Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 07, 2001 TENTATIVE AGENDA August 7, 2001 Page —2- 15] General Business A] Parks and Recreation B] Community Development C] Public Works and Engineering * 1. Waiver of Hourly Restrictions on Construction Activities at Providence Park 2. Award Contract for Tahpah Park and Lion's Park Parking Lots — Res. No. 5567 3. Accept Feasibility Report for 5' Avenue Improvements from Adams Street to Vacated Jefferson Street, Project No. 2001 -8 - Res. No. 5552 *4. Accept Quote for Tree Trimming of Boulevard Trees 5. Accept Quote for Homes Street Park Shelter — memo on table D] Police and Fire E] Personnel * L Extension of Probationary Period for Recreation Supervisor *2. Approve Hiring of Engineering Technician IV F] General Administration 1. Award Contract for City Hall/Public Services Building Reroofing 2. Terminating Condemnation Proceedings on Wampach Property - Res. No. 5564 *3. Acceptance of Councilor Gary Morke's Resignation — Res. No. 5565 4. Calling A Special Election to Fill A Vacancy in Office - Res. No. 5566 *5. Accept Resignation from Cable Advisory Commission/Cable Access Corporation *6. Apportionment of Special Assessments for RLS 176 - Res. No. 5554 7. Utility Franchises in the City of Shakopee — Ordinance Nos. 605, 606, 607 16] 17] Council Concerns Other Business 18] Adjourn to Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 7, 2001 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1 1 Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 31 Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report 51 Approval of Consent Business — (All items noted'by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS — (Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) *7] Approval of Minutes: June 19, 2001 *8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $708,650.29 plus $47,280.26 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $755,930.5 5 91 Public Hearings: None 10] Communications 11] Liaison Reports from Council Members 12] Recess for Economic Development Authority Meeting 131 Re- convene 141 Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 7, 2001 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval the Agenda 3. Approval of Consent Business - (All items noted by an 4 are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the President, there will be an opportunity for members of the EDA to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) A.) 4 Approval of Minutes: Jc,e, S p0 4. Financial A.) 4 Approval of Bills 5. Small Cities Development Program A.) Activity update from Carver County HRA 6. Other Business: 7. Adjourn edagenda.doc • Dial login 11 • :1 REGULAR SESSION June 5, 2001 Members Present: President Morke, Amundson, Sweeney, Link, Brekke Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director /City Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney, and Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant. . Roll Call: President Morke called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 9:42 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. H. Approval of Agenda: Item No. S.B. regarding the direction to the EDAC was added to the agenda. Amundson/Sweeney moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of the Consent Agenda: Item No. 4.A. approval of the bills was removed from the Consent Agenda. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. A.] Approval of the minutes for April 3, 2001: Sweeney/Link moved to approve the April 3, 2001 meeting minutes. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Financial: A.) Approval of the bills: Amundson/Link moved to approve the bills for the EDA for the period 04/27/01 to 06/01/01 in the amount of $2,954.86. Motion carried unanimously. V. Small Cities Development Program: A.) Update: There was a memo in the packets for the president and the commissioners from Mr. Paul Snook updating them on the Small Cities Development Program. .) EDA Request for EDAC Redevelopment Plan: President Morke requested that a motion from the EDA be made to direct the EDAC to develop a redevelopment direction for the area west of Holmes Street bounded by the railroad track on the south, the river on the north, and Valley Mall on the west, to get a vision of what redevelopment should be in this area. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee Economic Development Authority June 5, 2001 Page 2 SweeneyBrekke moved to direct the EDAC to development a redevelopment direction for the area west of Holmes Street bounded by the railroad track on the south, the river on the north, and Valley Mall on the west. Motion carried unanimously. Other Business: There was no other business. Adiournment• SweeneyBrekke moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. VJa I�dith S. Cox EDA Secretary Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary CoA)SF- 0 - r CITY OF SHAK ®PEE Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: August 2, 2001 Introduction Below is a listing of bills for the EDA for the period 07/06/01 to 08/02/01. Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $19.70 for the EDA General Fund. Check Check Date Number Vendor Description Amount 8/01/01 70144 Qwest Telephone $19.70 Total $19.70 Annual Current Month YTD Exp. Avail. Description Budget Actual Balance Balance % % 02190 EDA- BENEFITS 19 EDA 234,520.00 116,108.06 118,411.94 49.5 50.5 02190 EDA- BENEFITS 234,520.00 116,108.06 118,411.94 49.5 50.5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Economic Development Authority FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinat r SUBJECT: Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) - update MEETING DATE: August 7, 2001 Enclosed is the July 2001 update on the Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) from the Carver County HRA. In summary, the HRA reports the following SCDP funding activity: Amount % of Funds Amount Committed/ Committed/ Funded Allocated Allocated Single Family Residential (goal: 30 units) $369,000 $231,310 63% Rental Residential (goal: 30 units) $121,500 $82,500 68% Commercial $251,250 $11,215 4.5% (goal: 15 units) TOTAL $741,750 $325,025 44% Note: The numbers in parentheses next to the property types listed above indicate the "rehabbed property unit goals" by property type for Shakopee's SCDP program, set by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. Small Cities Shakopee Rehab Program The Carver County HRA reports that there has been an increase in inquires about the program since the publishing of an article about the program in the July Shakopee Hometown Messenger. Brochures (instead of flyers) have been updated to include a map of the newly expanded target area and are being sent to property owners. Single - Family Rehabilitation Pro j ec t Recap on the program To be eligible for the program, the applicant's income must be below 80% of the area median income. The homeowner will be eligible for a 50 to 100% grant depending upon their income. The homeowner would need to provide leverage ranging from 0 to 50 %. The HRA has low - interest loans the homeowner could apply for to use as their leverage requirement. However, if they are not eligible for a leverage source due to poor credit, too many debts, no equity, etc., the leverage requirement will be waived and they will receive a 100% Small Cities grant. The grant is a 0% interest, 10 -year deferred loan. If the homeowner stays in the home for 10 years, they will not have to pay the loan back. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 10% per year. For example, if the homeowner moves out 3 years later they would be responsible for paying back to the City 70% of what they borrowed. After their application has been approved, Dave Schaffer, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the home to determine what improvements can be done. Dave will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the homeowner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the payments to the contractor(s) after the work has been inspected by Dave Schaffer. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DTED) for reimbursement. Single-Family Rehab Summary 11 applicant's have closed on their loans and work is under way. 7 of those applicants have had all of their work completed. We have received and are processing two new applications for approval. Furthermore, we still have those 3 additional applicants have had troubles securing bids. We have granted these 3 homeowners bid deadline extensions. However, they have not been making progress on obtaining bids and will be put on the waiting list if we receive many new applicants (the program allows for 60 days to obtain bids, but we can extend this if no one else is waiting for the funds). One of the three remaining applicant's home is listed on the Historic Register and the HRA is working with the Historical Society to make sure the improvements meet the Secretary of the Interior's work specifications. Amount Funded $369,000.00 Amount Committed $151,834.60 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 79,475.00 (have been approved) Balance Remaining $137,690.40 App1 i cants that have closed HRA Loan Number: Household Composition: Loan Amount: Gross Income: Improvements: Market Value of the Property: Rental Rehabilitation Project • _ =1111011111 • Any rental owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. 51% of their rental units need to be leased by tenants at or below 80% of Metro Area Median Income, and the rents for all of the units would need to be at or below the Fair Market Rents. If the property is in the targeted area, and both the tenant's income and rent are within the allowable limits a property owner would be eligible for a deferred loan up to $10,000 per unit. A maximum loan amount is currently under advisement with city staff. The owner is required to match these dollars with a 50% match. This is a secured loan, which will be forgiven after seven years. Compliance of rent restriction and tenant characteristics is in force for the full seven years. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 14.28% per year. After their application has been approved, Bill Schwanke, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the rental property to determine what improvements should be incorporated into the scope of work. Bill will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the property owner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the necessary payments to the contractor(s), after Bill Schwanke has inspected the work. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DIED) for reimbursement Rental Rehab Summary Carver County HRA has had 1 new inquiry regarding the Small Cities Rental Loan Program; 7 rental property owners completed their applications. Three of the original seven applicants have dropped from the program. The remaining 4 active applicants represent 11 rental units. The third rental loan closed on April 27th, 2001. One of our rental applicants is in the process of obtaining an additional bid for exterior improvements. The last rental applicant is waiting for historical clearance. Amount Funded $121,500.00 Amount Committed $ 67,500.00 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 15,000.00 (have been pre- approved) Balance Remaining $ 39,000.00 Appl i cants that have closed HRA Loan Number: 57R -00 -03 Loan Amount: 7,500.00 Number of Rental Units: 01 Monthly Rent: $475.00 Improvements: Roof Repairs, Furnace, carpet, paint and bath remodel Market Value of the Property: $175,000 Commercial Rehabilitation Project Recap on the Program Any commercial property owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. Note: this boundary is the small area located in the core downtown area of the bigger Small Cities targeted area. Priority is given to owner occupied structures or where leases are currently in place. Building improvements must be directed toward correcting defects or deficiencies in the property affecting the aesthetics or the property safety, energy consumption, structural/mechanical systems, habitability or handicapped accessibility of the property. Owners are eligible for 50% of the total commercial repair costs, with a maximum loan up to $25,000. The loan is a deferred loan for seven years; which is pro- rated in case of sale. Commercial Rehab Summary Currently Carver County HRA has received 2 new inquiries; this is in addition to the original 12 from our initial marketing of the program. Out of those inquiries six have completed their applications. Our second commercial loan closed on April 27 2001. One of the four is currently working with our rehab specialist to obtain bids and close on their loan. One of the original inquiries from last fall has just recently submitted their completed commercial application; our rehab advisor has met w/ the applicant and is devising a scope of work. One of the preliminarily approved commercial applicants has recently dropped from the program; due to potential relocation. Amount Funded $251,250.00 Amount Committed $ 11,215.49 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $0.00 (have been approved) Balance Remaining $240,034.51 Applicants that have closed HRA Loan Number: 57C -00 -02 Loan Amount: $4,765.00 Gross Income: $9,530.00 Improvements: Heating Unit, and Roof repairs Market Value of the Property: $175,000 . OEM , :1 1 ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, M11�4`NESOTA June 19, 2001 Acting Mayor Amundson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council Members Link, orke, and Sweeney present. Absent: Mayor Brekke. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director /City Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant; and Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Director. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following items were added to the Agenda. 15.F.10 Charitable Contribution by the Rotary Club of the City of Shakopee; 15.F.11 Concern of Mr. Ray DeGeorgeo regarding Shakopee Crossings. Link/Sweeney moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. The following item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 14. A. Text Amendment to City Code Allowing Retail Auto Sales as a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial (I -1) Zone; 7. Approval of the May 1, 2001 Meeting Minutes. The following item was added to the Consent Agenda. 15.13.5 Transit Levy, adding the maximum levy. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Acting Mayor Amundson asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the meeting minutes for May 1, 2001. Motion carried 3 -0 with Cncl. Morke abstaining because he was not in attendance at the May 1, 2001 meeting. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the bills in the amount of $651,562.00 plus $350,679.05 for refunds, returns, and pass through for a total of $1,002,241.85. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at city hall for one month following approval.] Acting Mayor Amundson opened the continuation of the public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of an easement within Lot 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park I" Addition. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, gave a staff report on the public hearing for a proposed vacation of a portion of an easement that was continued to allow time for the applicant to submit additional information. Staff has reviewed the information and has concluded that the information is Official Proceedings of the _ June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —2- acceptable and the drainage issues that were raised can be handled. The Engineering Department is now recommending approval of the vacation request. This was the only issue that was at hand when this matter was continued. This vacation is requested to enable Quality Forklifts to build an addition in the Valley Green Business Park. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation by Resolution No. 5538. Jim LaValle, representing R .J. Ryan Construction, approached the podium and stated Quality Forklift is looking to maximize an addition to their site. Mr. LaValle was present to answer any questions. Acting Mayor Amundson asked for audience participation. There was no response. Acting Mayor Amundson declared the public hearing closed. Link/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5538, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee Vacating Easement Within Canterbury Park 1 Addition, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously_ Cncl. Sweeney reported the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) sold revenue bonds in the net amount of $10 million plus, with a gross of $12 million, for public improvements. SPUC received a favorable rate right now partly due to the City of Shakopee's favorable bond rating. The highest water use this year has been 6 million plus gallons in one day. Currently Shakopee Public Utilities can handle 10 million gallons of water per day, with the largest water well out of service. The City of Shakopee is in good shape when it comes to water. Cncl_ Sweeney also reported on the County Board meeting in which the county identified potential problems that could arise if the State of Minnesota would have to shut down. The County Board will make plans for the shut down at its next meeting if the State shut down is still a possibility. There was discussion at the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission meeting on increasing the number of members of that Commission from 3 to 5. Cncl. Sweeney stated that if the number of members on the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission where to increase then special legislation would be needed to allow the increase. At this point, no decision has been made to increase the number of members. Cncl. Morke reported that the Cable Access Corporation is starting a 3 -5 year strategic planning process. This is an ongoing planning process for what the Cable Access Corporation will need in the future, that is being facilitated by Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant_ Acting Mayor Amundson reported that the School Board would like to be included in a meeting with Shakopee's senator and representative to the State Legislature if the City does have a meeting with these representatives at the conclusion of their session. Mr. Leek gave a staff report on the proposed text amendment to City Code allowing retail auto sales as a conditional use in the Light Industrial (I -1) Zone. This matter initially was a request for a Official Proceedings of the June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —3- determination from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to find that occasional retail auto sales in connection with the existing use, specifically Quality Coach Auto Body, would be a use similar to those uses found in the Light Industry Zone (I -1)_ A site location map for Quality Coach was on the table for the Council's use_ On May P, 2001 the Board considered the request and found that the use was dissimilar. The Board directed staff to come back with some alternative language that might allow the use that Quality Coach was seeking. This alternative language was considered at the Planning Commission meeting on June 7' 2001 and a motion to approve the text amendment failed on a vote 3 -3. Therefore, the matter is coming to the City Council without a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Staff, however, has prepared an ordinance for the Council's review and consideration that incorporates the three amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission passed these amendments; it was the main motion that failed at the June 7` Planning Commission meeting. Part of the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting included that the City of Shakopee needed to do an in -depth study of the Zoning Ordinance, especially as the Zoning Ordinance relates to uses pertaining to auto sales within the City. Kevin Smith, 8807 13 Avenue East, approached the podium and gave a brief history on his business, Quality Motor Coach_ Mr. Kevin Smith is in agreement with all of the conditions. Quality Motor Coach is licensed and bonded by the State of Minnesota. The owners at this time do have a wholesale dealer license. Mr. Kevin Smith felt the impact would be very slight. He was asking for a chance. Morke /Sweeney offered Ordinance No. 601, Fourth series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11, Zoning Regulations, Regarding Conditional Uses In The I -1 Light Industry Zone, and moved its adoption. Cncl_ Sweeny felt it made more sense to redo the entire Zoning Ordinance including Auto Sales rather than passing Ordinance No. 601 because this ordinance could be grandfathered in when Kevin Smith no longer owns the business. He wanted to redo the Zoning Ordinance in way that Mr. Kevin Smith would be able to function and may include other businesses. Mr. Leek addressed the approval of this text amendment relating to Mr. Kevin Smith's business and conditions that are /could be in a Conditional Use Permit. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, addressed the issue of adding conditions to and adding time stipulations to the conditions. Sweeney/Morke moved to amend Ordinance No. 601 by adding a condition that stipulates the conditional use permit for this business regarding used auto sales has a maximum life of five (5) years. Mr. Thomson stated that his answer to the question regarding adding conditions to and adding time stipulations to the conditions was for a conditional use permit. Official Proceedings of the - June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —4- Cncl. Sweeney withdrew the amendment to Ordinance No. 601 _ Motion carried unanimously on Ordinance No. 601, as drafted. Sweeney/Link offered Ordinance No. 600, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11, Zoning Regulations, Regarding Criteria For Granting A Home Occupation, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Loney gave a staff report on ordering the feasibility report for 5 Avenue from Adams Street to vacated Jefferson Street. Staff received a petition from the developers of Block 8, Koeper's Addition, also known as the plat of River Bend Townhomes, for a public improvement project. Mr. Loney showed a graphic of the general area of the proposed project and gave a general overview of the petition. 5` Avenue has been platted from Adams Street to Harrison Street back in the 1950's. The petitioned improvements to 5 Avenue are: street construction, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain, street lighting, sidewalk and appurtenant work and the petition was also for constructing watermain looping in this area. The developer has had several site plans for this development, with the Council approving a preliminary plat for the River Bend Townhomes Development. The Planning Commission has tabled action on a CUP for this development until issues on the construction of 5 t ' Avenue can be resolved. One of the largest issues the City of Shakopee has with this project is how far 5 Avenue should be constructed. A feasibility study would help to determine alternatives of where a cul -de -sac should be built if 5"' Avenue is not built all the way to Harrison Street. Other issue's pointed out by Mr. Loney were: 1) some very long lots in the Hussman Addition (some lot owners were in favor of the street being extended so they could get at the back of their lots and some of the residents were not in favor of the street extension); 2) the City does not have platted right -of- way for a cul -de -sac; and 3) there had been a request for the street vacation but that vacation was denied because there was a public need for 5 b Avenue to be there (the developer came back with a plan to utilize 5 ffi Avenue). Some of the problems in this area are topography and trees. Council could give direction to City staff if the normal cul -de -sac could be altered in the requirements for right -of -way and diameter to fit a cul -de -sac in the area. The developer did submit a letter stating the developer would be financially responsible for the feasibility report costs even if the project did not go forward. Mr. Loney asked Council to consider Resolution No. 5545, which would declare the adequacy of this petition and to order the preparation of the feasibility report for 5`'' Avenue and to look at the issues particularly the issue as to how far 5` Avenue should be constructed. Mr. Loney did address the sewer line that was now in the area and the way western properties in the area may be serviced for sewer. The feasibility study would show the City all the different scenarios and the costs associated with the different roadway lengths and who may participate in the costs, along with where the old sewer is now and how best to service the residents in the western area. It was anticipated that one or two neighborhood meetings would be needed. Mr. Loney envisioned about three different alternatives to be looked at. Official Proceedings of the _ June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council - Page —5- Cncl. Sweeney thought this was an opportunity for the City to find out answers to a problem that was not going to go away. Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No 5545, A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition And Ordering The Preparation Of A Feasibility Report For Improvements to 5`'' Avenue, From Adams Street To Vacated Jefferson Street, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to provide consultant services for the preparation of a feasibility report for 5 Avenue, from Adams Street to vacated Jefferson Street. Cncl. Sweeney stated that with this motion 5` Avenue to Harrison Street was not included. Mr_ Loney stated that the developer specified in his petition from Adams Street to vacated Jefferson Street. The City can look at the rest. There was much discussion on where the feasibility report should end, at Jefferson or continue to Harrison. Mr. Sweeney stated that Bolton & Menk could be directed to consider the feasibility report to extend to Harrison Street because the City needs the answers to the questions_ The cost of who pays this part of the feasibility report will be discussed at a later time. Mr. Thomson stated that the Council could approve the petition with direction for staff or with a condition that directs staff to include the boundaries that are being added to the feasibility report. Cncl_ Link brought up the watermain looping question. Acting Mayor Amundson restated the motion. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to provide consultant services for the preparation of a feasibility report for 5`" Avenue, from Adams Street and beyond the subject area. Cncls. Sweeney and Morke were agreeable to the restating of the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Loney reported on the Memo of Understanding with Scott County on CSAH 83, CSAH 16 and 17' Avenue. Mr. Loney stated a revised Memo of Understanding was on the table with a few changes. These changes occurred after the City Attorney did his review and the developer requested a change. After the feasibility report and all the discussion on CSAH 83 and CSAH 16 a memo of understanding between the City and the County was to be written on: how the roadways would be constructed, the process involved, and future turnback of 17` Avenue to the County and a portion of CSAH 16 to the City of Shakopee. Staff had a few comments on the memo of understanding that Scott County will consider at their next Board meeting. Mr. Loney gave the proposed changes of the Memo of Understanding that is on the table from the memo of understanding that was included in the Official Proceedings of the June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —6- Council members packets. The Memo of Understanding did layout how the project will be done; the City will be responsible for the project, Scott County will be responsible for the right -of -way payments and acquisition in coordination with the City. There would be some vacation of the existing CSAH 16, once it is no longer needed east of CSAH 83. The City would enter into a cooperative agreement with the County for the construction. The County has agreed to pay their share of the project as listed in the feasibility study. The requirements for the traffic are listed in the Memo of Understanding as part of this project as well as in the Valley Green Corporate Center project. The Memo of Understanding states the date when the east -west arterial needs to be built and also the jurisdictional change. Sweeney/Link moved to have the appropriate City officials execute the Memorandum of Understanding between Scott County and the City of Shakopee with the changes requested by the developer and the City Attorney as revised and on the table for County State Aid Highway 83, County State Aid Highway 16 and 17` Avenue. There was discussion on the jurisdiction issue and the construction of 17` Avenue. Cncl. Sweeney pointed out a fallacy of what the County said and what the County wrote regarding the east -west arterial. Mr. Loney wanted a clarifying statement inserted in the east -west arterial section of the Memo of Understanding. Sweeney/Morke moved to modify the Memo Of Understanding with Scott County and the City of Shakopee under the section East -West Minor Arterial, under 2 letter B to read The City will be responsible for development of all plans and specifications for the east -west Minor Arterial road extension to CSAH 83. The County will be allowed to review such plans and specifications. (It is understood and agreed that this road will be built to City standards.) The amendment carried unanimously. The amended main motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5535, A Resolution Of The Shakopee City Council Authorizing The Acceptance f A $12,100 Grant For Updating And Installing Mobile Data Computers, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5544, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Regarding Participation In The Southwest Metro Drug Task Force, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda)_ Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Director, reported on the advertisement for bids for park projects in Lions and Tahpah Parks. On December 5, 2000 the City Council directed City staff to prepare plans and specifications for parking lot improvements at Tahpah Park and Lions Park. Official Proceedings of the June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council - Page —7- City staff prepared the plans for Lions Park; Bolton & Menk prepared the plans for Tahpah Park. The new plan for Lions Park proposes removing the old parking lot and constructing a 200 car parking lot with a roadway that will be separated from the proposed parking lot and the swimming pool. This lot will also serve the Community Youth building and the warming house to the east. The trails within the park will be connected to provide some continuity with the existing trail system. Staff is also proposing to remove a 2" water service line from the pool building to the warming house. A new water line will extend from the Community Youth Center to the warming house. The pool building will be winterized and the heat shut -off. Mr. McQuillan would like to add a service road behind the pool for use by vendors, etc. The other project, the Tahpah Park parking lot was oriented on the monitor_ The original 40 acres encompasses nine softball fields and one baseball field with an existing road with asphalt and a gravel parking lot. To the west of the original parcel an additional 10 acres was purchased from MNDOT, partially with a grant, in 1999 and this area is now being farmed for hay products. This additional 10 acres now provides space for some additional fields and parking. The additional parking would require the elimination of one ball field. Meetings have been held with the neighbors to the west, and the user groups of the facility, adult softball and youth softball organizations. The loss of this field can be made up by adding lights to field four with the funding for the lights to mainly come from the users of the facilities and possibly the Shakopee Jaycees. In fact, the users of the facility felt that if they could get field four lighted then field nine could also be removed down the road. This would enable the City to expand the fences. Included in the base bid was the creation of a new parking lot with two accesses into the sports facility for better control, a storm water drainage pond to remove excess water, the addition of a green space to correct the traffic problem in front of the stadium in the park and the use of the excess fill from the parking lot was to be used behind field four for future expansion of the fences. The location of future fields for youth purposes were taken into consideration with this plan also. As a bid alternate the cost of the rough grading for the future fields was desired. Mr. McQuillan explained some of the long range planning. It is anticipated that the parking lot projects for both projects in Lions Park and Tahpah Park would exceed the budgeted projections with the current proposals. The approximate cost for Tahpah Park improvements would be $408,000 with the 84" culvert for the sewer pipe and the addition of granulated back fill under the parking lot as recommended by Bolton & Menk; the cost of the improvements in Lions Park would be slightly over the $250,000 with the addition of the service access road behind the pool and taking care of the water service lines. Mr. McQuillan gave a synopsis of the Park Reserve Fund. Mr. McQuillan stated that no commitments had been made to the users of the sports facility to light any existing fields. There was discussion of the new fields between Cncls. Sweeney and Morke with Mr. McQuillan. Mr. McQuillan stated that the swimming pool project at Lions Park was separate from the parking lot. The funding source for the parking lot is from the Capital Improvement Fund where $250,000 is budgeted for the parking lot. The approximate cost of $408,000 is for the parking lot project at Tahpah Park. Cncl. Link felt the improvement of additional parking at Tahpah Park was really needed. Official Proceedings of the June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —8- Sweeney/Link moved to authorize appropriate staff to get bids for the parking lot project at Tahpah Park not to exceed $408,000 and the funding to come from the Park Reserve Fund. There was discussion of traffic control at Tahpah Park. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize appropriate staff to get bids for the parking lot project at Lions Park with the understanding that the cost is not to exceed $250,000 and the funding is to come from the Capital Improvement Fund. This $250,000 does not include the water line or service road. Cncl. Link felt it necessary to reroute the water lines before the parking lot was done. Cncl. Sweeney wanted to see the parking lot bid first with a maximum of $250,000, if the parking lot can't be done for that figure, the parking lot improvements at Lions Park can be brought back before the Council again_ Cncl. Sweeney stated that the costs of projects needed to be limited. The costs can't continue to keep exceeding budgeted amounts. Mr. Loney stated these parking lot projects in Tahpah Park and Lions Park needed to be done in the off - season of the project users. Motion carried unanimously. Mark Themig reported on the need for replacement of the Ice Arena condenser cooling tower and desuperheater at a cost of $44,000. This $44,000 does include some additional items_ When the community center was built, water treatment was not installed on the cooling tower and, therefore, the cooling tower is basically solidified with calcium and needs to be replaced. An aggressive acid treatment was initially used to remove the build -up but now the condenser - cooling tower needs to be replaced. This build -up is causing many equipment failures at the community center. This replacement was included in the community center's budget for this year. Community center personnel retained the services of M & E Engineering to identify options and specifications. The unit that is being proposed will require the use of some water and has fins to dissipate the water; the water can be shut off during the winter months. The community center staff feels it would be beneficial to up -grade the water treatment for the cooling tower before the new cooling tower is replaced. Mr. Themig presented graphics of the water build -up on the current cooling tower. The ice arena's desuperheater has not worked for the last two years because a leak developed in it. Without this desuperheater working frost heaves in the ice arena floor may develop. RFP's for a desuperheater were sent out in early May but no response was received because the deadline to install the desuperheater was to close. After several meetings with engineers a new RFP was sent out to seven local refrigeration/mechanical contractors and two RFP's were returned. At this time Mr_ Themig is recommending that the bid from Rink -Tec International be accepted. Official Proceedings of the June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —9- This bid includes: a desuperheater and new cooling tower with cooling protection for inside the cooling tower_ As far as funding is concerned for this project, there is $25,000 in the 2001 Operating Budget for replacing the cooler tower, there is an additional $11,000 that was budgeted for compressor replacements, which could be applied toward this project, leaving a need of $8,000. This $8,000 could possibly come from the Recreation Fund's overall operating budget. Right now the water treatment system is only to the tower and other calcium build -up could occur through out the community center. It was thought by the Council that perhaps the City should be proactive and put in a water treatment system for the entire building. It is possible to do the water treatment for the cooling system now and to do the other water treatment system for the entire building in the near future. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the replacement of the Ice Arena cooling tower and desuperheater by Rink -Tec International, in the amount of $44,000 recognizing that monies need to be included in the 2002 CIP for a water treatment system for the entire community center. Motion carried unanimously_ A recess was taken at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. Steve Wischmann, auditor from Kern, DeWenter, Viere LTD. presented the audit report for the City of Shakopee. An unqualified auditors opinion was included on the financial statements in the report. The unqualified opinion is the highest opinion that can be received and this opinion is required for the Certificate of Achievement application from the GFOA. There were reports on some compliance issues that the auditors were required to test by Minnesota statutes. There were no compliance findings based on the auditors testing of the compliance issues, which is excellent. Mr. Steve Wischmann went through the Management Document to show the Council what happened in 2000 compared to 1999. Graphics were shown and the Council Members received copies of the report in their packets. It was noted that the percentages for the funds were about the same as last year with a few changes. Some funds were up and some funds were down. The license fees and permit fees and development fees are still in the 20 % -30% range; this percentage is relatively higher than a lot of cities. The General Fund balance for the City of Shakopee compared very favorably with the cities of Eagan, Eden Prairie and St. Louis Park. There was adequate money in the Debt Service Funds to service the debt, however, the City of Shakopee may want to watch the general obligation bonds. The Recreation Fund continues to require transfers to fund that activity. Mr. Steve Wischmann stated the audit went very well and Gregg Voxland, Finance Director, was very helpful; the City of Shakopee is well positioned with resources at this time. Official Proceedings of the - " June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —10- Mr. Voxland gave a recap on the Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Cnci. Sweeney wanted everyone to hear the potential impacts on the General Levy. Because of the potential changes in the tax laws that the legislature has not yet adopted, there could be a serious threat to the financial health of the TIF districts in the state. Mr_ Voxland stated that if TIF went away completely the City of Shakopee would be in a position of having to add $40,000 a year to make up the loss of TIF. Mr. Voxland thought the City of Shakopee was in better financial shape regarding the TIF situation than many cities in the state. Mr. Leek reported on the Final Plat of Prairie Village 6` Addition, located north of Valley View Road and east of CR. 17. The Preliminary Plat for Prairie Village was approved back in 1996. This Final Plat for Prairie Village 6` Addition (last phase) as stated in Ms. Julie Klima's memorandum shows the Final Plat is in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Plat. There is letter in the Council Members packets accompanied by drawings of what the residents from Pheasant Run are proposing, from Mr. Phil Isaak, resident of the Pheasant Run Addition immediately to the east of this proposed development. The letter from Mr. Phil Isaak was sent to Orrin Thompson Homes and no reply was received back. Mr. Leek stated that there are vested rights to the developer with the preliminary plat approval of 1996. Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat with conditions that are incorporated into Resolution No 5543. Mr. Thomson commented on changes to a final plat from the preliminary plat. Mr. Thomson stated that as long as the final plat is basically consistent with the preliminary plat the Council is basically obligated to approve the final plat. No new conditions can be added at this time. Cory Lepper, representing Orrin Thompson, approached the podium and stated no one asked for a response from the letter, so Orrin Thompson did not respond to the letter. Mr_ Lepper showed a graphic of the proposed Prairie Village 6` Addition. Mr. Cory Lepper stated that the Pheasant Run Development was built after the preliminary plat approval of Prairie Village. The lots in the Prairie Village 6 Addition have been graded and Orrin Thompson Homes is ready to move ahead on the lots as is. The letter stated that Orrin Thompson Homes owned the property west of the development that is known as the Schultz'_ Orrin Thompson does not own that property, they are in negotiations to purchase that property. If Orrin Thompson is successful in purchasing that property, they will be back for a rezoning on that property. Orrin Thompson Homes respects what the residents in Pheasant Run have to say, but the Orrin Thompson Homes project will move forward. Orrin Thompson Homes feels what they have platted out is the best use for the property. Phil Isaak, 2022 Chester Street, approached the podium to point out that one item was not in the letter. The grade of the Prairie Village 6"' Addition along the front of the property and where the houses will be placed is approximately 5 feet higher than the back grading on Chester Street. He questioned the slope from the front of the houses in the Prairie Village 6` Addition to'the property line of the Pheasant Run Development. Mr. Isaak felt there needed to be coordination between the two developments. Official Proceedings of the - June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —11- Mr. Loney addressed the grading difference issue (slope) brought up by Mr. Isaak. Mr. Loney will look into the matter. Mr. Loney stated that the same engineer was used for the Pheasant Run and Prairie Village Developments. Link/Sweeney moved to table the approval of the final plat of Prairie Village 6` Addition until information has been received from the City Engineer regarding the grading difference and drainage between the Pheasant Run Development and the Prairie Village 6 Addition_ Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5546, a Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving The Final Plat of Juergens First Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill reported the tree concerns of Mr. Ray DeGeorgeo. At an earlier Council meeting Mr_ DeGeorgeo requested the Council to pass a motion requiring the developer of Shakopee Crossings to place trees for screening purposes in a portion of the northwest comer of that plat, to replace trees which have been removed in the grading process for the commercial development. Mr. DeGeorgeo lives across a pond to the west of this commercial development. A map of the area was included in the Council Members packets along with the list of trees inventoried by STS as part of the Shakopee Crossing project. Mr. McNeill oriented the tree removal area. City staff did speak with Mr. Steve Soltau, developer of Shakopee Crossings, and Mr. Soltau stated that he would be willing to place a berm that would be higher than City Code required and he would proceed as soon as he could_ This berm and screening would be placed sooner than required by the City. According to Mr. Thomson, the City cannot add conditions to the plat at this time. Mr. McNeill thought most of the uses that would go in the area would require a conditional use permit and at that time conditions can be added. Acting Mayor Amundson asked Mr. DeGeorgeo if he had anything to add to Mr. McNeill's report. Ray DeGeorgeo, 7385 Berkshire Court approached the podium and thanked Mr. McNeill for his work in putting the report together. Mr. DeGeorgeo stated if the berm in place now is the way the developer intends to leave it, the berm is very adequate_ Mr. DeGeorgeo was unclear about the statement from Mr. Soltau that he would do landscaping consistent with other screening of the retail uses_ Mr. DeGeorgeo was unclear of the size of this landscaping material. Mr. DeGeorgeo would like to see all the residents across from the pond benefit from the landscaping. Steve Soltau, developer of Shakopee Crossings, approached the podium and stated that the materials in place are at or near the final height of that berm. Mr. Soltau preferred to work with the site plan, building orientations, and drive lanes to take advantage of the street lighting in conjunction with the landscaping. What landscaping is done today might not fit in with the final plan. Mr. Soltau would like to take care of the landscaping in one piece. He is receptive to doing some landscaping now but if landscaping is done now, Mr. Soltau takes the chance that when the final plat is brought in for Official Proceedings of the _ - June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —12- Shakopee Crossings, he will then be told that the landscaping needs to be changed. Right now there are no firm users for the site and the landscaping is unknown_ Mr. Soltau was asked to stay in contact with the residents of Southbridge and to make them aware of what is taking place. Mr- Leek elaborated on tree removal on property. Mr. Leek reported on the Final Plat of Southbridge Crossings I' Addition, located south of Southbridge Parkway and west of CR 18. This plat received preliminary approval under the name of Shakopee Crossings and is now called Southbridge Crossings 1' Addition. Mr. Leek oriented the Southbridge Crossings I" Addition. This final plat is generally consistent with the preliminary plat. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Mr. Leek highlighted the areas in which he made changes to Resolution No. 5547. These changes were: renaming Street C, the deletion of Street A, relettering of the conditions and the removal of the condition regarding drainage calculations. Cncls. Sweeney and Morke were not in favor of the Stratford Village PUD that was included in the Southbridge Crossings 1' Addition final plat. Mr. Leek gave some background of what led to the PUD approval for Stratford Village and he addressed the tree issue on this plat. Mr. Leek stated that the Stratford Village Development was shifted to preserve the two_ tree stands along Southbridge Parkway. Carole DeGeorgeo 7385 Berkshire Court approached the podium and asked if all the roadways needed to be in before the building actually starts. She also wanted to know if the right- in/right -out on CR. 18 was allowed_ Acting Mayor Amundson stated that the signalization had to be in place before the certificate of occupancy would be issued_ Mr. Leek stated that this signalization and the certificate of occupancy are conditions that are in Resolution No. 5547. The right turn -in is a developer issue that needs to be approved by Scott County_ The right turn lane issue was not carried over to this final plat because this final plat is not directly impacted by that issue. Mr. Leek was unaware if Scott County had made a firm decision on the right -in issue. Mr. Loney gave an update on the status of the signalization at Southbridge Parkway and CR. 18. Mr. Loney did think a condition should be added to Resolution No. 5547 that the developer should be reimbursed the cost of the temporary signal because the developer was previously assessed for the temporary signal. Sweeney /Amundson offered Resolution No. 5547, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat of Southbridge Crossings First Addition, and moved its adoption_ There was additional discussion on the Stratford Village PUD. Sweeney /Amundson moved to amend Resolution 5547 by adding a condition II. L. This condition would read the developer is to be reimbursed for the temporary signal at Southbridge Parkway and Official Proceedings of the June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council _ Page —13- CR. 18 as costs are approved by the City Engineer after built and operating. Motion carried 3 -1 to amend with Cncl. Link dissenting. It was noted that Cncl. Morke would vote in the affirmative for the main motion but he was only doing this because he felt he had too. Amended Main motion carried 3 -1 with Cncl. Link dissenting. Sweeney/Link moved to waive item E of the Minor Subdivision Criteria, in City Code Section 12.21 Minor Subdivisions., Subd 2. that states "Where the proposed minor subdivision involves any unplatted property" for property located at 838 4`' Avenue East. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5548, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Opting to Levy The Transit Tax For Payable 2002, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the hiring of Bonnie Horner to the position of Engineering Tech. II starting at Step 1, Grade D of the Non -Union 2001 Pay Plan effective June 25, 2001, subject to the successful completion of a pre- employment physical and background check_ (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda)_ Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to execute the standard agreement by and between the County and City of Shakopee for recruitment and hiring purposes. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant on sale and Sunday on sale intoxicating liquor licenses to Technics Construction Inc., DBA Java Jilis Specialty Coffees and Cafe, 238 South Lewis Street, effective August 1, 2001, conditioned upon compliance with all City Code requirements_ (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant a temporary on -sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license to the Shakopee Jaycees, Inc., municipal parking lot at 2nd Avenue and Lewis Street, for August 3 and 4, 2001, with sales to cease at 11:00 p.m., conditioned upon receipt of the certificate of insurance. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to approve the applications and grant an On Sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor Licenses, to: Coffeehouse Ground Zero, Inc. 1114 Vierling Drive East; Magnum Management Corporation, dba Valleyfair, One Valleyfair Drive; Raceway Park Inc., One Checkered Flag Blvd.; Official Proceedings of the - - June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —14- Shakopee Jaycees Inc., Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium at Tahpah Park; Sky Ventures LLC, dba Pizza Hut, 257 Marschall Road and Stonebrooke of Shakopee, Inc_, 2693 County Road 79. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to waive the requirement of City Code Section 5.02, Subd. 9, for Stonebrooke of Shakopee, Inc. (Motion carried under consent agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to approve the applications and grant Off Sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor Licenses, to: Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 444 East l'` Avenue; Holiday Stationstores, Inc_, 1381 Greenwood Court; Shakopee 1997 LLC, dba Cub foods, 1198 Vierling Drive East; Speedway SuperAmerica LLC 94546, 1298 Vierling Drive East; Speedway SuperAmerica LLC 9 4035, 1155 East ls` Avenue; Speedway SuperAmerica LLC 98510, 1195 Canterbury Road; and Tom Thumb Food Markets, Inc., 590 South Marschall Road. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale Wine License to Coffeehouse Ground Zero, Inc., 1114 Vierling Drive East. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to approve the applications and grant an On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor Licenses, conditioned upon compliance with all City Code requirements, to; AFFC, Inc., dba Arnie's Friendly Folks Club, 122 East First Avenue; Apple American Limited, Partnership of Minnesota, dba Applebee's, 1568 Vierling Drive East; Dangerfield's Restaurant, Inc., 1583 East I" Avenue (includes deck); Saba Entertainment, LLC, dba Saba's Sports Bar and Grill, 911 East I" Avenue (includes deck); Sabroso, Inc., 1120 East 1 Avenue; Shakopee Ballroom and Banquet Center Inc., 2400 4"' Avenue East; TL Foods, Inc., dba Harwell's Steakhouse, 1128 Vierling Drive East (includes outside dining and drinking); Turtle's Bar and Grill, Inc_, 132 East First Avenue (Includes Banquet Center). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link move to approve the applications and grant an On Sale, Sunday and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses, conditioned upon compliance with all City Code requirements, to; Bretbecca, Inc., dba Pullman Club, 124 West I" Avenue; Babe's Place, Inc., 124 South Holmes; Canterbury Park Concessions, Inc_, 1100 Canterbury Road. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link move to approve the applications and grant an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License conditioned upon compliance with all City Code requirements, to; Crossroads Liquor of Shakopee LLC, 1262 Vierling Drive East; Family Dining Inc., dba Budget Wine & Spirits; 6268 Hwy 101; MGM Spirits Express, Inc., dba MGM Liquor Warehouse, 471 Marschall Road; Riverside Liquors, Inc. 507 East I" Avenue and Valley Liquor, Inc_, 1104 Minnesota Valley Mall. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the - June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —15- Sweeney/Link move to approve the application and grant an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, conditioned upon compliance with all City Code requirements, to Pablo's Mexican Restaurant, Inc., 230 South Lewis Street (includes outside dining and drinking). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link move to approve the applications and grant a Sunday and Club On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License(s), conditioned upon compliance with all City Code requirements, to; American Legion Club Post # 2, 1266 East 1" Avenue; Fraternal Order of Eagles #4120, 220 2 nd Avenue West; Knights of Columbus Home Association, Inc., 1760 East 4` Avenue and VFW Post 44046 Inc., 1201 East Third Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to waive the requirement of the City Code Section 5.02, Subd. 9 for Dangerfield's Restaurant Inc., 1583 East First Avenue and for the Knights of Columbus Home Association, Inc., 1760 East 4` Avenue. (Motion carried under consent agenda). Sweeney/Link moved, consistent with previous approvals, that the following conditions are place on the approval of the licenses for Saba Entertainment, LLC dba Saba's Sports Bar and Drill, 911 1s Avenue: a. The extended 648 square foot area of the license which includes the deck shall be closed on a daily basis to the public at sunset and no sale or consumption for food or beverages is allowed on the deck after sunset_ b. The doors to the extended deck license area shall remain closed at all times after sunset excep in the case of an emergency. C. Applicant's failure to comply with any of these conditions shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the license by the City Council. (Motion carried under the consent agenda). Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, reported on the charitable contribution that the Shakopee Rotary Club wanted to give Vision Shakopee for Huber Park improvements. The City of Shakopee authorized a concept plan to be done by Brauer & Associates and Vision Shakopee is very enthusiastic about the concept that would include a performing arts stage for Huber Park. Vision Shakopee approached the Shakopee Rotary Club for a donation. The Rotary Club made a commitment of $50,000 to be used for the park improvements over a number of years. Because Vision Shakopee does not have a tax- exempt status as this time, the Rotary Club has asked the City to be the beneficiary of those proceeds because some of the proceeds need to be donated by the end of June. Mr_ McNeill suggested that an escrow account be setup as was set -up for Lions Park. The expenditures would need to be approved by the Rotary Club and the City. It was pointed out that the Council only directed that a study be done; they have made no financial commitment at this time because the options have not been reviewed and approved at this time for funding. Official Proceedings of the _ - June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —16- Mr. John Roach, representing Vision Shakopee, approached the podium to answer questions. Cncl. Morke stated if the Council goes ahead and accepts the funds on behalf of Vision Shakopee, it does not mean that the City Council will approve whatever plans comes in for Huber Park improvements. This was understood by Vision Shakopee. The City of Shakopee is just the holder of the funds. Morke/Sweeney moved to authorize the establishment of an escrow account to be used for funding improvements of Huber Park and the expenditures to be mutually agreed upon by the City and the Shakopee Rotary Club. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Cox gave a report on the Heyde Hospitality Inc., license renewal. There were delinquent taxes on the Heyde Hospitality property at the time of the liquor licenses renewal. Ms. Cox stated that one of the conditions in City Code is that there be no delinquent taxes on the property at the time the license is granted or renewed. The Heyde Companies still owes taxes for October 2000 and May 2001. Based on a memo received from the City Attorney the taxes due in May 2001 are not considered delinquent until January 1, 2002. However, the intent of the current City Code was to require that the first half of the taxes due in the year the license is renewed was to be paid. This has been a practice that has been followed by City staff for a number of years. Mr. Heyde submitted a letter dated June 19, 2001, which was part of the agenda packet for tonight. In his letter Mr. Heyde stated that he intended to have paid the taxes that were due in October 2000 by June 30, 2001. This would therefore make Heyde Companies current in the taxes due that they are delinquent on and City Code would be satisfied according to State law. Staff is recommending that the licenses be approved for renewal effective July 1, 2001 subject to the payment of the property taxes in full for the year 2000 by June 30, 2001. If after the motion is made on this issue, the City Council wants staff to make sure that the first half of the taxes have been paid in the year the liquor license is renewed then City staff would need to be directed to prepare an ordinance amending the City Code to make it clear that this is the intent of the Council. This would be a condition over and above what State Law requires. Cncl. Sweeney felt it was a benefit to have a liquor license from the City and therefore the business should be required to have paid their taxes that are due in the year the liquor license is up for renewal. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the City Code to make it clear that is the intent of the Council that their taxes that are due in the year the liquor license is up for renewal need to be paid before the liquor license will be granted. Cncl. Link seconded for discussion purposes_ Ms. Cox pointed out that in the past when liquor licenses came up for renewal many businesses had not paid the first half of the taxes due in the year the liquor license came up for renewal but by the time the current license expired the taxes were indeed paid that were due. Official Proceedings of the - June 19, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —17- Motion failed 3 —1. Cncls. Amundson, Link and Morke dissenting_ Morke/Link moved to approve the applications and grant Off Sale, On Sale, and Sunday On -Sale intoxicating liquor licenses to Heyde Hospitality, Inc., dba Park Inn & Suites, 1244 Canterbury Road. The City Attorney suggested that a condition be added that stated the taxes due for 2000 be paid by June 30, 2001. The motion maker and the seconder were agreeable to the condition as stated by the City Attorney. Cncl_ Sweeney restated the motion. The motion was to approve the applications and grant Off Sale, On Sale, and Sunday On -Sale intoxicating liquor licenses to Heyde Hospitality, Inc., dba Park Inn & Suites, 1244 Canterbury Road and the taxes due for 2000 were to be paid by June 30, 2001. Motion carried unanimously. Acting Mayor Amundson excused herself from the discussion and voting on the purchase agreement and easement with Hennepin Parks for Murphy's Landing. The gavel was turned over to Cncl. Link. Mr. Mark McNeill made a presentation on the purchase agreement and easement the City of Shakopee has been negotiating with Hennepin Parks. This purchase agreement is for the transfer of operations from Murphy's Landing to Hennepin Parks. At first a lease was explored for this transfer but it was determined that a purchase agreement for the property would be preferable with a reversionary clause. Mr. McNeill highlighted portions of the purchase agreement. Separate agreements will need to take place between Scott County and Murphy's Landing and the City of Shakopee and Murphy's Landing for disposition of assets. Cncl. Link felt the City was doing the right thing by turning Murphy's Landing over to Hennepin Parks. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to enter into a purchase agreement and easement for the property currently leased to Minnesota Valley Restoration Project (Murphy's Landing), to Suburban Hennepin Regional Parks District. Motion carried. 3 -0 with Councilor Amundson abstaining. Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the acceptance of $1,000 from the VFW and authorize the funds to be placed in the Park Reserve Fund for use in the skate park and Tahpah Park equipment and field improvements. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Mark McNeill gave a report on the roofing contract design. Previously the City Council authorized JEA Architects to do two roofing designs. One for the public service building (police and public works) and one for the City Hall. Mr. McNeill asked that action not be taken tonight on the Official Proceedings of the _ - Shakopee City Council June 19, 2001 Page —18- public service building. Mr. McNeill did ask that City Hall be considered tonight. Mr. McNeill is asking that a contract be entered into to do professional services with JEA Architects to include design through construction administration for a new roof on City Hall at a cost not to exceed $25,500. This contract is needed because the plans for the building appear to be extinct. Right now the cost estimate for the work for the new roof is $240,000. Funding for this contract with JEA Architects would come from the Building Fund. orke/Link moved to enter into a contract for professional services with JEA Architects to include design through construction administration for a re -roof on City Hall at a cost not to exceed $25,500. Motion carried unanimously. A concern was brought up regarding the water irrigation sensors. Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 10, 2001. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. dith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: August 2, 2001 g COiUSEE k) T . Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 2001 based on data entered as of 8/02/2001. Attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval. Also included in the checklist are various refunds, returns, pass through, etc. totaling $47,280.26. The actual net expense amount is $708,650.29. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $755,930.55. co Cl) 0 o m N (A m o� a j o Q X c W U m m m G m M CL W E m a v F R M } Q m = o r N U (a. o m Co LL O `° m r N U � C (D M x X W _ C o O m N c P w d Q 3 C U 7 m m � m "o co C C m Q o C O m m c 0 (� O o O L Q O o ry O m O tL rn � U) x Q� w t- M Cl! N i N M O O r to (D N O Co C r r N I-- M CO V O m N N w to C M 7 m co co O CI) (n C r (D (o V (D V (D V V to O M R j o O co p c m m } m Q M I� tD O M N I� O O O (D V CO O : Co O O O N co 7 M N co N M (D (o - c U) M V' V (o tD M C' (o V to C tD lD 7 _ D - - '7 6- M M p 2 E Z n z w O W z z V' CO O O N (o V C` (D O n N Q) V Co (D O M 7 N CD m M O of a O a O M (D N N t` W O O n (D r (o (D w M M O O N r1 R (o M O to O N (o (o O () Ch V D1 r r N CD M N N 7 7 O M N O M O M_ Co CD (A Co CD N (o 1� M O C' N O z¢ N w p w (n V N N r N (D V M r O V N M V m M M m N C W ¢ U W W Z O W Co m m W X W co o_ o (D m M M o) (D M a) W � o m w m M h V N C7 W n O R M o) (o O O N o O O (o M h i- N O Co N M N M N 'V M (D (D O C I- M r CD N V C' R M O 1- (o r (D W O O (n O co CD M O (o (o (o to O (b N O N O (n M C N 1- (A r- M O 1l V N co O co M W o O co 1� V O m m V CD O Q C to Q1 (ri Q1 Z; r N � co N r r N m M N M V N 0 0 0 t o 0 v r m m c (o N O O C9 O � N � D r N M d � L o C � ` Q U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o C. 0 0 0 0 0 C. o C. 0 0 M (o (D O co O Cn oc O M C V N CO N_ O O O (o c M M N O (o M N M r (D M N CO d) (` V N N M (o M CO N (o V N r M r (- tD (D 6J r to o C 0 (D m m (D O C 'p C Q m cR I w m o N N d N � N � W ° � tD V 7 C V r r C O o C I m m Ln Lo u0 7 Lo Ln M Cm M R m M M p c m m } m m a� 3 (T C "o Q m o' 0 0 O It N 0 O 0 O N z Z J H z Z w °o C7 c W - c U) a F w m v _ D - - a ° o C o p 2 E Z n z w O z z m w C7 z Z o a O a z C) J m o > w CL (L :3 CO o> a m (� z w w o O Z O O Z z¢ �- w p w a p J W O m 2 W ¢ U W W Z O W Q � Q Q � Q W X W O Z Q U W � Y O} h z C7 Z w a C7 O¢ (� t- a U a ¢ w O w O a (f) Z E- =¢ Z o O ° o w o 0 00 U U ti J U C9 a (i ? w (n to a O r M 7 v V Orn O N N uJ n (o n Z; r � � r C7 c` V 0 0 0 t o 0 n 0 o m N � m m o_ W U W Z U Q of O LL F.. z Z w z F w Z p F _ W Z Y O Z z F W Z U' U' F- Q W U U F F U w g Z w F F- Z w W Z w Z w � ~ Z Z J W O W Z Z z W F z W Z W Z W W Q W J M Q Z Q Z U U' Z W W U` w (� U W 6Q. O' W U U` W Q Q W Q w W w z Z Q < W Q Q Q S Z Q Z Z z Z Q z- Z z Q W Z p w 2 < LL LL w LL O S U z U Z Q 2' J~ Z U Z J O w W Q Q< Z .6 2 U g 2' > J a(S J ¢ W m N J z J F- F- J (D Q Q Q = w W F h m F... > Q F.._ w Z N N O m C7 O w W O g p g= m Z U m J o U m Q U O U H Y w_ w p p W Q U C O LL} w _ Z w O Q J O O J J r z S J D of x U U U w r U LL z W y 3 Q p Q 0 2i Z Q O U- w� J? O O S O V O 2 w Q m O d w W K U' LL LL o m a J LL a Cl) a U v m w a LL a U 0 a U a w w U w cn m LL O W O O _ 7 U Z Z U S U S ? z t O U p w 0 N m H Z Q J U J Z J J J Z J x o J V U r U m 2 F O J Q Q Q U O co Q w U W O J d Z J d w w z (w.) d � Q Q Q - w Q W W � a w J Q W D a, ¢ z z U g Z) w M M F- z M 2 u7 d U in N¢ m d w w w O C7 w Z w D w w w w¢ Z (9 U p Q ? z w o} 0 0 o z Z U w W U (7 0 (� ¢ CO Q¢¢ O¢ ¢¢ x¢ w U CO a o F z- . O U U U ww p w i w a a a w a w a w x= v o a o W z w w w v w o w(9 W D Q (? > o J S Z w S J W J J S J S W U LL N S w J J J Z m S S W S U Q Q J Q Q m Z O LL W O LL Q U LL F W n. O W u- W W W LL W LL O O W W O W F F- 0 LL 0 T 0 2 U U 7 m U W m U U x U O LL' F- Q Q O o O w F- J F F O F- O O 2 8 a w J m F- m U o 0 a Z U D > Z ca Z w J U W x LL Z S OU O (n W cn z Z O m U fn Q z O U z O z U U m Q O O j O X U W U W p F- p Z U w Q Z z z F- Z Q W LL U (n U m ? (n Z (� U F- J W Z J U S n O Z W (n xw U d J w d� O F °. z S-J z O O U o < Q a U O U �= O P Q O z 2 m > J J woo o D Z p W (n Q F- h_- w a Q Z S o w X J p? Q> W Q 2 ( Z Q O O w r Y O 2 U H -' 0 Z F = n O K Z O U O J gT Q W F- W U z U w z U F- Q Z U S O w U a F- U O Z z¢ J Q 0 p w m w Q W F z o O w � z z U o 0 O U m -� w w W w Q } p W m U U U Z U I w m `o W Q LL Q o o' W O>� W U W - � W 0 S U 2 W Z w w Z m w w Cn = W w J U N O U` Q F11 O W O F- F- W U` U y S m > Q >- Q K F- Z O J J 0 X (n Y K U m g O W W U w W p Q w Z Z c - F Q U w W L c? w S w Q w S o 0 o K p o Q o U m w 2 z z> N Q Q Q _ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m m m m m m m m m U U U U U U U D 4 O LL LL > Q C N W n 6? n O 7 (n N_ O O O O W N co O O V M n N W N n W N M W O m O D) O W 00 0 Cl! O W W c0 N O O n W N N m O W m n O O O O n O O N W O W M n N 10 O O O (O U? N O O (D O O m O n (D O O LO V (O N N M W co O O D) O O C) V tD VM O to m W O O to M M to O O O O O E Q M (q 1f) -i V c W C (O c' O N LO M lO O M V N O d Cl co O O (O CO o W N 0) W N M N n 0) 'T O CO O N .- W N N M n N N N (7 O J O W x le C Y n CO 0) O N Cl) M CO n W n m n O W W N W M W � W W W W W n W W W m W O m N m M m V m M m (O m n m W m m m O O O N O M o 7 O lO O (D O n O (O r U m L W O O W o O W 0 o n 0 O 1� 0 O n 0 O n 0 o n a O n 0 O n 0 o n 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O n O n O n O n O n O n O n U n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n r N O rn O Cl) N rn (0 IL z z W w w w W W w W w > U U` Z Z z J Q Q Q Q a z Z Q z 2 2 W O z r- z z zZ F w zz< w Q z Q I F Q z Z w w ~ z z O w X w w F- w z W Z W w W w w w w 2(9 z w z W z w w I- W W W W Q w z w z z w w z w Q w w O w w W w 0 w w o¢ w w w a w a z Q Q z Q z z 2 w Q w Z w Q w 0 4 z z w z w Q w Q w w a o a z z C7 z z Z 7 z z z z :) Q Z Q< Q W Q z W Z 5 Z 7 0 Q F Z E Z C7 ti 2 ¢ Z O O c Z O Q O LL Q Q O Z �9 Q Z t 1i Q w J m z w z w Z g U 2 z U Z¢ Q Q _ N W W W O w w w W Z W Z a U m a U Y = 1 U K Y Z a U J U 2 J Z -j U WW w2' C Q J w w (Y R J J U w J U <z a S Z O U S O J W J U K U w Q J x -� w S O J U U w y W O U Of U U p w l- w cn o o w r- Z a g x? J x o a o o to a (� w z a o F o l- o o W w W c m �? a U) w w a a cn U w [ L - a a U) U a co a a v> a w a w li li <n a a a u¢ a a a cr O d N = cYi Z } V -1 z I_ �o N (n W w w J z w w O O m w m W z w W W_ m W (n J J J CL W U n o a D w Q z M G w Q d a I- ( 6 w Q Q j j F 'o U) f' C- W a J w < W tli of z u7 W F W (n w 2 w > > WIL WO C� Q 0 1- w a } ° z C z Z w C a' i cr Z Z u w z p z¢¢ a) W Q p W K S U O 2 Q C" U U W J fn 0 d m w 0 0 I U V U a W W_ w w j a a a' W w P F w CD a w w t- 0 0 C! w a o Q LL Ix Q FO O O W a O a 0 0 U_ O F Ix a Q a w a a 0 0 ¢ O J a 0 >- U w I - O Q U O J 2 2 w a 0 0 0 m m U U a 0 O 0 0 I - �a O r C� O>> W 0 J ° O U a o a U o W U< z a z =O q ° J o w 5 ? rn v 2 J- Q w IL cn w U U J W° Z V W� W Z Z K U) U U) U W w w m o ~~ m F- W O a U ( U w tr z W w U � a w ~ ¢Q U= p ZO p w U Z >- K F O O W Q U U) U - U z Z o �yl z as I Q U O Q z w ° J z CD D W of ° Q O .Q ° S J Z 0 0 0 0 W w¢ °� z x W O Z U O O a w ¢ O a Z w U° z U a F. Z U Q x Z �s x ¢ w Z j O w U F- m m z O w w LL } C}D w K ° z w� w W m a w w o 0° z w w ° J W ¢ w S x = == Z O w W {_ F w z D O `o '_= x w U a a z g U CJ w } W CE U w a ai z w o F w Z O¢¢ w vUi o -) N a n. w 2 U w > u c x ° x ? Y Y Y OY w n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 m z z z d a m � o o ° o ° o c ti o c o C0 0 � o o n o M (u (n o o 0 o n Cl! o c» (o n �? 3 n O M to O O (D n co O R to c0 rn tl9 (O (D O (O O N �N O n V N n N O � O V 00 n LO to c5 6 O O O co CD O E CO M (0 r r O O M V N N c n,� (O W N r Cl) N n r r (O O M M rn rn In M rn > n M to (7 r r N M N (D n N O p Q N r O O N N U O J w W le le 3k r M V tt) O n M n M ' O N M V t(J (O n OD Y O rn O r N M 7 (D n 00 rn O N M N N N n O N O N M (J O O r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M (`') M M M 7 U n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n r M 0 m C> N O (Q co a p z Cl) Cl) (o w w z w w L z x m x w w m } O F w w w F F F F W F F H U ~ F- Z (o F- F- F- W LL. LL LL. U_ Q W LL.. W W Q z F- W W W F- Z O O- U. O C7 O Ur O (7 p (7 2 W U w z W < W w W O Z O - O- 4 LL w (n :E p w w 2 W W W W -- W W W W r z o w z O Z z d. W W W W W CD ~Q W# W W C7 W Q Z Z 3 Q Q Q Z W :E Z Q Q z Q Q Q W p Q= Q Q W W N Q Q J Q W Z W W Q: R' C7 2 2 2 LL W - 1 J J J W J W LL W J J W w U° W w? Z W W W W O U w p p O U O O° O p O Z p 0 In O (n Q O CD CL J U Z O ¢ JO ° ¢Q~ J U w O � Z) w Y � r C7 p w p Z w w F O 0 Z J S F O° O Y 0 0 w F F w Q Q Q Q z� W Q W Q Q w EL •6 O m 0 d m Q d w W LL 0 w m m U m N m m w LL 0 w w 0 J m d d m d m d w m w F m F 0 Q. O Zi m = v Z Z Q U t Z Z d W U Q (Y Q co Z W U O N U n w w Z J 0 O O O J C7 Z 2 (o (n z -j>- U) -j w - Y cn t= J W Q 2 i- 2 Q S z w U w z m Q Q a U z p v) m Q m m W F- w � Q CL U U } m 0 F- F- >- W F- >- F- F- w � w J d J W j 2 z z w W a m U w w p(L(L U Q w U w a w w w m w ( J LU�L LL U - . a a o CD j ( Z m Z (D a Z C:: O O w 0 O w O O> Q> v m Z ¢ Z o LL LL D LL LL of CL Of U Q ¢ K z Z Z K Z? W wS U) w W ° m 06 ° .6 p xs xs W S w z is p LL U w > U Z W (.)) � OJ = U Z W W LL O W m W wz 0 m w w Q Z S (J W W Z Z Q Z Z Z z m Q m� 2 O O �� 99 J w p p O O F- b x Z J W w Z m H Z H w W w W w Q O d w O Q 2 W J m m O w 0 0 0 d W W w o K p Z W g W D O LL E p 2 p w> Q :2 W U w W F- W p Lli g O U U LL U U LL U U > > } U U U Z tL LL O 0 U) n u7 v j 0-1 LL O Z w w LL lL W F Q w > O w w rn Z �} w w U) �} p m O w J W w� z r p p W Z z W z �O W Q w U 0 F m z W J ° p p 9 z z p m z a w 04 z w o o o z U) O W ¢ co O { - OF W2' U O} Q m Q w (o Z w W Z O Q W I-- a N� F O O Z W F w F-= 0 Q W a Z a Z j J- Q O W J U Q j w J Q w w F W O () >> O 0 O W ( N O z a o O¢ z� w Y LL W, F� O m Y LL z w a O x w w z a p F `o L W w O O-J OY OO E W w Q w O c (� W > z W W Y 2 F W Y j H U G W O w Z F~- O - 'a LL- 2 Z U) E Q O ( m J LL S S S O O Q Q w W �} Z U w m W W 3: m w Z Z Z d > O D R' U w U 0 U w U 0 U 0 2 (o 2 0 2 (o 2 (o 0 Z U F- U F- U D 0 F- Z F- � U X Q U 2 U Y J����� d W w U 0 D >> .�_° 0 F- O O O c m (7 O 0 OJ n N O (O r M O M V O O co n M to n O O O (n O O O 7 M n N M N V' Lo n O O O m O O O (D O n O n M N M n (O C1 (D O (o O O (O O O O r W (O (O O N w n O) O 'D O r V' (D t0 N N O O O Co O LL1 n m V O O V O LL) N O m O N N W O (O O N O O to (O LO M O (O O O] > O O o Q r r <{ r M n N M of O r r r n V n v N M n r r r M r r r ri N m v v ri (O r (n N o� (n O n N (7 O J W w U LO Y m O N M V l0 (O n N W O N M 7 (O (O n N m O N M 7 (O (D n N M O N M V LO CO n (O o L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n r� n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 0 0 m o N O W m a E o o Y U N = U M U L U- 0 U C 3 O O U U N r 0 N Dj N 1n— � r V CO' Cl) CD r tD co N T O O lIJ r M Ifi lD O M M �{ N (D O N 11i M V o N N N n W W N M O O M D) Q tD 01 7 m r to r co co - : m co r V V C N N tD 1- fn c9 O O W U ~ o Z K ° n Z) O W LL F Y W u) W Z ~ W Y W � � Oo Z >� W 0 LL LL Z cl N W a U 0 O j - 0 LL t u. Z U Z Z 0 W J W Z w- W K Q R X W DLL LL 1- U� QQ J W d W O m J_ co W D Q Q LL Q u- rn W O W W C/l Y C U` W Q. U F W h w w K x m w W n O N O O O O O �!'! O 0 O N N d' C tIJ lD O O O O N 7 O O O O O O O O M V c> r tD n c0 ti O O O M U O N O V O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request of Town & Country Regarding Hourly Restrictions on Construction Activities On Providence Park DATE: August 7, 2001 INTRODUCTION: By letter dated July 29, 2001, the developer of Providence Park has requested that City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, be suspended for Saturday work hours. DISCUSSION: The above named section of the City Code restricts the hours of operation from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays, and from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. Town & Country is requesting a suspension on the hours as follows: Saturday 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. The earlier starting time is to expedite work in order to work longer hours to allow contractors to work earlier on Saturday and to meet the schedule for this project. Staff has reviewed this request and believes a starting time of 8:00 A.M. is appropriate for Saturday work. Staff would recommend that if the suspension of hours is granted, that the approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is contingent upon minimizing noise exposure near residential areas. 2. If residential complaints are received by the City, the suspension can be revoked at the discretion of the City Engineer. 3. Blasting activities, if any, must be done from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If Council approves the suspension, a public notice to meet the City Code requirements and notice such as a news release would be placed in the Shakopee Valley News. Staff believes by allowing this suspension of work hours, the projects can be done sooner than the length of construction description and inconvenience is minimized. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, as requested by Town & Country, and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as recommended by staff. 2. Approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. or for some other period of time as determined appropriate by the City Council, and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms. 3. Do not approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D. Staff recommends Alternative No. 2. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion approving suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, as requested by Town & Country, from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as recommended by staff. 4'ru�ceLoney Public Wor irector BL /pmp RESTRICT 08/01/2001 WED 09:53 FAX 612 9443437 TOWN & CO HOMES TOWN&AWHON]c Minnesota Division Mr. Bruce Loney Public Works Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Thank you for your consideration of allowing an earlier start time for constniction at Providence Park. It is our preference to begin work at 7 am • Saturdays. However, if this gzal'z sffe l af-"� tvA z �4�--fFs �Fegi2r' wf.A as early as deemed appropriate but not later than 8 am. It you have any questions regarding this request or are in need of addifional information, please contact me at 952-9"-3455. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. M-1 7716 Golden. Triangle Drive ® Eden Prairie, NIN 55344 (952) 944-3455 ® Fax (952) 944-3437 MN Builder License #9137 08/01/2001 WED 09:53 FAX 612 9443437 TOWN & CO HOMES T0VVN&"R1 YHOMES Minnesota Division I =; °!,; Mr. Bruce Loney Public Works giredor City of Shakopee 129 : +« =.2 «6 South Shakopee, Nlinnesoota 5531 FRWTV, L x< Per our telephone ccnversaticn, please consider this letter a forinal request to allow a variance to established working hours during the construction. of Providence Park. It' you have any questions regarding this request or are in need of additional information. W,Iease contact «! » »w. t 5-44-3455. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 4'j � © ;zz_ tt M on P. Dir•otor of Land Development I, 7,21g, 1 2. + 1, 1 , 7h&iadl , , I I � 1: , I I M « W 7716 Golden'fTiangle Drive - Eden Prairie, MN 55344 @37.) -Fa= +a7 MNBuilderUcense#9137 ® . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Tahpah Park & Lion's Park Parking Lots, Project No.'s 2001 -7 & 2001 -3 DATE: August 7, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5567, which accepts the bids and awards the contract for Tahpah Park parking lot, Project No. 2001 -7 and Lion's Park parking lot, Project No. 2001 -3. On June 19, 2001, City Council adopted a motion authorizing advertisement for bids on the above referenced projects. The plans for Tahpah Park were prepared by Bolton & Menk, Inc. and Lion's Park plans prepared by the City's Engineering Department. On August 2, 2001, sealed bids were received and publicly opened for these projects. A total of three bids were received and are summarized in the attached resolution. The low bid was submitted for both improvements by S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $698,312.50 including alternates. The Engineer's estimate for this project was approximately $420,000.00 for Tahpah Park and $270,000.00 for Lion's Park. The low bid received for Tahpah Park improvements including Alternate "A" work was $435,134.45 by S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. The low bid received for Lion's Park improvements including Alternate "B" is $253,708.05 by Northwest Asphalt, Inc. The 2001 CIP had estimated a cost of $250,000.00 for Tahpah Park Parking lot improvements and a cost of $200,000.00 for Tahpah Park parking lot and'ballfield improvements. The City Council at its June 19, 2001 meeting had approved plans for the improvements, with the cost of the project not -to- exceed $250,000.00 and $408,000.00 for Lion's Park and Tahpah Park, respectively. Also, since these projects were out to bid the City is considering the purchase of land outside of MUSA which would impact the Park Reserve Fund. The low bid received for these projects can be summarized as follows: Schedule A Schedule B Bidder & Alternate & Alternate S.M. Hentges & Sons $435,134.45 $263,238.05 Northwest Asphalt $475,599.11 $253,708.05 CIP Estimate $200,000.00 $250,000.00 Council Limit $408,000.00 $250,000.00 Based on the funding limits set by Council, only the Tahpah Park base bid of $403,640.45 by S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. and the base bid of $246,524.70 by Northwest Asphalt would meet those limits. It should be pointed out that Tahpah Park improvements are funded by Park Reserve Funds and Lion's Park improvements by Capital Improvement Funds. The following factors were also taken into consideration of the recommendation of award: • Lion's Park costs were in line with the CIP estimate and Engineer's estimate. • Lion's Park reconstruction can only occur when the pool is closed. • The Tahpah Park improvements affect the Park Reserve Fund. • The Tahpah Park improvements could be re- evaluated for a possible reduction of project size and reduced cost. This re- evaluation could occur over the winter months and Tahpah Park Project rebid next year. After analyzing all of these factors and the bids received, staff is recommending that the Tahpah Park improvements not be done at this time and only the Lion's Park improvements be awarded to the low bidder, Northwest Asphalt. This recommendation was from the Natural Resources Director and Facility and Recreation Director. Staff is of the opinion, that the Lion's Park bid is acceptable and the reconstruction of the parking lot can be done this fall while the pool is closed. In addition to awarding the contract to the low bidder, City staff will need to authorize consultant engineering services to provide construction surveying and administration services as necessary for this project. Attached to this memo is an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to perform the surveying services, inspection and administration services as needed to complete this project. If the Council awards this project, staff is also requesting that City Council authorize a contingency amount equal to 5% of the contract to cover minor change orders or quantity adjustments that may occur on the project ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the low bid of $253,708.05 for Lion's Park improvements and adopt Resolution No. 5567, awarding the contract to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 2. Reject the low bid and award the bid to another bidder. 3. Reject all bids and rebid. 4. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to provide consultant services on this project for the City of Shakopee. 5. Authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on this project. Staff recommends Alternative No.'s 1, 4 and 5. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5567, A Resolution Accepting Bids on Lion's Park'; Parking Lot Improvements, Project No. 2001 -3 and move its adoption. 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc., to provide consultant services for the City of Shakopee. 3. Authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on this project. //rue Loney Public Works irector BL /prop MEM5567 ', Resolution o,i i Bids Lion's Park ParkingLot Improvements Project r 00 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Tahpah Park & Lion's Park Parking Lot Improvements, Project No.'s 2001 -7 & 2001 -3, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: *Schedule A & * *Schedule B & Bidder Alternate "A" Alternate " Amount S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc $435,134.45 5263,238.05 5698,372.50 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $475,599.11 5253,708.05 5729,307.16 Barber Construction, Inc. 5600,629.20 $310,359.30 $910,988.50 * Schedule A is for Tahpah Park parking lot improvements. ** Schedule B is for Lion's Park parking lot improvements. AND AS, it appears that Northwest Asphalt, Inc., 1451 Stagecoach Road, Shakopee, MN 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder for Lion's Park parking lot improvements. O 1; BY THE ` CITY OF O' MINNESOTA: 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Northwest Asphalt, Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for the Lion's Park Parking Lot Improvements, Project No. 2001 -3, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in Minnesota, held this session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, day of 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ICI Iti City Clerk RESOLUTI R e s olution •/ P ', Bids 1 Li on ' s 1 1" Lot Improvemen P l . 