4.02 2.57 2.93 Passengers/Mile 0.33 0.31 0.27 0.31 0.28 0.20 0.22 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 39.30 $ 39.06 $ 38.09 $ 39.90 $ 40.10 $ 39.69 $ 42.64 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 36.00 $ 35.70 $ 35.25 $ 36.74 $ 36.54 $ 36.36 $ 39.01 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 3.24 $ 3.11 $ 3.06 $ 3.09 $ 2.79 $ 3.07 $ 3.20 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 2.97 $ 2.64 $ 2.83 $ 2.84 $ 2.54 $ 2.81 $ 2.93 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 9.80 $ 10.13 $ 11.29 $ 9.89 $ 9.97 $ 15.45 $ 14.58 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 8.98 $ 9.26 $ 10.45 $ 9.11 $ 9.09 $ 14.16 $ 13.33 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 8.86 $ 9.22 $ 9.60 $ 9.17 $ 9.11 $ 14.37 $ 13.64 ** Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 8.04 $ 8.35 $ 8.75 $ 8.38 $ 8.22 $ 13.07 $ 12.40 Goal=$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 12.09% 11.34% 18.43% 9.41% 11.18% 8.95% 8.81% #of Service Days 21 20 22 22 20 22 23 Passengers per Day 123.19 122.10 115.14 123.64 120.05 74.59 74.57 Prepared 2/10/99 Page 1 DIAL-A-RIDE - 1998 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item August September October I November December Totals DIAL-A-RIDE 1310 + 1360 Purchase of Service $ 15,254.75 $ 17,382.42 $ 20,055.69 $ 18,150.47 $ 23,976.13 $ 235,454.09 2020 Revenue $ 1,446.45 $ 1,453.60 $ 1,495.90 $ 1,644.90 $ 3,983.50 $ 26,405.57 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 2,130.00 $ 532.50 $ 532.50 $ 22,365.00 Deficit $ 15,938.30 $ 18,058.82 $ 20,689.79 $ 17,038.07 $ 20,525.13 $ 231,413.52 1000 + 1100 Admin Expenses $ 3,609.54 $ 3,025.49 $ 4,263.88 $ 2,802.24 $ 4,189.68 $ 42,268.34 (Apportioned) Passengers 1,395 1,469 1,747 1,851 1,886 24,387 Hours 490.98 559.46 645.52 584.18 651.71 7,45820 Miles 6,624.00 7,084.00 9,062.00 7,994.00 8,845.00 98,120.00 Passengers/Hour 2.84 2.63 2.71 3.17 2.89 3.27 Passengers/Mile 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.25 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 42.76 $ 40.29 $ 40.97 $ 36.78 $ 44.04 $ 40.24 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 38.42 $ 36.48 $ 37.67 $ 35.87 $ 43.22 $ 37.24 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 3.17 $ 3.18 $ 2.92 $ 2.69 $ 3.24 $ 3.06 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 2.85 $ 2.88 $ 2.68 $ 2.62 $ 3.18 $ 2.83 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 15.05 $ 15.34 $ 15.14 $ 11.61 $ 15.22 $ 12.31 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 13.52 $ 13.89 $ 13.92 $ 11.32 $ 14.93 $ 11.39 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 14.01 $ 14.35 $ 14.28 $ 10.72 $ 13.10 $ 11.22 *` Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 12.49 $ 12.90 $ 13.06 $ 10.43 $ 12.82 $ 10.31 Goal= $7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 9.48% 8.36% 7.46% 9.06% 16.61% 11.21% #of Service Days 21 21 22 20 21 255 Passengers per Day 66.43 69.95 79.41 92.55 89.81 95.64 Prepared 2/10/99 Page 2 VANPOOL - 1998 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item January February March April May June July i VANPOOL -- - - - 1310+ 1360 Purchase of Service $ 5,681.55 $ 5,593.93 $ 5,739.17 $ 5,611.51 $ 5,504.47 $ 5,709.18 $ 5,540.10 2020 Revenue $ 2,386.71 $ 2,501.52 $ 2,573.86 $ 2,571.29 $ 2,479.09 $ 2,415.16 $ 2,192.48 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 2,515.99 $ 2,515.99 $ 2,515.99 $ 2,515.99 $ 2,515.99 $ 2,515.99 $ 2,515.99 Deficit $ 5,810.83 $ 5,608.40 $ 5,681.30 $ 5,556.21 $ 5,541.37 $ 5,810.01 $ 5,863.61 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 2,187.19 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,012.50 $ 350.11 (Apportioned) Passengers 2,238 2,008 2,222 2,272 2,040 2,056 2,136 Hours 210.00 200.00 220.00 220.00 200.00 220.00, 230.00 Miles 8,450.00 8,140.00 8,883.00 9,126.00 8,102.00 9,270.00 8,652.00 Passengers/Hour 10.66 10.04 10.10 10.33 10.20 9.35 9.29 Passengers/Mile 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.25 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 49.45 $ 40.55 $ 37.52 $ 36.94 $ 40.10 $ 41.99 $ 36.55 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 37.47 $ 27.97 $ 26.09 $ 25.51 $ 2 7.52 $ 30.55 $ 25.61 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 1.23 $ 1.00 $ 0.93 $ 0.89 $ 0.99 $ 1.00 $ 0.97 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 0.93 $ 0.69 $ 0.65 $ 0.61 $ 0.68 $ 0.73 $ 0.68 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 4.64 $ 4.04 $ 3.72 $ 3.58 $ 3.93 $ 4.49 $ 3.94 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 3.52 $ 2.79 $ 2.58 $ 2.47 $ 2.70 $ 3.27 $ 2.76 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 3.57 $ 2.79 $ 2.56 $ 2.45 $ 2.72 $ 3.32 $ 2.91 '* Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 2.45 $ 1.54 $ 1.42 $ 1.34 $ 1.48 $ 2.09 $ 1.73 Goal=$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 42.01% 44.72% 44.85% 45.82% 45.04% 42.30% 39.57% #of Service Days 21 20 22 22 20 22 23 Passengers per Day 106.57 100.40 101.00 103.27 102.00 93.45 92.87 Prepared 2/10/99 Page 1 VANPOOL - 1998 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item August i September October November December Totals VANPOOL 1310 + 1360 Purchase of Service $ 6,056.10 $ 6,511.94 $ 6,683.17 $ 6,126.25 $ 8,357.01 $ 73,114.38 2020 Revenue $ 2,818.25 $ 3,038.45 $ 3,209.81 $ 2,915.55 $ 3,061.70 $ 32,163.87 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ 2,515.99 $ 2,918.69 $ 2,918.69 $ 2,918.69 $ 751.01 $ 29,635.00 Deficit $ 5,753.84 $ 6,392.18 $ 6,392.05 $ 6,129.39 $ 6,046.32 $ 70,585.51 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 1,049.63 $ - $ 72.00 $ - $ - $ 4,671.43 (Apportioned) Passengers 2,394 2,566 2,772 2,370 2,634 27,708 Hours 294.00 294.00 308.00 266.00 294.00 2,956.00 Miles 11,035.00 11,487.00 11,960.00 10,471.00 11,847.00 117,423.00 Passengers/Hour 8.14 8.73 9.00 8.91 8.96 9.37 Passengers/Mile 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.24 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 32.73 $ 32.08 $ 31.41 $ 34.00 $ 30.98 $ 36.34 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 24.17 $ 22.15 $ 21.93 $ 23.03 $ 28.43 $ 26.31 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 0.87 $ 0.82 $ 0.81 $ 0.86 $ 0.77 $ 0.91 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 0.64 $ 0.57 $ 0.56 $ 0.59 $ 0.71 $ 0.66 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 4.02 $ 3.68 $ 3.49 $ 3.82 $ 3.46 $ 3.88 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 2.97 $ 2.54 $ 2.44 $ 2.58 $ 3.17 $ 2.81 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 2.84 $ 2.49 $ 2.33 $ 2.59 $ 2.30 $ 2.72 Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 1.79 $ 1.35 $ 1.28 $ 1.35 $ 2.01 $ 1.65 Goal=$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 46.54% 46.66% 48.03% 47.59% 36.64% 43.99% #of Service Days 21 21 22 19 21 254 Passengers per Day 114.00 122.19 126.00 124.74 125.43 109.09 Prepared 2/10/99 Page 2 ROUTE 53S - 1998 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEEAREA TRANSIT Line Item January February March April May June I July i 53S � - --- 1310+ 1360 Purchase of Service $ 1,957.41 $ 1,864.20 $ 2,050.62 $ 2,050.62 $ 1,864.20 $ 1,584.57 1 $ 2,050.62 2020 Revenue $ 28.00 $ 12.00 $ 34.00 $ 6.00 $ 11.50 $ 4.50 ' $ 4.00 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Deficit $ 1,929.41 $ 1,852.20 $ 2,016.62 $ 2,044.62 $ 1,852.70 $ 1,580.07 $ 2,046.62 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 481.54 $ 186.42 $ 205.06 $ 205.06 $ 186.42 $ 225.96 $ 205.06 (Apportioned) Passengers 94 78 93 9 20 11 17 Hours 63.00 60.00 66.00 66.00 60.00 51.00, 66.00 Miles 1,112.00 829.00 883.00 737.00 716.00 727.00 1,242.00 Passengers/Hour 1.49 1.30 1.41 0.14 0.33 0.22 0.26 Passengers/Mile 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01" Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 38.71 $ 34.18 $ 34.18 $ 34.18 $ 34.18 $ 35.50 $ 34.18 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 38.71 $ 34.18 $ 34.18 $ 34.18 $ 34.18 $ 35.50 $ 34.18 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 2.19 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 3.06 $ 2.86 $ 2.49 $ 1.82 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 2.19 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 3.06 $ 2.86 $ 2.49 $ 1.82 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 25.95 $ 26.29 $ 24.25 $ 250.63 $ 102.53 $ 164.59 $ 132.69 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 25.95 $ 26.29 $ 24.25 $ 250.63 $ 102.53 $ 164.59 $ 132.69 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 25.65 $ 26.14 $ 23.89 $ 249.96 $ 101.96 $ 164.18 $ 132.45 ** Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 25.65 $ 26.14 $ 23.89 $ 249.96 $ 101.96 $ 164.18 $ 132.45 Goal =$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 1.43% 0.64% 1.66% 0.29% 0.62% 0.28% 0.20% #of Service Days 21 20 22 22 20 22 23 Passengers per Day 4.48 3.90 4.23 0.41 1.00 0.50 0.74 Prepared 2/10/99 Page 1 ROUTE 53S - 1998 MONTHLY COST SUMMARY SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item August September October November December Totals 53S 1310+ 1360 Purchase of Service $ 1,957.41 $ 1,304.94 $ 1,367.08 $ 1,180.66 $ 1,367.08 $ 20,599.41 2020 Revenue $ 4.00 $ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 24.50 $ 12.00 $ 156.50 Imp. Rev. (Trans., Free, NS) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2106 Public Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2107 Private Veh Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Deficit $ 1,953.41 $ 1,296.94 $ 1,359.08 $ 1,156.16 $ 1,355.08 $ 20,442.91 1000+ 1100 Admin Expenses $ 265.71 $ 130.49 $ 386.71 $ 118.07 $ 136.71 $ 2,733.21 (Apportioned) Passengers 7 7 5 12 9 362 Hours 63.00 42.00 44.00 38.00 44.00 663.,00 Miles 702.00 778.00 773.00 673.00 671.00 9,843.00 Passengers/Hour 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.32 0.20 0.55 Passengers/Mile 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 Cost per Hour w/Capital $ 35.29 $ 34.18 $ 39.86 $ 34.18 $ 34.18 $ 35.19 Cost per Hour w/o Capital $ 35.29 $ 34.18 $ 39.86 $ 34.18 $ 34.18 $ 35.19 Cost per Mile w/Capital $ 3.17 $ 1.85 $ 2.27 $ 1.93 $ 2.24 $ 2.37 Cost per Mile w/o Capital $ 3.17 $ 1.85 $ 2.27 $ 1.93 $ 2.24 $ 2.37 Cost per Pass w/Capital $ 317.59 $ 205.06 $ 350.76 $ 108.23 $ 167.09 $ 64.45 Cost per Pass w/o Capital $ 317.59 $ 205.06 $ 350.76 $ 108.23 $ 167.09 $ 64.45 Subsidy per Pass w/Capital $ 317.02 $ 203.92 $ 349.16 $ 106.19 $ 165.75 $ 64.02 Subsidy per Pass w/o Capital $ 317.02 $ 203.92 $ 349.16 $ 106.19 $ 165.75 $ 64.02 Goal=$7.27 or less Recovery Ratio 0.20% 0.61% 0.59% 2.08% 0.88% 0.76% #of Service Days 21 21 22 20 21 255 Passengers per Day 0.33 0.33 0.23 0.60 0.43 1.42 Prepared 2/10/99 Page 2 • r SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT MONTHLY COST SUMMARIES Through March, 1999 =X«.w r�fJ`n._-,:_,.'4.'T'n�.�'n±m..acw vgwn�•_a�+wyx •.+n..awa.,m�y...,��—:.-.�....��:...�ac.«-.:,...��...-�... +..,.w.._.-.. �.,�...;,..:,.. <................�o..F.z.;,5.a-r.�F:�..+!�v+ta'rw""']'.:^f..T.• BUDGET REPORT 1 999 YEAR-TO-DATE SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT Line Item Account 1999 Budget Actual YTD Balance Budget YTD %Budget 1 Deviation I March 25.00% i YTD Used OOPERATING REVENUE I Revenues I 1 Passenger Fares I 2001 DAR Fares $ 41,500.00 $ 6,551.75 $ 34.948.25 $ 10,375.00 15.79%! -9.21% 2001; Vanpool Fares $ 40,000.00 $ 8,761.38 $ 31,238.62 ; $ 10,000.00 i 21.90%1 -3.10% 2002! Route 53S Fares $ 55.00 ; $ 22.00 $ 33.00 1 $ 13.75 40.00%1 15.00% 2016 Other Revenue $ 22,000.00 $ - $ 22,000.00 ! $ 5.500.00 0.00%I 0.00% 20201 Total Revenue $ 103,555.00 ' $ 15,335.13 $ 88,219.87 ! $ 25,888.75 14.81%; -10.19% Funding Sources 2104 Local Levy Option Property Taxes $ 396,002.00 1 $ 80,771.53 $ 315.230.47 ; $ 99,000.50 20.40%1 -4.60% 2107• Private Vehicle Capital Payment $ 35.000.00 : $ 8,741.07 $ 26,258.93 $ 8,750.00 24.97%1 -0.03% 2105; Other Funding(BCF Funds) $ - $ $ - $ - 0.00%1 0.000/0 2100; Total Funding Sources $ 431,002.00 ' $ 89,512.60 $ 341,489.40 $ 107,750.50 20.77%1 -4.23% 1 TOTAL REVENUES AND FUNDING $ 534,557.00 1 $ 104,847.73 1 $ 429,709.27 1 $ 133,639.25 1 19.61%1 -5.39% I � I OOPERATING EXPENSES 1 Personnel 10101 Administrative Salaries $ 5,500.00 $ 1,379.86 : $ 4,120.14 i $ 1,375.00 ", 25.09 0/61 -0.09% 1040; Other Wages $ - $ - i $ - $ - ! 0.000/( 0.00% 1060j Benefits $ 690.00 $ 165.96 1 $ 524.04 1 $ 172.50 ! 24.05% 0.95% 1000; Total Personnel $ 6,190.00 1 $ 1,545.82 ! $ 4,644.18 1 $ 1,547.50 j 24.97%; 0.03% i I 1 Administrative 11101 Management Fee $ 4,500.00 I $ 6,505.72 $ (2,005.72) $ 1,125.00 I 144.57% -119.57% 11301 Advertising&Marketing $ 13,000.00 $ - ! $ 13,000.00 1 $ 3,250.00 1 0.00%1 25.00% 1140i Legal Fees $ - $ - i $ - $ - 0.00% 0.00% 11421 Consultant Fees $ 15,000.00 1 $ 1,102.50 $ 13,897.50 1 $ 3,750.00 7.35%1 17.65% 11601 Office Supplies $ 1,500.001 $ 0.14 i $ 1,499.86 1 $ 375.001 0.01%1 24.99% 11701 Leases and Rentals $ 1,500.00 $ - $ 1,500.00 $ 375.00 0.00%' 25.00% 11711 Utilities $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 0/01 0.00% 11901 Other Direct Admin.Charges $ 1,500.00 $ 3,062.00 $ (1,562.00)i $ 375.00 1 204.13%1 -179.13% 11001 Total Administrative $ 37,000.00 $ 10,670.36 $ 26,329.64 $ 9,250.00 1 28.84%1 -3.84% I I 1 Operations 1310 Purchase of Service $ 379,806.00_1 $ 79,144.45 1 $ 300,661.55 $ 94,951.50 20.84%1 4.16% 13121 Private Vehicle Capital $ 37,825.00 1 $ 8,741.07 $ 29,083.93 $ 9,456.25 23.11% 1.89% 1210 Fuel and Lubricants $ 20,000.00 $ 4,746.03 1 $ 15,253.97 1 $ 5,000.00 23.73% 1.27% 1360 Other Operations Charges $ - $ - 1 $ - $ - 0.00°k 0.00% 1361 Balance Billings $ - $ - i $ - $ - 0.00% 0.00% Transit Reserve Fund $ 53,736.00 $ - $ 53,736.00 $ 13,434.00 0.00% 25.00% 13001 Total Operations $ 491,367.00 $ 92,631.55 $ 398,735.45 $ 122,841.75 18.85% 6.15% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $. 