Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/15/1985
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council ("i tj Vv +k� lM�.:'�. +L +1? -Vlr +J 1... 1 RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: October 10, 1985 1 . Scott County has finalized their budget which will call for a 12 . 1% increase in their tax levy appropriation which will equal a 4 . 22 mill increase. The good news always seems to come at the last minute! 2. The student intern this summer surveyed all of our traffic signs to insure that they were installed according to state traffic signage criteria. The results of the survey have been boiled down to a list of 43 signs that will be moved or adjusted between now and the end of the year by the Street Department. This seemingly small project is an effort to insure that we do not compound our liability should someone be injured at an intersection in Shakopee due to improperly installed traffic signs. 3 . The Public Works Department has completed a Stardard Operating Procedures Manual (SOP) including general procedures for nearly all routine functions and focusing particularly on safety procedures. A copy of the manual has been given to all Public Works employees . 4. The City participated in a recent auction and sold the old truck for $1 , 800 and the Police Department motorcycle for $700. 5. Attached are two pages from a larger memo we recently received from the Metropolitan Council indicating that the Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan amendments have been accepted. The second page shows the location of the trail corridor as it passes through Shakopee. There is funding available for the project right-of-way acquisition and a portion of the construction for fiscal year 1986 . In addition to this good news Councilmembers might enjoy driving Levee Drive to Scott Street to see the construction now underway on the Regional Trail coming from Chaska to Shakopee. George ' s office will become a major junction for the two trails which should focus a lot of attention on Shakopee in the coming years. 6 . Attached is a thank-you letter from Lieutenant Mike Fisher outlining the outstanding service he and his family received by Sgt. Richard Kaley at Canterbury Downs when he suffered symptoms of cardiac distress. 7. Attached is a letter from Senator Bob Schmitz acknowledging our concerns about the Mega-Mall. 8 . SPUC has informed us that they are now investigating a new computer system. Gregg and Steve will be meeting with Lou before and after Lou' s initial training trip so Lou will have a good outline of our needs for sewer, storm sewer and garbage. 9 . Bill Crawford from Mn/DOT District 5 said Highway 212 should open up this weekend. 10 . Attached is the monthly newsletter from Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 11 . Attached is the quarterly billing from Krass , Meyer and Walsten Chartered. 12 . Attached is the agenda of the Energy and Transportation Committee meeting for October 17 , 1985 . 13 . Attached are the minutes of the October 3 , 1985 meeting of the Shakopee Coalition. 14 . Attached are the minutes of the September 19 and September 30 , 1985 meetings of the Shakopee Energy and Transportation Committee. 15 . Attached are the minutes of the September 4 and September 16 , 1985 meetings of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 16. Attached are the minutes of the September 25 , 1985 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 17 . We have informed Scottland that the roadway questioned by the Mayor should be 36 ' wide vs. 32 ' as initially planned ( letter attached) . 18. While I 'm on vacation I have turned my City car over to Judy Cox who is Acting Administrator. She will have the car at work each day for use by all City employees rather than having it sitting in my garage. 19 . Eldon and Barry Stock will be attending a Regional Transit Board (RTB) meeting 10/22/85 in Eden Prairie. The purpose of the meeting is to review RTB progress and discuss program needs. na JKA/jms �. ovvt o 04 �O Metropolitan Council �'4 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 Cl?\�: 1 September 27, 1985 o � Gregory A. Mack Director of Management Services ®F Hennepin County Park Reserve District GXA� 3800 County Road 24 Maple Plain, MN 55359 RE: Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan Amendment Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 9279-2 Dear Mr. Mack: At its meeting on September 12, 1985, the Metropolitan Council considered the Master Plan for the Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor. This consideration was based on a report of the Metropolitan Systems Committee, Referral Report No. 85-85. A copy of this report is attached. The Council has approved the Scott-Hennepin RegjQnal Trail Corridor Master Plan amendment as consistent with the Regional Recreation Open Space Deve opmen Guide o icy lan and so stem ol_ ani Attached are copies of letters from the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District and the City of Shakopee commenting on the proposed amendment. Sincerely, . I ;androa S4Gardebr'ing Chair SSG:Sam Attachment cc: Joseph Reis, Administrator, Scott County Michael McGuire, Manager, City of Prior Lake Willard Brandt, Clerk, Spring Lake Township John T. Kane, Vice Chairman, Credit River Township John K. Anderson, Administrator, City of Shakopee Wilmer Gruetsmacher, Scott County S&WCD Florence Myslajek, Metropolitan Council Staff An Equal Opportunity Employer SCOTT SOIL AND WATERT CONSERVATION DISTRICT ti 107 Water Street Jordan, Minnesota 55352 Telephone(612)492.2636 April 19 , 1985 MINNESOTA 4L SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 To Whom It May Concern : The Scott Soil and Water Conservation District Permit Review Committee reviewed Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 9279-2 and the following recommendations are listed : 1) Natural channels , drainage ditches , subsurface tile lines and farm access roads will need to be provided for and maintained during construction. 2) Places where the trail crosses lakes , streams and wetlands need proper permits. 3) Roughly 6.25 miles of the proposed trail is over cropland, With a planned 30 foot wide easement and a loss of 3 . 6 acres of land per mile, approximately 22 . 5 acres of farmland will be lost to trail easements . We are concerned with any loss of farmland. 4) Reseeding of banks and borrow areas should be completed as soon as possible after final grading. Contact the Soil Conservation Service or Scott Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) . 5) The Scott SWCD request that final grading plans be reviewed by their agency for comment. Sincerely, t ' lm Wilmer Gruetzmach&r �`'' d Scott SWCD AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �� �Y Metropolitan Council Meeting of 9.12.85 Bus. Item C- 1 • METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS COMMITTEE REFERRAL REPORT NO. 85-85 To: Metropolitan Council Subject: Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan Hennepin County Park Reserve District Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 9279-2 Metropolitan Council District 14 Date: August 28, 1985 Background At its meeting on August 26, 1985, the Metropolitan Systems Committee reviewed the attached staff report and recommendations from the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission regarding the Master Plan: Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor, dated March 14, 1985, submitted by the Hennepin County Park Reserve • District. Issues and Concerns Staff summarized the request and responded to questions regarding the easement to be sought along the power line, provision of services to trail users, the source of population forecasts included in the report and concern over acquisi- tion of farm land and its relationship to the Council 's position on agriculture preserves. The opinion was expressed that the Council should take initiative earlier in process to seek out opportunities for trail use of abandoned railroad rights-of-way before they are lost to other uses. The committee approved the following recommendation. Recommendation That the Metropolitan Council approve the Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan Amendment as consistent with the Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan and system plan. Respectfully submitted, Carol Flynn Chair i FM116P-PROTXO M E T R O P O L I T A N C 0 U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul , Minnesota 55101 DATE: August 19, 1985 TO: Metropolitan Systems Committee FROM: Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission SUBJECT: Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan Hennepin County Park Reserve District Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 9279-2 Metropolitan Council District 14 At its meeting on August 12, 1985, the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Com- mission considered the attached staff memorandum. The commission was briefed on the trail corridor master plan amendment by Del Miller, HCPRD staff. There were no issues with the plan amendment and following a brief discussion, the commission approved the following recommendation. RECOMMENDATION That the Metropolitan Council approve the Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan Amendment as consistent with the Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan and system plan. Respectfully submitted, John McBride Chair METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul , Minnesota 55101 DATE: July 29, 1985 TO: Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission FROM: Florence Myslajek, Parks and Environmental Planning Department SUBJECT: Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan Hennepin County Park Reserve District Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 9279-2 Metropolitan Council District 14 INTRODUCTION Hennepin County Park Reserve District (HCPRD) has submitted an amended master plan for Scott-Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval (Attachment B) . The plan has been approved by the Scott County Board of Commissioners and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board of Commissioners. The Scott-Hennepin Park Advisory Board also reviewed the plan and recommended approval. AUTHORITY TO REVIEW Minnesota Statute Sec. 473.313, Subd. 2, authorizes the Metropolitan Council to review, with the advice of the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, master plans for regional recreation open space. Plans are to be reviewed for their consistency with the Development Guide/Policy Plan for Recreation Open Space, BACKGROUND In 1980, the Metropolitan Council approved a master plan for the Scott-Hennepin Trail Corridor and subsequently entered into a grant contract with the HCPRD for acquisition of that portion of the trail corridor lying between the Minnesota River and Cleary Lake Regional Park. The trail corridor as proposed was'to follow the alignment of the abandoned Chicago-Milwaukee-St. Paul and Pacific Railroad right-of-way. However, efforts to secure the abandoned right- of-way from the railroad company were unsuccessful . The Scott County Board of Commissioners decided not to proceed with condemnation of the abandoned right- of-way. Instead, the right-of-way was purchased by an association of adjacent property owners. Subsequent to their purchase of the property, a portion of the right-of-way was purchased by Scott County and the City of Prior Lake for future road and regional trail use. i DISCUSSION BOUNDARIES The trail corridor extends from the Minnesota River to Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve in Scott County, a distance of 13 miles. In its route the trail pro- vides access and connections to Cleary Lake and Spring Lake Regional Parks and Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve. It also connects O'Dowd Lake Park, a City of Shakopee park and Lakefront Park, a large municipal park in Prior Lake. In close proximity to the northern trailhead are Shakopee Memorial Park and state and federal recreational facilities (the Minnesota River Valley State Trail and Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge) , and James W. Wilkie Regional Park (currently owned by HCPRD, but which may be made part of the national wildlife refuge) . This route and connections are shown in the plan graphics and in Attachment A. For purposes of planning and discussion the trail corridor has been divided into four segments: Minnesota River to Spring Lake Regional Park 7.9 miles Spring Lake Regional Park to Prior Lake 1<4 miles (County Rd. 21 crossing) Prior Lake to Cleary Lake Regional Park 2.7 miles Cleary Lake Regional Park to Murphy-Hanrehan 1.0 miles Park Reserve For the most part the trail corridor is aligned immediately adjacent to exist- ing or proposed county roadways. In a few areas the trail will be developed within the road right-of-way because of the limitations of the natural resources or existing development. In areas where the trail corridor is separate from the road right-of-way, the width of the trail will be a minimum of 30 feet. A wider corridor will have to be acquired, in some instances because of ownership boundaries or the nature of the terrain, where it is necessary, for example, to go around ponds near a roadway. There are some problem areas along the route where ponds or existing devel- opment lie close to the road, but the route seems achievable without undue difficulty. The plan states that Metropolitan Council staff will be consulted `LZ tzlt`� dart wdf-rut- -Uvrt_WL tQ:Z'-l ttr&2tqp_1 'rtt �'2t� Tlic�"Lt- -Vicat. it ii�'�=e "Ili]-Tru changes in trail alignment can be worked out between District and Council staff, any "major conceptual changes" in the master plan will require review by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission and Metropolitan Council . STEWARDSHIP PLAN s The stewardship plan in the master plan adequately addresses what will need to be done between the time the land is acquired and development takes place. Control of erosion, waterway protection and maintenance of existing vegetative cover will be the major resource management activities until development can occur. Some additional restoration work will need to be done on the portion of the fiy;Li.l. Whirh, the ahandmpA ri,r ?t;-rL Wr1vi According to the plan, the trail corridor will be signed and fenced, where necessary, to protect the trail resource and to minimize conflict with adjacent lands. Fencing will be used principally where the trail borders private property. Costs are expected to be in the range of $466 per mile for signing and $1,720 per mile for fencing one side of the trail . NEEDS ANALYSIS The plan amendment states that: Trail use is becoming the most popular recreation activity among the various uses within the HCPRD. During 1982, 385,000 summer and 170,000 winter trail use occasions were recorded. The Scott-Hennepin Trail Corridor will provide a recreation/transportation connection between the' two major population areas within Scott County (Shakopee and Prior Lake) , two regional parks and one park reserve. as well as the Minnesota River Wildlife Refuge/Recreation Area and Trail . According to current estimates Shakopee has 10,900 persons and Prior Lake, 9,200. These are not large cities compared to some other parts of the Metro- politan Area, but they are the two largest population centers in Scott County. Between 1980 and 1990 Shakopee is expected to grow more than 20 percent in population, Prior Lake over 50 percent and Savage more than 100 percent. As with other facilities in the regional system, the greatest use is anticipated from people living near the corridor. The District bases its use projection figures on its experience in operating North Hennepin Regional Trail and in-park trails at Cleary Lake Regional Park and Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve. Projected Activity Annual Use Bicycling 43,000 Hiking 3,000 Snowmobiling 18,000 Total Projected Annual Use 64,000 These use figures seem reasonable. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT As stated in the plan: Regional trail corridors are linear parklands on which multiple trail uses occur. They serve both as a recreation resource and as a transportation corridor to allow easier non-auto access to major recreation facilities. Attachment A and the graphics that accompany the plan show the preferred alignment of the trail . The northern end of the trail begins at the Shakopee municipal parking lot at the City Hall . This trailhead node provides a connection with the Minnesota River Valley State Trail . Unless the city's "revitalization" plan makes Holmes St. preferable, the trail will follow Lewis St. through downtown Shakopee south to Shakopee High School , go along the edge of the school prop- erty and then continue south along the east side of County Rd. 70 to the inter- section with County Rd. 14. In this segment the regional trail will connect with an east-west municipal trail planned in the area south of the high school . The trail will also cross the future route of State Hwy. 101 (Shakopee By- Pass) , either below grade or above grade along with the county road. The trail will then continue along County Rd. 14 and follow County Rd. 17 on the southwest side to the intersection with County Rd. 81, which will carry the trail into Spring Lake Regional Park. Here it will connect into the park's internal trail system which has yet to be developed. is From the northeast corner of the regional park the trail will be an overland corridor trail for a quarter mile to County Rd. 83. It will then cross the road at grade and follow it along the north side of the road to the intersec- tion with County Rd. 21. Here the trail will be constructed along a realigned County Rd. 21 on the abandoned railroad right- of -way and across'a new narrows bridge through downtown Prior Lake to the intersection with State Hwy. 13. Construction on this new County Rd. 21 is now underway. Through this downtown area the trail will be developed as part of the road project and will be a sidewalk type trail separated from the road by a boulevard. From State Hwy. 13 to Cleary Lake Regional Park the trail will also share the abandoned right-of-way with the county road. The trail will enter the north- western corner of Cleary Lake Regional Park and connect to the existing trail system. The last segment of the trail will be an overland corridor following an existing power line easement to the southwest corner of Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve, where it can tie to trails yet to be developed. The plan proposes the development of one treadway within the corridor, an 8 - foot wide paved bike/hike trail within a minimum width 30 -foot corridor. Uses `3f diva, �i '� li %;6 1.1 `S &'r j att,b, r 4l'. n q to t,,e T X52 25i �'i r c 1,Z ii i'i 1. as 'v4'i li �i be developed for biking and hiking and will undoubtedly be used for jogging as well. Where appropriate some segments will also allow snowmobiling on the grass shoulder of the treadway, such as the segment from south of Shakopee High School to Spring Lake Regional Park. In the park itself, snowmobiling will use a connection to an existing trail. The segment from State Hwy. 13 to Cleary Lake will also have snowmobiling as will the segment from Cleary Lake to Murphy- Hanrehan. The latter segment is also planned for horseback riding, extending the use of riding trails planned for Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve. Although there may be some informal use of the trail for cross-country skiing, groomed trails will not be maintained within the corridor, because of the difficulty of keeping snow on the bituminous treadway, and because there are better oppor- tunities for this use at other regional facilities within the area. For the most part land to be acquired has some vegetative cover, varying from turf grasses to forage grasses to some light forest cover. The northern sec- tion of the trail is fairly flat. There are some gently rolling hills in the southern part. Regional parks located along the trail and connections to the Minnesota Valley State Trail will provide further variety. Natural vegetation will be used wherever possible to provide separation and buffering to enhance the visual experience. Fencing and access gates will be used as necessary to minimize conflict with adjacent land uses and inappro- priate trail use, as well as to protect trail users. Trail side amenities will be developed as use indicates and as funds are available. E COSTS At the present time HCPRD is seeking approval of the amended master plan but is not making a grant request. The District anticipates that acquisition needed for the trail can be accomplished within the existing acquisition contract of $175,000, except for HCPRD's portion of the abandoned railroad right-of-way which has been purchased by Scott County and Prior Lake. These costs are yet to be negotiated. Total costs are expected to be less than the total of the existing contract plus the 250,000 allocated as part of Group 4 projects, which were authors r fowhich bond_funds w--- i1 -1 -b -e-- available early in FY 86. CONFLICTS Tho ;uR_ld9_rL ��.c.tpr n,' an, ; � 1R!1R.1m1RcL F., +% I i -,Jt„ W: +,,h, rtt,hftr, land uses in establishing the alignment of the trail corridor. A major factor in a trail corridor routing has been to avoid hazardous road crossings. Following is a summary of planned crossings. - Minnesota 101 at grade, controlled intersection - Ten city steets, including County Rd. 16 at grade - Proposed Minnesota 101 By -Pass below grade - County Rd. 79 at grade - County Rd. 24 at grade - County Rd. 17 at grade - County Rd. 83 at grade - Minnesota 13 at grade, controlled intersection - County Rd. 27 below grade (depending on future road configuration) - County Rd. 68 at grade Crossing of major roads will be above or below grade or at controlled inter- sections. Other places where the trail crosses roads were selected to minimize conflicts and dangers to trail users. Agreements have been worked out with Scott County Highway Department and the City of Prior Lake for the portions of the trail corridor that will be acquired and developed for joint trail and roadway use. Development of the trail corri- dor segment between Prior Lake and Cleary Lake crossing State Hwy. 13 will be incorporated into the county road project. Regional park and open space funds will be used for the trail portion of the project. Since alignment of the trail is adjacent to county highway right-of-way, negative impact on private development is expected to be minimal. At the same time, some limitations will be placed on the number of driveway crossings of the trail corridor. This is consistent with county and municipal guidelines for access into county roadways. PUBLIC SERVICES Small portions of the trail are located within the urban service area of the Freestanding Growth Centers of Shakopee and Prior Lake where there are muni- cipal sewer and water systems. Most of the trail corridor is located in the rural service area with on-site sewer and water systems. No further assess- ments for sewer and water against the trail corridor property are anticipated. However, easements may be necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. The trail may be accessed from many points, either from road right-of-way or from regional and local parks. Trail user services such as parking lots, restrooms and drinking water will be provided at regional facilities as well as at municipal parks and public service areas within Shakopee and Prior Lake. Services such as restaurants, grocery stores, and equipment repair shops, will be available at various private businesses accessible from the trail corridor. The trail will serve as a connection to existing and proposed local trails within Shakopee and Prior Lake, as well as to the Minnesota Valley State Trail. OPERATIONS HCPRD, through its joint powers agreement with Scott County, will operate the regional trail in accordance with its adopted policies, ordinances and regula- tions. The plan gives estimated annual operating costs based on 1982 costs for the demonstration corridor portion of North Hennepin Regional Trail and on other in -park trails operated by HCPRD. Biking/Hiking (11.9 miles) $18,837 ($1,583/per mile) Snowmobiling (8.1 miles) 6,156 ($760/per mile) These costs appear reasonable estimates. Provisions for operating the trail, as outlined, are satisfactory. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION This amendment to the trail corridor plan has been reviewed at public meetings with the Scott -Hennepin Park Advisory Board, Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board of Commissioners, Scott County Board of Commissioners, the City of Shakopee Planning Commission, the City of Prior Lake City Council, the Spring Lake Township Board and the Credit River Township Board. Almost all of the comments received were very favorable to the acquisition of the trail. HCPRD plans to conduct further reviews, including public hearings, before development of the trail. COMMENTS FROM OTHER UNITS OF GOVERNMENT In response to its notification of the Council's review of this plan amendment, the Shakopee City Council expressed its continued interest in the acquisition of land and development and operation of the proposed trail. In their opinion, "This will be an excellent addition to the overall Regional Park System." The Scott Soil and Water Conservation District expressed concern over the 22 acres of farmland that will be lost for crop production, made recommendations regarding construction of the trail, and requested that final plans be reviewed by their agency. No other written comments were received. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE POLICY PLAN The adopted Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan identifies as one of its objectives monitoring and evaluating use of trail corridor projects for which funds have been granted or allocated (3.4). This same objective is included in the draft policy plan now under discussion. Scott -Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor is one of identified. Since acquisition (and development) • be done, this plan amendment helps to carry out consistent with the principles, uses, functions, outlined in the policy plan. s ISSUES the four trail corridors are necessary before this can this objective. It is also qualifications and uses The Scott County engineer has expressed concern regarding the acquisition and development of the regional trail adjacent to the right-of-way of county roads, since several of the roads suggested by the plan are scheduled to be upgraded over the next 20 years. It would be desirable for HCPRD and the county engin- eering department to work out a prior agreement on joint planning with the goal of minimizing future conflicts between road upgrading needs and trailheads if the roadways were to be widened into the trail corridor in the future. The Metropolitan Council's right to review any such changes should be maintained. All other issues identified in the plan have been addressed in a satisfactory manner. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Scott -Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan amendment as sub- mitted by Hennepin County Park Reserve District is adequate for review. It addresses all major points asked for in the Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan. It is appropriate for this stage in the planning process. 2. The master plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan and system plan. 3. The trail as proposed will serve recreation and some transportation needs of residents of the Metropolitan Area, principally those in Scott County. 4. Funding is sufficent to complete the acquisition phase under the present contract and the $250,000 allocated as part of Group 4 projects authorized by the legislature and for which bonds should be sold early in FY 86. 5. If certain segments of the trail, for example, the portions between Spring Lake and Cleary Lake Regional Parks are developed first, they will be usuable. RECOMMENDATION That the Metropolitan Council approve the Scott -Hennepin Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan Amendment as consistent with the Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan and system plan. FM116P-PROTXO 7.31.85 HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK RESERVE DISTRICT SCOTT COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL CORRIDOR `L, MILES AP 50 M`NNk 1 I 1 t 1 I BELLE i PLAINE w U) yF DON WILKIE REGIONAL PARK STATE 10/ \J • SHAKOPEE L.r 1 Regional • Trail ° J , Q SAVAGE I Corridor •-- L - CO. 42 ••• r J PRIOR LAKE 1 1 MURP Y- SPRING ILAKEI _ IHANR REGIONAL PARK jw �' •.� i PARK H/ • RES RVE STATE 282 CLEARY L KE m O cn r N w r'NEW Q —O J `I PRAGUE N CO. 68 REGIONAL PAR Q m I NEW MARKET 1 LIELKO� n N L- tn Ct � a v nn a PARK RESERVES BAKER CARVER CROW-HASSAN ELM CREEK HYLAND LAKE LAKE REBECCA MURPHY-HANREHAN REGIONAL PARKS BRYANTLAKE CLEARY LAKE CLIFTON E FRENCH COON RAPIDS DAM EAGLE LAKE FISH LAKE JAMES W. WILKIE LAKE SARAH SPRING LAKE SPECIAL USE AREAS ARTHUR E ALLEN WILDLIFE SANCTUARY BAKER PARK GOLF COURSE CLEARY LAKE GOLF COURSE HYLAND HILLS SKI AREA NOERENBERG MEMORIAL PARK AWATASSO ISLAND iLD GOOSE CHASE ISLAND TRAIL CORRIDORS NORTH HENNEPIN TRAIL BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DAVID LATVAAHO CHAIR GOLDEN VALLEY SCOTT L NEIMAN VICE CHAIR MINNEAPOLIS JUDITH S. ANDERSON BLOOMINGTON SHIRLEY A. BONINE MAPLE PLAIN WILLIAM H. BOYNTON ST. LOUIS PARK WILLIAM I. HOLBROOK MINNEAPOLIS NAOMILOPER MINNEAPOLIS VERN J. HARTENBURG SUPERINTENDENT d SECRETARY TO THE BOARD i ,t11L.Ci���Vi�l T Ytiv�`,�s3'�Cll. Fc�-�RRtii. Hennepin County Park Reserve District _ 3800 County Road 24 a Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 • Telephone 612-473-4693 March 14, 1985 Mr. Jack Mauritz, Chief Park Planner Metropolitan Parks and Open Space 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Scott County Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment Dear Jack: Enclosed find the amended master plan for the Scott County Regional Trail. Included, also, are the approvals by the Scott County Board of Commissioners and the District Board. The Scott -Hennepin Park Advisory Board also reviewed the plan and recommended approval. It is my understanding that there will be meetinas of the Parks and Open Space Commission and District staff to review the master plan. Subsequently, there would be a briefing at a Commission meeting with final action at a later meeting. Graphic materials to supplement the narrative of the master plan are available for presentation at all briefinqs and meetings. Please contact Del Miller or me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Gregory A. -ck Director of nagement Services GAM:ghd Encl. , HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK RESERVE DISTRICT SCOTT COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL CORRIDOR W a F- N 0 1 2 3 MILES 0 50 i J I STATE 282 CO. 68 CLEARY L KE REGIONAL PAR rQ J fl IJORDON 09 J CO.8 I L/ I – 1 I (BELLE I I PLAINE NEW MARKET -Ip J I '-iELKOnj Mw N N L- J N r )NEW a �> O0 J ,PRAGUE N b O - 1 WILKIE REGIONAL PARK STATE 1 • L _ i i SHAKOPEE � P--6 I Regional • �l�j ; "' Trail I° j, i c snvncE I • SL- L- --J I -- CO. a2 CO. PRIOR LAKE MURP Y - SPRING 'LAKE�I- ••••• --- 1 - HANK HAN REGIONAL PARK �° • •% PARK -• RES RIVE 50 i J I STATE 282 CO. 68 CLEARY L KE REGIONAL PAR rQ J fl IJORDON 09 J CO.8 I L/ I – 1 I (BELLE I I PLAINE NEW MARKET -Ip J I '-iELKOnj Mw N N L- J N r )NEW a �> O0 J ,PRAGUE N b O - 1 SEP I r 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPE�-�UUuuuua� 0 0 0 OO UU p MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT ROOM 119, CITY HALL 348-2853 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 September 16, 1985 Mayor Eldon Reinke City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mayor Reinke: On Thursday, September 12, 1985, I was attending the races at Canterbury Downs. During the second race, I began suffering symptoms of cardiac distress. I went to the First Aid Station, and it was determined that I was, in fact, suffering from --what all of us 47 -year-old over-worked males feared the most --cardiac failure. Sergeant Richard Kaley of your Police Department arrived within minutes to render his assistance to the medical personnel already present. His reassurance and comforting words to me were a very major factor in my condition being stabilized. I have been a law enforcement officer for 24 years --eleven in a supervisory capacity. Needless to say, I have been present at numerous similar such incidents throughout my career, but this was my "rookie" exposure to being in a receiving capacity in which encouragement and outright tenderness exhibited by Sgt. Kaley was above and beyond anything I have ever been exposed to in any capacity. Sgt. Kaley, at my request, notified my family and loved ones of my plight in a manner such as not to inflict unnecessary anxiety, for which both they and I will always be forever grateful. Sgt. Kaley followed the ambulance to St. Francis Hospital and stayed with me until my condition stabilized and I was taken to the Cardiac Care Unit. My parting words to him at that time were, "I owe you one, my friend." Thus, this letter I am sure ith the addition of the race track to your community your City and I Police Dep t will be exposed to a multitude of new challenges. With the caliber i of men suc t. Kaley, I know that you will meet those challenges and continue I a - MO iwl"S! F. r>lf l'J MAYOR ELDON REINKE PAGE TWO SEPTEMBER 16, 1985 to render outstanding service to your community. Respectfully, Lieutenant Mike Fisher, Police License Inspector, Minneapolis Police Department MCF: fo CC: Police Chief Thomas Brownell Sergeant Richard Kaley 0 ROBERT J. SCHMITZ Senator 36th District 6730 Old Hwy. 169 Blvd. Jordan, Minnesota 55352 Phone: 492-2182 Office: 235 State Capitoi St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone: 296-7157 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota Dear John: 55379 ; E C F 1 E D Senate ? 195 State of Minnesota October 7, 1985 Thank you for your letter in which you notified me of the Shakopee City Council's position of the proposed Mega -Mall in Bloomington. I fully agree that tax subsidies should not be used to support a development that would assist as many as 800 retail outlets in a region that likely already has more retail capacity than is needed. The same reasoning can be used that we have all the facilities in the amusement industry that we can presently maintain profitabily. The Ghermezian brothers feel strongly that the Mega -Mall will attract more than enough tourists to offset the competitive disadvantage the project would cause existing businesses. I seriously question that this would be the case. Thank you again. Sincerely, ROB J. SCH TZ Cha rman Local & Urban Government Committee RJS/st COMMITTEES • Chairman, Local and Urban Government • Rules and Administration Finance • Transportation • Veterans and General Legislation KRASS. MEYER AND WALSTEN CHARTERED Marschall Road Business Center 327 South Marschall Road Shakopee, Mn 55379 **445-5080** i City of Shakopee / BILLING DATE 07-30-85 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, Mn 55379 S U M M A R Y Account Number Client Name Balance RE Line SHA11373002-1 City of Shakopee /I/ General SHAII373167-1 City of Shakopee �I ,�3/o,7Jl.Il Luebke Suit SHA11373169-1 City of Shakooee Rahr Malting Tax Apoeal SHA11373174-1 City of Shakooee Rezoning re: Bed and Breakfast SHA11373175-1 City of Shakopee `— Suoer 8 Motel Bonds SHA11373176-1 City of Shakooee /w/ Richard's Pub Suspension SHA11373177-1 City of Shakopee Mining CUP SHA11373178-1 City of Shakopee Q Rezoning Application -Industrial Pk SHA1373157A-1 City of Shakopee -1.1130f*34 Racetrack. Tax Increment-Condemnat io SHA51373118-1 City of Shakooee ,� 3 , q 3/0, SD %. 4( Wangerin (Bill to K Mart TID) SHA51373134-1 City of Shakooee JG� Fire Truck Problem SHA51373144-1 City of Shakooee Chard SHA51373150-1 City of Shakooee Zylastra Cable TV Studio $582.30 $33.75 $0.00 $270.00 $0.00 $1, 377. 00 $505.00 $342.00 $313.75 $50.50 $84.00 $0. 00 $0.00 �RAS�. MEYER AND W�LS�EN CHARTERED / / Marschall Road Business Center 327 South MabschaIl Road , Shakooee. Mn 55379 **445-5080** / � City of Shakooee BILLING DATE 08-30-E5 129 East 1st Avenue Shakooee, Mn 55379 S U M M A R Y Account Number Client Name ' Balance ' RE Line - SHA11373002_1 City of Shakooee $432.00 ���./�/ .- /~/ General SHA11373167-1 City of Shakooee $0.00 ---- Luebke Suit ' SHA11373174-1 City of Shakooee $225.00 y6'/ Rezoning re: Bed and Breakfast SHA11373176-1 City of Shakooee $607.50 ��/ /"' Richard's Pub Suspension BHA11373177-1 City of Shakooee , Mining CUP �']m/���r� - . SHA11373178-1 City of Shakooee $224.00 Rezoning Aoolication-Industrial P4 - - SHA1373157A-1 City of Shakooee $270.00 Racetrack Tax Increment-Condemnatio ' SHA513731 18-1 - City of Shakooee ~-� `" `'' '� - ' ' � '' $573.25 3/0'����7 Wanperin (Bill to K Mart TID) -' -- ' SHA51373134-1 City of Shakooee � -' ' $0.00 ---- Fire Truck Problem SHA51373144-1 City of Shakooee $70.00 4/ Chard SHA51373153-1 City of Shakooee $0.00 ----- Hardrives Suit , SHA8137301 1-1 City of Shakooee $1°425.50 Prosecutions TOTAL **ESTATE PLANNING Video Taoe*+ -r �/~ Avai lable For Your Use ��'� I�� '� / ^/=- - - CALL TO REQUEST -445-50821 �V ► / KRASS, MEYER AND WALSTEN CHARTERED Marschall Road Business Center, Q _ 193 327 South Marschall Road Shakopee, Pn 55379 cri-Y C) _ I **445-5080**L � City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 09-30-85 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, Mn 55379 S U M M A R Y Account Number Client Name Balance RE Line SHA11373OO2-1 City of Shakopee $420.00 W General SHA11373174-1 City of Shakopee $0.00 y� Rezoning re: Bed and Breakfast SHA11373176-1 City of Shakopee $101.25 Richard's Pub Suspension SHA11373177-1 City of Shakopee $0.00 Mining CUP SHA11373178-1 City of Shakopee $0.00 Rezoning Application -Industrial Pk SHA1373157A-1 City of Shakopee --$326.25 4vo Racetrack Tax Increment-Condemnatio SHA51373118-1 City of Shakopee $1,711.50 �3 Y3lo• 000• vb _ ._ Wangerin (Bill to K Mart TID) _ SHA51373144-1 City of Shakopee 7 $0.00 S6•'(3/0•5"otf,q_/ Chard SHA81373O11-1 City of Shakopee _ $2,596.50 Prosecutions TOTAL $5,155.50 **ESTATE PLANNING Video Tape** Available For Your- Use CALL TO REQUEST -445-5080 TENTATIVE AGENDA Energy and Transportation Committee Shakopee, Minnesota October 17, 1985 Chrm. Ziegler presiding: 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Minutes - September 19, 1985 and September 30, 1985 3. Action: Solid Waste Abatement Resolution No. 2453 4. Informational Items A. Transit Feasibility Study Update B. Recycling Monthly Report - September C. Dial -A -Ride Monthly Report - September D. Van Pool Monthly Report - September E. Richard's Asphalt Letter of Appreciation 5. Other Business A. B. 6. Adjournment Barry A. Stock Admin. Intern CITY OF SHAKOPEE /3 SHAKOPEE COALITION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 3, 1985 The meeting was called to order at 7:09 AM in the Community Room of the Citizen State Bank by Chairperson Jim Streefland. Members Present: Jim Streefland-Lions Club, Jeanette Kleve-SACS, Virgil Mears -ISD #720, Gary Laurent -People Interested In Education, Joan Salter -Food Shelf, Jackie Kes-Scott County Economic Council, Marianne Kibler -County Extension Dept., Brian Norris -Citizens State Bank, John K.Anderson,- City Of Shakopee, Kathy Lewis-S.C.S., and George Muenchow-S.C.S. Gary Laurent, a member of the "People Interested In Education Committee", gave a presentation on behalf of that committee in regard to the School Referendum scheduled for Tuesday, October 8. The question before the voters is whether or not to retain the 5.5 Mill Levy which is running out. A no vote could lead to some very serious problems. Marianne Kibler reported for the County Extension Office with emphasis on next week being National 4H Week. Several local businesses are cooperating with using 4H Placemats in their restaurants. Opportunities are out there for children to participate in over 150 special interests. One particularly popular one is radio announcing. 4H for many years is strong, in cities even though the original intent was for "Farm Kids". There are 14 4-H Clubs in Scott County. The program is basically for youth in Grade 3 through age 19. Jeanette Kleve gave a brief report on SACS "Marathon" scheduled this Saturday with funds garnered to enhance Catholic Education in Shakopee. Jackie Kes & Joan Salter reported on the Food Shelf and the Scott -Carver Economic Council. There was a slight decline in Food Shelf usage in September, although the numbers are still way up there. 9,996 meals were served during the month. Forty families were served in Shakopee alone. The annual "Give Where You Live" campaign has started. They desperately need help. They continue to be housed on a temporary basis. It was pointed out that this agency has many success stories. The annual "Holiday Project" soon will be going. John Anderson did not have time to give a report on Fiscal Disparities and its effect on Shakopee, but encouraged everyone to read the article on this subject in this week's Shakopee Valley News. The next meeting will be Thursday morning, November 14, at 7:00 AM at the Citizens State Bank Community Room. Everyone was urged to mark this on their calendar. This meeting probably will be a "Work Session". The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 AM. Respectfully submitted, George Muenchow, Acting Secty. iy PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 19, 1985 Chairman Ziegler called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with Commissioners McNeil, Weeks, Schwingler and Spiotta present. Barry Stock, Administrative Intern, was also present. Commissioners Sorenson, Dunwell, and Allen were absent. Schwingler/Weeks moved to approve the minutes of July 18 and August 22, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. VAN POOL FARE POLICY BALLOT RESULTS Mr. Stock recalled that at the July Energy and Transportation Committee Meeting, the committee agreed to poll the van pool riders giving them a choice between two fare alternatives. At that time the committee recommended that the majority decision of the riders be implemented on September 1, 1985• Based on this action, Mr. Stock informed the board that he had notified all the van pools of the results of the balloting. This evening Mr. Stock stated that he would like to share the results of the balloting with the committee. The first fare alternative to be considered by the van pool riders involved a $1.50 per passenger trip fare or a monthly fare of $47.50. Approval of this alternative would have eliminated the existing pay when you don't ride policy. The second alternative to be considered by the van pool riders involved the preservation of the status quo. Here passengers pay by the week - $12.50, by the month - $47.50, or by the trip - $2.00. Mr. Stock informed the board that survey results seem, to indicate that the majority of the van pool riders were satisfied with the current fare policy. Of the 56 riders surveyed, 44 responses were returned. Eighteen or 41% of the riders responding were in favor of option one. Twenty-six or 59% of the riders were in favor of keeping the status quo. Commission Member Spiotta questioned why more riders were not in favor of the new fare policy when they themselves had indicated in.earlier surveys that they were dissatisfied with the existing fare policy. Commission Member Schwingler stated that she felt that when the riders were faced with the two alternatives as set forth, a more thorough analysis of the cost ramifications and the two Page 2 fare alternatives was done by the rider. In conclusion, she stated that the majority of the riders would come out ahead by preserving the status quo. In light of the many different fare scenarios that arise in our van pools, Commisssion Member Schwingler requested staff to notify each van pool driver through a memo on how to handle as many of the different fare scenarios as the Transit Coordinator could think of. Mr. Stock felt that this was a good suggestion and would pursue the idea immediately. After further discussion Weeks/McNeil moved to support the current fare structure based on the results of the fare balloting. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Stock requested that Item #4, Solid Waste Development Plan Strategy, be deferred to the end of the meeting and that the informational items be discussed at this time. Because of the significance of the Agenda Item #4, the committee members agreed to pursue the informational items and save as much time in the meeting for the Solid Waste Development Plan strategy. Staff noted that in July the recycling particiaption rates increased in target area number 3, while target areas 1 and 2 remained relatively constant. Mr. Stock also noted that through some calulations he had discovered that Shakopee was reducing Shakopee's mixed municipal waste stream by approximately 2.93%• In the August report Mr. Stock noted that he had completed an interim evaluation of the recycling program. Based on his actual site evaluation of the recycling program, he had concluded that the recycling bins were having no effect on individuals participation rates. The bags on the other hand seemed to be used in the area in which they were distributed. He stated that the major reason for the ineffectiveness of the bins in our program could be attributed to the fact that a recycling program had been in existence in Shakopee for a number of years and that changing people's habits by pursuing the use of bins as a storage mechanism was not any easier than the techniques that were employed by our residents prior to the program. Mr. Stock then noted that he had developed several objectives that he would like the Committee to review and recommend to the City Council and Scott County for inclusion in the County Solid Waste Development plan. He further stated that he would expand on these objectives later in the meeting. Page 3 t� In the July and August Dial -A -Ride Monthly Reports, Mr. Stock pointed out that our ridership has remained above the 1,000 passenger trip level for the past three months. He also noted that in.August our Dial -A -Ride ridership was the highest to date. However, Mr. Stock noted that our subsidy per passenger trip for the Dial -A -Ride was still above $10.00 for our evaluation period. Mr. Stock noted that with a decrease in the transit mill levy in 1986, Shakopee will have to re-evaluate the Dial -A -Ride Program. Mr. Stock pointed out that in 1986 we will have enough money to run the Dial -A -Ride Program at its existing service level. However, he stated that now is the time to start thinking of alternatives for improving the effectiveness of that operation. As discussed in the past, several committee members eluded to several alternatives for the Dial -A -Ride such as a Shared Ride Taxi Program or a city take over of the service utilizing city owned vehicles that could be purchased through our program. Mr. Stock then noted that in July and August the Van Pool Program maintained its fairly consistant level of subsidization. He noted that a new van pool has been created to Minneapolis which runs for the 8:00 to 4:30 work shift. He noted that a driver and a backup driver had been secured for this van. With the Winter season rapidly approaching, Mr. Stock stated that he felt assured that all the vans would be running at capacity within two months. SOLID WASTE DEVELOPMENT PLAN STRATEGY Mr. Stock informed the Board that in March of this year, the Metropolitan Council adopted the Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. This plan requires counties in the Metro area to develop a land disposal abatement plan that is in accordance with the objectives established by the Met Council and the Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. At this time, Scott County is in the process of drafting their land disposal abatement plan. In an effort to include cities in developing that plan that is consistent with the individual objectives of each community, Scott County is requesting input from Shakopee at this time. In providing input to the county, staff has developed a set of general policy statements and possible objectives which support Shakopee's committment to an ongoing waste abatement program in both our community and county. Page 4 Mr. Stock then went over several sections of the development plan that pertain directly to Shakopee. Mr. Stock informed the Board that if voluntary source separation programs do not achieve Met Council goals by January 1, 1988 cities must develop source separation ordinances by July 1, 1988 or adopt the counties ordinance. The Met Council's source separation objective for Shakopee and Scott County by 1988 is an 8% reduction in Shakopee's municipal waste. Mr. Stock informed the Board that currently we are reducing Shakopee's mixed municipal waste by 3% through our curbside recycling program. In order for us to reach our 8% objective, different alternatives for source separation, such as office paper recycling, must be implemented relatively soon or we will have to develop some type of mechanism to increase participation in our recycling program. By 1988 Scott County is also required to have 2% of its solid waste stream diverted from landfills through waste reduction activities, and an additional 18% of the waste stream reduced through centralized processing. Centralized processing involves waste combustion and compost/co-composting facilities. Commission Member Spiotta stated that she felt that it would be appropriate for the Energy a -id Transportation Committee to go on a tour of the waste com- bustion facility in Savage to get a better understanding of what is involved when we are speaking about centralized processing. All the Commission Members agreed that it would be a worthwhile experience for the Committee to tour Richard's Asphalt Refining Company in Savage, if staff could arrange for a tour. Mr. Stock then stated that he would try to arrange for such an en- gagement. Staff then noted that in 1986 there will be funding available for waste abatement programs. He also stated that money will be available for the construction of high tech waste processing facilities. Should Shakopee desire to pursue any funding in 1986, we would have to do so through the county. Mr. Stock then eluded to the several preliminary policy statements that he had developed for discussion at tonight's meeting. The Commission Members then dis- cussed the policy statements and objectives as drafted by staff. While the Commission felt that staff had done a good job developing the objective and policy statements, theyconcluded that it would be premature for them to propose anything to Council for final consideration without understanding the full impact of the Scott County Solid Waste Development Plan and what direction the County is pursuing in meeting their requirements as set forth by the Metropolitan Council. Page 5 Upon further discussion, Schwingler/Spiotta moved to request staff to contact officials from Scott County to be present at a special Energy and Transportation Meeting to discuss and provide more information about the Solid Waste Develop- ment Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock then tried to determine what night would be appropriate for aspecial meeting of the Energy and Transportation Committee. On a poll of the Committee Members, it was decided that staff should try to set up a special meeting with the County on September 30, 1985• Schwingler/Spiotta then moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Barry Stock Administrative Intern Transit/Recycling Coordinator BS/dd PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE) MINNESOTA .. SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 Upon completion of a tour of the Richard's Asphalt Waste Combustion Facility in Savage, the Energy and Transportation Committee proceeded back to the Shakopee City Council Chambers for their Special Meeting. At 7:30 p.m., Chairman Ziegler called the meeting to order with Commissioners McNeil, Schwingler, Spiotta, Dunwell, and Allen present. Barry Stock, Shakopee Administrative Intern, Al Frechette, Scott County Environmental Planner, and Jan Flesland, Scott County Environmental Planner, were also present. Commissioners Sorenson and Weeks were absent. Administrative Intern Stock noted that at the last Energy and Transportation Com- mittee Meeting, it was the desire of the Committee to have representatives from Scott County's Environmental Planning Department present to- discuss the potential impact of the Metropolitan Council's Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. Mr. Stock informed the Committee that Al Frechette and Jan Flesland from Scott County's Environmental Planning Department were present in the audience to answer any of the Committee's questions in regard to Scott County's Solid Waste Management Plan. Ms. Flesland then stated that because of its population, the City of Shakopee was the only community in Scott County that had to establish specific percentage goals and objectives for the reduction of waste in our community. Because Shakopee is the only community that had to establish their own goals and objectives, Ms. Flesland felt that it was important for Shakopee to develop their own strategy and not have the County dictate what direction Shakopee should be taking. She has therefore re- quested input from the City of Shakopee in developing a list of their own objectives and policy statements that Shakopee would like to see incorporated into the County's Solid Waste Policy Plan. Mr. Frechette added that the County had approached all the communities in.Scott County, as well as the townships, to inquire whether they wanted to provide any input into the development of the County's Solid Waste Policy Plan. Mr. Frechette then stated that it was important for each city or township within Scott County to have an understanding of what each city or township is con- sidering in terms of waste management. He pointed out that without this understanding the County may be proposing something that is in conflict with the City of Shakopee's Solid Waste Objectives. Mr. Stock then questioned whether or not the City of Shakopee had to meet the Solid Waste Objectives as established by the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Flesland responded by stating that the goals established by Met Council were county goals and that Shakopee could elect to set higher or lower objectives for their community. She further added that the Met Council's goals were somewhat idealistic and that she thought it would be more appropriate to develop goals that are resonable for Shakopee to attain. Page 2 Continued - Special Session Mr. Stock then questioned the reasonableness of the Met Council's statement that if voluntary efforts are not successful in achieving Met Council's goals, that they would pursue the development of mandatory recycling ordinances. Mr. Frechette responded by stating that in order for the Met Council to do this they would have to pass additional state legislation that would require counties to pass mandatory recycling ordinances. Mr. Frechette further stated that Scott County and the rest of the counties in the Metropolitan area were opposed to this type of legislation. Mr. Stock then question whether or not the City of Shakopee and the County could take the position that they would want all of the counties waste processed at Richard's Waste Combustion Facility and force Richard's to take Scott County's garbage exclusively. Mr. Frechette responded by stating that there is a mechanism whereby Scott County could do that. He elaborated by stating it would take legislative amendments to give Scott County waste designation authority. Mr. Frechette further stated that all the other counties, except Dakota, have already pursued and achieved waste flow control desig- nation authority. Mr. Frechette further stated that Scott County is seriously con- sidering this type of authority for all the County. Mr. Frechette then stated that Scott County had been approached by counties south of us who would like our County to be included in their counties master plans. This will provide for a regional approach to solving the solid waste problem. He stated that the counties south of us were looking at building a refuse derived fuel plant and it would be in need of additional garbage from Scott County or other near by counties. Committee Memeber Schwingler then questioned whether or not implementing recycling programs on a seven county basis would create problems for marketing the materials collected. Ms. Flesland responded by stating that the Metropolitan Council had two staff persons working full time on that problem alone. Mr. Frechette added that as the recycling programs continued to expand in the Metropolitan Area the price for materials collected would continue to drop. This will force communities to seek recycling collectors that will likely be subsidized for their collection of the materials. The Committee then discussed how the Met Council would go about enforcing and mon- itoring compliance with objectives that they have established for each county. Mr. Stock stated that he thought it would be very difficult for the Metropolitan Council to get a good idea of how much waste is being directed away from landfills. He did, however, state that in 1986 each landfill would be equipped with a scale to weigh garbage being landfilled. Mr. Stock stated that the majority of the cities and counties in the Metropolitan Area were opposed to mandatory resource separation and he felt that this type of program would be virtually impossible to enforce. Mr. Stock then discussed the following objectives that he would like the Energy and Transportation Committee to recommend to City Council for approval and insertion in Scott County's solid waste master plan. 1. Implement a city-wide or county -wide office paper recycling program by June 1, 1986. 2. Implement a city-wide or county -wide yard waste composting program by June 1, 1986. i 3. Adopt a city scavenger ordinance by December 1, 1985• Page 3 ' Continued - Special Session 4. ReQuest proposals in the 1986 garbage contract to include a city-wide curbside recycling pickup by the garbage contractors for the collection of paper, glass, aluminum, and yard waste. 5. Have an 8% reduction in Shakopee's Mixed Municipal Waste through source separation by January 1, 1988. Mr. Stock then addressed several policy statements that he would also like to see included in the County's master plan. 1. If a recycling contractor is selected, request funding from the County to subsidize any increase in garbage rates in Shakopee due to the recycling component of the contract. 2. Shakopee will continue to pursue the development of one common recycling center in Shakopee that would have the capability of having round the clock drop off capabilities. 3. Shakopee will pursue the inclusion of a Solid Waste Management Planning element in the City's Comprehensive Plan that is consistent with the County's master plan. 4. Shakopee support public/private cooperation in developing waste reduction schemes that will quantifiably reduce solid waste landfilling. 5. Shakopee will contirue to expand purchasing of recyclable products. 6. Shakopee will provide assistance in distributing and implementing publicity tools designed by the County. 7. Shakopee will assist with the regional coordination of Scott County's Waste Abatement activities. 8. Shakopee is interested in investigating the possibility of public or private mass burn, cogeneration and/or facilities in Shakopee. 9. Shakopee supports Scott County's pursuit of flow control/waste designation authority legislation. 10. Shakopee supports Scott County's efforts in working with other counties for joint solid waste reduction contracts and the sharing of waste disposal facilities. 11. Shakopee will continue to educate the public of waste disposal sites for batteries/tires/oil, etc. Commission Member Spiotta then stated that she felt it was a bit premature to im- plement a city-wide or county -wide yard waste composting program by June 1, 1986. She felt that it would be more appropriate to investigate the possibility of im- plementing a city-wide or a county -wide yard waste composting program and report back to the Committee by June 1, 1986. The other Commission Members were all in agreement with her suggestion. Page 4 Continued - Special Session Chairman Ziegler then stated that he felt that if we were going to pursue requests for proposals in the 1986 Garbage Contract to include a city-wide curbside recycling pickup, he would like to see proposals for the collection of paper, glass, aluminum, and yard waste also to include plastic, batteries and tires. After discussion the Committee Members were all in favor with Chairman Ziegler's suggestion. After further discussion, Dunwell/Schwingler move to authorize staff to draft and send a preliminary resolution explaining the Committee's recommendations in terms of Solid Waste Management to Scott County for inclusion in their Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan. In addition staff was requested to present the resolution back to the Energy and Transportation Committee for final approval at their next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The Committee then reviewed two thank you letters that staff had drafted upon re- quest of the Committee and sent to the Shakopee City Council and the Industrial Commercial Committee. Staff then presented the Committee with a Van Pool Bulletin that discussed several different fare scenarios that could.occur on a Van Pool. This was done upon request from the Committee to clear up any misunderstandings that maybe occurring in the Van Pool Program. Schwingler/Spiotta then moved to approve the Van Pool Bulletin as drafted by staff and to send it to each Van Pool driver and riders for their infor- mation. Motion carried unanimously. Dunwell/Schwingler then moved to adourn the meeting at 9:25 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Barry Stock Administrative Intern City of Shakopee BS/dd Is SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION R1T lTTTTTC) T/`T 1TTT The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on September 4, 1985 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Commissioner Cook offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations of the Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cook, Kirchmeier and Gorman. Also Manager Van Hout, Liaison Wampach and Secretary Menden. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Gorman that the minutes from the August 12, 1985 regular meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 Apple Glass and Mirror 254.67 Auto Central Supply 287.54 AutoCon Industries 399.53 Burmeister Electric 1,704.00 Capesius Agency 2,698.00 Carlson Hardware Co. 26.75 Chapin PUblishing Company 68.00 Chicago and NW Transportation Co. 80.00 City of Shakopee 1,743.35 C1ayHill Inc. 695.00 Communication Auditors 758.00 Copy Equipment, Inc. 5.70 Gloria Cushing 7.50 Cy's Standard Service 5.75 Ditch Witch of Minn., Inc. 33.13 Feed Rite Controls Inc. 990.55 Graybar Electric 8,480.82 H & C Electric 159.29 Jim Hatch Sales Company, Inc. 477.17 James Hauer 70.00 Hennens ICO 9.50 Jerome Jaspers and Co. 6,200.00 Lathrop Paint Supply Co. 5.86 Leef Bros., Inc. 18.00 Mor -Tel Co. 21.60 Motor Parts Service 72.92 Myers Automotive and Tire 6.00 Ted Neisen 402.00 Northern Sanitary Supply Co., Inc. 245.06 Northern States Power Co. 266,959.70 Northern States Power Co. 635.94 Northwestern Bell Telephone 254.30 Office Interiors Inc. 2,435.06 Office Interiors Inc. 1,739.05 Pearson Florist, Inc. 69.30 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 6.00 Schoell and Madsen, Inc. 1,301.06 Liaison Wampach inquired as to whether or not the Insurance Consultant had been in touch with the Manager regarding the bids for the Insurance. Liaison Wampach reported on the downtown project regarding the redevelopment of the parking lot south of Second Avenue and west of Lewis Street. The original plans called for the electric lines to be relocated underground during the current reconstruction. Due to the short time left this year the conduit meeting SPUC Specs will be put in by the project this Fall and the underground relocations will be planned for the future. A copy of the annual report on the investigation of the municipal water supply by the Minnesota Department of Health was examined. The commission commended the Water Department for the excellent report by the State. Manager Van Hout presented a recommendation to attend the American Public Power Association training seminar on the software packages being offered for smaller public power systems. A discussion followed. Motion by Cook, seconded by Gorman that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission authorize the Manager to send the necessary people to Nebraska for the training being offered by the American Public Power Association and to purchase the necessary software in the amount of $2,500.00 and that the motion would in no way bind us to purchase any other hardware until the recommendations of the people sent are heard. Ayes: Commissioner Cook and Commissioner Gorman. Nayesc Commissioner Kirchmeier. Motion carried. Commissioner Kirchmeier suggested that the Manger write a letter to the City of Shakopee informing them of our intentions to investigate into the possibility of purchasing a computer and/or software independently. The audit proposal from Jaspers, Loosbrook Co. for the 1985 audit was received by the Commission. Scott County Sheriff Communications 66.05 Scott County Sheriff Communications 7 350.60 J` Serco 64.00 Shakopee Ford 2.40 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 184.12 Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. 13.47 Square D Company 119.30 State Agency Revolving Fund 16.15 Starks Cleaning Services 35.80 Stemmer Farm and Garden Supply Inc. 142.00 Suel Business Equipment 314.83 Duain Swenson Contruction Co., Inc. 8,875.00 Total Tool 167.83 Twin City Testing and Eng. Lab., Inc. 126.00 Utilities Telecommunications council 55.00 Valley Industrial Propane 10.88 Lou Van Hout 47.49 Water Products Co. 747.62 Wesco 223.82 Woodhill Press Inc. 388.85 Motion by Gorman, seconded by Kirchmeier that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. Liaison Wampach inquired as to whether or not the Insurance Consultant had been in touch with the Manager regarding the bids for the Insurance. Liaison Wampach reported on the downtown project regarding the redevelopment of the parking lot south of Second Avenue and west of Lewis Street. The original plans called for the electric lines to be relocated underground during the current reconstruction. Due to the short time left this year the conduit meeting SPUC Specs will be put in by the project this Fall and the underground relocations will be planned for the future. A copy of the annual report on the investigation of the municipal water supply by the Minnesota Department of Health was examined. The commission commended the Water Department for the excellent report by the State. Manager Van Hout presented a recommendation to attend the American Public Power Association training seminar on the software packages being offered for smaller public power systems. A discussion followed. Motion by Cook, seconded by Gorman that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission authorize the Manager to send the necessary people to Nebraska for the training being offered by the American Public Power Association and to purchase the necessary software in the amount of $2,500.00 and that the motion would in no way bind us to purchase any other hardware until the recommendations of the people sent are heard. Ayes: Commissioner Cook and Commissioner Gorman. Nayesc Commissioner Kirchmeier. Motion carried. Commissioner Kirchmeier suggested that the Manger write a letter to the City of Shakopee informing them of our intentions to investigate into the possibility of purchasing a computer and/or software independently. The audit proposal from Jaspers, Loosbrook Co. for the 1985 audit was received by the Commission. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Gorman to accept the proposal from Jaspers,/ Loosbrock and Co. for the 1985 audit. Manager Van Hout informed the Commission of the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association request of all its participating members to formally authorize a delegate to cast the members vote. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Gorman to authorize Lou Van Hout as the official representative for the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission with the alternates being listed as the Commission President Cook, Commissioner Gorman, Commissioner Kirchmeier, Secretary Menden. Motion carried. Motion by Cook, Seconded by Kirchmeier that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission delegate cast a vote in favor of the $1,012.00 assessment for the MMUA service territory intervention case. Manger Van Hout recommended the purchase of a used car for a replacement of the car now used for field inspections. Motion by Gorman, seconded by Kirchmeier to authorize the expenditure not to exceed $2,500.00 for the purchase of a replacement car. Motion carried. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has retained HDR., Inc. to do the engineering for the second substation bay in Blue Lake substation. The bids on the major equipment items should be received by December for award by the Commission. Manager Van Hout reported that the Company awarded the bid for the painting of the water tank is having a problem acquiring a performance bond due to the fact they are a relatively new company. A letter to the Scott County Sheriffs Office commending them on a good job of radio communication was signed by the Commission. A communication regarding the Industrial -Commercial Day at the Racetrack on September 11, 1985 was reported by Manager Van Hout. The employees of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be invited to the October 1, 1985 meeting to present their 1986 wage requests. There was one new plat presented, Outlot A of the Prahm Coll Addition. There were three fire calls for a total man hours of 3 hours and 35 minutes. There were no lost time accidents for August, 1985 There will be a special meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities on September 30, 1985. The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities will be held on October 1, 1985 at the Utilities meeting room. Motion by Gorman, seconded by Kirchmeier that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. Barbara Menden, Commission Secretary MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special session on September 16, 1985 in the Utilities meeting room. The special session had been called by President Cook to discuss the approval of repair work on the standpipe. Commissioner Cook offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations of the Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cook and Kirchmeier. Also Liaison Wampach and Manager Van Hout. Commissioner Gorman was absent. Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madsen, Inc. and James Imre representing T.M.I. were present. After much discussion a consensus was reached to have the engineer draw up a change order form to be approved at a later date for the installation of cables and all related work necessary to complete the job for $4,500.00. This was acceptable to James Imre. The change order will also provide for the repair of a rung in a valve pit for $35.00 and the deletion of certain sandblasting for a decrease in cost of $800.00. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kirchmeier that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. 1 Lou Van Hout, Manager /4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA September 25, 1985 Chm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7:37 A.M. with the following voting members present: Terry Forbord, Gary Laurent, Mike Sortum, Dan Steil, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic, Jerry Wampach, and Bill Wermerskirchen. Tim Keane arrived later. Absent: Steve Clay, Don Martin and Dick Stoks. Also present: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director, John Anderson, City Admin- istrator, Timm Nelson, Intern and Will Schroers. Terry Forbord/Jim Stillman moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. The Committee discussed City Council's concerns regarding the negative aspects of the liaison member from the City Council having a vote on the Committee. The Council has therefore requested the City Clerk to draft a new resolution changing this policy. Discussion continued on whether losing a voting member would have a negative impact on the quorum. After reviewing members attendance the Committee requested staff to draft a letter to Dick Stoks informing him of their intent to remove him from the Committee until he is able to attend more regularly. Jim Stillman/Joe Topic moved to approve the minutes of the September 4th meeting as kept. Motion carried. A video tape of Downtown Owatonna showing a combination of diagonal and parallel parking was presented by Timm Nelson. Owatonna's City Planner, David Strand and Ted Ringhoffer, President of the Chamber were interviewed on the tape and gave positive comments on this type parking. Some of the major positive points discussed were: good traffic flow, easy access (especially for those that have a problem with parallel parking), short term parking spaces are readily available, no more problems getting out of spaces, (more than enough room to back out of spaces), improved pedistrian safety and that the effort has generated investment and improvements in properties. Tim Keane arrived at 8:00 a.m. Will Schroers asked whether Owatonna had a by-pass as he questioned the value of trying to move the traffic through rapidly. The City Administrator commented that in past years cities fought to get freeways located near the city but the trend now is to keep through traffic away from the Downtown area. Tim Erkkila presented a graphic of a typical block showing islands at alleys, combined 45 degree parking/parallel parking, 14 ft. traf- fic lanes and 12.25' sidewalks. The need for islands at the alley ways was discussed. Bill Wermerskirchen feels that a shopping area can be over -beautified and agreed with Terry Forbord that referring to an area with "shopping streets" had a good connotation. Graphics on alternate angle and parallel parking and street alignments which included the whole aowntown area were studied. In order to accomodate parking for vehicles approaching from various directions, the designs alternated the angle parking from one side of the street to the other either from block to block or within the block. This alternation produces a "wobble" which either occurs at the intersection or in midblock. Tim Erkkila pointed out that the Westwood Engineers thought "the wobble" would be best in the middle of the block. The Committee reached a consensus that a combination of diagonal and parallel parking should be used downtown. To explore how "the wobble" would work out, Ghm. Laurent suggested cones be set up defining_ the alternatives for the Oct. 9th meeting and the Committee can drive through it first hand to help them in their decision. The Engineers will also determine how many parking spaces would be lost if islands at the alley were used. Bill Wermerskirchen/Jim Stillman moved to adjourn at 9:10 a.m. Motion carried. The next meeting will be held Oct. 9th at 7:30 a.m. Darleen Schesso Recording Secretary October 4, 1985 City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Attn: Ms. Judi Simac City Planner Re: Canterbury Park 1st Addition Dear Judi: We received your letter dated October 2, 1985 regarding the streets in the referenced addition. The City design standards call for a minimum width for a local street of 36th feet. We see no reason why the City should allow anything less. The temporary cul-de-sac should have a minimum radius of 50 feet. With a street width of 36 feet in a commercial and industrial area, it is recom- mended that parking be restricted to one side of the street. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert D. Frigaard, P.E. Associate RDF:min . .-:...._I---; 1955 CITY OF SHAKOPEE R E V E N U E R E P O R T FUND 01 GENERAL FUND C U R B= N T M 0 N T H ACCOUNTMESCRIPTION EST. REVENUE ACTJAL VARIANCE 3011 GEN. LEVY - CURRENT 1.3.32 3U22 FISCAL CISPIRITIES .''0 **** TAXES 13.52 3G32 PENALTY & INTEREST .3) **** SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS .J0 3109 TRACK FRANCHISE 4212)3.40 311 J. CABLE FRANCHISE .33 3111 LIQUOR LICENSES 709030.00 3112 BEER LICENSES 5.39 3113 BING) & GAMBLING LIC. - I 3114 CIGARETTE LICENSES 15.33 3115 POOL TABLE LICENSES 5.^0 3132 BUILDING PERMITS 59634.25 3133 PLUMBING PERMITS 852.3 3134 MECHANICAL PERMITS 338.25 3135 WELL PERMITS 234*12 3 3136 SEWR 8 DATER PERMITS 463.:J 3137 ELECTRICAL PERMITS 54T.33 3138 STR=ET OPENING PERMITS 15.00 3150 MISC. BUS. PERMITS 54.13 316J DOG LICENSES 5. 3 3161 MISC. NCN-BUS. LTC. 459.00 283.6 1,50.00 19909.50 •*** LICr-NSES & PERMITS 50,340.93 3320 STATE CRANTS .C1 3321 LOCAL GOVT RIDS 729996.32 3322 HOMESTEAD 36,878.59 3323 POLICE STATE AID 39,129.51 3332 STATE HWY.MA:NT. AID 3 3333 STATE HWY, CGNST. A13 96.00- 3336 CIVIL DEFENSE ..' 3337 MOBILE HOME .9^. 3340 COUNTY RG AD & BPI OGE AID .: 3341 AGGREGATE TAY .23 1111 INTEi GO VENME NTAL 149,134.42 3506 VALLEYFAIR 429090.00 3507 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES •'� 3508 IND.REWENUE 8040 FEE 39530.11 3509 ENGINEERING SERVICES 37,356.55 351J ENG. GRADE FEE 225.77 3511 PLAN CHECK FEE 325* -,0 3512 ASSESSMENT SEARCHES 210.77 3513 SALE OF DOCUMENTS 68.27 3514 FLATS-R;ZON-WAR-COND.USE 819.31 3516 FILING FEE 6.00 �' AS OF 9-30-85 PAGE i Y '= A R T O D A T E PCT EST. REVENUE ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT 9339000.00 4439856.62 4899143.38- 47.6% 409000.00 469711.63 69711.63 116.8 973,030.00 490.568*25 4829431.75- 50.4 .00 85.81 85.81 .00 85*81 85.81 709030.00 799277.10 9,277.10 113.3 .00 16016.51- 16,516.51- 5011G0.00 591,137.00 37.00 100.1 49000.00 39537.00 463.00- 88.4 400.00 65.00 315.00- 21.3 6JO.00 158.75 441.25- 26.5 190]0.00 5.00 995.00- .5 389630.00 799525.05 409925.05 206.0 3595.0.00 189306*75 17,193.25- 51.6 4,430.00 199973.16 15,473.16 451.7 250.00 709.00 459.00 283.6 1,50.00 19909.50 409.50 127.3 49400.00 159657.75 11,257.75 355.9 1,030.00 19140.00 140.00 114.0 830.00 975.58 175.58 121.9 330.00 51.00 249.00- 17.0 1)0.00 4.00 96.00- 4.0 2129950.07 2549835.13 41,885.13 119.7 4379978.00 .00 4379978.00- .00 2189988.96 2189988.96 1459000.00 110,635.77 34,364.23- 76.3 429090.00 399129.51 29872.49- 93.2 159495*00 139945.50 1,549.50- 90.0 .00 *00 .00 400.00 656.57 256.57 164.1 19000.00 .00 1,000.0o- 659JO0.00 .00 651000.0,7- 41070.00 19935.84 2,064.16- 48.4 710,873.00 3851292.15 325,580.85- 54.2 99240.00 99240.00 .00 100.0 6000.00 5G0*00 59500.00- 8.3 59000.00 69500.00 1,500.00 130.0 105,000.00 3794G8.55 679591.45- 35.6 29UIJ0.00 19515.00 485.00- 75.8 109000.01 329966.50 22,966.50 329.7 29030.00 19655.00 345.00- 82.8 2,800.00 88.19- 2,888.19- 3.1 3,OJ0.00 89595.23 59595.23 286.5 .UO 11.00 11.00 �' 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE FJND 91 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT/DESCRIPTION 3517 RETAI NED FEES 352J SNOW REMOVAL 3521 PUBLIC WORKS R91TALS 3522 WEED CUTTING CHARGES 3523 MISC. PS. WKS.SERVICES 3524 STREET REPAIR 3526 FIRING RANGE 3527 CONCESSIONS -POOL 3531 MISC. POLICE SERVICES 3532 POUND FEES G FINES 3533 FIRE CALLS d STANDBY FEE 3539 WATE2 SLIDE 3541.SEAS)4 TTCK@TS-POOL 3541 ADMISSIONS -POOL 3542 SWIMMING LESSONS 3543 MISC. POOL INCOME 365_REFUSE DISPOSAL **** CHARGES FOR SERVICE 3660 COURT FINES **** COURT FINES 3810. INTEREST 3821 RENT 3822 CONTI IBUT IONS 3830 STATE SURCHARGE FEE 3890 MISCELLANEOUS **** MISCELLANEOUS 3903 TRANSFERS 3910.,SPUC COVTRIBUTION **** TRANSFERS FUND TOTALS R E V E N U E R E P O R T C U R R E N T M 0 N T H EST. REVENUE kt TUAL VARIANCE PCT .7J •J) .JJ 343.50- .30 20.37- .1? 264.50 2,220.11 94.54- 1.42 T4.15- 26,790.44 719686.72 3,^39.38 39339.39 .',2 365.39 139225..'?. 56.51- 129916.51 .?0 20,032.10 20,032.:J 281,230.23 3,1'66,597.00 1,75:,998.39 1,315,598.61- 57.1 9 AS OF 9-30-85 PAGE 2 Y_ A R T 0 0 A T E EST. REVENUE ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT 200.00 .00 200.00- 970.00 19428.08 528.08 158.7 .00 .00 .00 .00 299.00- 299.00- 19090.03 1,355.36 355.36 135.5 200.00 576.00 376.00 288.0 .00 000 .00 5,000.00 59996.52 996.52 119.9 .00 50.00 50.00 900.00 874.00 26.00- 97.1 209530.00 89250.50 12,249.50- 40.2 .0l 129320.94 129320.94 129530.00 139838.21 1,338.21 110.7 59800.20 9,792.10 3,992.10 168.8 59530.00 79497.00 1,997.00 136.3 50.00 .00 50.00- 1609030.OJ 138,346.61 51,653.39- 67.7 3579590.00 2689329.41 89,2617.59- 75.0 459000.00 32,069.50 129930.50- 71.3 45,000.00 32,069.50 12,930.50- 71.3 559320.03 120.OJ 549880.00- .2 494:0.90 3,720.00 680.00- 84.5 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 10,300.00 99196.07 803.93- 92.0 69,40 .00 13,036.07 569363.93- 18.8 697,784.00 146,526.07 551,257.93- 21.0 .00 1609256.00 160,256.OG 6979784.00 3',6,782.07 '_919CC1.93- 44.0 3,1'66,597.00 1,75:,998.39 1,315,598.61- 57.1 9 s 1:?- 0 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE E X P E N D I T U R E R E P O R T AS OF 9-30-85 PAGE 1 FUND 01 SENERAL FUND C U R R E N T M 0 N T M Y E A R T O 0 A T E ACCOUNT/OESCRIPTICN APPROPRIATION ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT APPROPRIATION ACTUAL VARISNCE PCT 4100 SALARIES -FULL TIME 889346.37 192(119275.00 8229548.65 378,726.35 68.5 4112 OVERTIME -FULL TIME 59075.29 22,970.00 24,246.29 1,346.29-105.9 4130 SALARIES - FART TIME 4,660.53 1,55,610.00 50,269.46 15,340.54 85.5 414J PERA 7,120,60 90,150.00 63,506.30 26,643.70 70.4 4141 PENSIOVS-FICA 39862.61 519150.00 369582.60 14,567.40 71.5 4142 PENSIONS -FIRE .13 .00 .00 .00 4150 HEALTH & LIFE INSURANCE 6,318.24 131,345.00 59,644.08 41,700.92 58.9 4151 AORKMENS COMP.INSURANCE .00 29,040.10 4C,941.16 11,901.16-141.0 **** PERS-34AL SERVICES 1159444.54 1,6019470.00 191379738.54 463,731.46 71.0 4210 SUPPLIES 59190.65 629915.00 50,830.03 12,084.97 80.8 4215 SURFACE MATERIALS 5,417.56 219000.00 179147.30 3,852.70 81.7 4222 MOTOI FUELS & LUBRIC4NTS 7,212.46 429930.90 379575.16 5,324.84 87.6 4233.BUILO116G MAINT. 1,662.35 54,910.00 43,037.18 119862.82 78.4 4232 EQUIP MAINT & RE?AIR 6,653.00 649725.00 37,257.59 27,467.41 57.6 4234 UTIL.SYSTEM MAINT. 6 CON 57.30 1,5,50.00 112.00 1,388.00 7.5 4242 SEAL COATI0.G .) 91,000.00 .00 91,000.00 4291 INVALID OBJECT .33 .00 25.00 25.00- 4310 PROF_SSIJNAL S=RVICES 35,881.38 1529570.00 11C,315.55 42,254.45 72.3 4316 LEGAL FILING FEES -ETC. .: ^ 360.00 726.45 426.45-242.2 4319 PRCMOTIC�'aS 161.98 .00 1,723.15 19723.15- 432J POSTAGE 48.39 39260.00 4,248.32 988.32-130.3 4321 TEL E?H')`1E 19039.33 14,990.00 1^.,611.04 49378.96 7J.8 4330 TRAVEL & SUBSISTENCE 212.96 59125.00 2,764.50 29360.50 53.9 4350 PRINTING Y PUBLISHING 19440.58 23465.00 14,389.18 8,675.82 62.4 4360 INSURANCE 425.30 399940.00 87,909.85 47,969.85-220.1 437U UTILITIES 189332.94 22094)0.00 151,d21.09 68,578.91 68.9 4380 RENTS 1,695.33 269225.00 23,019.47 3,205.53 87.8 4390 CO`1F=RZNCES & SCHOOLS 491.51. 19,280.00 IC,129.19 9,15C.81 52.5 4391 DUES & SUBSCRIFTIONS 350.55 10,445.00 11,164.52 719.52-106.9 4395 MER'HANDISE 9.14- 29530.00 3,979.28 1,479.28-159.2 4411 CURRENT USE CHARGES .^`? 11510.00 .00 1,500.00 4499 MISCELLANEOUS 703.34 3j0.00 847.19 547.19-282.4 **** SUPPLIES & SERVICES 869669.18 858,840.00 619,633.04 239,2C6.96 72.1 4511 CAPITAL- EQUIPMENT 96,600.0 461,770.00 4+78,856.93 52,843.07 88.6 4519 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS .'? .00 2,693.28 2,693.28- **** CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 96,600.:) 461,730.00 411955^.21 509149.79 89.1 4710 PERMANENT TRANSF-_RS .)) 38,855.90 40,855.00 2,OOC.00-105.1 **** TRANSFERS C 329855.00 40,855.00 2,000.00-105.1 4982 TA)ES 640.38 1,530.00 1,280.76 219.24 85.4 **** REMITTANCES 640.38 19500.00 1,280.76 219.24 85.4 4991 CONTINGENCY 19260.11 154,232.00 6,573.50 147,658.50 4.3 *** * COVTINGENCY 19260.30 1549232.00 6,573.50 147,658.50 4.3 IL 1985 CITY Of SHAKOPEE E X P E N 0 I T U R E R E P 0 R T AS OF 9-30-85 PAGE 2 FUND 01 GENERAL FUND C U R R E N T N 0 N T M T E A R T O D A T E ACCOUNT/DESCRIPTION APPROPRIATION ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT APPROPRIATION ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT FUND TOTALS 300,613.23 3010597.00 2,210 631.05 198*965.95 71.2 ADJ.REG.SESSION Mayor Reinke presiding TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 15, 1985 11 Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. (Reading by Mayor of City's Non -Discrimination Policy) 2] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 31 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 41 Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterick are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.) *51 Approval of Minutes of September 24, 1985 61 Communications: a] Michael McGuire re: naming of Canterbury Road b] League of Minn. Cities re: Tax Increment Finance Study c] 71 Public Hearings: 8:00 P.M. Application for $3,500,000 Housing Revenue Bond Financing by Scottland Inc., general partner of Minn. General Partnership to be formed -- bring application, item 5e from 9/10/85 agenda 8] Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission: a] Final Plat of Fox Run 1st Addition which lies W of CR21, E. of Pike Lake Rd, S. of Horizon Heights and N. of CR42 - Res. 2458 b] Preliminary and Final Plat of Canterbury Apartments 1st Add'n., which lies S. of Shakopee Avenue and W. of Marschall Road Res. 2459 9] Reports from Staff: a] Application by Toro Company for $3,500,000 Industrial Develop- ment Bonds - Res. No. 2456 b] Application by Bemidji Super 8 Partnership for $1,300,000 Commercial Development Bonds; final approval - Res. No. 2460 C] Sanitary Sewer Utility Service to Valley Publishing Building #d] Foot Bridge at Memorial Park e] Population Estimates for Metro Council Development Framework f] Code Enforcement in East Shakopee g] 8:30 P.M. Application for 3.2 Beer License by Kwai and Grace Poon, dba/Family Chow Mein, 237 East First Avenue h] 8:30 P.M. Application for 3.2 Beer License, Set -Up License and Pool Table License by Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie #4120, 220 West Second Avenue - memo on table TENTATIVE AGENDA October 15, 1985 Page -2- 9] Reports from Staff continued: *i] Proposed Walkway Between Parkridge Drive and 11th Avenue j] 1984-4 Shenandoah Drive Improvement - Cost Comparison k] Acquisition of T.H. 101 Bypass Right of Way = Greenwood propert;, 1] Supplemental Contract for Taylor Street Extension m] Supplemental Contract for Paving of Lions Park Parking Lot *n] Microwave Oven for City Hall Lunchroom *o] Cable Consultant Agreement *p] Appointment to Cable Access Corporation *q] Hiring of City Engineer *r] Intersection of 5th and Apgar - (Note map. will be up in Council .Chambers) *s] Enforcement of Blocking Intersections t] Court Reporter at Public Hearings *u] Group Health and Life Insurance Bid Specifications *v] Quotation Specifications for Refuse Collection Contract w] Approval of bills in amount of $364,375.62 *x] Probation Termin,�tion for Eileen Klimek y] Equipment Yard Screening - bring memo llf from Oct. 1, meeting z] Request for Proposals (RFP) for Consultant.for Staffing Needs Analysis - bring memo llp from Oct. 1, meeting *aa] Partial Estimate #4 to C.S. McCrossan for 84-9 CR -83 Widening bb] Minnesota Star City Program cc] Building Inspector Comp -time 101 Resolutions and Ordinances: a] Res. No. 2441, Amending Personnel Policy Relating to sick leave for dependents who are ill - bring memo 12g from 10/1 meeting b] Res. No. 2457, Adopting the 1986 Budget *c] Res. No. 2454, Apportioning Assessments *d] Res. No. 2455, Apportioning Assessments *e] Res. No. 2446, Continuing the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee 11] Other business: a] Appointment of City Clerk as Acting Administrator from Oct 16th to November 9, 1985 �n b c] 121 Adjourn to Tuesday, October 22, 1985 at 8:00 P.M. for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. John K. Anderson, City Administrator NOTICE Policy of Non -Discrimination on the Basis of Handicapped Status The City of Shakopee does not discriminate on the basis of handi- capped status, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital or veteran status or medical condition in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its programs or activities. Gregg Voxland has been designated to coordinate compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of section 51.55 of the revenue sharing regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. If any person feels they have been excluded from participation in, been denied the benefits of, access to or been subject to discrimination under any City program or activity they should contact Mr. Voxland at 445-3650 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday. The City of Shakopee recognizes that the Shakopee City Hall is not handicapped accessible at this time. If any person cannot achieve access to programs and/or activities within this facility, the City of Shakopee will make arrangements to relocate or restruc- ture the delivery of programs and/or activities upon request from said person. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. with Cncl. Lebens, Vierling, Wampach and Leroux present. Cncl. Colligan was absent. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr.; Jeanne Andre, Community Develop- ment Director and Barry Stock, Administrative Intern. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council on any item not on the agenda, and there was no response. The City Admr. introduced Resolution No. 2439, which corrects the dollar amount to be assessed on the Shenandoah Drive construction. He read the resolution stating the corrected amounts. Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2439, A Resolution Amending Reso- lution No. 2429 Declaring the Cost to be Assessed for 1984-4, Shenandoah Drive Construction, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Wampach, Reinke, Leroux Noes; Lebens Motion carried. The City Admr. explained the City hopes to get a more competitive bid for the Norton Drive street repair project by combining it with a larger pro- ject. Vierling/Lebens moved to authorize proper City officials to execute "Supplemental Contract No. 1" to Project No. 1985-2 in the amount of $24,778.00 to S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Cncl. Wampach extended an invitation to participate in the Senior Citizens Pancake Breakfast on October 6, 1985. Leroux/Vierling moved that the City send a letter under the Mayor's hand to Congressman Frenzel in support of the Porteer amendment to the Dept. of Labor Appropriations Bill, and direct the City Admr. to confer that support to Congressman Frenzel by telephone tomorrow. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to notify the State Gambling Board that the City Council of the City of Shakopee has no objections to the issuance of a Gambling License to the Shakopee Airie Fraternal Order of the Eagles #4120. Motion carried unanimously. The Admin. Intern explained that the City's Cable Company, Zylstra-United (ZU), has requested further concessions of the City; primarily the freez- ing of the Franchise Fee at $18,000 per year and not furnishing any fur- ther financial support for the access studio. However, they are willing to turn over the equipment to Shakopee until they experience a positive cash flow. The other major concession sought is to not make any further Shakopee City Councii September 24, 1985 Page 2 capital expenditures for non-essential projects such as character genera- tors and institutional network. Jim Clark, Regional Manager for United Cable Television, explained that since United took over the management of this system in January of 1985 its primary goal was to correct the technical problems and service prob- lems in the system. He feels that has been accomplished. He believes there is far too high of a franchise fixed fee expense situation relative to the subscriber base in the area. He said they originally projected 63% of the homes passed would be sub- scribers in 1985, but currently there are only 40%. He added that in the Minneapolis area the average is 43%. He explained they are also way low on the Pay -For -View and security revenues from what was projected. He said the economic situation is so different than that envisioned 4-5 years ago, and no cable system in the U.S. is doing what was originally projected. He is concerned because the people of Shakopee will bear the cost if the franchise is maintained as it is now. He doesn't believe people are willing to pay higher rates for services that mainly cater to special interests. He also believes they are bearing an unusual expense relative to the subscriber base for public access. They are in a bad financial situation right now. They don't want to raise rates drastically, and do want to provide a viable entertainment system with 58 channels. Mayor Reinke questioned the lack of marketing for the system from the beginning. Mr. Clark pointed out their penetration rate of 40%, which is just a few percent less than the metro average, even without much advertising. He reiterated that in the first few months of their management they felt it most important to address the technical and operational issues. How- ever, they have just launched an advertising campaign. He still doesn't think that a lot more advertising will increase the subscriber base to the 63% projected. Steve Schippers, Assistant Manager from Omaha, acting as System Manager in an operational capacity, explained that in an effort to understand the City they sent a technician on a walk -around to identify subscribing and non -subscribing homes. The error rate of the system was so great that people were getting channels they weren't paying for, so they couldn't be sold to them. Mr. Schippers explained that the concessions they are asking for are temporary to help them get over the problems they are experiencing today. They have developed a marketing plan which he will leave with the City. But more is needed. Mr. Clark said they are looking at a positive cash flow by December of 1986, at which time they project 48% to 50% subscriber base. The Admin. Intern stated that Prior Lake has a penetration rate of 63%, with rates at $9.95. Mr. Clark said his average for the metro area was based on Rogers, Hauser & Northern Cablevision in this area. He said they have now gotten into the larger multiple apartment buildings, so that is no longer a problem. Bill Anderson, Chairman of the Cable Communications Advisory Committee, asked for clarification on the relationship of ZU and United relative to the loan applied for at the Mellon Bank. Mr. Clark replied that ZU only owns 1% of the system and United owns 1% of the system, with the rest being owned by a limited partnership. ZU will not co-sign the loan because Shakopee Lity Uouncii September 24, 1985 Page 3 / they claim to have a fiduciary agreement not to commit it to take that type of risk. Mr. Clark said United is willing to take all the risk; however, Mellon Bank is waiting to hear the results of proposed con- cessions. He explained they are really rolling over a 2.2 million dol- lar loan into a 2.7 million dollar loan. He said United is the largest creditor of ZU. Mr. Anderson objected to United's statement that CTIC helped to force a commercially impractical cable system, when in fact the RFP was put in a free market arena for the best bid. Mr. Anderson commented it seems that Shakopee is being asked to give up all those things that first at- tracted it to ZU. He is worried about giving up public access and won- dered if it would be able to get started again after 3 years. Mr. Clark stated that under the proposal, United would not be completely paid off, because it wants to keep enough to finance the negative cash flow which they expect to continue until 1987. They propose to pay off the larger creditors such as HBO and Gerald Electronic. The City Admr. said the City would like to see United making some concessions and not just the City. Mr. Clark responded they could show hardship of the company. They are not paying themselves the management fee and are turning over $200,000 worth of equipment. He also pointed out the proposal is that these concessions would be temporary. Marsh Hallberg, Chairman of the Chaska Cable Committee, asked in how many of United's other cable companies have concessions of this type been asked for, and how many of the access programs continue to run without their support. Mr. Clark replied that he is the manager for 42 systems, 13 in this area which have not asked for any concessions. He recalled Scotsdale, Arizona and Alameda asked for concessions. He said these systems have been acquired from 1954 to present. He pointed out that for United's 1% ownership they are spending a disproportionate amount. Larry Moonen, of the Cable Committee, said the public access was instituted to give local people access and it would be a bad move to cut down on it. Its the public's only chance to have access to television. Dave Pokorney, Chaska City Admr., stated that all the talk about concessions comes down to dollars. There is a financial situation that needs to be analyzed. There are a lot of technical issues that can't be addressed by the cities. The Chaska City Council has stated it wants to hire a consul- tant to analyze the financial situation of the cable company. After that, discussion can take place relative to concessions. He asked about United being willing to fund the study as required in the Franchise Ordinance. Mr. Clark answered that they provide annual audited financial statements at a considerable cost. He is concerned that the issue is becoming politi- cal, and they are bearing the cost. Mr. Pokorney countered that he feels the issue is future projections, not past statements, and also industry standards for households passed, actual revenues from HBO, etc. Those types of things need to be analyzed by a consulting expert to get infor- mation upon which to base a decision. He pointed out the advantage of Chaska and Shakopee going together on a study, which saves money for United. Mr. Clark felt more comfortable with a prospective scope for the study, which he felt could be mutually beneficial. His other concerns are the time a study would take, the cost of it and the selection of a consultant. He would question CTIC because they were involved in the original franchise agreement. Shakopee City Council September 24, 1985 Page 4 Ron Ward, Technology Coordinator for Shakopee Public Schools, discussed the I -Net program over the ZU system between Shakopee and Chaska. He told of the demonstration they ran between the prison and the high school. He said there has been considerable time, effort and expense given by various agencies on the assumption that the I -Net would be available this year. Shakopee Public Schools has a grant for the utilization of the program which is being held in abeyance because of the current situation. To not move forward with this program at this time will cause consider- able difficulty and financial problems for the public schools. Mr. Clark replied they have activated what they are financially and technically able to --they don't intend to take back any of the capability they have. They have to understand the channel needs up- and down -stream. The necessary capacity may be there now, but if considerable equipment is needed, that may be a problem. Further discussion was held between United and Dan Schaefer, their technician, about capabilities and possibilities. Mr. Ward voiced his concern that once a temporary hold is put on, it is so difficult to have it come back. Mr. Clark said his experience has been that people are willing to pay some extra for public access, but not too much more. Mr. Clark offered some general comments about the entire cable business and the reasons for it not living up to projections of the early 1980's. He said the video cassettes and direct broadcasting are hurting them somewhat. Dick Menzel, Chaska Cable Commission and School Administrator, asked what has to be done to begin broadcasting between Shakopee and Chaska. Mr. Schaefer named 4 modulators and two demodulators --at $2,000 each. He doesn't think these educational programs should not be provided for the lack of $16,000 to $20,000, as they are owed the cities under the Fran- chise Agreement. He said they have concrete programs for the systems. It is not that they want the equipment provided just to meet the agreement, but they actually have programs designed and every intention of using the system. A lot of people who don't have a vote will suffer from the lack of these programs. Mr. Clark pointed out that at $20,000 that would be almost $10 per sub- scriber which would have to be generated to pay for that project, which will be reflected in the rates. If the rates are raised too much, people will drop cable and they will be left with the extra costs. Mr. Schippers mentioned the big screen T.V. that was provided to the library per agree- ment and which the library didn't want, and therefore it is not being used. Mayor Reinke suggested a list of equipment they have provided which is not being used, but was just provided because it was in the agree- ment. Bill Harrison, Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission, said the equipment would be used by the schools and the co-op. There are programs in place for the implementation of that equipment. Jim Hink, Carver -Scott Cooperative, consisting of Chaska, Shakopee, Jordan, and Waconia, said the co-op spent $5,000 to do a feasibility study and they are very committed to using this technology as soon as it is avail- able. Mr. Ward listed many projects and conferences which will utilize the link. 5nakopee pity �,Uuncii September 24, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Anderson commented on the lack of advertising and suggested that with more there is a good possiblity the penetration levels could be brought up above the metro average. Mr. Clark reminded those present of the direct marketing that is occuring right now. They usually plan three advertis- ing campaigns in a year. He added that it took the full staff just to take care of the technical improvements that were necessary when they first took over the management of the system. Mr. Pokorney commented that raising the rates was not the issue, as they are at the top range of rates now. The issues of what the system can generate, what is a reasonable period of losses, and what are some indus- try standards need to be explored. Cncl. Leroux commented that temporary solutions tend to become permanent ones. He asked if the City expected too much from a cable company in the RFP, and if so, why didn't the cable company tell the City. Mr. Clark admitted the City did ask for too much and the company agreed to too much. Mr. Schippers added the changing economic situation and inventions in the home entertainment field changed projections in a short time. Cncl. Leroux pointed out that ZU was directly questioned about their ambitious projections when United representatives were in the audience, and there was no problem according to the company. He recounted that there was poor advertising, poor installation, poor management and errors in projections and now the subscribers have to pay for them. Mr. Clark protested that even if the system had been advertised and managed perfectly from the beginning there would still be problems because of the change in economics. Consensus of Councilmembers was there would be no consideration of con- cessions without an independent study. Discussion ensued regarding the continuation of service for the institu- tional network as long as possible, and the search for any available modu- lators and demodulators within the system. Discussion ensued regarding the lack of companies capable of doing this analysis and the low bid of CTIC. Mr. Clark stated he will do some check- ing himself and come up with some names of firms by the end of the week. They are also concerned with the time element. He would like to use a mutually agreeable consultant. Consensus was to have a meeting between Mr. Clark, Mr. Pokorney and the Admin. Intern tomorrow morning to try to agree on a consultant and write out specific language to request proposals relative to an analysis of ZU in a prospective scope. Cncl. Lebens said she has received a request for stop signs on Fifth at Fifth and Apgar because of vehicles going too fast up the hill and not yielding. The City Admr. will follow-up. Leroux/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Judith S. Cox Diane S. Beuch City Clerk Recording Secretary CITY OF PRIOR LAKE`4::';. 