200 WHERE pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Tahpah Park & Lion's Park Parking Lot Improvements, Project No.'s 2001 -7 & 2001 -3, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: *Schedule A & * *Schedule B & Bidder Alternate "A" Alternate "B" S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc $435,134.45 $263,238.05 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $475,599.11 $253,708.05 Barber Construction, Inc. $600,629.20 $310,359.30 * Schedule A is for Tahpah Park parking lot improvements. ** Schedule B is for Lion's Park parking lot improvements. � $698,372.50 $729,307.16 $910,988.50 WHERE it appears that Northwest Asphalt, Inc., 1451 Stagecoach Road, Shakopee, MN 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder for Lion's Park parking lot improvements. AS, the City of Shakopee desires to award a contract for Lion's Park improvements only and reject all bids for Tahpah Park improvements. O T HEREFORE , BE D BY 1 OF T CITY OF SHAKOPEE, O 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Northwest Asphalt, Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for the Lion's Park Parking Lot Improvements, Project No. 2001 -3, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. The bids received for Tahpah Park improvements, Project No. 2001 -7,' are hereby rejected. Adopted in - session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk 0 ' 2), CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Feasibility Report on 5 th Avenue, from Adams Street to Vacated Jefferson Street DATE: August 7, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a feasibility report for the public improvement on 5 th Avenue, from Adams Street to vacated Jefferson Street and Resolution No. 5552, a resolution accepting the feasibility report and establishing a public hearing for these public improvements. BACKGROUND: The developer of Block 8, Koeper's Addition and also known as the plat of Riverbend Townhomes has submitted a petition for the improvement of 5 th Avenue, from Adams Street to the vacated Jefferson Street. As mentioned at the June 19, 2001 City Council meeting, City Council was also interested in alternatives of improving Adams Street to Harrison Street, Adams Street to Jefferson Street and Jefferson Street, from 5 th Avenue to 4' Avenue. These alternatives have been analyzed and are included in the feasibility report. Pros and cons with each alternative have been prepared within the report. Staff believes the feasibility report should be accepted by the City Council and a public hearing established in order to make a decision on the future of 5 th Avenue in this area. The four alternatives analyzed were as follows: Alternative No. 1 — 5 th Avenue improvements, from Adams Street to a cul -de -sac by vacated Jefferson Street, including watermain looping long 5 th Avenue and Adams Street from 6 th Avenue to 4 th Avenue. Alternative No. 2 — 5 th Avenue improvements, from Adams Street to a cul -de -sac 550 feet west of Adams Street, including watermain looping along 5 th Avenue and Adams Street from 6 th Avenue to 4 th Avenue. Alternative No. 3 — 5 th Avenue, from Adams Street to Jefferson Street; and Jefferson Street, from 5 th Avenue to 4 th Avenue including watermain looping along Adams Street, from 6 th Avenue to 4 th Avenue. Alternative No. 4 — 5 th Avenue improvements, from Adams Street to Harrison Street, including watermain looping along Adams Street, from 6 th Avenue to 0' Avenue.' The assessments have been calculated based on the property receiving benefit from the improvement. The watermain identified in each alternative was determined by Shakopee Public Utilities Commission's staff to meet their criteria. Alternative No. 1 is the project petitioned for by Riverbend Townhomes. Other alternatives were generated by Council request and City staff. The alternative that minimiz City cost participation is Alternative No. 1. Resolution No. 5552 is for a public hearing on Alternative No. 1. However, Council can modify the resolution and conduct a public hearing on any or all alternatives if they so desire. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to approve Resolution No. 5552, a resolution accepting the feasibility report on 5 th Avenue, from Adams Street to vacated Jefferson Street and establish a public hearing date on September 4, 2001. 2. Do no approve Resolution No. 5552. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, in order to proceed with public input on the feasibility report and for a public hearing to be established on this project. BLpmp MEM5552 9 • Resolution ' • R eport And Callina A Hearing On An Improvement To 5 Avenue, From Adams Street to Vacated Jefferson Street W��� WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 5545 of the City Council adopted June 19, 2001, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer, with reference to the improvements of 5 Avenue, from Adams Street to vacated Jefferson Street by street construction, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain, street lighting, sidewalk, watermain looping along Adams Street, from 6 Avenue to 4` Avenue and all other appurtenant work and this report was received by the Council on July 24, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of 5 Avenue, from Adams Street to vacated Jefferson Street by street construction, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, watermam, street lighting, sidewalk, watermain looping along Adams Street, from 6 Avenue to 4 Avenue and all other appurtenant work in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting and benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $232,872.50. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 4th day of September, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall,', at 129 S. Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 2001 -8 Public Improvement Program. Adopted in Minnesota, held this I ill- session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, day of ) 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk August 3, 2001 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State Aif Minnesota. l/ h� w� � Mark D. Kasma, P.E. Date S Registration No. 21282 August 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE N. Introduction 1 Scope 1 Background 1-2 Proposed Improvements 2-6 Right -of -Way Acquisition 7 Special Assessments 7 -8 Cost Estimates 8 -9 Conclusion 9 APPENDIX Figures Preliminary Engineer's Estimate Preliminary Assessment Roll City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension August 3, 2001 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION On June 19, 2001, the City of Shakopee ordered the preparation of a feasibility report ex aminin g four different alternatives for extending 5' Avenue between Adams Street and Harrison Street, by Resolution No. 5545. SCOPE The purpose of this report is to determine the costs and feasibility of extending 5' Avenue between Adams Street and Harrison Street as a bituminous paved roadway with concrete curb and gutter, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer. This report will identify four alternatives for this extension. The 5 Avenue Extension project is a project petitioned for by the developer for the Riverbend Townhomes project located in the southwest quadrant of the Fourth Avenue and Adams Street intersection. Previously there was interest in not vacating 5"' Avenue by property owners south of 5 t ' Avenue. Thus, the developers of Riverbend Townhomes prepared a site plan utilizing 5"' Avenue for access. City Council has directed staff to consider various extension alternatives offering similar access to the proposed Riverbend Townhomes, but offering varying levels of access and benefits to other adjacent properties. Existing Conditions Currently there are no constructed streets or roadways within the 5t" Avenue right of way between Adams Street and Harrison Street or the Jefferson Street right of way between 4 Avenue and 5 ' Avenue which has been vacated by the City. The topography can be described as significantly rolling hills falling from the east to the west along 5"' Avenue and from the south to the north along Jefferson Street. The 1 City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension August 3, 2001 SHAKOPEE CAMMUNr1Y PME S1NCE 1857 area is wooded with the majority of the trees being located at the west end of 5' Avenue, south of River View Park. B. Sanitary Sewer There is an existing sanitary sewer along the 5' Avenue right of way which', extends west from Adams Street to the line between the DuBois and Marschall properties. From this point, the sewer extends south between these two properties. This existing sewer line flows into the Adams Street sanitary sewer. The service area for this existing 5 Avenue sewer line includes the Riverbend Townhomes, DuBois, Marschall, Hron, and Lowe properties. C. Watermain Currently there is no existing watermain within 5"' Avenue or vacated Jefferson Street rights of way. There is an existing 6 -inch watermain situated north -south across the west end of 5 Avenue within River View Park. There are also 6 -inch watermams within 4 Avenue and 6"' Avenue. There is no existing watermain along Adams Street between 4"' and 6 ' Avenues. Storm Sewer There is no existing storm sewer along the 5"' Avenue or Jefferson Street rights of way. E. Right-of-Way The existing right of way width along 5"' Avenue between Adams Street and Harrison Street is 80 -feet. The vacated right of way width along Jefferson Street between 4"' Avenue and 5"' Avenue is 60 -feet. Four alternatives have been identified for the proposed improvements. The proposed streets in each of these alternatives will be bituminous pavement with concrete curb and gutter. Illustrations of each of these alternatives are included in the Appendix. 2 City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension p 0m ig SHAKOPEE August 3, 2001 CoNeAuNIIYPROEShVcE7a57 The proposed street alignment for Alternative 1 consists of a 32 -foot wide extension of 5 Avenue from Adams Street, west to a 45 -foot radius cul -de -sac centered (east - west) on the Marschall property. This street would provide potential access for the Riverbend Townhomes and the DuBois, Marschall, and Hron properties. Given the topography of the Lowe property, there is no potential for reasonable access from this property to 5 Avenue for any of the alternatives. Access for a subdivided Lowe parcel would be from Adams Street. No sidewalks were proposed for 5' Avenue in this report. I - Ir'. Sanitary Sewer As discussed previously, there is an existing sanitary sewer extending along 5 t ' Avenue from Adams Street to the DuBois property. Sanitary sewer improvements associated with this alternative would consist only of service extensions from this existing line to the Riverbend Townhomes and the DuBois, Marschall, Hron, and Lowe properties. C. Watermain Staff has been in contact with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) regarding this project. Based on their recommendations, an 8 -inch watermain is proposed to extend from the existing 6 -inch watermain along 4 Avenue, and extend along the east boulevard of Adams Street to 6 Avenue where it will loop into an existing 6 -inch watermain. It should be noted that a sidewalk is proposed along this boulevard as well and is being addressed in a separate feasibility report being prepared for the City Council. A 6 -inch watermain is proposed to extend from the proposed 8 -inch watermain, west along the Stn Avenue right of way to the point where it would loop into the existing 6 -inch watermain located within River View Park. Water services would be extended from this 6 -inch watermain to the Riverbend Townhomes and the DuBois, Marschall, Hron, and Lowe properties. A new fire hydrant is also proposed at the intersection of Adams Street and 5 Avenue. 3 City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension August 3, 2001 PWM..!!A SHAKOPEE CONIMUNrlYPRE)ESINCE 1W Storm Sewer The storm sewer improvements for this alternative consist of a catch basin structure located in the proposed cul -de -sac which would drain into a pipe extending to a National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) pond proposed as a part of the Riverbend Townhomes improvements. This pond would be designed and constructed by the developer. There would also be a second pipe stubbed out of the proposed catch basin to potentially serve the Riverbend Townhomes. ALTERNATIVE 2 A. Roadway The proposed street alignment for Alternative 2 consists of a 32 -foot wide extension of 5' Avenue from Adams Street, west to a 45 -foot diameter cul -de -sac', near the center (east -west) of the Sexton property. This street would provide potential access for the Riverbend Townhomes, River View Park east of the westerly Pistulka property line, and the Pistulka, Sexton, DuBois, Marschall, and Hron properties. Given the topography of the Lowe property, there is no potential for reasonable access from this property to 5 Avenue for any of the alternatives. B. Sanitary Sewer Given the relationship between the existing sanitary sewer elevation and the existing lower ground elevations west of the DuBois property, the existing sewer system cannot serve the properties west of the DuBois property with a gravity sewer extension. Therefore, a new sewer line is proposed to extend from the 4'' Avenue system, south along Jefferson Street, then west along 5"' Avenue where it would terminate adjacent to the Sexton property. This sewer would be constructed for the exclusive use of the Pistulka and Sexton properties. Other sanitary sewer improvements associated with this alternative would include service extensions from the existing sanitary sewer to the Riverbend Townhomes and the DuBois, Marschall, Hron, and Lowe properties. C. Watermain Watermain improvements associated with this alternative would be identical to those described in Alternative 1, with the exception that the Pistulka and Sexton properties would be included with the other properties receiving service extensions. 4 City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension August 3, 2001 potA SHAK ®PEE CO&2AUI FMF SN(T 1957 COMMEMON M The storm sewer improvements for this alternative consist of catch basins located along 5 Avenue at Jefferson Street which would drain into a pipe extending north into the proposed Riverbend Townhomes NURP pond described previously. Additionally, there would be a third catch basin structure located within the cul -de- sac which would drain into a pipe extending west to the westerly potential Shakopee lot. The City's comprehensive plan includes a potential storm water pond within this lot. The proposed street alignment for this alternative consists of a 32 -foot wide extension of 5 Avenue from Adams Street, west to Jefferson Street. From this point, the roadway turns north and follows the Jefferson Street right of way to e Avenue where it would terminate. 5' Avenue would provide potential access for the Riverbend Townhomes and the DuBois, Marschall, and Hron properties. Jefferson Street would provide potential access for the Riverbend Townhomes and River View Park. Given the topography of the Lowe property, there is no potential for reasonable access from this property to 5 Avenue for any of the alternatives. As discussed previously, there is an existing sanitary sewer extending along 5 t " Avenue from Adams Street to the DuBois property. Sanitary sewer improvements associated with this alternative would consist only of service extensions from this existing line to the Riverbend Townhomes and the DuBois, Marschall, Hron, and Lowe properties. C. Watermain Watermain improvements associated with this alternative would be identical to those described in Alternative 1. D. Storm Sewer The storm sewer improvements for this alternative consist of catch basins located along the 5 " Avenue bend into Jefferson Street which would drain into proposed City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension August 3, 2001 MWItA SHAK ®PEE CON94UN[IY PRIDE SINCE Ia57 catch basins at the intersection of Jefferson Street and 4 Avenue. A pipe extending from these structures would drain into the existing storm sewer system to the west. With this alternative, the NURP pond would be eliminated. ALTE A. Roadway The proposed street alignment for this alternative consists of a 32 -foot wide extension of 5 Avenue from Adams Street, west to Harrison Street. This street would provide potential access for the Riverbend Townhomes, River View Park, both potential Shakopee lots, and the Pistulka, Sexton, DuBois, Marschall, and Hron properties. Given the topography of the Lowe property, there is no potential for reasonable access from this property to 5 Avenue for any of the alternatives. B. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer improvements associated with this alternative would be identical to those described in Alternative 2. C. Watermain Watermain improvements associated with this alternative would be identical to those described in Alternative 1, with the exception that the Pistulka and Sexton properties would be receiving service extensions. D. Storm Sewer The storm sewer improvements for this alternative consist of catch basins located along 5"' Avenue at Jefferson Street which would drain into a pipe extending north into the proposed Riverbend Townhomes NURP pond described previously.' Additionally, there would be catch basin structures located at the intersection of 5 t ' Avenue and Harrison Street which would drain into a pipe extending into the westerly potential Shakopee lot where a storm water pond would eventually be constructed. 0 City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension August 3, 2001 I SHAKOPEE CONRAUN[lY PRIDE SLAKE 1857 Right-of- Way Acquisition No additional right of way acquisition is needed for Alternatives 3 and 4, which propose road extensions without any cul -de -sacs. Alternatives 1 and 2, both of which propose a 45- foot radius cul -de -sac within a 60 -foot radius right of way, would require additional right of way along the "bulb" side of the cul -de -sac. This additional right of way would be required from the Riverbend Townhomes property in Alternative 1, and from the Pistulka and Sexton properties in Alternative 2. While the 45 -foot radius cul -de -sac within a 60 -foot radius right of way is in accordance with City policy, a reduction to a 40 -foot radius cul -de -sac within a 50 -foot radius right of way would reduce the required right of way acquisition for both Alternatives 1 and 2. The associated reduction in building setbacks would also facilitate easier development on the affected properties. Construction costs for each alternative are proposed to be 100% assessed to the benefiting properties, based on front footage. A preliminary assessment roll for each alternative can be found in the Appendix. The following is an explanation of the assessment details. Street and Storm Sewer Proposed street and storm sewer costs for each alternative are assessed to those properties which could reasonably have access to the proposed street via a driveway from the property. Those properties with potential street access are described previously in the Proposed Improvements section of this report. It should be noted that the road extension described in Alternative 2 is intended to serve those properties east of the westerly Pistulka property line. Therefore, only that front footage of River View Park east of that property line is considered for those street and storm sewer assessments associated with this alternative. Sanitary Sewer The individual costs of sanitary sewer services are assessed to the associated properties. The new main line sewer extension described in Alternatives 2 and 4 are for the benefit of the Pistulka and Sexton properties only, and the costs are therefore assessed only to these properties, based on their front footage. 7 City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension August 3, 2001 SHAK ®PEE C0NflAUNr1Y PRIDE $vCE 1657 Watermain The proposed watermain extension along Adams Street from 4' Avenue to 5' ''Avenue (Segment 1) is assessed 50150 to the Riverbend Townhomes and to the Minnesota Department of Corrections for each alternative. The proposed watermain extension along 5' Avenue from Adams Street to Harrison Street (Segment 2) is assessed to those properties which are farther than 150' east of the existing 6 -inch watermain located within River View Park and also have reasonable access to the proposed road alternatives as described previously. Under this description, only that front footage of River View Park located farther than 150 feet east of the existing watermain is considered for those watermain improvements described in Alternatives 2 and 4. The proposed watermain extension along Adams Street from 5 Avenue to 6" Avenue (Segment 3) is assessed 50% to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, with the other 50% being assessed, based on from: footage, to those properties on the south side of the proposed 5 ' Avenue extensions which would have reasonable access to the proposed roadway in each alternative. COST ESTIMATES The cost estimates developed for each alternative include contingencies, engineering and administration. A summary of the associated quantities for each alternative can be found in the Appendix. The total estimated project costs are as follows: Alternate 1 Roadway $ 97,857.00 Storm Sewer $ 10,010.00 Sanitary Sewer $ 13,655.00 Watermain $111,350.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE 1 $232,872.00 Alternate 2 Roadway $205,267.00 Storm Sewer $ 25,770.00 Sanitary Sewer $ 45,130.00 Watermain $117,620.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE 2 $393,787.00 N . Alternate 3 Roadway Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer Watermain TOTAL ALTERNATE 3 Alternate 4 $150,407.00 $ 26,210.00 $ 11,995.00 $110,200.00 $298,812.00 Roadway $207,277.00 Storm Sewer $ 21,360.00 Sanitary Sewer $ 43,275.00 Watermain $116,71 0.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE 4 $388,622.00 The estimated project costs and associated assessments were prepared based upon an Engineer's Estimate and are subject to change, depending on the final design of the project, bids received and actual work performed. CONCLUSION I From an engineering standpoint, each alternative is feasible, cost effective and necessary and can best be accomplished by letting competitive bids for the work. It is recommended that the work be completed under one contract in order to complete the work in an orderly and efficient manner. The City, its financial consultant, and the persons proposed to be assessed will have to determine the economic feasibility of the proposed alternatives. City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension August 3, 2001 "Ma 939113►0 Preliminary Engineer's Estimates Preliminary Assessment Rolls Illustrative Figures: Alternatives 1 -4 City of Shakopee Feasibility Report — 5th Avenue Extension August 3, 2001 Appendix PWIA SHAKOPEE CDMMUNn'Y PRIDE S4SCM 1857 PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 08/01/01 5TH AVENUE EXTENSION SHAKOPEE, MN DESIGN ALTERNATES NOS. 1 - 4 BMI PROJECT NO. T15.20589 H: \Shak\T1520589 \CAD\Engrestm.123 '... ALTERNATE 1 ITEM NO. ITEM - UNIT APPROX QUANTITY UNIT , PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 2 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 80 $3.00 $240.00 3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 50 $4.00 $200.00 4 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LIN FT 80 $2.501 $200.00 5 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV)(P) CU YD 1950 $9.00 $17,550.00 6 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV) CU YD 350 $9.00 $3,150.00 7 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (FOR SUBCUTS) (LV) CU YD 455 $12.50 $5,687.50 8 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 620 $15.00 $9,300.00 9 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 6" TON 570 $13.00 $7,410.00 10 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 1 -1/2" TON 130 $32.00 $4,160.00 11 BITUMINOUS NON -WEAR COURSE 1 -1/2" TON 130 $30.00 $3,900.00 12 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 70 $2.00 $140.00 13 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN 8618 LIN FT 900 $8.50 $7,650.00 14 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 15 INLET PROTECTION - PREASSEMBLED EACH 1 $200.00 $200.00 16 SODDING TYPE LAWN SQ YD 3200 $3.00 $9,600.00 SUBTOTAL $75,387.50 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $7,540.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $82,927.50 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $14,930.00 TOTAL - ROADWAY $97,857.50 STORM SEWER 17 12" RC PIPE SEWER CL V DESIGN 3006 (STORM) LIN FT 180 $27.00 $4,860.00 18 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SD -1 EACH 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 19 CATCH BASIN CASTING ASSEMBLY R- 3067 -V (STORM SEWER) EACH 1 $500.00 $500.00 20 12" RCP APRON W/ TRASH GUARD EACH 1 $600.00 $600.00 21 RIP RAP CL III EACH 5 $50.00 $250.00 SUBTOTAL $7,710.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $770.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $8,480.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) $1,530.00 TOTAL - STORM SEWER $70 010.00 SEWER SERVICE (EACH): LOWE, HRON, MARSCHALL 22 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 55 $30.00 $1,650.00 23 4 "X8" WYE EACH 1 $75.00 $75.00 SUBTOTAL $1,725.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $170.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,895.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $340.00 TOTAL - PER EACH $2,235.00 TOTAL - ALL SERVICES X3 $6,705.00 SEWER SERVICE: DuBOIS 24 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 55 $30.00 $1,650.00 25 CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 1 $300.00 $300.00 SUBTOTAL $7 CONTINGENCIES (10% ) $200.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,150.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $390.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: DUBOIS $2 540.00 SEWER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES 26 6" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 100 $32.00 $3,200.00 27 6 "X8" WYE EACH 2 $100.00 $200.00 SUBTOTAL $3,400.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $340.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $3,740.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $670.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES $4,410.00 0 Page 1 of 10 ALTERNATE 1 WATERMAIN SEGMENT 1) 28 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN I EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 29 6" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 45 $21.00 $945.00 30 8" DIP, CL 52 INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 375 $23.00 $8,625.00 31 8" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 1 $850.00 $850.00 32 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 150 $15.00 $2,250.00 33 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SO YD 850 $3.00 $2,550.00 SUBTOTAL $15,970.00 CONTINGENCIES (10%) $1 600.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $17,570.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $3,160.00 TOTAL - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 1 $20 WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 2) 34 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 35 6" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 770 $21.00 $16,170.00 36 6" HYDRANT EACH 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 37 6" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 4 $800.00 $3,200.00 38 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRES 0.2 $40,000.00 $8,000.00 39 ROCK EXCAVATION (EV) CU YD 200 $80.00 $16,000.00 SUBTOTAL ,120.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% ,610.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 4$50,730.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% ,130.00 TOTAL - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 2 860.00 WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 3) 40 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 41 8" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 380 $23.00 $8,740.00 42 8" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 2 $850.00 $1,700.00 43 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 150 $15.00 $2,250.00 44 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SQ YD 850 $3.00 $2,550.00 SUBTOTAL $15,990.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $1,600.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $17,590.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $3,170.00 TOTAL - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 3 $20,760.00 WATER SERVICE (EACH): LOWE, HRON, MARSCHALL, DuBOIS 45 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 46 1" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 47 1" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 30 $20.00 $600.00 SUBTOTAL $950.