534,557.00 ! $ 104,847.73 I $ 429,709.27 $ 133,639.25 1 19.61% 5.39% Prepared 7/2/99 Page 1 SYSTEM 1999 YEAR-TO-DATE OPERATIONS REPORT SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT LINE ITEM ACCOUNT January February March YTD TOTALS SYSTEM OPERATING REVENUE 2001 Passenger Fares 2001 Dial-A-Ride Fares $ 2,190.15 $ 1,782.50 $ 2,579.10 $ 6,551.75 2001 Vanpool Fares $ 2,920.16 $ 3,031.82 $ 2,809.40 $ 8.761.38 2001 53S Fares $ 12.00 $ 4.00 $ 6.00 $ 22.00 2016 Other Revenue $ - 2020 Total Revenues $ 5,122.31 $ 4,818.32 $ 5,394.50 $ 15,335.13 Funding Sources 2104 Local Levy Option Property Taxes $ 25.235.61 $ 24,395.16 $ 31,140.76 $ 80,771.53 2107 Private Vehicle Capital Credit $ 2,918.69 $ 2,918.69 $ 2,903.69 $ 8,741.07 2108 Other Funding(Budget Carryover Funds) $ - $ - $ - $ 2100 Total Funding Sources $ 28,154.30 $ 27,313.85 $ 34,044.45 $ 89,512.60 TOTAL REVENUES AND FUNDING $ 33,276.61 $ 32,132.17 $ 39,438.95 $ 104,847.73 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel 1010 Administrative Salaries $ 378.56 $ 559.55 $ 441.75 $ 1,379.86 1040 Other Wages $ - $ - $ - $ - 1060 Benefits $ 45.51 $ 67.31 $ 53.14 $ 165.96 Total Personnel $ 424.07 $ 626.86 $ 494.89 $ 1,545.82 Administrative 1110 Management Fee $ 2,079.30 $ 2,008.27 $ 2,418.15 $ 6,505.72 1130 Advertising&Marketing $ - $ - $ - $ - 1142 Consultant Fees $ 772.50 $ 330.00 $ - $ 1,102.50 1160 Office Supplies $ - $ 0.14 $ - $ 0.14 1170 Leases and Rentals $ - $ - $ - $ - 1171 Utilities $ $ - $ $ - 1190 Other Direct Admin.Charges $ $ - $ 3,062.00 $ 3,062.00 1100 Total Administrative $ 2,851.80 $ 2,338.41 $ 5,480.15 $ 10,670.36 Vehicle Charges 1210 Fuel and Lubricants $ 1,587.65 $ 1,464.09 $ 1,694.29 $ 4,746.03 1250 Other Vehicle Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - 1200 Total Vehicle Charges $ 1,587.65 $ 1,464.09 $ 1,694.29 $ 4,746.03 Operations 1310 Purchase of Service $ 25,494.40 $ 24,784.12 $ 28,865.93 $ 79,144.45 1312 Private Vehicle Capital $ 2,918.69 $ 2,918.69 $ 2,903.69 $ 8,741.07 1360 Other Operations Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - 1300 Total Operations $ 28,413.09 $ 27,702.81 $ 31,769.621$ 87,885.52 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 33,276.61 $ 32,132.17 $ 39,438.95 $ 104,847.73 712/99 Page 1 DIAL-A-RIDE 1999 YEAR-TO-DATE OPERATIONS REPORT SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT LINE ITEM ACCOUNT January February March YTD TOTALS DIAL-A-RIDE - -- — ---- - - OPERATING REVENUE 2001 Passenger Fares 2001 Dial-A-Ride Fares $ 2,190.15 $ 1,782.50 $ 2,579.10 $ 6,551.75 2001 Vanpool Fares $ - $ - $ - $ - 2001 53S Fares $ - $ - $ - $ 2016 Other Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - 2020 Total Revenues $ 2.190.15 $ 1,782.50 $ 2,579.10 $ 6.551.75 Funding Sources 2104 Local Levy Option Property Taxes $ 20.003.77 $ 19.740.01 $ 23.402.57 $ 63,146.35 2107 Private Vehicle Capital Credit $ - $ - $ - $ - 2108 Other Funding(Budget Carryover Funds) $ - $ - $ - $ - 2100 Total Funding Sources $ 20,003.77 $ 19,740.01 $ 23,402.57 $ 63,146.35 TOTAL REVENUES AND FUNDING $ 22,193.92 $ 21,522.51 $ 25,981.67 $ 69,698.10 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel 1010 Administrative Salaries $ 378.56 $ 559.55 $ 441.75 $ 1,379.86 1040 Other Wages $ - $ - $ - $ - 1060 Benefits $ 45.51 $ 67.31 $ 53.14 $ 165.96 Total Personnel $ 424.07 $ 626.86 $ 494.89 $ 1,545.82 Administrative 1110 Management Fee $ 1,942.56 $ 1,883.99 $ 2.275.23 $ 6,101.78 1130 Advertising&Marketing $ - $ - $ - $ 1142 Consultant Fees $ 401.70 $ 171.60 $ - $ 573.30 1160 Office Supplies $ - $ 0.14 $ - $ 0.14 1170 Leases and Rentals $ - $ - $ - $ - 1171 Utilities $ - $ $ - $ - 1190 Other Direct Admin.Charges $ $ - $ 459.30 $ 459.30 1100 Total Administrative $ 2,344.26 $ 2,055.73 $ 2,734.53 $ 7,134.52 Vehicle Charges 1210 Fuel and Lubdcants $ - $ - $ - $ - 1250 Other Vehicle Charges $ - $ $ - $ - 1200 Total Vehicle Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - Operations 1310 Purchase of Service $ 19,425.59 $ 18,839.92 $ 22,752.25 $ 61,017.76 1312 Private Vehicle Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - 1360 Other Operations Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - 1300 Total Operations $ 19,425.59 $ 18,839.92 $ 22,752.25 $ 61,017.76 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 22,193.92 1 $ 21,522.51 1 $ 25,981.67 $ 69,698.10 7/2/99 Page 1 VANPOOL 1999 YEAR-TO-DATE OPERATIONS REPORT SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT LINE ITEM ACCOUNT January February March YTD TOTALS VANPOOL OPERATING REVENUE 2001 Passenger Fares 2001 Dial-A-Ride Fares $ - $ $ - $ - 2001 Vanpool Fares $ 2,920.16 $ 3,031.82 $ 2.809.40 $ 8,761.38 2001 53S Fares $ $ - $ - $ - 2016 Other Revenue $ $ - $ - $ - 2020 Total Revenues $ 2,920.16 $ 3,031.82 $ 2,809.40 $ 8,761:38 Funding Sources 2104 Local Levy Option Property Taxes $ 3,716.52 $ 3.282.17 $ 5,865.85 $ 12,864.54 2107 Private Vehicle Capital Credit $ 2,918.69 $ 2,918.69 $ 2.903.69 $ 8,741.07 2108 Other Funding(Budget Carryover Funds) $ - $ - $ - $ - 2100 Total Funding Sources $ 6,635.21 $ 6,200.86 $ 8,769.54 $ 21,605.61 TOTAL REVENUES AND FUNDING $ 9,555.37 $ 9,232.68 $ 11,578.94 $ 30,366.99 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel 1010 Administrative Salaries $ $ $ - $ 1040 Other Wages $ - $ $ - $ 1060 Benefits $ $ - $ - $ - Total Personnel $ - $ - $ - $ - Administrative 1110 Management Fee $ $ $ $ 1130 Advertising&Marketing $ - $ - $ $ - 1142 Consultant Fees $ 347.63 $ 148.50 $ - $ 496.13 1160 Office Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - 1170 Leases and Rentals $ - $ - $ - $ 1171 Utilities $ $ - $ - $ 1190 Other Direct Admin.Charges $ $ - $ 2,296.50 $ 2,296.50 1100 Total Administrative $ 347.63 $ 148.50 $ 2,296.50 $ 2,792.63 Vehicle Charges 1210 Fuel and Lubricants $ 1,587.65 $ 1,464.09 $ 1,694.29 $ 4,746.03 1250 Other Vehicle Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - 1200 Total Vehicle Charges $ 1,587.65 $ 1,464.09 $ 1,694.29 $ 4,746.03 Operations 1310 Purchase of Service $ 4,701.40 $ 4,701.40 $ 4,684.46 $ 14,087.26 1312 Private Vehicle Capital $ 2,918.69 $ 2,918.69 $ 2,903.69 $ 8,741.07 1360 Other Operations Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - 1300 Total Operations $ 7,620.09 $ 7,620.09 $ 7,588.15 $ 22,828.33 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 9,555.37 $ 9,232.68 $ 11,578.94 $ 30,366.99 7/2/99 Pagel ROUTE 53S 1999 YEAR-TO-DATE OPERATIONS REPORT SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSIT LINE ITEM ACCOUNT January February March YTD TOTALS 53S OPERATING REVENUE 2001 Passenger Fares 2001 Dial-A-Ride Fares $ $ - $ $ 2001 Vanpool Fares $ $ - $ 2001 53S Fares $ 12.00 $ 4.00 $ 6.00 $ 22.00 2016 Other Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - 2020 Total Revenues $ 12.00 $ 4.00 $ 6.00 $ 22.00 Funding Sources 2104 Local Levy Option Property Taxes $ 1,515.32 $ 1,372.98 $ 1.872.34 $ 4.760.64 2107 Private Vehicle Capital Credit $ - $ - $ - $ - 2108 Other Funding(Budget Carryover Funds) $ - $ - $ - $ - 2100 Total Funding Sources $ 1,515.32 $ 1,372.98 $ 1,872.34 $ 4,760.64 TOTAL REVENUES AND FUNDING $ 1,527.32 $ 1,376.98 $ 1,878.34 $ 4,782.64 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel 1010 Administrative Salaries $ $ $ - $ - 1040 Other Wages $ - $ $ _ $ _ 1060 Benefits $ $ - $ - $ - Total Personnel $ $ - $ - $ - Administrative 1110 Management Fee $ 136.74 $ 124.28 $ 142.92 $ 403.94 1130 Advertising&Marketing $ - $ - $ - $ - 1142 Consultant Fees $ 23.17 $ 9.90 $ - $ 33.07 1160 Office Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - 1170 Leases and Rentals $ $ - $ - $ - 1171 Utilities $ $ - $ - $ - 1190 Other Direct Admin.Charges $ $ - $ 306.20 $ 306.20 1100 Total Administrative $ 159.91 $ 134.18 $ 449.12 $ 743.21 Vehicle Charges 1210 Fuel and Lubricants $ - $ - $ - $ - 1250 Other Vehicle Charges $ - $ - $ - $ 1200 Total Vehicle Charges $ $ - $ - $ - Operations 1310 Purchase of Service $ 1,367.41 $ 1,242.80 $ 1,429.22 $ 4,039.43 1312 Private Vehicle Capital $ - $ - $ - $ - 1360 Other Operations Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - 1300 Total Operations $ 1,367.41 $ 1,242.80 $ 1,429.22 1 $ 4,039.43 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 1,527.32 $ 1,376.96 1 $ 1,878.34 $ 4,782.64 7/2/99 Pagel CONSENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appointment of Community Development Secretary MEETING DATE: October 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Community Development Department was fortunate to have two well-qualified internal candidates for the position opened up by the departure of Shelly Bilotta. The position has been offered to Tamara(Tami) Vidmar, who has accepted. Tami has served the City for about 13 years as customer service representative. Council is asked to appoint Tami Vidmar to the position of Community Development Secretary effective Wednesday, October 20, 1999. Because Ms. Vidmar is currently at Step 8 of Pay Grade A($29,484), Council is also asked to approve her appointment at Step 3 of Pay Grade D ($30,863). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the appointment of Tami Vidmar to the position of Community Development Secretary effective October 20th at Step 3 of Pay Grade D. ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is asked to offer and pass a motion approving the appointment of Tami Vidmar to the position of Community Development Secretary effective Wednesday, October 20'h at Step 3 of Pay Grade D. o R. Michael Leek Community Development Director )6.. 0. ) . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Snow Emergency Routes DATE: October 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Revisions to the designated snow emergency routes due to development and the need for a designated route in the industrial park area requires a revision to City Code, Section 9.50, Subdivision 8. BACKGROUND: Staff is requesting City Council approval to revise the snow emergency routes, due to new developments being added to the City's street system. The changes in the snow emergency routes are as follows: • Stagecoach Road, from Preserve Trail to C.R. 101 • Vierling Drive, from C.R. 16 to 12th Avenue • 12th Avenue, from Vierling Drive to C.R. 83 I • Southbridge Parkway, from CSAH 18 to Windsor Lane • 17th Avenue, from Weston Lane to 1/2 Mile East of Sarazin Street • Preserve Trail, from C.R. 18 to Stagecoach Road Attached is the appropriate ordinance revision on the snow emergency routes change. A snow route restricts the parking on these streets in order to facilitate snow removal on major routes. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to adopt Ordinance No. 560, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 9, Parking Regulations, Section 9.50, Parking During Street Maintenance, Snowy Weather, and in Central Business District by Repealing Subd. 8, Snow Emergency Routes and Enacting One New Subdivision In Lieu Thereof, Relating to the Same Subject and move its adoption. 2. Deny Ordinance No. 560. 3. Table for more specific information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to amend the snow emergency routes to accurately designate the new snow emergency routes, due to development. ACTION REOUESTED: Move to adopt Ordinance No. 560, , An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 9, Parking Regulations, Section 9.50, Parking During Street Maintenance, Snowy Weather, and in Central Business District by Repealing Subd. 8, Snow Emergency Routes and Enacting One New Subdivision In Lieu Thereof, Relating to the Same Subject and move its adoption. ce Loney Public Works irector BL/pmp SNOW ORDINANCE NO. 560, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 9, PARKING REGULATIONS, SEC. 9.50, PARKING DURING STREET MAINTENANCE, SNOWY WEATHER, AND IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, BY REPEALING SUBD. 8, SNOW EMERGENCY ROUTES,AND ENACTING ONE NEW SUBDIVISION IN LIEU THEREOF, RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 9, Parking Regulations, Sec. 9.50, Parking During Street Maintenance, Snowy Weather, and in Central Business District, is hereby amended by repealing Subd. 8, Snow Emergency Routes, and Enacting One New Subdivision Relating to the Same subject, which shall read as follows: SEC. 9.50. PARKING DURING STREET MAINTENANCE, SNOWY WEATHER, AND IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 8. Snow Emergency Routes. The following streets shall be designated as snow emergency routes: 4th Avenue, from Fuller Street to C.R. 83 Harrison Street, from 3rd Avenue to 6th Avenue Fuller Street, from 1 st Avenue to 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue to T.H. 169 Market Street, from 1 st Avenue to 10th Avenue Scott Street, from 1 st Avenue to 6th Avenue Shakopee Avenue, from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue 6th Avenue, from Holmes Street to 10th Avenue Spencer Street, from 1 st Avenue to 10th Avenue 10th Avenue, from C.R. 69 to Shakopee Avenue 3rd Avenue, from Harrison Street to Fuller Street 12th Avenue, from Adams Street to Taylor Street Vierling Drive, from G.R. 16 12th Avenue to C.R. 77 Fuller Street Vierling Drive, from C.R. 15 to Taylor Street Preserve Trail, from C.R. 18 to Stagecoach Road Stagecoach Road, from Preserve Trail to C.R. 101 Southbridge Parkway, from C.R. 18 to Windsor Lane 17th Avenue, from Weston Lane to 1/2 Mile East of Sarazin Street Taylor Street, from Vierling Drive to 12th Avenue Holmes Street, from 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue 12th Avenue, from C3 Vierling Drive to Valley Park Drive Valley Park Drive, from C.R. 101 to 12th Avenue Sarazin Street, from C.R. 16 to 4th Avenue St. Francis Avenue, from Marschall Road to Sarazin Street i Note: The strike through language (thus) is deleted, the underlined language is inserted. Section 2 - General Provisions. City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation, and Section 9.99, Violation a Misdemeanor or Petty Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publications. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley news on the day of , 1999. AT, 0, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering a Feasibility Report for a Trunk Watermain Extension, Southbridge Parkway to Stagecoach Road DATE: October 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a petition from Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership for a public improvement project to extend trunk watermain to complete the watermain looping required by Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC). The purpose of this agenda item is to review the petition and for Council to decide on whether to order the preparation of a feasibility report at this time. BACKGROUND: The developers of Southbridge have requirements in their Planned Unit Development (PUD) and plat approvals to provide a second watermain connection for completion of watermain looping and water supply as required by SPUC. The petition from Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership is attached and they are to complete the watermain looping and provide a second source of water for the Southbridge area. The proposed trunk watermain would be from a point of termination in Southbridge Parkway, on the east end of the site, to a point on Stagecoach Road which is formerly known as C.R. 18. The petition received does represent a majority of property owners which would be affected by this project, and more than the minimum 35% necessary for a public improvement project to be initiated by a petition. Since the City does not have 100% of the property owners petitioning for the improvement project, the next step in the improvement process is for the City to declare adequacy of the petition and order the prepraraton of the feasibility report. It is expected that staff would be able to work on the feasibility report this fall and winter and bring this project forward, as it is anticipated that this would be a spring construction project if approvals are given. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to approve Resolution No. 5245, a resolution declaring the adequacy of petition and ordering the preparation of a feasibility report for the trunk watermain extension, from Southbridge Parkway to Stagecoach Road. 2. Do not approve Resolution No. 5245. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to begin the preparation of a feasibility report for a trunk watermain extension to complete the looping, as required by SPUC, and as a requirement of the Southbridge PUD. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5245, A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering the Preparation of a Report for a Trunk Watermain Extension, from Southbridge Parkway to Stagecoach Road and move its adoption. 4 ruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5245 At CITY OF SHAKOPEE PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The undersigned hereby petitions the City of Shakopee to install the following improvements where noted and to assess them pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429: Extention of trunk watermain from point of termination in Southbridge Parkway to a point at Stagecoach Road to allow for completion of watermain looping as further requested by Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. (Improvements Requested) The undersigned hereby waives the right to a public hearing prior to Council ordering the improvements and also waives the right to a public hearing prior to the levying of the assessments related to said improvements. The undersigned further voluntarily waives all rights to appeal said assessments which shall be assessed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 as a result of the installation of the above improvements. Uwe understand that by signing below Uwe waive the right to appeal and later challenge the amount of the special assessment. T Dated 1 5; - day s Q fe s,- z , 1999 Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership By: Nevac, Inc., General Partner By: Hcir c Va.c cl-_v o Its: C E O STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ss COUNTYOF DA N 6 ) On this�?)5t day of -6ggfd"- e f , 1999 before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared 14arc Va cca-o , the G P v of Nevac, Inc., general partner for Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership, a Wisconsin limited partnership, being sworn, did say that said instrument was executed as their free act and deed on behalf of the limited partnership. !CAI N"�C°• YY"IeJh 140T A RY Notary lip i® PUBL1C';�2 OF�jSC CIP Projects 2000-2005+ Project Manager Project Type: Project Title: Southbridge to Total Project Cost: Bruce Loney Trunk Watermain Stagecoach Road Connection $570,000 A. Expenditure Items: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Land & ROW ` Construction 440,000 Improvements Engineering/Admin. 130,000 Total 570,000 B. Funding Source: General Fund Capital Improvement Funds Tax Increment Fund Park Reserve Fund Grants(specify) Donations(specify) 35,000 (SPUC) State Aid Assessments 535,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund-Base Sanitary Sewer Fund-Flow 'j Sanitary Sewer Fund-Trunk i Storm Drainage Fund-Base Storm Drainage Fund-Trunk Tax Levy Total 570,000 - Description: Trunk Watermain extension from Southbridge to County Road 18 for second watermain connection to meet SPUC policy. NSP RUE LANE SUIST TICN ]LSAastifi YS12[= o Trunk water extension is needed to serve Southbridge development and to meet ®� Q looping agreement requirements. �V ,I P N.WSCN EVE. o Other Comments: 0 0 " P S costs would be for trunk watermain oversizing. o � R CUTUNE CS N0.21 q Y Operating Costs: SUBJECT SITE 00 0 RWIS Ham o 3 ® MPH ® S ma = SpUTHBRlj:E P SAY d L u 16TH AV. COUNTY ROAD 21 S RESOLUTION NO. 5245 A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition And Ordering The Preparation Of A Report For A Trunk Watermain Extension, From Southbridge Parkway to Stagecoach Road BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of a trunk watermain, from Southbridge Parkway to Stagecoach Road, filed with the Council on October 19, 1999 is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. The declaration is made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035. 2. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer and the City Engineer is instructed to report to the Council with convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible, and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of 31999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum: TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing for 17th Avenue, from 1/4 Mile West of CSAH 17 to CSAH 17, Project No. 1998-4 DATE: October 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5247, declaring the cost to be assessed, ordering the preparation of proposed assessments and setting a public hearing date for 17th Avenue, from 1/4 mile west of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 to CSAH 17, Project No. 1998-4. BACKGROUND: The City Council ordered the preparation of plans and specifications by Resolution No. 4913 on May 18, 1998 for the above referenced project. On August 4, 1998, the City Council approved Resolution No. 4954, awarding the contract to Richard Knutson, Inc. of Savage, Minnesota for$453,590.08. The improvements have been completed, including street lighting, and final costs determined with the total construction costs for this project at $453,400.03. Costs associated with administration and engineering for the project totaled $127,519.29. The attached resolution shows how these costs are being paid and the total cost to be assessed. The feasibility report estimate for this project, including 10% contingency, and 25% indirect costs was estimated at $735,000.00 with the final project cost projected to be $580,919.32. This lower project cost from the feasibility report is in the sanitary sewer and street improvements and in SPUC's watermain oversizing costs. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5247. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5247. 3. Table for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5247, A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for 17th Avenue, from 1/4 Mile West of County State Aid Highway 17 to County State Aid Highway 17, Project No. 1998-4 and move its adoption. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5247 II RESOLUTION NO. 5247 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments For 17th Avenue, From 1/4 Mile West Of County State Aid Highway 17 To County State Aid Highway Project No. 1998-4 WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of 17th Avenue, from 1/4 mile west of County State Aid Highway 17 to County State Aid Highway by the installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail, street lighting, turn lanes and all other appurtenant work and the contract price for such improvements was $453,590.08, and the final contract price for such improvement is $453,400.03, and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amounts to $127,519.29, so that the total cost of the improvements will be $580,919.32. Of this cost the City of Shakopee will pay $40,252.19 as its share of the cost and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will pay $4,170.79 as its share of the cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be $536,496.34. 2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and keep a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That a hearing shall be held on the 16th day of November, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. She also shall cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council G � ` SENT Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing for McGuire Circle, McGuire Court and Muhlenhardt Road, Project No. 1999-2 DATE: October 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5248, declaring the cost to be assessed, ordering the preparation of proposed assessments and setting a public hearing date for McGuire Circle, McGuire Court and Muhlenhardt Road, from County Road 16 to Horizon Drive, Project No. 1999-2. BACKGROUND: The City Council ordered the preparation of plans and specifications by Resolution No. 5118 on April 20, 1999 for the above referenced project. On August 3, 1999, the City Council approved Resolution No. 4203, awarding the contract to NW Asphalt, Inc. of Shakopee, Minnesota for$165,909.85. The improvements have been essentially completed and final cost projection with the total construction costs for this project is at $169,148.18. Costs associated with administration, engineering and street lights for the project totaled $51,530.75. The attached resolution shows how these costs are being paid and the total cost to be assessed. The feasibility report estimate for this project, including 10% contingency, and 25% indirect costs was estimated at $224,699.20 with the final project cost projected to be $220,678.94. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5248. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5248. 3. Table for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5248, A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for McGuire Circle, McGuire Court and Muhlenhardt Road, from County Road 16 to Horizon Drive, Project No. 1999-2 and move its adoption. ruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5248 RESOLUTION NO. 5248 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments For McGuire Circle, McGuire Court And Muhlenhardt Road, From County Road 16 To Horizon Drive Project No. 1999-2 WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of McGuire Circle, McGuire Court and Muhlenhardt Road, between County Road 16 to Horizon Drive by street, storm sewer, concrete curb and gutter and all other appurtenant work and the contract price for such improvements was $165,909.85, and the final contract price for such improvement is $169,148.18, and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amounts to $51,530.75, so that the total cost of the improvements will be$220,678.94. Of this cost the City of Shakopee will pay $132,864.35 as its share of the cost and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will pay$ -0- as its share of the cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be $87,814.38. 2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and keep a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That a hearing shall be held on the 16th day of November, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. She also shall cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of 51999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk 15,*, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing for 11th Avenue, from CSAH 17 to Merrifield Street and Block 6 Alley Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-6 DATE: October 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5249, declaring the cost to be assessed, ordering the preparation of proposed assessments and setting a public hearing date for the 1999 Street Overlay (11th Avenue, from CSAH 17 to Merrifield Street) and Block 6 Alley Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-6. BACKGROUND: The City Council ordered the preparation of plans and specifications by Resolution No. 5179 on July 6, 1999 for the above referenced project. On August 17, 1999, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5208, awarding the contract to Wm. Mueller& Sons, Inc. of Hamburg, Minnesota for$42,575.25. The improvements have been essentially completed and final cost determined with the total construction costs for this project at $47,782.18. Costs associated with administration and engineering for the project totaled $8,974.43. The attached resolution shows how these costs are being paid and the total cost to be assessed. The feasibility report estimate for this project, including 10% contingency, and 25% indirect costs was estimated at $49,221.91 with the final project cost projected to be $56,756.61. Additional costs were incurred in additional restoration of adjacent properties, additional work to correct drainage swales in the street and additional quantities than estimated in the contract. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5249. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5249. 