141IMPS111" MICHAEL A. MCGUIRE, MANAGER T 1 far r A' F SHA.KOPEE October 8, 1985 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator Shakopee City Hall 129 East lst Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: The Prior Lake City Council has reviewed your request to rename Columbia Avenue to Canterbury Lane. The consensus of the Council was: 1. That the residents along the road be reimbursed for expenses, i.e., changing checks, stationery, drivers licenses, etc. 2. That the name be Canterbury Road. Please let me know if this is acceptable to the City of Shakopee and then T will take this back to the Prior Lake Council for their consideration. Sincerely, Michael A. McGuire City Manager City of Prior Lake MAM:11 (612) 447.4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. P.O. BOX 359 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 H �Vi'i ID �b III 1 league of minnesota cities October 7, 1985 TO: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks FROM: Donald A. Slater, Executive Director RE: Tax Increment Finance Study The staff of the League of Minnesota Cities became concerned about the future integrity of tax increment financing (TIF). There are several reasons for this concern: 1) The Legislative Auditor is conducting a study of TIF and is scheduled to report to the legislature in January, 1986. 2) The Senate Tax Committee established a special task force on TIF and development. tools. This group, under the chairmanship of Senator Larry Pogemiller intends to produce recommendations for changes in the TIF program for consideration during the 1986 session of the legislature. 3) The House Tax Committee has established a special subcommittee to study TIF. 4) The Citizens League of the Twin Cities/Metropolitan area issued a report on the subject of TIF recommending the abolition of this legislative authorityauthority and the replacement of it with an entirely new program. Over the summer, meetings of interested municipal officials took place in which it was concluded. that a more general discussion of this subject should be held. In August, the League invited all cities in Minnesota to a review of the legislative situation and a discussion of the potential courses of action. At the August meeting, after reviewing information from representatives of the legislature, independent students of this issue, and League staff, League members adopted a resolution directing the League to formulate a joint program to protect and improve TIF and work together with the Minnesota Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). City officials agreed that any extraordinary costs associated with studying or lobbying TIF should be borne by a voluntary assessment of cities participating in TIF. Meetings of representatives of the League and NAHRO met and reviewed the situation, concluding that it would be necessary to do additional studies of the current state of TIF as well as be prepared to mount a vigorous campaign at the 1986 legislature, as necessary. un!versity avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 (01 2) 227-5000 Tax Increment Finance Page 2 October 7, 1985 These officials concluded that this effort would exceed the capabilities of either organization under current arrangements. It was decided that the League and NAHRO would work out a special voluntary assessment of cities currently utilizing TIF who have a major interest in the preservation of this important development tool. It was also concluded that the League would provide in-kind services to the effort which would represent a contribution from cities throughout the state having an interest in this tool although they are not currently using TIF. Discussions also suggested that those cities not currently using TIF but desiring to contribute should be encouraged to do so. A direct billing is being computed for cities currently employing TIF as an active development program. The League Board of Directors reviewed the tax increment situation and the joint program worked out with NAHRO. The Board approved the joint program, recognizing the importance of tax increment to the cities of Minnesota. TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Canterbury Apartments I Housing Revenue Bonds DATE: October 11, 1985 Introduction• The City has set the public hearing for the Canterbury Apartments I Housing Revenue Bonds for October 15, 1985. This staff report is to present to the Council and public pertinent background information on the proposed project. Background: The City Council received on September 10, 1985, the application packet for the Canterbury Apartments I Housing Revenue Bonds. The project is for 92 units of rental housing to be constructed on the Southwest corner of CR 17 and Shakopee Avenue. Since the Council set the public hearing the project has been through a preliminary/final plat review and been granted a conditional use permit, as well as the normal staff review for the bonding process. The City Planner has indicated that all land use provisions will be satisfied when the City Council grants final plat approval. The Engineering Department has no comment and the Building Official has asked to have two weeks to review the building permit when it is submitted. The bond attorney has recommended submission of clauses 3 and 4 in the preliminary resolution, as attached for your information. There are a few outstanding items of submission including: 1) a comfort letter from the bond underwriter; 2) application packet to be submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA); 3) revised time schedule; 4) draft final resolution for future Council consideration) and 5) any additional information on the exterior building materials which will assist the Council in undertaking its review. Staff findings are as follows: 1) A respresentative of Miller Schroeder Municipals has already indicated that the bonds could reasonably be marketed at a previous Council Meeting. However it would be appropriate to have a written notice to that effect prior to the November 6th Council adoption of a preliminary resolution. 2) Completed MHFA application should be submitted to the City prior to November 6th. 3) The applicant has submitted an initial time schedule for sale of the bonds in 1985 and notice of intent to begin construction of project in 1985 with completion in May of 1986. This is a very quick time schedule which satisfies all City concerns. However the applicant has been requested to submit a revised time schedule to be attached to the application. 4) The applicants' bond counsel is to submit a draft final resolution. 5) The applicant should bring to the public hearing samples, photos, drawings and other information which will assist Council in its review of the exterior materials. The written application states that the exterior materials will be aluminum siding with Cedar or redwood permanent trim and balconies with lattice work (materials unspec- ified). In public hearings before the Planning Commission the applicant has stated that the exterior would be a combination of stucco and aluminum siding. These materials would appear to satisfy Council desire for low maintenance materials, although aluminum trim, soffits, etc. may be a final element that would provide a complete low -maintenance project. 6. As stated earlier, zoning codes and issues of public facilities and utilities have been adequately addressed in the platting and conditional use process. 7. No comments have been received from the Metropolitan Council. 8. The applicant has agreed to statutory provisions that at least 200 of the units will be rented to families at 800 of the metropolitan area median income. The established median income at this time is $32,800, which sets $26,240 as the maximum income for the targeted rental population. The applicant has stated that there will be a uniform rental rate, which therefore would make all units affordable to the targeted popula- tion. The preliminary resolution provides that the city may require evidence of compliance by the developer with required standards, as well as regular recertifi- cation. The city will require annual certification that a minimum of 200 of the units are rented by persons in the targeted population, non-discrimination in rental of units, and that condominium conversion does not occur in the restricted time period. Recommended Action: Based on satisfaction of a few outstanding issues, it is recommended that Council could approve, at its November 6, 1985 meeting, a resolution adopting the housing program for Canterbury Apartments I (preliminary resolution). Requested Action: Direct staff to prepare the preliminary resolution to adopt the housing program for Canterbury Apartments I for Council consideration at its November 6th meeting. tw CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTING A HOUSING PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS FOR CANTERBURY APARTMENTS I AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF SAME TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Housing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), the City of Shakopee (the "City") is authorized to adopt a housing plan and carry out programs for the financing of multifamily housing which is affordable to persons of low and moderate income; and WHEREAS, the Act requires adoption of the housing plan after a public hearing held thereon after publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least thirty days in advance of the hearing and such plan was adopted on November 15, 1983 with notice published in the Shakopee Valley News on October 5, 1983; and WHEREAS, the Act requires adoption of a program after a public hearing held thereon after publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least fifteen days in advance of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a public hearing on a housing program (the "Program") on October 15, 1985, after publication of notice as required by the Act in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune on September 10, 1985 and the Shakopee Valley News on September 25, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Program provides for the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of land and construction of a'92 -unit rental housing development; and WHEREAS, the Act further requires submission of the Program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (the "MHFA") for its approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee: 1. That the Housing Program of the City for Canterbury Apartments I as attached hereto and made a part hereof is hereby in.all respects adopted. 2. That the City Administrator is hereby authorized to submit the Program to the MHFA, and to do all other things and take all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Program in accordance with the Act and any other applicable laws and regulations. 7 3. The adoption of this Resolution shall not be deemed to establish any legal obligation on the part of the City or its Council to issue or cause the issuance of the Bonds. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to herein. 4. If the final resolution for the Bonds does not occur prior to twelve months from the date of this resolution, or any subsequent resolution providing any extension thereof, this Resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 1985. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1985. City Attorney STEFANIE N. GALEY Attorney at Law October 10, 1965 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 HOLMES & GRAVEN l CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone 612'338-1177 Re: Scottland, Inc. Multifamily housing Revenue Bonds Dear Councilmembers: We represent Scottland, Inc., which has submitted a proposal for the City of Shakopee to issue housing revenue bonds to finance a multifamily rental housing development. The purpose of this letter is to illustrate the broad policy considerations involved in the issuance of such bonds. In 1979, the State legislature eliminated the availability of tax-exempt industrial development bond financing for housing projects under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 474. At the same time, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C, which authorizes cities to issue tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds for qualifying housing projects. The legislature's purpose was to permit the financing of housing projects where they complied with the stricter public purpose constraints incorporated into the new legislation. A major public purpose in 462C is to provide housing for low- and moderate -income persons. At least twenty percent of the units in a multifamily mortgage revenue bond -financed project must be rented to low- and moderate -income tenants, defined as households with incomes no higher than eighty percent of median area income. Recent huge cuts in direct federal housing subsidies have underscored the importance of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds in financing low- and moderate- inco:ne housing. In fact, multifamily bonds with the two to three percentage point mortgage interest rate savings they provide are virtually the only remaining tool for building low- and moderate -income rental housing. National Multi Housing Council spokesman Dennis Alberts, president of Trammel Crow Residential Companies, a major national apartment developer, has recently stated to a congressional subcommittee that his firm could no longer build apartments for low - and moderate-incomne persons if tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds were not available. rhe State legislature has expressed the need for more rental housing for low- and moderate -income persons in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C and in Minnesota Statutes 462A, the _Minnesota :Kousing Finance Agency Law. The latter statute indicates that "as a result of the inability of private enterprise and investment to produce without public assistance a sufficient supply of decent, safe and sanitary City of Shakopee October A, 185 Page 2 OR residential dwellings at prices and rentals which persons and families of low- and moderate -income can afford, there exists within the State of Minnesota a serious shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing at prices or rentals within the means of persons and families of low- and moderate -income." Minn. Stat. 462x1.02. The statute further declares that an adequate supply of a variety of housing serving people of all income levels is essential to the growth and prosperity of the State. The City of Shakopee, in its Housing Plan dated November 15, 1983, has also expressed a need for more low- and moderate -income housing. This is a result of the City's strong industrial employment growth. The Housing Plan reflects Shakopee's desire to provide its fair share of regional low- and moderate -income housing needs. More specifically, the Plan's stated objective is to provide between 360 and 900 low- and moderate -income opportunities over the next decade. The riousing Plan acknowledges the crucial role of city -issued mortgage revenue bonds in reaching the stated objective. Even if other public assistance was readily available, mortgage revenue bonds would remain the wisest approach. Such an interest subsidy mechanism is perhaps the most unobtrusive method for the government to subsidize housing costs. Housing so subsidized is not likely to be stigmatized with the tarnished image often associated with public housing operated by housing and redevelopment authorities. Further, housing projects having residents of varied economic needs are not likely to adversely affect property values or be offensive to neighbors. Mortgage revenue bonds do not create any direct financial risk for the issuer. The bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit and general taxing power of the City. r'rom a legal standpoint, they are a very safe way of helping provide the community's low- and moderate -income housing needs. There are other indirect benefits of issuing mortgage revenue bonds for housing projects. First, the tax base of the City will be increased. Second, the building and maintenance of housing projects creates both temporary and permanent jobs. Third, it is important to maintain rental vacancy rates above a certain minimum level in order to avoid inflation caused by undersupply. Of course, these advantages also arise from the building of other housing projects without public assistance. The positive distinction from such other housing projects exists when these advantages are combined with the direct public purpose benefits associated with the provision of low- and moderate -income housing. In sum, there are a number of benefits to the issuer associated with housing revenue bonds. Scottland, Inc.'s proposal will provide these benefits. Thank you for your consideration of the proposal. Very truly yours, Stefanie N. Galey SNG/jin rs�hlee n J 1255 Ave. st Shakopee, M.; 55379 October y, i;55 Dave Czja, Chair=,n C--tj, rla,nnin_, Coll ,ILssIon -hake-Dee, K.N 55379 Dear I r. Chaim n I wish I had the power to apologize for my neighbors who walked out of the Public Meeting on Cctober 3rd. It was very rude. I don't have that power but I can speak for myself. I am glad I stayed for the rest of the discussion. Maybe many of those people left in order to show their frustration. I'm sure many of those people,like me, came to the meeting hoping to change the plans to put another apartment building in our neighborhood. More specifically, cn the courner of mast Shakopee Avenue and Ccunty Road 17. They probably did not know what the R4 zone stood for. I know I didn't. I thought maybe it was Residential and up to a maximum of a 4-plex. The letter sent out by Judy Simac gave us no indication that the varriance was only on a five f oot roof. Maybe these notices could be more specific. Scotland gave a very good presentation and, if there has to be an apartment there, I feel that they will do the best job. The building is very nice looking and I am glad it will appeal to the average or above average income people. Companies that go bey ound the basic regulations Should be encouraged not shot down. The site that Scotland is going to build on is Ideal for an apartment building. I can't really picture single-fahi.ly homes being built tht;re on County Road 17. I think the mistake was in allowing Candlewyck Appartments to build where they did. And there is a problem with perking, noise and just litter being throwen out of cars. Believe rye, I know, we live next to their driveway. t`any of the neighbors are comparing these problems with Candlewyck with what Scotland wants to build. They don't want a repeat. I don't think there will be. I feel that Scotland's proposed building will be a lot better in this neighborhood than a plain building with less appeal. I do have a complaint about the planning to have all these apartment buildings in this one area. I think it was very poor planning --both for the traffic and also for the population congestion. Shakopee has lots of land. They could spread it out a little more. Pa.f-e 2 I do feel the city is to blame for the traffic problem in not having the f orsiaht to see it become a urobler. r;hick I'm sure will. Perhaps you might consider a 4 -way et -op sign at the courner of East ShLkopee Avenue and County Road 17 or even slowing the traffic on 17 to 30PTH. I :now when my husband and I moved here a year a`o Post of these apartments were already here. I guess with one more large building we will feel a little more fenced in. Next time we lruy a house we will do some th_nzs different- -including check the building zones in the area and whet they mean. Please give a copy of this letter to David Pomerenke, Dave P.ockne, John Lane, Jane VanIialdeghem, Lee Stoltzman, John Schmitt and'Jbhn Anderton. Also you may give this to anyone I may have missed. I am sending a copy of this letter to Scotland. Thank you for your time and for letting me air ry complaints. Sincerely r Kathleen J. P&rson KP FS I think the slowed roof will be lots better than the flat. 'orco40.61c Oi-I ZZAC SlIchone.e 1 kart zn�. Co,7m /-/tion, On �hun�:dacOc;�o6ea 3, use a;u1ended tie mcctinp. concr�--,i- m- .;fie par�m�r corro&x. on /%t ar� hcuonee liven -r- rr lizA-er.4vn w� 6ec.�2niwu� to aruuuet, a � uca,.i n con: c.-az np. n ilzg. raker LOC /.eaL:,, ed tha,;� we had to .Leave. G e up to 9.0 and had hoped to rahe a c ui..e t but wcAc auac 1�te plL. c2 that a whole pio up o f people .£a`.00d up to .Leave we -A ul, 3nom the commn.�-'a made ou44ide, we aatu that our Qe,�ira up and le_ay.cng mea& ml&undetiltov i and wa1 taken by mann of a &t 'emFx, on/ oust. par. towarc!� the coun,--i. and 7. Ac r eprce� er iv e2 o4 Scot.-cn We ase ver.+ uphet by this., and ✓i&A to apolog�e to the member,. o P the jola,� Carnnzicm- on and J o the ne 2 cntative& or the Scot,lartd Development Co,-7o. eine :i.ally �l4 (�ezLlzeiuon who wa �oeaking at t�,at par. iculruL tune. U✓e did not intend to 6e a.ceds and weceftainLc� did not urcnt to cauac any 2JrOaJLfL&=eni- to aVone. We 4aa that the p&e&en; ¢t oa waA xce lent, thai Lt ua& well. paepcvzed and vey ; hAa ouc]4 Jhe complex iA beautZ44 and we have no objection at all to t. development, We only dea.uted that anothe,,L Zo-cat'on be c/wa" ✓e- 4a no an.&w&i;cy, and ceA&iaZy would have neve2 con4 dcaed !eay.cng aA a a tn;�ement o� anp en. olL cA is iiai. againAt ano one pAzAent. /e AegAef tat this. happened, and we hope that you wzde&&&rzd w1ay we reel. that tAi.& apology iA nece4.aIuy . Si.nceAe4, Chet and A" Ann Zadrta. CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 431 WHEREAS, Scottland, Inc. having duly fired an application for a Conditional Use Permit dated 9/18/85 unc;er the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, Section il.04, Subd. 6 as follows: C.U.P. to develop a 92 unit planned unit development multi -family apartment building and WHEREAS; the present zoning for the parcel on which the Conditional Use Permit is being requested.is designated as: R-4 and r -WHEREAS,"the"property upon which the request'is being made is -described_ as: NE, of Section 7 (CSAH'- 17-: & S of 9th & N.';.. and ' _ - -• of.-iOth'Avenues) 'WHEREAS, ,upon. hearing the`advice,`and recommendation^of the City Planer and.upon considering,the.suggestions-and objections raised - -- ;= i 1 . by' zhe`affected property owners within:a radius of 350 feet. thereof. -in -public hearing duly held thereon." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING .COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the aforementioned Con(iitional Use Permit application be and., is_ hereby:Approved .:.;: : .. as .,ollows : 1) Approval of building plans by Building -Official `2)' Stop signs placed where private drives enter onto public roads. 3) In- order to meet requirements' of the Fire Chief?' water system' be looped as required by Fire Chief. 4) Landscape and lighting plan to be approved by City Planner. 5) Redesignation of the open space in the southern portion of the lot. . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Shakopee City -Code,_. Section.11.04, Subd. 6C-12, if an approved Conditional Use Permit,-: is -not utilized within one year from date her approved or by October 3, 19 86 it shall become null- and- void.' Adopted.in - regular session of the Shakopee Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 3rd day of .. October ,` 19 85 . catifekoi (-jparcttvjetnts by : Scottland Inc. CITY OF SHAKOPEE r aos r October 15, 1985 Mayor Eldon Reinke and Members of the City Council City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Canterbury Apartments Dear Mayor Reinke and Council Members: Please find enclosed a project summary and description for the Canterbury Apartments to be located at Shakopee Avenue and Marschall Road. Since the original application to the City, Scottland Inc. held a neighborhood meeting to solicit comments from neighbors. Please note the plan modifications in response to these concerns. Additionally, several neighbors have asked us to rename the apartments and we have agreed to do so. We solicit your comments and suggestions regarding both the project and project name. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us at 445-3242. Very truly yours, 4 4wz 4 2. X�a� � � � Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vice President a>ZOLA---� Timothy J. Keane Vice Presi ent BDM:ap Enclosure C.C. John Anderson Jeanne Andre Judi Simac Julius Coller Rod Krass 5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 / 612-445-3242 CANTERBURY APARTMENTS REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND HOUSING REVENUE AND BOND APPROVAL CITY OF SHAKOPEE October 15, 1985 I. THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM (a) The Developer and Owner. The Developer of the Canterbury Apartments is Scottland Inc. (the Owner), a Minnesota corporation located in Shakopee Minnesota. Scottland will own and manage the apartments upon completion of construction. Scottland was incorporated in 1969 and is a publicly traded corporation with approximately 250 shareholders. The President and Chief Executive Officer is J. Brooks Hauser. Scottland is the developer of Canterbury Park (formerly Valley Industrial Park) a 1,400 acre industrial/office park in Shakopee and is the principal owner and developer of Canterbury Downs Racetrack. Scottland has developed $300 million of industrial, commercial, and residential projects since 1969. The Development Team is coordinated by Bruce D. Malkerson, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Scottland. The project manager is Timothy Keane, Vice President for Scottland. Messrs. Malkerson and Keane will be primarily responsible for the development of Canterbury Apartments. Scottland will own and manage the project upon completion of construction. (b) Consultants. Architect: Vern Hansen of Arvid Elness Architects, Inc. is the Project Architect. Mr. Hansen has designed several multi -family housing projects including most recently the Greenhaven Development in Burnsville for Scottland, the Conservatory Apartments in Minnetonka, Timberton Manor Homes in Plymouth, and LeMay Lake Apartments in Eagan. The design team has worked in consultation with the City's planning staff and consultants. Engineer: Site and public facilities engineering is performed by Bill Engelhardt of Engelhardt & Associates of Chaska. Traffic Analysis: Benshoof & Associates Inc. of Eden Prairie. Financing: Financing will be coordinated by Miller Schroeder of Bloomington and Minneapolis. Bond Counsel: Bond Counsel will be Stefanie Galey of Holmes & Graven Law Firm. Market Analysis: Kramer, Geisler & Strand Inc. of Minnetonka. 7 II. INTRODUCTION (a) Purpose of Presentation. The purpose of this presentation is to provide to the Shakopee City Council information concerning the plat and Housing Revenue Bond and details of the apartment development to obtain the City Council's approval of the requests. (b) Background. The Site: The site is located on a hill at the southwest corner of Marshall Road (County Road 17) and Shakopee Avenue. (Area map Exhibit A). The site is L-shaped. Surrounding land uses include the Shakopee-Nicollet Medical Center on the corner of the same block, single-family residential to south, multi -family and single family residential to the north, church and school to the west and church and multi -family residential to the east. The site is well -served with neighborhood shopping facilities (2 blocks), elementary school (1 block), junior high school (2 blocks), senior high school (8 blocks), park (1 block), medical clinic (less than 1 block), and public transportation. Site History: The site has not been the subject of a prior land use request. The residential uses to the north were principally developed before 1960. The residential areas to the south and west were developed since 1980. The Shakopee Medical Center was opened in 1973. Procedural Posture: Since the time the Owner made application for the preliminary and final plat approval, Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, and Housing Revenue Land approval there have been meetings with the neighbors and the Planning Commission. The held a neighborhood meeting on September 25, 1985. The results of this meeting are discussed in Section VI below. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 26, 1985, to consider the plat and PUD. After taking comments from the public and considerable discussion, the Planning Commission approved the PUD on a 6-1 vote. The single dissenting vote was by a Planning Commissioner who felt the zoning designation was not correct for the area. Since the PUD has been approved and there was no appeal, the requests before the City Council at this time are for the approval of final plat and the Housing Revenue Bonds. al P2� PQ: II _tea J��o� P do ? Area Map Exhibit A o r . I , It 7z ASSM B'Y OF GOD CHURCH / / U FIRST PRESB CHURCH I♦ I 1+ I 14 I 14 1 14 I "l z -k a -� R2 I C t _-MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING 2 GORMAN P2� PQ: II _tea J��o� P do ? Area Map Exhibit A o r . I , It 7z ASSM B'Y OF GOD CHURCH / / U FIRST PRESB CHURCH I♦ I 1+ I 14 I 14 1 14 I "l z -k a -� R2 I III. LAND USE (a) Comprehensive Plan. The Shakopee Comprehensive Plan designates the site MF, multi -family residential. (b) Zoning. The zoning designation is R-4, Multi -family residential where multi -family is a permitted use. The zoning ordinance states that multi -family dwellings are properly related to other land uses and there is adequate transportation services to this area. The City Council has made these findings when it so zoned the property. The current multi -family zoning designation has been in effect since at least 1973. Density and performance standards in this district provide for a minimum lot area of 3000 square feet for each 2 bedroom unit and 2400 square feet for each 1 bedroom unit. The original 6.47 acre site could accommodate 102 dwelling units based on a mix of 60% 2 bedroom and 40% 1 bedroom unit. The current request has been scaled to 92 units after consideration of the marketing feasibility study and right-of-way dedication. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (a) Overall Description. The project will consist of a 92 unit apartment building of 3 stories over a heated under -ground parking garage. There will be 36 one - bedroom units and 56 two-bedroom units. The parking plan provides or 92 surface parking spaces. The parking plan meets City Code parking requirements. (b) Building Exterior. The design of the building was undertaken to develop a building that incorporates residential design themes (Elevation, Exhibit B). These include a combination of stucco face materials on the first floor and face of the balconies and 4" lap board (aluminum or vinyl) siding on the upper floors. The roof will have a 4/12 pitch with gabled extensions over the balconies. The front yards on the Shakopee Avenue and Marshall Road will be bordered with a 3' white picket fence to provide privacy and a more residential flavor to the project. The building footprint (Site Plan, Exhibit C) was laid out to create a large courtyard for the use and enjoyment of residents. The building was also set back 62 feet angling out to 190 feet (required setback is 18 feet) to provide an additional beffer to the homes to the north. The courtyard will include substantial landscaping, a gazebo, a pool and totlot play area. All units will have a balcony with first floor units having a walk -out at -grade baicony area. l� ° EEL!J' EF L'L BI E3 E3I�� E3 H � B ©H H� H C ��� 3 fi H Z® B J �a 3 H �G 6BE3 HH E H H Ei E3= H E�D5 9 ��- 0� 9 f3 ®Ll 8 H BE � El H H E3'� I(' 1 11 o ; 3 J Thi ��l ei N A K p P t. A V L L V A T C m X x H F—I H W N (� b W T E. Ps V D y 6 P 6 IL MLNTS T T Lw D awnEu[am AMI gD�E WESS ARCjHffEgS INC MINNE4�LIM N SOTA170C 3 �eEEE• cewrrmarHm iaAY, mc- cATOY 00 E[IOIO .0 fEEfAEED EY Y[ UYDEE YY DEMCT 9UfEE•IERY AY AY AO— "'A.—.Tl UMDEE TIE lI1Et Of M ETRE Of YYYEEOTI. DRE EE6 MO. LbEvn.TIoµ UMC A EXHIBIT B2 7 G u E. K o ► L 6 6 y EL, \a +n 12 UwIT.J ie� /4L CIN4 7vscsy " � 1i wtryt, yrs(.ey .. 1t �wxtrt s.+uD er. �s•i L -J s i r P L a N x F—I tz N w II }� H I 4,.LWTEb ULY A P A LT M 6 N T4 Ert. S 6 0 T T L 0 k D jiiE'inmy rEu�annu 4FMD ELNESS ARCSHORF�C.'ilp iNCry. nnNISNNNE�5OTA $SdO3 i rErs•ceEEn TNa TN11iuN pEcr. C1TOx O[ IKIOEf EY rE[MII(D t1 YE OR7 NOy[ YY DMR WK11Wpx WO 1INN• OOL• [[OYI[11[D YICNR[CT/ ENOtKEE YYDM M lllYt OI M tTOE OE YtEI[tOfl Dd[ EE6 MO. h ITE; p L d ti i1.►w V. (c) Entry/Core Area. The entry area will have a strong pedestrian orientation facing Shakopee Avenue. The entry will have a covered porte cochere for dropping off and picking up residents. The building will have a full security system. The entry/core area will provide a large lobby area, elevator, and lounge/ community room on the first floor that will have a walk through to the courtyard and pool. The second floor of the core area will include a large laundry facility. The third floor of the core area will 'rnd:cdau-d-CUMfIIU6tUYrpaI-T-y._rouiu'tnAL,-uve?-_EobKs`Lnu courtyard and pool. Trash collection will be by a chute system in the core area with a chute at each floor to a central collection in the underground garage. (d) Landscape Plan. The lardscape plan has been designed to provide extensive mature plantings throughout the site. Special attention was given to landscaping the perimeter of the site to assure the most attractive landscape setting possible. Over eighty percent of the 114 major plantings proposed for the site will be mature trees transplanted with a mechanical tree spade. Additonal plantings on the northwest side of the site will be added in response to staff and Planning Commission recommendations. CITY APPROVALS (a) Platting. The Owner requests preliminary and final plat approval at this time. Although the platting of this property is not required prior to development, the Owner is seeking plat approval to accommodate the City staff request to do so and because it makes good planning sense. The plat consists of a 6.026 acre parcel being platted as a single L-shaped lot. The lot is an existing separate parcel of record. All utilities are constructed and in place. According to the Owner's consulting engineer and City Engineer, there will be no need for public improvements as a result of this plat or the development proposal. There will be no new assessments to any properties for improvements. The sanitary sewer is served by a 8" line in Shakopee Avenue. Water will be served from Shakopee Avenue with a 6" service. The Director of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has approved the water plan. 7 The site will drain from the south to the north. A drainage plan with calculations has been prepared by the Developer's engineer and approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the Lower Minnesota Water- shed District Board reviewed and approved the drainage plan at its October P, 1985, meeting, subject to the implementation of a construction erosion control plan. (b) Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use permit (CUP) is required for buildings in a R-4 district in excess of 30 feet in height. This conditional use permit is consolidated with the Planned Unit Developoment request below. The basic 3 -story building is 28 feet in height. The addition of the peaked roof adds approximately 7 feet to the height of the building. The Owner feels the added expense and height of the peaked roof is justified as an important element of this residential structure. A flat roof is less attractive and creates a more institutional appearance to the building. The Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit for a roof in excess of 30 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of building plans by Building Offical. 2. Stop signs placed where private drives enter onto public roads. 3. In order to meet requirements of the Fire Chief, water system be looped as required by Fire Chief. 4. Landscape and lighting plan to be approved by City Planner. 5. Redesignation of the open space in the southern portion of the lot. (c) Planned Unit Development. The PUD request is to consolidate the parking and living structures. The lot area coverage is reduced by approximately 36,800 sq. ft. (15.8%) if the parking is underground rather than at -grade. The Owner plans to reserve a minimum 20% of the lot area for usable open space. The PUD was approved by the Planning Commission at its September 26, 1985, meeting as part of the CUP noted above. The Developer could proceed without any Planning Commission or City Council approvals to construct a 98 unit building with a flat roof and exterior parking with or without garages. The Owner does not want to build such a plain building. This request is to permit the additional 5 feet in height for a peaked roof. VI. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING VII. On Wednesday, September 25, 1985, the Owner held a neighborhood meeting at Sweeney Elementary School to solicit comments from nearby residents regarding the developoment proposal. In response to those concerns, the Owner made certain modifications to the original building and prepared a traffic analysis by a traffic engineer. (See Benshoof Report attached Exhibit D) There were concerns regarding headlights from the underground garage directed to neighbors' homes across Shakopee Avenue. There were also safety questions regarding curb cuts and children walking to Pearson School. The site plan has been revised to relocate the entrance to the underground garage from Shakopee Avenue to the Southwest corner of the building. This avoids the potential problem of headlights directed into the homes of neighbors and consolidates the movement of trafic to shakopee Avenue onto one drive. There will be a stop sign at the drive onto Shakopee Avenue behind the sidewalk. Benshoof and Associates, a well known traffic consult- ing firm conducted a thorough traffic analysis to consider the traffic implications of this development. The conclusion of this study is that the development traffic can be safely and effectively accommodated by the existing public roadway system. (P.4, Benshoof Report Exhibit D). Mr. Benshoof will be present at the City Council meeting to present his findings and answer questions. Some apartment owners expressed concern that there is not a market demand for this type of development. The Owner has conducted a market survey and feasibility study for this project which concludes there is a need for this project at this time. A synopsis of these conclusions is attached, (Geisler Letter, attached Exhibit E). The Owner would not put its equity at risk if it did not believe there is a strong market demand for this development. HOUSING REVENUE BOND REQUEST This Owner will also be requesting City Council authorization to issue Housing Revenue Bonds (HRB). A HRB is a bond that the City authorizes, but in no way pledges its payment or puts the City at risk. The Owner pledges its assets to guarantee payment of the bonds. The HRB permits a lower rate of interest to be charged because the Internal Revenue Code allows these as tax-free bonds. When HRB's are used, 20% of the units must be made available to low or moderate income families. By definition, a low or moderate income family is a household with an income which does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Metropolitan area. The 80% income level is $26,600 per year. There is no rent subsidy. All rents are paid by the tenant. Because of high conventional interest rates, without housing revenue bonds, quality multiple -family housing projects are not financially feasible today. Rents which must be charged in order to make a quality conventionally financed project feasible could not be marketed. Interest rates, without housing bonds, would be at least 13.5% per year. We estimate that the interest rate on housing revenue bonds would be 10% per year. Conventional financing would increase the proposed rental rates by more than 26.5%. The following is a comparison of the projected rent schedule using housing revenue bonds and the rent schedule using conventional financing if the same high quality building were built: No. of Monthly Rentals With Monthly Rentals With Bedrooms Housing Revenue Bonds Conventional Financing $455.00 $575.00 2 $555.00 $705.00 The Owner has been advised that this project should be designed and directed to two principal markets. The first is "young elderly" or "empty nester" residents of the City who desire a high quality rental alternative to high -maintenance single-family homes but still wish to reside in Shakopee. The other is young couples and singles not ready to buy but seeking high quality rental housing alternatives. There currently are very few high-quality rental housing choices in the City. Without HRB, an Owner could build a lower quality, flat roofed building, without balconies, pools, garages or other amenities. The cost of construction would be dramatically lower, the rents would be lower, but the quality would be lower. The Owner has made every effort to design and develop a housing alternative for the City of Shakopee that offers the highest quality rental facility in the City at an affordable rent. This can only be made possible with HRB approval. VII. CONCLUSION The Project advances the goals of the City and will provide the most exciting affordable multi -family housing opportunities in the City. We respectfully request approval of the preliminary and final plat and Housing Revenue Bonds for this residential development. Exhibit D BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344/(612) 944-7590 REFER TO FILE: September 25, 1985 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Tim Keane, Scottll wd Inc. FROM: James A. Benshoo� and Michael L. Wonson RE: Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Canterbury Apartments in the City of Shakopee PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 85-34-54 The purpose of this memorandum is to present our analysis and findings concerning the traffic implications of the proposed Canterbury Apartments in the City of Shakopee. The principal considerations of our analysis include: Can the existing public roadway system safely and effectively accommodate traffic generated by the development? . What are the impacts of access to 10th Avenue from the development? . What is the preferred access configuration to Shakopee Avenue? As we understand it, the project will consist of 92 apartment units located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Shakopee Avenue and C.S.A.H. 17. Access to the development is currently proposed from both Shakopee Avenue and 10th Avenue, south of the site. Shakopee Avenue is a two lane (40 feet wide) local roadway carrying approximately 1,400 vehicles daily in the vicinity of the site. C.S.A.H. 17 is a designated minor arterial, four lanes wide, carrying approximately 7,850 daily vehicles north of the site and 5,010 daily vehicles south of the site. 10th Avenue is also a designated minor arterial, four lanes wide (64 feet) with bike lanes, carrying approximately 4,230 daily vehicles in the vicinity of the site. TRAFFIC FORECASTS The basic methodology for forecasting traffic generated by the proposal consists of estimating the number of trips generated by the development, estimating the general distribution of trips to/from the site, and then assigning trips to the roadway system based upon the general distribution and most convenient direct route to/from a destination dependent upon access points and roadway characteristics. The number of trips generated by the proposed development was calculated utilizing trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1983. The following table presents the expected two way trip generation for this 92 unit proposal., 6 Tim Keane -2- September 25, 1985 Trip Generation Daily Trips A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 560 trips 46 trips 64 trips Trip distribution was estimated based upon the location/proximity of shopping, employment, and leisure activities. The following represents estimated trip distribution: 15% to/from the west 50% to/from the northwest 30% to/from the northeast 5% to/from the south Trips were assigned to the roadway system based upon the most convenient, direct route. Two alternative forecasts were prepared to assess the impacts of proposed access to 10th Avenue. One scenario had access to both Shakopee Avenue and 10th Avenue as proposed, the other had access solely to Shakopee Avenue. The following table presents the traffic forecasts for selected segments of the area roadway system. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Roadway Segment CSAH 17 CSAH 17 Shakopee Ave. 10th Ave. Scenario North of Site South of Site West of Site West of Site Existing Daily Traffic 7,850 5,010 1,400 4,230 Daily Development Traffic with no con- nection to 10th Ave. 250 30 280 0 Daily Development Traffic with con- nection to 10th Ave. 250 30 170 110 AM Peak Hour Develop- ment Traffic with no connection to 10th Ave. 21 2 23 0 AM Peak Hour Develop- ment Traffic with con- nection to 10th Ave. 21 2 14 9 1 Tim Keane -3- September 25, 1985 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS As can be noted from the traffic forecasts, development traffic will be a small portion of total traffic on C.S.A.H. 17 (3% increase north of the site, 1% increase south of the site). Given these volumes, the design of C.S.A.H. 17, and its designation as a minor arterial, it is concluded that C.S.A.H. 17 can safely and effectively accommodate development traffic. The provision of a connection from the development to 10th Avenue does affect traffic volumes on Shakopee Avenue and 10th Avenue west of the site. Without a connection to 10th Avenue, daily volumes on Shakopee Avenue would be 280 trips (a 20% increase in daily volumes) with 23 occuring during the AM peak hour. This AM peak hour would be the period of greatest concern given the location of the elementary school to the west. However, this volume (23 trips or one every three minutes) is not anticipated to create noticeable impacts. In light of the design of Shakopee Avenue (40 feet in width) and forecasted development volumes, it is expected that this roadway can safely and effectively accommodate development traffic without a connection from the project to 10th Avenue. A connection to 10th Avenue would divert approximately 110 daily trips from Shakopee Avenue. This volume represents an increase in daily traffic on 10th Avenue of three percent. This minimal increase can be accommodated by 10th Avenue given its design (four lanes) and minor arterial status. From the analysis, It is concluded that the public roadway system can safely and effectively accommodate development traffic whether or not a connection from the development to 10th Avenue is provided. However, from a traffic/access perspective it can be concluded that access to both 10th Avenue and Shakopee Avenue is preferable for the following reasons: 1) A connection to 10th Avenue will divert traffic from Shakopee Avenue (a local two lane roadway) to 10th Avenue, a four lane minor arterial. 2) A connection will also result in less use of north -south residential streets west of site by traffic from the development going to/from 10th Avenue. 3) A connection provides more convenient access to the development. 4) A connection provides an alternative means of emergency access to the site. Concerning access to Shakopee Avenue, two alternatives were explored. One access point serving both the surface lot and underground parking or separate access points for both the surface lot and underground parking. The analysis indicates that one combined access point is preferred for the following reasons: r Tim Keane -4- September 25, 1985 1) It allows access to both the drop off/pickup area in the front of the building and to the underground parking without a vehicle reentering Shakopee Avenue to move from one point to the other. 2) If the 10th Avenue access is constructed, it avoids use of Shakopee Avenue by vehicles entering the site from 10th Avenue destined to the underground parking. 3) It avoids confusion and additional congestion on Shakopee Avenue if, for example, a visitor entered the underground parking via a separate access to Shakopee Avenue and had to back out onto the public roadway. CONCLUSIONS From the analysis of the traffic implications of the proposed Canterbury Apartment, the following conclusions are made: 1) Development traffic can be safely and effectively accommodated by the public roadway system. , 2) From a traffic/access perspective access to the site from both Shakopee Avenue and 10th Avenue is preferable. 3) One access point to Shakopee Avenue serving both the surface lot and underground parking is preferred. 853454-1.001/cor4 Le Ex Da F Po xx/xx/xx 0 iuuu Scal e SCOTTLAND, INC. TRAFFIC STUDY DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS FOR PROPOSED WITH 10TH AVENUE ACCESS CANTERBURY APARTMENTS BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344/(612)944-7590 BACKGROUND OF BENSHOOF 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. Benshoof 9 Associates, Inc. was founded in 1982 to provide specialized services in traffic engineering and transportation planninq, building on Mr. Benshoof's 15 years of experience in this type of work. The firm has provided traffic and transportation services to a variety of public agencies and private organizations. In April, 1984 the firm expanded its capabilities to include land use and site planning services through the addition of Mr. Mitch Wonson. Mr. Wonson's municipal planning experience has given him an indepth knowledge of the Issues and processes involved in the preparation of site and land use plans, as well as substantial skills in site plan design. Staff of Benshoof 8 Associates, Inc. have developed sound working relationships with a variety of private firms and governmental agencies. The firm serves as on-going traffic engineering consultants for the City of Minnetonka and performs In similar capacity for several private organizations. The firm has a Compaq micro -computer system with several technical analysis programs, including: • "Shared Parking", published by the Urban Land Institute. This program is helpful to judge the opportunities for shared use parking in a mixed use development. • Two programs to analyze the traffic performance at signalized Intersections. Outputs include: level of service, delays, queue length, fuel consumption, and CO emissions. SELECTED CLIENTS Public Organizations Carver County City of Coon Rapids City of Corcoran City of Detroit Lakes City of Hanover City of Hastings City of Hopkins City of Minneapolis City of Minnetonka City of Monticello City of North Oaks Private Organizations Barton Sand and Gravel Company Browning Ferris Industries Burger Kinq Corporation Federal Land Corporation Halley Land Corporation Kloster -Madsen, Inc. Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Arch. Mayo Clinic Nash Finch Corporation Northstar Financial Corporation Norwest Properties, Inc. Planmark Project Developers, Inc. Rochester Methodist Hospital Trammell Crow Company Welsh Construction Corporation Woodbridge Properties, Inc. BENSMOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344/(612)944-7590 JAMES A. BENSHOOF , P.E. REFER TO FILE: RESUME President Education: University of Minnesota, B.S., Civil Engineering, 1966 Northwestern University, M.S., Transportation Engineering, 1968 University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, M.S., Traffic Engineering, 1969 Experience: 1982 to Date - President of Benshoof & Associates, Inc. with overal responsibility for services provided by the firm. Recent projects include: redesign of Met Center parking lot, an access plan for T.H. 55 in City of Hastings, a plan for upgrading Cedar Lake Road, Cedar -Riverside parking study traffic plan for Minnetonka Civic Center, traffic studies for Mayo Clinic and Rochester Methodist Hospital, a concept plan for a downtown parking lot, safety analysis for several traffic accidents, and traffic analysis for numerous proposed developments. 1981 to 1982 - Principal with Strgar-Roscoe, Inc., Minneapolis. Responsible for all traffic engineering, transportation planning, and transit planning projects performed by the firm. Projects included: traffic impact studies for proposed Carlsons Center development and transportation planning for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. 1980 to 1981 - Vice -President with Westwood Planning 8 Engineering Company, Minneapolis. Responsible for all transportation services sprovided by the firm. Specific projects Included: MTC Bus studies project, design of three traffic signal installations for Anoka county, traffic planning for redevelopment of Met Stadium site, and I-94/Boone Avenue interchange study. 1971.to 1980 - Project Manager and Associate with BRW, Inc., Minneapolis. Responsible for a variety of transportation, traffic and transit projects. 1969 to 1971 - Traffic Engineer with Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Buffalo, New York. Participated in various transportation planning and traffic engineering projects. Affiliations: Registrations: Institute of Transportation Engineers Minnesota (P.E.) 7 Kramer, Geisler & Strand, Inc. Exhibit E 11900 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 232 . Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 • (612) 545-9575 September 25, 1985 Mr. Bruce D. Malkerson Mr. Timothy J. Keane Scottland, Inc. 5244 Valley Industrial Blvd. South Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Market consideration for proposed Shakopee Apartments Gentlemen; This letter is written in response to your request that Kramer, Geisler & Strand, Inc. identify market factors in the Shakopee apartment market which would influence the development of the Shakopee Apartments. This letter is not intended to include all market factors, but those which have the primary influence on the type and design of the development best suited to this market. The basic indicator of a strong rental apartment market demand in Shakopee is the current 0.69% vacancy rate or only 2 vacant units out of 199 units. This vacancy survey was conducted by the Apartment Guide in August, 1985, and included 6 apart- ment developments in Shakopee. The survey further indicated that only one unit out of 186 units was vacant in Savage for a 0.54% vacancy rate. Typically a 5% vacancy rate is required in any given market to enable adequate consumer choice in housing. Once the vacancy drops below this standard for any length of time, the development of additional units may usually be justified. Given a vacancy rate of less than 2% since 11/83 according to the Apartment Guide, it is quite apparent that the apartment demand in this market remains quite strong. The Apartment Guide also conducted a rental survey in August, 1985. The 3 newest projects which were surveyed indicate a one bedroom rental range of $310 to $380 per month and a two bedroom rental rate of $340 to $460 per month. This rental range reflects units which are at least 11 years old and generally a modest level of living amenities. The proposed Shakopee Apartments are designed to meet a different segment of the market that should not compete directly with the existing rental housing base. A project rental rate of $460 per month for a one bedroom unit including one basement garage stall, and a two bedroom rate of $540 per month with garage is significantly higher than the existing apartment rents and will require a level and quality of amenity which is perceived by the market to justify these rental levels and pro- vide another identifiable choice in the market place. As we have previously dis- cussed, these amenities should include underground parking; elevator building; full kitchen appliances including range, refrigerator, dishwasher, disposal and microwave; laundry on each floor; balconies; party/game room; and some units developed with dens. Exterior site improvements would include outdoor swimming pool and playground equipment. Real Estate Appraisals • Consultation • Market Research • Feasibility Studies Mr. Bruce D. Malkerson Mr. Timothy J. Keane September 25, 1985 Scottland, Inc. Page 2 This level of amenities in our opinion provides you the opportunity to enter this rental market at a rental level generally above and non-competitive to the existing apartment base. The nature of these amenities, however, will enable marketing to both the elderly or empty -nester which is attracted to the elevator/ garage/unit amenities, and younger couples which find the pool/party room/play- ground equipment/unit features attractive amenities. Another factor which identifies Shakopee as having a strong potential rental market demand is the relatively high ratio of employment to the existing popula- tion base. In December, 1983 the Metropolitan Council estimated that Shakopee's employment was at 8,000 persons vs. a population of 9,941. This high level of persons commuting to Shakopee for work daily provides an excellent market basis for new housing construction. Further, the introduction of Canterbury Downs employment to this base provides an additional market base. The Canterbury Downs employment in 1986 will attract a much larger permanent employment base as the racing season is lengthened to run from April through November and many employees will be looking for permanent residences. I hope the above information meets your current planning needs. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, KRAMER, GEISLER & STRAND, INC. Lawrence T. Geisler LTG:lr MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Final Plat of Fox Run lst Addn. y DATE: October 9, 1985 Background: At the October 3, 1985 meeting the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Final Plat of Fox Run lst Addition be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required improvements: a) In lieu of park dedication, cash payments be made to the City at the time of issuance of Building Permits. b) Electricity be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPDC Utilities Manager. c) Street Improvements to be made in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee when petitioned by either the developers or the future owners of Lots 1 or 2, with the developer waiving all rights to a hearing on the proposed assessment. 3. Dedication of ten foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of each lot. 4. The final plat shall indicate by document number the dedicated right-of-way which is intended to provide access to Martindale Drive. At a previous meeting in May, 1985 the Planning Commission approved a motion to direct the developers to prepare a final plat which met code requirements and created two lots with a dedicated cul-de-sac to serve the lots. The Planning Commission had also approved a staff recommendation that the developers not be required to construct the cul-de-sac until such time that it is petitioned for by the lot owners. Action Requested: Offer Resolution No. 2458 , A Resolution approving the Final Plat of Fox Run lst Addition, and move for its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2458 A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Fox Run 1st Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did approve the Final Plat of Fox Run lst Addition on October 3, 1985 and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, all notices of hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all things. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Final Plat of Fox Run 1st Addition, described as follows: The Westerly 1073.93 feet of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 115, Range 22 be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the requirements that: I 1. 2. 3. 4. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required improvements: a) b) c) In lieu of park dedication, cash payments be made to the City at the time of issuance of Building Permits. Electricity be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Utilities Manager. Street Improvements to be made in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee when petitioned by either the developers or the future owners of Lots 1 or 2, with the developer waiving all rights to a hearing on the proposed assessment. Dedication of ten foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of each lot. The final plat shall indicate by document number the dedicated right-of-way which is intended to provide access to Martindale Drive. EE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk and the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said approved Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19 Mayor of the City cf S:gakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of ,19 City Attorney VI MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Aministrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Preliminary and Final Plat of Canterbury Apartments 1st Addition. DATE: October 9, 1985 Background: At the October 3, 1985 meeting the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend to the City Council preliminary and final plat approval of Canterbury Apartments 1st Addition subject to the three conditions contained in the attached staff report. Action Reauested: Offer Resolution No. 2459, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Canterbury Apartments lst Addition, and move for its adoption. Attachment tw 6 MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner DATE: September 25, 1985 APPLICANT: Scottland, Inc. LOCATION: NE 1/4 of Section 7; CSAH 17 and S. of 9th/N. of 10th Avenues ZONING: R-4 Multi -Family Residential LAND USE: Vacant (Proposed multi -family development) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Chapter 12 of City Code; Subdivision Ordinance FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 12.01, Subdivision 4 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Canterbury Apartments lst Addition SURROUNDING LAND USES: North - R-4 Apartments & single family homes (Existing) East - R-4 Presbyterian Church & town homes (Existing) South - R-2 Urban residential (developed) West - R-4 Assembly of God Church (Approx 1/2 site developed) PUBLIC UTILITIES: Sanitary Sewer, Water and Storm Sewer available. CONSIDERATIONS: I 1. The proposed plat consists of one Block and one Lot. The parcel is a lot of record and could be developed without platting. The proposed development is a 92 unit apartment building that includes underground parking facilities. 2. The plat abuts three constructed streets, which are: 9th and 10th Avenues and CSAH 17. Sidewalk is in place where the plat abuts the streets. 3. Ten foot drainage and utility easements are shown. 4. In lieu of land dedication, a payment to the park fund is recommended. No Developer's Agreement will be required for the plat, therefore it is recommended by the City Clerk That the payment be made prior to recording the plat, rather than drafting a separate agreement which will have to be recorded. 5. The Consulting City Engineer has reviewed the prposed plat and recommends approval. Recommendation: Staff recommends preliminary and final plat approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Name of plat be changed to Canterbury Apartments 1st Addition. 2. Approved Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 3. Park Dedication fee be paid prior to recording of the plat. Action Reauested: Motion to recommend to the City Council that the preliminary and final plat of Canterbury Apartments 1st Addition be approved subject to the recommended conditions. 70 - RESOLUTION NO. 2459 A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Canterbury Apartments 1st Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did approve the Final Plat of Canterbury Apartments 1st Addition on October 3, 1985 and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, all notices of hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all things. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Final Plat of Canterbury Apartments 1st Addition, described as follows: The North 643.0 feet (as measured at right angles), of all that part of the North one half of the Northeast Quarter (N1/2 of NE1/4) of Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of County Road No. 17, EXCEPT the Westerly 300.0 feet (measured at right angles) and EXCEPT the following: That part of the South 321.50 feet of the North 643.50 feet (as measured at right angles) of the North one half of the Northeast Quarter (N112 of NE1/4) of Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying Easterly of the West 570.0 feet (as measured at right angles); and Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of County Road No. 17. be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the requirements that: 1. Name of plat be changed to Canterbury Apartments lst Addition. 2. Approved Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 3. Park Dedication fee be paid prior to recording of the plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk and the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said approved Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19 City Attorney 5 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator j 0.- FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clem - RE: Application for Toro Company for $3,500,000 Industrial Development Bonds DATE: October 11, 1985 Introduction Application has been received from the Toro Company for $3,500,000 IR Bonds for a 83,000 sq. ft. addition to their existing facility and some remodeling to the existing facility. Background The applicant wishes to commence construction as soon as possible so the hearing date has been set for November 6, 1985 and publication of the public hearing has already been ordered for October 16th in the event Council desires to hold the public hearing. The applicant is also asking Council to adopt the preliminary resolution after the public hearing on November 6th to accommodate the construction schedule. Upon reviewing the estimated cost of the facility and comparing it to the application, it is apparent that the owner does not meet the City's requirement that the owner nave 15% equity in the project. The Council may desire to look at equity for this project in a slightly different perspective, because it is an addition to an existing facility. The original facility was financed with $2,100,000 in IR Bonds. According to the payment schedule $900,000 plus any interests due has been paid through 1985. The two issues together total $5,600,000. The $900,000 which has already been paid gives an owner equity in the two projects of 16.07%. Staff will advise the applicant of Council's 15% equity policy and suggest that they come prepared to make changes in their application Tuesday evening, if that is Council's desire. Under the law in 1975, the City is the actual owner of the land upon which the Toro facility is located and upon payment of the bonds, the Toro Company can purchase the land from the City for $100.00. Staff will research with legal staff whether or not this has any bearing on owner equity. Funds for this allocation will have to come from the state pool. When funds come from the state pool, an additional process must be followed by the applicant. He must also apply to the state pool for funds. This process can come before or after the adoption of the preliminary resolution. In an attempt to expedite the process, the applicant wishes to make application to the state pool simultaneously while having the public hearing on the project. In order to apply to the pool, without a preliminary resolution, an inducement resolution must be adopted. In the resolution the Council declares its present intention to issue its industrial development revenue bonds, but does not guarantee or commit firmly that they will do so. Staff will varify with the City Attorney that the City is under no obligation. Alternatives 1. Do nothing. 2. Adopt inducement resolution setting date for public hearing. 3. Adopt resolution setting public hearing, only. Recommendation Staff recommends #2, assuming the City is not under obligation to give approval after the public hearing. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2456, A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Proposal to Issue Industrial Development Bonds; Authorize Application for Issuance Authority to the State of Minnesota; and Expressing a Present Intention to Issue Industrial Revenue Bonds for a Manufacturing Project Proposed by the Toro Company, and move its adoption. JSC/jms 9CIL- MI CHAELJ.DOHERTY 11882-19731 DO H E RTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER EDWARD F. FOX WILFRID E. RUMBLE 11891-19711 RICHARD B. PETERSON PIERCE BUTLER, JR. (1893-19571 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JONATHAN P. SCOLL J. C. FOOTE JOHN E. VUKELICH IRVING CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW TERENC E P. DURKIN FRANK CLAYBOURNE ELIZABETH HOENE JOHN L.HANNAFORD MARY E. PROBST PERRY M.WILSON,JR. 1500 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING LISA M.HURWITZ JEROME HALLO RAN KAREEN R. ECKLUND HENRY D.FLASCH SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA SSIOI DAVID M. CREMONS EUGENE M.WARLICH , SUE ANNNELSON JAMES K.WITTENBERG BRENT D. BOSTROM JOHN J.MCGIRL,JR. TELEPHONE 16121 291-9333 ANN E.TOBIN THOMAS E.ROHRICHT THOMAS F.SURPRENANT Boy H.RATCHYE WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER LORI WIESE-PARKS RALPH K. MOR RIS DONALD S. M4CAU LEY BRUCE E.HAN SON J. LAWRENCE M4INTYRE 291-9323 JEFFREY A. REDMON CYNTHIA M. WH ITEFORD RICHARD A. WILHOIT DAVID P. SWANSON WILLIAM J.COSGRIFF RONALD D. MSFALL JAMES A.STOLPESTAD RUSSELL C. BROWN MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE ROBERT P. MANDEL SUSAN C. WEINGARTNER STEPHEN E. SMITH GARY L. GANDRUID 3750 IDS TOWER PATRICK GARRY TONIA T. KITTELSON JAM ES J.RYAN RONALD A.ZAMANSKY MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 ERIN K.JORDAHL MARC J MANDERSCHEID DEAN R.EDSTROM C. ROBERT BEATTIE TELEPHONE (612) 340-5555 DAWN L. GAGNE DONALD W. NILES DAVID G. MARTIN TIMOTHY R.0 INN TELEX 290-635 GENA M. SETZER MARTHA CLARK ALAN I. SILVER JANIS M. CLAY JAMES R. CRASSWELLER JOHN A. EK October 10, 1985 JEFFREYYBLOBERMAN GREGORY A. KVAM OF COUNSEL PENELO PE A. HUNT INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE FORMER FIRM OF DANIEL W. O'B RIEN PHILIP L. ERICKSON SBROWN SMITH WILLIAM B.RANDALL WILLIAM L.SIPPEL TO LPESTAD r & FRANK S. FARRELL KIMBALL J. DEVOY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION RICHARD H. MAGNUSON GARY HANSEN GEORGE C. KING DAVID P. DYSON CARL A. SWENSON Ms. Judith S. Cox City Clerk - Administrator City of Shakopee, Minnesota 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: The Toro Company Application for Industrial Revenue Bonds Dear Ms. Cox: Attached are eight copies of The Toro Company's application for industrial revenue bond financing for its proposed addition to the existing facility at 600 South Industrial Boulevard, together with the application for site plan review and The Toro Company's application fee of $6,000. Also enclosed are the following items: (1) Three copies of the Notice of Public Hearing for this project, which we would like to have published on October 16 in the Shakopee Valley News and in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune next week. The notice indicates the hearing will be held on November 6, 1985. (2) Three copies each of two alternative resolutions for consideration at the October 15, 1985 City Council meeting. The first alternative sets the November 6 public hearing, and also authorizes an application to the State for allocation of bond issuance authority and acts as an "inducement" resolution. This is the alternative we would like to have adopted at next week's meeting; its adoption is necessary to permit application to the State for issuance authority prior to the next application deadline on October 28. The second alternative simply sets the November 6 public hearing. If this is adopted, the State bond DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Ms. Judith S. Cox October 10, 1985 Page 2 r M. issuance application could not be submitted until late November, and we believe that would reduce the chances of obtaining the necessary allocation. (3) Three copies of a draft application to the State Energy and Economic Development Authority, together with drafts of the exhibits (including a draft of the "Preliminary Resolution" for the bonds, to be adopted after the public hearing). This application must be available for public inspection from the date of publication of the public hearing notice to the date of adoption of the Preliminary Resolution, and it will be filed with the State after the Preliminary Resolution is adopted. Finally, as we discussed at our meeting last week at your office, we would like to have the City Council waive its normal policy and consider the Preliminary Resolution for adoption at the November 6, 1985 meeting, immediately after the public hearing. This is necessary in order to accommodate The Toro Company's construction schedule. Thank you very much. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these materials. cc: Jeanne Andre Stephen Keating J. Lawrence McIntyre DPS: llk:05 Sincerely, i &4 v David P. Swanson Item 3 above not provided to council because: 11 copier down, 21 application is a duplicate of city's application, 3] attachments are standard which council has seen with other applications. Judy 1k 01 RESOLUTION NO. 2456 A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO ISSUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS; AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE AUTHORITY TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; AND EXPRESSING A PRESENT INTENTION TO ISSUE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS FOR A MANUFACTURING PROJECT PROPOSED BY THE TORO COMPANY. WHEREAS, the Toro Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), has applied to the City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the "City"), for the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act"), for the purpose of financing on behalf of the Company the construction of an approximately 83,000 square foot addition to the Company's existing facility, including certain remodeling of the existing facility, located in the Valley Industrial Park, at 600 South Industrial Boulevard in the City (the "Project"), which Project will be operated by the Company as a metal fabricating plant; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b, of the Act requires the City Council of the City to hold a public hearing with respect to the Project, after not less than 15 nor more than 30 days public notice; and WHEREAS, under the Act it is necessary for City to apply to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development (the "Department") to obtain an allocation of issuance authority prior to issuing revenue bonds for the Project; and WHEREAS, under the Act it is necessary for the City to adopt an "inducement" resolution prior to application to the Department for such issuance authority; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, as follows: (1) The City Council of the City shall hold a public hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on November 6, 1985, for the purpose of considering the Project and the proposed issuance of industrial development revenue bonds therefore, as required by Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b of the Act. (2) The City Clerk -Administrator, or other appropriate officer or employee of the City, shall take the steps necessary to publish in the appropriate newspapers, as required by law, not less than 15 nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing, a Notice of Public Hearing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. -1- (3) The Mayor, the City Clerk -Administrator and any other appropriate officer or employee of the City are each hereby authorized to take the steps necessary, in cooperation with the Company, to submit an application to the Department for obtaining an allocation of issuance authority for the proposed industrial development bonds for the Project. Any application fee required in connection with such application shall be provided by the Company. (4) The City Council of the City hereby declares its present intention to have the City issue its industrial development revenue bonds, pursuant to the Act; in the maximum aggregate face amount of $3,500,000, to provide financing for the Project, subject to final approval of said bonds by the resolution of the City Council of the City, the approval of the Project by the Department, obtaining the necessary allocation of issuance authority from the Department and such further conditions as the City Council may specify. The adoption of this resolution by the City Council of the City does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment and creates no vested right or entitlement that the City will issue industrial development bonds for the Project as requested by the Company. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from participation and refuse to issue industrial development bonds for the Project at any time prior to adoption of the resolution authorizing the issuance of said bonds. (5) This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. The foregoing Resolution was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on this 15th day of October, 1985, by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: [SEAL] Attest: ty Clerk DPSdocl4a -2- Mayor N 02 COMPETITIVE POOL QUALIFICATIONS CRiTERik — 1984 PURSUANT TO MINN. LAWS 1984, CH. 582 § 16, SUE' TO BE CODIFIED AS MINN. STAT. §474.19, SURD. all references to sections herein are to Minnesota Statutes as amended dp�1 e t�cy c ca�t onAtQby 1E NAME OF ISSUER: NAME OF PROJECT: TYPE OF PROJECT. SUBMITTED: ❑ WITH: ❑ WITHOUT A PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION A,`,,4,-0UNT OF PROJECT Claimed by Awarded Applicant by DEED ❑ ❑ 1. The 1983 Statewide average unemployment rate 8.2% x 1 10%=9.02%. The unemployment rate claimed by applicant % is equal to, or greater than 9.02%. Source; the greater of: A. ❑ The most recent estimate of unemployment by the Department of Economic Secu- rity for the smallest jurisdiction enclosing the jurisdiction of the applicant. B. ❑ Applicants estimate for its jurisdiction. (attach documentation to support estimate). ❑ ❑ 2. Decline of Employment: Number employed 1982 ; 1983; must be same source each year. Source: A. ❑ Dept. of Economic Security for same jurisdiction as Itern 1.A. B. ❑ Applicants estimate for its jurisdiction (attach documentation to support estimate) ❑ ❑ 3. The number of jobs to be created by project is at least .001 x 1983 number of em- ployed shown in Item 2. ❑ ❑ 4. The number of jobs to be created by the project is at least two jobs per $100,000 of issuance authority requested. ❑ ❑ 5. Total market value of taxable property in applicants jurisdiction, as of this date, as most recently certified to Commissioner of Revenue is$ , and has either: A. ❑ Declined from the 1983 Certification to Commissioner of Revenue of $ B. ❑ Increased from the 1983 Certification to the Commissioner of Revenue of $ , ata rate of % which is not greater than 4.13% which is 90% of the increase of the state average market value of 4.59%, as determined by the Department of Revenue. ❑ ❑ 6. The estimated market value of the completed project described in the application is $ , and is at least equal to .005 x $ the market value of all taxable property in the application's jurisdiction based upon the most recent total for applicants jurisdiction certified to the Commissioner of Revenue. ❑ ❑ 7. The project is wholly located in an enterprise zone designated pursuant to section 273.1312. ❑ ❑ 8. The project site meets the criteria necessary to qualify as a tax increment redevelopment district as defined in Section 273.73, Subd. 10. To qualify for this point, the project need not be included in a tax increment financing district. ❑ ❑ 9. The project meets one of the following energy conservation criteria: A. ❑ The project is eligible for the additional federal investment tax credits for energy property. B. ❑ The project involves construction or expansion of a district heating system as de- fined in section 1 16J.36. C. ❑ The project involves construction of an alternative energy source as described in section 1 16J.26, clause (a), (b), or (d), or 116J.922, subd. 6 or 7. ❑ ❑ 10. 90% or more of the proceeds of the proposed obligations will be used for construction, installa- tion, or addition of equipment used primarily to abate or control pollutants to meet or exceed state laws, rules, or standards. Claimed by , Awarded Applicant by DEED 9 a_�-- ❑ ❑ The following authorized official is designated for contact by the Department of Energy and Economic Development: NAME: ADDRESS THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION: Date Date Mayor/Chair of Local Issuer Attorney for Local Issuer PLEASE RETURN T0: MINNESOTA ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 900 AMERICAN CENTER BUILDING, 150 EAST KELLOGG BOULEVARD ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 11. The project consists of the renovation, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of an existing building which is: A. ❑ Located in a historic district designated under section 138.73, or on a site listed in the State Registry of Historical Sites under sections 138.53 to 138.5819. B. ❑ Designated in the National Register pursuant to United States Code, title 16, sec- tion 470a. ❑ ❑ 12. 900X0 or more of the proceeds of the proposed obligations will be used to finance facilities for waste management as defined in section 1 15A.03, subd. 36, or solid waste as defined in section 116.06, subd. 10. ❑ ❑ 13. Service connections to sewer and water systems are available to the project at the time the appli- cation is submitted. ❑ ❑ 14. Based upon the most recent census data, the minority population in the applicant's jurisdiction is % of its total population and is at least 110% of the statewide average of 3.9 %, as deter- mined by the Affirmative Action Division of the Department of Economic Security, according to the most recent census data. (Minority for these purposes includes all races except white but does include hispanics, as determined by the Minnesota Department of Economic Security in its publication, "Manpower Information for Affirmative Action Programs", Spring 1984 issue, pre- pared by the Research and Statistical Services Office.) ❑ ❑ 15. As of the date the application is submitted either: A. ❑ Neither the anticipated owner of the project, nor any party of which the owner was a controlling partner or shareholder, or which was a controlling shareholder or part- ner of the owner, owned or operated a substantially similar business within the state, or B. ❑ The project is an expansion of the operations of an existing business which is not likely to have the effect of transferring existing employment from one or more other municipalities within the state to the municipality in which the project is located. ❑ ❑ 16. A controlling interest in the project will be owned by one or more women or minority persons. (Minority for these purposes is as defined in Item 14.) ❑ ❑ 17. 75% or more of the proceeds of the proposed issue will be used to rehabilitate an existing struc- ture. ❑ ❑ 18. At the time of application, the property on which the project is to be located is properly zoned for the proposed use. ❑ ❑ 19. The bond issue involves a credit enhancement device providing additional security for bondhold- ers involving commitments or fees to be paid by the issuer other than from bond proceeds. No points shall be awarded for credit enhancement devices financed directly or indirectly by a pri- vate, for-profit party which has a financial interest in or is related to any party which has a finan- cial interest in the project. (attach documentation describing credit enhancement device and source of payment. TOTAL POINTS AWARDED The following authorized official is designated for contact by the Department of Energy and Economic Development: NAME: ADDRESS THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION: Date Date Mayor/Chair of Local Issuer Attorney for Local Issuer PLEASE RETURN T0: MINNESOTA ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 900 AMERICAN CENTER BUILDING, 150 EAST KELLOGG BOULEVARD ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 M NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 6, 1985, at 8:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers, Shakopee City Hall, 129 East First Avenue in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, regarding a proposal that the City issue its revenue bonds or notes, in one or more series, under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, in order to finance all or a portion of the cost of construction of the project described below. The proposed project will consist of the construction and equipping by The Toro Company (the company) of an approximately 83,000 square foot addition to the Company's existing facility, including certain remodeling of the existing facility, located in the Valley Industrial Park, at 600 South Industrial Boulevard, in the City. The proposed project, together with the company's existing facility, will be operated by the company as a metal fabricating plant, and the maximum aggregate face amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued for financing this project is $3,500,000. If and when issued, the revenue bonds or notes issued for the project will not constitute a charge, lein or encumbrance upon any property of the City, and such revenue bonds or notes will not be a charge against City's general credit or taxing powers but will be payable soley from sums to be paid by the company pursuant to a revenue agreement between the company and the City. No holder of any such revenue bond or note shall ever have the right to compell the exercise of taxing power of the City to pay the bonds or notes or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of any of the City except the project. A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Energy and Econmic Development Authority for approval of the project, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the office of the City Clerk -Administrator, Shakopee City Hall, 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota. This public hearing is required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, and by Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. Written comments may be submitted to the City prior to the date of the public hearing by sending such written comments to the City of Shakopee, 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota, 55379, Attention: City Clerk - Administrator. At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council will give all local residents, and other interested persons who appear, an opportunity to express their view either for or against the proposed project and the proposed issuance revenue of bonds or notes therfor. City Clerk � �Q 6ct _V1 I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO ISSUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS. WHEREAS, the Toro Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), has applied to the City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the "City"), for the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act"), for the purpose of financing on behalf of the Company the construction of an approximately 83,000 square foot addition to the Company's existing facility, including certain remodeling of the existing facility, located in the Valley Industrial Park, at 600 South Industrial Boulevard in the City (the "Project"), which Project will be operated by the Company as a metal fabricating plant; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b, of the Act requires the City Council of the City to hold a public hearing with respect to the Project, after not less than 15 nor more than 30 days public notice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, as follows: (1) The City Council of the City shall hold a public hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on November 6, 1985, for the purpose of considering the Project and the proposed issuance of industrial development revenue bonds therefore, as required by Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b of the Act. (2) The City Clerk -Administrator, or other appropriate officer or employee of the City, shall take the steps necessary to publish in the appropriate newspapers, as required by law, not less than 15 nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing, a Notice of Public Hearing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. The foregoing City Council of the City of October, 1985, by the Ayes: Nays: [SEAL] Attest: City Clerk DPSdoc14 Resolution was passed and approved by the of Shakopee, Minnesota, on this 15th day following vote: -2- Mayor COMPETITIVE POOL QUALIFICATIONS CRITERIA — 1984 PURSUANT TO MINN. LAWS 1984, CH. 582 § 16, SUBD. 3, TO BE CODIFIED AS MINN. STAT. §474.19, SUBD. 3. all references to sections herein are to Minnesota Statutes as amended City of Shakopee, Minnesota NAME OF ISSUER: NAME OF PROJECT: TYPE OF PROJECT SUBMITTED: Claimed by Awarded Applicant by DEED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C a, F-01 1 U 0 The Toro Company Project Manufacturing (Metal Fabricating Plant) ® WITH: ❑ WITHOUT A PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION AMOUNT OF PROJECT 3,500,000 G,3 G,93 1. The 198 Statewide average unemployment rate 4-21% x 110%=9-a2%. The unemployment rate claimed by applicant % is equal to, or greater than4&82%. Source; the greater of: G.i 3 A. ❑ The most recent estimate of unemployment by the Department of Economic Secu- rity for the smallest jurisdiction enclosing the jurisdiction of the applicant. B. ❑ Applicants estimate for its jurisdiction. (attach documentation to support estimate). 2. Decline of Employment: 3 4 Number employed 19E� ; 198 ; must be same source each year. Source: A. ❑ Dept. of Economic Security for same jurisdiction as Item 1.A. B. ❑ Applicants estimate for its jurisdiction (attach documentation to support estimate; 3. The number of jobs to be created by project is at least .001 x 198,3umber of em- ployed shown in Item 2. ❑ 4. The number of jobs to be created by the project is at least two jobs per $100,000 of issuance authority requested. ❑ 5. Total market value of taxable property in applicants jurisdiction, as of this date, as most recently certified to Commissioner of Revenue is$, and has either: A. ElDeclined from the 198,3 Certification to Commissioner of Revenue of $ /, (51 3 B. ❑ Increased from the 198,9�Certification to the Commissioner of(Revenue of $ , at a rate of % which is not greater than4l-+34/o which is 90% of the increase of the state average market value of A-.64%, as determined by the Department of Revenue. a, 6 3 ❑ 6. The estimated market value of the completed project described in the application is $ , and is at least equal to .005 x $ the market value of all taxable property in the application's jurisdiction based upon the most recent total for applicants jurisdiction certified to the Commissioner of Revenue. ❑ 7. The project is wholly located in an enterprise zone designated pursuant to section 273.1312. ❑ 8. The project site meets the criteria necessary to qualify as a tax increment redevelopment district as defined in Section 273.73, Subd. 10. To qualify for this point, the project need not be included in a tax increment financing district. ❑ 9. The project meets one of the following energy conservation criteria: A. ❑ The project is eligible for the additional federal investment tax credits for energy property. B. ❑ The project involves construction or expansion of a district heating system as de- fined in section 1 16J.36. C. ❑ The project involves construction of an alternative energy source as described in section 1 16J.26, clause (a), (b), or (d), or 116J.922, subd. 6 or 7. ❑ 10. 90% or more of the proceeds of the proposed obligations will be used for construction, installa- tion, or addition of equipment used primarily to abate or control pollutants to meet or exceed state laws, rules, or standards. Clairnedby Awarded .WApplicantby DEED ❑ ❑ 11. The project consists of the renovation, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of an existing building which is: A. ❑ Located in a historic district designated under section 138.73; or on a site listed F the State Registry of Historical Sites under sections 138.53 to 138.5819. B. ❑ Designated in the National Register pursuant to United States Code, title 16, sec- tion 470a. ❑ ❑ 12. 