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $100.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,050.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $190.00 TOTAL - PER EACH $1,240.00 TOTAL - ALL SERVICES (X4 ) S4 WATER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES 48 2" CORPORATION STOP EACH 2 $200.00 $400.00 49 2" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 2 $200.00 $400.00 50 2" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 140 $22.00 $3,080.00 SUBTOTAL $3,880.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $390.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $4,270.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $770.00 TOTAL - WATER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES $5,040.00 TOTAL - ALL SECTIONS - ALTERNATE 1 $232,872.50 Page 2 of 10 ALTERNATE 2 REM NO. ITEM UNIT APPROX ` QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 2 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 80 $3.00 $240.00 3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SO YD 50 $4.00 $200.00 4 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LIN FT 80 $2.501 $200.00 5 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV)(P) CU YD 2350 $9.00 $21,150.00 6 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV) CU YD 350 $9.00 $3,150.00 7 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (FOR SUBCUTS) _ - (LV) CU YD 455 $12.50 $5,687.50 8 GRANULAR BORROW (LV) CU YD 2900 $9.00 $26,100.00 9 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 700 $15.00 $10,500.00 10 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 6" TON 910 $13.00 $11,830.00 11 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 1 -1/2" TON 190 $32.00 $6,080.00 12 BITUMINOUS NON -WEAR COURSE 1 -1/2" TON 190 $30-001 $5,700.00 13 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 130 $2.00 $260.00 14 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN 8618 LIN FT 1500 $8.50 $12,750.00 15 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SO FT 1540 $20.00 $30,800.00 16 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 17 INLET PROTECTION - PREASSEMBLED EACH 3 $200.00 $600.00 18 SODDING TYPE LAWN SQ YD 4300 $3.00 $12,900.00 SUBTOTAL $158,147.50 CONTINGENCIES 10% $15,810.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 1 $173,957.50 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 1 /6) 11 $31,310.00 TOTAL - ROADWAY $205 267.50 STORM SEWER 19 12" RC PIPE SEWER CL V DESIGN 3006 (STORM) LIN FT 450 $27.00 $12,150.00 20 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SD -1 EACH 3 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 21 CATCH BASIN CASTING ASSEMBLY R- 3067 -V (STORM SEWER) EACH 3 $500.00 $1,500.00 22 12" RCP APRON W/ TRASH GUARD EACH 2 $600.00 $1,200.00 23 RIP RAP CL III EACH 10 $50.00 $500.00 SUBTOTAL $19,850.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $1990.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $21,840.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) S3,930.00 TOTAL - STORM SEWER $25,770.00 Page 3 of 10 ALTERNATE 2 SANITARY SEWER 24 8" SANITARY SEWER PVC SDR 35 LIN FT 570 $20.00 $11,400.00 25 SANITARY MANHOLE EACH 4 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 26 MANHOLE CASTING ASSEMBLY A -7 (SANITARY SEWER) EACH 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 SUBTOTAL $21,400.00 CONTINGENCIES (10%) $2140.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $23,540.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) $4,240.00 --TOTAL - SANITARY SEWER $27,780.00 SEWER SERVICE (EACH): LOWE, HRON, MARSCHALL 27 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 55 $30.00 $1,650.00 28 4 "X8" WYE EACH 1 $75.00 $75.00 SUBTOTAL $1,725.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $170.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,895.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) $340.00 TOTAL - PER EACH $2,235.00 TOTAL - ALL SERVICES X3) $6 SEWER SERVICE: DuBOIS 29 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 40 $30.00 $1,2 P$3;000 30 CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 1 $300.00 SUBTOTAL $1,500.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $150.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,650.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $300.00 TOTAL -SEWER SERVICE: DuBOIS $1,950.00 SEWER SERVICE: SEXTON 31 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 70 $30.00 $2,100.00 32 4 "X8" WYE EACH 1 $75.00 $75.00 SUBTOTAL $2,175.00 CONTINGENCIES (10%) $220.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,395.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) $430.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: SEXTON $2,825.00 SEWER SERVICE: PISTULKA 33 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 80 $30.00 $2,400.00 SUBTOTAL $2,400.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $240.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,640.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) $480.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: DuBOIS $3,120.00 SEWER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES 34 6" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 60 $32.00 $1,920.00 35 6 "X8" WYE EACH 2 $100.00 $200.00 SUBTOTAL $2,120.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $210.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,330.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $420.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES $2 0 Page 4 of 10 ALTERNATE 2 WATERMAIN SEGMENT 1 36 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 37 6" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 45 $21.00 $945.00 38 8" DIP, CL 52 INCLUDING FITTINGS LIN FT 375 $23.00 $8,625.00 39 8" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 1 $850.00 $850.00 40 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 150 $15.00 $2,250.00 41 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SO YD 850 $3.00 $2,550.00 SUBTOTAL $15,970.00 CONTINGENCIES 10 %) $1,600.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $17,570.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $3,160.00 TOTAL - WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 1 ) $20,730.00 WATERMAIN SEGMENT 2) 42 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 43 6" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 770 $21.00 $16,170.00 44 6" HYDRANT EACH 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 45 6" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 5 $800.00 $4,000.00 46 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRES 0.2 $40,000.00 $8,000.00 47 ROCK EXCAVATION (EV) CU YD 200 $80.00 $16.000.00 SUBTOTAL $48,920.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $4.890.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 1 $53,810.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $9,690.00 TOTAL - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 2 $63 500.00 WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 3 48 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 49 8" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 380 $23.00 $8,740.00 50 8" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 2 $850.00 $1,700.00 51 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 150 $15.00 $2,250.00 52 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SO YD 850 $3.00 $2,550.00 SUBTOTAL $15,990.00 CONTINGENCIES (10% ) $1,600.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $17,590.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $3 TOTAL - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 3 $20,760.00 WATER SERVICE (EACH): LOWE, HRON, MARSCHALL, DuBOIS 53 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 54 1" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 55 1" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 30 $20.00 $600.00 SUBTOTAL $950.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $100.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,050.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $190.00 TOTAL - PER EACH $1,240.00 TOTAL - ALL SERVICES (X4) $4 WATER SERVICE: SEXTON 56 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 1 $175.001 $175.00 57 1" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 1 $175.001 $175.00 58 1" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 65 $20.00 $1,300.00 SUBTOTAL $1,650.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 1 /6) $170.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,820.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18 %) $330.00 TOTAL - WATER SERVICE: SEXTON $2,150.00 WATER SERVICE: PISTULKA 58 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 59 1" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 60 1" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 45 $20.00 $900.00 SUBTOTAL $1,250.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $130.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,380.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $250.00 TOTAL - WATER SERVICE: PISTULKA $1,630.00 WATER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES 61 2" CORPORATION STOP EACH 1 2 $200.001 $400.00 62 2" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 2 $200.00 $400.00 63 2" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 100 $22.00 $2,200.00 SUBTOTAL $3,000.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $300.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 3,300.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) $590.00 TOTAL - WATER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES $3 TOTAL - ALL SECTIONS - ALTERNATE 2 $393,787.50 Page 5 of 10 ALTERNATE 3 ITEM ITEM -' UNIT APPROX UNIT NO. QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 2 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 140 $3.00 $420.00 3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 60 $4.00 $240.00 4 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LIN FT 130 $2.50 $325.00 EXCAVATION (EV)(P) CU YD 4550 $9.00 $40,950.00 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV) CU YD 450 $9.00 $4,050.00 r10 7 COMMON SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (FOR SUBCUTS) (LV) CU YD 585 $12.50 $7,312.50 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 450 $15.00 $6,750.00 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 6" TON 900 $13.00 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 1 -1/2" TON 180 $32.00 $5,760.00 11 BITUMINOUS NON -WEAR COURSE 1 -112" TON 180 $30.00 $5,400.00 12 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 120 $2.00 $240.00 13 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618 LIN FT 1500 $8.50 $12,750.00 14 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 15 INLET PROTECTION - PREASSEMBLED EACH 4 $200.00 $800.00 16 SODDING TYPE LAWN SO YD 3560 $3.00 $10,680.00 SUBTOTAL $115,877.50 CONTINGENCIES 10%) $11,590.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $127,467.50 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18 % $22,940.00 TOTAL - ROADWAY $150 407.50 STORM SEWER 17 12" RC PIPE SEWER CL V DESIGN 3006 (STORM) LIN FT 420 0.00 18 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SD -1 EACH 4 0.00 A$i500.00$2,000.00 19 CATCH BASIN CASTING ASSEMBLY R- 3067 -V (STORM SEWER) EACH 4 0.00 20 12" RCP APRON W/ TRASH GUARD EACH 1 21 RIP RAP CL III EACH 5 . 00 .00 SUBTOTAL $20,190.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $2020.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $22,210.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18 %) $4 000.00 TOTAL - STORM SEWER 26,210.00 SEWER SERVICE (EACH): LOWE, HRON, MARSCHALL 22 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 Ul N FT 55 $1,650.00 23 4 "X8" WYE EACH 1 a$75.00 $75.00 SUBTOTAL $1,725.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $170.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $11895.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18 %) $340.00 TOTAL - PER EACH 2 235.0 TOTAL - ALL SERVICES X3) $6 SEWER SERVICE: DuBOIS 24 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 55 $30.00 $1,650.00 25 CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 1 $300.00 $300.00 SUBTOTAL $1,950.00 CONTINGENCIES (10%) 0.00 $20 $200.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18 %) $390.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: DuBOIS $2,540.00 SEWER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES 26 6" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 60 $32.00 $1,920.00 27 6 "X8" WYE EACH 2 $100.00 $200.00 SUBTOTAL $2,12030 CONTINGENCIES (10%) $210.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,330.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $420.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES - _$2750.00 Page 6 of 10 ALTERNATE3 WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 1) 28 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 29 6" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 45 $945.00 30 8" DIP, CL 52 INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 375 A$15.00 $8,625.00 31 8" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 1 $850.00 32 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 150 $2,250.00 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SQ YD 850 $2,550.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES 10% $15,970,00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1 600.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18 % $17,570.00 $3 160.00 TOTAL - WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 1 ) $ 20 , 730.00 IN (SEGMENT 2) 34 O EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 35 2 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 770 $21.00 $16,170.00 36 T Ma EACH 1 000.00 $2,000.00 LVE AND BOX EACH 4 $800.00 $3,200.00 AND GRUBBING ACRES 0.2 $40000.00 $8,000.00 39 VATION EV CU YD 200 $80.00 $16,000.00 SUBTOTAL $46,120.00 CONTINGENCIES 10%) $4,610.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $50,730.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) $9,130.00 TOTAL - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 2 $ 860.00 WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 3) 40 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 41 8" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 380 $23.00 $8,740.00 42 8" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 2 $850.00 $1,700.00 43 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 150 $15.00 $2,250.00 44 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SQ YD 850 $3.00 $2,550.00 SUBTOTAL $15,990.00 (70%) $1 600.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $17,590.00 E EERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $3 170.00 - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 3 20,760.00 W CONTINGENCIES R SERVICE EACH : LOWE, HRON, MARSCHALL, DuBOIS PORATION STOP EACH 1 $175.00 B STOP AND BOX EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 47 1" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 30 $20.00 $600.00 SUBTOTAL $950.00 CONTINGENCIES (10% $100.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,050.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) $190.00 TOTAL -PER EACH $1 240.00 TOTAL -ALL SERVICES (X4) $4960.00 WATER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES 48 2" CORPORATION STOP EACH 49 2" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH ft2$200.00 50 2" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT A3,O SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES (10 %) TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $3,300.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $590A0 TOTAL - WATER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES $3,890.00 TOTAL- ALL SECTIONS- ALTERNATE 3 $298,812 50 Page 7 of 10 ALTERNATE 4 ITEM ITEM UNIT APPROX UNIT NO. QUANTITY PRICE ROADWAY 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $7,500.00 M$7,500.00 2 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 140 $3.00 3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 100 $4.00 4 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LIN FT 80 $2.50 $200.00 5 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV)(P) CU YD 2500 $9.00 $22500.00 6 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV) CU YD 350 $9.00 $3,150.00 7 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (FOR SUBCUTS) (LV) CU YD 455 $12.50 $5,687.50 8 GRANULAR BORROW (LV) CU YD 44 00 $9.00 $39,600.00 9 TOPSOIL BORROW LV CU YD 800 $15.00 $12,000.00 10 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 6" TON 1220 $13.00 $15,860.00 11 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 1 -1/2" TON 250 $32.00 $8,000.00 12 BITUMINOUS NON -WEAR COURSE 1 -1/2" TON 250 $30.00 $7,500.00 13 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 160 $2.00 $320.00 14 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN 8618 LIN FT 1700 $8.50 $14,450.00 15 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 16 INLET PROTECTION - PREASSEMBLED EACH 4 $200.00 $800.00 17 SODDING TYPE LAWN SO YD 6100 $300 $18,300.00 SUBTOTAL $159,687.50 CONTINGENCIES 10% $15970.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 75,657-5-Ojl ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $31 620.00 TOTAL - ROADWAY 207 277.50 STORM SEWER 18 12" RC PIPE SEWER CL V DESIGN 3006 (STORM) LIN FT 250 $27.00 q$2,000.00 19 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SD -1 EACH 4 $1,500.00 20 CATCH BASIN CASTING ASSEMBLY R- 3067 -V (STORM SEWER) EACH 4 $500.00 21 12" RCP APRON W /TRASH GUARD EACH 2 $600.00 22 RIP RAP CL III EACH 10 $50.00 ,. $500.00 SUBTOTAL $16,450.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $1,650.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $18,100.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $3,260.00 TOTAL -STORM SEWER $21 360.00 Page 8 of 10 AL 1 LHNATE 4 SANITARY SEWER 23 8" SANITARY SEWER PVC SDR 35 LIN FT 570 $20.00 24 SANITARY MANHOLE EACH 4 $2,000.00 ,400.00 25 MANHOLE CASTING ASSEMBLY A -7 SANITARY SEWER EACH 4 $500.00 ,000.00 4 $23 SUBTOTAL ,000.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) ,400.00 140,00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) ,540.00 $4 240,00 TOTAL - SANITARY SEWER $27 780.00 SEWER SERVICE (EACH): LOWE, HRON, MARSCHALL 26 E SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 55 $30.00 $1,650.00 27 E EACH 1 $75.00 $75.00 L ENP $1,725.00 ENCIES 10% $17 0.00 TIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% 5.00 TOTAL - PER EACH 0.00 TOTAL - ALL SERVICES (X3 ) 5.00 5.00 SEWER SERVICE: DuBOIS 28 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 - TIN FT 40 0.00 A 29 CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 1 SUBTOTAL .00 CONTINGENCIES 10% .00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST . 00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) .00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: DuBOIS .00 1 950.00 SEWER SERVICE: SEXTON 30 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 40 $30.00 $1,200.00 31 4"X8" WYE EACH 1 $75.00 $75.00 SUBTOTAL $1,275.00 CONTINGENCIES (70%) $130.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,405.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $250.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: SEXTON $1,655.00 SEWER SERVICE: PISTULKA 32 4" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 60 $30.00 $1,800.00 33 4 "X8" WYE EACH 1 $75.00 $75.00 SUBTOTAL $1,875.00 CONTINGENCIES (10% $190.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,065.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18% $370.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: DUBOIS $2,435.00 SEWER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES 34 6" PVC PIPE SEWER SERVICE, SDR 26 LIN FT 60 $32.00 $1,920.00 35 6"X8" WYE EACH 2 $100.00 $200.00 SUBTOTAL $2,120.00 CONTINGENCIES 10 %) $210.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,330.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $420.00 TOTAL - SEWER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES $2 Page 9 of 10 ALTERNATE 4 WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 1 36 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 37 6" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 45 $21.00 $945.00 38 8" DIP, CL 52 INCLUDING FITTINGS LIN FT 375 $23.00 $8,625.00 39 8" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 1 $850.00 $850.00 40 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CU YD 150 $15.00 $2,250.00 41 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SQ YD 850 $3.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES 10% j TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST S$20730.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% TOTAL - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 1 WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 2) 42 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 43 6" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 770 $21.00 $16,170.00 44 6" HYDRANT j EACH 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 45 6" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 5 $800.00 $4,000.00 46 CLEARING AND GRUBBING j ACRES 0.2 $40,000.00 $8,000.00 47 ROCK EXCAVATION (EV) CU YD 200 $80.00 $16,000.00 SUBTOTAL $48,920.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $4,890.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $53,810.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18 %) $9,690.00 TOTAL - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 2 $63,500.00 WATERMAIN (SEGMENT 3 48 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 49 8" DIP, CL 52 (INCLUDING FITTINGS) LIN FT 380 $23.00 $8,740.00 50 8" GATEVALVE AND BOX EACH 2 $850.00 $1,700.00 51 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV ) CU YD 150 $15.00 $2,250.00 52 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SO YD 850 $3.00 3.00 $2,550.00 SUBTOTAL $15,990.00 CONTINGENCIES 10 %) j $1,600.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $17,590.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $3170.00 TOTAL - WATERMAIN SEGMENT 3 20,760.00 WATER SERVICE (EACH): LOWE, HRON. MARSCHALL, DuBOIS 1 53 1" CORPORATION STOP j EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 54 1" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 55 1" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 30 $20.00 $600.00 SUBTOTAL $950.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $100.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,050.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 18% $190.00 TOTAL - PER EACH $1,240.00 TOTAL - ALL SERVICES (X4) $4 960.00 WATER SERVICE: SEXTON j 56 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 57 1" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 58 1" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 30 $20.00 $600.00 SUBTOTAL $950.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $100.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,050.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $190.00 TOTAL - WATER SERVICE: SEXTON S1.240.00 WATER SERVICE: PISTULKA 58 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 59 1" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 60 1" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 45 $20.00 $900.00 SUBTOTAL $1,250.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $130.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,380.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18%) $250.00 TOTAL- WATER SERVICE: PISTULKA $1,630.00 WATER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES 61 2" CORPORATION STOP EACH 2 $200.00 $400.00 62 2" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 2 $200.00 $400.00 63 2" COPPER PIPE, TYPE K LIN FT 100 $22.00 $2,200.00 SUBTOTAL $3,000.00 CONTINGENCIES (10 %) $300.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $3,300.00 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (18 %) $590.00 TOTAL - WATER SERVICE: RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES $3,890.07 TOTAL - ALL SECTIONS - ALTERNATE 4 $388,622.50 Page 10 of 10 O O 0 �i O w F— C Z G Vi �� w o 0 Z N U- N 0 ui Lu w ~ Z _ R w W F Il J Z W Q - W >0Z0 w =¢ina IL o E- in 0) a Lu m n W ()MM Q O O LL z Z O w LL o0m0000 C) C) co m u) W D rvN Cw C>11 NMNO mNr �.., u) u) h N N O O O 0 0 0 cc7 Z ONO u'1 m toOOOOO 0) to 00 m - w c0 v O O fR 69 64 fR 64'A n ��N'cf'nO CD u.I X Z W Cl) 1leD N m N co J LL F O VI' O N W 'o 04 69 69-4 W G N rn r W LL U) Y O LL a I J F., m F- Q y W F- CL o O LL u7 0— F- I .- LL to O W W ix w 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Z U lU)z Z W Q W W a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z0 =°'Q� U 0: n' ?Z 0 o o a o 0 jxWjxx QaQQra,� = '1t O N V 0t N N CO 6> 6i 6H ff> d> O u~ LU ~�00 Q a LL W X 69696969 69 (f> d> 69 H W N L O w aaaaZF= ww Z j W� W �LU LL, Z >> W > I --w a O Q Z Z » zz Q Z = w�Q W> W W W y~ 00 »` »LLI Z2S3:w O V V 0 0 0 Q Q J= F LO < r< r N M c0 O OO==JF zzr- O m o -O Q`i' QWWWWWw W W W W W W 69 Q% w w mm in = Ucn Z Y J000000 LL M LL LL LL LL t-- C) O 4 of Of ww �pwmX�QQQQQQ w Z N p 69 Y Y Y Y Y Y W ?�Ofl�Q O o O O O O O o wmxxxxxx O O 0 0 O O 0 0 Uo lo cfiUjOO0006Oui 'a aJ =2 o o 0a-W W 000 M w Q Z w F- J Q a rnmmmc <mrncnm�0o00 OQc3 O �.., u) u) h N N O O O 0 0 0 cc7 Z ONO u'1 m toOOOOO 0) to 00 m - w c0 v O O fR 69 64 fR 64'A n ��N'cf'nO Cl) 1leD N m N co N VI' O N W 'o 04 69 69-4 6n G N rn U) a I J F- O F- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U o 0 0 0 0 o o a o 0 o a = '1t O N V 0t N N V (H N 6> 6i 6H ff> d> O M 0 W X 69696969 69 (f> d> 69 N W Q M m O V V 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 LU t0 to r I�co rcp m N000000 c000000 c0 O O O 6 O m o W o ro r- � 69 69 fq 69 Q% v m Qm oco zr o Cl) cO N t-- C) O 4 3 co 69 69 r '-'T 69 69 69 69 < fA N69 O GQ W O O O O O o O O O O O o O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 Uo lo cfiUjOO0006Oui o ui co u) o co o o o C OO M M M f96969696q 6A C9 69� � cp V NN N M M LL V N N N N V5 69 r U , 696969 K>w a z Q rn co O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 } b9 69 69 69 69 EH EA f9 V> 6% 69 M m n N F- 69 69 Z Q U) � cDmmmOo000o0 r mmmN Lo OOOO O CO 000000000 t-: m 0; O o 0 0 N O U J c o co o O O o 0 o 0 M 69 c) Cl i 69 v> 69 4091 40?. 69 O V 69 N V> 69 I N 69 cT O F- U) V O N r- r- 0 0 0 O 0 0 O F- r- 0 c O O 0 M V Cl) Co o M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 h r W � K> r N N CfJ H> 69 fR 6% 69 W V) Lo - - � V - N N cU O u) 6> 64 64 6> 69 4 N J Q Z Z g Z 0 LUw0 O z � O aW O LL ° §ui Q J r N M 0 U) H z W Q x Q W W W O it wm m Urn ZYn.LLLLo J000 O J p. W w Z U 0� O Y Y Y F Q O 3 O Of m x~ 0 0 0 a F- of ?00 wS2===w0 LLaJ =MO [D a rnrnrn OF - w Q Z w F- J Q N w Q Z w w f- J Q 9 co IL r tn <mrncnm�0o00 F - m MN co co M��000 WY Z N 1: u'1 m Cl) co 0) to 00 m - w m^ ON m 40 'V' ao Cl) N W� N 'ct V VI' N 0) W fA 64 ba 69 69-4 6n 64 M rn U) J F- O F- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. U o o 0 0 0 0 o C o 0 0 0 m V c0 N 'ct V' N N 'cl cam- N M 69 cp tR 69 6e M cp M N H> 69 69 (f> d> 69 W Q LO C O O M M N c D ( 0 0 0 0 0 LU N M W N c0 M ue M N c0 VrcO c0 O O O 6 O O W o W ocor odo m 6a fq V'm F - j N e (6 o Cl) cO N t-- C) O 4 69 69 69 69 69 < fA N O 69 r W 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O U o ui co u) o co o o o C OO M M M cn CV 6A C9 69 to � cp r NNN oDr M W N N 69 6> N N 64 69 IZ N 69 U3. V5 69 r U , z Q m 000000000000 O O O O O m r 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 m O O C o O } 69 6% 6, 6% 69 N W fA 6 69 69 W M m n N F" 69 69 Z Q coommmmr m r mmmN Lo OOOO M O u 7 t-: m 0; O o 0 0 cco 69� mm �� O M V> 6H 6F> T- n � �646 69 N O F- r) V ON O r'- N M mcU M N m r n 0000 O O O O P W W a�O�N � N V r c 69 6 N V) Lo - - � In N cU O 69 69 69 69 69 4 N J Q zZz 2 p OF O z <LL °W 0 ° �ui� O J r N M 0 O �W = ,, Z �amm 0 W LLwwZCn5FOYYYF m U 0-1000 J =Q O �OOmX� QQQaF- � =wCxxxwo LLEJx�grna(ntnt�OF- N w Q Z w w f- J Q 9 co IL c L F C L t LDmvmrnoCDvOC.a t0 N O O M M M Q1 0 0 �... 4 ID O M M O O O O O O O Z M N C A O i c r O o m 0 C] Lo N W W N" LO ' ntoW r- O W 64 4 'r 2 N 0 CA CO V' V CO r- (D LD M 04 i ' n Va oD co N N M I- h M M M N O O O N FR N N FAQ to (A 64 (A 64N w� In rn a J F- F- O F O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C.) 00000000 cD 000 > 26 N N N N o% V3 6T V> to b9 W W u� 6 cs> v3 00 W W Q 0 coo MM NCO co 0000 co m It V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uj CD t• LD B co c0 W O CD 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 Ln o F 7 C 0:I 6,69 VT 'l, 4% m O Q co O co co r . 4 m N Oa M O r 3 co V! 6c, 6`1 a; 1 V3 Vj V3 N O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o W O O O O O O O O O O O O Uom O m mc)0000OOLn O O O O O O O UoMM LD M M M -Ir Vi V3 CH CR V# 69. m Uj N N N N N N CD N N U, M (A Ni fR Vf O U) v316% EA f!