3. Table for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REOUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5249, A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for the 1999 Street Overlay (11th Avenue, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Merrifield Street) and Block 6 Alley Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-6 and move its adoption. JQ cWeLcney Public Works Zrector BL/pmp MEM5249 RESOLUTION NO. 5249 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments For The 1999 Street Overlay (11th Avenue, From County State Aid Highway 17 to Merrifield Street) And Block 6 Alley Reconstruction Project No. 1999-6 WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of 11th Avenue, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Merrifield Street by bituminous overlay and to improve Block 6 Alley by reconstruction of existing bituminous pavement and any other appurtenant work and the contract price for such improvements was $42,575.25, and the final contract price for such improvement is $47,782.18, and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amounts to $8,974.43, so that the total cost of the improvements will be $56,756.61. Of this cost the City of Shakopee will pay $42,567.46 as its share of the cost and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will pay$ -0- as its share of the cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be $14,189.15. 2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and keep a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That a hearing shall be held on the 16th day of November, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. She also shall cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of ' 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk js- E . 1 , CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum r CONSENT, TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Massage Center License- Knead It Or Knot DATE: October 14, 1999 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to consider the application from Amy Snyder for a massage center license. BACKGROUND: Amy Snyder has made application for a massage center license for a business that she is opening at 287 South Marschall Road to be known as Knead It Or Knot. The City Code requires that an individual who is a non-resident of the City designate in writing a natural person who is a resident of the City to be manager and in responsible charge of the business and upon whom service of process may be made. Ms. Snyder lives in Jordan and is requesting that the City Council waive this requirement. She plans to operate the center herself. Mr. Thomson, City Attorney, advised that the City Council does have an inherent right to waive this requirement if they so chose. The customary background investigation has been conducted by the Police Department and I have been advised that there is nothing in the investigation that would preclude the City Council from granting a license. A building inspector will be inspecting the premises to insure compliance with the City Code. The application is in the process of obtaining the required insurance coverage. No license will be delivered until the applicant is in complete compliance with the requirements of the City Code. Licenses may be granted only for those premises located in the general commercial districts. The site does comply with this requirement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: If City Council concurs: 1. Approve the application and grant a massage center license to Amy Snyder dba/Knead It Or Knot at 287 South Marschall Road upon compliance with the requirements of the City Code. 2. Waive the requirement of Section 6.40, Subd. 6 of the City Code requiring a resident manager or agent so long as Ms. Snyder is on site and is regularly operating the business. JSC/jms Hicenses/snyder CITY OF SHAKOPEE �®�1 OJ�� Memorandum ' TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Application for Off Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License Speedway SuperAmerica LLC DATE: October 14, 1999 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to consider an application for an off sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license from Speedway SuperAmerica LLC. BACKGROUND: Speedway SuperAmerica LLC has submitted an application for an off sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for 1195 Canterbury Road. The customary background investigation has been conducted. It provided nothing in the applicant's background to preclude a license from being granted. The application and insurance requirements are in order. The required inspection of the premises has been conducted by the Building Department. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the application and grant a license. 2. Deny the application. 3. Table the application for additional information. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the application and grant an off sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license to Speedway SuperAmerica LLC,dba Speedway#8510, 1195 Canterbury Road. JSC/jms Hiquor/memobeer 16-46. 3.. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Facility Architect DATE: October 14, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to authorize the hire a consulting architect for City facility space needs. BACKGROUND: Several weeks ago, the City Council reviewed the Five Year Capital Improvements Program, and in that noted that improvements or replacements would need to be made to the Public Works Facility, Police Station, Library, and possibly the City Hall and Shakopee Public Utilities building, should that be vacated in the foreseeable future. Staff has noted that there are needs to address several of these within the five year context of the CIP. Council agreed in concept to having professional assistance analyze the needs of the City, with an eye to establishing costs, feasibility of renovation/expansion vs. new construction, and possibly assistance on locational analysis. Staff has identified four architectural firms who have had experience in these areas. A review panel made up of the Police Chief, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, and City Administrator interviewed the four. References are being checked, and a recommendation will be made at the October 19th meeting. The time frame on this in the Request For Proposals stated a desire to have this work completed by January, 2000. The intent of this is so as to have information available for a meeting which has been requested by downtown parties with the new Council, shortly after the first of the year. (The specific interest is on libraries and other downtown facilities.) While the total report will not be done by the first of January,the priority would go to Library and City Hall first. BUDGET IMPACT: Because there is no specific work program that has yet been identified, if authorized by Council, we would work with the architect to put together an estimate for the different activities to be done, so as to identify a"Not to Exceed" amount. That would then be relayed to Council. There is no specific budget for this, but funding would come from the General Fund budget. RECOMMENDATION: Council will have a recommendation at the October 19th meeting. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct that the recommended architect be hired to perform a space needs analysis and related work for City of Shakopee facilities. VA4"Wl Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw �J CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Facility Architect Selection DATE: October 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to authorize the hire of JEA Architects for use for City facility planning and other issues relating to future City facility needs. BACKGROUND: The recently adopted Capital Improvements document describes the needs for added space for police, public works, library, and potentially city hall, which are changes as a result of growth in the community. In addition, there may need to be an analysis of the potential reuse of the Shakopee Public Utilities building, should they vacate that structure for a new location in the near future. In addition, site analyses may be needed to best determine where some of these structures might be best suited. So as to put together a coordinated plan, Council directed staff to make a recommendation on an architectural firm that could analyze existing facilities, and perform a space needs analysis to better determine costs and scheduling. Staff interviewed four firms that are known to them to do this type of work. The recommendation to Council is to go with JEA Architects of Hopkins. JEA is a small firm, with whom I had experience working in Savage. JEA also did the redesign work of the SJPA office downstairs in City Hall, and also did an analysis of the Boy Scott barn for the City. Jack Anderson, the principal at JEA, has extensive municipal experience. It is hoped that this work could be done soon, with priority going to library, and probably City Hall needs. There is a desire to discuss some downtown options in January, and having information for that meeting would be beneficial. BUDGET IMPACT: No money has been identified in the budget for this work; the logical source will be a budget amendment to be funded through the Capital Improvements Fund. If authorized by Council, staff will meet with Mr. Anderson next week to determine a scope of services, from which a budget for the space needs analysis and other work will be formulated. That will be done and reported back to the Council. Mr. Anderson's rates are competitive, and my personal experience is that he is very cost effective in both billing and design work. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that JEA Architects of Hopkins be hired for City facilities planning work. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the hiring of JEA Architects of Hopkins for City facility planning needs. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw J E A ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE ■ LANDSCAPE DESIGN ■ SPACE PLANNING October 8, 1999 Mark McNeill, City Administrator Members of the City Staff City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: City Facilities Study Dear Mark and Members of the City Staff: On behalf of JEA Architects, I appreciate the opportunity to submit our firm's qualifications for professional services to the City of Shakopee. As the enclosed information details, we have routinely worked on municipal projects in providing creative, accountable and responsible solutions. Included in our experience are numerous projects involving space needs analysis and future space needs projections. Examples of this type of project include the Savage City Hall and Savage Public Works Addition and Remodeling projects. We take pride in meeting the functional, budgeting, scheduling and aesthetic needs of each project. Our firm has a proven track record of meeting our client's concerns and creating projects that are above and beyond their expectations by using effective communication methods to keep them informed (and participating) in all phases of development. This project is important to us and we hope that you find the enclosed information about our firm helpful. If you have any questions on the enclosed information, please feel free to call. Thank you! Sincerely, Jack Anderson, AI CID President JEA/kda enclosure JACK EDWARD ANDERSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 33 TENTH AVE. SO.,SUITE 250 HOPKINS, MN 55343 (612)935-5164 FAX (612)935-2102 J E A ARCHITECTS PROJECT APPROACH MISSION STATEMENT The project team will work carefully with the City Staff to establish specific project requirements. Once the project parameters have been established,we will strive to design solutions that are responsive and creative and which exceed your expectations. SPACE ANALYSIS(PROGRAMMING) -Key Steps The goal of this phase is to establish the lines of communication,formalize and verify the building program requirements and take into consideration future phases. The programming/space analysis will serve as a strong foundation for future project development. The work of this phase will consist of: I. Project Kick-off Meeting • Explain Process • Distribute Information Packets and Programming Forms • Discuss Goals II. Information Gathering • Meet with City Administrator and Key Staff • Research Existing Conditions(the sites, including the surrounding area, if appropriate) • Tour similar facilities to verify what aspects work well and what do not • Verify Building and Accessibility Code Requirements • Verify Zoning Requirements III. Analyze and Summarize • Determine Space Needs • Develop Site Plan Scheme Options • Determine Preliminary Square Footage Cost Estimate Ranges IV. Final Report • Prepare final Architectural Report • Present to Staff • Present to Council FURTHER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT IF NEEDED If the project warrants,JEA Architects will undertake the stages of project development, including design development, construction documents, bidding and construction administration. - Schematic Design: Complete Schematic Design responsive to the Preliminary Design and the critical specifications of the project. Design Development: Develop selected design and technology solutions and confirm that budget and scheduling requirements can be met. Construction Documents/Bidding: Our level of detail,and document quality will help to insure good bid results and a cost-effective project. Construction Administration: Monitor all construction to insure document compliance. J E A ARCHITECTS PROJECT APPROACH (Cont'd) CONCLUSION We feel that a strong space analysis component at the beginning of a project serves as a very effective tool for further facility development. We will encourage continued owner involvement,which will be critical as the project is developed and specific reviews will be scheduled. Because we also believe that team continuity is important, President and Project Manager,Jack Anderson, will lead the team through all areas and be available at all times throughout the project. We are confident that such continuity results in a better coordinated project. I ■ Partnering with you to achieve a quality project to meet your needs ■ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Authorize Filling the Position of Customer Service Representative DATE: October 15, 1999 INTRODUCTION• City Council is asked to consider re-classifying the position of the city hall customer service representative to receptionist and to authorize the process to fill the position. BACKGROUND: Tami Vidmar has accepted the position of secretary in the Community Development Department which was recently vacated because of the resignation of Shelly Bilotta. This creates an opening in the position of customer service representative. Staff