90% or more of the proceeds of the proposed obligations will be used to finance facilities fc waste management as defined in section 115A.03, subd. 36, or solid waste as defined in section 116.06, subd. 10. ® ❑ 13. Service connections to sewer and water systems are available to the project at the time the appi; cation is submitted. ❑ ❑ 14. Based upon the most recent census data, the minority population in the applicant's jurisdiction is % of its total population and is at least 110% of the statewide average of 3.9%, as deter- mined by the Affirmative Action Division of the Department of Economic Security, according to the most recent census data. (Minority for these purposes includes all races except white but does include hispanics, as determined by the Minnesota Department of Economic Security in its publication, "Manpower Information for Affirmative Action Programs", Spring 1984 issue, pre- pared by the Research and Statistical Services Office.) ❑ ❑ 15. As of the date the application is submitted either: A. ❑ Neither the anticipated owner of the project, nor any party of which the owner v, s: a controlling partner or shareholder, or which was a controlling shareholder or par ner of the owner, owned or operated a substantially similar business within the state, or B. ❑ The project is an expansion of the operations of an existing business which is not likely to have the effect of transferring existing employment from one or more other municipalities within the state to the municipality in which the project is located. ❑ ❑ 16. A controlling interest in the project will be owned by one or more women or minority persons. (Minority for these purposes is as defined in Item 14.) ❑ ❑ 17. 75% or more of the proceeds of the proposed issue will be used to rehabilitate an existing struc- ture. ❑ 18. At the time of application, the property on which the project is to be located is properly zoned for the proposed use. ❑ ❑ 19. The bond issue involves a credit enhancement device providing additional security for bondho ers involving commitments or fees to be paid by the issuer other than from bond proceeds. tV points shall be awarded for credit enhancement devices financed directly or indirectly by a pr- vate, for-profit party which has a financial interest in or is related to any party which has a fin& cial interest in the project. (attach documentation describing credit enhancement device and source of payment. TOTAL POINTS AWARDED The following authorized official is designated for contact by the Department of Energy and Economic Development: NAME: _ ADDRESS: THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION: Date Mayor/Chair of Local Issuer Attorney for Local Issuer PLEASE RETURN T0: MINNESOTA ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 900 AMERICAN CENTER BUILDING, 150 EAST KELLOGG BOULEVARD ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Cler RE: Final Approval of $1.,350,000ral Development Revenue Note for Super 8 Partnership DATE: October 11, 1985 The attached resolution of final approval was delivered to the city late this afternoon. The draft of the documents are also being deliveed to Mr. Krass today. A final copy of the resolution and staff memo will be on the tabl . If all is in order staff recommends adopting the resolution giving fin 1 approval. j a� MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Bemidji Super 8 Partnership DATE: October 15, 1985 The Assistant City Attorney has reviewed and approved all legal documentation relating to the $1,350,000 commercial development revenue note for Super 8 Partnership. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2460, A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of the City's $1,350,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note of 1985 (Shakopee Super Eight (8) Partnership Project), and move its adoption. JSC/ jms MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Sanitary Sewer Utility Serving Valley Printing Building DATE: October 10, 1985 introduction Approximately two years ago Mr. Kenneth Theis approached the City with a petition to provide sewer and water for the Valley Printing Building just south of the Junior High. Council authorized the Engineering Department to prepare a feasibility report. The feasibility report was prepared, but because the cost of the water services were extraordinary and the sewer assessment could not pass the "benefit test" the project went nowhere. Background Mr. Ken Theis has again approached the City indicating that he would like to proceed with the sanitary sewer portion of the project dropping the watermain portion. I have discussed this with LeRoy Houser and he has indicated that the building can be remodeled in a fashion to comply with the building code without requiring a sprinkler system. It was the need for a sprinkler which prompted Mr. Theis to submit his petition in the first place. To resolve the problem of meeting the benefit test for the sanitary sewer project Mr. Theis has been shown the feasibility report estimates and has agreed to pay the $20,000 himself. I have reviewed this unusually proposal with the Assistant City Attorney who agreed that the project could go forward if Mr. Theis would sign an agreement with the City of Shakopee. Attached for Council review is a copy of Mr. Theis' letter indicating that he would pay the assessment and the draft agreement provided by Mr. Krass to bind Mr. Theis to his agreement to totally fund the project. Alternatives i. 2. Approve the proposed agreement and authorize the appropriate City officials to accept the agreement once executed by Kenneth and Donna Theis. Modify the proposed agreement and then authorize the appropriate City officials to accept the agreement once executed by Kenneth and Donna Theis. 3. Do not approve the agreement. This would mean that Mr. Theis would continue to have a problem in the re -sale of his Valley Printing Building, because of the limited sewer capacity which limits the occupancy load of the building. 7c- Recommendation I recommend Alternative No. 1. The location of the proposed sanitary sewer would run north from the VIP trunk sewer along the east side of County Road 17. The City has been approached by the owners of the property just south of the Valley Printing Building because they are interested in rezoning and developing an apartment complex. It appears that the project is reasonable and that the City will have no problems with the "benefit test" upon execution of the agreement by Kenneth and Donna Theis. There seems to be a strong benefit to the City to have this semi -vacant building fully occupied by constructing the sewer, and I see no reason that this action would be detrimental to the City. Action Requested 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to accept the request for sanitary sewer project and waiver of assessments related thereto for the construction of a, sanitary sewer line estimated at approximately $20,000 upon proper execution of the waiver of assessment agreement by Kenneth and Donna Theis. 2. Authorize the City Engineer to initiate the project by drafting the appropriate MS Chapter 429 resolutions appointing a project engineer and authorizing the design of the project. JKA/jms • 5101 valley Industrial boulevard south - P.O. box 38 - shakopee, MN 55379 - 612-445-5261 October 2, 1985 Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Sewer hook-up Dear Mr. Anderson: LD1- - I have considered your letter of 9/18/85 at length and have decided that I must have the sewer line installed at the property at 1257 Marschall Road in Shakopee as soon as possible. I will waiver the assessments for the total sanitary sewer installation at.the property with the understanding that when improvements are made in the area at a later date that I would be entitled to a credit adjustment. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption. If at all possible I would like the payments put on my taxes. Please contact me if you need further information in this matter. Sincerely, Kenneth Theis President KT/ab newspapers - advertising supplements 9 catalogs* bindery 9 computerized mailing - typesetting/keylining REQUEST FOR SANITARY SEWER PROJECT AND WAIVER OF ASSESSMENTS RELATED THERETO The undersigned Kenneth Theis and Donna M. Theis, husband and wife, owners of certain property located in the City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, to -gait: The North 170 feet of the South one-half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE 1/4 of NE 1/4), Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, except the East 678.8 feet thereof, desiring to have said property served by sanitary sewer, do hereby make the following request of the City of Shakopee: 1. That the City of Shakopee commence at the earliest possible time construction of a sanitary sewer line to serve said property as above described, which property has a street address of 1257 Marschall Road, Shakopee, Minnesota. 2. The undersigned does make this request with the understanding that the present estimated cost of said sewer line is approximately $20,000.00. 3. The undersigned requests the City of Shakopee construct said sewer line under the auspices of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 and do hereby waive any and all written notices of any nature whatsoever required under said Chapter 429 for either the commencement of the construction of said sewer line, or the assessment of any cost related thereto against the above-described property. 4. The undersigned do further agree that for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, they will accept the assessment for the full cost of said sewer line to be assessed against the above-described property over a ten year period at an interest rate of 11% per annum. Said agreement on behalf of the undersigned is made with the specific understanding that the City of Shakopee will use its best efforts to obtain by way of sewer 7 G connection charges or other charges, reimbursement for a portion of said cost from other property owners who benefit from said sewer line, and should the City of Shakopee be successful in so doing, any amounts so collected will be paid back to the undersigned. The undersigned do further waive any and all assessment appeals, or court challenges to said assessment with the full understanding and knowledge that the City of Shakopee would not consider constructing said sewer line without the waivers and agreements herein set forth. Signed at Shakopee, Minnesota this day of October, 1985. Kenneth Theis Donna M. Theis Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1985 Notary Public FEASIBILITY REPORT for SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT IN M.ARSCHALL ROAD ELEVENTH AVENUE TO THIRTEENTH AVENUE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA PREPARED BY RAYMOND RUUSKA CITY OF SHAKOPEE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct super- vision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date Registration No. 13689 APPROVED BY SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION UTILITIES MANAGER March 1984 DATE FEASIBILITY REPORT for SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT IN MARSCHALL ROAD ELEVENTH AVENUE TO THIRTEENTH AVENUE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Description Feasibility Report Introduction Background Conclusions and Design Criteria Alternatives Discussion Assessments Appendix Cost Estimates and Watermain Sanitary Sewer Drawings TABLE OF CONTENTS Recommendations Assessment Computations Property Owners Benefit Area Theis Agreement Trunk Watermain Study Schoell & Madson, Inc. Page No. E 1 1 1 2 2 2-3 3 4-5 6 FEASIBILITY REPORT for SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT IN MARSCHALL ROAD ELEVENTH AVENUE TO THIRTEENTH AVENUE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION The City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ordered the' preparation of a Feasibility Report by Resolution No. 2170 on October 4, 1983 for the improvement of property in the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota by watermain and sanitary sewer. BACKGROUND City Council received a petition from a property owner benefitted by the above referenced improvements. On-site facilities are the current source of water and sewer service to this property and the owner is interested in the benefits of Urban services. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Watermain Property owners on County Road 17, south of 11th Avenue, have expressed an interest in the construction of watermain. Alternative 1 or Alternative 2would provide water service to the improved property and allow for future development of the area. Construction of trunk watermain in this area would complete a segment of the planned trunk � watermain system. Funding for the proposed watermain project is assured because the property owner east of the proposed facility has waived all rights to appeal the assessment levied for watermain construction. Therefore the watermain project is feasible as proposed herein. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer lateral built on the County Road 17 alignment would only benefit the easterly side of the road because the west side of the road is best served from the west side. Therefore, the feasibility of this project depends on whether the property owners on the east side of the road are prepared to pay for the improvements. Property owners on the east side of the road have not indicated a willingness to waive all rights to assessment appeal. Therefore the sanitary sewer project will not be feasibile until the property owners served by the sanitary sewer are willing to sign assessment waivers. V D�E V GNB CR TERIA)'-7401 t t/I �/ 1 G DESIGN CRITERIA Watermain Trunk watermain (12") would be designed in accordance with the Shakopee Public Utility Commissions Comprehensive Trunk Water System Study, prepared by Schoell and Madson, as revised and dated January 1981. Watermain would be constructed in accordance with Shakopee Public Utility Commissions Design Criteria and Standard Specifications. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer would be designed and constructed in accordance with City of Shakopee Design Criteria and Standard Specifications. ALTERNATIVES This report considers three alternatives for water and sanitary sewer) service for the study area: 1. The construction of watermain and sanitary sewer in County Road 17 from 11th Avenue south approximately 825' to the south property line of Shakopee Valley Publishing, Inc. extended. The sanitary sewer lateral runs from the west terminus of the VIP Sanitary Sewer Interceptor north approximately 5351. 2. The construction of the watermain as described above with no sanitary sewer construction. 3. Do nothing. DISCUSSION Watermain The feasibility of providing trunk water service to the County -Road 1 area south of 11th Avenue was studied and recommended as feasible byy Schoell & Madson on April 15.,1980. That report recommended -looping the system east to Austineand bounty Road 16. Construction of a segment of that loop is proposed in Alternate 1 and 2. Construction of a trunk watermain from 11th Avenue on County Road 17 south 825' would be a segment of that proposed by.Schoell & Madson. Construction of this segment would provide water service to existing development in this area currently using on-site facilities as well as allow for further development. Sanitary Sewer The feasibility of constructing a sanitary sewer lateral from the west terminus of the VIP Sanitary Sewer Interceptor and 535' north on County Road 17 alignment was studied. This lateral would be ab�uting a 6.5 acre parcel which currently has lateral benefit from the VIP sewer. A K lateral constructed on this alignment would reduce flexibility of development on the west side of County Road 17, require multiple county road crossings and encouraged development fronting the County Road. Cost of constructing this lateral is estimated at $20,000.00 and would effectively benefit one 2.4 acre parcel. ASSESSMENTS Watermain The preparation of this report did not duplicate the study prepared by Schoell & Madson, as revised and dated January 1981. This report follows the assessment recommendations of the Schoell & Madson report with regard to the proposed water system construction and assessments. - The property owner map in the Appendix identifies the parcels benefitted by the water system improvements. Assessments would be computed according to the Shakopee Public Utility Commission's Trunk Watermain Policy as shown in the Appendix. The owner of parcel "B", Shakopee Valley Publishing, has agreed to pay all non -assessable costs, including oversizing costs. See the attached agreement in the Appendix. Sanitary Sewer This analysis could not decern any benefit for any parcels except the parcel owned by Kenneth L. Theis. Therefore, the entire cost of constructing the sewer lateral would be assessed to the parcel. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS PARCEL NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER WATERMAIN 27-907-5200-005 Alphonse Veirling $32,972.89 27-907-5212-007 School Dist. 720 27-907-5212-010 School Dist. 720 20,924.88 27-907-5212-008 Kenneth L. Theis 27-907-5212-009-01 Kenneth L. Thies 13,402.23 3 SAN SEWER 0.00 0.00 0.00 MMIC• •IIA TF. 7K YKATERrJ-,IN C_ PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Item Description Quantity Unit Price Total 1 6" DIP 20 LF $ 14.00 $ 280.00 2 8" DIP 80 LF $ 15.00 1,200.00 3 12" DIP 825 LF $ 23.00 18,975.00 4 Jacked 8" 44 LF $ 120.00 5,280.00 Casing Crosing 5 C I Fittings 1125# $ 1.25 1,406.00 6 Hyrdrants 2 ea $1,000.00 2,000.00 7 6" Gate Valve 2 ea $ 450.00 900.00 8 8" Gate Valve 1 ea $ 600.00 600.00 9 12" Gate Valve 2 ea $1,000.00 2,000.00 10 Bit. Patching 25 Ton $ 50.00 1,250.00 11 Turf Restoration 0.4 Acre $4,000.00 1,600.00 12 Curb & Gutter 25 LF $ 12.00 300.00 Subtotal $35,791.00 loo Construction Contingency 3.579.00 Total Construction $39,370.00 25% Technical & Administrative Services 9.843.00 Total Assessable Cost $49,213.00 TRiIi4K WATERMAIN ASSESSMENT COMPUTATIONS Assessment =Project Cost including oversizing ($49,213.00) Parcel Assessment Project cost including oversizin! Assessable Footage (A.F.) Assessment Rate $49.213.00 *1700 Assessment of Parcel: A) 480 ($28.949) = *B) 170 + 150 + 70 = 390 ($ C) 830 ($28.949) = Total *Note: Includes non -assessable the property owner. $28.949/AF $13,895.52 8.949) = $11,290.11 $24.027.67 $49,213.00 footage as agreed to by TRUNK WATERMAIN - OVERSIZING Oversizing credit parcel Proiect CostsO.S.•!. Costs Std, Total = oversizing credit rate 4 O.S. rate for residential = $49.213 - [$49,213 -�25)1 *1700 $4.368 per assessable foot O.S. rate for commercial = $49,213 - [$49,21 *1700 _ _ $3.882 per assessable foot Oversizing credit of parcel: A) 480 ($4.368) _ $2,096.64 *Note: B) 390 ($3.882) _ $1,513.98 C) 830 ($4.368) _ $3,625.44 Includes non -assessable footage and is included in the computations for property "B" _ TRUNK WATER AREA CHARGE Trunk Water Charge = current rate x land area E trate 19 rats is\$540.00 re o V 19" 36 r a 6 0° 5�51�p . 0 % �1 Assessment of parcel: A), 16.9 ( $-11 fr87 = $ 9,126.00 *B) 2 3 4 2 . + 4.3 7 3` = 6.715 ( $49-f)-0) $ 3,626.10 C) _ 23.279($&4-6 @. 6+ _ $12,570.66 ` *Note: Non -assessable acreage is charged to property "B". ASSESSMENT TABULATION Less Credit for Plus Trunk ; Project oversizing Water Assessment above 6" ' above 8" Charge Total } Parcel @ 28.949/AF _@- $4._3.68_:___@. $3.882_ @ $-5' IA.c Assessment _.____513,895.52 $2,096.64 $ 9,126.00 $20,924.88 B 11,290.11 $1,513.98 3,626.10 13,402.23 C j 24,027.67' 3.625.441 12,570.66 32.972.89 1 _$29,213.30 $5,722.08' $1,513.98 $25,322.76 $67,300.00 Ry Oversizing Credit to be paid by Owner of Parcel B. $5,722.08 1.513.98 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL Item Description Quantity Unit Price Total 1 10" San. Sewer 8/10 235 LF $ 15.00 $ 3,525.00 2 10" San. Sewer 10/12 300 LF $ 17.00 51100.00 3 Std. M.H. 2 EA $1,000.00 2,000.00 4 Add. M.H. Depth 6 LF $ 100.00 600.00 5 6" Wyes 3 EA $ 65.00 195.00 6 6" EHCI 30 LF $ 10.00 300.00 7 M.H. Drop Section 1 EA $ 600.00 600.00 8 Add Drop Depth 8 LF $ 50.00 400.00 9 Seed & Mulch 0.4 Acre $3,500.00 1.400.00 Subtotal: $14,120.00 loo Contingency: 1.412.00 Total Construction: $15,532.00 25% Technical & Administrative Services: 3.883.00 Total Assessable Cost: $19,415.00 Assessable Footage = 535 i!EF6.`` T " "�7'7 Lateral Assessment Rate = Total Assessable Cost Assessable Footage $19,4155..00 = $36.29/Front Foot 535 e ek T 1.1 (2, oo ro Uri 71 No LLd -DYI�3 — FA 200 0 200 400 \ � N V z" 6AT R A Itl ld I I I °D I ' m V �03 CITY OF SHAKOPEE MINNESOTA COUNTY ROAD 17 13th AVENUE AREA TRUNK WATERMAIN STUDY SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. E N G I N E E R S 81 S U R V E Y-0 R H OPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 I I ti� I U, er n I 1 TH(D rt pI I En En z rt — H z rt = V ` t L Ffl 14 N J � - 8VE D M R ri�L MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: LeRoy Houser , Building Official RE: Foot Bridge at Memorial Park DATE: October 11 , 1985 Introduction and Background: I have investigated three ways of installing the foot bridge at Memorial Park. The first method was driving pilings and using a twin pre-cast bridge beam. The cost of this is estimated at $24,000 . 00 . The second was to have Job Erection and Engineering pour two abutments , one on each side, and lay two, fourteen inch I beams with three inch bridge planks and handrails on it . The third is to let me buy two, seventy-five foot , fourteen inch beams , seventy-five 6 ' x 3" bridge planks , use Utilities to drill four caissons and have them poured with concrete , and do basically what Job Erection and Engineering proposes to do. This I can get done for $12 ,000 .00 . I can complete this project in three weeks and have it done before years end. $5 ,000 .00 is in the CIP Fund for this bridge in 1985 , however, it wasn' t budgeted for. Our Contin- gency balance is around $95 ,000 .00 . The money could be obtained from there or the Park Reserve Fund with a scheduled unappropriated year end balance of $105 ,000 .00. The proposed bridge is not part of the Trail System but will connect Memorial Park with the Trail System. I anticipate no more of a vandalism problem with the bridge than any other project we have been involved in. The bridge will be constructed in a manner to withstand everything short of dynamite . It will be too narrow for power vehicles to cross . Also, there will be barriers on each end to restrict everything except foot traffic and two wheel vehicles . Alternatives : 1 . Don' t do the project and let the Trail System the City installed around the peninsula continue to go unused. 2 . Proceed with the project . Recommendation: Proceed with the project using part of the unappropriated Park Reserve Funds of $105 ,000 .00 . Based on our Park Reserve Fund policy, 60% is for acquisitions and 40% for improvements . Without this project the improvements will be $10 ,000 over the R Memorial Park Foot Bridge October 11 , 1985 Page -2- 40% policy goal by the end of 1986 . Action Requested: 1 . Authorize the Building Inspector to proceed with the bridge construction for a sum not to exceed $12 ,000 . 00 . 2 . Direct the Finance Director to appropriate $12 ,000 . 00 from the Park Reserve Fund for the construction of a pedestrian bridge in Memorial Park. LH: cah �G MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director RE: Population Estimate for Metropolitan Council Development Framework DATE: October 11 , 1985 Introduction: The Metropolitan Council is redoing the development framework chapter of its Metropolitan Development Guide to carry through to the year 2000. This chapter serves as the basis for re- visions to all other chapters and is of great significance. The City Council therefore may wish to comment on some of the preliminary findings . Background: The following figures are those established for Shakopee in the preliminary findings ( 5/29/85 ) : 1970 1980 1990 2000 Households 2109 3226 4100 4600 Population 7716 9941 123100 133100 Employment 3260 5000 8000 9000 Staff feels that the figures for 1990 are not unreasonable , but the figures for 2000 are too low. Based on these figures the Metropolitan Council probably wouldn' t change Shakopee ' s sewer service lines until after 2000 , and probably no new sewer allocation would be provided to Shakopee for the same period. The attached draft letter from the Mayor to Sandra Gardebring is an attempt to initiate some improved projections for Shakopee . Some cities such as Eagan have conducted their own census to develop new, more accurate figures . However, staff review suggests that the problem in Shakopee is not so much incorrect existing population, but incorrect future projections based on recent trends . However, I have asked Ron Ward for information on the school census in order to confirm this information. Council is asked to review the information in the letter and offer additions and corrections which will make a stronger case to the Metropolitan Council . Requested Action: Direct the Mayor to send a letter to Metropolitan Council Chair Sandra Gardebring requesting revisions to the preliminary estimates for Shakopee households, population and employment for its revised Development Framework Chapter of the Development Guide. JA: cah Attachment CITE.' OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379.1376 (612) 445-3650 h: f :c October 11, 1985 Ms . Sandra Gardebring, Chair Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Sts. St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Population Estimates Dear Ms. Gardebring: The Shakopee City Council desires to comment on the estimates of population growth for the City of Shakopee as released by the Metropolitan Council this summer. While the City does not have significant comments or proposed changes to the estimates of population through 1985 , the projections of population through 1990 and especially through the year 2000 are questioned by the City. Some of the reasons the City questions these figures include: 1) The figures are based on a period 1980-85 when a recession reduced the number of housing starts ; 2 ) during this period the City had a number of internal development constraints which reduced the land area readily available for housing development; and 3 ) the addition of a regional facility in Shakopee has signif- icantly expanded the local employment base. I will provide you with further information on these three major areas of concern. Historical Growth: From 1970 to 1980 , the Shakopee population grew 440 . The growth of the 1970 ' s can be expected to continue. However the recession in 1982-83 reduced the number of single family housing starts. In addition there was only one multifamily structure of more than six units built in this five year period from 1980-84 , (a 66-unit elderly Section 8 project) , whereas two projects totaling 154 multifamily units have been approved for construction this fall, with lots recently platted for an additional 21 smaller multifamily structures, providing up to 101 additional units of housing. A number of other larger housing projects have been proposed, with construction possible in the The Heart of Progress Valley spring of 1986 . While this upsurge of multifamily housing is not anticipated as an annual surge, it does demonstrate the multifamily new construction of the previous five years was unusually low. Recent occupancy rates identified in developer ' s market studies established occupancy levels of 99 . 5% in Shakopee , which demonstrates a pent up need for rental housing. Internal Development Constraints : The City of Shakopee has been examining the issue of a comprehensive storm sewer financing for a number of years. Large areas on the fringe of the urban service area required installation of major storm sewer facilities , but without a city-wide financing scheme the financial burden of installation was a disincentive to development. In 1985 the City approved a financing plan that, combined with the water management organi- zation created under 509 legislation, should open up large areas by 1987 that have been severely constrained for development in the past. These are parcels that are within the urban sanitary service area, but have not been developed due to difficulities in handling storm water drainage. In addition the City has had an ongoing policy against the use of lift stations for sanitary sewer service due to the extremely high operations costs and potential for system failure. The Council recently modified this policy to allow for temporary lift stations when the area can be served by a future gravity system, and when the developer will assume the cost of lift station construction. This policy change has recently allowed the platting of lots for 74 housing units that would not have occurred without this policy change. This change in the lift station policy will most likely provide for additional development in the future on land constrained under the old policy. Shakopee has significant deposits of dolomite sandstone that lead to unusually high development costs. These type of soil conditions are a disincentive to development, and only certain types of projects and experienced developers can reasonably succeed under these conditions. Most, if not all residential zoned parcels not on the fringe of the ubran sewer service area fall into this category. The City does not wish to remove these parcels from the sewer service area, because when a suitable development is proposed, the City wants to encourage its imple- mentation. However to assume that routine development can occur in these areas is unrealistic. These areas should therefore be removed from the acreage counted against the City' s ubran sewer service area. The large tracts of land available in the urban sewer service area that are residentially zoned are held by a very few land owners, which removes the general market competition, and drives up land prices. This serves as another internal development constraint because the limited number of parcels available constrains the market forces. The City Council would like to see cities guaranteed a minimum of ten different owners of parcels on the parimeter of the urban service line for any one type zoning land use, (eg. residential) in order to assure the potential for development in a competitive environment. Regional Facility Impact on Employment The construction of a para-mutual race track in Shakopee has led to increased commercial development over what otherwise would have occurred in Shakopee in the short term. When combined with the already strong industrial employment base the number of jobs in Shakopee will probably increase over previous pro- jections. In addition, the Metropolitan Council employment projections do not include seasonal employment figures. With an estimated seasonal employees at Valley Fair and Canterbury Downs , a statistic which can reasonably overlooked in other communities has a significant impact in Shakopee and should be prorated in some fashion. This strong employment base leads to a greater housing demand and to increased population. The inaccuracy of the projections is therefore based on a combination of an anticipated increase in growth, plus removal of barriers which until recently have held back the previous natural level of growth. The concerns expressed here are not based on a statistical analysis of the figures presented by the Metropolitan Council staff. Rather they are meant to provide you insight into local conditions which have and will impact growth. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with your staff to quantify the impact of these local factors into a more accurate population projection for Shakopee. Sincerely, Eldon A. Reinke Mayor t TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Code Enforcement in East Shakopee DATE: October 8 , 1985 Introduction• A petition by residents on the east side of Shakopee initiated Council consideration of how to approach clean-up in that neigh- borhood and encourage code compliance of the 101 Auto Salvage. Pertinent city staff have reviewed the situation and gathered in this memo information for Council review and possible action. Backaround: Howard Jones , Code Enforcement Officer, has done a significant amount of field research on the neighborhood in question and reviewed his findings with the building inspector, planner, city administrator and community development director. On reviewing the situation, staff agreement was reached on the following premises: 1. Citations issued should be comprehensive and include all violations in a general geographic area. This is necessary to avoid any one property owner feeling that he is being singled out, and to avoid bickering that "his violations are worse than mine" , etc. Exhibit A outlines some of the prevailing violations in this area. 2. Efforts at education should be made, so that property owners know the code requirements and the rationale behind the codes . They should only be issued tabs when they demonstrate they will not comply after the educational process has occurred. 3 . Through the use of a regular code enforcement officer, compliance has recently improved over past practice. Offenders know there is an officer to follow up the citations issued, which encourages compliance. Broad neighborhood enforcement should not be undertaken unless sufficient follow-up staff time can be committed to make the initial efforts worthwhile. Since Mr. Jones ' contract is not effective from November through March, either a commitment should be made for him to follow through on this effort over the winter months, or action should be deferred until spring. The Police Chief believes strongly that exterior storage is difficult to monitor when it snows , and this project should be delayed until spring. It costs approximately $1080 per month to employ Mr. Jones at 25 hours per month. If he worked 10-15 hours per week on this special -1- project for four months , the cost would be approximately $2160 . 4 . Efforts must be made with the city attorney and repre- sentatives of the court system to assure that the city follows a course of action that will receive the maximum attention in the courts for violators who do not comply. The city wants to end the tactics of some property owners who believe that delay and payment of minimal fines is a reasonable solution - and compliance with codes is therefore not necessary. 5 . In this neighborhood there is a mix of zoning and nuisance violations. Many industrial users could legally provide exterior storage under current zoning provisions , if a conditional use permit were secured which provides for screening and reasonable management of the exterior storage. It is difficult to trace all expansion of previous uses , but it could reasonably be presumed that such expansion has occurred in all cases since the current code was adopted in 1979 , and the Council could generally require either removal of the exterior storage or provision of screening. It is recommended that a general public hearing be held to establish requirements for such operations in mass , rather than requiring a series of separate conditional use applications and hearings - if such a procedure could be supported by subsequent court action. Property owners would be offered the chance to demonstrate that their activities (and exterior storage) has not expanded. 6 . Although the most flagrant violations and greatest nuisances do appear to be created by two businesses - 101 Auto Junkyard and Cogswell Auto Repair (appears to be non-permitted junkyard) , there are numerous violations by other industries and by residents of the neighborhood. In order to avoid the appearance of capriciousness or prejudicial treatment, neighborhood -wide enforcement is recommended. All persons should therefore go on notice that they may also be cited for violations regarding exterior storage (not allowed in a residential zone) or operating a home occupation (a conditional use) . Also the Council should acknowledge this code enforcement effort as part of the systematic approach that has been followed in the urban section of Shakopee since Mr. Jones has been hired, and that will be extended systematically to other rural neigh- borhoods in the future. 7. Through discussions with the City attorney and the court, the City should establish a general procedure to follow-up code violations which are confirmed. In this instance, I recommend the following: l a. A general hearing reporting the types of violations and educating the public on code requirements be held for the neighborhood in November , if Mr. Jones stays on for this task, or April. Notices would be sent to all property owners. b. One week after the hearing Mr. Jones will issue warning citations allowing 10 days for compliance. If previous warnings or tabs for the same or similar violations have been issued, Mr. Jones will start immed- iately with tab charges . C. Industrial violators will have reinspections two times a week and tabs reissued at each inspection if compliance is not achieved. Mr. Jones would have certain administrative flexibility to temporarily discontinue tab charges if the owner could demonstrate good faith effort, such as a contract for fence installation in one week. d. Residential violation except in extreme cases with hazardous conditions, would be reinspected weekly and tabs reissued at each inspection if compliance is not achieved. e. Citations and tab charges will be issued to the property owner, with copies to the occupant, if different than the owner. f. To the extent possible, court cases for non-compliance will be prosecuted together. It should be understood that this time frame is set as a goal for the Code Enforcement Officer, but may not be able to be met in all cases as he believes 25 citations a week is his maximum output. 8 . The poor road situation, and confusion as to the exact location of the road and property boundaries adds to the clutter and poor appearance of the neighborhood. Council may wish to encourage neighborhood residents to petition for road improve- ments as a way to improve neighborhood appearance and property values. -3- Conclusion• In conclusion, if Council wishes to pursue code compliance in the neighborhood as requested by the recent petition, there is staff consensus on a number of elements necessary to make the effort successful. These include a neighborhood approach, a public hearing and education process , development of a citation procedure which will be upheld by the court system, and, most of all, Council financial committment of staff time necessary to carry out a comprehensive approach, including extensive follow- up. After Council discussion with neighborhood property owners on issues presented in this memo, a schedule and course of action should be recommended by Council for staff implementation. -4- EXHIBIT "A" ZONING CODE PROVISIONS REGARDING EXTERIOR STORAGE, 1 JUNK YARDS, SCREENING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS, ETC. Some of the pertinent code provisions are as follows: Page 266 Sec 11.02, 45 EXTERIOR STORAGE 45. "Exterior Storage" (includes open storage) - The storage of goods, materials, equipment, manufactured products and similar items not fully enclosed by a building. Page 268 Sec 11.02, 66 JUNK YARD 66. "Junk Yard" - An area where used, waste discarded or salvage materials are bought, sold, exchanged, stored, baled, cleaned, patched, disassembled, or handled, including, but not limited to, scrap iron, and other metals, paper, rags, rubber prod ucts, bottles, and used building materials. Storage of material in conjunction with construction or a manufacturing process shall not be included. Such use shall not in- clude garbage. Page 270 Sec 11.02, 88 NON-CONFORMING USE 88. "Non-Conforming Use" - Any use of land, buildings or structures law- fully existing on the effective date of this Chapter which does not comply with all the regulations of this Chapter or any adendments hereto governing the zoning district in which such use is located. Page 270 Sec 11.02, 89 NOXIOUS MATTER OR MATERIALS 89. "Noxious Matter or Materials" - Material capable of causing injury to living organisms by chemical reaction, or capable of causing detrimental effects on the physical or economic well-being of individuals. Page 275 Sec 11.03, Subd. 2 NON-CONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES Subd. 2 Please see attached listing A through K on pages 275-276 Page 276 Sec 11.03, Subd. 6 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS B. No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building in the "R" Districts. C. In "R-2" through "R-4" Districts, no accessory building shall ex- ceed 10 percent of the lot area. D. No detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on the lot. E. All necessary buildings shall meet the same front yard setback re- quirements as the principal building. Page 292 Sec 11.05, Subd. 3 OFF-STREET LOADING AND UNLOADING Subd. 3 Please see attached listing F and G on pages 292 - 293 D. Structures within the public right-of-way are not covered by the provisions of this Chapter except as noted in this Subparagraph and the regulations in the sign provisions. E. No garage, tent, trailer , unfinished struc- ture , or accessory building shall at any time be used as a dwel- ling unit. Subd. 2 . Non-Conforming Uses and Structures. A. Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Chapter may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date . B. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the placing of a deteriorated structure in safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector . C. When any lawful non-conforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conform- ing use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non-conforming use. D. A lawful non-conforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to a similar non-conforming use or to a more restrictive non-conforming use. Once a structure or parcel of land has been placed in a more restrictive non-conform- ing use , it shall not return to a less restrictive non-conforming use. E. Whenever a lawful non-conforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood , explosion , earthquake, f war , riot or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as be- fore if it be reconstructed within twelve (12) months after such calamity, unless the damage to the building or structure is 50 percent or more of its fair market value , in which case the re- construction shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter . F. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued for a period of six (6) months , any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter . G. Any structure or a use for which a structure is to be erected which will, under this Chapter , become noncon- forming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this Chapter or of amendments thereto; may be completed in accordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within six (6) months of the ef- fective date of this Chapter or amendment thereof and continues to completion within two (2) years. Such structur.e or use shall thereafter be an approved non-conforming structure or use, or both. H. Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and. inci- dental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non-con- forming use. I. Alterations may be made to a building contain- ing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will im- prove the livability thereof , provided they will not increase the -275- number of dwelling units or bulk of the building . J. In all districts, existing uses which are per- mitted in this Chapter only by conditional use permit, and for which no permit has been issued, shall be a non-conforming use until such permit is issued. K. No junk yard may continue as a non-conforming use for more than one (1) year after the effective date of this Chapter , except that it may continue as a conditional use in an Industrial or Agricultural District if within that period it is completely enclosed within a building or within a continuous solid fence, not less than 8 feet high so as to screen completely the operations of the junk yard. Plans of such building or fence shall be reviewed by the Council before it is erected. Source: Ordinance No. 31, 4th Series Effective Date: 10-25-75 Subd. 3. Lot Provisions. A. A platted lot of record shall not be developed unless the following is provided: 1. It has a frontage on a public right-of-way. 2. All setback requirements of this Chapter can be met. 3. It can be demonstrated that safe and adequate sewage treatment system can be installed to serve such permanent dwelling. B. Unplatted lot of record shall not be developed unless the current code provisions are met. C. Except in the case of planned developments as provided for hereinafter , not more than one principal building shall be located on a lot. Source: Ordinance No. 106 , 4th Series Effective Date: 9-30-82 Subd. 4. Zoning Coordination. Any zoning district change on land adjacent to or across a public right-of-way from an adjoining community shall be referred to the Planning Commission, and the adjacent community for review and comment prior to action by the Council granting or denying the zoning district classifica- tion change. A period of at least thirty (30) days shall be pro- vided for receipt of comments; such comments shall be considered as advisory only. Subd. 5. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Any significant change in zoning granted by the Council shall automatically amend the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with said zoning change. Subd. 6 . Accessory Buildings. A. No accessory building or structure shall be (11-1-82) -276- 18 . Class I Restaurants , Cafes , Bars , Taverns , 77) Night Clubs . At least one space for each three seats based on capacity design. 19 . Furniture Store, Appliance Store, Auto Sales and Photographic Studio. At least one off-street parking space for each 400 square feet of net floor area. 20 . Gasoline Service Station , Auto Repair . Four off-street parking spaces for each service stall. 21. Bowling Alley. At least five off-street parking spaces for each alley. 22 . Skating Rinks , Dance Halls , Golf Driving Range, Miniature Golf , Trampoline Center and Similar Uses. At least fifteen off-street parking spaces , plus one additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area over 2 , 000 square feet. 23. Fabricating and Processing. At least four off-street parking spaces , plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of net floor area in the principal struc- ture. 24 . At least one parking space per 1� em- ployee on site at maximum shift; plus for visitors at least one parking space for each twenty-five employees; plus for company vehicles, at least one parking space to accommodate each company- owned or leased truck or vehicle usually found on the premise. 25 . Shopping Centers and Combined Commercial- Office or Service Use. At least one parking space per 200 square feet of gross leasable area. --� 26 . Open Sales Lots , Lumber Yards , Auto Sales , Auto Leasing. One parking space for each 2 , 000 square feet of land up to the first 8 ,000 square feet plus one parking space for each 4 ,000 square feet of land up to a parcel of 24 , 000 square feet, plus one parking space for each 6 ,000 square feet thereaf- ter. F. - Off-Street Loading . and Unloading. 1. Location. All loading berths shall be 25 feet or more from the intersection of two street rights-of-way. Loading berths shall not occupy the front yard. 2. Size. Unless otherwise specified, the first berth required shall be not less than 12 feet in width and 50 feet in length. Additional berths shall be not less than 12 feet in width and 50 feet in length. All loading berths shall maintain a height of 14 feet or more. 3. Access. Each loading berth shall be lo- cated with appropriate means of access to a public street or al- ley in a manner which will least interfere with traffic. 4 . Surfacing. All loading berths and ac- cessways shall be surfaced with a durable material. 5 . Accessory Use. Any area allocated as a required loading berth or access drive so as to comply with the terms of this Chapter , shall not be used for the storage of goods , inoperable vehicles, nor be included as a part of the area neces- sary to meet the off-street parking data. l G. Number of Required Loading Berths. -292- 1. Auditorium Convention Hall Public Build- ings, Hospitals, Schools , Hotels, Sports Arena. At least one r loading berth 25 feet in length for each building having 1,000 to 10,000 square feet of floor area; for those buildings having more than 10 , 000 square feet of floor space, one additional loading berth 50 feet in length. 2. Retail Sales and Service Stores, Offices. At least one loading berth 25 feet in length for each building having 6,000 square feet of floor area or more, plus one additional loading berth 50 feet in length for each 25 ,000 square feet of floor area up to 100,000 square feet. 3. Manufacturing, Fabrication, Processing and Warehousing. For those buildings devoted to manufacturing, fabri- cation, processing or warehousing, at least one loading berth 25 feet in length for each building having 3,000 square feet or frac- tion thereof, plus one loading berth 50 feet in length for each 25 , 000 square feet of floor area up to 100 ,000 square feet, plus one loading berth for each , 50,000 square feet of floor area over the first 100,000 square feet of floor area. The operator of the business shall have the option to declare the length of the berth required for buildings above 100 ,000 square feet of floor area, except that one-half or more of the total number of berths required shall be 50 feet in length. 4. Rail-Oriented Industries. No off-street loading docks or facilities shall be required of industries which ;. are entirely rail-oriented as pertaining to shipping and receiving. Subd. 4. Fences. A. Fences 6 feet and under shall be permitted anywhere on the lot except in the front yard setback. Fences up to 3 feet in height shall be allowed in the front yard setback. B. Fences in excess of the above heights shall require a conditional use permit. Source: Ordinance No. 31, 4th Series Effective Date: 10-25-79 C. All fences erected in the City in all zones may be constructed adjacent to the property lines. If a fence on the rear property line abuts a public alley there must be a three (3) foot setback. Source: Ordinance No. 130, 4th Series Effective Date: 8-11-83 Subd. 5. Junk Yards and Automobile Wrecking. The following provisions shall apply to all junk yards. (8-15-83) -293- Page 2 �f continued Page 293 - 294 Sec 11.05, Subd. 5 JUNK YARDS AND AUTOMOBILE WRECKING Subd. 5 Junk Yards and Automobile Wrecking. The following provisions shall apply to all junk yards. A. All junk yards shall be completely screened from roads or developed areas with a solid fence or wall 8 feet or more in height, maintained in good condition, and screened with suitable planting. All existing junk yards shall comply with this requirement within one (1) year of the effective date of this Chapter or shall terminate their operation. B. No junk yard established after the effective date of this Chapter shall be located closer than 1,000 feet to existing State and Federal roads, nor closer than 100 feet to any other City thoroughfares. Page 298-1 Sec 11.05, Subd. 10 HOME OCCUPATIONS Subd. 10 Home Occupations. Any home occupation may be permitted only as a conditional use if it complies with the minimum requirements of this Subdivision. A. The home occupation shall be carried on by a member of the family in the dwelling unit with not more than one employee who is not part of the family. B. The home occupation shall be carried on wholly within the principal or accessory structure. C. Exterior displays or signs, except those permitted by the Shakopee Sign Ordinance, exterior storage of materials except in.AG or R-1 Districts, and ex- terior indication of the home occupation or variations from the residential character of the principal structure shall not be permitted. D. Objectionable traffic noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical disturbance, odors, heat, or glare or other conditional uses which are objectionable to adjoining property owners shall not be produced. E. The home occupation shall not involve over-the-counter sales except in AG or R-1 Districts. Page 312-4 to 312-6 Sec 11.60 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Subd. 1 through 7 Please see attached listing on pages 312-4, 312-5, 312-6 SEC. 11 . 60 . PERFORMANCE STANDARDS . The guiding of land de- velopment into a compatible relationship of uses depends upon the maintenance of certain standards. In the various Use Districts, the permitted, accessory and conditional uses ' shall conform to n the following standards. 7 Subd. 1. Exterior Storage. In Residential Districts all materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties except for the following: laundry drying and recreational equip- ment, construction and landscaping materials and equipment cur- rently (within a period of thirty-six (36) hours) being used on the premises , agricultural equipment and materials if these are used or intended for use on the premises , off-street parking of passenger automobiles and pick-up trucks. In all districts , the City may require a conditional use permit for any exterior stor- age. Subd. 2. Refuse. A. All waste materials, debris, refuse , or gar- bage, with the exception of crop residue, shall be kept in an en- closed building or properly contained in a closed container de- signed for such purposes. The owner of vacant land shall be re- sponsible for keeping such land free of refuse. Existing uses shall comply with this provision within six months following en- actment of this Chapter . ` B. Passenger vehicles .and trucks in an inopera- tive state or without a current license plate , shall not be parked in Residential Districts for a period exceeding seven (7) days; inoperative shall mean incapable of movement under their own power and in need of repairs or junk yard. All exterior storage not included as a permitted accessory use , a permitted use, or included as part of a conditional use permit, or other- wise permitted by provisions of this Chapter shall be considered as refuse. Subd. 3. Screening. A. Screening shall be required in Residential Zones where (1) any off-street parking area contains more than four (4) parking spaces and is within thirty (30) feet of an ad- joining Residential Zone , and (2) where the driveway to a parking areaof more than six (6) parking spaces is within fifteen (15) feet of an adjoining residential use or zone. B. Where any business (structure, parking or storage) is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residen- tial use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where .a business , parking lot, or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not within the 30-foot front yard setback. 1 C. All exterior storage shall be screened. The exceptions are: (1) merchandise being displayed for sale; (2) materials and equipment presently being used for construction on 312-4 '-� the premises; (3) merchandise located on service station pummp islands. D. The screening required in this Section may consist of a fence , trees , shrubs and berms not less than five (5) feet high. The screening shall be placed along property lines or in case of screening along a street, twenty (20) feet from the street right-of-way with landscaping between the screen- ing and pavement. The screening shall block direct vision . Planting of a type approved by the Council may also be required in addition to or in lieu of fencing. Subd. 4 ., Landscaping Maintenance. In all districts , all structures requiring landscaping and fences shall be main- tained so as not to be unsightly or present harmful health or safety conditions. Subd. 5 . Glare . In all districts, any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area , sign, or other struc- ture, shall be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoin- ing residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky- reflected glare where from floodlights or from high-temperature processes such as combustion or welding shall not be directed in- to any adjoining property. The source of light shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent prop- erty. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right-of-way. Any light or combination of lights which casts light on a public street shall not exceed one (1) foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the centerline of said street. Any light or combination of lights which casts light on residential property shall not exceed 0 . 4 foot candles (meter reading) as measured from said property. Subd. 6 . Bulk Storage (Liquid) . All uses associated with the bulk storage of oil, gasoline , liquid fertilizer , chemi- cals, and similar liquids shall require a conditional use permit in order that the governing body may have assurance. that fire , explosion, or water or soil contamination hazards are not present .(that would be detrimental to the public health , safety, and gen- eral welfare) . All existing above ground liquid storage tanks having a capacity in excess of ten thousand (10 , 000) gallons shall secure a conditional use permit within twenty-four (24) months following enactment of this Chapter.. The Council may re- quire the development of diking around said tanks. Diking shall be suitably sealed., and shall hold a leakage capacity equal to one hundred fifteen percent (115%) of the tank capacity. Any existing storage tank that, in the opinion of the governing body, constitutes a hazard to the public safety shall discontinue oper- ations within five (5) years following enactment of this Chapter . Subd. 7 . Nuisances. A. Nuisance Characteristics. No noise, odors , vibration, smoke, air pollution, liquid, or solid wastes , heat, glare , dust, or other such adverse influences shall be permitted in any district that will in any way have an objectionable effect 312-5 1 ^J upon adjacent or nearby property. All wastes in all districts shall be disposed of in a manner that is not dangerous to public health and ' safety nor will damage public waste transmission or disposal facilities . The following standards apply to non-indus- trial districts . B. Odors. Odors shall not be allowed to exceed the standards stated in the Minnesota Air Pollution Control Regu- lations , Numbers 9 and 10 . C. Miscellaneous Nuisances. The following are declared to be nuisances affecting public health or safety: 1 . The effluence from any cesspool , septic tank , drainfield or human sewage disposal system, discharging up- on the surface of the ground , or dumping the contents thereof at any place except as authorized. 2. The pollution of any public well or cis- tern , stream, or lake , canal or body of water by sewage, Indus- trial waste or other substances. 3 . The ownership, possession or control of any unused refrigerator or other container , with doors which fas- ten automatically when closed, of sufficient size to retain any person , to be exposed and accessible to the public without remov- ing the doors , lids, hinges, or latches or providing locks to prevent access by the public. Subd. 8 . Recreation Vehicle or Trailer Regulations. A. A camper or trailer of the type generally used temporarily as living quarters during the hunting, fishing, or vacation season and duly licensed and registered under the laws of the State of Minnesota may be parked on residential property in the City; provided, however , that such camper or travel trail- er shall not, while so parked , be used as a permanent human dwel- ling place , living abode, or living quarters. B. A camper , travel trailer , or other recrea- tional vehicle parked on a lot within an Agricultural or Residen- tial District shall comply with all parking and building setbacks for the zoning district and shall only utilize the existing per- mitted access driveway into the site. C. A camper , travel trailer , or other recrea- tional vehicle may not be parked on any land outside of an ap- proved trailer park or an approved sales lot, except that the parking of one (1) unoccupied trailer , less than thirty-five (35) feet in length is permitted provided that no living quarters shall be maintained or any business practiced in said trailer while it is so parked or stored. D. A camper or travel trailer of the type de- scribed in Subparagraph A above and owned by a non-resident, guest, or visitor may be parked or occupied by said guest or vis- itor on property on which a permanent dwelling unit is located for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days while visiting the resident of said property, The recreation vehicle or trailer shall have self-contained sanitary facilities or standard on-site facilities as required by the City building official/sanitarian. E. The terms of said temporary period shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days or upon completion of con- - MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator 1 FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for On Sale 3 . 2 Beer License by Kwai and Grace Poon DATE: October 10 , 1985 Introduction & Background Application has been received from Kwai and Grace Poon dba/ Family Chow Mein, 237 E. 1st Avenue for an on sale 3 . 2 beer license. The surety bond is in order. Application has been made and the applicant qualifies for exemption from liquor liability insurance requirements because beer sales are expected to be under $10,000 . The application is in order. Alternatives 1. Approve application. 2. Deny application. Recommended Action Approve the application and grant an on-sale 3 . 2 beer license to Kwai and Grace Poon dba/Family Chow Mein, 237 E. 1st Avenue. JSC/jms MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for On Sale 3 . 2 Beer License by Shakopee Eagles DATE: October 15 , 1985 Introduction & Background Application has been made by the Fraternal Order of Eagles Aeries #4120 for a 3 . 2 beer license, pool table license and for a set up license for 220 West 2nd Avenue. The applications are all in order. Alternatives 1. Approve 2. Deny 3 . Table Action Requested 1. Approve the application and grant a pool table license to Fraternal Order of Eagles Aeries #4120, 220 West 2nd Avenue through December 31 , 1985 . 2. Approve the application and grant a set up license to Fraternal Order of Eagles Aeries #4120 , 220 West 2nd Avenue through June 30 , 1986 . 3 . Approve the application and grant a 3 . 2 beer license to Fraternal Order of Eagles Aeries #4120, 220 West 2nd Avenue through June 30 , 1986 . JSC/jms T T Y O F _H_AK_CD F_�_a_E INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. lst Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Fulton Schleisman, Engineering Inspector SUBJECT: Proposed Walkway between Park Ridge Drive and 11th Avenue DATE: October 11, 1985 INTRODUCTION: Cost estimates have been prepared for a walkway to connect Park Ridge Drive with 11th Avenue. BACKGROUND: As a result of the platting process of Della' s Addition, the City has acquired a 20' strip of property (Outlot "B" ) , which will connect the Park Ridge Drive and 11th Avenue right-af-way. (See Map Attached) In addition to providing permanent access to an existing water- main pipe, this strip will avail itself to the construction of a walkway. As we discussed earlier, two walkway alternatives have been considered : 1. 6' wide concrete sidewalk. Using the 1985 Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk, and Driveway Program unit prices the cost for this alternative would be approximately $2, 400. 00. 2. 7' wide bituminous walkway. Again, using 1985 contract prices, the cost would be approximately $1, 800. 00. Please note that while the concrete walk is the more expensive alternative, the "sidewalk look" may serve to discourage its use by motorized vehicle operators. Wa l kway October 11, 1985 Page 2 ACTION REQUESTED : Direct staff to construct a walkway between Park Ridge Drive and 11th Avenue using : Alternative No. 1 69 wide concrete sidewalk with sod $2, 400. 00 or Alternative No. 2 7' wide bituminous walkway with sod $1, 800. 00 FS/pmp WALKWAY i � � - fa aur/ fsaM? L�LBZ � \:•°�•= X1171-117 'yi o �\ 9• � �cuaru�se3 uieu��/a f eM I � _ - :�� O ez 0 v �a z86� F� ,ram i 00. o , it j o ,• 99 I _ o 0 o v y c � t z z O O s � cn Who would make the decision when a court reporter would be available: 1) Designated staff - with or without concurrence of the Mayor or two Council persons 2 ) City Attorney' s request 3 ) Pre-set conditions to be defined. Recommendation: Discuss the desirability of having a court reporter present for controversial items versus relying on minutes and the audio recording of the meeting as it relates to cost and the likelyhood of need. JC:tw Att ' t City Attorney concurs with recommendation to have a court reporter present whenever litigation might be expected. He also concurred that a court reporter at Planning Commission would be unnecessary because the litigation would center around the Council hearing and deliberations. i MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Court Reporter at Public Hearings DATE: October 4 , 1985 Introduction• After the public hearing on August 6 , 1985 on the mining permit appeal, the question was raised as to the desirability of hiring a court reporter for public hearings of that import. Background: The cost for the complete transcript for the Planning Commission public hearing on the mining permit was $529 . 00 ( $25 . 00 per hour to record plus $3 . 25/page to transcribe for one original and one copy) . I contacted a second party and received a price quote of $22 . 50/hr. for recording plus $2 . 25 per page to transcribe. The notes are kept for seven years and a transcript can be ordered anytime within that period. Based on this information, it would be safe to say that a court reporter in attendance would cost around $100 . 00. It may not always be necessary to have a transcript prepared, but if so it could cost upwards to $300/$500 . It would be my recommendation that we would have a council secretary present at all times , because we would not always be ordering a transcript. Alternatives: Some possibilities when a court reporter may be desirable: 1) At the time of an appeal to Council from the planning commission decision on a controversial conditional use permit or variance. 2 ) At the time Council is considering a controversial rezoning request. 3 ) Public hearings on suspension or revocation of a liquor license. 4 ) Whenever litigation might be expected. 5 ) Planning Commission public hearings, when requested by the planning commission. Since all decisions which ultimately go to litigation are heard before Council and a final decision is made by the Council, it may not be necessary to have a court reporter at planning commission hearings. Enforcement of Blocking Intersections October 1 , 1985 Page -2- Recommendation/Action Requested: I recommend alternative number three. Due to the fact that the Police Department is not receiving complaints from citizens regarding the blocking of these intersections and unless Council is willing to make a substantial financial commitment to the problem, I recommend no futher action. TB: cah MEMO TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell , Chief of Police RE: Enforcement of Blocking Intersections DATE: October 1 , 1985 Introduction: At the Council meeting on September 17 , 1985 , Council directed enforcement of the vehicles blocking the intersection on 1st Avenue at Lewis , Fuller and Scott Street . Background: The difficulty of enforcing this type of violation is primarily due to non-local traffic which makes it nearly impossible to educate the motorist through enforcement , as would be the case if we were dealing with strictly local offenders . If an officer were at the location and observed a violation, there is no place to stop the offender and issue a citation without compounding the existing congestion. The problem appears to occur` throughout the day, however it creates the largest problem during the hours between 3 : 00 p.m. and 6 : 00 p.m. Our workload is generally heavy during this period and the officers are not available to be stationed at these locations . Council may wish to do nothing about the problem or consider the following solutions : 1 . After October 15 when Canterbury Downs closes and Hwy 212 may reopen, pay off duty officers to control the three intersections and prevent the violation. The cost for each intersection would be $96 . 00 per day for the hours of 3 : 00 p.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. The cost for the three intersections on a yearly basis would be $74,880. 2 . Should Council decide on duty officers be assigned to an intersection when available to issue citations, parking on the north and south sides of 1st Avenue between Sommerville and Apgar should be restricted from 3 : 00 p.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. so that violators could be stopped without blocking a traffic lane. 3 . The Police Department is not receiving complaints from citizens regarding this problem, although we personally share the same frustrations . The State recently adjusted the timing for north/south traffic at Lewis , it may not be the solution to this problem. Unless Council is willing to make a substantial financial commitment to this problem I recommend no further action. MEMO TO: Ilayor and Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell , Chief of Police RE: Intersection 5th and Apgar DATE: October 10 , 1985 Introduction: Council directed staff to review the intersection of 5th and Apgar to consider replacing the yield sign with a stop sign due to speeding vehicles . Background: While reviewing the intersection of 5th and Apgar the entire area was inspected and staff has concluded that an overall study should be conducted. For the past several years various types of traffic signs have been installed with no apparent plan for the orderly flow of traffic . Nearly every inter- section has some type of sign. With the increased traffic on First Avenue we are experiencing a heavy increase of traffic on roadways between First Avenue and Tenth Avenue. For the past three years Council and staff have had a traffic signing review as a goal , due to the increased work load staff has not undertaken the project . Council is being provided with a City traffic signing map which graphically illustrates the problem. The overall traffic study should be discussed with the City Engineer and a time table established for the study. The departments accident reports indicate there have been two personal injury and one property damage accidents at the intersection of West 5th Avenue and Apgar this year to date. Recommendation: Direct staff to replace the existing yield signs with stop signs at the intersection of West 5th Avenue and Apgar Street and establish a time table for an overall review of the traffic control signing within the City. Council Action Requested: Direct staff to replace the existing yield signs with stop signs at the intersection of West 5th Avenue and Apgar Street and establish a time table for an overall review of the traffic control signing within the City. TB : cah Mr. Kenneth G. Ashfeld Pace Two October 3 , 1985 the City. The premium is approximately $15 . 00 higher per month and the additional $15 . 00 is deducted from the employee ' s pay- check. Should you opt for single coverage the premium is totally covered by the City plus an additional $55 . 00 a month is paid to single employees on a quarterly basis ( $165 . 00 per quarter ) . The screening committee is excited about the possibility of your accepting the position of City Engineer. we received many excellent references when reviewing your work history with the smaller communities you now serve as City Engineer. we sincerely hope you accept this offer and can make a commitment to begin as Shakopee' s City Engineer on November 4 , 1985. As I discussed with you on the phone, we would be willing to provide flex time so that you could finish up projects after November 4th that you are presently responsible for at Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. - - My wife and -I would also be willing to meet with you and your wife this weekend for coffee if you and your wife do make it to Shakopee as you discussed. Please call me at work or by 10: 30 Friday night if you would like to take us up on this offer. Our home phone number if 445-1602. Sincere y, John K. An erson City Administrator JKA/jms enclosure Personnel Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE �- INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553791376 (612) 4453650 October 3 , 1985 Mr. Kenneth G. Ashfeld RR 3 , Box 161-G Buffalo, MN 55313 Re: Appointment As City Engineer for the City of Shakopee Dear Mr. Ashfeld: The Shakopee City Council,- . at its regular October 1, 1985 meeting, voted unanimously to accept the screening committee' s recommendation to offer you the position of City Engineer for the City of Shakopee. The City Councilmembers serving on the screening committee and I also discussed with City Council the terms of employment which I discussed with you over the telephone yesterday. The City of Shakopee will offer you the job effective Novem- ber 4 , 1985 at a starting salary of $35 ,721 .00 based upon our crediting you with a five and one-half year service credit. The enclosed 1985 Department Head/Staff Pay Plan has been in effect for a number of years in Shakopee and from it you can see that you would be eligible for additional salary increases based on your November 4th anniversary date on November 4 , 1986 , November 4 , 1987 , and November 4 , 1988 at which point you would reach the top of the Pay Plan. In addition to increases on your anniversary date, every step in the Pay Plan is increased each January based upon the City' s across-the-board salary in- creases. This means that in January of 1986 your salary of $35 ,721. 00 would be increased even though you had only been in Shakopee for two months. The City Council also authorized me to explain the City' s offer for moving expenses and a City automobile. The City will offer to pay your moving expenses if you move within the corpo- rate limits of Shakopee during the next 12 months. In addition, if you move to the City of Shakopee the staff vehicle available for the City Engineer can then be used to commute to and from work. we have a policy that does not allow City vehicles to be used for commuting purposes to and from work when an employee lives outside the corporate limits. I have also included a table of employee benefits. The column headed non-union would apply to the City Engineer' s posi- tion. Presently employees selecting health, life and long term disability for the whole family receive $205 . 00 per month from Th c Heart of Pro u rens Va !/ey G� October 7 , 1985 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: CITY ENGINEER POSITION Dear John: It has been with great pleasure our meeting and interview regarding the position of City Engineer for the City of Shakopee. I graciously accept the offer of the City Council as per your October 3 , 1985 correspondance. I am looking forward to working with you in the times to come. Hopefully our efforts will compliment each other for the benefit of the community. Again, thank you John for your consideration of my application for the position. If you have any questions or wish to contact me , do not hesitate to do so . Sincerely, Kenneth G. Ashfeld�, P .E. CF October 7 , 1985 Honorable Mayor and City Council c/o Mr . John Anderson City Administrator CITY OF SHAKOPEE _ 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE : ACCEPTANCE OF CITY ENGINEER POSITION. Dear Members of the Council : It is with great pleasure to accept your offer of employment for the position of City Engineer for the City of Shakopee. I look forward to working with you in the future. Through my experience of working with various City Councils , I have acquired much respect for the character and "civic duty" of individuals who devote their time and efforts for the benefit of the community. I plan to carry out the duties of City Engineer with the professionalism you expect and hopefully will continue the fine en- gineering standards that the City of Shakopee is known for . Sincerely, Kenneth G. Ashf d , P .E . Action Requested Move to hire Kenneth Ashfeld as City Engineer at a starting salary of $35,721.00 per year, Step 7 of the 1985 Department Head/Staff Pay Plan effective November 4, 1985. This is based on Mr. Ashfeld receiving 52 years service credit. T, ETiO TO : John K. Anderson, City Administrator FRONT: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE : Appointment to Shakopee Community Access Corporation DATE : October 11 , 1985 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: On October 1 , 1985 Council nominated Debbie Allen to the Shakopee Community Access Corporation Board of Directors to the fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Gary Morke . It is in order at this time to make the appointment . ACTION RECOMMENDED : Appoint Debbie Allen to the Shakopee Community Access Corporation Board of Directors, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Gary Morke, until January 31 , 1987. jc Barry Sock October 2, 1985 Page 2 Please feel free to call either Bonnie or myself if you have any questions or need further information. Sincerely, Shelley Hawkos Cable Access Coordinator SH:jai Enclosure '1,:_; October 2, 19E5 Mr. Barry Stock, Administrative Aide City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Barry: I am sending a copy of the Chaska Franchise Agreement along with the five questions for Cooper Rudder to answer in their evaluation of Zylstra- United. Chaska agrees to work with Cooper Rudder based upon Shakopee's recommendation. However, Zylstra-United's Cable system in Chaska is defined as a single entity and requires a separate evaluation from the City of Shakopee. Chaska suggests that Cooper Rudder determine answers to the following questions: 1. Based upon cable industry norms, is it possible for Zylstra-United to be a financially successful business? If so, what is a reasonable time frame for them to realize a profit from the business? 2. How does Zylstra-United's performance, starting from the first date of operation, compare with industry norms? 3. How do Zylstra-United's five year projections compare with industry norms? 4. Is Zylstra-United in full compliance with the Chaska Franchise Ordinance and other regulations relating to its performance? If not, how does it differ? 5. List alternatives to Zylstra-United' s request for concessions. The City of Chaska would like to review the contract with Cooper Rudder and, if possible, meet with the financial consultant to discuss its objectives for the evaluation. City Of Ch?Ska Minnesota 205 East Fourth Street 55318-2094 Phone 612/448-2851 Attachment No. 1 Explanation of Exhibits Exhibit No. 1 - The City of Shakopee ' s cafe communications request for proposal specifications. Exhibit No. 2 - Zylstra-United' s cable television proposal to provide cable television service to the City of Shakopee. Exhibit No. 3 - The Shakopee Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance. Exhibit No. 4 - Zylstra-United' s financial report for 1983 and 1984. Exhibit No. 5 - United Cable Television Corporation' s 1983 and 1984 Annual Reports. _. Exhibit No. 6 - The Shakopee City Council memo (Cable Consultant Selection) authorizing selection of Cooper-Rutter to perform an analysis of the ShakopeeChaska cable system. Exhibit No. 7 - The City Council memo ( Cable Company' s Proposed Concessions) reviewing Zylstra-United' s most recently proposed concessions. Exhibit No. 8 - The City Council memo (Public Hearing - Subscri- ber Rate Increase Proposal) reviewing Zylstra-United' s rate increase proposal .(Council approved request on 4/16/85) . Exhibit No. 9 - The annual reports of the Shakopee Cable Communi- cations Committee. These reports describe all the cable related- activities that have taken place in Shakopee since 1980. Mr. Howard -reidman Page -2- October 4 , 1-985 united' s current financial position and projections . However, we would like the assumptions for the projections clearly out- lined and similar assum-tions used fcr the scenarios with and without concessions unless specific rationale is provided for differing assumptions (e.g. loss of subscribers due to lower service levels ) . For your own information, our community had 3 , 694 households in March of 1985. With the development of a thorough-bred race- track in our community we are expecting a substantial housing increase in the next three years. At this time, there are already over 300 new multi-family housing units being proposed for construction early . next year. Should other demographic data be useful to you in performing the analysis please feel free to call me. Obviously the City of Shakopee is concerned about each of United' s proposed concessions. The majority of the proposed concessions involve user type services that are being utilized by our residents or have been requested. Specifically, the institutional loop within our community is already in place. At this time two institutional users have received a large grant to implement interactive cable between their facilities. In addition, a system interconnect between Chaska and Shakopee which is also in place, has been requested to be activated by several parties in each community. in our earlier conversations you mentioned that Cooper- Rutter would strive to develop additional concessions that may be more palatable for each party involved. This struck me as a very unique approach in dealing with our problem. In fact you were the only cable consultant to mention this strategy. Please be advised that the City of Shakopee is interested in reviewing any alternative concessions that you might come up with. While I am aware that United Cable Television Company will be billed directly for services rendered by your company, we would appreciate a copy of each invoice submitted to United for payment. If you require any additional information from the City of Shakopee or have any other questions, please feel free to call me ( 612 ) 445-3650. Sincerely Barr A. Stock Administrative Aide BAS/jms enclosure cc: Jim Clark, United Central Division Manager Eh hiti _t A t CITE' OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 Holm 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 �1 �_,��_� Zz October 4 , 1985 Cooper Rutter Assoc. Inc. Attn: Howard Freidman Evesham Commons Suite 200 525 Route 73 South RD 1 Marlton, NJ 08053 Dear Mr. Freidman: Pursuant to our . earlier telephone conversations please find enclosed the information that you will need to complete an evaluation of the cable system operating in the cities of Shakopee and Chaska. In an attempt to give you a broad-base understanding of what has taken place in Shakopee since we began investigating the possibility of a cable system for our com- munity, I have enclosed several exhibits that pertain to Shako- pee' s cable system. Attachment No. 1 is a listing which des- cribes each enclosed exhibit. I have also attached a letter from Chaska City officials which addresses their concerns in regard to the cable evaluation. Several of the enclosed City Council memos contain corres- pondences from United Cable Television Corporation which explain their proposed concessions and financial position. Listed below are four primary questions that the City of Shakopee would like you to address in your analysis of our cable system: 1. Could the cable company as it currently exists be made to operate profitably, and if so, over what time scale. 2. How does the current financial position of the cable company and their operating methods compare to industry standards and is their position reasonable given the cable :industry as it exists today. 3. How did the cable company' s operation in the past compare to industry standards. 4. Given the company' s proposed concessions at what point will the cable company experience a positive cash flow. In March of this year, the Cable Company provided us with an analysis of their current and projected financial position as compared to their pro-forma. This information appears in attachment No. 4 of Exhibit No. 8. We would again like this type of analysis undertaken by your company given Zylstra- The Heart of Progress Valley L Q D. OD 17 ICA'"ION This Contract contains the entire agreement of the parties. No representations were made or relied upon by either party other than those that are expresly set forth herein . No agent , employee , or other representative of either party is empowered to alter any of the terms hereon unless in writing and signed by an authorized officer of the respective parties. E. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant may not assign its rights under this Contract without the express prior written consent of the City. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto by affixing their signatures as hereinafter specified, do agree to be bound by all of the terms , conditions , provisions and requirements as set forth in this Contract: COOPER-RUTTER ASSOCIATES , INC. BY: Date: �' %h�-i 2 , 1r, 7 Its <Ja-.-'- CITY OF SHAKOPEE Date: By: Mayor Date: By: City Administrator Date: By: City Clerk Approved s to form this _ day of 0/d-14 1985 . City At ney �' h tenure , terms , conditions or privileges of employment , or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment, because of his or her race , color , religion, mational origin, age , sex, height, weight, or marital status. Breach of this covenant may be regarded as material breach of the Contract. The Consultant agrees to take affirmative action in hiring, training, and promoting minority group persons and women to bring about reasonably representative integration of his or her employees. SECTION 7 - OTHER PROVISIONS A. CAPTIONS Captions used in this Contract are for convenience and are not used in the construction of this Contract. B. APPLICABLE LAW Parties to this Contract shall conform with all existing and applicable City ordinances, resolutions, State laws , Federal laws , and all existing and applicable rules and regulations. Minnesota law will govern the terms and the performance under this Contract. C. ^:ERGER This Contract shall not be merged into any other oral or written contract, lease or deed of any type. This is the complete and full agreement of the parties. 5 SECTION 4 - ^ENERAL STIECI^TC.k'_"TONc A. All estimates , field note , and related papers , after approval and acceptance , shall become the property of the City. B. Consultant shall have access to pertinent public records as are available to the City and applicable to this Agreement. The City shall at all times have access to the work of Consultant for the purpose of inspection. C. The Consultant shall comply with all Federal , State , and City laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be done under this Agreement. SECTION 5 - DELAYS The Consultant shall immediately commence work under this Agreement upon receipt of pertinent documents from the City and Company. The Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to submit the report required under Section 1, Paragraph III , not later than fourteen (14) days after receipt of all pertinent documents. However , the City and Company understand and agree that Consultant's submision of its report to the City within this time frame is subject to the cooperation of the City and Company. SECTION 6 - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION The Consultant agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment to be employed in the performance of this Contract, with respect to his or her hire , 4 10 SECTION 2 - CO"?PENSATIor The Consultant shall submit to the Company a monthly statement of services rendered during such billing period, specifying the hours worked and the hourly rate. The Company, which shall be the party responsible for paying the Consultant under this Contract, shall issue payment to the Consultant within 20 days of receipt of such billing. The Consultant shall be compensated for professional services rendered at the rate of $75.00 -- $100.00 per hour, with the rate dependent upon which professional performs each task. Expenses for out-of-city travel , for lodging and subsistence , for long-distance telephone , for postage and shipping , and for duplication and reproduction shall be separately listed and identified on each billing statement and shall be reimbursed by the Company. The Company shall not be liable to the Consultant under this Agreement for services performed in an amount in excessof $15,000, plus reimbursable expenses. SECTION 3 - TERMINATION Consultant shall terminate all work under this Contract upon notification in writing from the City, and payment shall be due Consultant for partially completed work using the payment schedule for personnel and expenses specified herein. 3 I . -.he Consultant shall evaluate the Company' s economic hardship claim , which will encompass: (1) analyzing the original proposal and economic changes in key areas between the date of submission of the original proposal and the Company's request for modifications; and (2) determining whether such changes were both unforeseen and beyond the control of the Company. II . The Consultant shall , after reviewing all pertinent documentation, evaluate the proposal modifications to ascertain their technical and economic feasibility, giving due consideration to changes in the cable industry since the franchise was executed, the needs of subscribers , and the economic constraints of the Company. III . Based on the results from the activities identified above, Section 1, Paragraph I through II , the Consultant shall prepare a written report of its findings with respect to each of such areas of inquiry and, based thereon, advise the City of the Consultant's overall determination of the merit of the Company's request for relief in the City and for the City of Chaska, Minnesota. If appropriate , the Consultant will also recommend alternatives to the Company's requested modifications which would reflect the requirements of the City and the economics of the Company. IV. If requested by the City, the Consultant shall assist the City in the preparation of an Addendum to the franchise with the Company reflecting agreed to modifications. V. The consultant shall also address and analyze each of the City of Shakopee' s and the City of Chaska' s concerns as listed in the October 4, 1985 correspondence from the City of Shakopee as shown in Exhibit A. CON TPN^T This Contract is entered into on this day of October , 1985, by and between the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the City, Zylstra--Tnited Cable TV Co., hereinafter referred to as the Company, and Cooper-Rutter Associates, Inc., Cable Television Consultants, Evesham Commons, Suite 200 , 525 Route 73 S., RD #1, Marlton, New Jersey 08053, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant. WHEREAS , the City entered into a non-exclusive cable television franchise with the Company for the provision of cable television services in 1982; and, WHEREAS, the Company has requested modifications to its franchise; WHEREAS , the City has determined that it should retain the services of an expert cable television consultant to assist in this proceeding; and, WHEREAS , Cooper-Rutter Associates has represented that it has the expertise and is willing to provide the expert consulting services desired by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises , covenants, conditions and terms, to be kept and performed, it is agreed between the parties hereto as follows: SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES The Consultant shall undertake the hereinafter listed tasks and assignments: 1 Alternatives 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement between Cooper-Rutter Associates , Inc. , the City of Shakopee and Zylstra-United for the provision of a financial analysis of Shakopee ' s and Chaska' s cable system. 2 . Do not authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into the cable consulting agreement. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends alternative No. 1 . Action Requested Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement between Cooper-Rutter Associates, Inc. , the City of Shakope and Zylstra-United for the provision of a financial analysis of Shakopee' s and Chaska' s cabe system. BAS/jms MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Intern / RE: Cable Consultant Agreement DATE: October 10 , 1985 Introduction On October 1 , 1985 the Shakopee City Council authorized staff to work with the cable consulting firm of Cooper-Rutter Associates, Inc. , Zylstra-United and the City of Chaska in completing an analysis of Zylstra-United' s existing and projected financial condition. Background In response to a formal request for modifications to the Cable Franchise Ordinance from United Cable Television ( the current managing partner of the Shakopee cable system) the Shakopee City Council has requested an investigation and financial analysis of the Shakopee cable system. Since the October 1 , 1985 City Council meeting, staff has been in contact with Cooper-Rutter, Zylstra-United and the City of Chaska. Mr. Howard Friedman of Cooper-Rutter Associates, Inc. has drafted an agreement for consultant services between his firm, the City of Shakopee and Zylstra-United. (See attachment No. 1. ) Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the agreement and believe it incorporates the desires of both the City of Shakopee and the City of Chaska in regard to the type of analysis to be undertaken by the consultant. In an effort to expedite the process of hiring a consultant, the City of Chaska has not been named as a party to the consultant ' s agreement. The Chaska cable system will however be investigated under the terms of the agreement. I would also add that section 2 of the agreement relieves the City of Shakopee of any financial obligation in the event of Zylstra-United' s inability to pay for the aforementioned study. Mr. Friedman has informed me that he can proceed with the study as soon as they receive the necessary cable materials from the City of Shakopee. On October 8 , 1985 all the pertinent cable information from both Shakopee and Chaska were sent to Cooper-Rutter Associates, Inc. Mr. Friedman has also informed me that on October 8 , 1985 his office received a down-payment check for $5 , 000. 00 from United Cable Television. r MENTO TO: City Council FROM: City Hall Staff RE: Employee Amenity DATE: November 17 , 1982 Background Numerous City staff support the purchase of a microwave oven for the lunchroom at City Hall . Many public and private employers provide amenities for their employees in the employee lounge or lunchroom. A simple model microwave which runs about $250 will adequately do the job, with the possibility of a used or demon— station model keeping the cost even lower. Funds could be taken from supply dollars remaining year end or from revenue sharing funds . Numerous advantages to this amenity will accrue to the City and its staff, including: 1 . Staff will have better, more economical , hot lunches available to them; 2 . Hot water for tea and cocoa will be available for staff and visitor refreshments , providing healthier alternatives to coffee; 3 . Staff will save time by being able to more frequently eat lunch in the City Hall and avoid trips home and to restaurants ; 4. Eating lunch together, employees can share perspectives which will help them to undertake their jobs in a more effective manner; 5 . Morale will improve with knowledge of City Council support for employee concerns . Requested Action Authorize staff to research purchase of microwave oven for the City Hall lunchroom. Signed : � - - C?C J' 1 '► 'lf t� ,;::;0 TO : Nayor and City Council ..OM: John R. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Microwave Oven for Cite Hall Lunchroom DATE: november 24 , 1982 Introduction A substantial number of City Hall employees currently eat their noon meal in the City Hall lunchroom. They have approached me because they believe that the addition of a microwave oven in the lunchroom would increase the types of noon lunches available to them. Bacicg round In checking with other departments in the City, I have found that the Police Department kitchen was outfitted by the City when the new Police Department was built . The kitchen currently includes a refrigerator and stove that were purchased by the City and installed in the lunchroom. The Public Works staff has a micro- wave oven they purchased with the proceeds of scrap metals they recycled . Therefore , it would seem in keeping with these earlier precedents that the City should participate in the purchase of a microwave for the employee lunchroom at City Hall . The particular microwave oven invisioned would be an inexpensive one and would be purchased from the 1982 budget as proposed in the attached memo dated November 17 , 1982 . The purchase could be made in December when we have received the expenditure figures for the first 11 months of the 1982 calendar year. According to present City policy a purchase of a capital equipment item costing less than $300 can be approved by the City Administrator if its less than $300 . I have decided to run this past City Council , however , because the item would be a benefit to City employees and not the general public . Alternatives 1 . Authorize the purchase of a microwave oven for the employee lunchroom at City Hall . 2 . Do not authorize the purchase of a microwave oven for the City Hall lunchroom. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1 for the reasons listed in the November 17th memo which has been attached , and because it would be in keeping with past practice for other departments . Recommended Action Authorize City staff to purchase a microwave oven for a cost not to exceed $300 . 00. Said purchase to be taken from the supply line items of the various division budgets after the November expenditure figures have been reviewed by the City Administrator. r , 3 . Authorize the purchase of a microwave oven for the city hall lunchroom at a cost not to exceed $70 . Said purchase to be shared equally among the City Council members. 4 . Do not authorize the purchase of a microwave oven for the city hall lunchroom. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative #l. Action Requested: Move to authorize the purchase of a microwave oven for the city hall lunchroom at a cost not to exceed $70. Said purchase to be allocated from the supply line items of the various division budgets. tw a 1. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Intern RE: Microwave Oven for City Hall Lunchroom DATE: October 10 , 1985 Introduction: Through revenues derived from the sale of pop in the City Hall pop machine the City Hall employees have raised approximately $70 . The employees would now like to request City Council to allocate an additonal $70 from either the General Fund or from some other division within the City budget. Background: On December 7 , 1982 the Shakopee City Council was requested by staff to purchase a microwave oven for the City Hall lunchroom not to exceed $300 . I have attached the Council memo in regard to this issue which was distributed to the Council through their December 7 , 1982 agenda pacxet. At the time that this issue was discussed, it was the consensus of the Council that staff should see if there would be some support from employees contributing to the purchase of a microwave oven, with the possibility of Council members helping out to obtain it. Since that time, staff has taken it upon themselves to acquire a pop machine for use in city hall. When the city hall employees first obtained the pop machine, it was their desire to use any revenues derived from the sale of pop to help fund the purchase of a microwave for the city hall lunchroom. To date approximately $70 has been generated from the sale of pop. City hall employees are requesting City Council to match the city employees contribution. City hall employees believe that having a microwave will increase the lunch options available to them as well as maximizing the lunch time available. Alternatives • 1. Authorize the purchase of a microwave oven for the city hall lunchroom at a cost not to exceed $70. Said purchase to be allocated from the supply line items of the various division budgets. 2. Authorize the purchase of a microwave oven for the city hall lunchroom at a cost not to exceed $70 . Said purchase to be allocated from the supply line item of the city hall division budget. 4 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND THE SHAKOPEE LIONS CLUB The City of Shakopee agrees to and the City Council has directed the installation of a Paved Parking Lot in Liens Park in 1985. Construction shall be in accordance with plans and specifications developed by the City Engineer, who shall oversee the project. The Shakopee Lions Club hereby agree to pay the the City, the total cost of the project. Cost of the project is $14, 217. 00 Plus a $250. 00 engineering and inspection fee. Total cost to be paid by the Shakopee Lions Club shall riot exceed $14, 467. 00. Payment shall be made by depositing $5, 000 upon execution of this agreement , and paying the balance by December 15, 1985 with no interest charged. The final balance due date of December 15, 1985 may be extended by mutUal agreement of the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Lions Club. Shakopee Lions Club City of Shakopee President Date Mayor Date Treasurer Date Administrator Date City Clerk Date StJPPLcMEN t AL CONTRACT N Project Name: Lien_ � Supplemental Contract No. : F�a�kir;v Lot Date: October 11. 1985 Contract No. : 85-4 B Original Contract Amount $ 124, 185.40 Supplemental Contract No. i thru 0 $ 8, 706. 10 Change Order(s) No. -- thru No. -- $ -L?.- Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 132, 891.50 Description of Work to be Added: Complete paving of the picnic area parking lot and driveway in Lions Park, Shakopee, Minnesota. The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be increased by $ 14, 217.00 The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/decreased) by 0 Original Contract Amount $ 124, 185.40 Supplemental Contract No. 1 and 2 $ 22. 923. 10 Change Order(s) No. -- thru -- $ -0- Total Funds Encumbered $ 147, 108.50 Completion Date: Same The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: By: Title Date: APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED: City Engineer Date APPROVED: City of Shakopee By: Approved as to form this Mayor Date day of 19 City Administrator Date City Attorney C = TY OF �H A K CD F='E: INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT �* 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Adm i n i st rat or FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: Paving of Lions Park Parking Lot DATE: October 11, 1985 INTRODUCTION: The Lions Club has requested the City to arrange for paving of the parking lot in Lions Park near the picnic area. BACKGROUND: Valley Paving, Inc. is currently under contract to the City and is constructing the 2nd Avenue Parking Lot facility. Valley Paving submitted a price to pave the Lions Parking Lot in the amount of $14, 217. 00. Another contractor submitted a price of $15, 500. 00. This work could be done by Valley Paving under a Supplemental Contract to the 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Pvoject. A draft agreement is attached which is similar to the one the City had with the Jaycees for Tahpah Park improvements. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. A motion by City Council to authorize proper City officials to execute Supplemental Contract No. 2 in the amount of $14, 217. 00. with Valley Paving, Inc. , 8050-D Hwy. 101, Shakopee, MN, 55379. This contract will held until an agreement for payment of all costs can be reached with the Lions Club of Shakopee. 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Lions Club for $14, 417. 00 for the paving of the Parking Lot in Lions Park. RR/pmp LIONS COST ESTIMATE ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED NO. DESPCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST 1 42" R. C. P. 64. 00 L. F. $60. 00 $3l840. 00 Slbgrade Prep. 385. 00 S. Y. $1. 50 $577. 50 3 C1-5 120. 00 Tori $8. 00 $960. 00 4 Surmountable C&G 164. 00 C. F. $6. 15 $1, 00S. 60 5 2331 Bit. Base 29. 00 Ton $40. 00 $19160. 00 6 5341 Bit. Wear, 29. 00 Ton $40. 00 $1, 160. 00 SUBTOTAL $8, 70S. 10 10% CONST. CONTINGENCY $870. 61 TOTAL CONST. $9, 576. 71 25% TECHNICAL R ADMIN. SERVICES $2, 394. 17 TOTAL PROJECT COST $11, 970. 88 SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT Change Order No. : 1 Protect Name: Taylor Street Extension Date: October 11, 1985 Contract No. : 85-4 A Original Contract Amount $ 124, 185.40 Change Order(s) No. -- thru No. -- $ -0- Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 124, 185.40 Description of Work to be Added: See Cost Estimate Attached. The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be increased by $ 8,706. 10 The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/decreased) by 0 Original Contract Amount $ 124. 185.40 Supplemental Contract 1 thru -- $ 8.706. 10 Total Funds Encumbered $ 132,891.50 Completion Date: Same The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: By: Title Date: APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED: City Engineer Date APPROVED: City of Shakopee By: Approved as to form this Mayor Date day of 19 City Administrator Date City Attorney City Clerk Date Taylor Street October 11, 1985 Page 2 Escrow Account Cost $3, 345. 44 Capitol Improvement Fund Cost $8, 625. 44 ACTION REQUESTED: A motion by City Council to authorize proper City officials to execute Supplemental Contract No. 1 in the amount of $8, 706. 10 to Valley Paving, Inc. , 8050-D Hwy. 101, Shakopee, MN, 55379 (Supplement to Project 85-4) . RR/pmp TAYLOR y� G=.T_Y OF"_ SH_AKO_I�aa_ INCORPORATED 1870 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee. Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinat on SUBJECT: Taylor Street Extension DATE: October 11, 1985 INTRODUCTION : Since 1982 the City of Shakopee has held $5, 000. 00 in escrow for the completion of part of Taylor Street south of 10th Ave- nue. The property owner has requested that the City use the escrowed amount which now is $6, 400. 00 to construct Taylor Street as proposed. BACKGROUND: The construction of Taylor Street has been deferred because extension of a storm sewer lateral would have to be done prior to street construction. Due to the fact that this lateral would only have to be extended 64 linear feet, further deferral of this project seems inappropriate. The 64 feet of storm sewer does not benefit the lot in question and thus cannot meet the benefit test . The storm sewer cost can be added to future developments to the south. ACTION REQUESTED: The contractor performing the work on the 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Project could be used to construct Taylor Street. The work could be done under a Supplemental Contract to that pro- ject. He has submitted unit prices (See Attachment ) for this work. Total project cost is estimated to be $11 , 970. 88. Of this total, one-half, less the cost of the storm sewer, could be paid out of the escrow account. The remainder could be paid out of the Capitol Improvement Fund. The reason for only assessing half the cost against the property owner' s escrow is because standard assessment properties assess half of a project to each side of the road and K-Mart' s assessment doesn' t meet the benefit test . R4 4 is Y,S � 3 � :.✓ r Al 4.,1w _ S CVd _ t ... ... 11 } 1 F J. Y T '\z R2 2 »l B1 AG - 00 .a I��rI71I♦IrAmmmmmimmof I J. rr7rrrr��rrrrrrr���►rrr MATCH LINE Q, ��� _.. w5 C. yy..,, ��.1r.. �,�yv oJrtr"fl=': �1-b .-O; F', 1'inn 55779 ^2 ii 4,i ll'�:'. ice f.� - r' SE` ti'':.?err c , 19 S5 Hon. I:rc��101' Eldon re nke City of- ices 129 1st Ave E. uh,�:ImPec,, 11'-1ilin 55379 . Do,.r Sir: I .gave a. ?7 acre parcel of landmile south of Sha.ko��ee on Co:.nty Road -"17 (M-arscha.11 Rd. ) which is S—- of of SE4- of Section 7, Tovrnshil) 115, Ra.nt,e 22. T^e -roposed .169 Sha. --o,)ee 3ypqsr. hiGhv:ay is lel,_lied to Lo t1-1ru t1?is property when it is built. I have had this property listed for sale for about two yel-rs novyr. As soon s a. 'prospective b S-er hears of the lei ,hv;ay oing._t they back out of the ?ourc'*,a se. Also, I am as.:essed over X10,000 nov: for the sanitary sewer profect tn,t was instal.led to bigt^vvf-y 17 several years a.go, v;rash vieas of no benefit to me . I would like very _ uch to sell this property -s. it is a financial hardshi > for me as far ss taxes and special asseasu;ents go. Also, I lumderstand t',:qt tt--e I-etropoliten CQm,,.ission has a. elan to finance purchase of property of this kind. I would appreci to it very a,zch if you could heli-) rye o,it on this matter. Thi^n?k you: Sincerely, Eldon Greenwood Bypass l\ October 11, 1985 Page 2 This provision, a recent amendment to the enabling statute, is quite specific in describing situations wherein loans may be made. Specifically, loans may be made only "to purchase homestead property located in a proposed state trunk highway right-of-way. " Further, homestead property is defined as meaning "a single family dwelling occupied by the owner, and the surrounding land, not exceeding a total of ten acres". Again, this property does not meet the eligibility guide- lines. uide- 1ines. If, as expected, Mn/DOT gives the Bypass program status for fiscal year 1990-1991, it is conceivable that they will begin acquiring property as early as 1987-1988. A direct sale to Mn/DOT at that time may be the best option available to Mr. Greenwood. Please note that the sanitary sewer assessment mentioned in Mr. Greeenwood" s letter is a deferred assessment, and as such is not due and payable until the property is developable. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to respond to Mr. Greenwood' s request for assis- tance in selling his property by providing the information outlined above. FS/pmp GREENWOOD CS 'I'�Yr .__OF'..--5_HAKOP INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Adm i n i st rat or FROM: Fulton Schleisman, Engineering Inspector- SUBJECT: nspectorSUBJECT: Acquisition of Trunk Highway 1011 Bypass Right-of-Way DATE: October 11, 1985 INTRODUCTION: An owner of property in the Trunk Highway 101 Bypass has asked for consideration to be included in the Right-of-Way Acquisition program. BACKGROUND: As detailed in the attached letter, Mn. Eldon Greenwood has asked the City for assistance in his efforts to sell a 37 acre parcel. As shown on the attached map, this parcel is located at the intersection of the Bypass and County Road 17. While the acquisition of this property will be necessary prior to construction of the Bypass, Mn. Greenwood' s situation does not meet the eligibility requirements for the loan program administered by Metropolitan Council. Metropolitan Council will make loans to acquire property only if one of two eligibility requirements are met : 1. The right-of-way area must be under threat of " imminent development ". All of the purchases made by the City to date have been made under this provision. Because the Greenwood property is currently zoned Agricultural it does not meet the imminent development test. 2. A "hardship" situation; where a homeowner must sell his home but is unable to do so because the property lies within the right-of-way of a future roadway. TABLE 3 STREET CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM WIDTH MINIMUM STREET MINIMUM WIDTH MINIMUM OF DEDICATED WIDTH FLOW LINE OF BITUMINOUS AGGREGATE STREET TYPE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO FLOW LINE SIDEWALK PAVEMIENT BASE Arterial 100' 68' 5 ' Residential 4" Surface 6" Base 5 ' Industrial 10 ' Commercial Collector 80' 48' 5 ' Residential 3" Surface 6" Base. 5 ' Industrial 4" Surface 10 ' Commercial 3" Surface Local 60' 36 ' 5 ' Residential 2" Surface 6" Base 5 ' Industrial 4" Surface 10' Commercial 3" Surface *Limited Access 50' 28' 5 ' Residential 2" Surface 6" Base Rural Local 60' 28 ' None . 2" Surface 6" Base Not permited in Industrial or Commercial Areas . 1 5 ' shoulders required in addition to 28' paved section. Street Specifications : Table 3 - Street Construction Requirements is a summary of minimum street construction requirements contained in Section 12 . 06 , Subd. 1. Sidewalk shall be constructed on the north and east side of all streets unless specifically deleted by action of City Council. t U.S. Hiahw- • . r. 11111111 F ' SEES . • .�... Central Business Im �---District 3 r .111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 III1111111 11111 � .� N ® T Q 6 = a u CITY of S H A K®PEE Proposed Transporation MINNESOTA PROPOSED DRAINAGE CORRIDOR PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL URBAN SERVICE AREA INTERMEDIATE ARTERIAL MIMES m m I MINOR ARTERIAL COLLECTOR Map 21 1111111 . I PROJECT: SHENANDOAH DRIVE FOUR-LANE COMPARISON TWO-LAN= ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Item I f 1 Unit I Contract 1 Current Period I Total to Date No. I Contract Item I Unit I Price I Quantity I Amount I Quantitv I Amount ! Quantity ! Amount ----------I---------------------------I------I---------I----------I--------------I----------!------------- -I---------- --------------- l 2506.511 (Reconstruct Manholes IL.F. 1 t11C.00 ! 13.60 ! 31,496.00 I SAME I I 13.60 ! 31,496.0. I I I I I I i I 2575.501 IRoaeside Seeding (Acres 1 $200.00 1 3.60 1 $720.00 1 -10% 1 1 3.20 1 $640.00 I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2575.502 [Seed Mixture No. 5 ILbs. 1 $3.00 1 180.00 1 3540.00 l -10% 1 1 162.00 1 $486.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 2575.505 (Sodding IS.Y. 1 $1.25 1 2222.00 1 $2.777.50 1 SAM= 1 1 2222.00 1 $2,777.5{ I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I ! I I 1 1 2575.511 IMulch Material, Tyne 1 ITon 1 $140.00 1 7.20 1 $1,008.00 1 -10% 1 ! 6.50 1 $910.00 I I i I f I I I I 2575.519 (Disc Anchoring (Acres 1 $100.00 1 3.60 1 $360.00 1 -10% 1 1 3.20 1 $320.00 I I ! I I t ! I 1 I I I I I I ! I I 2575.531 (Commercial Fertilizer lAnalysis 10-20-30 ITon I 1350.00, 1 0.81 1 3283.50 1 -10% 1 1 0.73 1 3255.5E I I I I I I ! l I I I I I I I I 1 1 504.603 (Relocate 12° Watermairn 1L.F. 1 323.02 1 1000.00 1 $23,000.00 1 SAME i 1 1000.00 1 323,000.00 I I I I I I I I I ----------I--------------------------I------I----------I----------I-------------I----------I------------ I _ I I ! ! I TOTAL 1 $237,972.30 1 TOTAL I --I--TOTALwl---3207,284.00 r PROJECT: SHENANDOAH DRIVE Lt- 7ei ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- item I ! , Unit I Contract i Current Perio: 1Ci2 Lata cs ! Unit i Price I Uuant ity I Amount I Ctuantity I Amount I Uua 'itv N:�. ! Contract lie , n„ ., ---------!------------------------------I I ! I ! ! ------ -------- ---------- - - ----- ------ ---- - - -------------- ---------- --------------- 2101.511 ICiear and Grub Roadways IL.S. 1$7,51C".0`0 1 1.K i $7,500.01" ! S?!'C ! ! 1.Ni ! $;.5' .0 I I ! I ! I I ! ! 2104.591 IRemove Barbed Wire Fence IL.--. 1 $1.01 1 26C.00 1 $260.00 1 SAME, 1 I 260.01' 1 x260.0': I I 2105.501 [Common Excavation IC.Y. 1 $2.15 1 25700.00 1 $55,255.00 ( SAME I i 25700.00 ! $55,255.0'. I I I I ! ! 1 I ! I ( ( I I ! I I 2105.503 (Rock Excavation IC.Y. I $15.00 1 100.00 1 $1,500.00 1 SANE 1 1 100.00 1 t1,50'0.0C I 1 I I ! I I 1 ! 2105.535 ISalvage Topsoil IC.Y. ! $0.95 ! 19000.00 1 $18,050.00 1 -10% ( 1 17 100.00 1 316.245.0* I I I ! 1 I ! ! I I 2211.501 (Aggregate Base, ! I I ! ! ! ! I IClass 5 (100% Crushed) ITon 1 $5.45 1 5750.00 I $31,337.50 1 75% 1 1 431222.00 1 $23,500.4f I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I 2221.501 IAggreoate Shouldering, I I I I I i 1 ! IClass 1 ITon 1 $6.00 1 1200.00 1 $7,200.00 1 SAME I I 1200.00 1 $7,209.0: I ! I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I ! I I I 1 1 2331.504 !Bituminous Material Ifor Mixture ITon 1 $190.00 1 87.00 1 $16,530.00 1 75% 1 ! 65.25 1 $12.397.5' I I I I I I I ! 1 I I I I I 2331.510 (Binder Course Mixture ITon 1 $10.90 1 1932.00 1 $221,058.80 1 75% 1 1 1449.00 1 $15,794.1C I I I I 1 I ! I I 1 2341.504 (Bituminous Material I ! I 1 1 I I I Ifor Mixture ITon 1 $200.00 1 118.00 1 $23,600.00 1 75% 1 ! 88.50 1 $17,700.0 2341.508 (Wearing Course IMixture (Modified) ITon 1 $11.00 1 1932.00 1 $21,252.00 1 75% 1 1 1449.00 1 '$15,939.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 2501.511 112° CM Pipe Culvert IL.F. 1 $15.00 1 67.00 1 $1,0?5.00 1 SAME 1 1 67.00 1 $1,005.00 I I I I ! I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 2501.511 118" CM Pipe Culvert IL.F. ( $17.00 1 157.00 1 $2,669.00 1 149 1 1 149.00 ( $2,533.00 I I I I I I I ! ! I ( I I I 1 I I I 22501.515 112" CM Pipe Aprons IEa. 1 $85.00 1 2.00 1 $170.00 1 SAME 1 I 2.00 1 $170.00 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 ! 1 2501.515 118" CM Pipe Aprons IEa. 1 $100.00 ! 4.00 1 $400.00 1 SAME 1 1 4.00 1 $400.00 ----------I----------------------------I------I--------I----------I--------------I--------!-------------I----------I- I I I 1 I I I I I ----------_ � s Shenandoah Dr. Comparison October, 11, 1985 Page 2 It should also be noted in this report that the design and construction of a two-lane Shenandoah Drive would have been obsolete upon its completion, given the peak traffic counts d uv i n g events at Canter-bury Downs. The design engineer far the Shenandoah Drive project, Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. , has reviewed the information given in this report and agrees with its conclusions. ACTION REQUESTED: City Council approved Assessment Resolution No. 2450 for Shenan- doah Drive Assessments on October 1, 1985. City Council ordered the cost comparison contained herein and a supplemental assess- ment resolution if the estimated cost of two-lane construction was less than 75% of four-lane construction. The estimate concludes that two-lane construction would have cost 87% of four-lane construction. Therefore, a supplemental assessment resolution is not warranted. RR/pmp COMPARE r� � l s"I ! G= T4' CDF.SH ^_K QF' E INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, !Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: Shenandoah Drive Cost Comparision - Two Lane Versus Four Lane Construction DATE: October 11, 1985 INTRODUCTION: The Engineering Department was directed to do the above ref- erenced cost comparison by City Council, using unit prices as bid and appropriate right-of-way costs. BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee' s Comprehensive Flan designates Shenan- doah Drive as a Collector Street (See Attachment ) . Therefore, according to Shakopee' s Design Criteria (See Attachment ) , Shen- andoah Drive was constructed 48 feet wide with 5 foot shoul- ders. A two-lane roadway would have been 36 feet wide with 5 foot shoulders. A cost comparison of these two widths is attached and compares bid amounts line by line. The only signi- ficant savings can be found in items used in constructing the aggregate base and bituminous items. Other items have only a minor savings or are the same. The bottom line comparison of construction costs indicate only a 13% savings to construct a two lane roadway. Costs of obtaining right-of-way and slope easements also were examined. Construction of a 36 foot roadway with 5 foot should- ers and using the typically required 4 to 1 slope would have required the same right-of-way and easement area, because the slope used in the final construction was 3-1 to hold down acqui- sition costs. There were still some minor differences in actual construction limits, because easements are normally obtained to cover any work activity possible and are not exact. Even so, no practical cost difference can be easily identified from the reduced width of Shenandoah Drive. � ) V Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg M. Vorland, Finance Director Re: Group Health & Life Insurance Bid Specifications Date: October 11, 1985 Introduction & Background The specifications for the bidding on group health, life and long-term disability insurance for City employees are available at City Hall. They are not attached due to length. They are drafted to provide the same coverages as currently in effect with the option for Council to look at HMO' s. The specifications were prepared by D.A. Tange. The planned schedule is to advertise on October 23, 1985, open bids on November 21st and award the bid on December 3rd. This will allow time for enrollment if a new carrier is selected and be able to meet a January 1st effective date. Action Requested Move to direct staff to proceed with bidding the coverages. GMV:mmr CITY OF SHAKOPEE CITY HALL 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (Hereinafter referred to as the CITY) REPRINT LEGAL NOTICE OF BID Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Shakopee that it will receive sealed bids for the following: EMPLOYEES GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS HEALTH COVERAGE LIFE COVERAGE ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT COVERAGE LONG TERM DISABILITY COVERAGE Bids will be due on Thursday, November 21 , 1985 at 10 : 00 A.M. Local Time, at the City Offices, located at the address shown above, at which time and place all bids will be publicly opened and read aloud. Proposals will be considered by the City Council at their regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, December 3, 1985. The CITY reserves the right to accept or reject any part of all bids or parts thereof if bids are by items and waive any informalities in the bidding. Copies of the Specifications will be available at the City Offices of the City of Shakopee at the address shown above on or after Thursday, October 24 , 1985 at 10 : 00 A.M. Local Time. No specifications will be released prior to this time. Any questions concerning the meaning or intent of the specifications must be addressed in writing to either: Mr. Gregg Voxland OR Dwight A. Tange, CIC Finance Director President City of Shakopee D. A. Tange Company City Hall Town 's Edge Shopping Ctr. 129 East First Avenue Farmington, MN 55024 Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Telephone ( 612 ) 460-6556 Telephone (612 ) 445-3650 Interpretation of the specifications will be made only by Addendum which will be mailed to all prospective vendors. The CITY assumes no further responsibility for interpreting the meaning or intent of the specifications. PAGE NO. 1 OF 42 TOTAL PAGES REPRINT - continued CITY OF SHAKOPEE LEGAL NOTICE OF BID SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA A certified check, cashier 's check or bid bond payable to the City of Shakopee in the amount of 5% of the Monthly Premium bid or $500 , whichever is greater, shall be submitted with each bid. All bids must be submitted in a sealed envelope at the place and time indicated above. Bids shall be plainly marked for the item being bid as follows : "BID FOR EMPLOYEES GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS" and shall be addressed to: Mr. Gregg Voxland Finance Director City of Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 No bids shall be withdrawn subsequent to the opening of bids without the consent of the City of Shakopee for a period of thirty ( 30 ) days after the bid due date of November 21 , 1985 . Judy Cox City Clerk City of Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 Published: Shakopee Valley News October 23 , 1985 October 30 , 1985 PAGE NO. 2 OF 42 TOTAL PAGES Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Y. Vorland, Finance Director Re: Quotation Specifications for Refuse Collection Contract Date: October 11, 1985 Introduction & Background The specifications for the refuse collection contract for 1986-88 are available at City Hall for review. They are not attached due to length and the typing schedule. They are essentially the same as before except for modifications to include a quotation for recycling. The City has the option to accept a quote with or without the recycling operation. If there are no changes, Council should take action as requested. Action Requested Move to direct staff to proceed with soliciting quotations. GMV:mmr 1955 CITY OF SHAKOFEE CHECK REGISTER 09-30-85 PAGE 5 CHECK MO._DATE_ AMOUNT VEND02 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. I MESSAGE •••••• ***-CKS 282024 1J/09/85 19001.60 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT SURFACE MAT 01-4215-429-42 19001.60 * 282025 10/09/85 129.48 ASTLEFDRD INTER EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 129.48 * 282026 10/09/85 73.98 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42 282026 13/09/85 291.57 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-42 32-312-31 282026 10/09/85 212.45 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 282026 10/09/85 295.26 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 873.26 * •••••• ** -CKS 282029 11/09/85 846.78 E F ANDERSON R ASOC SUPPLIES 11-4210-431-42 846.75 * ■••�•• ***-CKS 282035 13/09/85 443.48 ASS/MECH/CDNT/INC. BLDG MAINT 01-4230-181-18 443.48 • 282036 13/09/85 59.61 JOHN K. ANDERSON TRAVEL i SUBSIST 01-4330-111-11 282036 15/09/85 49.81 JOHN KP ANDERSON TRAVEL i SLBSIST 01-4330-121-12 109.42 • •**•.• ***-CKS 1 ) 282046 10/09/85 33.50 AT 4 T TELEPHONE 01-4321-131-13 282046 13/09/85 5.30 AT A T TELEPHONE 01-4321-311-31 38.90 .*•s•• *••-CKS 282049 15/09/85 67.11 CARS 0 TUASO SY INC EQUIP PAINT 01-4232-426-42 67.11 • :••••• ***-CKS I 282061 10/09/85 19267.24 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS SURFACE MAT 01-4215-427-42 1,267.24 * ****** ***.CKS ) 282068 IU/C9/85 15.50 THOMAS G.3ROVNELL TRAVEL & SUBSIST 01-4330-311-31 282068 1 /09/85 35.08 THOMAS G.8ROYNELL CONF i SCHOOLS 01-4390-311-31 50.58 • *•**s♦ *•r CKS 282072 lv/09/85 2000 DIANE S. BEUCH SUPPLIES 01-4210-111-11 "2072 l.i109/85 195.02 DIAN_ S. 3EUCH PROF SERV 01-4310-111-11 1965 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 09-30-85 'PAGE 6 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 40. INV. • P.O. AJ*TSSAGE 282072 13/09/85 116.26 DIANE S* 3EUCH PROF SERV M-4310-171-17 2112072 1/09/85 7.50 DIAN_ S. BEUCH PROF SERV 15-4310-191-19 336.78 + f++++• ••*-CKs 282085 11/09/85 4.79 CARLSON H%ROWARE SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32 2K2085 11/09/85 21.53 CARLSON HARDWARE SUPPLIES ni-4210-421-42 2112085 IJ/09185 2.69 CARLSON HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4210-622-62 29.01 + ++►+.• ***-CKS 282089 11/09/85 5.99 CHAMPION 1UT0 STORZ EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 282089 1J/09/85 29.57 CHAMPION AUTO STORE EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 35.56 • 282095 10/09/85 198.30 CLAYS P►RIVTING SUPPLIES 01-4210-132-13 282095 11/09/85 115.60 CLAYS PIRIVTING PRINT i PUB 01-4350-311-31 313.90 • *f**+• ***-CKs 282102 11/09/85 91.30_ COPY EQUIP. INC. EQUIP MAINT C1-4232-411-41 112963 91.00 * _ffff:* f*+-CKS 262106 10/09/85 29000.75 JULIUS A. COLLER II PROF SERV 01-4310-161-16 2s00C.75 * 1 ++*►+* *►.-CKS 282111, 10/09/85 172.30 CLAPSADOL= i SON EQUIP MAINT 71-4232-426-42 5378 172.30 *++*+* * -CKS 282115 15/09/85 37.50 C.H. CARP. LUMBER SUPPLIES 01-4210-318-31 282115 1^/09/85 9.1i C.H. CARP. LUMBER SUPPLIES 01-4210-617-61 282115 10/C9/85 7.92 C.H. CARP. LUMBER SUPPLIES ^_1-4210-621-62 2a2115 1U/09/A5 121.00 C.H. CARP. LUMBER BLDG MAINT C1-4230-617-61 175.42 + *.*-CKS i 282130 10/09/85 104.42 OUNNINGS HOWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-181-18 282130 11/D9/85 1.62 RUNNINGS 40WE. SUPPLIES C1-4210 321-32 282130 10/09/85 7.73 RUNNINGS iOWE. SUPPLIES C1-4210-421-42 282130 1;/09/85 .66 RUNNINGS HOWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42 282130 11/09/85 12.96 OUNNINGS HOWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-617-61 282130 13/09/85 9.52 OUNNINGS HOWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-621-62 282130 10/09/85 36.45 CUMN149S 4OWE. SUPPLIES G1-4210-622-62 s i 1985 CITY OF SHANCPEE CHECK REGISTER OS-30-85 PAGE 7 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOI ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. M P.O. 8 MESSAGE 282130 11/09/85 39.15 DUNNINGS HOPE. BLDG MAINT 01-4230-182-13 282130 10/09/85 17.88 RUNNINGS HDME. BLDG MAINT r�1-4230-321-32 282130 10/09/85 44.19 OUNNINGS 4OWE. BLDG MAINT 111-4230-630-62 282130 13/09/85 25.34 RUNNINGS HOME. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 282130_ 1.0)/09/85 9.34 RUNNINGS IDYE. SUPPLIES 61-4210-549-41 308.96 • as+ra• *••-CKS 282147 10/09/85 16.15 EASTMAN DRUG SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32 282147 13/09/85 19.55 EASTMAN DRUG SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 282147 10/09/85 10.93 EASTMAN DRUG PRINT i PLO 01-4350-313-31 282147 11/09/85 38.53 EASTM4* DRUG PRINT i PUS 01-4350-319-31 282147 10/09/85 13.30 EASTMAN DRUG SUPPLIES 26-4210-539-41 98.16 • *a*-CKS 282173 1 /09/85 70.70 EARL FLECK TRAVEL i SUBSIST 01-4330-313-31 282173 13/09/85 11.10 EARL FLECK CJNF 9 SCHOOLS 01-4390-313-31 81.10 + l ♦tf+•+ *+*-CKS 282175 1)/09/E5 123.66 FIRE INST.ASSN. PRINT i PUB 01-4350-321-32 3894 123.66 * **+a+■ ***-CKs 262178 1j/09/85 37.50 FIRESTONE ST9RES EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-331-33 71813 37.50 *■++*■ ***-CKS j 282204 1 /09/85 12.33 HARMONS HONE. HANK SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32 2822J4 1.-1/09/85 1.59 HARMONS HaWE. HANK BLDG MAINT ^1-4230-182-18 13.92 • :08::,**, 10/09/85 74.20 HENNENS ICO EQUIP PAINT 01-4232-426-42 j 282211 1,:/09/85 15.50 MENNENS ICO EQUIP MAIAT 01-4232-631-62 89.70 * ++++•+ ***-CKS p t 282238 13/09/85 732.25 INST. TESTING INC PROF SERV 01-4310-411-41 732.25 a •►**++ ***-CKS 282267 11/09/85 151.15 KOEHNENS STANDARD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 182267 11/09/85 3.00 KOEHNENS STANDARD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-411-41 154.15 • s++a*+ *+*-CKS 1 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 09-30-85 PAGE 8 CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT WEVOOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 8 P.O. A MESSAGE 282270. 13/09/85 39117.75 KRASS/MEYER/WALSTEN PROF SERV 01-4310-161-16 2112270. 13/09/85 1,111.50 KRASS/METER/WALSTEN PROF SERW 23-4310-000-00 282270, 10/09/85 326.25 KRASS/MEY-rR/WALSTEN PROF SERW 2T-4310-543-41 51.155.53 * arraaa ***-CKS 282285 11/09/85 5.50 L R L AIR INC EQUIP MAINT `!1-4232-181-18 5.50 • rra.r♦ ***-CKS 282301 13/09/85 521.25 LOCAL UNION #320 REMIT UNION DUES 81-4924,000-00 521.25 trr►ta ***-CK$ i 282303 10/09/85 17.10 LINK PRINT PRINT 9 PL8 01-4350-221-22 13223 282303 10/09/85 37.30 LINK PRINT PRINT i PUB 01-4350.321-32 13365 2823J3 13/09/85 372.33 LINK PRINT PRINT S PUB 01-4350-331-33 13381 426.43 • **a-CKS 282305 10/09/85 359.15 LAWSON PRODUCTS SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42 359.15 * 282306 1:/09/85 65.38 LONG LAKE =ORD EQUIPMENT MAINT 01-4232-426-42 65.38 * 262307 1.3/09/85 22.50 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL UTILITIES 01-4370-622-62 22.50 * r*rrra ***-CKS 282318 10/09/85 144.60 MALKERSON MOT. INC. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 282318 1L/09/85 3.20 MALKERSON MOT. INC. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 147.30 ***-CKS 282337 11/09/85 39.02 MINNEG*SCO UTILITIES 11-4370-181-18 282337 1u/09/85 3.69 MINNEGASCD UTILITIES 01-4370-182-18 282337 10/09/85 63.83 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 01-4370-311-31 282337 10/09/85 76.66 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES ^1-4370-321-32 282337 1^/79/85 127.65 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 01-4370-421-42 282337 10/09/85 19.76 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 11-4370-611-61 282337 10/09/85 17.94 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 01-4370-622-62 348.57 +*•art ***-CKS 282346 1i/99/85 55.31 MOT31 PARTS SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 282346 13/09/85 44.41• MOTOR PARTS SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42 1985 CITY OF SMA14OPEE CHECK REGISTER 09-30-85 PAGE 9 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. • MESSAGE 282346 IJ/09/85 202.52 MOTOR DARTS SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42 2132346 1)109/85 37.20 MOTOR PARTS SUPPLIES 01-4210-431-42 262346 10/09/85 4.34 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAIFT 61-4232-121-12 282346 1'/09/85 87.04 MOTOR PARIS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 202346 1U/C9/85 172.82 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT n1-4232-411-41 282346 1J/09185 65.96 MOTOR DARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 282346 1;:/09/85 87.'4- MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-612-31 262346 11/09/85 87.04 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-512-31 601.)8 * +••.•• •r+-CKS 282348 13/09/85 224.40 MALS STAR R TRIS PRINT i PLO 01-4350-136-13 224.40 • 282349 to/09/85 506.12 ROBERT MC4LLISTER PROF SERV 01-4310-361-36 506.12 a +' +:a.+• ***^CKS i 282351 1:/09/85 16.00 MPLS COMPT-TREAS EQUIP MAIFT 11-4232-321-32 1 16.00 * ••+•++ aa*-CKS 282359 1-I/C9/85 140.68 MHA REMIT CANCER :NS 81-4926-000-00 140.58 * ••••+• ***-CKS 282387 10/09/85 3406 NY BELL TELEPHONE -1-4321-111-11 282387 11/09/85 22.63 NY BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-121-12 2x2387 1u/C9/85 34.3.6 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321 .131-13 282387 13/09/85 105.81 NW Br-LL TELEPHONE 01-4321-151-15 282387 tu/09/85 34.36 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-171-17 282387 1J/09/85 137.12 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-182-18 282387 1J/09/85 332.51 NW BELL TELEPHONE ^1-4321-311-31 282387 1x/09/85 56.92 NW Br-LL TELEPHONE 01-4321-321-32 282387 10/09/85 34.)6 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-331-33 282387 10/09/85 14.10 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-351-35 2o2387 10/09/8: 68.12 NW BELL TELEPHONE C1-4321-411-41 282387 lu/09/85 90.65 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-421-42 i 282387 13/99/85 1.59 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-611-61 282387 1:'/09/85 17.)4 NW BELL TELEPHONE 15-4321-191-19 282387 13/09/85 17.04 NY BELL TELEPHONE 16-4321-231-23 1 9000.17 • *.r.a• +**-CKS 282412 10/09/85 1,560.99 ORR-SCH-M4YR L AS PROF SERV 01-4310-411-41 482412 IUI09/85 79035.30 ORR-SCH-M4YR 6 AS PROF SERV 61-4310-549-41 282412 1J/09/85 187.31 ORR-SCH-M4YR 6 AS PROF SERV 71-4310-711-71 89783.6D • +r*rra **d-CKS 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 09-30-85 PAGE 13 CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT V=NOO? ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. I P.O. f MESSAGE 282438 1,/09/85 126.66 PRIOR LAKE AGG. SURFACE MAT 01-4215-433-42 126.66 • +•••.. ***-CKS 282457 1: /09/85 25.90 RADIO SHACK SUPPLIES 01-4210-111-11 596932 25.90 * r••••• ***-CKS 282459 lu/09/85 36.55 REDFIELD ELECTRIC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 1890 36.55 * •:*•w♦ 39,33 ***-CKS 282461 1"/09/85 3. � REYNOLDS W=LDIMG SUPPLIES 01-4210-441-44 +w►••• •*+-CKS i 282466 1"/09/85 34."0 RING FIRE EXTG. EQUIP MAIAT 01-4232-312-31 { 34. 0 +.••*• •*•-CKS t 2825f2 1r,/09/85 168.42 SHAKOPEFE TORO EQUIP MAINT "1-4232-312-31 3 163.42 + 3 ra•w*► ***-CK° 282508 1w/09/85 70.70 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PROMOTICNS 01-4319-178-17 26251.8 13/09/85 1,035.18 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PRINT 6 PUB 01-4350-131-13 282518 1./09/85 24.7'1 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PRINT i PUB "11-4350-136-13 2825,7,0 lu/C9/85 35.30 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PROMOTIONS 14-4319-142-14 282509 lu/09/85 35.)0 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PROMOTIONS 14-4319-143-14 282538 1G/C9/85 53.98 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PRINT 6 PUB 27-4350-543-41 2825••"S 1.1/09/85 26.74 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PRINT t PUB 27-4350-544-41 282518 1)/09/85 26.94 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PRINT 8 PUB 61-4350-549-41 1 9307.54 • 2825G9 13/09/85 22.10 SHAKOP=E 3-RVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-311-31 282509 1-/09/85 22.30 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-321-32 2825f9 1.:/09/85 22.)0 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-421-42 282509 tu/Q9/85 44.00 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-621-62 110.10 • *wr•s• ***-CKS 282517 1"/09/85 308.10 SPDC INSURANCE 01-4360-321-32 282517 lu/09/85 685.23 SPUC UTILITIES 91-4370-181-18 262517 1J/09/85 391.99 SPDC UTILITIES 01-4370-182-18 282517 13/C9/85 5.19 S=UC UTILITIES 01-4370-311-31 282517 1;:/09/85 140.70 SPUC UTILITIES :1-4370-321-32 282517 1J/C9/85 19.50 SPUC UTILITIES 1-4370-351-35 6- 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 09-30-85 PAGE 11 CHECK NO. GATE AMOUNT VEN00R ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. IHV. 9 P.O. 9 MESSAGE 282517 16/C9/85 791.90 SPUC UTILITIES n1-4370-421-42 282517 1u/09/85 176.58 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-427-42 282517 11/09/85 1,296.79 SP UC UTILITIES C1-4370-611-61 282517 11/09/85 96.06 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-622-62 282517 tv/09/85 80*43 SPDC UTILITIES 1-4370-626-62 282517 11/09/85 235.35 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-628-62 282517 10/09/85 4,284.10 SPUC HATER CONNECTS 83-3831-000-00 } 282517 1J/09/85 560*00 SPUC WATER METERS 83-3832-000-00 99071.72 * 282518 11/09/85 29.50 ST FRANCIS REG MED PROF SER V 01-4310-313-31 901863 29.50 * •.*:*• ***-CKs 282520 11/09/85 42.70 STARKS CLEANING BLDG MAINT 01-4230-181-18 282520 11/09/85 26070 STARKS CLEANING BLDG MAINT 01-4230-182-18 j 282520 1:/r.9/85 8.50 STARKS CLEANING BLDG MAINT 01-4230-184-18 282520 11/09/85 26.70 STARKS CLEANING BLDG MAINT C1-4230-311-31 282520 10/09/85 17.30 STARKS CLEANING BLDG MAINT 01-4230-321-32 282520 1/09/85 23.20 STARKS CLEANING BLDG MAINT C1-4230-421-42 145.10 •::*** ***-CKS 1 r 282524 10/C9/85 25.20 DON STREICHER GUNS SUPPLIES C1-4210-312-31 282524 1-/09/85 245.50 DON 3TREICHER SUNS CAPITAL EQUIP 01-4511-311-31 270.80 0000*• ***-CKS 282526 1/09/85 3.60 SUEL BUSI4ESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-171-17 282526 1u/C9185 14.62 SUEL BUSItESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-221-22 282526 11/09/85 46.87 SUEL 9USIVESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-312-31 i 282526 1l1/C9/85 8075 SUEL 8USI'iESS EQUIP• SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32 282526 1:/C9/85 53.90 SUEL BUST4ESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 262526 10/G9/85 20.15 SUEL BUSIVESS -QUI?. SUPPLIES 01-4210-911-91 282526 11:/09/85 8.66 SUEL BUSIVESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 14-4210-142-14 282526 1d/C9/85 14.23 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 14-4210-143-14 170.78 242527 Ir/09/85 7.98 SUPERAMERICA SUPPLIES 01-4210-312-31 i 282527 12/09/85 22.20 SUPERA14ERICA SUPPLIES 71-4210-313-31 282527 1109/85 8.03 SUPERAMERICA MOTOR FUEL 01-4222-312-31 38.21 * 0.000* ***-CKS I 282531 10/09/85 7.00 SHAKOPEE OIL EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 7.00 * 0000** ***-CKS 282578 Ii/C9/a5 30.10 UNIFORMS JNLIMITED SUPPLIES 01-4210-312-31 30.00 * 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 09-30-85 PAGE 12 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENOOt ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO* INV. I P.O. # MESSAGE •+rrrr •••-CKS 282591 1J/1:9/85 103.12 WALLET TEMP PROF SERV 01-4310-171-17 103.32 + trrrrr •••-CKS 282593 1�/C9/85 59^-64.62 WALL=Y IND PROPANE MOTOR FUEL 01-4222-426-42 59064.62 • rrrr:♦ •••-CKS 28263G 13/09/85 43.00 WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITIES 01-4370-184-18 282630 13/09/85 13,549.41 WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITIES 01-4370-721-72 13,592.41 + •r♦rr+ rrr-CKS 282651 1u/09/85 .30- ?ACKS SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 12605 282651 1-,/09/85 251.44 ZACKS SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 12605 251.14 r § rrrr:• •*r-CKS 282800 1u/09/85 50.-0 3M PROF SERV Ci-4310-321-32 39394 2828'_�D. IO/G9/85 25.1.0 3M PRINT i PUB 01-4350-321-32 39394 75.00 • 282801 %/C9/85 136.30 OICTAPYONE EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-311-31 136..0 282802 1'/09/85 10.^0 AMERICAN DRESS MISC 01-3890-000-00 10.00 • 282863 lu/09/85 18.75 OR R. CHRISTENSEN MISC 01-3890-000-00 18.75 r 282804 17/09/85 1,327.65 FREM347 I43 INC SEWER SERV CHG 01-3651-000-00 2828-1! 10/09/85 19327.55- FREMONT I,ND INC SEWER CHG 01-3651-000-0 282804 10/09/85 1,327.65 FREMOYP IND INC SEWER SERV CHS 71-3651-000-0u i 19327.65 + 282805 1u/'l9/85 9,876.21 S M HFIOTGES 6 SONS OTHER IMPROV 27-4519-547-41 i 2e28175 111/09/85 57,065.15 S M HENTGES a SONS OTHER IMFPOV 61-4519-549-41 669941.16 • ti 282876 10/09/85 54.51 JUDITH L HUNT MISC 01-3890-000-00 54.51 r 2828('7 1u/09/85 185.50 H!:NN C CH OF POLICE CONF 6 SCHOOLS 01-4390-312-31 185.51 • 282808 1 /C9/85 135.18 JIM HATCH SALES EQUIP MAI14T 01-4232-426-42 ti 135.18 + I 3 1985 CITY 3F SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 09-30-85 PAGE 13 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT V_NDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. M MESSAGE 2828C9 10/09/85 3.70 KIRBY CO MISC C1-3890-000-00 3.70 * Zb281% 1:;/09/85 38.34 LA80R REL 4SSOC PROF SERV 01-4310-121-12 38.)4• * 282811 17/09/85 _180.'0 MN EQUIP SO SUPPLIES (31-4210-321-32 262811 1LY09/85 340.90 MY EQUIP CO EQUIP PAINT 01-4232-321-32 520.80 * 282812 13/09/85 12.50 DEPT OF LABOR 8 IND PROF SERV 01-4310-181-18 282812 13/09/85 12.50 DEPT OF LABOR 8 IND PROF SERV 01-4310.183-18 262812 10/09/85 65.)0 DEPT OF LABOR i IND PROF SERV 01-4310-321-32 262812 1/09/85 35.30 DEPT OF L48OR S IND PROF SERV 01-4310-421-42 125.00 * 282813 17/09/85 13.11 MARGARET HERTZ MISC 01-3890-000-00 I{ 13.11 • 282814 10/09/85 35,223.54 C S MC CROSSAN INC OTHER IMPROV 27-4519-546-41 1 359220.54 * 2d2815 1J/09/85 114. 7 COMM OF TRANS OTHER IMPROV 27-4519-546-41 114.^7 • 282816 IJ/09/85 70.32 PRECISION METAL FAB EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 1 70.82 * 282817 10/09/85 17.87 MARILTN REMER TRAVEL t SUBSIST 01-4330-158-15 1 17.87 * 282818 10/09/85 20.70 JOHN RIEGER MISC 01-3890-000-00 27.00 • 282819 10/09/85 81.60 SCOTT GTT 3HERIF COM EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 81.5( • 2b2820 1u/09/85 5.79 BAN VANST_ENYYK REFUSE DISP 01-3650-000-00 5.79 282821 10/09/85 27,869.20 VALLEY PAYING OTMER IMPROV 26-4519-539-41 279869.20 282822 10/09/85 108.50 KEN ZITZOM SLOG MAINT 01-4230-630-62 108.50 s..u. ***-CKS 282004 10/09/85 143.55 ADAMS PESL CON INC PROF SERV 01-4310-361-36 j 143.55 • i 1 'f-)nth October Page 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1985 s `bit Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt. 13.4519.533.41 13.1010 $ 500.00 Other Improvements 19158 T & S Excavating 500.00 27.4507.548.41 27.1010 3,841.39 Purchase of Land 19159 Thunderhawk N. V. 3,841.39 27.4507.548.41 27.1010 5,332.47 Purchase of Land 19160 Silverhawk N. V. 5,332.47 01.3132.000.00 01.1010 68.50 Building permit 19161 John Nelson 83.3830.000.00 83.1010 4.00 State Surcharge Fee 19161 " 72.50 01.4991.000.00 01.1010 15,000.00 Contingency 19162 Scott Cty Historical 15,000.00 81.4922.000.00 81.1010 4,557.02 Remit FICA 19163 State Treasurer 4,557.02 81.4932.000.00 81.1010 98.40 Remit uniform Rental 19164 Unitog Rental Sery 01.4210.441.44 01.1010 7.74 Supplies 19164 if106.14 81.4931.000.00 81.1010 1,000.00 Remit Payroll Sav 19165 1st National - Shakopee 1,000.00 81.4921.000.00 81.1010 3,184.22 Remit SIT 19166 Comm of Revenue 3,184.22 81.4920.000.00 81.1010 7,420.06 Remit FIT 19167 lst National - Shakopee 7,420.06 81.4927.000.00 81.1010 100.00 Remit Defer. Comp. 19168 IDS 100.00 81.4927.000.00 81.1010 2,212.00 Remit Defer. comp. 19169 PEBSCO 2,212.00 81.4923.000.00 81.1010 6.605.02 Remit PERA 19170 State Treasurer 6,605.02 71.4411.711.71 71.1010 57,583.08 Current L,se Chg. 19171 Metro Waste Comm 71.3833.000.00 71.1010 6,280.65 SAC Chg. 19171 if 63,863.73 01.4380.152.15 01.1010 1,015.41 Rents 19172 Logis 01.4380.153.15 01.1010 324.73 Rents 19172 it 01.4380.154.15 01.1010 186.28 Rents 19172 if1,526.42- 82-3325-000-00 ,526.4282.3325.000.00 82.1010 27,105.00 Fire State Aid 19173 Shakopee Fire Relief 27,105.00 71.3651.000.00 71.1010 60.24 Sewer Service Fund 19174 Bernard Brcos 60.24 81.4925.000.00 81.1010 8,483.32 Remit- Bankers Life 19175 Bankers Life 8,483.32 83.4929.000.00 83.1010 2,554.03 Remit - Surcharge 19176 State Treasurer 2,554.03 01.4330.461.46 01.1010 22.68 Travel & Subsist 19177 Verner Severson o1.4330.651.65 01.1010 22.68 .f 19177 IV45.36 01.4310.411.41 01.1010 180.45 Prof Sery 19178 Braun Eng. 180.45 27.4519.543.41 27.1010 _18 855.65 Other Improv 19179 C & N W Transp. Co _18 8.55 65 $1725.02 $172,605-02 3 Month October Page 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1985 1)ebit Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt. FUND TOTALS 01 - General Fund $ 62,095.60 13 - Park lieserve Fund 500.00 14 - Transit 92.89 15 - HrA 24.54 16 - Cable 17.04 23 - K-Mart 1,711.50 26 - Downtown redevelopment 27,882.20 27 - racetrack 73,647.20 61 - 1985 Improvements 64,136.73 71 - Sewer Fund 65,438.93 81 - Payroll Trust 34,321.97 82 - Fire Dept. relief Trust 27,105.00 83 - L!tility Trust 7,402.03 T74�,375-�3 TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director � RE: Probation Termination for Eileen Klimek DATE: September 25, 1985 Introduction and Background Eileen Klimek has completed the standard six months probationary period as of September 26, 1985. She is an Accounting Clerk in the Finance Department. I am pleased with her performance and recommend that Council place her on permanent status. Action Requested Move to terminate the probationary status of Eileen Klimek and place her on permanent status. L � GT TY QF' 2314AKCDF1aa INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT � 129 E. let Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Fulton Schleisman, Engineering Inspector SUBJECT: County Road 83 Widening, Contract No. 1984-9 DATE: October 11, 1985 INTRODUCTION: Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4 for the above referenced project requires Council approval. ACTION REQUESTED: A motion to authorize payment of Partial Estimate No. 4 for County Road 83 Widening, Project No. 1984-9, in the amount of $7, 194. 25 to C. S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. , P. O. Box 247, Osseo, MN, 55369. FS/pmp ESTNO4 I PARTIAL. ESTIMATE VOUCHER -ntract No. 1984-9 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4 �riod Ending: September 30, 1.985 is Contractor C. S. McCrossan Construction. Inc. Address P. O. Box 247 Osseo MN 55369 Project Description County Road 83 Widening Original Contract Amount $ 162.713.75 Change Order No. 1 Thru No. 2 $ 12, 155. 10 Total Funds Encumbered $ 174,918.85 Value of Work Completed $ 203,981.40 Value of Work Remaining 5 Percent Retainage $ 10, 196. 07 $ 1,000.00 Previous Payments $ 186,531.08 Percent Complete Deductions or Charges $ -0- 99% Total $ 196,727. 15 iyment Due (Line 4 - 8) $ 7, 194. 25 CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT (I, We) hereby agree that the quantity and value of work shown herein is a fair .timate of the work completed to date. )NTRACTOR :TLE 'PROVED - CITY OF SHAKOPEE Project Engineer Date City Administrator Date i PR3JECT: County Road 83 improvements ESTIMATE N3. : 4 PERIOD ENDING: September 30, 1985 CONTRACTOR: C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. SHEET N3.: 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------_-------------- -------------- Item I I I Unit I Contract I Current Period I Total to Date No. I Contract Item I Unit I Price I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount ----------I------------------------------I------1---------1---------I--------------I---------I---------------I----------I--------------- 2104.503 (Remove Bituminous Island IS.F. I 55.50 1 525.00 1 $2,887.50 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 525.00 1 $2,887.50 I I I I I I I I I 2104.505 (Remove Bituminous Pavement IS.Y. 1 $1.50 1 938.00 1 $1,407.00 1 408.00 1 $612.00 1 2100.00 I $3,150.@1' I I I I I I ! I I 2104.521 (Salvage C.M. Culvert Pipe IL.F. 1 $7.00 1 204.00 1 $1,428.00 1 44.00 1 $308.00 1 288.00 1 52,016.0E I I I I I I I I I 2105.507 ISubgrade Excavation IC.Y. 1 $4.50 1 800.00 1 $3,600.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 800.00 1 53,600.00 I I I I I I I I I 2105.523 ICowon Borrow 1C.Y. 1 $4.60 1 2800.00 1 $11,200.00 1 878.00 1 $3,512.00 1 4535.00 1 518,140.0E I I I I I I I 1 1 2105.535 ISalvage Topsoil IC.Y. 1 $3.00 1 1400.00 1 $4,200.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 1400.00 1 $4,200.00 I I I I I I I I I 2211.501 (Aggregate Base C1.5 I I 1000% Crushed) ITon 1 $5.35 1 1545.00 1 $8,265.75 1 13.00 1 $69.55 1 2425.00 1 $12,973.75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2331.504 IBituminous Material I I I I I I I I (For Mixture ITon 1 $185.00 1 24.00 1 $4,440.00 1 4.71 1 $871.35 1 75.27 1 $13,924.95 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2331.510 (Binder Course Mixture ITon 1 $9.90 1 180.00 1 $1,782.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 180.00 1 $1,782.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2331.512 (Leveling Course Mixture ITon 1 $9.90 1 350.00 1 $3,465.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 1388.00 1 $13,741.20 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 2341.504 IBituminous Material I I I I I I I I IFor Mixture ITon 1 $185.00 1 142.00 1 $26,270.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 159.26 1 $29,463.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2341.508 (Wearing Course Mixture ITon 1 $9.90 1 2335.00 1 $23,116.50 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 2611.00 1 $25,848.90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2357.502 IBituminous Material I I I I I I I I Ifor Tack Coat (Gal 1 $1.50 1 1020.00 1 $1,530.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 1020.00 1 $1,530.00 I ! I I I I I I I 2501.511 118" C.M. Pipe Culvert IL.F. 1 $24.00 1 20.00 1 $480.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 26.00 1 $624.00 I I I I I I I I I 2501.515 118" C.M. Pipe Aprons lEa. 1 $135.00 1 2.00 1 $270.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 4.00 1 $540.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2503.511 112" R.C. Pipe Sewer (Class 5) IL.F. 1 $24.00 l 20.00 1 $480.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 42.50 1 $1,020.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2503.573 [Install 12" R.C. Pipe Aprons lEa. 1 $160.00 1 7.00 1 $1,120.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 7.00 1 $1,120.00 i I I I I I I I I 2506.507 (Construct Catch I I I I I I I I (Basins (Design "H") IEa. 1 $625.00 1 7.00 1 $4,375.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 7.00 1 $4,375.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2506.522 [Adjust Frame and I I I I I I I I (Ring Castings IEa. 1 $250.00 1 14.00 1 $3,500.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 12.00 1 $3,000.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2511.501 (Random Rip Rao (Class A) IC.Y. 1 $50.00 1 11.90 1 $595.00 1 0.00 I $0.00 1 12.00 1 $600.00 I I I I I I I I I 2511.511 16ranular Filter IC.Y. 1 $30.00 1 6.30 1 $189.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 6.30 1 $189.00 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I County Road 83 Imorovements ESTINnTE N . : k ENDING: September 3L, 1985 COINTRAZTOR: C.S. McCrossan Constructio SHEET NC.: 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I Unit I Contract I Current Period I Total to Date I Contract Item I Unit I Price I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount ----I-----------------------------I------I----------1---------I---------------i---------1-------------I----------I--------------- z.i (Concrete Curb & Butter I I I I I I I f I(Design B618) IL.F. 1 $5.00 1 6930.00 1 $34,650.00 1 0.00 ( $0.00 1 6699.00 1 $33,4953,'- 1 33,495.0,1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 f 3123 (Concrete Median IS.Y. I $11.50 I 27.00 I $310.50 I 0.00 I 30.00 I 50.00 ( $575.0: I I I I I I I 1 1 307 18" Concrete Driveway Pavement IS.Y. 1 $24.50 1 145.00 1 $3,552.50 1 0.00 1 $C.00 1 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 f f 1 1 1 507 110" Concrete Driveway PavementIS.Y. 1 $30.00 1 98.00 1 $,940.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 80.00 1 32,400.00 I I I I I I I I I 301 (Traffic Barrier I I I I I I I I I(Design "A") 8307 IL.F. I $IC.50 1 300.00 1 $3,150.00 1 0.00 I $0.00 1 300.00 1 $3,150.01C I I I I I I I I I -21 IAnchoraq_e Assemblies IEa. 1 $590.00 1 2.00 1 $1,180.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 2.00 I I I I I I I I I I "101 (Roadside Seeding IAc. 1 $300.00 1 1.60 f $480.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 1.60 1 We.K I I I I I I I I i SO2 (Seed Mixture &5 ILbs. I $2.50 1 80.00 1 $200.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 80.00 1 $200.0E I I I I I I I i I 505 ISodding IS.Y. 1 $1.50 1 2220.00 1 $3,330.00 1 0.00 1 30.00 1 2246.00 1 $3,369.00 I I I I I I I 1 1 11 [Mulch Material (Type 1) ITon 1 $150.00 1 3.20 1 $480.00 f 0.00 1 $0.00 1 3.20 1 $480.&0 I I I I I I i I I 19 IDisc Anchoring IAc. 1 $75.00 1 1.60 1 $120.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 1.60 1 $120.00 I I I I I I I I I 331 (Commercial Fertilizer ITon 1 $3375.00 1 0.32 1 $120.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 0.32 1 $120.00 I I I I I I I I i '2 [Adjust Gate Valve IEa. 1 $200.00 1 13.00 1 $2,600.00 1 11.00 1 $2,200.00 1 13.00 1 $2,600.00 I I I I I i I I I "? (Adjust Hydrant IEa. 1 $750.00 1 4.00 1 $3,000.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 I 4.00 1 $3,000.00 I I I I I I I I I 1 (Relocate Gate Actuator IL.S. 1$2,000.00 1 1.00 1 $2,000.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 1.00 1 $2,000.00 ----- - I I I I I Total 1 $162,713.75 1 Total 1 $7,572.90 1 Total 1 $197,894.40 Change Order No. 1 $0.00 $0.00 (Included in Units Above Change Order No. 2 $5,777.00 $5,777.00 (18"RCP & Manhole Castings) Change Order No 3 $250.00 $250.00 (500 L.F. Re-Bar) TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $6,027.00 GRAND TOTAL $203,921.40 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Minnesota' s Star City Program DATE: October 10 , 1985 Introduction The City of Shakopee has been aware of the Star City Program since March 15 , 1983 when it designated the Shakopee Industrial Development Commission as the lead organization in promoting and implementing the Star City Program for Shakopee (Res . No. 2121 attached) . To date the Commission has completed six of the ten steps required for Star City certification. The Commission has now learned from the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development that technical assistance is available at no cost to complete the Star City Program. Background The Industrial and Commission Commission ( ICC) has completed six of ten steps for Star City certification. The remaining four steps include a five year plan and stragety for economic development, a one year work program which defines strategy which relates to the five year economic development plan, a labor survey which is substantially complete and a mock presentation to the Department of Energy and Economic Development' s Division of Business Development. The technical assistance program is laid out in the attached material which include an application form which must be turned in by 4 : 00 p.m. on October 15th and a cover letter signed by the Mayor. Please note that the only requirement imposed upon a city wishing to participate in the technical assistance program is the commitment of staff, time to complete the project. The bulk of the City staff time and ICC time has already been invested in the completion of the first six items for certification. We estimate that Jeanne Andre can provide a modest amount of coordination so that the technical assistance provided will lead us to Star City certifica- tion. Attached is a copy of a Star City promotion brochure which explains the benefits of the program. Alternatives 1. Authorize an application for technical assistance from the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development to complete the City' s Star City application. 2. Do not authorize an application for the above mentioned technical assistance because it will direct the Community Development Director' s attention away from higher priority projects. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1 because I believe the technical assistance will indeed minimize Jeanne ' s time commitment to the program and because this is a relatively high priority on the ICC ' s list of goals and objectives. Staff will provide the narrative for part II of the application for technical assistance prior to Tuesday night' s Council meeting for review. Action Requested Direct the appropriate City officials to complete and file the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development technical assistance application forms for completing the Star City Program and submit them by the deadline along with a letter of participation signed by the Mayor. JKA/jms ■■■■■■� e A Star Fstaiii will Here's an exciting chance for WHO WILL HELP YOUR N ®um :_a■mss. Minnesota cities to take an active role in COMMUNITY BECOME A FOR economic planning and implementation STAR CITY? ECONOMIC through the Star Cities Program. The Star DEVELOPMENT Cities Program encourages communities A full-time DEED staff member, with the to get involved in their economic help of eight business finance specialists development. located throughout the state, is available for advice and counseling to supplement WHAT RESULTS CAN Participating cities develop organizational, the operations manual and annual spring YOU EXPECT? marketing and problem-solving skills. conference. Once a city has completed the necessary Participating in the Star Cities Program steps, the Minnesota Department ofHOW strengthens your community's potential Energy and Economic Development MUCH WILL for attracting new businesses, retaining (DEED) designates it as a "Star City." THE PROGRAM COST? existing businesses and selection as a How much depends on your city's wants business expansion site. Retained or and resources. Some Star Cities have additional business in your community completed the tasks with budgets under means more jobs. H $1,000. Costs rise when you hire OW WILL YOUR consultants and other professionals to WHAT MUST YOUR COMMUNITY BENEFIT? help with the required tasks. Remember, COMMUNITY DO TO the more elaborate your program, the Displaying the Star City emblem at your more expensive it is to implement. A Star BECOME A STAR CITY? city entrance announces to all that yours City staff member can help you plan the is a proved professional in economic program and keep costs in line. Community representatives must attend the Annual Star Cities Training development. Star City designation will earn your community recognition as a Conference to determine whether they wish to participate in the program. A city able to attract the attention of HOW LONG WILL community that wants Star City business and industry when they seek THIS TAKE? designation must complete 11 tasks. favorable sites for new businesses and expansion. Quarterly luncheons with the There is no time limit. Communities have • Establish an organization responsible DEED commissioner and other state completed their tasks in six months; for the community's economic officials will provide your city some are still working on theirs after 24 development. A local unit of representative the latest information on months. The average time spent has government must designate this economic development programs. been 18 months. responsibility by resolution. �,•✓c-"L ksGclCfif�l.h �v�Zr..._ �� l!1 //1 1- 7, h+, iwh ,/ • Create a local development WHERE corporation. CAN YOU • Assess the community in a profile. GET MORE INFORMATION? Minnesota's • Draft a five-year plan and strategy for Write Star City Coordinator Bob Stern,26 economic development. Sixth Ave. N., St. Cloud,MN 56301, phone Star City Program • Complete a one-year work program (612)255-4161. OR Director, Economic and define strategy which relates to Development Division in the Department the five-year economic development of Energy and Economic Development, plan. 900 American Center Building, 150 E. • Produce a slide presentation of the Kellogg Blvd.,St. Paul,MN 55101, phone ✓ (612)296-5022. community. • Survey labor in your community and 115 •■■■■•�� ■■uv.■ -= area. HUH: r..d■■■■ v1 • Make a five-year capital ■■■rT■■ improvement plan. FOR ECONOMIC V/ • Publish a marketing fact brochure for DEVELOPMENT potential developers and industry. - - ✓ • Develop an annual survey of community industries to determine their expansion/relocation plans and their legislative concerns. AN • Market your city successfully to an ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT industrial client. (The Division of Business Development will provide a STRATEGY FOR YOUR site-selection criteria model for the COMMUNITY city's marketing team.) Minnesota Department of Energy Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development and Economic Development -�fl TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION AND INSTRUCTION'S Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development Economic Development Division Development Resources GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSE: To increase economic development skill levels of Minnesota communities, help these communities achieve their economic development objectives and create permanent jobs within the community. I. DIRECT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Cities/counties will be selected to receive technical assistance from state staff based on interest and capacity of the locality to work with the department to accomplish the selected projects. The state technical assistance program is designed as a partnership between the State and the locality. Although state staff assistance will be provided at no charge to participating communities, a local contribution of personnel time will be required. Selection of communities/counties to receive assistance will be based on completed applications submitted by communities in response to this solicitation by the department. A working agreement will be established between the State and each participating city/county defining the responsibilities of each party and the products to be achieved. For purposes of this technical assistance effort the Department has divided communities into three groups: "A" category cities "B" category cities "C" category cities 18 projects 34 projects 24 projects 40 hours per project 24 hours per project 32 hours per project For fiscal year 1986, technical assistance will be available starting October 1, 1985 with completion of approximately 76 projects by June 30, 1986. A. Those cities which are beginning to initiate an economic development program and may have completed four or less of the Star City requirements. Services to these communities will be designed to increase local capacity and to respond to the specific needs of that community. Projects topics for these communities could include, but need not be limited to the following: 1. Leadership development 2. Community needs assessment 3. Initiation of a local development corporation 4. Assistance completing initial star city requirements 5. Other projects of importance to the locality B. Those cities actively involved with an economic development and which have 1 completed five or more of the Star City requirements. Projects to be assisted include completion of the star city requirements and other substantial projects of interest to the locality. C. Designated Minnesota Star Cities. Services to designated star cities include technical assistance for completion of activities required for Star City recertification and substantive projects of importance to the locality. II. GROUP SELF-HELP AND DEVELOPMENT: In addition to providing direct technical assistance, staff will conduct workshops on specific technical assistance topics and those projects which have a statewide impact including, but not limited to: o community organization and assessment; o star city requirements; o labor and retail market surveys; o business retention; o business financing using conventional, federal, state and local funds; o marketing for economic development; o staffing an economic development effort; o and other subjects as appropriate. III. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE MANUAL: An economic development and business financing manual will be prepared on an annual basis and updated quarterly. This manual would enable both novice and experienced economic development practitioners to keep up to date with state and federal business financing programs and will include instructions, examples and case studies for state and federal financing programs. . COMPLETE AND RETURN BY 4:00 P.M., OCTOBER 15, 1985 TO: STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 900 AMERICAN CENTER BUILDING 150 EAST KELLOGG BOULEVARD SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 612/297-1844 APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Please follow the attached instructions when completing this application form. Answer each question as thoroughly as possible. PART I APPLICANT INFORMATION Date of application: Applicant Name: Address: City: State: Zip code: Project Location: City County Region Primary Contact Person Phone Address. City St Zipcode Secondary Contact Person Phone Address City St Zipcode PART II PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS USING NO MORE THAN THREE SHEETS OF PAPER! 1. Project Title: 2. Briefly describe the purpose of this project: 3. Highlight the importance of this project to your community: 4. Discuss local commitment assurances that this project's products would be used (include documentation of local financial commitment as necessary): 5. Illustrate the relationship of this project to your overall economic development strategy or plan: 6. Outline the capabilities of those locally responsible to participate in this project. Attach resumes as appropriate. 7. Provide an overview of your community's stage of economic development. 8. Describe how you intend to evaluate the effects of this project: Completed By: City Official Title Title '0 1 MINNhSOTA Department of Energy and Economic Development MINNESOTA STAF CITIES PK0CRA.k1 ENTRY I.OA 1 T1.,• City of winlh('s to parti� ipat( in t11e `inntr,•ta Department of Encr�—v an,'. 1-tu1)OV1i. iit•vcloprwnt Star Citi� r• 1'ru, i ,1• ti's• realize that the program calls 1 ,,r 11,11d and a lot of of l (�1 1 1'11 our part . he accept this challenge. Our cit`- looks forward to this opportunit \ to shape our economic future . The program calls for the formation of an economic development commission or local development corporation in an advisory capacity to the local unit of government. During the initial organizational stage, a community coordinator has been appointed. The charge of the coordinator will be to insure that the community meets all requirements of the Star Cities Program. The coordinator will be the main contact person between your department and our community. Looking toward the future for our citizen-,, Signed: Mayor Date: Coordinator for Community: Namo. Business Address and Phone: RESOLUTION NO. 2121 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE SHAI:OPEE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COM"•1ISSION AS THE LEAD ORGANIZATION IN PRO:.IOTING THE STAR CITY PROGRAM WHEREAS , The Minnesota Department of Economic Development has advanced a program designed to promote the location and development of business and commerce within the State of Minnesota and to improve the general economic development of the area and the program has been designed as the Star City Program; and WHEREAS , the City of Shakopee is very supportive of the Star City Program and this resolution is an endorsement of the program; and WHEREAS , the City of Shakopee has already established a group for the purpose " of helping and assisting in the economic development of the City of, Shakopee known as the Shakopee Industrial Commercial Commission. - THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL that the City of Shakopee hereby designates the Shakopee Industrial Commercial Commission as the lead organization in promoting and implementing the Star City- Program in the City of Shakopee and adjacent areas . Adopted in x s s " n of the Shakopee City Council held this clay of 1983 . z ayor o the ity - Shakopee ATTEST: City r Prepared and approved as to form this 25th day of February, 1983. A to MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Building Inspector Comp Time DATE: October 11 , 1985 Introduction The City staff has been dealing with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as it relates to all City employees . At the last staff meeting we invited Cy Smythe of Labor Relations Inc. who is under contract with the League of Minnesota Cities to review how we should apply the FLSA to individual employee positions. Background The result of the meeting was that we clarified whether individual employees were exempt from FLSA or considered non-exempt under FLSA. We have resolved all positions but have one awkward one remaining, namely, the Building Official. Much to our surprise Mr. Smythe indicated that the Building Official spends too much time making actual inspections to meet any of the FLSA criteria for an exempt employee. This means that even though we have treated the Building Official, LeRoy Houser, as a department head under the FLSA we are obligated to pay time and one half for overtime back to April 15, 1985 . The overtime involved comes to $2 , 212. 02 as of October 2 , 1985. Alternatives 1. The City can pay the overtime in question and the issue will be resolved. This will mean in a very definitive way that the Building Official will no longer be able to use comp time and will be receiving pay at time and one half for over time like all other non-exempt employees . 2. The City can put off making a final decision regarding the Building Official ' s status pending congressional action on the Fair Labor Standards Act. It appears from the attached memo dated October 10 , 1985 from Ann Houle of the League that Federal legislation changing the present FLSA court interpretation will be passed in late October or early November. If we do wait to make a decision about Mr. Houser ' s overtime until a new law is passed, it could mean additional interest expense to the City if the law is not sufficiently changed to permit us to pay overtime as comp time at time and one half to non-exempt employees. Recommendation I have spoken with Mr. Houser and he much prefers the second alternative because he prefers comp time to pay at time and one half. Therefore, I recommend alternative No. 2 , but Council should also know that the FLSA requirements have penalties that might be invoked against the City under certain circumstances should there be no change in the law. Action Reauested Direct the appropriate City officials to maintain records on the potential comp time payments due the City Building Official pending changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act, and to report back to Council describing what action is required after the passage of pending FLSA legislation. JKA/jms i IL—Lu =� t . ��s ue cf r~; sc��1_0 ci t Iss October 10 , 1935 TO: City Clerks, Managers and Administrators FRO:;: Ann Houle, Research Assistant RE : Con-ressional Action on Fair Labor Standards Act The Senate Labor and 7uman Resources Committee has approved a, bill to provide permanent relief from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. I1owver, cities should not make any change in their present policies regarding FLSA regulations until a bill is actually passed by Congress and signed by the President. We will keep you informed on the progress of FLSA legislation. The bill passed by the committee is a compromise based on negotiations with members of Congress and representatives of organized labor, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the national Association of Counties , the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities. As agreed to, the bill provides: Comp time: a state or local government may grant employees comp time in lieu of paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. In those jurisdictions were there is a collective bargaining relationship, a collective bargaining agreement may include provisions for comp time in lieu of paid overtime consistent with the 1 . 5x, premium rate. In any case in which the a collective bargaining agreement in effect on the effective date of the law provides for. comp time at a rate of less than 1 .5x, such provisions for comp time are enforceable, except that comp time must be provided at a 1 .5x rate. Joint employment: special detail work by public safety employees on an optional basis will be defined as separate employment and not added together with the employee' s regular hours for purposes of computing overtime. This will be the case even if the city or state requires that the second employer hire the city' s public safety employees for particular work or if the city is involved in any other way (e.g. , the city approves the job, collects the compensation from the OVER i 93 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 (61 2) 227-5600 G�► G� second employer, and then directly pays the public safety employee) . In cases in which full-time statc or local employees on an optional basis work part-time occasionally and sporadically in a different capacity from their primary employment in a jurisdiction, the two jobs will not be treated as one for tike purposes of determining overtime liability under the FLSA . Regardless of the existence of a mutual aid agreement between two or more jurisdictions , a state or local employee may serve as a volunteer in another jurisdiction without the primary employer being deemed a joint employer under the FLSA. Volunteers: a person who performs work on a volunteer basis for a state or local government will not be deemed to be an employee under the FLSA even if expense money, reasonable benefits , or a nominal fee is provided by the state or locality . The Department of Labor, will be required to issue regulations not later than six months after the effective date of the legislation to determine the appropriate amount of such payments . Effective date: the FLSA shall not apply to employees of state and local governments until April 15 , 1986 . Final Senate action on the proposal is expected this week . The bill will then go to the House Labor Standards Subcommittee and then to the House Education and Labor Committee, followed by action by the full House , possibly as early as the end of October. Differences in the Senate and House versions of the bill will be worsted out by a conference committee and after pasage of a compromise measure by both houses of Congress, the legislation will go to the Prejident . If there are no major dificulties , the President could receive the bill for signature the first week of November. It is not certain that all of the provisions of the Senate bill . outlined above will remain as they are in the final version of the bill . However, there is hope that there will be at least some kind of relief from the FLSA by the end of the year. Because of uncertainty as to what form the relief will take, it is important that cities continue their present policies involving overtime and other FLSA regulations until the law is actually changed. 1 61 • • Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel ff Re: Sick Leave for Sick Dependents Date: September 23, 1985 Introduction & Background City Council directed staff to draft a Resolution amending the Personnel Policy to allow that the three days of sick leave per year that can be presently used for death or serious illness would be available for illness of dependent children. Resolution No. 2441 amends the current Personnel Policy to allow for such provision. Upon discussing this amendment with you, several other questions arose that might be resolved by handling the 3-days somewhat differently. Staff has previously discussed clarifying the three day allowance for death or serious illness as Per occurance. The present Personnel Policy does not specifically state per year and could be interpreted to mean per occurance. It would be very rare, but a death or serious illness could ocurr more than once in a family. Resolution No. 2441 Alternate #1 would be interpreted that an employee who uses the three days for care of a sick dependent could not use another three days from his/her sick bank in the event of a death or serious illness. Resolution No. 2441 Alternate #2 would add the words per occurance for the three days allowed for death or serious illness. In addition, three days per vear would be allowed for the care of sick dependents. (Not referring to the same three days allowed for death or serious illness.) Alternatives Council must decide whether Resolution No. 2441 Alternative #1 or #2 presents the sick policy they would like implemented. Action Requested Move that Council approve Resolution No. 2441, A Resolution Amending the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy Adopted by Resolution No. 1571. RESOLUTION NO. 2441 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE PERSONNEL POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1571 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1571 was adopted by the City to provide reasonable and clear expectations of the conditions of employment for it's employees; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain sections of Resolution No. 1571 from time to time to maintain reasonable and clear conditions of employment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOeEE, MINNESOTA, that Section 10, Subd. 2 "Sick Leave: Purpose" of the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy (Resolution No. 1571) is hereby amended to read as follows: Sick leave may be granted when the employee is unable to perform work duties due to illness, disability, the necessity for medical, dental or chiropractic care, childbirth, or exposure to contagious disease where such exposure may endanger the health of others with whom the employee would come in contact in the course of performing work duties. Sick leave may also be granted for a maximum of ree days for death or serious illness of an emplQyee,s immedte family. These three days may also be used for for the care of dependents who are_ill_ Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1985. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985. City Attorney i 4v RESOLUTION NO. 2441 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE PERSONNEL POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1571 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1571 was adopted by the City to provide reasonable and clear expectations of the conditions of employment for it's employees; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain sections of Resolution No. 1571 from time to time to maintain reasonable and clear conditions of employment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that Section 10, Subd. 2 "Sick Leave: Purpose" of the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy (Resolution No. 1571) is hereby amended to read as follows: Sick leave may be granted when the employee is unable to perform work duties due to illness, disability, the necessity for medical, dental or chiropractic care, childbirth, or exposure to contagious disease where such exposure may endanger the health of others with whom the employee would come in contact in the course of performing work duties. Sick leave may also be granted for a maximum of_three days per ocurrance for death or serious illness of an employee's immediate family. Sick leave may also be granted for a maximum of three days per year for the care of dependents who are ._---.-_.-- Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1985. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985. City Attorney Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator f � From: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director Re: Resolution No. 2457 adopting the 1986 Budget Date: October 11, 1985 Introduction & Background The attached Resolution No. 2457 adopts the 1986 Budget (attached). The changes from the first draft have been incorporated in accordance with previous Council discussions. Additionally, it was discovered that there was no appropriation for workcomp in the Inspection division. Adjustment was made for this ($1,000) and offset by a decrease in contingency. The Transit budget was adjusted for a $2,205 decrease because of a revised state aid estimate. The Cable budget was corrected to reflect the same revenue as for 1985 and the requested expenditures. Action Requested Move Resolution No. 2457. GMV:mmr RES 'T-017 t'C, 24`7 r A RESOLUTION ADOPTIirG THE 1986 BUDGET BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the 1986 Budget with the estimated revenues and appropriations for the General Fund and the Special revenue Funds as shown below is hereby adopted. Estimated Revenue Appropriation General Fund - (Personnel, Supplies & Capital Outlays) Mayor and Council $ $ 41,760 Administration 81,355 City Clerk 91,139 Finance 144,575 Legal 51,950 Planning 74,410 Government Buildings 60,225 Ind./Commercial Commission 1,000 Police 881,060 Fire 245,225 Inspection 90,755 Civil Defense 5,950 Animal Control 6,770 Engineering 189,635 Street 588,350 Shop 45,820 Weed 1,550 Pool 64,075 Park 217,205 Forestry 22,315 Garbage 167,900 Unallocated 255,200 Total General Fund 3,237,224 3,328,224 Revenue Sharing 80,456 152,100 Park Reserve 101,195 114,900 Transit 193,030 193,030 Cable 17,500 21,870 Capital Equipment 68,000 176,000 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1985. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985 City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator _ L�Yi FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Apportionment of Special Assessments o cl, DATE: October 10 , 1985 Introduction When part of a parcel of land is sold and when there are special assessments against the parcel of land, it is necessary to apportion the remaining special assessments against the resultant parcels , be they two or more. Background The attached two resolutions apportion the remaining special assessments against the newly created parcels resulting from the sales of land. Resolution No. 2454 apportions special assessments from Mr. Green- wood' s original parcel to two new parcels one of which was acquired by the lst National Bank of Shakopee. Resolution No. 2455 apportions special assessments from Inca Development' s original parcel to two new parcels one of which was acquired by Mt. Olive Ev. Lutheran Church. Action Requested 1. Offer Resolution No. 2454 , A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Land Parcel No. 27-907-012-0 , and move its adoption. 2. Offer Resolution No. 2455 , A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Land Parcel No. 27-906-024-0 , and move its adoption. JSC/jms (- r:ES0:,U710N N,^, 4 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENT AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND PARCEL NO. 27-907-012-0 WHEREAS, on August 25 , 1981 Resolution No. 1891 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefited by construction of the 1981-1 V.I .P. Sewer Interceptor Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, a tract of land benefited by the said improvements , known as parcel number 907-012-0 , has been subdivided so as to create two parcels . WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remaining unpaid against said tract between the two newly created parcels, and WHEREAS, the property owners involved have been notified of this proposed action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE: 1. That the 1985 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel 27-907-012-0 is $7 ,289 . 41 for the 1981-1 V.I.P. Sewer Interceptor Improvement Project and are hereby apportioned as follows: Name/ Legal Amount Parcel No. Address Description Code 55 907-012-0 Eldon Greenwood 37 Ac. in SW 1/4 $6 ,735 . 34 1674 Marschall Rd. SE 1/4 of Sec. 7-115-22 907-012-1 1st National Bank E. 628 .27 ' of N. $ 554 . 07 of Shakopee 208 ' of SW 1/4 129 So. Holmes St. SE 1/4 of Sec. 7-115-22 3 acres 2. That all other parts of Resolution No. 1891 shall continue in effect. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1985. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985 . RESOLUTION NO. 2455 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENT AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND - PARCEL NO. 27-906-024-0 WHEREAS, on September 28 , 1976 Resolution No. 968 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefited by construction of the 1974-1 CSAH-17 Improvement Project; and WHEREAS , October 6 , 1981 Resolution No. 1925 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefited by construction of the 1980-4 CR-16 Utilities Improvement Project, and WHEREAS , the Eagle Creek Town Board levied assessments against properties benefited by the 1966-1 sanitary sewer and water improve- ments prior to annexation to the City of Shakopee, and WHEREAS, a tract of land benefited by the said improvements , known as parcel No. 27-906-024-0 has been subdivided so as to create two parcels, and WHEREAS , it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remaining unpaid against said tract between the two newly created parcels, and WHEREAS, the property owners involved have been notified of this proposed action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE: 1. That the 1985 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel 27-906-024 is $1, 238 . 44 for the 1974-1 CSAH-17 Improvement Project, is $310 . 58 for the 1980-4 CR-16 Utilities Improvement Project and is $336. 87 for the 1966-1 Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvement Project and are hereby apportioned as follows: Name/ Legal Parcel No. Address Description Improvement Amount 906-024-0 Inca Dev. 2 . 07 Ac Code 39 108 Fuller in SE 1/4 74-IA-CR-17 cd from Sec. 6-115-22 Trunk $394. 15 Rainbow Lateral 184 . 54 Terrace,Inc Curb & Gutter . 00 $578 . 69 Code 13 66-1 San.Sewer & Water $163 . 94 Code 53 80-4 CR-16 Trunk Water $161.83 Trunk C4 Name/ Leaal Parcel No. Address Description Improvement Amount 906-024-1 Mt.Olive Ev. 2 . 8 Ac Code 39 Lutheran Church in SE 1/4 74-lA-CR17 911 E.Shakopee of Sec. 6-115-22 Trunk $386 . 09 Lateral $180 . 76 Curb & Gutter $ 92 . 99 $659 . 75 cd from Code 13 Rainbow 66-1 San.Sewer Terrace ,Inc. & Water $172. 93 Code 53 80-4 CR-16 Trunk Water $ 99 . 18 Trunk Sewer $ 18 . 84 $118 . 02 2 . That all other parts of Resolution No. 968 shall continue in effect 3 . That all other parts of Resolution No. 1925 shall continue in effect. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of 1985 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985 City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City ClerkC_� RE: Amending Resolutions on Downtown Committee DATE: September 26 , 1985 Introduction The attached resolution amends the membership makeup of the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee to more accurately reflect the existing membership. Background When reviewing the resolution establishing the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee to see if it required that a Councilperson be a member (which it does not) , I discovered that there is an existing con- flict in the ex officio membership. Current Resolution Membership Proposed Resolution Membership (Should be ex officio ) (May be ex officio or member ) 1. ICC Chairman - Mr. Wermerskir- ICC member - any member and he chen is not able to make can be ex officio or voting meetings, and Mr. Keane has member at his choice. been appointed as a regular member. 2. Chamber of Commerce President- Chamber cf Commerce member - Mr. Laurent is a voting any member and he can be member, but was appointed ex officio or voting member before he become the Chamber at his choice. President. 3. Planning Commission member- Planning Commission member - Mr. Stoltzman is acting as any member and he can be ex an ex officio member. officio or voting member at his choice. 4. City Planner - not now City Planner deleted. attending, but was the staff person when committee was established. 5. Trevor Walsten has been Add the appointment of a City appointed to serve as ex Attorney and he can be ex officio, at his request , officio or voting member at but the resolution does his choice. not provide for his appointment as ex officio. Amending Membership on the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee D 52— Page Two September 26 , 1985 I 'd like to recommend that the existing resolution be amended to reflect the current wishes of the Council as demonstrated in the actual makeup of the committee, or the actual makeup of the committee should be made to conform to the existing resolution. Alternatives 1. Amend Resolution No. 1822 as proposed. 2 . Don ' t amend Resolution No. 1822 . 3 . Amend Resolution No. 1822 in some other more desirable manner. Recommendation Alternative No. 1. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2446 , A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1822 , Establishing the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee, and move its adoption. JSC/jms D TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Amending Resolutions on Downtown Committee DATE: October 10 , 1985 Introduction: At Council direction the City Clerk has drafted a proposed amendment to revise a portion of the Downtown Committee resolution regarding membership provisions for the Council liaison. Since there are other portions of the resolution which vary with actual practice, I recommend that some additional changes be made in conjunction with the changes prepared by the Clerk. Background: The existing resolutions regarding the Downtown Committee include the following items (besides membership items already outlined in the Clerk' s memo) , which are followed by the proposed changes, as underlined: 1. The original resolution indicated the Committee would continue until a plan was prepared and recommended. It may be construed that further refinements of the plan are now under discussion by the Committee and therefore they are still planning. However I believe they have moved on to implementation, and the resolution should more generally allow the Council to keep the Committee as long as it wants advice on the downtown revitalization efforts. 2 . The original memo provided for an initial election of a chairman, adoption of by-laws and a monthly meeting schedule to be filed with the Clerk. It is now proposed that there be annual election of officers , rules established from time-to-time and agendas be filed with the Clerk. 3 . The minutes are to be delivered to the Council, Planning Commission and HRA in the orignal resolution. In the revision the ICC replaces the Planning Commission as actually occurs. A number of Planning Commission members do get minutes, but this is on an individual basis . 4 . The Committees responsibilities are expanded to provide for implementation of the plan. By dealing with all of these issues at one time, the Council and the Committee can have one document which succinctly states the responsibilities and mode of operation of the Committee. Requested Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2446 , A Resolution Continuing the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee, A Sub-Committee of the Industrial Commercial Commission. tw RESOLUTION NO. 2446 A RESOLUTION CONTINUING THE AD HOC DOidNTOV,N COMMITTEE, A SUB-COIn!ITTEE OF THE INDUSTRIAL-COKMIERCIAL COH ISSION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee is the official governing body of the City of Shakopee empowered to provide for the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens ; and WHEREAS, the City Council has established the Industrial- Commercial Commission charged with the responsibility to consider matters dealing with economic development within the City of Shakopee and then making recommendations to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the Industrial-Commercial Commission is attempting to focus on economic development potential in the central business district of Shakopee, and WHEREAS, the Industrial-Commercial Commission seeks additional representation from the downtown business people, the Chamber of Commerce, and the general public, and WHEREAS, the Industrial-Commercial Commission has requested that an Ad Hoc Downtown Committee be established to assist in the preparation of a downtown economic development strategy; and WHEREAS, resolutions no. 1822 and 2112 adopted April 21, 1981 and February 15 , 1983 , respectively, did establish and expand the membership of such a committee; and lC'� _0V W AREAS, the Committee has successfully completed many of the responsibilities previously delegated to it and the City Council now desires to revise responsibilities and membership of the Committee, so that the Council will continue to benefit from its excellent service ; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that: 1. The Ad Hoc Downtown Committee is hereby requested to continue to provide recommendations to the City Council on all means of downtown redevelopment. The Committee to continue in existance as long as the Council desires the additional perspectives and input that the Committee provides. 2 . The Ad Hoc Downtown Committee shall consist of not less than nine nor more than twenty members plus a member from the Industrial Commercial Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, the Planning Commission and a City Attorney may serve as ex officio without a vote and not to be counted in the make up of a quorum, or may be a voting member who shall be included in the make up of a quorum and who shall be counted in the maximum of twenty members provided for herein. All members of the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee shall be recommended by the Mayor and the Council with approval by the full Council, and shall serve for indefinite terms. Members shall serve without compensation and may be removed from office at any time by the City Council, or upon two unexcused absences. 3 . A Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be elected by the Committee at the first meeting after February lst of each year and shall establish operating procedures from time to time as necessary. The City Clerk shall be provided copies of agendas as notification of all . upcoming meetings. 4 . The Committee shall record the minutes of each meeting which shall be filed with the City Clerk within one week following a meeting. The minutes shall be delivered to the City Council, the Industrial Commercial Commission and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 5 . The responsibility of the Committee is to propose an economic development strategy that: ' 1. Identifies specific activities and locations in a comprehensive plan. 2 . Identifies costs , and a finance and implementation schedule. 3 . Promotes the implementation of the plan and the retention and attraction of downtown businesses to provide a strong economic base downtown. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution supercedes Resolution Nos. 1822 and 2112. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1985 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985 . City Attorney MEMO TO : Jchn K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk yl�, S RE: Developers Agreement - Della'�s 1st Addition D.ATE: October 15 , 1985 INTRODUCTION: Mr Clay has asked for the release of the developers agreement for Lot 3 , Block 1 , Dellas 1st Addition. BACKGROUND : Most of the work has been completed and accepted by the city. The city holds a letter of credit in the amount of 125/ of the total project. The problem is with one clause in the developers agreement which requires that retaining wall shall be used where necessary, as determined by the City Engineer, to maintain the slope of the lot (or lots) in conformance with the slope requirements as defined by ordinance. At first glance (and without a building permit application and site plan) it appears that there may be a retaining wall required. RECOMMENDATION: As has been done in the past when improvements have been significantl; completed, staff is recommending release of the developers agreement upon signing of a letter of understanding providing for the retaining wall requirements, as needed, along with a letter of credit. Action requested: Authorize release of developers agreement for Lot 3, Block 1 , Dellas 1st addition upon execution of a letter of understanding provid- ing for retaining wall , and filing of a letter of credit to cover the cost. jc