> 64 O V V' N V3 N N 6% 6 N; 6a V3 � N V3 6 lY F- Z a N Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O } EA EFY V3 V> W. 61, 6'J (A V# VT 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 o O• H V3 V3 .61> V3 NO W fA 69 di V! w Z M M N a VD. V3 N Q O O Lo O O N O O O o h M O M CA QJ O O M 0 0 0 0 V OONOOO O O CO CO co o a o O N 61). O tli -11 'V W O Vj V3 O V) O EA 6 r N N 0 It N N t- 0 w X 0 w V3 V3 69 6 N V Ili M V# 1CY 6s M N W. C h 69. O F- y F- N O W It It 0 0 r 0 0 o 0 tn m O CD co O O LD O O O M F�ociO0000moacr- V'O V r- 00 O 000MO0 (W o b9 S cD M -Ir u3. CAM V>Viw R a IY O O O CO N r O O O W CC! V >OMMN OIR -:. cl U) V3 V! 6H N� 6? � O _ J J 0, 69 V> Vi 64 V3 64 a 0; N J I-- � Z ...I Z �w0 2 zZz z O0 d W a z W a W O. 0 J rN M } 0 J W W W U U Z d d a F- 7 W W 2 Z Y U D wm Ucn J000 J 1 awW ED Zcnp,�YY00a C) 0 J YYYFQ O �o�mx�aaaaF- - D a >_Owa �w�?xxxw0 =xxw0 CLOf -j O�nacnvoInUi - c L F C L t u f' u F s O N a (h t0 N O O M M M Q1 0 0 F O M n N N_ O h 0 0 �- O O Z 1 r M O o N M w V 6 N W W 1` M O N r- O W M M V' N N 0 t q CA N CA CO V' V CO r- (D LD M 04 i ' n Va CO w ti HT N M M M M M N Cb V) w VT /A yr M to (A (R 69 (A M a J F- O F- O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (u O S O O O O O O O O R U_ 0 ONN 0 0 'IT 0 0 NNN 0 0 CO 0 0 ����� 0 0 0 W us v; vs e3 es � to R' W a 0 coo MM NCO co 0000 N M CO M M N 0 0 0 0 O O O O O W --0c C 0:I V �'-W -: CO 60.Q�V M f m O Q CO CD c0000 m N Oa 3 N V3 E9 �- Vj V3 N O V3 64 V3 fR Vd �- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a W O O O O O O O O O O O O UoMM LCiLri LD M M M In U, M (A Ni fR Vf (A �� N Cl N O O V V' N V3 N N 6% 6 N; 6a V3 � N V3 6 F- 2 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 o O• } V3 V3 .61> V3 NO W fA 69 di V! w a M M N F- VD. V3 Z Q h 0 0 CO O O CO CO CD co O o CO O n M M W O N 0 0 0 N 0 It t- 0 w X 0 0 [O O 6% O O N V Ili M O r LD O 1CY 6s M t0 M C h 69. O F- tn V'O V r- 00 O 000MO0 LD CD M N Cl! LD R ID f- I` o V M M N O CO O O r W CC! V >OMMN OIR -:. cl a' M O O N� � O _ CMO 0, 69 V> Vi 64 V3 64 VT VT 0; N J a ...I 2 zZz W W O_ O z W a W O. 0 a �W�cn I 0 co 0 F- y �Z S QQ ZYaa a wWZ0)� ED C) 0 J YYYFQ I - D �02?ow<=3W =xxw0 ;a�Jx�nv�alnv)U) OF- u f' u F s O N a CQ FM 0 ni NO 1-1 c F m W , - qL m m ---I 0 1 co K z V) < p o 0 Z U) C z Z (P m Z, Z X m : -i 0 m Z V) > Z K z m U) < m m --< m 0 0 CC) -< z m U) ;v m --i -< :< rn 0 z c: 0 C- 0 m oz Fn C- > Z ADAMS STREET 0 m FT z z Z7 C m Z m Cf) > m X > 0 m x FT� FT� NI I\j 0 z 0 M m z c: 0 C- 0 m oz Fn C- > Z ADAMS STREET 0 O m m m ...... o -�. .............. :. Ax co D U) D < n O :.. :. m Z z Z C NCO :r Z r --4 p r C.Z7� Z m D u o G) m O cn c7 > D G7 Z tll O L X ! O O Z Z z ° z m m —m � z :.. :.:: N z cn X m X O m X O 2 cn • m Z O m O m D "-D :CJ m p m m X D C ;N O D Z N M :U Z r m -< m 0 ® p c- c O .Q. N m A { co z _ m : m rn m N :.. O z ':: D 8r• .. ' . • m EX. 9" SAN a +.QO.- ........ .,.... .. 5 r�. 9 . ::............ :: i:::.>..•..:::6 Fpp...::.;..... :::,• •. ; •.. i D X �7 D :• N Z n m :QCn D <. ::.:.:..... �D, c ' r : ... Lfj •• �. � to ;:o ° , ., �,, p ... ,"[. ]'. ..�......... .:... p ,.. ...: ... a rTl Z zD o ,.... ` o' D ! z x C ;• r Z'Q ....� m :;. 0 X o o m : Z :. ; D Z :.. EX.:... 5.... SAN Q EX 12 SAN EX. 15" SAN ................ :::: ,,....... :.$:: :::iA�nAN :: � ....: :: ......... .... ..... : :.. ........5 : ::: :WdvkN I - ::::•: = ADAMS STREET :...,.:. EX. 6" WMN D D MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS M F z --q o �7 C z zmcf) m X D o M —{ m fT1 z 0 x C�J =� (!) Z O M D M m D Z CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Quotes for Tree T rimmin g of Boulevard Trees DATE: July 30, 2001 INTRODUCTION: This agenda item is for City Council to authorize the work for tree trimmin of boulevard trees by utilizing a private contractor. BACKGROUND: In the 2001 Budget, in the Street Division under professional services, an amount of $15,000.00 was budgeted for tree trimmin work. Staff has gone out for quotes and has received three quotes for this type of work. Two quotes were received for the contractor to provide labor, chipper and disposal of tree trimmings with the use of the City's bucket truck. Another quote was received from a contractor utilizing their labor, chipper and bucket truck with a certain dollar value of work. After an analysis of the work and consultation with the City Attorney, staff is recommending to authorize Cole Cuts and Saw Milling, Inc. at the low quote of $50.00 per hour for two persons, the chipper and the use of the City's bucket truck. For the use of the City's bucket truck, the City will charge $40.00 per hour which will be added to the low quote received, making this quote $90.00 per hour. The other quote received of this type would be $120.00 per hour and the contractor using all of his equipment by the hour would be $140.00 per hour. Staff also calculated the cost utilizing its own labor, chipper and bucket truck and this cost would be $145.00 per hour. Staff will be trimming trees, as its schedule does permit, later this fall or winter and is dependent on the weather and available time of labor force. It was intended in the 2001 Budget for a private contractor to supplement the Public Works efforts in tree trimming of the boulevard trees, which there is a significant amount of tree trimming work to be done. 1. 2. Authorize the low quote of Cole Cuts and Saw Milling, Inc. for tree trimmin of boulevard trees and authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement for the work. Authorize a different quote proposed. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Do not authorize any quotes. 1 1 s, Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as there is a significant amount of boulevard trees that do need trimming and the Public Works Department does not have enough staff to adequately meet the needs of work to be done. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the low quote of Cole Cuts and Saw Milling, Inc. for tree trimmin of boulevard trees and authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement for the work. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp TRIMMING This Agreement is made this day of , 2001 by and between Cole -Cuts Portable Saw Mill, Inc., a corporation, ( "Cole ") and the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City's - Recitals 1. The City is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of services to the public, including maintenance of trees and shrubs in city -owned rights -of way; 2. The City has a need for the services provided by Cole; 3. Cole possesses the required experience, knowledge and equipment to perform the required services. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Cole agree as follows: Terms 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES. For the term of this agreement, Cole will trimming services on behalf of the City. tree 2.0 TERM. The term of this contract shall be from August 1, 2001 to December 30, 2001. 3.0 COMPENSATION. Compensation to Cole shall be paid at a rate of $90 per hour; (this rate includes compensation for services and use of tools and Cole's use of City vehicle); this rate will be paid bi- weekly upon receipt of an itemized invoice from Cole. Cole will pay any and all taxes due to Federal, State, or Local governments. The City will not withhold any amounts owed for taxes. 4.0 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. 4.01 Both Cole and the City acknowledge and agree that Cole is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Any employee or subcontractor who may perform services for Cole in connection with this Agreement is also not an employee of the City. Cole understands that the City will not provide any benefits of any type in connection with this Agreement, including but not limited to health or medical insurance, worker's compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. 4.02 Cole will supply and use his own equipment and tools to complete the services under this Agreement. 4.03 Cole will receive general instructions from the City Public Works Supervisor regarding areas in need of tree trimming services. Cole acknowledges that this general instruction from the City has no effect on his status as an independent contractor. MDT- 200933v1 SH155 -23 5.0 STANDARDSTOR WORK PERFORMANCE. All work performed by Cole shall be in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws. 6.0 TRANSPORTATION. Cole will lease a City vehicle for purposes of the services under this Agreement. - 7.0 INSURANCE. Cole shall be responsible for maintaining automobile insurance coverage for all vehicles used in connection with work under this Agreement, including any City vehicles. Cole shall provide evidence of auto coverage in the amount of not less than $ 1,000,000 for a combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage and general liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000 per occurrence. Cole shall name the City as an additional insured under its commercial general liability policy. 8.0 'S COMPENSATION. 8.01 By executing this Agreement, Cole certifies that it will comply with the provisions of the Worker's Compensation Statute as an independent contractor before commencing the performance of work under this Agreement. 8.02 Cole will provide its own worker's compensation insurance and will provide evidence to the City of such coverage. 9.0 INDEMNIFICATION. Cole shall hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including defense, settlement, and reasonable attorney's fees) for claims as a result of bodily injury, loss of life, property damage and any other damages arising out of the performance of services provided by Cole under this Agreement. 10.0 ASSIGNMENT. Cole may not assign this Agreement or procure the services of another individual or company to provide services under this Agreement without first obtaining the express written consent of the City. 11.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and no other agreement prior to or contemporaneous with this Agreement shall be effective, except as expressly set forth or incorporated herein. Any purported amendment to this Agreement shall not be effective unless it is set forth in writing and executed by both parties. 12.0 NO WAIVER BY CITY. By entering into this Agreement, the City does not waive its entitlement to any immunities, either by statute or common law. 13.0 TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time, for any reason. MDT- 200933vl SH 155 -23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year written above. CITY OF •' By Its Mayor, Jon Brekke By Its City Administrator, Mark McNeill By Its City Clerk, Judith Cox COLE-CUTS PORTABLE ffm MDT- 200933vl SH155 -23 a Cole-Cuts Portable Saw Mill - Logs, Lm ber & Fire Wood 6/18/01 City of Shakopee Attn: Mike Hullander (Pinky) ph;496 -3179 This is a bid concerning tree trimming in the cit of Shakopee. 1 man w /chain saw and the use of the city's bucket truck. $25.00 per hour 2 men w1chian saw,dump truck & chipper and the use of the city's bucket truck. $50.00 per hour All insurance information will be provided on request.: 3841 200th Street East . Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 ® (612) 447 - 1355'' JO PHONE We hereby submit specifications and estimates, subject to all terms and conditions as set forth, on bot sides. as follows Insured as Tree Trimmers SAS G G , (Read Reverse Side) 'Me 11roplige hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: dollars ($ ) Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within days . Signatui � Arreptih: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted.You Signature are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date Signature 10/11/1397 13:36 S-72 TALL TD T RL - -- FAGE 01 I .Z pert ` N k „ h �����? iJ .�` 39 _�A. '.95 474 4 2� 'A C 44 JIF�ON I 7:5 To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Date: 2 August, 2001 Subject: Extension of Probationary Period for Recreation Supervisor 1w INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to extend the probationary period for John Lehner, Recreation Supervisor, for a period of up to 90 days. BACKGROUND John Lehner was hired January 31, 2001. His original probationary period was scheduled to end July 30, 2001. In order to fully evaluate Mr. Lehner's performance, an extension of his probationary period of up to 90 days is needed. Due to the timing of the end of his probationary period and City Council meetings, I notified Mr. Lehner of our intent to extend his probationary period on July 30, 2001. REQUESTED ACTION If City Council concurs, move to authorize the extension of John Lehner's probationary period for up to 90 days, effective July 30, 2001. Mark Themig Facilities and Recreation Director 30 July, 2001 Mr. John Lehner 10820 Direct River Drive Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433 Subject: 90 -Day Probationary Period Extension Dear7ohn: This letter is to inform you that we are extending your probationary for a period of up to 90 days. Please sign this letter to indicate that you have received this information. Sincerely, Mark Themig Facilities and Recreation Director Signed: 1 Date: 7� COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 1255 Fuller Street - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 -1351 m 952 -233 -3830 e FAX 952- ivwwv d.shakopee.mn.us - park.-,@d.shakopee.=.us 9 � B E , CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Date: 2 August, 2001 Subject: Extension of Probationary Period for Recreation Supervisor INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to extend the probationary period for John Lehner, Recreation Supervisor, for a period of up to 90 days. BACKGROUND John Lehner was hired January 31, 2001. His original probationary period was scheduled to end July 30, 2001. In order to fully evaluate Mr. Lehner's performance, an extension of his probationary period of up to 90 days is needed. Due to the timing of the end of his probationary period and City Council meetings, I notified Mr. Lehner of our intent to extend his probationary period on July 30, 2001. REQUESTED ACTION If City Council concurs, move to authorize the extension of John Lehner's probationary period for up to 90 days. Mark Themig Facilities and Recreation Director 30 July, 2001 Mr. John Lehner 10820 Direct River Drive Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433 Subject: 90 -Day Probationary Period Extension Dear John: This letter is to inform you that we are extending your probationary for a period of up to 90 days. Please sign this letter to indicate that you have received this information. Sincerely, r Mark Themig Facilities and Recreation Director Signed: Date COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 2857 1255 Fuller Street o Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 -1351 e 952 - 233 -3830 ® FAX 952 -233 -3531 wwmci_shakopee.mn.us e parks @ci.shakopee.mn.us CITY OF SHAKOPEE "" 74. SENT Memorandum cun TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Hiring of Engineering Technician IV DATE: August 7, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Interviews have been held with two candidates for the Engineering Technician positions that are open in the Engineering Department. At this time, staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the hiring of Jim Henderson to fill the Engineering Technician IV position. BACKGROUND: Mr. Henderson is currently a Senior Engineering Technician for Mn /DOT and has previously worked for the U.S. Army for 25 years as a combat engineer. I am recommending Mr. Henderson be hired at Step 4 of the 2001 Pay Plan for the Engineering Technician IV position. Also, staff is recommending that Mr. Henderson be given four years of vacation measurement due to his previous experience. According to the City's Personnel Handbook, Section V, Paragraph C2, the measurement of years of service is calculated to be each twelve months of employment with the City of Shakopee as one year of employment for the purpose of vacation leave. The Council may have an option of giving new employees credit for each twelve months of related employment with another employee, which may be counted as up to one -half year of employment. Mr. Henderson has worked for the U.S. Army for over 25 years and Mn/DOT for three years. Staff is recommending the previous years of service be utilized for the purpose of vacation leave measurement and this amount is four years as agreed upon by the candidate. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the hiring of Jim Henderson for the position of Engineering Technician IV starting at Step 4 of the Non -Union Pay Plan ($44,012.00/Yr.) effective August 27, 2001, subject to the successful completion' employment physical and background check. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the hiring of Jim Henderson for the position of End Technician N starting at Step 4 of the Non -Union Pay Plan ($44,012/Yr.), August 27, 2001, with the vacation accrual based on four years of service due to related experience, and subject to the successful completion of a pre -emx physical and background check. race Loney Public Works D for of a pre- BI/pmp HENDERSON /5 r-. 1. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Hall/Public Services Building Reroofing Contracts DATE: August 2, 2001 At the meeting of August 7 it is expected that the Council will be asked to acce of, and award a contract to a roofing vendor, or vendors, relative to the City Hall Public Services building reroofing contract. a bid At its meeting of July 10 the City Council approved the plans and specifications put together by JEA Architects for reroofing of the City Hall building, and for the reroofing, and minor remodeling of the Public Services building (Public Works and Police). Notices of the advertisement were made, and on July 25 a pre -bid meeting was held at both buildings. At the pre -bid conference, approximately eight prospective bidders attended. Bids were opened at 1:30 on Friday, August 3 Architect Jack Anderson will be reviewing those bids, and a recommendation will be on the table at the August 7th City Council meeting. The bids were structured so that the City has the greatest flexibility in awarding the bids — the contract could go to two separate low bidders, or one single combined low bid. BUDGET IMPACT: The architect's estimate for these two projects were $240,000 for City Hall, and $380,000 for the Public Services building. Funding for these two projects is to come from the Building Fund. 1 1 �5 A recommendation will be made at the Council meeting of August 7th Depending upon the recommendation, the Council should, by motion, direct that contracts be entered into with the successful bidders for the City Hall and Public building reroofing contracts. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th IS-F. 1. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: 15.F.1. Reroofing Contracts DATE: August 7, 2001 The Council is asked to award a contract for the reroofing of the Public Services Hall reroofing contracts to Swickter Roofing of Mankato. On Friday, August 3 bids were opened by JEA Architects and City staff for the Services Building (Police and Public Works) Reroofing and Remodeling Contrac" the Shakopee City Hall Reroofing Contract. City Public and Thirteen firms held plans, and about a dozen individuals attended a pre -bid conference on July 25th. However, only two bids were received and opened. They were: Base Bid Base Bid Bidder Public Services Alt. #1 Alt. #2 City Hall Combined Bid Deduct Deduct John A. Dalsin $333,412 ($14,559) ($29,689) $152,521 $485,933 Deduct Deduct Swickter Roofing $319,820 ($14,710) ($24,328) $123,970 $443,790 Note that the deduct alternates related to the addition of skylights in two areas of the Public Works building. The deduct alternates were added when there was concern about the overall cost. However, the bid prices are good, and will make for a more energy efficient, as well as pleasant place to work. JEA Architects indicated that the relatively large number of plans holders might have deterred some prospective bidders from participating; others indicated later that they were too busy to bid. Overall, JEA Architects felt that in spite of the low number, these were good bids.' Estimates for the Public Services building was in the $340,000 to $380,000 range (the difference being with or without sky lights). The City Hall original estimate was $250,000; however, that included a significant amount of mechanical work that was earlier thought to be needed. With the mechanical work eliminated, an updated City Hall estimate would have been in the $167,000 range. CHANGE ORDERS: As this is dealing with retrofitting much "in place" roofing, the architect has indicated that the City should be prepared for a larger number of change orders than would' otherwise happen for new construction. He recommends anticipating up to 20% for change orders for City Hall, and 10% for the Public Services building. Architect Fees Two meetings ago, action was tabled that would have added to the "not to exceed" portion of the architect fees for the Public Services to compensate for additional skylights and a internal roof drain system which hadn't been anticipated originally. The original "not to exceed" architect fees for the Public Services building was $30,500. We are recommending that an additional $4,500 be approved to compensate for the additional design work done for the skylights and internal roof drain system. It is possible that this additional will not be needed; however, rather than bring it back to Council separately in the future, Council is being asked to approve it at this time. B GET IMPACT: The two contracts are to be funded through the building fund. Originally, $610,000 had been earmarked for that; the actual amount of the combined bid ($443,790) is well below that amount. RECD NDATION: I recommend that a contract be entered into with Swickter Roofing for a combined bid totaling $443,790. Swickter has done roofing work for the City before and we are comfortable with the quality of their work. I further recommend that change orders of up to 20% be authorized for City Hall, and up to 10% be authorized for Public Services, without having to come back to City Council. Finally, I recommend that an additional $4,500 in compensation for architect fees be approved for the additional skylight and roof drain work in the Public Services building. F.TOWIMI nDIGIBILM If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the following actions be That appropriate City officials enter into a contract with Swickter Roofing for the Public Services building reroofing and remodeling contract, and City Hall' reroofing contract, for a combined price of $443,790; 2. That staff be authorized to process change orders of up to 20% of the City Hall base bid amount, and up to 10% of the Public Services building base amount; 3. Authorize additional architectural fees not to exceed $4,500 for extra de; services related to the Public Services building, bringing that total to not $35,000. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th J 5 , Q CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Wampach Property Condemnation DATE: July 25, 2001 The Council is asked to take action to terminate the condemnation proceedings for the three lots owned by the estate of Jerome K. Wampach. BACKGROUND: Last year, after much discussion, it was determined that the preferred site for a new City Hall would be on the block located west of the Stans Museum. There are three vacant lots owned by the Wampach estate, in addition to the Eagles Club, a commercial venture, and residential properties. The CIP adopted last year provided that properties on that block be acquired as they became available. Property owners were advised that if they were actively interested in selling to contact the City; however, action would be phased to acquire this over time. Because the three vacant lots on the eastern end of that site are undeveloped, the Council approached the Wampach estate with an offer based on an appraised amount. That was significantly less than what was determined to be their listing price. In order to arrive at a price, the Council authorized condemnation action to proceed on November 6, 2000. Since then, Commissioners have been appointed to hear the case. However, because a reduction in development fees is anticipated as a result of a slowing economy, and staffing changes within the City will require a greater use of consultants, it is apparent that the schedule which had been anticipated to construct a new Library, Police Station, Public Works expansion, and the City Hall may not be possible, without a referendum or other source of funding. In looking at all the options available, it appears that a substantial cost savings could be made if the Council chose to construct the City Hall on the Gorman Street property (currently under condemnation action for a Police Station site). In addition to reduced acquisition costs for the land, there are also shared facilities at a City Hall and Police building that might be able to be realized. Conversely, there was great interest during the discussion last year to keep City Hall in the "true" downtown area. A change to the Gorman Street location would negate that. However, in order to be fair to the Wampach family, and reduce the City's acquisition costs for that property, it is recommended that the Council take action to cease the eminent domain proceedings against the Wampach estate. If approved, the other property owners on the block would be notified that the City was no longer interest in acquiring their properties. BUDGET IMPACT: If terminated, the City will be responsible for any out of pocket expenses incurred by the Wampach family relative to the condemnation proceedings. The amount of those is unknown at this time. After reviewing the City facilities portion of the Capital Improvements Program, should the Council later choose to acquire the site in question, it can refile the condemnation proceedings at a relatively small cost. I recommend that the Council take action to terminate condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of the vacant lots owned. by the Wampach estate. • ' § ' 1 If the Council concurs, it should, adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 5564 A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 5440 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT D Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th CITY OF •• RESOLUTION NO. 5564 • • • tj Uy 11 k0 1 01 1 , • WHEREAS, on November 6, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 5440, authorizing the City Attorney to acquire fee simple title to Lots 4, 5, 6, and Block 32, City of Shakopee by the exercise of the power of eminent domain; and WHEREAS, the City has identified an alternative site that will adequately accommodate the needs for the construction of a future city hall; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it no longer needs to acquire the lots in Block 32 and that it is in the best interest of the City to discontinue the eminent domain proceedings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee that Resolution No. 5440, Authorizing Acquisition of Property by Eminent Domain, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, held this day of , 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk WHEREAS, on November 6, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5440, authorizing the City Attorney to acquire fee simple title to Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7,' Block 32, City of Shakopee by the exercise of the power of eminent domain; and WHEREAS, the City has identified an alternative site that will adequately accommodate the needs for the construction of a future city hall; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it no longer needs to acquire the lots in Block 32 and that it is in the best interest of the City to discontinue the eminent domain proceedings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 5440, Authorizing Acquisition of Property by Eminent Domain, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appropriate city officials are to pay to the property owner the costs and fees required by law. Adopted in Shakopee, held this day of session of the City Council of the City of .2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum C 0 Ail S ,�- N A ! T TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Councilor Morke Resignation DATE: July 25, 2001 The Council is asked to adopt a resolution accepting the resignation of Gary l his membership on the Shakopee City Council, effective December 31, 2001. • : III - 1 At the City Council meeting of July 24 Councilman Morke submitted a letter to the Mayor, with copies to the Council, announcing that he will be moving from the City of Shakopee in 2002, and therefore, wished to tender his resignation in such a manner that the voters of Shakopee could determine his replacement. Upon review