is asking City Council to authorize filling this position in order that the normal recruitment process may be commenced with the Scott County Employee Relations Department. Due to the vacancy occurring in the customer service representative position at this time, pursuant to the City's Hiring Policy, staff has re-examined and re-defined the duties and classification to more closely fit the current needs of the organization. In the public sector, more so than in the private sector, duties within a position can change as a result of policy changes, the needs of the organization, and ever changing technology. The City's current needs and duties of the city hall community service representative were reviewed and discussed by City Administrator, Community Development Director, Payroll/ Benefits Coordinator and City Clerk. As a result of that discussion, it is recommended that the city hall customer services representative position be re-classified to receptionist and that a job description be considered by City Council prior to the posting and advertising to fill the vacant position. The City's receptionist positions were eliminated in a 1994 re- organization. The receptionist position was replaced as a customer service representative. Since the upgrading of that position, some responsibilities at city hall are no longer needed and other appropriate duties have been identified. Prior to 1995, receipt of payments received for the City's storm drainage utility fees was one of the customer service representative duties. That is now being billed and receipted by Shakopee Public Utilities staff. Also, the City no longer bills residents for their refuse collection, therefore most customer service Customer Service Representative Position October 13, 1999 Page -2- calls now go directly to Waste Management. In addition, the City has added 11 direct phone lines for department heads and the building inspection department, which reduces the number of calls going through the main switchboard. In order to accomplish this re-classification, the Payroll/Benefits Coordinator has advised that a receptionist classification must be added to the City's pay plan. An unused grade, which will be added as "AA" , is consistent with the 1999 Stanton receptionist average and the benchmark job value of 45. (It should be noted that the classification of customer service representative is not being eliminated. The duties of the customer service representative at the Shakopee Community Center are not being changed. ) City Council is asked to approve the attached receptionist job description, amend the pay plan, and authorize the process to fill the position at Step 1 of Grade AA. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Re-classify the city hall customer service representative position and authorize filling the position. 2. Retain the city hall customer service representative position and authorize filling the position. 3 . Approve the job description for the receptionist. 4. Amend the pay plan to add a receptionist position. 5. Do not authorize filling the customer service representative position. RECOMMENDATION: Alternatives 3, 1, and 4. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the receptionist job description and authorize the process to fill the position, at Step 1 of Grade AA. 2. Offer Resolution No. 5252, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 5034, which Adopted the 1999 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non- union Employees of the City of Shakopee, and move its adoption. i1, Judith S. Cox, Cit Clerk h:\judy\csr-recp CITY OF SHAKOPEE Job Description Job Title: Receptionist Department: Administration Location: City Hall Reports To: City Clerk FLSA Status: Non-exempt Prepared By: Payroll/Benefits Coordinator Prepared Date: 10/14/99 Approved By: Approved Date: Salary Level: $10.4933 - $13.1163/hr. SUMMARY Operates multiline telephone system to answer incoming calls and forwards callers to appropriate personnel,greets the public with a desire to serve and answer general questions, and cheerfully listens and directs the public to the appropriate department who can best respond to their needs. It involves processing and receipting cash payments received in person or by mail. Opens and distributes the mail to appropriate departments. Performs data entry,word processing and other miscellaneous clerical duties as time permits. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES include the following. Other duties may be assigned. Answers incoming telephone calls,determines purpose of callers, and forwards calls to appropriate personnel or department. Takes and delivers messages or transfers calls to voice mail when appropriate personnel are unavailable. Answers questions about organization and provides callers with address, directions, and other information. Welcomes on-site visitors,determines nature of business, and announces visitors to appropriate personnel. Receipts all payments to city for permits,fees and miscellaneous charges to proper account utilizing an automated cash drawer. Counts cash,balances cash with receipts and daily prepares bank deposit. Receives, sorts, and routes mail,publications and inter-office mail. Maintains fax machine,assists users, sends faxes, and retrieves and routes incoming faxes. Performs other clerical duties and assist other departments as needed and as time permits; such as alphabetizing and sorting files, data entry and word processing. Page 1 QUALIFICATIONS To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill,and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE High School Diploma or General Education Degree(GED)and one year related experience and/or training. LANGUAGE SKILLS Ability to read and comprehend simple instructions, correspondence, and memos.Ability to meet and greet the public, interpret questions and requests, and effectively and accurately present information to customers,the public, and other employees of the organization. Ability to accurately record telephone and other oral communication in note form. MATHEMATICAL SKILLS Ability to add, subtract,multiply and divide two digit numbers. Ability to calculate percentages and totals using a 10 key calculator. Ability to perform these operations using units of American money. REASONING ABILITY Ability to apply commonsense understanding to carry out instructions furnished in written, oral, or diagram form. Ability to deal with problems and make decisions based on established rules and procedures. OTHER SKILLS AND ABILITIES Ability to use and operate multi-line telephone system. Ability to use and operate automated cash drawer,computer,printer, 10-key calculator, fax machine and other office machines. Ability to type and input data accurately. Must possess excellent customer service skills in order to maintain cordial working relationships with the public and other staff; and the ability to create a favorable impression of city representatives. PHYSICAL DEMANDS The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job,the employee is regularly required to sit; use hands to finger,handle, or feel objects,tools,or controls; reach with hands and arms; and talk or hear. The employee ocassionally is required to stand and walk. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 20 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, color vision,peripheral vision,depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus. WORK ENVIRONMENT The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. The noise level in the work environment is usually moderate. Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 5252 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5034, WHICH ADOPTED THE 1999 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, on December 1, 1998,the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, adopted Resolution No. 5034, approving the 1999 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-union Employees of the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 1999 the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, authorized the recruitment process for the Receptionist position, it is therefore necessary to amend the 1999 Pay Plan by adding the classification of Receptionist in Grade AA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,that the attached schedule of the 1999 Pay Plan for Officers and Non-union Employees is hereby amended to include the classification of Receptionist in Grade AA. Adopted in session of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1999 Pay Plan Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Market Title Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Adjust City Administrator Q $67,057 $69,452 $71,847 $74,241 $76,636 $79,031 $81,426 $83,820 Unused P $62,988 $65,238 $67,487 $69,736 $71,986 $74,235 $76,485 $78,734 Police Chief O $58,918 $61,022 $63,127 $65,231 $67,335 $69,439 $71,543 $73,647 PWDir/Eng. O $58,918 $61,022 $63,127 $65,231 $67,335 $69,439 $71,543 $73,647 Com.Dev.Dir. N $55,328 $57,304 $59,280 $61,256 $63,232 $65,208 $67,183 $69,159 Finance Director N $55,328 $57,304 $59,280 $61,256 $63,232 $65,208 $67,183 $69,159 Unused M $51,737 $53,585 $55,432 $57,280 $59,128 $60,975 $62,823 $64,671 City Engineer L $48,602 $50,337 $52,073 $53,809 $55,544 $57,280 $59,016 $60,751 Deputy Chief L $48,602 $50,337 $52,073 $53,809 $55,544 $57,280 $59,016 $60,751 $ 62,428 Park&Rec.Dir. L $48,602 $50,337 $52,073 $53,809 $55,544 $57,280 $59,016 $60,751 $ 50,963 Asst City Eng K $45,466 $47,089 $48,713 $50,337 $51,960 $53,584 $55,208 $56,831 EDA Coordinator J $42,690 $44,214 $45,739 $47,263 $48,788 $50,312 $51,837 $53,361 Building Official I $39,913 $41,338 $42,763 $44,189 $45,614 $47,039 $48,465 $49,890 PW Supervisor I $39,913 $41,338 $42,763 $44,189 $45,614 $47,039 $48,465 $49,890 Project Coordinator I $39,913 $41,338 $42,763 $44,189 $45,614 $47,039 $48,465 $49,890 Accountant III I $39,913 $41,338 $42,763 $44,189 $45,614 $47,039 $48,465 $49,890 Planner II I $39,913 $41,338 $42,763 $44,189 $45,614 $47,039 $48,465 1 $49,890 Facility Mgr I $39,913 $41,338 $42,763 $44,189 $45,614 $47,039 $48,465 $49,890 City Clerk I $39,913 $41,338 $42,763 $44,189 $45,614 $47,039 $48,465 $49,890 Bldg Inspector H $37,471 $38,809 $40,147 $41,486 $42,824 $44,162 $45,500 $46,838 Fire Code Inspector H $37,471 $38,809 $40,147 $41,486 $42,824 $44,162 $45,500 $46,838 Eng Tech IV H $37,471 $38,809 $40,147 $41,486 $42,824 $44,162 $45,500 $46,838 Recreation Super II H $37,471 $38,809 $40,147 $41,486 $42,824 $44,162 $45,500 $46,838 Payroll Benefits Coord G $35,030 $36,280 $37,531 $38,782 $40,033 $41,284 $42,535 $43,786 Planner G $35,030 $36,280 $37,531 $38,782 $40,033 $41,284 $42,535 $43,786 Eng Tech III G $35,030 $36,280 $37,531 $38,782 $40,033 $41,284 $42,535 $43,786 Unused F $32,852 $34,025 $35,198 $36,371 $37,544 $38,718 $39,891 $41,064 Executive Secretary E $30,673 $31,768 $32,864 $33,959 $35,055 $36,150 $37,245 $38,341 Recreation Supervisor E $30,673 $31,768 $32,864 $33,959 $35,055 $36,150 $37,245 $38,341 Eng Tech II E $30,673 $31,768 $32,864 $33,959 $35,055 $36,150 $37,245 $38,341 Planning Tech D $28,806 $29,834 $30,863 $31,892 $32,921 $33,949 $34,978 $36,007 Secretary D $28,806 $29,834 $30,863 $31,892 $32,921 $33,949 $34,978 $36,007 Accounting Clerk C $26,939 $27,901 $28,863 $29,825 1 $30,787 $31,749 $32,711 $33,673 Police Records Tech C $26,939 $27,901 $28,863 $29,825 $30,787 $31,749 $32,711 $33,673 Clerk Typist II C $26,939 $27,901 $28,863 $29,825 $30,787 $31,749 $32,711 $33,673 Office Service Wkr B $25,263 $26,166 $27,068 $27,970 $28,872 $29,774 $30,677 $31,579 Community Sery Officer A $23,587 $24,430 $25,272 $26,114 $26,957 $27,799 $28,641 $29,484 Customer Sery Rep A $23,587 $24,430 $25,272 $26,114 $26,957 $27,799 $28,641 $29,484 Facility Maint Wkr A $23,587 $24,430 $25,272 $26,114 $26,957 $27,799 1 $28,641 $29,484 Bldg Maintenance Wkr A $23,587 $24,430 $25,272 $26,114 $26,957 $27,799 1 $28,641 $29,484 Receptionist AA $21,826 $22,606 $23,385 $24,165 $24,944 $25,723 1 $26.503 $27,282 Amended 10/14/99 i CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Employee Health Insurance Premium Participation DATE: October 14, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to give direction as to the City contribution for employee group health insurance policies for 2000. BACKGROUND: The attached memo from Gregg Voxland dated October 5th was discussed at the October 5th City Council meeting. In it, Council was made aware that health insurance rates for the City will be going up by 31.1%. Single premium will be $229.37 and family $699.44/mo. Staff was directed at the October 5th meeting to investigate other alternatives, and to also look at capping the "equalizing"contribution to the 40 employees taking only single health coverage. Contact was made with the Southwest/West Central Service Cooperative (Pool) of which the City has been a member for two years. They were asked to provide alternatives. They were only able to provide quotes for Blue Cross. The rather intense usage by the City over the past 27 months for health insurance and very few providers appears to make it unfeasible for other providers to submit a competitive quote. By being in the pool, the City does receive a significant advantage in terms of reduced annual administrative costs reflected in the premium. The Pool did provide alternatives on increasing the deductibles, and total out of pocket cost. Doubling the out of pocket maximums from the current $500 -single/$1000 - family, would reduce the 31.1% increase to 26.8%. Further increasing the out of pocket maximum to $250055000 would reduce the increase to 23.4%, but it is unlikely that that is acceptable to City employees. Other investigation was made regarding prescription drug copays, but was not recommended as feasible. An additional option was looked at as a"point of service" (HMO) option, but that actually increased the monthly premium by $65.00. A meeting was held with Union Stewards and other interested City employees on Friday, October 15th. At that time,pool representatives reviewed with employees the usage that the City has seen, and what the impact of the alternatives might be. All employees will be surveyed to determine if reduced premiums as a result of higher out-of-pocket and deductible costs would be acceptable. Assuming that we have 10 employees opting for a lesser cost option, both plans could be offered to City employees. This would be the first time that there has been any sort of a choice in coverage for City employees. SINGLE COVERAGE COMPENSATION: In August, the City had DCA perform an analysis of employee benefits for the City. One item which was noted there was that the City's equalizing reimbursement to employees taking single coverage - $207 in 1999 - is considerably above the average for other cities. They noted $52 - $100 as being the norm. There is no legal requirement to equalize payment by the City to all employees who otherwise might differentiate the type of health coverage taken. As such, it would seem prudent to place a cap on any further increases for these "equalizing"dollars, that are otherwise used by employees taking single coverage to purchase additional insurance, or have that reimbursed to them in after-tax compensation. Note that because of the increase in insurance premiums,that will reduce the after tax payment to single-coverage employees from $207,to $155 in 2000, assuming coverage remains the same. FAMILY/2 PARTY COVERAGE COMPENSATION: By placing a cap on the City contribution for single coverage employees, it would mean that the City could keep the same budgeted amount, and increase the contribution to two party and family employees by $40 per month, rather than the $20 which is budgeted. However, this will still fall far short of the proportion of City participation seen this year. In 1999, the City has been paying about 72% of family medical. To keep it at 72%, the City contribution would have to increase by $120/month, rather than the $40 per month described. Over the past 11 years, City contribution has decreased from 89%to 72%. A $20 increase in city participation would drop the percentage to 57%. The 72% is in the ball park range of other cities average (74%). If the City Council would choose to increase the contribution to try to come closer to the current participation level, each additional $20/month for family/2 party coverage- employees would increase the cost to the City by $8,400 per year. BUDGET IMPACT: As noted above, increases for two party and family coverage could increase by $40/month without impacting the current budget. I recommend the $40/month,plus an additional $20/month. Any additional monies above the $40 budgeted would have to come from transfers from other sources, either through demonstrated increased revenues (for example, building activity fees, but which may not be permanent), or through delays or eliminations of purchases or staffing. Some cities set city contributions at a fixed percentage instead of a dollar amount. At $120, an employee earning $17.00/hr. would have about one third of the net COLA going to insurance premiums. Lowering the city participation percentage may lead to less early retirements due to insurance costs. Council should be aware that there are ongoing health issues for some employees which will likely mean similar increases next year. Preparation for the 2001 budget should factor that in; in the mean time, employees will also need to carefully consider changes in their responsibility (in both usage and payment)to keep costs down. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council direct that a cap be placed on any further increases to single-coverage employee participation, and that the contribution for two party and family coverage increase to $60 at a minimum- using the $40 allocated within the budget, and $20 from unbudgeted added revenues in building permit fees. This would split the $166 premium increase between the City (36%) and employee (64%). City share of total would drop from 72% in 1999 to 63% in 2000. It should be noted that if the Council wishes to further increase the $60 contribution, it may do so with monies available to the budget resulting from increased building permit fee revenues. Based on 9 months of 1999 experience,permit revenue could be increased by more than enough to cover the cost at the $120 amount. The $120 level of city increased contribution would maintain the 72%participation level. If the Council wishes to increase the City contribution to two party and family coverage in order to come closer to the current City participation, it should so indicate, and by how much. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion,take the following action: 1. Place a cap on any increase in City contribution for single-coverage employees in 2000. 2. Authorize an increase in the amount of($60-$120)/month, as contribution towards two party and family-coverage employees, for health insurance premiums in 2000. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw City Of Shakopee 1-1-2000 Blue Cross Blue Shield has reviewed the claims utilization for your group and has determined that an increase of 31.1%is needed. Current Rates Rates for 1-1-2000 Single 2 party Family Single 2 party Family $174.96 $414.18 $533.52 $229.37 $542.99 $699.44 +$54.41 +$128.8 +$165.92 What has been the major reason for this increase? Trend is a major reason for 16%of this increase, 15%was due to the increase in high claims. High claims(any claims over$10,000)represent 42% of total payment. High claims total for 1998 $118,159.00. This is up 25%over 1997, and will continue to grow in 1999. What can you as Employees due to lower this increase? Plan design changes;increase the deductibles and the out of pocket maximums. Current plan Option 1 Option 2 Deductible $100 single $200 single $200 single $300 family $600 family $600 family Out of pocket max $500 single $2500 single $1000 single $1000 family $5000 family $2000 family Savings 7.4% 4.3% $41.47 single single $126.44 familyfamil /s C 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SuB : Employee Vroup Health insurance DATE : October 5, 1999 Introduction The purpose of this memo is two fold; 1) to advise Council of the renewal rates for employee group health insurance and 2) get Council input to staff regarding the level of the City' s contribution to the cost of health insurance . Background This memo is based on the information staff has to date . The city joined the South west/west Central Service Cooperatives for 1998 and subsequent two years . The city has gained from pool membership by the reduced administrative costs and other negotiated reductions with Blue Cross/Blue Shield (Blues) that result in lower rates for the City. For 2000, the rates for the city are increasing 31 . 1% . Being in the pool has not yet influenced the city' s rates upward or downward due to the rates for other entities in the pool . Other members in the pool had calculated rates ranging from a decrease of 17% to an increase of 1800 . The effect of the pooling was to set a minimum of 16% and a maximum of 49% increase in rates . The two biggest factors in the rate increase are the amount of claims employees are incurring and the increasing cost of medical care . A third factor is that for the past two years Blues has underestimated the increase in the above two factors . There are three attachments to this memo; Attachment 1 is a graph showing the city contribution as a percent of the premium. The city' s share of family coverage has gone down from 89 .2% in 1989 to 71 . 5% for 1999 . There is $20 per month budgeted for an increase in the city share . That amount of increase will make the city share 57 . 4% for 2000 . All employees receive the same benefit . The city contribution for each employee is placed in a flex spending account and is used for the premium and other eligible costs . Attachment 2 is a graph showing the history of premiums and city contribution over the same time frame . Attachment 3 shows the share of the premium picked up by the employee and the city. For 1999 the cost to an employee with family coverage was $151 . 86. For 2000 the employee cost will go to $297 . 78 for an increase of $145 . 92 per month. An employee would have to be earning about $58, 000 to roughly break even with a 3% COLA adjustment for 2000 . The city contribution for 1999 is $381 . 66 and with a $20 increase it would be $401 . 66 in 2000 . The figures are; 1999 2000 City contribution $382 . 16 $402 . 16 Premium 1999 2000 Family coverage $533 . 52 $699 . 44 2 party coverage 414 . 18 542 . 99 Single coverage 174 . 96 229. 37 Employee cost 1999 2000 Family coverage $151 . 36 $297 .28 2 party coverage 32 . 02 140 . 83 Single coverage (207 .20) (172 . 79) increasing the city contribution by $10%mo. will cost about $9, 400 for each $10 increase. In order to keep the contribution at the same percentage of premium as 1999, an increase of a total of $120 per month would be needed. The cost of the $120 .mo is about $117, 500 . The increase could be covered for the 2000 by a combination of by using fund balance surplus from 1999 and a minor portion of delaying the start of new employees . Revenues for 1999 for building and development related items are running well ahead of budget . Staff will be meeting with (Blues) to get more information on the factors that went into the rates for 2000 . Staff will also get information on alternative plans such as higher deductables and HMO type coverage . Following that, input will be obtained from employees and the issue brought back to Council . Action Give staff general direction on the amount of city contribution for 2000 employee health insurance in order to facilitate discussions with employees on what type of coverages to offer. Gre /o� land gg Finance Director I:\finance\docs\insure\00 City Contribution Percent of Premium 300.0% 250.0% Cont.%of single Cont.%of 2pty 2000% -Cont.%of Family 150.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 97GROUPALS History 10/5/99 2:08 PM Health Insurance Premiums 700.00 —--- — 600.00 500.00 400.00 City Contrib. Single 2 Party 300.00 Family 200.00 100.00 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 97GROUP.XLS History 10/5/99 2:08 PM �5 Employee Cost of Health Ins. $500 -- - ---— -- $400 $300 $200 City Contrib. Emp.(Pay)Fam.Cov. $100 Emp.(Pay)2 Party Emp.(Pay)Single rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn CT) rn ($100) ($200) ($300) 97GROUP.XLS History 10/5/99 2:07 PM CITY OF SHAKOPEE Major revenues Actual Actual Actual Actual YTD Budget Revised? 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2000 Building Permit $ 323.876 $ 428.871 $ 431.498 $ 722.665 $ 967.677 $ 700.000 800.000 Plumbing Permit 41.789 50.097 71.590 113.047 102.6D6 100.000 Mechanical Permit 36.159 28.839 70.337 126.237 69.231 80.000 Engineering Services 394.976 546.920 502.118 517.935 617.147 490.000 590.000 Plan Check 177.691 252.211 241.577 400.918 569.780 360.000 "l' x $1.000.000 $900.000 _____________________________________________________ ____________ _____________________ $800.000 _________________________________________________________ _______ -- $700.000 ---------------------------------------------�__ ___________________________________ �&ilcing Permit �. --*-Plu bing Permit �� -i-Mechanical Pemit i� 5600.000 -------- -- ----------------- I ----- --- -EWneenng SeNces ♦'. .... _..__..______________ _______ _ _Plan Check .. ... .......... - -Log.(&il6ng Pemit) $500.000 ___________ ___ .*,,,.�:� ______ ______________________ _________________ -Log.(Mecharical Pemit) _ g.(Plmbing Permit) _ ..................... $400.000 •• Log(Plan - - Log.(Engineering Senrices $300.000 _I____ $200.000 ___ _______________________________________________________________________________ $100.000 _____ __________________________________��r 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 YEAR 2:08 PM 10/15/99 GENERALALS revchart99a J15-- CITY OF SHAKOPEE ^� Memorandum � �' _e TO: Mayor and City Council Economic Development Authority FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing Date for Business Subsidy Policy MEETING DATE: October 19, 1999 Introduction & Background: The City Council is asked to set a joint public hearing with the EDA for November 16, 1999 regarding a business subsidy policy. The City Council and EDA (in fact, all local government agencies) must adopt a "business subsidy policy" per mandate by the Business Subsidies Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995. The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted this new law regulating business subsidies awarded on or after August 1, 1999. The new law repeals its predecessor Minn. Stat. 116J.991, and introduces new operating and reporting requirements. Discussion The enclosed "Summary of 1999 Business Subsidies Act" from city attorney Steve Bubul and copy of the new law, Exhibit A, outline the law as it applies to local governments. The business subsidy policy is intended to cover all "subsidies" as defined in the new law. Staff and counsel are drafting a Business Subsidy Policy for consideration and adoption at the November 16th council and EDA meetings. Action Required Offer and pass a motion to set a joint public hearing with the EDA for November 16, 1999 regarding a business subsidy policy. subsdmo l.doc A SUMMARY OF 1999 BUSINESS SUBSIDY ACT In Article 12 of the omnibus tax bill (Ch. 243, H.F. 2420), the legislature repealed existing Section 116J.991 and enacted new rules governing all business subsidies granted by state and local government. The following rules apply: a. Definitions. The statute applies to all "business subsidies," which are defined to include a grant, contribution of property or infrastructure, the principal amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available, reduction or deferral of any tax or fee, any guarantee of any payment of any loan, lease, obligation, or any preferential use of, governmental facilities. Numerous items expressly are expressly excluded from the definition, including: • subsidies of less than $25,000 • assistance generally available to all business or to a general class of similar businesses • public improvements to building or land owned by the state or local government that do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvement is made. • Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants • Assistance for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying buildings, if the assistance is no more