by the City Attorney, it had been determined that if Councilor Morke submitted his resignation effective no later then December 31, 2001, and that if the City Council adopted a resolution accepting his resignation before the opening of the filing period for Council candidates, Councilor Morke's position could be filled by voters in a Special Election which could be held simultaneously with the General Election of November 6th It is my understanding from all involved that the desires are to have the voters fill; the vacancy at the same time as the other Council and Mayoral seats are determined at the November General Election. The City Attorney recommends that the resignation be accepted by means of I recommend that the Council accept the resignation. If the Council concurs, it should adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 5565 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WITH REGRET THE RESIGNATION OF GARY MORKE FROM MEMBERSHIP ON THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2001 Mark McNeill City Administrator MMAh July 24, 2001 Mayor Jon Brekke Dear Mayor Jon Brekke: SUBJECT: RESIGNATION D e�3l o Zov lya -�'t'l I am submitting resignation from Shakopee City Council effective I am getting married in the spring of 2002 and will be moving to Edina. I am submitting my resignation now to allow the citizens of Shakopee to choose my replacement through election th fal I_ I have enjoyed my time serving the citizens of Shakopee and will always keep an eye on Shakope it grows. Sincerely, Gary orke cc: City Council: Robert Sweeney, Deb Amundson, Cletus Link City Administrator: Mark McNeill City Clerk: Judy Cox as RESOLUTION NO. 5565 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WITH REGRET THE RESIGNATION OF GARY MORKE FROM MEMBERSHIP ON THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2001 WHEREAS, on July 24, 2001, Gary Morke notified the Mayor and City i of his intent to resign from the position of City Councilmember, that he has held January 1, 2000; and WHEREAS, the reason for his resignation was outlined in a letter dated July 24 citing his intent to move from the City because of his impending marriage; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of Councilor Morke to allow the voters of Shakopee to determine his replacement; and WHEREAS, upon advice of the City Attorney, a vacancy caused by resit effective no later than December 31, 2001, can be decided by voters at a Special to be held simultaneously with November 6, 2001; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council of the City of Shakopee to hold a Special Election concurrent with the General Election for other City Council and Mayor vacancies on November 6, 2001; and WHEREAS, Gary Morke has served the City of Shakopee in many capacities, including his service on the Planning Commission, the Community Access Corporation, the Economic Development Authority, in addition to the two years on the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is with regret, but also with gratitude and congratulations that the City Council accepts the resignation of Gary Morke from membership on the City Council, effective December 31, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the resignation of Gary Morke from membership on the Shakopee City Council, effective December 31, 2001, is accepted. Adopted in session of the City council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held the day of , 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk is p Y CTrY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Calling A Special Election to Fill A Vacancy in July 26, 2001 INTRODUCTION• f ice City Council is asked to adopt the attached resolution calling for a special election to fill the vacancy that will occur on December 31, 2002 due to the recent resignation of Councilor Morke.' BACKGROUND: At the regular Council meeting on July 24, 2001, Councilor Gary Morke submitted a letter to City Council announcing his resignation from the City Council effective December 31, 2001. Since the remainder of his term is more than two years, state law; provides that a special election must be held to fill the unexpired portion of his term. The attached resolution sets the special election for November 6, 2001, the same date as the regular city election. City Council will need to determine when to canvass the results of the special election and insert that date in paragraph 7. The results must be canvassed within seven days after the election. (The Council meeting on November 6 th may not start until 8' p.m., after the polls close.) RECOMMENDED ACTION: After determining the date and time to canvass the results: Offer Resolution No. 5566, A Resolution of the City of Minnesota, Calling A Special Election to Fill A Vacancy and move its adoption. I:\ clerk \jeanette \elections \Memospecelec election .axopee, Office, Im WHEREAS, in November 1999, Gary Morke was elected to serve a four -year term as City Councilmember; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Morke resigned on July 24, 2001, effective December 31, 2001; and WHEREAS, under Minn. Stat. Sec. 412.02, because more than two years remain in Councilmember Morke's unexpired term, a special election must be held to fill the unexpired portion of his term. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TBE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That a special election shall be held at the next regular city election to fill the unexpired portion of Mr. Morke's term. 2. This special election shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City, at a special election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, between the hours of 7- 00a.m. and 8:00 p.m. at the polling places set forth in the Notice of Special Election described in paragraph 4 hereof. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the election to be given as follows: (a) by posting in her office for public inspection a copy of the notice set forth in paragraph 4; (b) by publication of the notice in the official newspaper of the City, once each week for two successive weeks, starting the time of the election, the location of each polling place, and the office to be filled; (c) by publication of a sample ballot in the official newspaper of the municipality, at least one week before the election; and (d) by posting a sample ballot in her office for public inspection at least four days prior to the election and in each polling place on election day. 4. The Notice of Special Election to be published and posted as provided in paragraph 3 above shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF ! FOR COUNCIL MEMBER TO FELL VACANCY IN TERM ENFRUNG DECEMBER 00 CITY OF •• • rr TOWTO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special election will be held in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., for the purpose of voting for a council member to fill a vacancy in term expiring December 31, 2003. The polling places for said election shall be as follows: Precinct Number Polling Place First Precinct Fire Station — 334 West 2 nd Avenue Second Precinct Shakopee Public Library — 235 South Lewis Third Precinct Presbyterian Church — 909 So. Marshall Rd_ Fourth Precinct Fire Station — 2788 Vierling Drive East Fifth Precinct Shakopee Community Youth Building — 1121 West 11 Avenue (Lion's Park) Sixth Precinct Fire Station — 2788 Vierling Drive East Seventh Precinct Faith Lutheran Church — 150 West 130 Street (CR 78 and CR 79) Eighth Precinct Calvary United Methodist Church — 2488 Vierling Drive East Any qualified voter residing in the City may vote at said election, at the polling place for the precinct in which the voter resides. Dated: BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Judith S. Cox, City Clerk 5. The sample ballot for the election shall be posted as provided in paragraph 3 be in substantially the following form: ELECTION SPECIAL CITY OF • MINNESOTA NOVEMBER . 11 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: Blacken the oval ( ) opposite the name of the wish to vote for. Use only the pencil provided. FOR • 1 l I: TO FILL VACANCY IN TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 3 1, 2003 shall you 6. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause official ballots to be printed for the use of the voters at the election, which shall be printed on white paper and shall be identical in form with the sample ballot set forth in paragraph 5 above, except that the first line of the official ballot shall read "OFFICIAL BALLOT', and on the back, so as to be visible when the ballot is properly folded for deposit, shall be printed the words "OFFICIAL BALLOT ", the date of the election and the lines for the initials of two judges. 7. The election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by law. On November , 2001, at ) o'clock .m., this Council shall meet as a canvassing board to determine and declare the results appearing from the election returns, in accordance with law. Passed in Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of session of the City Council of the City of -2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant SUBJECT: Patricia Langdon Resignation from the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission and Shakopee C Community Access Corporation MEETING DATE: August 7, 2000 Introduction I received a letter of resignation from Patricia Langdon on July 22, 2001 from the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission and Shakopee Cable Community Access Corporation. Currently, the Cable Access Corporation has been participating in a strategic plan exercise to evaluate their function in the City. Since the outcome of this strategic planning exercise is unknown, but may result in combining the Access Corporatic the Cable Commission, staff does not recommend filing the position on the Cable Corporation or the Cable Commission. Action Required Accept the resignation of Patricia Langdon with regrets from the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission and Shakopee Cable Community Access Corporation. T Management Assi ° e a ti T and 1 July 22, 2001 To the Mayor and members of the Shakopee City Council, Effective immediately due to illness, I am resigning from the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission and the Shakopee Cable Community Access Corporation. I enjoyed the 3+ years serving the community of Shakopee in this Sincerely, Patricia M. Langdon cc: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant 4 116 N., ' It TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Apportionment of Special Assessments for Registered Land Survey No. 176 DATE: August 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION: E City Council is asked to consider adopting the attached Resolution No. 5554, which ap existing special assessments against newly created lots located within Registered Land 176. � i► l No Prior to the platting of Registered Land Survey No. 176, there were existing special assessments against it for the construction of Vierling Drive, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Miller Street, Project No. 1999 -5. Now that the parcels have been subdivided into smaller lots as a result of platting, it is necessary to apportion these assessments against each of the new lots. Resolution No. 5554 apportions the existing special assessments against the newly created lots within the RLS. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 5554, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created As A Result Of The Platting of Registered Land Survey No. 176, and move its adoption. IJapp- spec /memo .RESOLUTION NO. 5554 PARCELS REGISTERED . WHEREAS, on November 21, 2000, Resolution No. 5445 adopted by the City levied assessments against properties benefited by the construction of Vierling Drive, County State Aid Highway 17 to Miller Street, Project No. 1999 -5; and WHEREAS, a parcel known as parcel number 27- 278002 -0 benefited by the improvement, and has been subdivided into Registered Land Survey No. 176; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remain unpaid against parcel number 27- 278002 -0 because of the platting of Registered Land Surve No. 176. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the 2001 payable remaining balance of assessments (to parcel 27- 278002 -0 for construction of Vierling Drive, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Miller Street, Project No. 1999 -5) are hereby apportioned as outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other parts of Resolution No. 5445 shall continue in effect. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 7th day of August, 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Parent Parcels = 27- 278002-0 (Lot 2, Blk 1, Veriing Plaza Levied Amount 27118 City Project 1999 -5 Vierling Dr (C.SA.H. 17- Miller) $ 76,368.73 Total Area [ac] 5.05 $ 15,122.5211acre Area [ac] 27- 323001-0 Render Development, Inc. Tract 2.30 $ 34,781.80 5120 Edina Industrial Blvd RLS # 176 Edina, Minnesota 55435 27- 323002-0 Render Development, Inc. Tract B 1.20 $ 18,147.03 5120 Edina Industrial Blvd RLS # 176 Edina, Minnesota 55435 27- 323003 -0 Render Development, Inc. Tract C 1.55 $ 23,439.90 5120 Edina Industrial Blvd RLS # 176 Edina, Minnesota 55435 TOTAL $ 76,368.73 Page 1 • ` 6 TO: Mark McNeill FROM: James Strommen DATE: August 2, 2001 RE: Utility Franchises in the City of Shakopee Background During 2000, the Council reviewed and considered franchises and franchise fees with the utilities serving gas and electric customers. The Council decided not to impose franchise fees at that time and formed a committee to review the matter further. In the spring of 2001, the committee directed us to prepare a proposed franchise agreement, without a specific franchise fee formula provision, for review by the utilities serving the City and possible adoption by the City Council. The utilities with which the City has statutory authority to enter into franchises include Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative (MVEC), Reliant Energy Minnegasco and Xcel Energy. Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) also serves City residents and businesses but is not subject to City franchise authority. Current Franchise Proposals On May 24, 2001, we submitted a proposed franchise to MVEC, Reliant Energy and Xcel. The franchise terms were identical except for the electric -gas distinctions. The terms of the franchise were greatly simplified because the City had previously adopted a comprehensive right of way management ordinance, Ordinance 570, codified as Section 7.17. This ordinance is the result of the comprehensive 1997 Minnesota right of way legislation and Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules promulgated in 1999. The hallmark of the ordinance is uniformity among all utility users of the right -of -way, including SPUC. The May 24, 2001 proposed franchise is different from earlier franchises in the following respects: 1. It incorporates Section 7.17 and applies it to the franchise between the utility and the City. This is in contrast to earlier franchises that used specific and distinguishable language regarding matters such as location, relocation and restoration of the public ways and public ground. 2. The franchise fee provision is simply a reservation of rights rather than an elaborate summary of a negotiated fee formula and the terms and conditions of its implementation. If the City chooses to impose a franchise fee in the future, the details will be worked out at the time and will be more properly based on the needs and appropriate formulas at the time. If a formula is negotiated JMS- 201116v1 1 SH155 -77 now and the City seeks to implement a franchise fee, e.g. 10 years from now, the formula may no longer be appropriate. To date, I have reached nearly full agreement with MVEC and Reliant. I h, letter objecting to the format of the franchise dated July 13, 2001 from Xcel En responded to that letter with the rationale explained above. At this time there is no partial agreement with Xcel. Recommendation I recommend that the Council adopt the proposed ordinances (MVEC and Re: ordinances attached), with any amendments it deems appropriate as suggested by the discussion at the meeting. Copies of these agreements have been sent to MVEC, Reli received a y. I have - cement or it franchise ilities, after and Xcel. JMS- 201116vl 2 SH155 -77 MES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9233 Email: August 2, 2001 Connie Hargest Reliant Energy Minnegasco 800 LaSalle Avenue P.O. Box 59038 Minneapolis, MN 55459 -0038 Re: Shakopee Franchises Dear Ms. Hargest and Mr. Jabs: Ron Jabs Minnesota Valley Electric Cooper. 125 Minnesota Valley Electric Dri Jordan, MN 55352 This letter is sent to you jointly to ensure consistent communication with each of you and in light of the fact that Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative (MVEC) and Reliant Energy Minnegasco (REM) have proposed nearly identical terms, subject to the differences between a gas and electric utility. Xcel Energy has not submitted proposed amendments to the original franchise sent by the City on May 24, 2001. The City has received and responded to the July 13, 2001 letter of Harold Bagley to the City regarding its proposed franchise. You have indicated that you have reviewed both Mr. Bagley's letter and the City's response. I am also copying Mr. Bagley on this letter with copies of the proposed franchise ordinance to you, so that Xcel is aware of the status of our discussion going in to the August 7, 2001 City council meeting. The enclosed proposed - franchises are written in "clean" form with my comments re( proposed changes in this letter below. As you know, when proposed provisions are ac and modified in the overstrike and underscore form, documents eventually bec unreadable. Because our remaining differences on provisions are minim and be recommend the incorporation of most of your changes, my comments below should be place your respective companies' on notice of the remaining differences that can be add August 7, 2001 council meeting. Accordingly, these are my comments in response proposals of MVEC and REM. Comments Preamble I have no issues with the changes in the preamble included in your proposal incorporated. Definitions The definitional changes you have included pertaining to the name of the addresses are incorporated. aramg your ded, deleted )me almost ,ause I will sufficient to ressed at the to the latest they are "gas" and JMS- 201117v1 SH155 -77 Connie Hargest Ron Jabs August 2, 2001 Page 2 Grant of Franchise Have incorporated an REM- proposed addition regarding the types of services that may be provided by REM to customers within the City, short of full service. I have also enclosed the proposed change that provides for notice of changes to the right -of -way ordinance and the opportunity to negotiate mutually acceptable changes. Further, the City understands that regulations must be 'lawful ". Legal Fees I am simply deleting that provision. Absent an express agreement between the parties, there are no legal fee requirements that the City could impose. I feel this provision is unnecessary. Dispute Resolution I have deleted "equity" because I am comfortable that "law" encompasses all remedies available. Continuation of Franchise. I have deleted the last sentence as you have requested. Location of Facilities. In location, restoration and relocation sections (3.1, 3.2, 4.1), I am simply adding the provision for ease of reference that public ways are governed by City Ordinance Section 7.17. The franchise provision then goes on to deal specifically with public grounds, which are not the subject of the right -of -way ordinance. I have deleted the proposed addition regarding "equal treatment" and reference to field location. Note that Section 237.163, subd. 6(c) and subd. 7(a), incorporated by Section 7.17 deal with equal treatment. There may be some question under subdivision 7 whether this applies to gas and electric companies because of the language. Nevertheless, the City must operate on a uniform basis between and among utilities, subject to their "distinct ... operation." I believe this makes any provision in the franchise ordinance unnecessary. Franchise Fee Reservation of Ri4its I have incorporated your proposal regarding sixty days notice and deleted the nel the fee being in lieu of any permit fees. As you know, we have discussed this and I that and all other franchise fee term issues to the point in time when it is negotiated. Limitation on Applicability I have incorporated your proposed change. iation term of -fer to reserve Previous Franchise Superseded (REM Only). I have simply added a sentence that expands on the original statement to make clear which one franchise expires and the other commences. dates on JMS- 201117v1 SH155 -77 Connie Hargest Ron Jabs August 2, 2001 Page 3 Based on our discussions, it is my understanding that the only remaining items of disagreement or potential disagreement relate to the uniformity amongst energy suppliers and the term of franchise fee in lieu of permit fees. I trust this addresses all of the issues you have raised and I look forward to seeing you at the August 7, 2001 council meeting. Very truly yours, KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED James M. Strommen JMS *ms l Enclosures cc: Harold Bagley (with enclosures) JMS- 201117v1 SH155 -77 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, NIINNESOTA, ORDAINS: For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: City. The City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. City Utility System. Facilities used for providing public utility service owned or operated by City or agency thereof, including sewer, storm sewer, water service, street lighting and traffic signals, but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting, or other forms of energy. Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or agencies, including an agency of the federal government, which preempts all or part of the authority to regulate gas retail rates now vested in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Company. Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative, a Minnesota cooperative association, its successors and assignees that own or operate any part or parts of the Electric Facilities subject to this franchise. Electric Facilities. Electric transmission and distribution towers, poles, coed anchors, conduits, fixtures, and all necessary equipment and appurtenances owned or the Company for the purpose of providing electric energy for public or private use. Non - Betterment Costs. Costs incurred by Company from relocation, rearrangement of Gas Facilities that do not result in an improvement to the Electric Fay Notice. A writing served by any party or parties on any other party or Company shall be mailed to The Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative, 125 JMS- 178096v9 SH155 -77 guys, ed by or Notice to eta Valley 1 Electric Drive, Jordan, Minnesota, 55352. Notice to the City shall be mailed to the City Manager, City of Shakopee, 129 Holmes Street South, Shakopee, MN 55379 -1328. Any party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other parties. Public Way. Public right -of -way within the City 3. tat. 6 237.1 Public Ground. Land owned or otherwise controlled by the City for park, open space or similar public purpose, which is held for use in common by the public. II1 • • at ' 2.1. Grant of Franchise City hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the date this Ordinance is passed and approved by the City, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light, heat and power for public and private use within and through the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company ,may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject however, to such lawful regulations as currently exist under City Ordinance 570, codified as Section 7.17. ( "Section 7.17'). The Company shall be notified 60 days in advance of proposed changes to Section 7.17. The City and Company shall negotiate in good faith to reach mutually acceptable changes. If the City and Company are unable to agree, disputes will be handled under the terms of Section 2.4 of this Ordinance. If a provision of Section 7.17 conflicts with a provision on the same subject in this Ordinance, this Ordinance will control. 2.2. Effective Date, Written Acceptance This franchise shall be in forcf from and after its passage of this Ordinance and publication as required by law and its by Company. If Company does not file a written acceptance with the City within 90 D, date the City Council adopts this Ordinance, or otherwise places the City on written nc time, that the Company does not accept all terms of this franchise, the City Council b, may either repeal this ordinance or seek its enforcement in a court of competent jurisdict 2.3. Publication Expense The expense of publication of this Ordinance by Company. 2.4. Dispute Resolution If either party asserts that the other party is in df performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. Ii is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of th If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 da meeting with the selected mediator, either party may commence an action in Distri interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law. JMS- 178096v9 SH155 -77 and effect , s after the ice, at any resolution be paid ault in the arty of the the parties the dispute iediator to > mediator. after first t Court to 2 2.5. Continuation of Franchise. If the City and the Company are unable to agree on the terms of a new franchise by the time this franchise expires, this franchise will remain in effect until a new franchise is agreed upon, or until 90 days after the City or the Company serves written Notice to the other party of its intention to allow the franchise to expire. 3.1 Location of Facilities Electric Facilities in the Public Ways shall be located, constructed, and maintained in Public Ways under the requirements of Section 7.17 and so as not to disrupt normal operation of any City Utility System. Electric Facilities may be located on Public Grounds as determined by the City. 3.2. Restoration of Ways and Public Ground Restoration of the Public Way shall be governed by Section 7.17. After completing any work requiring the opening of Public Ground, the Company shall restore the Public Ground to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain the surface in good condition for six (6) months thereafter. All work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits. If Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Ground in the said condition and after demand to Company to cure, City shall, after passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, have the right to make the restoration of the Public Ground at the expense of Company. Company shall pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed by the City. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the City for noncompliance with this Section. 3.3. Waiver of Performance Securitv The City hereby waives any requirement for Company to post a construction performance bond, certificate of insurance, letter of credit or any other form of security or assurance that may be required under Section 7.17 currently or in the future. The City reserves all other rights under Section 7.17 to enforce Company performance requirements for work in the Public Way or Public Ground. 3.4. Shared Use of Poles Company shall make space available on its poles or towers for City fire, water utility, police or other City facilities whenever such use will not interfere with the use of such poles or towers by the Company, by another electric utility, by a telephone utility, or by any cable television company or other form of communication company. In addition, the City shall pay any proportionate cost or any added cost incurred by Company and accept any additional liability because of such use by the City. 3.5. avoid Damage to Electric Facilities Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Electric Facilities while performing any activity. JMS- 178096v9 SH155 -77 3 4.1. Relocation of Electric Facilities Relocation of Electric Facilities in Pi: shall be governed by Section 7.17. City may require Company at Company's expense to remove its Electric Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by City that the Electric have become or will become a substantial impairment to the existing or proposed public Grounds. Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ground shall comply with appli ordinances consistent with law. 4.2. Projects with Federal Funding Relocation, removal, or rearranger Company Electric Facilities made necessary because of the extension into or throuE federally -aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statt 161.46, as supplemented or amended. City shall not order Company to remove or Electric Facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a 1 redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal or any agency thereof, unless agreement is made that _the reasonable Non - Betterment C relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom will be paid to Company when the City. The City need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement available. )lic Ways elocate or Facilities use of the ;able City nt of any City of a s, Section :locate its ewal or a of such dlable to it is not 4.3. No Waiver The provisions of Section 4 apply only to Electric Facilities constructed in reliance on a permit or franchise from City and Company does not waive its rights under an easement or prescriptive right or State or County permit. Unless otherwise provided in any permit or other reasonable regulation required by the City under separate ordinance, Company may trim all trees and shrubs in the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City to the extent Company finds necessary to avoid interference with the proper construction, operation, repair and maintenance of any Electric Facilities installed ,hereunder, provided that Company shall save the City harmless from any liability arising therefrom. SECTION 6. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance. SECTION 7. FRANCHISE FEE 7.1. Reservation of Rights The City reserves all rights under Minn. Stat. § 216B.36, to require a franchise fee at any time during the term of this franchise. If the City elects to require a franchise fee it shall notify Company and negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually acceptable fee agreement, which shall be set forth in a separate ordinance and not adopted until at least 60 days after Notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the Company JMS- 178096v9 SH155 -77 4 by certified mail. If the City and Company are unable to agree on a franchise fee or on any terms related thereto, each hereby consents to the jurisdiction of State District Court, Scott County, to construe their respective rights under the law, subject to all rights of appeal. • ' `' This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and its successors and the Company and its successors and permitted assigns, as the only parties. No provision of this franchise shall in any way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the public at large) so as to constitute any such person as a third party beneficiary of the agreement or of any one or more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party hereto. This franchise agreement shall not be interpreted to constitute a waiver by the City of any of its defenses of immunity or limitations on liability under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Either party to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the amended. This Ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsegl declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall bec upon the filing of Company's written consent thereto with the City Clerk within 60 effective date of the amendatory ordinance. Passed and approved: Mayor of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Attest: City Clerk, Shakopee, Minnesota JMS- 178096v9 SH155 -77 ;ement be ordinance effective s after the 5 • • • • ii • THE CITY COUNCIEL OF OF •' EE, SCOTT COUNTY, ORDAINS: r • • r Im For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: City. The City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. City Utility System. Facilities used for providing public utility service owned or operated by City or agency thereof, including sewer, storm sewer, water service, street lighting and traffic signals, but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting, or other forms of energy. Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or agencies, including an agency of the federal government, which preempts all or part of the authority to regulate gas retail rates now vested in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Company. Reliant Energy Minnegasco, a division of Reliant Energy Resources Corporation, a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns including all successors or assigns that own or operate any part or parts of the Gas Facilities subject to this franchise. Gas Facilities. Gas transmission and distribution pipes, lines, ducts, fixtures, and all necessary equipment and appurtenances owned or operated by the Company for the purpose of providing gas energy for public or private use. Gas. Natural gas, manufactured gas, mixture of natural gas and manufactured forms of gas energy. - JMS- 178096v8 SH155 -77 1 or other Non - Betterment Costs. Costs incurred by Company from relocation, removal or rearrangement of Gas Facilities that do not result in an improvement to the Gas Facilities. Notice. A writing served by any party or parties on any other party or parries. Notice to Company shall be mailed to Reliant Energy Minnegasco, V.P., Regulatory & Supply Service, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402 -2006. Notice to the City shall be mailed to the City Manager, City of Shakopee, 129 Holmes Street South, Shakopee, MN 55379 -1328. Any party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other parties. Public Way. Public right -of -way within the City as defined in Minn. Stat. § 237.162, subd. 3. Public Ground. Land owned or otherwise controlled by the City for park, similar public purpose, which is held for use in common by the public. • . 1 '• ' • 2.1. Grant of Franchise City hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 yea date this Ordinance is passed and approved by the City, the right to import, manufacture and sell gas for public and private use within and through the limits of the City as its now exist or as they may be extended in the future. This right includes the provision of (i) manufactured by the Company or its affiliates and delivered by the Company, (ii) purl delivered by the Company or (iii) purchased from another source by the retail cus delivered by the Company. For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, maintain Gas Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Groun to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessary or to accomplish these purposes, subject however, to such lawful regulations as currently City Ordinance 570, codified as Section 7.17 ("Section 7.17 "). The Company shall be days in advance of proposed changes to Section 7.17. The City and Company shall n good faith to reach mutually acceptable changes. If the City and Company are unabl disputes will be handled under the terms of Section 2.5 of this Ordinance. If a p1 Section 7.17 conflicts with a provision on the same subject in this Ordinance, this Ord' control. 2.2. Effective Date; Written Acceptance This franchise shall be in force from and after its passage of this Ordinance and publication as required by law and its by Company. If Company does not file a written acceptance with the City within 90 Da date the City Council adopts this Ordinance, or otherwise places the City on written no time, that the Company does not accept all terms of this franchise, the City Council b5 may either repeal this ordinance or seek its enforcement in a court of competent jurisdicti 2.3. Service and Gas Rates The service to be provided and the rates to be Company for gas service in City are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission JMS- 178096v8 SH155 -77 space or ; from the distribute that is ;ed and .er and iir and subj ect ist under itified 60 , in to agree, vision of ance will effect , s after the ice, at any resolution by 2 2.4. Publication Expense The expense of publication of this Ordinance shall be paid by Company. 2.5. Dispute Resolution If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shalt notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first meeting with the selected mediator, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief permitted by law. 2.6. Continuation of Franchise. If the City and the Company are unable to agree on the terms of a new franchise by the time this franchise expires, this franchise will remain in effect until a new franchise is agreed upon, or until 90 days after the City or the Company serves written Notice to the other party of its intention to allow the franchise to expire. • 1 • f ' 3.1. Location of Facilities Gas Facilities in the Public Way shall be located, constructed, and maintained under the requirements of Section 7.17 and so as not to disrupt normal operation of any City Utility System. Gas Facilities may be located on Public Grounds as determined by the City. 3.2. Restoration of Public Ways and Public Ground Restoration of the Public Way shall be governed by Section 7.17. After completing work requiring the opening of Public Ground, the Company shall restore the Public Ground to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain the surface in good condition for six (6) months thereafter. All work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits. If Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Ground in the said condition and after demand to Company to cure, City shall, after passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, have the right to make the restoration of the Public Ground at the expense of Company. Company shall pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed by the City. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the City for noncompliance with this Section. 3.3. Waiver of Performance Securitv The City hereby waives any requi Company to post a construction performance bond, certificate of insurance, letter of cr( other form of security or assurance that may be required under Section 7.17 currentl; future. The City reserves all other rights under Section 7.17 to enforce Company pc requirements for work in the Public Way or Public Ground. JMS- 178096v8 SH155 -77 ment for lit or any or in the 3 3.4. Avoid Damage - to Gas Facilities Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Gas Facilities while performing any activity. 4.1. Relocation of Gas Facilities Relocation of Gas Facilities in Public Ways shall be governed by Section 7.17. City may require Company at Company's expense to relocate or remove its Gas Facilities from Public Grounds upon a finding by City that the Gas Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment to the existing or proposed public use of the Grounds. Relocation Gas Facilities in Public Ground shall comply with applicable City ordinances consistent with law. 4.2. Proiects with Federal Funding Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company Gas Facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through City of a federally -aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161.46, as supplemented or amended. City shall not order Company to remove or relocate its Gas Facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless agreement is made that the reasonable Non - Betterment Costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom will be paid to Company when available to the City. The City need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available. 4.3. No Waiver The provisions of Section 4 apply only to Gas Facilities constructed in reliance on a permit or franchise from City and Company does not waive its rights under an easement or prescriptive right or State or County permit. �• • Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance. 6.1. Reservation of Rights The City reserves all rights under Minn. Stat. ? to require a franchise fee at any time during the term of this franchise. If the Cit require a franchise fee it shall notify Company and negotiate in good faith to reach acceptable fee agreement, which shall be set forth in a separate ordinance and not adop least 60 days after Notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the by certified mail. If the City and Company are unable to agree on a franchise fee or or related thereto, each hereby consents to the jurisdiction of State District Court, Scott construe their respective rights under the law, subject to all rights of appeal. JMS- 178096v8 SH155 -77 216B.36, elects to mutually :ed until at Company any terms County, to El I M This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and its succ the Company and its successors and permitted assigns, as the only parties. No provi: franchise shall in any way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the publ so as to constitute any such person as a third parry beneficiary of the agreement or of more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person hereto. This franchise agreement shall not be interpreted to constitute a waiver by the of its defenses of immunity or limitations on liability under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter • 1 1 11011UH sors and n of this at large) y one or t a party .y of any Either party to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the agreement be amended. This Ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of Company's written consent thereto with the City Clerk within 60 days after the effective date of the amendatory ordinance. 9.1. Previous Franchise Superseded This franchise supersedes and replaces franchises granted to the Company or its predecessors. Upon Company acceptance of this under Section 2.2, the previous franchise shall terminate. Passed and approved: Mayor of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Attest: City Clerk, Shakopee, Minnesota JMS- 178096v8 SH155 -77 previous franchise 5 THE • OF OF •' EE, SCOTT COUNTY, ORDAINS: • 1 a I • For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: City. The City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. City Utility System Facilities used for providing public utility service owned or operated by City or agency thereof, including sewer, storm sewer, water service, street lighting and traffic signals, but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting, or other forms of energy. Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or agencies, including an agency of the federal government, which preempts all or part of the authority to regulate gas retail rates now vested in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Company. Xcel Energy Inc., a corporation, through its operating subsidiary Northern States Power Company, dba Xcel Energy, its successors and assignees that own or operate any part or parts of the Electric Facilities subject to this franchise. Electric Facilities. Electric transmission and distribution towers, poles, condi anchors, conduits, fixtures, and all necessary equipment and appurtenances owned or the Company for the purpose of providing electric energy for public or private use. Non - Betterment Costs. Costs incurred by Company from relocation, rearrangement of Gas Facilities that do not result in an improvement to the Electric Fa( JMS- 178096v10 SH155 -77 guys, -d by 1 Notice. A writing served by any party or parties on any other parry or parties. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the General Counsel, Law Department, 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401. Notice to the City shall be mailed to the City Manager, City of Shakopee, 129 Holmes Street South, Shakopee, MN 55379 -1328. Any party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other parties. Public Way. Public right -of -way within the City as defined in Minn. Stat. §237.163 subd. 3. Public Ground. Land owned or otherwise controlled by the City for park, open space or similar public purpose, which is held for use in common by the public. 1 0+ • 2.1. Grant of Franchise City hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the date this Ordinance is passed and approved by the City, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light, heat and power for public and private use within and through the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject however, to such lawful regulations as currently exist under City Ordinance 570, codified as Section 7.17. ( "Section 7.17 "). The Company shall be notified 60 days in advance of proposed changes to Section 7.17. The City and Company shall negotiate in good faith to reach mutually acceptable changes. If the City and Company are unable to agree, disputes will be handled under the terms of Section 2.4 of this Ordinance. If a provision of Section 7.17 conflicts with a provision on the same subject in this Ordinance, this Ordinance will control. 2.2. Effective Date. Written Acceptance This franchise shall be in force and effect from and after its passage of this Ordinance and publication as required by law and its acceptance by Company. If Company does not file a written acceptance with the City within 90 Days after the date the City Council adopts this Ordinance, or otherwise places the City on written notice, at any time, that the Company does not accept all terms of this franchise, the City Council by resolution may either repeal this ordinance or seek its enforcement in a court of competent jurisdiction. 2.3. Publication Expense The expense of publication of this Ordinance shall be paid by Company. 2.4. Dispute Resolution If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first JMS- 178096v10 SH155 -77 2 meeting with the selected mediator, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law. 2.5. Continuation of Franchise. If the City and the Company are unable to agree on the terms of a new franchise by the time this franchise expires, this franchise will remain in effect until a new franchise is agreed upon, or until 90 days after the City or the Company serves written Notice to the other party of its intention to allow the franchise to expire. 1 • 3.1 Location of Facilities Electric Facilities in the Public Ways shall be located, constructed, and maintained in under the requirements of Section 7.17 and so as not to disrupt normal operation of any City Utility System. Electric Facilities may be located on Public Grounds as determined by the City. 3.2. Restoration of Ways and Public Ground Restoration of the Public Way shall be governed by Section 7.17. After completing any work requiring the opening of Public Ground, the Company shall restore the Public Ground to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain the surface in good condition for six (6) months thereafter. All work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits. If Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Ground in the said condition and after demand to Company to cure, City shall, after passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, have the right to make the restoration of the Public Ground at the expense of Company. Company shall pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed by the City. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the City for noncompliance with this Section. 3.3. Waiver of Performance Security The City hereby waives any requirement for Company to post a construction performance bond, certificate of insurance, letter of credit or any other form of security or assurance that may be required under Section 7.17 currently or in the future. The City reserves all other rights under Section 7.17 to enforce Company performance requirements for work in the Public Way or Public Ground. 3.4. Shared Use of Poles Company shall make space available on its poles or towers for City fire, water utility, police or other City facilities whenever such use will not interfere with the use of such poles or towers by the Company, by another electric utility, by a telephone utility, or by any cable television company or other form of communication company. In addition, the City shall pay any proportionate cost or any added cost incurred by Company and accept any additional liability because of such use by the City. 3.5. Avoid Damage to Electric Facilities Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Electric Facilities while performing any activity. JMS- 178096v10 SH155 -77 3 4.1. Relocation of Electric Facilities Relocation of Electric Facilities in Put shall be governed by Section 7.17. City may require Company at Company's expense to r( remove its Electric Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by City that the Electric have become or will become a substantial impairment to the existing or proposed public 1 Grounds. Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ground shall comply with applM ordinances consistent with law. lic Ways :locate or Facilities se of the able City 4.2. Proiects with Federal Funding Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company Electric Facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through City of a federally -aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.46, as supplemented or amended. City shall not order Company to remove or relocate its Electric Facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless agreement is made that the reasonable Non - Betterment Costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom will be paid to Company when available to the City. The City need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available. 4.3. No Waiver The provisions of Section 4 apply only to Electric Facilities constructed in reliance on a permit or franchise from City and Company does not waive its rights under an easement or prescriptive right or State or County permit. SECTION TRE TRINI Unless otherwise provided in any permit or other reasonable regulation required by the City under separate ordinance, Company may trim all trees and shrubs in the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City to the extent Company finds necessary to avoid interference with the proper construction, operation, repair and maintenance of any Electric Facilities installed hereunder, provided that Company shall save the City harmless from any liability arising therefrom. Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance. SECTION 7. FRANCHISE FEE 7.1. Reservation of Rights The City reserves all rights under Minn. Stat. § to require a franchise fee at any time during the term of this franchise. If the City require a franchise fee it shall notify Company and negotiate in good faith to reach a acceptable fee agreement, which shall be set forth in a separate ordinance and not adopt( least 60 days after Notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the JMS- 178096v10 SH155 -77 4 16B.36, Jects to until at by certified mail. If the City and Company are unable to agree on a franchise fee or on any terms related thereto, each hereby consents to the jurisdiction of State District Court, Scott County, to construe their respective rights under the law, subject to all rights of appeal. This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and its successors and the Company and its successors and permitted assigns, as the only parties. No provision of this franchise shall in any way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the publics at large) so as to constitute any such person as a third party beneficiary of the agreement or of any one or more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party hereto. This franchise agreement shall not be interpreted to constitute a waiver by the City of any of its defenses of immunity or limitations on liability under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Either party to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the agreement be amended. This Ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of Company's written consent thereto with the City Clerk within 60 days after the effective date of the amendatory ordinance. Passed and approved: Mayor of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Attest: City Clerk, Shakopee, Minnesota JMS- 178096v10 SH155 -77 5 Ron Jabs August 2, 2001 Page I Connie Hargest Reliant Energy Min negasco 800 LaSalle Avenue P.O. Box 59038 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0038 m" Ron Jabs l ' �1-11A 125 Minnesota ?2a < !;,«. Drive Jordan, MN 55352 Connie Hargest Ron Jabs August 2, 2001 Page 2 opportunity to negotiate mutually acceptable changes. Further, the City understands that regulations must be "lawful ". Change accepted. Note: While the Company may assume some risk in replacing a contract (franchise agreement) with a city regulation (Code 570), we feel the risk is minimal in that the City's efforts to control the ROW have been and will continue to be reasonable. We further agree to resolve disputes regarding the franchise and /or City Ordinance 570 under the "Dispute Resolution" section (2.5) of the franchise agreement and are satisfied that the language of Section 2.1 will recognize the needs of the Company to operate in the ROW. Legal Fees I am simply deleting that provision. Absent an express agreement between the parties, there are no legal fee requirements that the City could impose. I feel this provision is unnecessary. Change accepted Dispute Resolution have deleted "equity" because I am comfortable that "law" encompasses all remedies available. Change accepted Continuation of Franchise. I have deleted the last sentence as you have requested. Change accepted Location of Facilities. In location, restoration and relocation sections (3.1, 3.2, 4.1), I am simply adding the provision for ease of reference that public ways are govemed by City Ordinance Section 7.17. The franchise provision then goes on to deal specifically with public grounds, which are not the subject of the right -of -way ordinance. I have deleted the proposed addition regarding "equal treatment" and reference to field location. Note that Section 237.163, subd. 6(c) and subd. 7(a), incorporated by Section 7.17 deal with equal treatment. There may be some question under subdivision 7 whether this applies to gas and electric companies because of the language. Nevertheless, the City must operate on a uniform basis between and among utilities, subject to their "distinct ... operation." I believe this makes any provision in the franchise ordinance unnecessary. Change accepted Franchise Fee Reservation of Rights I have incorporated your proposal regarding sixty days notice and deleted the negotiation term of the fee being in lieu of any permit fees. As you know, we have discussed this and I prefer to reserve that and all other franchise fee term issues to the point in time when it is negotiated. Change not accepted. The purpose of a franchise agreement historically, for all its verbiage, has basically been to contractually determine the rules of operation in the ROW, on public ground, and in public ways. Connie Hargest Ron Jabs August 2, 2001 Page 3 The other purpose was to determine the means of imposing a franchise fee, should this occur during the term of the franchise agreement. While the Company is willing to accept some risk in abiding exclusively by the terms of City Code 570 to accomplish the management of the ROW, we are Tess comfortable with deferring all terms of a future franchise fee agreement. We are suggesting that the original changes proposed by the Company be incorporated p Y p into the final franchise agreement as follows: "The franchise fee shall be granted in lieu of permit, licensing, or other fees, charges, or costs imposed on the Company for providing gas service or performing work necessary to provide gas service in the City during the term of this franchise. or the term of the franchise fee." Reasons: REM currently collects franchise fees for only four (4) of the communities we serve. REM assumes additional administrative costs associated with billing, collecting, and distributing franchise fees for those cities. Permit fees are generally suspended in most communities that impose fees, to offset these administrative costs, during the term of a franchise fee agreement, ie: City of Minneapolis does not charge permit fees but does impose a franchise fee. Limitation on Applicability. I have incorporated your proposed change. Change accepted Previous Franchise Superseded (REM Only). I have simply added a sentence that expands on the original statement to make clear the dates on which one franchise expires and the other commences. Change accepted Based on our discussions, it is my understanding that the only remaining items of disagreement or potential disagreement relate to the uniformity amongst energy suppliers and the term of franchise fee in lieu of permit fees. I trust this addresses all of the issues you have raised and I look forward to seeing you at the August 7, 2001 council meeting. Very truly yours, KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED James M. Strommen JMS:jms1 Enclosures cc: Harold Bagley (with enclosures)