than 50% of the total cost. • Assistance for housing • Assistance for pollution control or abatement • Industrial development revenue bonds • Assistance for a soils condition TIF District • Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is at least 70% of the assessor's current year's estimated market value. (This list is not comprehensive; refer to the statute for the complete list of exclusions) In addition, non-profit entities are not defined as "recipients" of a business subsidy unless they have at least 100 full-time equivalent positions with a ratio of highest to lowest paid employee that exceeds 10 to 1. The "benefit date" for a business subsidy is when financed equipment is placed in service, or in the case of improvements to property, when the improvements are finished for the entire project or when the business occupies the property, whichever is earlier. b. Regulation of Subsidies. Generally. All business subsidies (as defined in the statute) must meet a public purpose other than increasing tax base. Job retention is a public purpose only where job loss is imminent and demonstrable. Before granting any subsidy, a grantor must have adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies at a public hearing. The criteria must include a policy regarding wages. Subsidy Agreement. The grantor and recipient must enter a subsidy agreement that includes: • A description of the subsidy • A statement of the public purpose • Goals for the subsidy • Description of the financial obligation of the recipient if the goals are not met • A statement of why the subsidy is needed • A commitment to continue operations at the site for at least five years after the benefit date. • Name and address of the parent corporation of the recipient, if any, and • A list of all financial assistance by all grantors for the project. Grants must be structured as forgivable loans. If a business subsidy is not structured as a forgivable loan, the agreement must state the fair market value of the subsidy. The agreement must be approved by the local elected governing body, which means any assistance provided by an HRA or EDA requires approval by the corresponding city council. (The St. Paul Port Authority and any seaway port authority are exempt from this requirement.) Wage and Job Goals. The subsidy agreement must include (1)goals for the number of jobs created, or jobs retained in cases where job loss is imminent and demonstrable, and (2) wage goals for the jobs created or retained. The goals must contain specific targets to be attained within 2 years of the benefit date. Public Hearing. A public hearing with 10 days published notice is required for any state business subsidy over$500,000, and any local government subsidy over$100,000. Remedies. The subsidy agreement must, at a minimum, require the recipient failing to meet the stated goals to repay the assistance plus interest at a defined statutory rate, except that repayment may be prorated to reflect partial fulfillment of goals. After public hearing, the grantor may extend for up to one year the period for meeting the goals. A recipient that fails to meet the terms of a subsidy agreement may not received a business subsidy from any grantor for five years from the date of failure, or until the recipient satisfies its repayment obligation, whichever occurs first. i C. Reporting. By Recipients. Recipients must file detailed reports to the grantor for 2 years after the benefit date or until the goals are met, whichever is later. The reporting forms will be developed by the department of trade and economic development, but will include information set forth in the statute. The reports musts be filed with the grantor by March 1 of each year for the previous year, and within 30 days after the deadline for meeting job and wage goals. SJB-165385 2 SH235-1 Financial assistance for pollution clean up, building renovation, and soils condition TIF districts (which are all excluded from the definition of a business subsidy) are nevertheless subject to a more limited reporting requirement. Failure to timely file reports results in a penalty of $100 per day, up to a maximum penalty of$1,000. By Grantors. All local government agencies must file reports with the state by April 1 of each year, whether or not they have granted business subsidies (except local governments with less than 2,500 population if they have not awarded a business subsidy in the past five years.) If a local government agency has not filed the required report by June 1, the agency may not award any business subsidies until the report is filed. By DTED. The department of trade and economic development is directed to publish a summary report by July 1 of each year, including detailed analysis of the subsidy types, wage and job creation, and history of compliance with subsidy agreements. d. Effective Date. The new provisions are effective for business subsidies entered into on or after August 1, 1999. SJB-165385 3 SH235-1 Minnesota Session Laws - 1999 Key: new language CHAPTER 243-H.F.No. 2420 ARTICLE 12 BUSINESS SUBSIDIES Section 1. [116J.993] [DEFINITIONS.] Subdivision 1. [SCOPE.] For the purposes of sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. [BENEFIT DATE.] "Benefit date" means the date that the recipient receives the business subsidy. If the business subsidy involves the purchase, lease, or donation of physical equipment, then the benefit date begins when the recipient puts the equipment into service. If the business subsidy is for improvements to property, then the benefit date refers to the earliest date of either: (_) when the improvements are finished for the entire project: or (2) when a business occupies the property. If a business occupies the property and the subsidy grantor expects that other businesses will also occupy the same property, the grantor may assign a separate benefit date for each business when it first occupies the property. Subd. 3. [BUSINESS SUBSIDY.] "Business subsidy" or "subsidy" means a state or local government agency grant, contribution of personal property, real property, infrastructure, the principal amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available to the recipient, any reduction or deferral of any tax or any fee, any guarantee of any payment under any loan, lease, or other obligation, or any preferential use of government facilities given to a business. The following forms of financial assistance are not a business subsidy: (1) a business subsidy of less than $25.000: (2) assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria: (3) public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made: (4) redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in section 116J.552, subdivision 3: (5) assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building_ stock or bringing it up to code, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50 percent of the total cost: (6) assistance provided to organizations whose primary mission is to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services: (7) assistance for housing: (8) assistance for pollution control or abatement: (9) assistance for energy conservation: (10) tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law: (11) workers' compensation and unemployment compensation: (12) benefits derived from regulation: bslaw.doc (13) indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions: (14) funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A: (15) assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota Sher education institution and a business: (16) assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under section 469.174. subdivision 19. (17) redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value: and (18) general changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature. Subd. 4. [GRANTOR.] "Grantor" means any state or local government agency with the authority to grant a business subsidy_ Subd. 5. [LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY.] "Local government agency" includes a statutory or home rule charter city, housing and redevelopment authority, town, county, port authority,_economic development authority, community development agency, nonprofit entity created by a local government agency, or any other entity created by or authorized by a local government with authority to provide business subsidies. Subd. 6. [RECIPIENT.] "Recipient" means any for-profit or nonprofit business entity that receives a business subsidy. Only nonprofit entities with at least 100 full-time- equivalent positions and with a ratio of highest to lowest paid employee, that exceeds ten to one, determined on the basis of full-time equivalent positions, are included in this definition. Subd. 7. [STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY.] "State government agency" means any state agency that has the authority to award business subsidies. Sec. 2. [116J.994] [REGULATING LOCAL AND STATE BUSINESS SUBSIDIES.] Subdivision 1. [PUBLIC PURPOSE.] A business subsidy must meet a public purpose other than increasing the tax base. Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases where iob loss is imminent and demonstrable. Subd. 2. [DEVELOPING A SET OF CRITERIA.] A business subsidy may not be granted until the grantor has adopted criteria after a public hearing for awarding business subsidies that comply with this section. The criteria must include a policy regarding_ the wages to be paid for the jobs created. The commissioner of trade and economic development may assist local government agencies in developing criteria. Subd. 3. [SUBSIDY AGREEMENT.] (a) A recipient must enter into a subsidy agreement with the grantor of the subsidy that includes: (1) a description of the subsidy. including the amount and type of subsidy, and type of district if the subsidy is tax increment financing: (2) a statement of the public purposes for the subsidy: bslaw.doc (3) goals for the subsidy: (4) a description of the financial obligation of the recipient if the goals are not met: (5) a statement of why the subsidy is needed: (6) a commitment to continue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for at least five ,years after the benefit date: (7) the name and address of the parent corporation of the recipient, if any: and (8) a list of all financial assistance by all grantors for the project. (b) Business subsidies in the form of grants must be structured as forgivable loans. If a business subsidy is not structured as a forgivable loan, the agreement must state the fair market value of the subsidy to the recipient, including the value of conveying property at less than a fair market price, or other in-kind benefits to the recipient. (c) If a business subsidy benefits more than one recipient, the grantor must assign a proportion of the business subsidy to each recipient that signs a subsidy agreement. The proportion assessed to each recipient must reflect a reasonable estimate of the recipient's share of the total benefits of the project. (d) The state or local government agency and the recipient must both sign the subsidy agreement and, if the grantor is a local government agency, the agreement must be approved by the local elected governing body, except for the St. Paul Port Authority and a seaway port authority. Subd. 4. [WAGE AND JOB GOALS.] The subsidy agreement, in addition to any other goals, must include: (1) goals for the number of jobs created, which may include separate goals for the number of part-time or full-time jobs, or, in cases where job loss is imminent and demonstrable, goals for the number of jobs retained: and (2) wage goals for the jobs created or retained. In addition to other specific goal time frames, the wage and job goals must contain specific goals to be attained within two years of the benefit date. Subd. 5. [PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING.] (a) Before granting a business subsidy that exceeds $500,000 for a state government grantor and $100,000 for a local government grantor, the grantor must provide public notice and a hearing on the subsidy. A public hearing and notice under this subdivision is not required if a hearing and notice on the subsidy is otherwise required by law. (b) Public notice of a proposed business subsidy under this subdivision by a state government grantor must be published in the State Register. Public notice of a proposed business subsidy under this subdivision by a local government grantor must be published in a local newspaper of general circulation. The public notice must identify the location at which information about the business subsidy, including a copy of the subsidy agreement, is available. Published notice should be sufficiently conspicuous in size and placement to distinguish the notice from the surrounding text. The grantor must make the information available in printed paper copies and, if possible, on the Internet. The government agency must provide at least a ten-day notice for the public hearing_ (c) The public notice must include the date, time, and place of the hearing. (d) The public hearing by a state government grantor must be held in St. Paul. bslaw.doc Subd. 6. [FAILURE TO MEET GOALS.] The subsidy agreement must specify the recipient's obligation if the recipient does not fulfill the agreement. At a minimum, the agreement must require a recipient failing to meet subsidy agreement goals to pay back the assistance plus interest to the grantor provided that repayment may be prorated to reflect partial fulfillment of goals. The interest rate must be set at the implicit price deflator defined under section 275.70. subdivision 2. The grantor, after a public hearing, may extend for up to one year the period for meeting the goals provided in a subsidy agreement. A recipient that fails to meet the terms of a subsidy agreement may not receive a business subsidy from any grantor for a period of five years from the date of failure or until a recipient satisfies its repayment obligation under this subdivision, whichever occurs first. Before a grantor signs a business subsidy agreement, the grantor must check with the compilation and summary_ report required by this section to determine if the recipient is eligible to receive a business subsidy. Subd. 7. [REPORTS BY RECIPIENTS TO GRANTORS.] La)A business subsidy grantor must monitor the progress by the recipient in achieving agreement goals. (b) A recipient must provide information regarding goals and results for two years after the benefit date or until the goals are met, whichever is later. If the goals are not met, the recipient must continue to provide information on the subsidy until the subsidy is repaid. The information must be filed on forms developed by the commissioner in cooperation with representatives of local government. Copies of the completed forms must be sent to the commissioner and the local government agency that provided the business subsidy. The report must include: (1) the type, public purpose, and amount of subsidies and type of district, if the subsidy is tax increment financing1 (2) the hours wage of each job created with separate bands of wages: (3) the sum of the hourly wages and cost of health insurance provided by the employer with separate bands of wages: (4) the date the job and wage goals will be reached: (5) a statement of goals identified in the subsidy agreement and an update on achievement of those goals: (6) the location of the recipient prior to receiving the business sub sidy: (7) why the recipient did not complete the project outlined in the subsidy agreement at their previous location, if the recipient was previously located at another site in Minnesota: (8) the name and address of the parent corporation of the recipient, if anyj (9) a list of all financial assistance by all grantors for the project: and (10) other information the commissioner may request. A report must be filed no later than March 1 of each year for the previous year and within 30 days after the deadline for meeting the job and wage goals. (c) Financial assistance that is excluded from the definition of "business subsidy" by section 116-1.993, subdivision 3, clauses (4).(5).(8). and 16) is subject to the reporting requirements of this subdivision, except that the report of the recipient must include: (1) the type, public purpose, and amount of the financial assistance, and type of district if the subsidy is tax increment financing: (2) progress towards meeting goals stated in the subsidy agreement and the public purpose of the assistance: bslaw.doc (3) the hourly wage of each job created with separate bands of wages: (4) the sum of the hourly wages and cost of health insurance provided by the employer with separate bands of wages: (5) the location of the recipient prior to receiving the assistance: and (6) other information the grantor requests. (d) If the recipient does not submit its report, the local government agency must mail the recipient a warning within one week of the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the recipient fails to provide a report. the recipient must pay to the grantor a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum penalty shall not exceed $1.000. Subd. 8. [REPORTS BY GRANTORS.] (a) Local government agencies of a local government with a population of more than 2.500 and state government agencies, regardless of whether or not they have awarded any business subsidies, must file a report by April 1 of each year with the commissioner. Local government agencies of a local government with a population of 2.500 or less are exempt from filing this report if they have not awarded a business subsidy in the past five years. The local government agency must include a list of recipients that did not complete the resort and of recipients that have not met their 4off b and wage goals within two years and the steps being taken to bring them into compliance or to recoup the subsidy. If the commissioner has not received the report by April 1 from an entity required to report, the commissioner shall issue a warning to the government agency. If the commissioner has still not received the report by June 1 of that same year from an entity required to report, then that government agency may not award any business subsidies until the report has been filed. (b) The commissioner of trade and economic development must provide information on reporting requirements to state and local government agencies. Subd. 9. [COMPILATION AND SUMMARY REPORT.] The department of trade and economic development must publish a compilation and summary of the results of the reports for the previous calendar year by July 1 of each year. The reports of the government agencies to the department and the compilation and summary report of the department must be made available to the public. The commissioner must coordinate the production of reports so that useful comparisons across time periods and across grantors can be made. The commissioner may add other information to the report as the commissioner deems necessary to evaluate business subsidies. Among the information in the summary and compilation report, the commissioner must include: (1) total amount of subsidies awarded in each development region of the state: (2) distribution of business subsidy amounts by size of the business subsidy: (3) distribution of business subsidy amounts by time category, such as monthly or quarterly: (4) distribution of subsidies by type and by public purpose: (5) percent of all business subsidies that reached their og alsi (6) percent of business subsidies that did not reach their goals by two years from the benefit date: (7) total dollar amount of business subsidies that did not meet their goals after two _ years from the benefit date: (8) percent of subsidies that did not meet their goals and that did not receive repayment: bslaw.doc (9) list of recipients that have failed to meet the terms of a subsidy agreement in the past five years and have not satisfied their repayment obligations: (10) number of part-time and full-time lobs within separate bands of wages: and (11) benefits paid within separate bands of wages. Sec. 3. [116J.995] [ECONOMIC GRANTS.] An appropriation rider in an appropriation to the department of trade and economic development that specifies that the appropriation be granted to a particular business or class of businesses must contain a statement of the expected benefits associated with the grant. At a minimum, the statement must include goals for the number of jobs created, wages paid, and the tax revenue increases due to the grant. Sec. 4. [REPEALER.] Minnesota Statutes 1998. section 116-1.991, is repealed. Sec. 5. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] Sections 1 to 4 are effective for business subsidies entered into or state appropriations authorized on or after August 1, 1999. bslaw.doc CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul Snook,Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Bids for Downtown Parking Identification Signs MTG DATE: October 19, 1999 Introduction and Background: The City Council is asked to approve a bid for the purchase and installation 22 parking identification signs for municipal parking lots in the central business district. Council previously approved the proposed city logo style downtown parking identification signs as proposed by WSB &Associates, and directed staff to obtain two bids for purchase and installation of the signs. Discussion: The City received the following bids for furnishing and installing 22 signs: • Earl F. Anderson&Associates (Exhibit A) $3,576.76 • TAPCO (Exhibit B) $3,960.00 Budget Impact: In their parking plan,WSB estimated the cost of the parking information signs to be $350 each for a total of$7,700 for 22 signs. Certainly the amounts reflected in the bids are considerably less than what was estimated. Depending upon the selected bid,the budget impact of the sign purchase and installation would be in the general range of$3,500 to $4,000. Funding for the signs would come from the Street Division budget. Options: 1. Accept the bid from Earl F. Anderson &Associates. 2. Accept the bid from TAPCO. Recommendation: Option 1. Accept the bid from Earl F. Anderson&Associates. Action Required: Offer and pass a motion to accept the bid from Earl F.Anderson&Associates in the amount of$3,576.76 for the purchase and installation 22 parking identification signs for municipal parking lots in the central business district. Parking 42" r• 36't Quantity 11 Quantity 1 .41lomm000. Quantity 2 Quantity $ &W Vftsmow Lalm 0111W ///�/� 8441 Wayzata Bmievad SB Mmeapok,MN 55428 � e1a641aaoo A—iaw,Inc. FAX 641-1700 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS OCT-11-1999 14:25 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. - 6125411 700 P.04i05 —: JYNow "Qvi ,raye 1/2 • A fiA Mi��cl3tc�dr,l?t;. 350 Westwood Lake Office Bret A.Wciu,RE 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Pew R.Wilknhring,l'k Minneapolis, MN 55426 Donald W.Srema, Vt.. Ronald H. Bray. !?h.. 612-541-4800 & Associates,.Inc. FAX 541-1700 September 22, 1999 - .9 Mr.Dan Anderson Earl F. Anderson&Associates 9808 James Circle Bloomington, MN 55431 Re: Downtown Parking Signing Shakopec, MN WSB Project No. 1014.43 Dear Mr. Anderson: The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, is requesting a quote to furnish and install downtown parking signing. I have attached a color drawing of the sign and the required quantities. The following work is requested: to uanti Unio Unit Price Ainount Parking Sign with Right Arrow 11 Each S fig• 60 $ 75- 4,& Parking Sign with Left Arrow 8 Each S �(g- 60 $ 8, F-0 Parking Sign with Up Arrow I Each $ 6 60 Parking Sign with Left and Right Arrow 2 Each $ g. 6o $ 137. 7-0 Installation of Parking Signs 22 Each $ 00 $ 1 2 3Z-00 rA g3s. s'6 3 5 7 6?� feTi!'4 if -- 7' 2 11� 7.75 3 9(`, 7Z Authorized Signature PA,j AAU;0,e%:4SoAJ $3S 5�-6 �0 - �—Y9 Date The above items shall be constructed in accordance with current Mn/DOT specifications for signing installation as outlined in the Mn/DOT Traffic Engineering Manuals. The City of Shakopee is interested in proceeding on completing this work within the next six to eight weeks. WSB &Associates, Inc.,will provide the location for the proposed sign installations for your use in the field. M i n n e 4 p O l i s S t , C l o u d lnfiwstructure Engineers Planners �;\wwnnlotQ1110i2:09J�.pd EQUAL OPPORTUNM EMPLOYER OCT-11-1999 14:25 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 6125411700 P.05/05 l Earl P.Andersen, Inc. hFrr�: cl�/�RCff 2�cle r" Parking -7 d o v92")o 7� 3� 9808 lames Circle • Bloomington, MN 55431 • Phone: 612-884-7300 - 1-800-562-6026• Fax: 612-884-S619 "Equal Opportunity Employer" TOTAL P.05 OCT-11-1999 14:24 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 6125411700 P.02i05 -.c rrJ1 Jth' JO '99 15:15 - B.A.Mictc6wadc,P.E 350 Westwood Lake Office Brer A.Weiac,P.E. 8441 Wayzata 80UIE'Vard Perez R Willenbring,P.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Don:1d W. Sterna,r..E Ronald B. Bray.PI? 612-541-4800 MIT 5 &Associates, Inc. FAX 541-1700 S L September 22, 1999 If 11,99 9 Mr. Steve Wisniewski TAPCO 800 Wall Street Elm Grove, WI 53122 Re: Downtown Parking Signing Shakopee, MN WSB Project No. 1014.43 Dear Mr. Wisaiewsla: The City of Shakopee,Minnesota, is requesting a quote to furnish and install downtown parking i signing. I have attached a color drawing of the sign and the required quantities. The following work is requested: tem an ' Units,. 'Ce ,t Atk�Olipt Parking Sign with Right Arrow 11 Each S_Za,5CO S Z_265,0 0 Parking Sign with Left Arrow 8 Each S S D. Parking Sign with Up Arrow 1 Each $ 5•b0 $ 3SC� Parking Sign with Left and Right Arrow 2 Each $13. -co $ 70ZO Installation of Parking Signs 22 Each $ Co $ 0.00 �qto Authorized Signa Daze The above items shall be constructed in a000rdance with current Mn/DOT specifications for signing installation as outlined in the Mn/DOT Traffic Engineering Manuals. The City of Shakopee is interested in proceeding on completing this work within the next six to eight weeks_ WSB &Associates, Inc.,will provide the location for the proposed sign installations for your use in the field. MI n n eap o 1 i .c St . Cloud Infrastructwre Engine&" Planners F�wrwrnnioiaa s...re EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER i WSB & RSSOCIRTES INC. 6125411703 P.03/05 OCT-11-1999 14:24 _ ocr Ju '77 1 '16 TRAFFIC & PARKING CONTROL COMPANY, INCORPORATED TAPCO 800 Wall Street . Elm Grove, WI 53122 Phone 414.814-7000 • Fax 414-814-7017 G� 1.500-236-0112 DATE: / -3C) TO: Gt�'S'� ATTN: (Company Name) FAX#: FROM: PAGE / OF MESSAGE: _� /yi�(/� yOU�. /6�J �G�/G//✓�- d� 7X-7'4'-=- 2/U0 r ESC A5 -I �5 )1s 40 430 7— ��.. T.s7�y� cOO4::/,y//t/ 0/7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum 1 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Premises Permit Renewal -Eagles Aerie 4120 DATE: October 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: Eagles Aerie 4120 is making application to renew their premises permit for their gambling activities at 220 West 2nd Avenue. This is a renewal of their initial permit received two years ago. The City Code requires that organizations with a premises permit provide the City with a copy of their monthly report to the State Gambling Control Board. Due to an oversight,the Eagles Club has not been providing us with these copies for the last two years. They have assured us that they will provide us with back copies within one week and will begin providing copies on a monthly basis. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 5250,A Resolution of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota,Approving Premises Permit for Eagles Aerie 4120, and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 5250 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING PREMISES PERMIT FOR EAGLES AERIE 4120 WHEREAS,the 1990 legislature adopted a law which requires municipal approval in order for the Gambling Control Board to issue or renew premises permits; and WHEREAS, Eagles Aerie 4120 is seeking renewal of their premises permit through November 30, 2001, for the site at 220 West 2nd Avenue, Shakopee,Minnesota. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the premises permit for the Eagles Aerie 4120 at 220 West 2nd Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota, is hereby approved. Adopted in Adjourned Regular Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this 19th day of October, 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk