Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/03/1992 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: October 30, 1992 1. Attached is correspondence from Mark Hammerstrom, General Manager, Amzak Cable regarding some changes to the cable service line up in Shakopee. 2 . Attached is a memorandum from Ed Mackie, Chairman, Scott County Board of Commissioners regarding a meeting on November 10th to discuss transportation and development in Scott County. 3 . Attached are the August 31, 1992 minutes of the Shakopee Cable Commission meeting. 4. Attached are the August 31, 1992 minutes of the Shakopee Access Corporation meeting. 5. Attached is the November Business Update from City Hall. 6. Attached is the November calendar of Upcoming Meetings. 7 . Attached are the November 5th agendas for the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment and Appeals meetings. 8. Attached is the Police Newsletter for Council review. 9 . Attached are the unapproved minutes of the October 26, 1992 Shakopee Access Corporation meeting. 10. Attached are the unapproved minutes of the October 26, 1992 Shakopee Cable Commission meeting. 11. Attached is correspondence from Robert Vierling regarding a complaint about his sidewalk. The City Engineer has been advised and will determine if the sidewalk was installed in a defective manor. 12. Attached is a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding court appearances. 13 . Attached are the unapproved minutes of the October 21, 1992 Shakopee Energy and Transportation Committee. 14. Attached is the Engineering Department Monthly Progress Report on Projects. kI AMZAK CABLE, MIDWEST, INC. (612)445-6151 137 - First Ave. E. • Shakopee, MN 55379 October 23, 1992 Mr. Barry Stock City of Shakopee Shakopee City Hall 129 E. First Ave. Shakopee Mn. 55379 Dear Barry: On December 1 , 1992, Amzak Cable will be making some changes to our cable service line up which will affect our customers in Shakopee. We hope to accomplish two things by these alterations. First, this will align the channel assignments of our current and future pay- per- view channels with those currently offered in our Nortel Systems. This is important as the phone numbers we will use for the Automatic Number Identification (ANI) system, (which is used in the automated customer pay- per -view ordering process), must match the channel number for ordering simplicity. For example. a customer who wishes to order a movie on pay- per-view channel 51 would dial 1-800-885-5551 , or a movie on 54 1-800- 885-5554. Secondly, we will be creating an "economy" tier of services--called Basic Cable Service—which will be comprised of all local off air channels, all Public, Educational and Government access channels, Regional Channel 6, as well as WGN from Chicago, and WTBS from Atlanta. Please note that the positions of the access channels will not change, although the positions of several local broadcast stations will be moved to match their actual off-- air channel number. This new Basic Service will be priced at $7.95 per month (plus taxes). and may be connected for a charge of $99.95 (plus taxes). The connection fee is somewhat higher than the connection charge for Full Service since additional security equipment will be necessary to guard against cable theft. All other services currently available . with the exception of Pay services (like HBO or Showtime), Prime Sports Network, and Pay-Per View, will be part of our "Satellite Tier." The combination of both Basic and Satellite tiers will be called "Full Service." Customers will see no change to their rates as a result of this division. but they will see the two tiers broken out separately on the bill they will receive at the end of November. These changes will be described to them in a billstuffer sent with the bills at the end of October. A new channel line up card will be included for their convenience, and I have attached a line up card to this letter for your reference as well. So you are aware. this is how the break out will appear on the customer statements: RASIC SERVICE $ 7.95 SATELLITE TIER $13.05 STATE SALES TAX $ 1.37 FRANCHISE FEE $ 1 .05 PAY THIS AMOUNT $23.42 As always, please feel free to give me a call if you have questions. Re. . .s. _4•44/er trom Manager cc: Gerry Kazma Mike Kazma Rick Zaha AMZAK,CABLE NEW CHANNEL UNE UP DECEMBER 1.1992 2 • KTCA-Public Television 3 ' Public Access/Community Bulletin Board 4 • WCCO-CBS 5 • KSTP-ABC 6 ' Regional Cable Channel 6 7 • WGN-Chicago 8 • WTBS Atlanta 9 ' KMSP Independent 10 Educational Access 11 • KARE-NBC 12 ` Government Access 13 OV&-Oualty Value Convenience 14 Science Frcrion Channel 15 INT-Turner Network T/evision 16 MN-Cable Ne Network 17 • KTC1Pubiic Television 18 The Family Channel(FAM) 19 Midwest Soor's Channel(46r) 20 Nickelodeon 21 Vfl-1 Video Hits One 22 ESPN Sports 23 • KLGT-Independent 24 Comedy Cental 25 USA Network 26 The Learning channel(7L C) 27 Lifebrne 28 Arts and Entertainment 29 • KITN--Independent 30 417V--Music Th/es/en 31 TNN The Nas/nili!.Network 32 Prewe Guide 33 C 'SC A'iaiicial Ne w' 34 HSA -Home Shopping Network 35 7BN--7iinilydroadcasbng/Vetwork 36 EWTM-Pleura/Word Television Network 37 QVNHead/inn.News 38 The Weather Channel 39 Discaave,v Channel 40 C-SPAN-House o/Representatives 41 American Mnvie fasces(AMC) 42 Nostalgia Cannel(NOS) 43 County Music Television (CtTI) 44 Cable fnformafon 45 77ae Disney char:rel 46 Showtime 47 The Movie Channel 48 Cinemax 49 Home Box Oft ce 50 Encore 51 Pay Per View Channel 1 52 Pay Per Crew C7hann el:? 53 Pay Per Kew w(Fut.ire) 54 Pay Per View(Fuhrre) 55 El Entw/ainmen/ 56 Prince Sports Network BASIC SERVICE=• 54/ELL/7E IER SERV/CES PREMIUM SERVICES 11101111111 SCOTT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COURTHOUSE 109 428 S. HOLMES ST. SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1382 (612) 496-8100 WM.KONIARSKI,District 1 DALLAS BOHNSACK,District 2 R.E.MERTZ,District 3 DICK UNDERFERTH,District 4,Vice-Chairman ED MACKIE,District 5,Chairman TO: All Township Officials, City Administrators, City Planners and Engineers .0111 FROM: Ed Mackie, Chairman, Scott County Board of Commis`- • rs SUBJECT: Transportation and Development in Scott County DATE: October 21, 1992 The Scott County Board of Commissioners, in its Committee of the Whole setting, invite you to discuss development in the County as it pertains to land use and transportation. This meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 10, 1992 at 10:00 a.m. in the Assembly Room of the Scott County Courthouse. The County Board is aware of many of the different land use issues. Some of the issues relate to conflicting lot sizes between the townships and municipalities, commercial and industrial uses locating in the unincorporated area, coordinating planning between townships and municipalities, different standards for township roads, etc. Development in the County will increase due to the new Bloomington Ferry Bridge and growth in general. Hopefully, a common plan can be developed whereby we can achieve our collective goals. One method to address this could be a revised comprehensive plan along with standards to implement the plan. This planning seems especially timely for those townships closest to the new bridge. In addition, at 11:00 a.m. the proposed Scott County Transportation Plan will be presented to the Committee of the Whole. The Transporation Plan was sent to you in early October. This meeting will provide you with the opportunity to discuss with the Committee any issues or concerns you may have regarding the proposed Transportation Plan prior to its adoption. c: County Commissioners Clifford G. McCann, Acting County Administrator Brad Larson, Highway Engineer Jon Westlake, Planning Director Jane Hansen, Recording Secretary EM:bn An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CABLE COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 31, 1992 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p.m. with Commissioners Moonen, Bastyr, Anderson and Scannell present. Commission Harrison was absent. Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Bill Lepley, New Frontier Productions; Doug Hamilton, Studio Manager; and Mike Kazma, Amzak Cable Midwest, Inc. , were also present. Bastyr/Moonen moved to approve the minutes of the March 30, 1992 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Anderson stated that Commissioner Harrison has been sent a letter regarding his status on the Cable Commission. Mr. Stock stated that he has not heard a response from Mr. Harrison. Mr. Stock stated that he felt it would be appropriate to advertise the vacant Cable Commission position in conjunction with the other Board and Commissions opening scheduled for January. Mr. Stock noted that on August 11, 1992 he received a correspondence from Mr. Mike Kazma, Vice President, Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. Mr. Kazma was proposing to consolidate the Shakopee headend with the Chaska headend. Mr. Stock stated that upon review of the Cable Franchise Ordinance he felt that Mr. Kazma ' s request would require a Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Stock stated that the headend is the most critical part of our cable television system. He stated that without the headend Shakopee would not be able to operate as an independent free standing cable operation. Mr. Stock shared with the Commission concerns that he had regarding the possible closure of the Shakopee headend facility. Mr. Stock questioned what control we would have over the Cable Company in the event that our headend facility was eliminated. Mr. Stock stated that he also questioned whether or not a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Shakopee and the City of Chaska were necessary to facilitate Amzak' s request. Mr. Kazma stated that he has been in contact with the City of Chaska and they are not opposed to combining headend facilities. Mr. Kazma stated that officials from the City of Chaska stated that they would not have a problem entering into a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Shakopee. Mr. Kazma went on to explain the benefits to the City of Shakopee of combining the headend operations. He stated that Amzak is proposing to run a fiber optic line from the Chaska headend to a central point in Shakopee. The fiber optic line would be able to accommodate the channels on the institutional network. Mr. Kazma went on to state that the fiber optic line would certainly improve picture quality on the public access channels and some of the other channels that they are currently experiencing a problem with. Mr. Kazma also stated that Official Minutes of the August 31, 1992 Shakopee Cable Commission Page -2- the fiber optic would allow them to increase channel capacity so that the weather channel could be reactivated. Commissioner Anderson questioned what would happen to the remaining equipment at the Shakopee headend facility. Mr. Kazma stated that another significant advantage to the Cable Company was that by combining headend facilities they could significantly cut down in the maintenance costs associated with the Shakopee headend facility. Essentially, they would only have to maintain one headend facility in Chaska which would obviously reduce staff time and maintenance costs that they presently deal with. Mr. Kazma stated that much of the equipment at the Shakopee headend would be eliminated including the satellite dishes. Mr. Moonen stated that he did not have a problem with the concept being proposed by Amzak. However, he was concerned about protecting the City of Shakopee in the event of a future sale of the cable system. He had many of the same concerns that were stated by Mr. Stock earlier. He stated that without the headend facility Shakopee would not be able to be sold as a free standing cable system. Mr. Moonen stated that he felt that the appropriate legal counsel would have to be consulted to draft the appropriate ordinance amendment to protect the City of Shakopee so that the City could retain independent control over the cable system in Shakopee. Mr. Moonen also stated that legal counsel should also be retained to draft the necessary Joint Powers Agreement if one is in fact necessary. Mr. Stock stated that the Cable Franchise Ordinance provides the City with the option to conduct periodic reviews and evaluations of the system. The Franchise Ordinance also specifies that the City may require at its sole direction, system performance evaluations sessions at any time during the term of the franchise or as required by Federal or State law. The City also has the right to conduct such evaluations at five year intervals. Section 8 . 12 , Sub-paragraph D of the Cable Franchise Ordinance also specifies that, "to assist and review an evaluation, the City may enlist an independent consultant to conduct an analysis of the system and its performance and to submit a report of such analysis to the City. All consultant fees and costs shall be paid by grantee. " Mr. Stock stated that if the City finds it desirous to obtain outside legal counsel to assist us in analyzing the impact of this issue on the City of Shakopee that it would be appropriate to have Amzak Cable accept the cost of said consultant. Mr. Kazma agreed to reimburse the City for costs incurred in having this issue analyzed and drafting any necessary legal documents that are deemed appropriate by the City. Moonan/Bastyr moved to request staff to obtain price quotations from independent consultant and/or legal counsel to conduct an analysis of Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. ' s proposal to combine Official Minutes of the August 31, 1992 Shakopee Cable Commission Page -3- headend facilities with the City of Chaska. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the Council Chambers system design and cable budget. Mr. Stock stated that the construction manager would like the City to have a consultant on board in a timely manner to install the Council audio/video system. Mr. Stock stated that he received cost quotations from six different cable vendors. The quotations ranged from $1, 950 . 00 to $17 , 000. 00. Mr. Stock stated that he felt it would be appropriate to select one of the consultants to design the system and prepare bid specifications. Discussion ensued. Comm. Bastyr questioned whether or not it would be a conflict of interest for Mr. Lepley to complete the Council Chambers system design and bid specifications. Mr. Stock stated that Mr. Lepley is not a member of the Access Corporation or Cable Commission. Therefore, a conflict of interest does not exist. Mr. Moonen stated that Mr. Lepley is familiar with the City' s existing system and what is being proposed for the new Council Chambers. Mr. Moonen stated that he felt it would be appropriate to utilize the services of Mr. Lepley and Southwest Audio Visual. Mr. Anderson questioned whether or not Mr. Lepley had the experience to prepare the necessary bid specifications. Mr. Lepley stated that he was confident that he could complete the job. Mr. Anderson stated that it was important that the bid specifications are drafted in such a fashion so that a variety of vendors can bid on the system. Bastyr/Scannell moved to recommend to City Council that the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into an agreement with Southwest Audio Visual to complete the Council Chambers audio/video system design and bid specification. Discussion ensued on a funding source for the consultant services. Mr. Stock stated that the amount of dollars budgeted within the cable program is approximately $12 , 000 . 00 less than projected franchise fees. Therefore, a difference of approximately $12 , 000. 00 exists between what was budgeted and what will actually be budgeted in 1992 . Mr. Stock stated that he felt it would be appropriate to recommend to City Council that the Administration Budget be amended increasing franchise fee revenues by $12 , 000. 00 and the professional services line item of the administration division by a corresponding amount. Mr. Stock stated that he felt it would be appropriate to request that $2 , 000 . 00 of this amount be allocated for system design and the remaining $10 , 000. 00 allocated for Public Access Corporation use. Mr. Moonen stated that he felt it was important that the $10, 000 . 00 of excess franchise fee dollars be allocated to the Public Access Corporation for their equipment needs. Mr. Moonen stated that he felt the initial acquisition of the Council Chamber audio visual equipment should come from the City' s Capital Improvement Fund and Official Minutes of the August 31, 1992 Shakopee Cable Commission Page -4- be included as an overall City Hall project cost. Mr. Anderson suggested that perhaps Council would be more interested in allocating the additional $10, 000. 00 to the Public Access Corporation if the Access Corporation agreed to maintain and operate the cable equipment and audio/video system int he new Council Chambers. Mr. Anderson stated that the Cable Commission could then request that in the future 90% of the available franchise fee dollars be allocated to the Public Access Corporation for access and government access operation and equipment needs. Discussion ensued. Bastyr/Scannell moved to recommend that the 1992 Cable Budget be amended increasing the program amount by $12, 000. 00 with $2, 000. 00 to be allocated for system design consultant costs and $10, 000.00 allocated for Public Access Corporation use with the understanding that the Access Corporation would agree to take over the operation and maintenance control of the equipment within the City Hall Council Chambers providing that the City agrees to utilize 90% of future franchise fees for Public Access Corporation use. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Anderson stated that he could attend the Council meeting tomorrow night to answer questions regarding the Cable Commission proposal. Scannell/Bastyr moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE ACCESS CORPORATION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 31, 1992 Chairman Bastyr called the meeting to order at 8: 28 p.m. with members Anderson, Zeigler, Scannell and Bastyr present. Committee member Moonen was absent. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Bill Lepley, New Frontier Productions; Doug Hamilton, Public Access Studio Manager; and Mike Kazma, Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. Anderson/Zeigler moved to approve the minutes of the March 30, 1992 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Zeigler gave a brief Treasurer's Report. He noted that there was $16, 325.66 in the General Fund Account and $877.79 in the Lease/Rent Account. He noted that the Rent Account was larger than normal due to a recent payment by Amzak. Discussion ensued on a Studio Performance Agreement. Mr. Stock stated that at the last meeting discussion was held regarding the establishment of some new reporting guidelines for Mr. Lepley. Mr. Anderson stated that this item should be placed on a future agenda for discussion. Discussion ensued on the $500. 00 Eagle's contribution that was made to the City of Shakopee last year for Public Access Corporation use. Mr. Stock stated that he has not presented to City Council the necessary budget amendment that will be necessary to transfer the $500. 00 Eagle's contribution to the Access Corporation. He stated that he would attempt to have this item included on one of the upcoming Council agendas. Discussion ensued on the establishment of a grant program to assist persons who are incurring costs associated with developing programs for Public Access. Mr. Zeigler stated that at the present time there is not an official policy on this issue. Discussion ensued on whether or not an official policy was needed. It was the consensus of the Corporation that this item should be placed on the next agenda and that a simple policy be drafted that would notify users that are funds available for offsetting programming costs. Mr. Lepley gave a report on the studio operation. He stated that usage is up over last summer. Mr. Lepley gave the Corporation a breakdown on the number of editing hours versus actual programming hours. Chairman Bastyr questioned whether or not we could get a greater breakdown on who is actually doing the programming and who is doing the editing. Mr. Lepley stated that he could easily provide that information to the Access Corporation if they felt it was of interest. Mr. Anderson concurred and requested that Mr. Lepley begin to provide this information in the future. Discussion ensued on equipment issues. Mr. Lepley stated that much of the equipment that was approved in January has not ben ordered. Mr. Lepley listed the following equipment that has not been ordered but was approved at the January meeting. 1. ) SVHS play/recorder Official Proceedings of the August 31, 1992 Shakopee Access Corporation Page -2- deck for on air - Panasonic 7350 - $2 , 000. 00. 2. ) Field switcher (4 inputs) - $4,200. 00. Mr. Lepley noted that the field switcher that he is proposing at this time has 4 inputs as compared to previously discussed field switcher which had 2 inputs. Mr. Lepley also stated that the triple five studio cameras are in dire need of replacement. He suggested that the Commission approve a F-250 camera. He stated that this equipment was comparable to the last camera that was purchased. If this camera is purchased we will then have 2 high quality cameras that can be used for either field or studio use. The costs of the F-250 camera was $5,800.00. Mr. Anderson stated that he felt it was important to have a good tripod for the new F-250. Mr. Lepley stated that a tripod could be acquired at a cost of around $300.00. Mr. Lepley went on to state that if we do have 2 high quality studio/field cameras that it would be important to have an intercom system for the camera operators and producers. The cost of an intercom system was $1,200.00. Finally, Mr. Lepley suggested that a camcorder be purchased to replace the one that was lost last year. Mr. Lepley stated that he did receive the money from the person who lost the camera as a result of the court case which equated to $750. 00. Therefore, only approximately $500. 00 additional dollars were needed to acquire the replacement camcorder. Anderson/Zeigler moved to approve the following equipment purchases: 1. Panasonic 7350 play/recorder deck - $2, 000. 00. 2 . F-250 camera - $5, 800. 00. 3 . F-250 tripod - $300. 00 4. Intercom system - $1, 200.00. 5. Field switcher (Field inputs) - $4, 200. 00. 6. Camcorder - $500.00. Motion carried unanimously. Commission Bastyr questioned whether or not the light skrims that were approved at the last meeting had been acquired. Mr. Lepley stated that they are having a difficult time finding replacement light skrims for the studio lights due to their age. Discussion ensued on the studio lease agreement. Mr. Stock stated that this past January the Access Corporation extended the lease with Mr. Lepley an additional 6 months. The lease now expires on September 30, 1992 . Mr. Stock stated that the reason for the 6 month extension was that there was still some debate as to whether or not the Public Access Studio should be relocated. Anderson/Scannell moved to approve extending the lease agreement with New Frontier Productions until December 31, 1992 . Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the August 31, 1992 Shakopee Access Corporation Page -3- Zeigler/Scannell moved to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary #5 BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL Vol. 6 No. 11 Dear Chamber Member: November 1, 1992 Administration Community Development Commission will be making a formal recommendation to the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority Progress continues on the City Hall remodeling project. The construction manager has informed to establish a special Community of the Whole meeting to discuss the findings associated with the the City that the project remains on track and is redevelopment analysis. Staff expects that this scheduled for completion in mid December. In a meeting will be conducted some time in related matter, on October 20, 1992 Shakopee City November. Council authorized approval of furnishing bid package #1 in the amount of $42,792.25for office On November 3, 1992 the Shakopee City Council furniture for the new building. will be holding a public hearing to discuss a potential Cable Franchise Ordinance amendment. City Clerk The cable operator is requesting to combine the Shakopee head end facility with the Chaska head NOVEMBER 3, 1992 General Election Day. Polls end facility and construct a fiber optic line will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. between Shakopee and Chaska. The Cable Company's proposal is intended to reduce their Secretary of State Joan Growe has challenged operating costs and improve the picture quality Minnesotans to turnaround the decline in voter for cable television subscribers in Shakopee. A participation and break the 70% mark in voter new fiber optic line will also allow the Cable turnout. Company to increase the number of programming options available to Shakopee Every employee who is eligible to vote in an subscribers. election has the right to be absent from work for the purpose of voting during the morning of the Park and Recreation day of that election, without penalty or deduction from salary or wages because of the absence. An On October 20, 1992 the Shakopee City Council employer or other person may not directly or directed staff to solicit proposals for a market and indirectly refuse, abridge, or interfere with this operational analysis of the Valley Ice Arena right or any other election right of an employee. facility in Shakopee. The following issues are MN Statutes 204C.04 proposed to be addressed in the report: Community Development I. Mechanical Systems Analysis 2. Market Analysis On October 21,1992 staff presented the preliminary 3, Construction Cost Projections findings made by the Shakopee Community 4. Operational Analysis\Proforma Development Commission in regard to the downtown redevelopment analysis. The meeting Staff expects that the proposals for the services was well attended by both downtown business outlined will be submitted to City Council for owners and other community retailers. The review in late November or early December. Planning Public Works/Engineering At their meeting on October 8, 1992,the Shakopee The Market Street and Minnesota Street railroad Board of Adjustment and Appeals approved a crossings will be paved and completed by variance from the one year time frame November 1, 1992. The crossing at Market St. will requirement to utilize a Conditional Use Permit not be opened to traffic until the railroad and Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation completes the installation of the traffic signal Permit issued to Raymond Ames. lights. At the October 8, 1992, meeting of the Shakopee A public hearing has been scheduled for November Planning Com mission, the Commission 10, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room at the recommended approval of the preliminary County Courthouse to consider the special development plan for the proposed Milwaukee assessments for the 2nd Avenue project. Manor Planned Unit Development to the City Council. The proposed development is to be located The excellent fall weather has enabled most of the south of Clifton Townhomes and consist of two, private subdivision projects to be completed. three, and four unit townhomes. The Commission Beckrich Estates, Horizon Heights 4th, Weinandt also recommended the vacation of a portion of Acres 2nd, the Meadows 8th, Prairie Estates 2nd Minnesota Street, located north of the alley north and Heritage Place 3rd & 4th all have at least the of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad first layer of blacktop completed. tracks. This recommendation was made subject to the approval of the final development plan for The Apgar St./2nd Avenue project is also the Milwaukee Manor Planned Unit Development. progressing well. The gravel base and curb and gutter have been installed and, weather At this same meeting, the Planning Commission permitting, the first layer of asphalt will be recommended an amendment to the City Code installed by Nov. 1st. which would expand the permitted uses within the Race Track Zoning District. This The Street Department reminds all residents that recommendation included such uses as the it is against the City Ordinances to rake leaves commercial storage of boats and recreational onto City streets. The leaves end up in the catch vehicles; antique, craft, flea, and bargain basins and storm sewers, which clog them up and markets; and product shows for cars, boats, and cause flooding. Raking leaves onto the streets homes. The Commission also recommended the increases the street crew maintenance time in approval of an amendment to the draft 1990 sweeping, cleaning catch basins, etc. Comprehensive Plan which would delete references to mineral extraction from the Agricultural land use areas. This proposed amendment would update the draft plan to match the City Council's action to delete mineral =io;;iscconditional use in the Agricultural t't. The Planning Commission approved an (4‘ 41 amendment to the Mineral Extraction and Land 0, Rehabilitation Permit and Conditional Use Permit No. 624 which was issued to Raymond Ames. Due to delays in the bid letting process for fill sand to be used in the construction of the southerly bypass, the applicant requested an amendment to delay certain deadlines for one year. The Planning Commission also approved the annual review for a Conditional Use Permit that allowed a mobile home within the Rural Residential Zoning District. i#, November UPCOMING MEETINGS SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4:30pm Public 8:OOpm City 7:30pm Planning Utilities Council Commission Meeting Election 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7:OOpm City Veteran's Day - Council - City Hall Public Hearing Closed 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7:0Opm City 5:30pm Council Community Meeting Development Commission 7:OOpm Energy & Transportation Committee 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7:0Opm Park and Thanksgiving - City Hall Closed Recreation City Hall Board Closed I 29 30 8 7 October December SM T W T F S SM T W T F S 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 27 28 29 30 31 TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, MN November 5 , 1992 Chairperson Terry Joos Presiding 1 . Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of the October 8 , 1992 , Meeting Minutes 4 . Recognition by Planning Commission of Interested Citizens. 5 . Reviews: A. One Way Sweeping, Inc. - Conditional Use Permit 6 . Other Business A. B. 7 . Adjourn Lindberg S . Ekola City Planner NOTE TO PLANNING MEMBERS: 1 . If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Terrie or Aggie on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting at 445-3650 . 2 . If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. TENTATIVE AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, MN November 5, 1992 Chairperson William Mars Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of October 8 , 1992 , Meeting Minutes 4 . Recognition by Board of Adjustments and Appeals of Interested Citizens. 5 . 7 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a variance to the regulations regarding acceptable building materials and a variance from the front yard setback requirements at 800 W. 1st Avenue. Applicant: Rahr Malting Company Action: Resolution No. 648 6 . 7 : 40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a variance from the required front yard setback in order to add onto a nonconforming structure at 835 W. 1st Avenue. Applicant: Dairy Queen Mark Gerry and Allen Plaisted Action: Resolution No. 649 7 . Other Business a. Roberts Rules of Order b. c. 8 . Adjourn Lindberg S . Ekola City Planner NOTE TO THE B.O.A.A. MEMBERS: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Terrie or Aggie on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting. 2 . If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. -r.#; ? OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE ACCESS CORPORATION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 26, 1992 Chairman Bastyr called the meeting to order at 8: 36 p.m. with Commissioners Moonen, Bastyr, Anderson, Scannell and Zeigler present. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Mark Hammerstrom, Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. , General Manager; and Bill Harrison were also present. Anderson/Zeigler moved to approve the minutes of the March 30, 1992 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Zeigler gave a brief Treasurer's Report. He noted that there was $14, 119 . 09 in the general fund account and $632 .86 in the lease/rent account. He did note that there was a bill outstanding for a studio camera in the amount of $5,789 . 00. Mr. Zeigler also stated that he has received the $500. 00 Eagle contribution from the City of Shakopee. Mr. Stock questioned if Mr. Zeigler had completed the 1992 and 1993 budget information as requested by Council. Mr. Zeigler stated that he would get information to Mr. Stock within two weeks so that he could forward it to Council. Chairman Bastyr stated that the packet included correspondence from Mark Hammerstrom regarding a payment to Mr. Chuck Lucas for the electrical installation at the public access studio. Mr. Stock reported that Mr. Lepley called last week to inform him that he would be unable to attend the meeting due to a previous work commitment. Mr. Stock noted that the New Frontier Public Access Report was on the table for the Commissioners review. Mr. Anderson stated that he had a conversation with Mr. Lepley regarding the use of the new switcher. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Lepley does not feel comfortable allowing the field switcher to leave the studio. Mr. Anderson stated that perhaps the Corporation should consider buying a two camera switcher as opposed to the four camera switcher that was recently purchased. Mr. Moonen stated that he felt that if another switcher was to be purchased that it should be a four camera switcher. He noted that cost difference between the two switchers was relatively minor. Mr. Moonen also stated that if there is concern about letting the four camera switcher leave the studio perhaps the Corporation should buy a carrying case and/or rack mount type of case for the field switcher and a three monitor system. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to propose that prior to acquiring any further equipment that the Corporation conduct a survey of the users to determine equipment needs. He noted that Mr. Lepley probably has a list of all the persons who have used the studio within the last year. Mr. Anderson volunteered to serve on a sub-committee to develop a survey that could be mailed to all studio users. Mr. Bastyr also volunteered to serve on the sub- committee to develop the survey. Mr. Stock stated that he felt the Official Proceedings of the October 26, 1992 Shakopee Access Corporation Page -2- survey could be developed within a short time frame and distributed to all previous studio users within a two month time frame. He expected that all the results could be tabulated prior to the Access Corporations next meeting. Mr. Stock stated that he did not feel there was any major business for the Cable Commission and/or Access Corporation for the remainder of this year. He suggested that the next meeting be held sometime in January. It was the consensus of the Commission that a survey be conducted of the studio users and that it be distributed and tabulated prior to the Corporations next meeting in January. Mr. Stock noted that the studio lease agreement will expire on December 31, 1992. Mr. Stock suggested that rather than extending the lease for a set time period that the Corporation consider amending the lease to include a provision providing for an automatic renewal on a month to month basis or termination as set forth within the agreement. Mr. Stock also suggested that a provision be added to allow for the termination of the lease agreement with a 60 day notice by either party. Mr. Moonen questioned whether Mr. lepley had a problem with the provision. Mr. Stock stated that he discussed the matter with Mr. Lepley and he did not object. Anderson/Scannell moved to amend the Studio Lease Agreement with Mr. Lepley to include a provision that would allow for the automatic renewal of the lease on a month to month basis with an additional provision added allowing for a 60 day termination by either party. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock also noted that the contract with New Frontier Productions expired this past July. He also suggested that contract language be added to this agreement similar to what was just discussed. Scannell/Zeigler moved to renew and amend the Service Contract Agreement with New Frontier Productions to include language which would provide for an automatic renewal of the agreement on a month to month basis with an additional provision added allowing for a 60 day termination by either party. Motion carried unanimously. Zeigler/Moonen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9: 10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary 1/() OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CABLE COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 26, 1992 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7: 05 p.m. with Commissioners Moonen, Bastyr, Anderson, Scannell and Harrison present. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Mark Hammerstrom, Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. , General Manager; and Bob Zeigler were also present. Scannell/Moonen moved to approve the minutes of the August 31, 1992 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that this past August, Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. requested an amendment to the Shakopee Franchise Ordinance in an attempt to consolidate the Shakopee headend with the Chaska headend. On August 31, 1992 the Cable Commission reviewed the request made by Amzak. At that time, the Cable Commission requested City Council to obtain the professional services of a consultant who could analyze the technical stability and legal feasibility of Amzak's proposal. On October 7 , 1992 staff received a correspondence from Mr. Adrian Herbst representing Moss & Barnett describing the procedure that they utilized in analyzing the proposed Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Stock noted that Moss & Barnett did contact an engineering consultant in regard to the technical stability and feasibility of Amzak's proposal. Mr. Stock went on to state that Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. has issued a check to the City of Shakopee in an amount equal to the cost incurred by the City in reviewing this matter. Mr. Stock noted that Adrian Herbst drafted the Shakopee Cable Franchise Ordinance. He went on to state the Mr. Herbst reviewed each of the concerns listed in the earlier correspondence submitted to the Cable Commission. Mr. Herbst has gone into detail responding to each of the concerns raised by the Cable Commission. In summary, Mr. Herbst believes that Amzak' s proposal will not jeopardize the provision of service to Shakopee residents. Mr. Herbst has drafted the appropriate ordinance amendment to facilitate Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. 's request. The proposed ordinance has been drafted in such a fashion that Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. would be required to construct a new headend facility in Shakopee should any of the following occur. 1. Grantee's failure to meet or exceed technical quality standards as set forth by the FCC. 2 . Transfer of control and/or ownership of that portion of the system which serves only the City of Shakopee. 3 . Expiration of the franchise. Mr. Stock went on to state that Mr. Herbst is recommending a performance test of the fiber optic line to insure that the technical performance standards established by the FCC are met. Official Proceedings of the October 26, 1992 Shakopee Cable Commission Page -2- Chairman Anderson stated that he had a concern about the institutional network and the proposed fiber optic line. He stated that the signal quality on the I-Net is poor. He noted that Mr. Jim Murphy from the School District indicated that he would be sending a correspondence to the City in regard to this matter. Mr. Stock stated that he has not received any correspondence from the School District relative to Amzak's proposal. Mr. Anderson also questioned whether or not the proposed set-up would allow for the school to add an additional channel to link up with another facility. Mr. Hammerstrom stated that technically speaking nothing will change in regard to the institutional network following the completion of the fiber optic line. He went on to state that if the existing system has capability to add channel capacity that the new system will also allow said channel expansion. Mr. Hammerstrom also noted that he was not aware of the alleged poor picture quality on the I-Net. He stated that he will follow-up to determine if a problem exists. Chairman Anderson questioned whether or not adding the government access channel will be impacted by the new fiber optic line. Mr. Hammerstrom stated that under the proposed plan both communities will still be able to maintain the integrity of their separate cable systems. He went on to state that in addition to equipment, maintenance and other costs savings the fiber optic line will cut amplifier cascades which will allow for the transmission of stronger signals. Commissioner Scannell noted that if the new fiber optic line and elimination of the headend will save the cable company money why did rates recently go up. Mr. Hammerstrom stated that you have to look at the fiber optic line over the long term. He noted that the initial cost to construct the line will cost in excess of $150, 000. 00. These costs will be made up over time through the in-kind maintenance and equipment savings mentioned earlier. Mr. Hammerstrom also noted that a good portion of the recent rate increase was associated with the additional of the Midwest Sports Channel. He noted that the Midwest Sports Channel is the highest priced basic service that they carry on the channel line up. Commissioner Scannell questioned whether or not the new set up would allow for the reinstatement of the WCCO weather channel. He noted that Mr. Kazma had earlier reported that the WCCO weather channel was removed due to the lack of channel space. Mr. Kazma had also stated earlier that the new fiber optic line would increase channel capacity and allow for the possible reactivation of the WCCO weather channel. Official Proceedings of the October 26, 1992 Shakopee Cable Commission Page -3- Mr. Hammerstrom stated that he was not sure at this time whether or not he WCCO weather channel would be reactivated. Commissioner Moonen questioned whether or not the ordinance amendment as drafted by Mr. Herbst actually specifies that a new headend facility will be constructed in Shakopee upon termination of the Franchise Ordinance. Mr. Stock stated that he felt comfortable with the proposed ordinance language. He stated that it directly referred to maintaining a stand alone headend within the City as originally contemplated. Mr. Stock stated that the whole premise of the current ordinance amendment is based on the fact that there are adequate references within the existing ordinance and proposed ordinance amendment relating to a stand alone headend facility in Shakopee. Mr. Anderson questioned whether or not the ordinance needed to actually specify the length of the fiber optic line. It was the consensus of the Commission to maintain the language as drafted. Discussion ensued on the need for performance testing before and/or after the completion of a fiber optic line. Mr. Stock stated that he did not feel it was necessary to have a performance test prior to completion of the fiber optic line. He stated that what is of most importance is the signal quality and technical performance following the completion of the line. Mr. Stock questioned Mr. Hammerstrom regarding the timing of the fiber optic line completion. Mr. Hammerstrom stated that if City Council approved the ordinance amendment they expected the fiber optic line to be completed before years end. Moonen/Scannell moved to recommend to City Council that Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. officials agree to costs associated with a performance evaluation of the Shakopee Cable system following the completion of the fiber optic line and headend consolidation and recommend approval of the proposed Franchise Ordinance Amendment to consolidate the Shakopee headend facility with the Chaska headend facility and construction of said fiber optic line. Motion carried with Commissioner Bastyr opposed. Mr. Hammerstrom gave a brief cable administrative report. He noted that he will be taking over responsibility of managing the Shakopee and Chaska cable systems. Mr. Kazma has relocated to Chicago but will still be stopping by occasionally to review issues as they relate to the Shakopee system. Mr. Hammerstrom reviewed the correspondence regarding the new basic service tier. Mr. Hammerstrom noted that the new Cable Act specifies that all cable systems will have to provide a basic tier of service. In response to the Legislation, Amzak Cable, Midwest, Official Proceedings of the October 26, 1992 Shakopee Cable Commission Page -4- Inc. is proposing to activate a basic tier that will consist of channels 2 through 12 . The tier will include local on air channels as well as WTBS and WGN. The basic tier will also include all public, educational and governmental access channels including the regional access channel. The cost for the basic tier of service is approximately $6.95 per month. Commissioner Moonen questioned why the installation fee was $99.95. Mr Hammerstrom noted that the reason for the high installation fee is that the Shakopee cable system is only partially addressable. In other words, if an individual were to request basic service the cable company would need to install a specially designed trap that will trap out all other channels offered on the satellite tier. Mr. Hammerstrom noted that the actual installation cost to hook up the basic tier subscriber will be approximately $160. 00. Commissioner Moonen questioned what the cost would be if you down graded from the satellite tier to the basic tier of service. Mr. Hammerstrom noted that the fee would be the standard down grade fee that is presently in place. Mr. Hammerstrom noted that under the provisions of the 1992 Cable Act the basic tier of service will be regulated. Mr. Hammerstrom also noted that the $100. 00 basic tier installation fee may be discounted in conjunction with special promotions that the cable company plans on running. Mr. Hammerstrom again noted that the cost difference between the normal install rate of $39 .95 and the basic tier install rate of $99.95 was due to the special cable drop that is necessary and installation of a trap that is not normal and customary to a standard installation. He also noted that the actual basic service rate is much less than the rate for the satellite tier. Discussion ensued on the Council audio/video bids. Mr. Anderson stated that the bids came in lower than projected. Mr. Anderson went on to state when this item was presented to City Council, Council agreed to pick up the cost for the Council Chambers audio/video system out of the General City Hall Construction Budget. In return, the Shakopee Cable Access Corporation agreed to be responsible for operating the government access channel and replacing equipment as needed in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Zeigler stated that this is not much different from what is already being practiced. Mr. Harrison and Mr. Zeigler stated that they were interested in serving on the Cable Commission and would like to be nominated for consideration when the Council selects in January. Moonen/Bastyr moved to adjourn the meeting at 8: 35 p.m. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary 1;#- 7/ . t ?an Mr., Robert F. Vierl in2 221 E. Fourth Avenue _ :_':= ..>. --= 10/26/92 Shakopee, Mn. 55379 y' Shakopee City Hall Res Failure of the afore- Council, Admin. , anca City Att'y. mentioned to comply 129 E. First Avenue with Freedom of In- Shakopee, Mn. 55379 formation Act. Dear Sirs and Madama s I am still awaiting answers to my 22 complaints which you have illegally refused to answer, under the Freedom of Informa- tion Act of Mn. . I realize that the City's above listed groups are devious and unqualified as public employees , since I can' t, for the life of me, figure out why the City of- Shakopee is so gutless as to refuse to answer my questions . As far as the alleged City Attorney goes, I have waited over 50 years for Shakopee to employ a real Attorney at Law. We all realized the previous one was a hopeless case, but now we seem to have one that' s even worse . One who doesn' t have the knowledge to answer complaints , thus remaining in violation of State law . She told me how good she is , but she has never stated at which Municipality she worked for the previous ten years before being employed here. As I said, I've waited 50 years for a real Attorney - I'm still waiting! Now for complaint # 23 ! This has to do with our great City Engineer and Associates . On my property on Summerville between 3rd and 4th Avenue, the vest side, the brand new sidewalk that was forced on me after you removed my other sidewalk, is now breaking up on 3 different squares , with one square cracking completely across ! There has been no weight applied, other than people walk- ing on it, and very few of them at that! Also, on the Rein property on the corner of Sommerville and 3rd, West side, the sidewalk is also cracking. What are these cracks due to? They 're due to the insufficiency of the City Engineer and Associates , who did not properly supervise the laying of the sidewalk. It's both poor P cement, and an even poorer base that was laid! They should have known this ! It was certainly apparent to many others ! I had a con- tractor who is known as one of the best cement men in Mn. who could gave laid my sidewalk for me at a fair amount less than the City overcharged me, but the City refused me permission to do this . But, isn' t it funny that right across the street from me on Summerville between 4th and 5th, on the West side, you let those people put in their own sidewalk by themselves? Is this just another coincidence or perhaps it' s just more harassment by the City of Shakopee? Maybe Mayor Laurent and the Vice-Mayor Gloria (I second that motion) Vierling could pass e Iset itck amazangg how fastdecide these what to do about all ,� smessn two can move on their own projects? Sincerely, -76 Move to receive and file correspondence from Robert Vierling regarding failure to comply with Freedom of Information Act. ) Robert j :/ F. Vierling //2--' MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney DATE: October 22 , 1992 RE: Court Appearances Attached please find the most recent chart of court appearances. This shows the number of cases I have been required to be present for in court for each month, and compares 1991 with 1992 . As you can see, the 1992 criminal workload has far exceeded the 1991 workload. The First Appearances and Omnibus Hearings, along with approximately half of the Jury Trials are gross misdemeanor cases (which Scott County handled for the City last year) . If you have any questions regarding this, please let me know. Signed Zir— -----74 Karen Marty, Ci Attorney KEM:bjm [22MEMO] Attachment cc: Dennis Kraft Number of Appearances 1 N co A 01 C) -,l OX cfl O O O O O O O O O O I I 1 I • i { O € 1—// // ///// / > • .r N — I i N— • N \ • i I N — W • • (\D ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////z V ZIIIIII N I —1 CO //////////////// ////// ///////////.�/////////AI .. N - • 01 e COf N /////////////////////f. V////////�:::i:3 I I 1 V f 0 °' 0 3 N — E /// /i %///A""" ! \ 175 1 D N 1 i 1 I co I __ co O //////////////////////////////////� - y�����: : �m c0 r /////// // i /,i■■■■■IS, :x:1.5!::':'.!:0..! }l+ N — —1 I D O P/ //////' / A A . \\ :•:....A i 1 0 N 1 s /(/1�) — 9-�// / /// /// /// / //, / I F VJ 1 r////////// / /// //////. I :•... ❖:❖.❖.❖.❖:..s::❖:❖: N ' 1 1 1 1 N • •J I 1 ////// / /////J! i i ' N 1 : I � I N I I 1 I 0 % Mil 0 % c— :::i 0 N 71 Ii::::: Do cD % 0- C % = \ '41. - - D CDDo CD D SD CDw CD CD cQ n MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Regular Session October 21, 1992 Chairman Drees called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 P.M. , with Commissioners Drees, Reinke, Stafford, Case, and Kelly present. Commissioner Mars was present at 7 : 55 P.M. Also present were Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner; and Kate Ellis, Community Development intern. Commissioners Reinke/Kelly moved to approve the minutes of the May 20, 1992 , meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Drees requested that the adoption of Roberts Rules of Order be added to the agenda as Agenda Item #3 . Commissioner Stafford/Reinke moved to approve the adoption of Roberts Rules of Order as the parliamentary procedure to be followed by the Energy and Transportation Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock presented information regarding the proposed budget amendment for 1992 . He stated that each year the City of Shakopee receives funding for transit operations from the Regional Transit Board. Based upon the review of the current expenditure status and the recent implementation of two new Vanpools within the system, it appears that the City will exceed the budget amount approved by the RTB. Mr. Stock stated that staff is recommending that the Energy and Transportation Committee request that the appropriate City officials submit a budget amendment request in the amount of $6, 600. 00 for the RTB' s review and approval to cover these unexpected costs with the two new vehicles. Commissioner Reinke suggested that the Energy and Transportation also instigate a marketing program for the Dial-A-Ride system. The Commissioners discussed the need for a marketing program and the various types of marketing techniques available. Mr. Stock stated that staff has been receiving additional requests for handicapped accessible vehicles within the Dial-A-Ride system, and that there is currently a standing order for such a vehicle during the peak operating hours. Mr. Stock suggested that the Energy and Transportation Committee may want to consider implementing a handicapped accessible Dial-A-Ride vehicle by November 15, 1992 , instead of January 1, 1993 , as previously planned. Reinke/Stafford offered a motion requesting that the appropriate City officials submit a budget amendment request to cover the costs associated with the following: Minutes of the Page - 2 Energy& Transportation Committee October 21, 1992 1. Additional unexpected Vanpool costs; 2 . Dial-A-Ride Advertising campaign; and 3 . Additional handicapped Dial-A-Ride vehicle effective November 15, 1992 . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that one of the goals and objectives for the Shakopee Energy and Transportation Committee was to conduct a Dial- A-Ride survey to determine ridership needs and satisfaction. Dial- A-Ride drivers recently distributed these surveys to the users of the service. The Energy and Transportation Committee reviewed and discussed the survey results. Mr. Stock stated that, although the results of the survey were positive, the survey should be redistributed during the winter months when there is a higher rate of ridership. The small sample size of this survey, with only 30 responses received, may make the survey results unreliable. Mr. Stock stated that staff has encountered difficulties in processing information from Vanpool driver reports to the Regional Transit Board due to late submittals of monthly reports from some of the Vanpool drivers. A letter was mailed to all of the drivers on September 8, 1992, reminding drivers that the Driver Reporting Sheets must be submitted within ten days of the end of each month. Discussion ensued between the Committee members on methods of alleviating this continual problem. The Committee discussed the possibility of developing a policy to charge Vanpool drivers a certain percentage of the monthly Vanpool fare for each month they submit late reports. After the submittal of four late reports within a year, the driver would be replaced. Commissioner Reinke suggested that drivers offer another rider an incentive to complete the monthly reports for the driver to assist in submitting the reports in a timely manner. Kelly/Reinke moved to request staff to develop a policy to provide disincentives to the Vanpool drivers when they submit late Driver Reporting Sheets. Motion carried unanimously. The Commissioners will review and take action on this policy at a later date. Mr. Stock explained a letter from Greg Andrews, Executive Director of the Regional Transit Board. The purpose of the letter was to clarify the recent RTB action to exclude vehicle capital costs from the opt-out's operating funds beginning in 1993 . Only vehicle operating charges associated with the delivery of transit service will be funded from the 90% transit property tax. Mr. Stock explained that grant money from the federal government is intended for the acquisition of buses. Under the new policy, a portion of the City' s monthly costs will be considered capital even though no vehicles will be purchased. Beginning January 1, 1993, capital costs will be funded form another funding source. Approximately 25% of the Vanpool expenses will no longer have to Minutes of the Page - 3 Energy & Transportation Committee October 21, 1992 come from the City' s property taxes. The Dial-A-Ride program costs are $22 . 15 per hour, and the capital portion of this is $2 . 01. Mr. Stock went on to say that the City may have had to cut services without this change in policy. He also stated that this policy change is a result of joint lobbying efforts with other opt-out communities. The Committee discussed the legislative liaison/government affairs representative proposal for opt-out transit systems in 1993 . Mr. Stock stated that the monthly cost to the City for the work by this representative is only $450 . He stated that this is a very small amount in comparison to what the City' s transit programs have gained this year from the lobbyist' s efforts. Committee members discussed the Recycling Report, the Dial-A-Ride Report, the Saturday Dial-A-Ride Operations Report, and the Vanpool Operation Report. Reinke/Mars moved to adjourn at 8 : 22 P.M. */L) ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT ON PROJECTS FOR OCTOBER Category 1 - Projects Under Construction 1. Apgar Street and 2nd Avenue All sewer and water construction has been completed. The gravel base and curb and gutter are completed. The first lift of paving is scheduled for early November. 2. Market Street/Minnesota Street Railroad Crossings The street construction is completed. The Chicago & Northwestern Railroad still needs to install the crossing signals and the new crossing at Market Street. 3 . Vierling Drive - C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 This project is completed for this year except for final clean up and turf restoration. The final lift of asphalt will be completed next spring. 4. 12th Avenue Sewer and Water Project (Industrial Park) Work on this project to date has mainly consisted of blasting bedrock prior to the pipe installation. 5. Prairie Estates 2nd Addition All street and utility construction has been completed in this new subdivision. 6. Meadows 7th Addition All street and utility construction has been completed in this new subdivision. 7 . Weinandt Acres 2nd Addition All street and utility construction has been completed in this new subdivision. 8 . Beckrich Estates All work in this new subdivision has been completed with the exception of the final lift of asphalt. 9. Horizon Heights 4th Addition All street and utility construction has been completed in this new subdivision. 10. New Connection of Muhlenhardt Road to C.R. 18 This project has been completed except for final clean up and restoration. 11. Minnesota Valley 7th Addition This project is completed for this year except for final clean up and turf restoration. The final lift of asphalt will be completed next spring. 12 . Heritage 3rd and 4th Additions. All street and utility construction has been completed in this new subdivision. Category No. 2 - Projects in Desitin 1. Rahr Malting Force Main This project is in the preliminary design phase. 2 . V.I .P. Interceptor Extension This project is in the preliminary design phase. Category No. 3 - Projects Under Study (Feasibility Reports) 1. Downtown Alley Reconstruction The alley reconstruction portion of the feasibility report has been drafted. The report is not being finalized until Shakopee Public Utilities Commission completes their study on the electrical undergrounding costs of this project. 2 . Foothill Trail Storm Sewer The feasibility report has been completed and a public hearing has been scheduled for December 1, 1992 . 3 . Muhlenhardt Road The feasibility report is completed and was discussed by the City Council last spring. Any action on this project is currently tabled until the Special Assessment Policy is revised. 4. Webster Street, 6th Avenue to 3rd Avenue The feasibility report was ordered on October 20, 1992 . No work on the report has started yet. 5. Minnesota Street/Dakota Street/Alleys (North of 7th Avenue) The feasibility report was ordered on October 20, 1992 . No work on the report has started yet. 10/30/92 David E. Hutton City Engineer TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 3 , 1992 Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 8: 00 P.M. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 4] Re-convene 5] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 6] Mayor ' s Report 7] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 8] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) 9] Approval of the Minutes: None 10] Communications: *a] Robert F. Vierling regarding sidewalk replacement 11] Public Hearings: a] Amending the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance to allow the Cable Company the authority to consolidate it's head end operations with the City of Chaska - Ord. 344 b] Proposed assessments for the Jefferson Street Watermain from 12th Avenue South to Tahpah Park - Res. No. 3694 c] Proposed assessments for the 1992 Sidewalk Replacement Program, 1992-7 - Res. No. 3693 d] Proposed assessments for Vierling Drive Improvements from CR-17 to CR-79, 1992-3 - Res. No. 3695 12] Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission: a] Preliminary Development Plan for Milwaukee Manor PUD, tabled 10/20 TENTATIVE AGENDA November 3 , 1992 Page -2- 13] Reports from Staff: a] Awarding 1992 Bond Sales aa] Res. No. 3697, $1, 665, 000 G.O. Improvement Bonds bb] Res. No. 3698, $1,885, 000 G.O. TIF Refunding Bonds b] Brambilla Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) *c] 2nd Avenue Parking Restriction d] AMM 1993 Legislative Policies - bring non-agenda item #12 from Oct. 20th meeting *e] Approve Bills in the Amount of $97 , 441. 68 f] Deleted *g] Filling New Position in the Finance Department h] 1993 Budget Items i] Canterbury Downs 1993 Simulcast Endorsement *j ] Boards and Commissions Expiring Terms 14] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 3692 - Approving Plans and Specs for Bloomington Ferry Bridge, Stage 2B (North Bridge Approaches) *b] Res. No. 3696 - Resolution of Appreciation to Rahr Malting Company *c] Res. No. 3691 - 1992-93 Snow and Ice Control Plan *d] Ord. No. 345 - Amending Gambling Restrictions *e] Res. No. 3699 - Apportioning Special Assessments for Parcel #27-055005-0 15] Other Business: a] b] c] d] 16] Adjourn to Tuesday, November 17, 1992 at 7: 00 P.M. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator Next Committee of the Whole Meeting: November 19th at 7: 00 p.m. TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 3 , 1992 1. Roll Call at 8 : 00 P.M. 2 . Approval of October 6, 1992 Minutes 3 . Downtown Redevelopment Analysis 4 . Monnens Custom Builders - Reimbursement Request 5 . Other Business a) b) 6 . Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 6, 1992 Chairman Sweeney called the meeting to order at 7 : 04 p.m. with Commissioners Lynch, Laurent, Vierling and Beard present. Also present were Dennis Kraft, City Administrator/HRA Executive Director; Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; and Dave Hutton, Public Works Director/City Engineer. Vierling/Laurent moved to approve the September 1, 1992 meeting minutes. Motion carried with Commissioner Lynch abstaining due to her absence at this meeting. Dave MacGillivary, Springsted, Inc. , distributed copies of the most recent figures showing the present tax increment financing fund and the impact on the projected fund balance after servicing the outstanding debt and considering two alternatives to reduce the market value of the Canterbury Downs Racetrack. Mr. MacGillivary explained that in May of 1992 the owners of Canterbury Downs requested the City to reduce the minimum accessed value of their property to $24 , 400, 000 which would result in an estimated property tax payment of $1. 5 million dollars. In response to a more recent request by Canterbury Downs to reduce the minimum assessed value to an amount which will result in a $1 million property tax payment, staff is presenting two alternatives for Council ' s consideration. Mr. MacGillivary outlined the two alternatives and their impact on the tax increment financing fund balance in 2002 . Alternative #1 would result in reducing the minimum assessed value to $16, 750, 000 which would result in a property tax from Canterbury Downs in the amount of $1 million plus $150, 000 to ISD #720 . Alternative #2 would reduce the minimum assessed value to $14 , 075, 000 resulting in a total income tax in the amount of $1 million, $840, 000 of which would go to the City and $160, 000 of which would go to ISD #720. Mr. MacGillivary went on to explain that either of these alternatives would still allow the City to meet its debt obligations and have a positive tax increment financing balance. Mr. Kraft explained that the amended agreement to be entered into between Canterbury Downs Racetrack owners and the City of Shakopee would require the property owner to provide a letter of credit guaranteeing payment of the taxes for 1993 through and including 1995. In response to a question from Commissioner Sweeney, the Commissioners were advised that the fiscal disparities contribution for the Canterbury Downs Racetrack is still being paid by the community under both of these alternatives. Rick Riechow, Canterbury Downs Racetrack, addressed the City Council . He explained that either of the two alternatives for reduction of the minimum assessed value are still substantially above what he feels the fair market value of the racetrack is. He Official Proceedings of the October 6, 1992 Housing & Redevelopment Authority Page -2- asked that the City Council consider amending the original minimum assessed value so that the combined taxes for the City and the School District would amount to no more than $1 million. He explained that he has received permission from the property owners to go forward with the $1 million property tax amount and that they will provide the requested letter of credit guaranteeing payment of the property taxes through 1995. Discussion ensued. Laurent/Vierling moved to reduce the minimum assessed value for the Canterbury Downs Racetrack in an amount which will result in a total property tax of $1 million; and, offered Resolution No. 92-8, A Resolution Offering Execution and Delivery of Amendment to Assessment Agreement and Tax Payment and Security Agreement, and moved its adoption. Mr. MacGillivary informed Council that if the minimum assessed value of the property is reduced it would be necessary to defease the tax increment revenue bonds of 1985 pursuant to the conditions of the bond agreement. Mr. Robert Decker, Chief Finance Officer of Ladbroke, thanked the City Council for all the considerations that they have given to the request to reduce the minimum assessed value for Canterbury Downs Racetrack. He went on to explain the various events since Ladbroke became owner of Canterbury Downs Racetrack which have contributed to their need to seek this reduction. He identified the Indian gaming which is located 3 1/2 miles from the track and the $16 million facility which has been built as well as not having received approval from the State for off-site betting. Motion carried with Commissioner Sweeney and Lynch opposed. Laurent/Beard offered Resolution No. 92-7 , A Resolution Authorizing Defeasance and Payment and Redemption of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 1985, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Laurent/Beard moved to adjourn at 8 : 01 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director Judith S. Cox Recording Secretary 43 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director Shakopee HRA FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Downtown Redevelopment Analysis DATE: October 29, 1992 INTRODUCTION: On March 31, 1992, the Shakopee City Council discussed the development potential for the area North of 1st Avenue at a Committee of the Whole meeting. The Shakopee Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) subsequently requested the Community Development Commission (CDC) to prepare an analysis of the various redevelopment options for Block 4 in the downtown area. The CDC has completed their analysis and would like the HRA to schedule a special Committee of the Whole meeting to present their findings. BACKGROUND: The CDC has been analyzing the redevelopment potential for Block 4 in the downtown area for several months. Shown in Attachment #1 is the evaluation process that the Commission used as a methodology for assessing the rehabilitation potential of the existing buildings and for estimating the public costs relative to the value received of several development options. When the Commission embarked on the this process they were optimistic that it would assist them in identifying an appropriate development strategy for the project area in question. The evaluation process was divided into five (5) major sections: 1. Opportunities and Constraints. 2 . Overview Analysis. 3 . Screening the Options. 4. Impact Assessment. 5. Alternatives, Evaluation and Selection. Staff has intentionally not provided the HRA with a copy of the complete redevelopment report at this time. The final report is in excess of 30 pages and is fairly complex. The report is also in need of several minor modifications prior to formal submission to the HRA. In summary, the Commission narrowed their review of alternatives down to six (6) options. The option that will be recommended to the Shakopee HRA is a combination of maintaining the status quo in terms of the existing Block 4 development with the adoption of a downtown pre-development plan. In other words, the CDC felt that based on their analysis it would not be in the best interest of the City to secure ownership of the property within Block 4 at this time. The pre-development plan (Attachment #2) focuses on the investment in public improvements. The CDC would like to schedule a special Committee of the Whole meeting with the Shakopee HRA to discuss the findings set forth in the redevelopment analysis and the various components of the proposed pre-development plan. The Commission has also identified several funding sources that they will be prepared to present to the Shakopee HRA for further consideration. The Shakopee City Council has scheduled a Committee of the Whole meeting for Thursday, November 19 , 1992 to continue discussion of the Capital Improvement Program. Perhaps the HRA could also meet at that time to discuss the CDC' s findings and recommendations. If that date is not acceptable, staff would request that an alternative date be set at the convenience of the HRA members. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Schedule a Committee of the Whole meeting for Thursday, November 19th to discuss the findings of the CDC in regard to the downtown redevelopment analysis. 2 . Select some other date for a HRA Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss the CDC downtown redevelopment analysis. 3 . Request the CDC to be prepared to present their findings and recommendations relative to the downtown analysis at the next officially scheduled Shakopee HRA meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Select November 19th as the date for a HRA Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss the CDC downtown redevelopment analysis. TAMI\ADMIN\CDCANLY R ' = < s _ i_ S 1 . A sz = 2 15. 2 o _ - < n g C p y a MS s ° ( e 3 = 3 3 o ` E. o M e ° 0 — = ° S = .Z l ] SI 17 _ a �• 0 g. = to. ] 1 m O ° � A � g a w > x 3 a 2. o e ° p o e 2.. .4 .z • o o w T j 1 g€o . moo a ' a. 3 g . I o e • : e c Q g I 1 r 1 , 13 D a a ° a= Qo .7VF P I D ( 0 p00o A e e ' w ° o37m ^ d ' n n n Qw o 1-3 et a _ ° C7 o x $ ^C A s -. I o cr. . cr < e• z o $ D °nm o- g 9 On rM ^ m , n n� a n C,O I i I ca ';' ,7 > D > 1. _ _ a a" a •e 3 m O — o - e n < . n e e C1 7 m. g < 0' — 0 •-• ve < e . D T ] mi . m 3 m ' m I I 1 1 m — m n _ 7 ° c °o ° l P 3 o W m A o ri• ms , . R ; aM '^ n n c g j 7 g . n< n -- -i. ---7--- —____I___— T ] o2 Z. Txe° C n A y m > =m m < i" m m = c 3e al � =a m . 5 < 0 o . s A r. 9 . n ° :..... 3 . 2 3 S. 4-,e I,tetil 4'z. SHAKOPEE DOWNTOWN PRE-DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Work with MnDOT to ensure that the following occur: a. Re-design proposed parking lot north of bebow so that it is aesthetically appealing. Utilize terrace concept, plantings and lighting elements. b. Construct ornamental rail along east side of bridge and by-pass to match character of ornamental lighting. c. Work wit MnDOT to ensure that additional lighting is installed under the bridge on Levee Drive. 2 . Approve appearance of buildings facing mini by-pass. a. Secure conservation easements, acquire or negotiate access to property from rear building face to alley in Block 4 . b. Resurface area secured by easement and develop masking device. c. Utilize rehab grant program increasing grant percentage amount for priority development zones. d. Work with the City to ensure that the City Hall building is repainted. (Earth tones) 3 . Adopt regulatory standards to insure consistent aesthetic building improvements in the downtown area. 4 . Underground overhead utility lines within alleys downtown. (Blocks 22, 23 , 24 & 25) . 5. Reconstruct alleys within downtown area (Blocks 22 , 23 , 24 & 25) . 6. Identify parking lot locations downtown and construct said parking lots. 7. Complete Phase II of the downtown redevelopment plan. 8. Develop critical entry points. a. Bebow - west side. b. Bridge head - mall/fountain/tower. c. Structure - east side. `-t'y MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, HRA Executive Director FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Monnens Custom Builders - Reimbursement Request DATE: October 29 , 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a correspondence that staff has received from Mr. Jeff Monnens. This past July Mr. Monnens acquired Outlot A, Macy' s 2nd Addition from the Shakopee HRA. BACKGROUND: This past July, the Shakopee HRA agreed to sell Outlot A, Macy' s 2nd Addition to Mr. Monnens for a price of $35, 000. In August, the Shakopee HRA agreed to reduce the price of the property by $1, 000 due to an easement problem that was not accurately portrayed on a boundary survey that was completed for the Shakopee HRA. Mr. Monnens has subsequently split Outlot A, Macy ' s 2nd Addition in to two separate buildable lots. During the construction of a home for the first lot, Mr. Monnens discovered that there was approximately 12 feet of fill on the parcel. Mr. Monnens states in his correspondence that he had to remove the fill and repack the soil at a cost of approximately $2500 per lot. Mr. Monnens has stated that he was aware that there was approximately 4 - 6 feet of fill hauled into the property. However, he was not aware of the other 6 feet. Mr. Monnens is requesting a total reimbursement of $2500. The $2500 actually equates to the removing/refilling/ compacting 6 feet of fill on each lot. Mr. Monnens is not actually requesting reimbursement for the 6 feet of fill that he was aware of. Staff has confirmed with the City Building Official that approximately 12 feet of fill was excavated from the home site on 339 Market Street. Since a building permit has not been applied for on 443 Market Street, staff is not sure whether or not the same amount of fill will need to be removed on that site. Staff has reviewed Mr. Monnens request with the City Attorney to determine our liability in regard to Mr. Monnens correspondence. The City Attorney has stated that she is not aware of any disclosure that the City should have made other than what was made. Staff was fully aware of the 3 - 6 feet of fill that was hauled onto the Outlot A, Macy' s 2nd Addition property in conjunction with the completion of the 5th Avenue\Market Street Project. However, staff was not aware of approximately 6 additional feet of fill that apparently was on the site. Staff does not feel that the HRA should be liable for the additional excavation costs as noted in Mr. Monnens correspondence. Therefore, staff is recommending that no action be taken on this item. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do nothing. 2 . Authorize the appropriate City officials to refund $2500 to Mr. Jeff Monnens for unexpected excavation costs associated with the development of the lots located at 339 and 443 Market Street. 3 . Authorize the appropriate HRA officials to refund an amount to be determined by the HRA for the additional excavation costs incurred by Mr. Monnens in developing the property located at 339 and 443 Market Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REOUESTED: No action is necessary if the HRA concurs with staff's recommendation. MONNENS CUSTOM BUILDERS, INC. 1006 DAKOTA STREET SOUTH SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 (612) 496-0921 DATE: 10-28-92 TO: Barry Stock (H R A) FROM: Monnens Custom Builders RE: Out lot A, Macey 2nd Addition 339 and 443 Market Street The above described property was purchased with the impression that it was ready to be built upon. It was discovered, that it was necessary to excavate approximately 12 feet, fill and re-pack the lots at a cost of $2500. 00 per lot. We are requesting a refund of the $2500.00 per lot to reimburse us for the costs incurred. We feel the purchaser should have been informed that these lots need filling and packing. Monnens Builders is requesting to be on the agenda of the next H R A meeting. f" I 0 cki M.r. Robert F. Vierling 221 Fourth Avenue Shakopee, Mn. 55379 vl7i °F 10/26/92 Shakopee City Hall Res Failure of the afore- Council, Admin. , ani: City Att'y. mentioned to comply 129 E. First Avenue with Freedom of In- Shakopee, Mn. 55379 formation Act. Dear Sirs and Madame : I am still awaiting answers to my 22 complaints which you have illegally refused to answer, under the Freedom of Informa- tion Act of Mn. . I realize that the City's above listed groups are devious and unqualified as public employees , since I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the City of' Shakopee is so gutless as to refuse to answer my questions . As far as the alleged City Attorney goes, I have waited over 50 years for Shakopee to employ a real Attorney at Law. We all realized the previous one was a hopeless case, but now we seem to have one that' s even worse . One who doesn' t have the knowledge to answer complaints , thus remaining in violation of State law. She told me how good she is , but she has never stated at which Municipality she worked for the previous ten years before being employed here. As I said, I've waited 50 years for a real Attorney - I 'm still waiting! Now for complaint # 23 ! This has to do with our great City Engineer and Associates . On my property on Summerville between 3rd and 4th Avenue, the vest side, the brand new sidewalk that was forced on me after you removed my other sidewalk, is now breaking up on 3 different squares, with one square cracking completely across ! There has beer. no weight applied, other than people walk- ing on it, and very few of them at that! Also, on the Rein property on the corner of Sommerville and 3rd, West side, the sidewalk is also cracking. What are these cracks due to? They 're due to the insufficiency of the City Engineer and Associates , who did not properly supervise the laying of the sidewalk. It's both poor cement, and an even poorer base that was laid! They should have known this ! It was certainly apparent to many others ! I had a con- tractor who is known as one of the best cement men in Mn. who could gave laid my sidewalk for me at a fair amount less than the City overcharged me, but the City refused me permission to do this . But, isn' t it funny that right across the street from me on Summerville between 4th and 5th, on the West side, you let those people put in their own sidewalk by themselves? Is this just another coincidence or perhaps it's just more harassment by the City of Shakopee? Maybe Mayor Laurent and the Vice-Mayor Gloria (I second that motion) Vierling could pass the gavel back and forth and decide what to do about all this mess ! Isn't it amazing how fast these two can move on their own projects? Move to receive and file correspondence from Sincerely, Robert Vierling regarding failure to comply with Freedom of Information Act. ,/ Robe ,/ Robe t`/F. Vierling -� i MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Cable Franchise Ordinance - Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 344 DATE: October 28, 1992 INTRODUCTION: On August 31st and October 26th, the Shakopee Cable Commission reviewed a request from Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. to consolidate the Shakopee headend with the Chaska headend. Consultant services have been utilized by the City to review said request. A public hearing has been scheduled for November 3 , 1992 to consider amending the Cable Franchise Ordinance. BACKGROUND: On August 31, 1992 the Shakopee Cable Commission determined that it would be appropriate to obtain legal assistance in determining the impact of combining the Shakopee head end facility with the Chaska headend facility. The Cable Commission requested City Council to obtain the services of Moss & Barnett to review the Cable Company's request in terms of it's technical merit. Moss & Barnett was also requested to prepare the appropriate legal documents that were necessary to facilitate the Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment request. City Council concurred on 9/15/92 . The City has received payment from Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. to cover the legal services provided by Moss & Barnett. On October 7, 1992 I received a correspondence from Mr. Adrian Herbst, Moss & Barnett, (Attachment #1) describing the procedure that they utilized in analyzing the proposed Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment. Note that Moss & Barnett did contact an engineering consultant (Owl Engineering) in regard to the technical stability and feasibility of Amzak's proposal. Owl Engineering, Inc. is one of the top engineering firms in the twin cities metro area specializing in cable television compliance standards and FCC regulations. Following is a brief summary of Moss & Barnett's findings: 1. The proposal submitted by Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. will in fact require a Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment. 2 . The proposed fiber optic line and headend consolidation should not present any technical deficiencies in the provision of video and audio programming to Shakopee subscribers. 3 . A performance test to ensure that the technical quality of the proposed system meets or exceeds FCC technical standards would be advisable to ensure quality video and audio signals for Shakopee residents. 4 . An Ordinance Amendment drafted in the appropriate manner would protect the City of Shakopee and ensure that the technical quality of Amzak's signals and service will be maintained throughout the life of the franchise. Mr. Herbst went on to address within his correspondence all of the questions that were raised by the Cable Commission meeting at their 8/31/92 meeting. Shown in Attachment #2 is a correspondence from Mark Hammerstrom, Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. , General Manager, noting an example of where a similar headend consolidation by and between two "separate" franchising authorities has occurred. The example cited by Mr. Hammerstrom involved Bloomington and St. Louis Park. Staff has confirmed the consolidation noted by Mr. Hammerstrom. Shown in Attachment #3 is Ordinance No. 344, amending Sec. 5. 01 of Chapter 15 of the Shakopee City Code. The proposed Ordinance amendment would allow our cable operator to eliminate the Shakopee headend and construct a fiber optic line to connect with the Chaska headend. The Ordinance amendment also provides for termination of the Ordinance amendment in the event of any one of three occurrences. If any one of the three occurrences occur, the cable provider would be subject to operate under the terms and conditions of the original Cable Franchise Ordinance. (Re- construct stand-alone headend facility in Shakopee) Finally, the proposed Ordinance Amendment would require the Cable operator to finance a technical performance analysis to be conducted by an independent consultant to be selected by the City. The Cable Commission is recommending that the analysis be conducted following the completion of the fiber optic line. On October 26, 1992, the Shakopee Cable Commission moved to recommend to City Council that the Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment be approved. The Cable Commission also recommended that Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. be required to submit a cashier's check payable to the City of Shakopee in the amount of $2 , 000. 00 to cover costs associated with the performance evaluation to be conducted following the completion of the fiber optic line and headend consolidation. The City has received said security from the Cable operator. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Ordinance No. 344, amending the Cable Franchise Ordinance providing for the elimination of the Shakopee headend. 2 . Do not approve the proposed Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment request. 3 . Table action pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 344 , An Ordinance Amending Section 5 . 01 of Chapter 15 of the Shakopee City Code Entitled "Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance" allowing Grantee to Consolidate its Headend Operations, and move its adoption. TAMI/ADMIN/CABLE.MEM ached ( LAW OFFICES MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION HERMAN J.RATELLE ROBERT J.LURES 4800 NORWEST CENTER MICHAEL J.BRADLEY ANN M.MEYER PETER A.KOLLER VINCENT J.FAHNLANDER WAYNPATRICK P.FLAHERTY EDWARDJ.MICHAEL HIRSCH RICHARD J.KELBER NANCY M.KISKIS L A.WANDER VOAT MAGJ.BLOMME 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET STEVEN Z.KAPLAN HEIDI A.SCHNEIDER DONALD E. COX MARGO SSTRULHERS HOWARD S.COX ANN K.NEWHALL MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4129 NICK HAY CHARLES E.JONES PAUL VAN VALKENEURG MICHAEL J.AHERN JEANNE K.STRETCH BRIAN T.GROGAN MICHAEL L.FLANAGAN MAHER J.WEINSTEIN TELEPHONE (612) 347-0300 REESE E.CHEZICK CORY LARSEN BETTENGA W.SCOTT HERZOG PHILLIP GAINSLEY LAURA J.MCKNIGHT JEANNE•MARIE ALMONOR WAYNE A.HERGOTT JEFFREY L.WATSON TELECOPIER (612) 339-6686 BARBARA JEAN D'AQUILA ELIZABETH A.SNELSON JAMES F. T' THOMAS J.SHROYER SUSAN C.RHODE JOHN G STONE DALE M.WAGNERESi.CECILIA RAY PAULR NEI WANK BARBARA G.JENORZ RT JE EDWARD L.WIN ER DAVID P.JENDRZEJEK THOMAS M.HUGHES ADPAUL T.EIDSNESS RETIRED WILLIAM E.. L T.DANIEL CURTIS D.SMITH 347-0448 DANIEL R.SUNDELL J.BRAINERD CLARKSON WILLIAMA.PADSDAVE MAUREEN A.SCOTT FREMONT C.FLETCHER CHARLES F.SENGER A.PARSONS,JR. BRUCE E.MARTIN JOSEPH R.KLEIN VERVE W.MOSS PHILIP A.PFAFFLY LOUIS J.SPELTZ WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER DAVID M.HENRY JAMES H.HENNESSY RICHARD J.JOHNSON MITCHELL H.COX JENNIFER A.BROOKS STANLEY R.STASEL October 5, 1992 Mr. Barry Stock City of Shakopee 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: HEADEND CONSOLIDATION - OUR FILE #27081.1 Dear Barry: We have reviewed several documents forwarded from the City of Shakopee, including: 1. A letter dated August 7, 1992, from Mr. Mike Kazma, Vice President, Amzak Cable, Midwest, Inc. ("Amzak"), regarding Amzak's proposal to build a fiber optic line and eliminate the Shakopee headend; 2. Your return letter to Mr. Kazma dated August 19, 1992, expressing numerous concerns regarding Amzak's proposed fiber optic line; and 3. A memorandum from yourself to the Shakopee Cable Commission dated August 26, 1992, regarding several issues with respect to Amzak's proposed fiber optic line. Let me begin by describing the procedure we have utilized in reviewing this matter in preparation of this letter. We have reviewed the above-referenced information and have consulted with Mr. Garrett Lysiak, of Owl Engineering, Inc., regarding the technical stability and feasibility of Amzak's proposal. In addition, we have reviewed the current Franchise by and between the City of Shakopee and Amzak, as well as relevant portions of the initial offering made by the original Grantee in the City of Shakopee. Based on the foregoing, we believe the Franchise for the City of Shakopee requires that a headend be maintained within the City limits to provide the cable television services proposed by the Grantee, Amzak. In particular, Section 15.04B of the Franchise provides: Grantee shall provide all services and offerings specifically set forth in the Offering to provide cable communication service within the City . . . MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Barry Stock October 5, 1992 Page 2 Further, Page 1, Form I, of the original Offering titled "Channel Capacity and System Design" provides in pertinent part: The Shakopee headend site was selected for its quiet RF environment as has been verified through a series of studies and on-site investigations. Its location is near the river valley, a point of low elevation which is excellent for satellite reception purposes. Electrical interference is also nil at this site which is particularly important for low band VHF reception. This provision of the Offering, coupled with the definition of the term "System" at Section 3.20 of the Franchise, requires that the Grantee maintain a headend facility located within the City of Shakopee. Amzak's proposal to eliminate the Shakopee headend and, in its place, provide a eight (8) mile fiber optic line from the City of Chaska headend location violates the provisions of the Franchise and will, therefore, require a Franchise amendment. The first question which must be asked is whether Amzak's fiber optic line proposal presents any technical concerns for the City of Shakopee throughout the remaining term of its Franchise. Based on our discussions with Owl Engineering, Inc. , we believe the proposed fiber optic line should not present any technical deficiencies in the provision of video and audio programming to Shakopee subscribers. However, in order to ensure that the technical quality meets or exceeds the quality currently provided via the Shakopee headend, a performance test is advisable. This performance test can be performed in two ways. First, Owl Engineering or a similar engineering firm could perform, within one day's time, an analysis of the performance of the Shakopee system under its current configuration with the headend located in Shakopee. These test results would then be filed and additional test results would be taken at such time as Amzak has completed its eight (8) mile fiber optic line. A comparison of the test results should reveal whether the technical quality of these signals meets or exceeds the quality of those signals as transmitted from the original headend. The cost of this two-part performance evaluation, from an engineering standpoint, would be approximately $2,000. We believe Section 8.12 of the Franchise provides the City sufficient authority on which to conduct such evaluation and further provides authority to the City to require reimbursement of costs associated with the performance review by Grantee. The second way in which a performance test can be performed would include only a single test upon completion of the construction of the proposed eight (8) mile fiber optic line to ensure compliance with all applicable FCC technical standards regarding picture quality and sound. This type of evaluation would reduce the costs involved to approximately $1,200-1,500. MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Barry Stock October 5, 1992 Page 3 I would now like to address several of the issues raised in your August 26, 1992, memorandum to the Shakopee Cable Commission. I will address these in the order presented. 1. In the event that the Shakopee cable television system is sold, what would the impact be on the Shakopee cable system? For all practical purposes, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to sell only that portion of the system which serves the City of Shakopee. Inasmuch as the headend and supporting electronics are located in Chaska, the purchaser would simply be receiving a distribution system and would have to invest the necessary capital to put a stand-alone headend back into the City of Shakopee. The Franchise clearly provides that the Grantee must provide cable communication service in accordance with certain terms and provisions and thus such a sale could not be completed without the construction of stand-alone headend. Obviously, the main concern for the City, should such an event occur, would be the added debt which the purchaser would be forced to take on and whether the payments of such debts would be passed on to Shakopee cable television subscribers. We have included with the attached "draft" Ordinance Amendment a termination provision which would essentially prohibit such a transfer from taking place unless a stand-alone headend is maintained in Shakopee. 2. Could the Shakopee headend be reactivated to provide for a stand-alone cable operation in Shakopee and at whose cost? Based on the information provided by Amzak, there is nothing which would preclude Amzak from unilaterally reactivating a headend within the City of Shakopee. Assuming an ordinance amendment is adopted by the City allowing Amzak to provide the eight (8) mile fiber optic line, Amzak would have no express franchise obligation (unless the termination provisions of the amendment were triggered) to reactivate a headend within the City of Shakopee, nor would any of Amzak's successors to the extent they acquired the "entire" system. Please note that the Ordinance Amendment attached hereto provides that the "original" Franchise obligations (i.e. a stand-alone headend) will become effective and the Ordinance Amendment dissolve should Amzak 1) fail to provide a technically sound fiber line; 2) transfer only that portion of the system serving the City of Shakopee; or 3) upon expiration of the Franchise. 3. If the City agrees to combine the headend facility with Chaska, is a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Shakopee and the City of Chaska necessary? I do not believe a Joint Powers Agreement is necessary since Amzak must still comply with the terms and provisions of the Shakopee Franchise and MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Barry Stock October 5, 1992 Page 4 with applicable state and federal regulations. Entering into a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Chaska would not provide the City of Shakopee any greater authority over Amzak than it already has under its current Franchise. 4. Would we be relinquishing some administrative control if we, in fact, agree to eliminate the Shakopee headend? Our review of the Franchise indicates that very limited authority/control is present with respect to oversight of Amzak's headend. Rather, the Franchise contains numerous provisions regarding the technical quality of signals, programing to be offered, and various other technical and customer service standards. These provisions would remain in full force and effect after Amzak's proposed eight (8) mile fiber optic line were constructed. Amzak would still have the responsibility to live up to the Franchise obligations and, therefore, I do not believe the City of Shakopee would be relinquishing any administrative control as a result of an ordinance amendment allowing Amzak's proposed fiber optic line. 5. If we agree to combine the headend facilities, what status would we be in when the Franchise renewal process begins? Within the attached Ordinance Amendment, the authority to provide signals via the fiber line will terminate upon expiration of the Franchise. Even without this provision, however, a franchising authority has the right, during Franchise renewal, to require a system upgrade or rebuild to increase channel capacity or otherwise to meet the future cable-related community needs and interests of its subscribers. This right would remain unchanged regardless of whether Amzak maintained a headend within the City limits. Amzak would simply be forced to make such improvements as required within the renewed Franchise which could result in an indirect benefit to Chaska subscribers, inasmuch as they may receive improved headend facilities as a result of Shakopee Franchise provisions. This, however, would not impact the City of Shakopee's authority to effectively negotiate renewal of the Franchise, nor would it weaken the City's position should it attempt to obtain other more favorable Franchise provisions regarding public access or related services. 6. Has a similar situation occurred elsewhere and what impact did it have on the system involved? The consolidation of headends is a recent trend resulting from cable operators attempting to reduce overhead and take advantage of various economies of scale by handling the operations of numerous cable systems from a single headend site. Based on our research and review of Twin City area franchising authorities, we are unaware of a similar headend consolidation by and between two "separate" franchising authorities. MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Barry Stock October 5, 1992 Page 5 However, we have witnessed such consolidations occurring in other parts of the country and have not noted any significant impact on the ongoing operations of the system so long as such consolidation of the headends is performed in a technically feasible manner. Enclosed herewith please find a draft Ordinance Amendment which we have prepared to accommodate Amzak's proposed eight (8) mile fiber optic line and the elimination of the Shakopee headend. We believe this Ordinance Amendment adequately protects the City of Shakopee and ensures that the technical quality of Amzak's signals and service will be maintained throughout the life of the Franchise. Should you have any questions regarding the information contained within this letter or the enclosed draft Ordinance Amendment, please do not hesitate to contact me. Otherwise, I look forward to discussing the procedural aspects of the Ordinance Amendment and working with you to complete this matter. Very \uly yours, • 4 , Adrian E. Herbst BTG/kjd 1202ZRJD Enclosure cc: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. Garrett Lysiak, Owl Engineering, Inc. 4WWuc i,ae, ' #2- (*) AMZAK CABLE, MIDWEST, INC. (612)445-6151 137 - First Ave. E. • Shakopee, MN 55379 October Il, 1992 0GT 1 31139a Mr. Adrian E, Herbst C i Y Ot Moss and Barnett 480(1 Norwest Center Minneapolis, MN. 55402 Dear Adrian: I have reviewed with interest your letter to Barry Stock of the City of Shakopee concerning our proposed headend consolidation in Shakopee/Chaska. While I have no particular concern with your opinion, or the proposed Franchise Amendment, I feel that I should point out for your future reference an oversight in your research. On page 4, question 6, of your opinion, you mention that based on a review of other Twin Cities franchising authorities, you are "...unaware of a similar headend consolidation by and between two 'separate' franchising authorities." For the record, such a consolidation occurred in the winter of 1992 involving the cable systems in St. Louis Park and Bloomington. Currently a dedicated fiber optic interconnect exists between the two systems which has eliminated the need for the Bloomington headend. In fact we have seen some improvement in the already superior technical specifications of the system. More importantly, the number of outages the system has experienced since the interconnect has been completed have been markedly reduced since two of our longest amplifier cascades were virtually cut in half due to the location of the new signal injection points in the system. I just wanted to let you know. Regards, lamerstrom General Manager CC: Gerry Kama Mike Kama Barry Stock e/ ORDINANCE NO. 344, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AMENDING SECTION 5. 01 OF CHAPTER 15 OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE ENTITLED "CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE" ALLOWING GRANTEE TO CONSOLIDATE ITS HEADEND OPERATIONS The City of Shakopee, Minnesota ordains: Section 1. That Section 5. 01 of Chapter 15 of the Shakopee City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5. 01 System Design Concept. A. Grantee shall construct and operate two functionally separate networks: The Subscriber Network, and the interconnection link with any cable system operator within the City of Chaska. The Subscriber distribution plant will consist of a single truck, single feeder, bi-directional cable in a hub-radial design. The Institutional Network will be a separate, two-way transmission system. Both networks shall be capable of transmitting audio, video and date signals from inception. Grantee shall provide a system having the technical capacity for non-voice return communications. B. Grantee shall not be required to maintain a stand-alone headend within the City as originally contemplated within this Franchise and within Offering of Grantee. In lieu of a stand-alone headend within the City, Grantee shall construct and thereafter maintain an eight (8) mile fiber optic line from the City of Chaska headend provides Shakopee cable subscribers with audio and video signals of sufficient technical quality so as to meet or exceed the requirements and regulations of this Franchise, the FCC, and generally accepted industry standards. Section 2 . Automatic Termination of Ordinance No. 344 Section 1 of this Ordinance No. 344 shall cease to be effective, automatically, upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 1. Grantee's failure to meet or exceed the technical quality of the signals of the eight (8) mile fiber optic line and all applicable FCC regulations as measured by an independent technical consultant immediately following construction of the proposed eight (8) mile fiber optic line. 2 . Transfer of control and/or ownership of that portion of the system which serves only the City of Shakopee. This provision does not include a transfer of control and/or ownership of the system serving both the City of Chaska and Shakopee collectively. 3. Expiration of the Franchise. Section 3. Publication. This Ordinance shall be signed by the Mayor of the City and attested to by the City Clerk. The City hereby determines the publication of the title of this Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent of this ordinance and, accordingly, that title shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and this Ordinance shall take effect upon the date of acceptance by Grantee. Section 4 . Acceptance Procedure. Grantee shall accept this Ordinance, in a form and substance acceptable to the City, within thirty (30) days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Upon acceptance of this Ordinance, Grantee shall be bound by all terms and conditions herein. In the event grantee does not accept this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall be null and void. With its acceptance, Grantee shall deliver to City true and correct copies of documents describing persons authorized to accept on behalf of Grantee. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1992 . /IL MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator <---244 FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Jefferson Street Watermain, 12th Avenue to Tahpah Park Project No. 1991-8 DATE: October 28, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3694, a resolution adopting special assessments for the Jefferson Street Watermain Project No. 1991-8 . BACKGROUND: The Jefferson Street Watermain Project has been completed and all project costs have been identified. This project consisted of installing new watermain from 12th Avenue south to Tahpah Park to serve the new sprinkler system in Tahpah Park. The final project costs are $34 ,417. 65. This consists of construction costs totaling $28,490. 00 and Engineering/ Administrative costs of $5, 927. 65 (as shown on Attachment No. 1) . The original feasibility report had estimated the project costs to be approximately $43 , 000. 00. The portion of the watermain from 12th Avenue south to the north line of Tahpah Park is located within the South Parkview 1st Addition Subdivision. The alignment of the watermain follows the future Jefferson Street and will be needed for development in this area. The feasibility report recommended assessing that portion of the watermain to the abutting benefitted property owner. The watermain from the north line of Tahpah park south to the sprinkler control center near the concession building is not proposed to be assessed. Based on this concept, the amount of watermain that will be assessed is $22 , 384 .41. A public hearing has been scheduled for November 3 , 1992 to consider the proposed assessments associated with this project. Attached is Resolution No. 3694 which adopts the special assessments on the project for City Council consideration. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3694. 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3694. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3694, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for the Jefferson Street Watermain from 12th Avenue South to Tahpah Park, Project No. 1991-8 and move its adoption. DEH/pmp MEM3694 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Assessment Calculations - Tahpah Park Watermain Project Construction Costs $28, 490. 00 Engr./Admin. Costs 5, 927 . 65 Total Project Costs $34 ,417. 65 Divide Costs up by length of watermain installed in South Parkview Addition as compared to watermain installed in Tahpah Park L.F. Watermain (South Parkview) = 865 Feet L.F. Watermain (Tahpah Park) = 465 Feet Total Length of Watermain 1, 330 Feet Assessed Amount = 865/1330 x $34, 417. 65 = $22 , 384 .41 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Summary of the Watermain Costs and the Sprinkler System Costs Sprinkler Jefferson Street System Watermain Portion Portion Totals (Proj . No. 1991-8) Construction Costs $28, 490. 00 $33, 665. 00 $62, 155.00 Engr./Admin. Costs $ 5,927 . 65 $ 5,903 . 12 $11,830.77 Totals $34,417. 65 $39,568.12 $73,985.77 Note: The Feasibility Report had estimated the total project costs to be $140, 550. 00. RESOLUTION NO. 3694 A Resolution Adopting Assessments For The Jefferson Street Watermain From 12th Avenue South To Tahpah Park Project No. 1991-8 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of: Installation of watermain on Jefferson Street from 12th Avenue to Tahpah Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1993 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 . 0 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1993 and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3 . The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; the owner may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in her office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before November 30th of each year the total amount of installments and interest on assessments on each parcel of land which are to become due in the following year. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR TAHPAH PARK WATERMAIN PROJECT 1991-8 FRONT TOTAL P.I.D. NO PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOOT ASSESSMENT 27-121026-0 Cletus J. & Helen C. Link Outlot A 682.31 $10,851.69 1217 Monroe St. South Parkview Shakopee, Mn. 55379 1st Addition 27-121027-0 Cletus J. & Helen C. Link Outlot B 321.88 $5,119.29 1217 Monroe St. South Parkview Shakopee, Mn. 55379 1st Addition 27-121028-0 Cletus J. & Helen C. Link Outlot C 220.00 $3,498.96 1217 Monroe St. South Parkview Shakopee, Mn. 55379 1st Addition 27-121029-0 Cletus J. & Helen C. Link Outlot D 83.25 $1,324.04 1217 Monroe St. South Parkview Shakopee, Mn. 55379 1st Addition 27-121030-0 City of Shakopee Outlot E 100.00 $1,590.43 129 E. 1st Avenue South Parkview Shakopee, Mn. 55379 1st Addition TOTAL = 1407.44 $22,384.41 ASSESS COST/ FRONT FOOT = $15.9043440573 //(1_ MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 1992 Sidewalk Replacement Program Project No. 1992-7 DATE: October 28, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3693 , a resolution adopting the special assessments for the 1992 Sidewalk Replacement Program, Project No. 1992-7, for City Council consideration. BACKGROUND: The 1992 Sidewalk Replacement Program has been completed and all project costs have been identified. This project consisted of removing and replacing defective sidewalk within Shakopee. In addition, the 1991 sidewalk replacement list was included in the 1992 project and completed under this contract. The final project costs are $50, 466. 81. This consists of construction costs of $45, 070. 36 and engineering/administrative costs of $5, 396.45 (approximately 12%) . The City Council has budgeted $25, 000. 00 a year for this program and since there were two years included in the project, a total of $50, 000. 00 was projected for this project. The City Council has adopted an ordinance whereby sidewalk replacement is assessed 50% to the abutting property owner and funded 50% by the City. For this particular project, there was a number of items that are non assessable and are recommended to be paid 100% by the City. This includes sidewalk replacement at the police and public works complex, handicap ramps located within the curb radii of intersections including the curb replacement, and three locations on Holmes Street where credit was issued due to service trench settlements from the Holmes Street Lateral Project. In addition there were some minor adjustments due to the sidewalk that was replaced at properties where waiver forms were obtained because of locations added to the project after the first public hearing. Based on those items, the total amount that is going to be assessed on this project is $21,932 . 33 . The remainder of the costs or $28, 534 . 48 will be the City cost which includes the above mentioned items along with the 50% share of the sidewalk. The public hearing has been scheduled for November 3 , 1992 to consider the proposed assessments associated with this project. Attached is Resolution No. 3693 which adopts the special assessments on this project for City Council consideration. An assessment roll is attached to the resolution outlining the proposed assessments for each property. The City of Shakopee must certify these assessments to Scott County by November 30, 1992 in order to get on the 1993 tax statements. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3693 . 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3693 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 3693 , which adopts the special assessments for the 1992 Sidewalk Replacement Project. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3693 , A Resolution Adopting Assessments for the 1992 Sidewalk Replacement Program, Project No. 1992-7 and move its adoption. DEH/pmp MEM3693 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Assessment Calculations - 1992 Sidewalk Program Total Construction Costs $45, 070. 36 Engr./Admin. Costs 5, 396.45 Total Project Costs = $50,466.81 Assessed Amount = $21,932 .33 Formula used to calculate the assessments Square foot sidewalk done x $2 .28/S.F. (contract price) plus $57 .40 per property for Engr./Admin. x 50%. RESOLUTION NO. 3693 A Resolution Adopting Assessments For The 1992 Sidewalk Replacement Program Project No. 1992-7 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of: 1992 Sidewalk Replacement Program NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1993 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 . 0 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1993 and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3 . The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; the owner may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in her office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before November 30th of each year the total amount of installments and interest on assessments on each parcel of land which are to become due in the following year. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001680-0 Ronald Ring &Wife W 10' of 9 $151.82 636 W. 6th Avenue & all of 10 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 87 Shakopee Plat 27-001679-0 Maydalen Geis W 20' of 8 & $156.95 628 W. 6th Avenue E 50' of 9 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 87 Shakopee Plat 27-001678-0 Alvin Trost &Wife W 1/2 of 7 & $83.60 618 W. 6th Avenue E 40' of 8 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 87 Shakopee Plat 27-001656-0 Jay Forster Lot 10 $98.47 338 W. 6th Avenue Block 84 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001643-0 Margaret Rekoske Lot 6 $389.34 206 W. 6th Avenue Block 83 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001633-0 Sylvester Unze Et Al N 1/2 of Lot $171.94 112 W. 6th Avenue 7, Block 82 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001631-0 Christoper Link N 1/2 of Lot $147.21 604 S. Holmes 6, Block 82 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001624-0 Patricia Bartyzal W 2' of 8 & E $259.04 112 E. 6th Avenue 50' of 9 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 81 Shakopee Plat 27-001622-0 Bernice Kasper E 58' of 8 $77.95 128 E. 6th Avenue Block 81 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001620-0 Kevin & Loriann Gillick Lot 6 $134.90 136 E. 6th Avenue Block 81 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001628-0 Bernard & Shirley Kubiszewski Lot 3 $151.82 119 W. 7th Avenue Block 82 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001626-0 Harlan Luebke &Wife Lot 1 $172.34 137 W. 7th Avenue Block 82 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001642-0 Ronald Theis N 1/2 of 5 $411.89 626 S. Fuller Street & N 1/2 of E Shakopee, MN 55379 10' of 4 Block 83 Shakopee Plat 27-001641-0 Williard Schoen &Wife S 1/2 of E $408.32 636 Fuller Street 10' of 4 & Shakopee, MN 55379 S 1/2 of 5 Block 83 Shakopee Plat 27-001639-0 Harold & Catherine Anderson Lot 3 Ex. S $74.87 219 W. 7th Avenue 92' of W 10' Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 83 Shakopee Plat 27-001637-0 Brian Harkness N 50' of $290.33 625 S. Atwood Street 1 & 2 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 83 Shakopee Plat 27-001651-0 Gladys Green Lot 5 $834.11 305 W. 7th Avenue Block 84 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001650-0 Patrick &Ann Monnens Lots 3 &4 $80.00 317 W. 7th Avenue Block 84 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001649-0 Edward & Betty Jeurissen Lot 2 $134.17 329 W. 7th Avenue Block 84 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001648-0 Ann Noterman Lot 1 $189.44 337 W. 7th Avenue Block 84 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001728-0 Viola &Allan Mills Lot 6 $352.92 706 S. Fuller Block 98 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001739-0 Harvey Felepe &Wife Lot 10 $393.37 138 W. 7th Avenue Block 99 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001738-0 David & Sharyn Rohloff Lot 9 $118.99 128 W. 7th Avenue Block 99 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001737-0 William Runge &Wife Lot 8 $113.35 124 W. 7th Avenue Block 99 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001736-0 Allan Maxa N 71' of $160.55 706 S. Holmes Street Lots 6 & 7 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 99 Shakopee Plat 27-011007-0 Cyril Sames Lot 7 $197.18 760 W. 7th Avenue Block 1 Shakopee, MN 55379 Marymark Addn. 27-011006-0 Rose Herzog Lot 6 $97.96 754 W. 7th Avenue Block 1 Shakopee, MN 55379 Marymark Addn. 27-011005-0 Harold Dellwo &Wife Lot 5 $81.54 744 W. 7th Avenue Block 1 Shakopee, MN 55379 Marymark Addn. 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-011004-0 Donald Hergott & Georgette Lot 4 $147.61 734 W. 7th Avenue Block 1 Shakopee, MN 55379 Marymark Addn. 27-011001-0 Richard Rodenberg &Wife Lot 1 $512.98 706 W. 7th Avenue Block 1 Shakopee, MN 55379 Marymark Addn. 27-001685-0 Jodi Drees S 1/2 of 4 & 5 $714.07 707 W. 7th Avenue Block 88 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001682-0 Timothy &Jessica Geis Lot 2 & E 1/2 $181.58 731 W. 7th Avenue of 1, Block 88 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001681-0 Willard Paul &Wife Lot 1,Block 88 $256.31 741 W. 7th Avenue W 1/2 of also Shakopee, MN 55379 E 55' of Clay St. vacated Adjoining Lot 1, Block 88 Shakopee Plat 27-001693-0 Tami Wolter That Part Of $106.17 757 W. 7th Avenue Lots 4 & 5 Shakopee, MN 55379 Lying E Of Cemetery Rd. &W25' Of Clay St. S Of Alley In Block 89 Ex. N 71' Thereof Shakopee Plat 27-001803-0 Ralph & Barbara Johnston N 71' of $149.26 804 S. Lewis Street Lots 6 & 7 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 107 Shakopee Plat 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PD PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001805-0 Steven &Jane Clay Lot 8 $343.17 120 E. 8th Avenue Block 107 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001806-0 B.F. Pearson &Wife N 71' of Lots $130.28 805 S. Holmes Street 9 & 10 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 107 Shakopee Plat 27-001813-0 Daniel Fehring N 54' of 6 $467.54 806 S. Holmes Street & N 54' of Shakopee, MN 55379 E 40' of 7 Block 108 Shakopee Plat 27-001815-0 Melvin & Donna Hennen Lot 8 &W 20' $129.77 120 W. 8th Avenue of N 100' of 7 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 108 Shakopee Plat 27-001816-0 John Otto & Lot 9 $180.04 Virginia Bartholomew Block 108 130 W. 8th Avenue Shakopee Plat Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001818-0 Patrick &Annette Glynn E 45' of $100.52 204 W. 8th Avenue Lot 6 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 109 Shakopee Plat 27-001819-0 Brad Anderson W 15' of 6 & $128.60 210 W. 8th Avenue E 35' of 7 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 109 Shakopee Plat 27-001820-0 Ervin & Cathy Monnens W 25' of 7 & $134.49 218 W. 8th Avenue E 30 of 8 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 109 Shakopee Plat 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001723-0 Melvin & Harriet Pink S 71' of 1 & 2 $277.46 735 Atwood Street Block 98 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001725-0 Charles & Lola Munsing Lot 3 $76.41 117 S. Fuller Block 98 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Plat 27-001424-0 County of Scott Block Lying $1,268.19 %County Administrator Bet Blks 56 & 428 S. Holmes St./Rm. 110 57 AKA Shakopee, MN 55379 Courthouse Sq. 27-001434-0 St. Francis Hospital All of BIk. 58 $834.75 325 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001477-0 James Mork &Wife Lot 5 Ex. N $115.23 903 W. 5th Ave. 8', Blk. 64 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001476-0 Lauren Burgess &Wife Lot 4 Ex. N $206.74 911 W. 5th Ave. 8' & Ex W 2' Shakopee, MN 55379 of N 25' of S 90', BIk. 64 Shakopee City 27-001474-0 Warren Ragan Lot 1 &W 1/2 $249.51 935 W. 5th Ave. of 2 Ex. N 8' Shakopee, MN 55379 BIk. 64 Shakopee City 27-001468-0 Louise Paul Lot 5 & E 10' $80.16 805 W. 5th of 4, BIk. 63 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001487-0 Hubert Weckman &Wife Lot 10 &W 1/2 $310.85 938 W. 5th Ave. of 9, BIk. 65 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001488-0 Harold & Mary Klehr Lot 8 & E 1/2 $227.86 924 W. 5th Ave. of 9, BIk. 69 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001486-0 David Bauleke Lot 7, Blk. 65 $330.86 914 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001485-0 Ralph Weckman &wife Lot 6, BIk. 65 $81.89 906 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001498-0 Michael Sullivan Lot 10,BIk. 66 $109.25 836 W. 5th Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001506-0 James Reinke Lot 9, Blk. 67 $200.59 734 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001505-0 Joyce Heitzman Lot 8, Blk. 67 $341.63 722 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001503-0 Alfred Siedow Lot 6, BIk, 67 $139.00 706 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001504-0 Germain &Virginia Weckman Lot 7, Blk, 67 $350.75 714 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001517-0 David Pond Lot 10, BIk. 68 $184.66 636 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001515-0 David & Daniel Yarusso Lot 8, Blk. 68 $80.00 3913 Marschall Road Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001525-0 Lydia Zimmer Lot 8, Blk. 69 $214.71 520 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001524-0 George Breeggemann Lot 7, Blk. 69 $333.53 514 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001534-0 Scott & Sandra Fahning Lot 8, Blk, 70 $129.25 422 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001533-0 David &Amy Pistulka W 55' of Lot $299.45 414 W. 5th Ave. 7, Blk. 70 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001445-0 Roman Breeggemann &Wife Lot 1, W 40' $166.19 535 W. 5th Ave. of 2, Blk. 60 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001446-0 Jeffrey & Helen Henderson Lot 3 & E 20' $300.46 519 W. 5th Ave. of 2, Blk. 60 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001447-0 Bruce & Lisa Clausen Lot 4, Blk. 60 $195.94 513 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001448-0 Richard & Eileen Schmitz Lot 5, BIk. 60 $110.27 436 S. Apgar Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001437-0 Edna Flynn Lot 3, BIk. 59 $66.15 421 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001545-0 LeRoy & Loretta Lebens Lot 10,BIk. 71 $84.11 340 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001543-0 James & Michelle DelIwo W 50' of Lot 8 $67.35 332 W. 5th Ave. Blk. 71 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001556-0 Theodore Nelsen &Wife Lot 10,BIk. 72 $1,337.84 238 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001566-0 Madge Tobias W 10' of Lot 9 $411.63 138 W. 5th Ave. &all of 10 Shakopee, MN 55379 BIk. 73 Shakopee City 27-001564-0 James Link Lot 8, Blk, 73 $345.41 1043 S. Main Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001565-0 Martin &Jody Glynn E 50' of Lot 9 $327.19 128 W. 5th Ave. BIk. 73 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001558-0 Willis &Jeannine Smith Lot 2, Blk. 73 $177.88 127 W. 6th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001549-0 Frances Roehl Life Estate Lot 4 Ex W 3' $62.05 0/0 Donald Van Sloun of 9, Blk. 72 7315 Hwy. 212 Shakopee City Chaska, MN 55318 27-001551-0 Kevin Suel Lot 5, BIk. 72 $413.97 203 W. 6th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001548-0 Ruth Bayless Lot 3 &W 3.9' $111.11 219 W. 6th Ave. of 4, Blk. 72 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001547-0 Charles Ploumen &wife Lot 2, BIk. 72 $236.60 227 W. 6th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001546-0 Keith &Theresa Theis Lot 1, BIk. 72 $156.95 235 W. 6th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001540-0 Donald Cox Lot 5, BIk. 71 $139.00 532 S. Atwood Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001537-0 Nancy Phillips Lot 2, BIk, 71 $123.39 327 W. 6th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001417-0 Fred W. and Joann Cotler Lot 3, Block 56 $115.28 906 Ramsey St. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001513-0 Frederick A. Lebens &Wife Lot 6, Block 68 $138.51 604 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001516-0 Bernadette A. Schoenke Lot 9, Block 68 $76.98 628 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001527-0 Nancy A. Koch E. 55' of Lot 9 $72.74 528 W. 5th Ave. Block 69 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001553-0 Ralph C. Lenzmeier &Wife Lot 7 Block 72 $76.95 212 W. 5th Ave. Shakopee City Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001562-0 Robert 0. Juanita Sweeney Lots 6 & 7 Ex. $71.59 506 Holmes St. S. 67' Block 73 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 27-001570-0 Thomas R. & Lea Ann Quinn S 1/2 Lots 1 &2 $136.80 537 S. Sommerville Block 76 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee City 1992 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM LEGAL TOTAL PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCPRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-001638-0 Pauline S. Pink, Et Al S. 92' of 1 & 2 $186.71 233 W. 7th Ave. & S. 92' of 3 Shakopee, MN 55379 Block 83 Shakopee City 27-024009-0 Brice J Beckman &Wife Lot 4 Block 2 $163.70 1052 Jefferson St. Jackson View Shakopee, MN 55379 Adddition TOTAL= $21,932.33 / ICI MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director ; 5'0 SUBJECT: Vierling Drive, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 DATE: October 29, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3695, a resolution adopting the special assessments for Vierling Drive, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79, Project No. 1992-3 . BACKGROUND: The Vierling Drive Project is nearly completed. All work has been completed except for the final lift of asphalt which is not scheduled to be completed until next spring. In order to include the assessments for the 1992 tax statements, the assessments must be certified to Scott County by November 30, 1992 . The final project costs have been estimated and are summarized below: Construction Costs Street Construction $230, 235.85 Storm Sewer Construction 164, 219 . 88 Box Culvert Construction 63 , 940. 00 Total Construction Costs $458, 395.73 Engineering/Administration 46, 523 . 95 Costs Total Project Costs $504,919. 68 Of this amount, $353 , 203 . 02 is proposed to be assessed to the abutting property owners. Attachment No. 1 is a summary of the final assessment calculations. A public hearing has been scheduled for November, 3 , 1992 to consider the special assessments for this project. Staff will give a presentation on the special assessment calculations at the public hearing. The feasibility report had estimated the construction costs to be $365, 000. 00 and the total project costs $501, 000 . 00. While the actual total project costs are only 0.8% higher than estimated, the assessed costs went up considerably more (34%) . The reason for this is that the actual construction costs were 14% higher than estimated, while the engineering and administrative costs were lower (10%) than estimated (25%) . The increased construction costs were mainly in the assessable items, rather than in the City funded portion, hence the assessable costs increased greater than the City' s portion. The reasons for the actual assessable construction costs increasing over the estimated assessable construction costs are two-fold. First, in regards to the street portion of the project, the actual construction costs were 5% over the estimated costs. There was no one bid item that resulted in this increase. Basically all bid items (gravel, asphalt, etc. ) were up slightly from what was estimated. This is the first increase in unit/bids that staff has seen in four years. The major increase in the assessable street costs were related to the sidewalk and boulevard trees. The feasibility report did not include these two items as assessable items, when it should have. All other portions of Vierling Drive previously constructed include sidewalk and boulevard trees. By including these 2 items in the final assessments, the street assessment costs increased about $34 , 374 . 00 or about 25%. If these two items were removed from the assessable costs, the final street assessment would have actually been about $7, 000. 00 less than estimated (or 5% less) . The second item that resulted in the actual assessments being higher than estimated is the storm sewer costs. To fully understand the reasons for this, the Council must first understand the process staff uses in the preparation of feasibility reports. Basically, a feasibility report is an estimate of the project costs. There is no design done (that comes after the feasibility report if Council orders the project) so staff must make the best estimate of not only the unit prices, but the quantities of each bid item. Of all the portions of a street project (street, sanitary sewer, watermain, etc. ) the storm sewer is the most difficult to estimate without the benefit of the design. For example, estimating street quantities is fairly simple since the width, length and thickness of the pavement and gravel base are easily obtained. Curb and gutter is the same - the length of curb and gutter is usually easy to determine. Sanitary sewer and watermain are also readily determined because based on the existing records, it is fairly easy to determine where new utilities are needed and the size of sewer/water main pipes does not vary much. Storm sewer, on the other hand, is usually very difficult to not only size the pipe, but to determine where storm sewers are needed. First of all, the final size of the pipe cannot be determined until the detailed hydraulic, drainage analysis is done as part of the final design, AFTER the feasibility report is completed. Staff is not making excuses, but is rather offering an explanation of the cost differences. For this project, the feasibility report had estimated a 36" storm sewer and the actual design resulted in a 48" storm sewer. In addition, additional length of pipe was required due to the final storm sewer design. Because of the design, the actual storm sewer costs (construction only) were about 65% higher than what was estimated. The actual storm sewer assessments proposed are about 45% higher than estimated in the feasibility report. Since the storm sewer is 97% assessed, the higher storm sewer costs result in the higher assessments. (Note: per the feasibility report, the adjacent developable lands contribute 88% of the runoff, the local street equivalency of Vierling Drive contributes 9% of the runoff and the street oversizing contributes 3% of the runoff) . Prior to awarding the bids on this project, staff appraised the City Council of the higher storm sewer costs due to the final design being different than the feasibility report and indicated that the projected assessments would also be higher because of it. The City will pay all oversizing costs associated with the street, storm sewer and box culvert. The City's portion of this project is $151,716. 66. Funding for the City's portion will be from the Municipal State Aid Fund. Attached is the resolution which adopts the special assessments on this project for City Council consideration. One other issue that should be discussed is the possible deferment of the assessments for vacant, undeveloped land. Outlots C and D of Prairie Estates 1st Addition are currently undeveloped and are being utilized for agriculture purposes. The City Council may wish to defer the assessments on this property until these lands develop. Past Councils have elected to defer assessments on undeveloped land. If the City Council elects to defer any assessments, the terms of the deferment should be clearly established for the length of deferment and with or without interest. Staff would suggest that the maximum length of the deferment not exceed 5 years. These Outlots are also in the Scott County Green Acres Program. Basically, this means that if the assessments are adopted for this property, they do not have to be paid until they are removed from Green Acres and developed. This is a County administered program, not a deferment. If the Council elects to defer the assessments, they would not even be considered active assessments by the County and would not be part of the Green Acres Program. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the assessments as proposed. 2 . Revise the assessment and adopt them. 3 . Do not adopt the assessments until next year when the project has been completed. 4 . Table the assessments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 3695, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Vierling Drive. Between County Road 17 and County Road 79, Project No. 1992-3 and move its adoption. 2 . Discuss the proposed deferment of assessments for vacant property and direct staff to take the appropriate action. DEH/pmp MEM3695 ATTACHMENT NO . 1 VIERLING DRIVE PROJECT NO 1992-3 ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS 9/30/92 JHD, DEH I. Total Project Costs A. Construction Costs: 1. From actual bid = $450. 220. 67 2 . Change Order #1 = 8 . 175. 06 Total Construction Costs = $458, 395.73 B. Engineering/Administrative Costs (E/A) 1. From Finance = $34 , 426.22 2 . Remaining OSM Bill (Sept) = 3 , 022 . 53 3 . City Engr. Time (Sepr) = 3 , 075.20 4 . Estimated Remaining E/A costs 6, 000. 00 Total E/A Costs = $46, 523 . 95 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = $504,919. 68 II. % Engineering/Administrative Costs Construction Costs = $458 , 395.73 Engineering/Admin Costs = 46 , 523 . 95 Total Project Costs = $504 , 919. 68 Engineering/Admin Costs = $46, 523 . 95/458, 395.73 E/A = 0. 101492982 - PAGE 2 - III. Calculation of Assessable Costs vs Non Assessable Costs See the attached computer printout of each bid item showing the breakdown of the city portion versus the assessed portion. The last page of the computer printout indicates the formulas utilized for each item. Note: These costs are only the construction costs and the E/A costs need to be added in to them. A. Street Costs - City Portion Construction Costs = $77, 120.71 E/A Costs (using %) = 7 . 827 . 21 Total Costs = $84, 947 . 92 B. Street Costs - Assessed Portion Construction Costs = $153 , 115. 14 E/A Costs = 15 , 540. 11 Total Costs = $168, 655.25 C. Street Costs - Total $84 ,947 . 92 + $168, 655. 25 = $253 , 603 . 17 D. Storm Sewer Costs - City Portion Construction Costs = $4, 926.59 E/A Costs = 500. 01 Total Costs = $5, 426. 60 E. Storm Sewer Costs - Assessed Portion Construction Costs = $159 , 293 . 29 E/A Costs = 16 , 167 . 15 Total Costs = $175, 460. 44 F. Storm Sewer Costs - Total $5,426. 60 + $175, 460. 44 = $180,887 . 04 G. Box Culvert Costs - City Portion Construction Costs = $55, 690. 00 E/A Costs = 5, 652 . 14 Total Costs = $61, 342 . 14 - PAGE 3 - H. Box Culvert Costs - Assessed Portion Construction Costs = $8,250. 00 (from Feas. Report) E/A Costs = 837 . 33 Total Costs = $9, 087 .33 I. Box Culvert Costs - Total $61,342. 14 + $9, 087 . 33 = $70, 429 .47 SUMMARY OF ASSESSED/NON ASSESSED COSTS City Cost Assessed Amount 1 Total Street $84 ,947.92 $168, 655. 25 1 $253 , 603 . 17 Storm $ 5, 426.60 $175, 460.44 1 $180,887 . 04 Box Culv. $61, 342 . 14 $ 9, 087 . 33 1 $ 70,429 .47 TOTALS 1 $151,716. 66 1 $353,203.02 1 $504,919. 68 - PAGE 4 - IV. Breakdown of assessable costs between The Meadows and Prairie Estates. TOTAL ASSESSABLE COSTS = 353 ,203 . 02 A. Storm Sewer Split Total Assessable Storm Sewer = $175 , 460. 44 Per the Feasibility Report: The cost of the storm sewer will be divided up by the area of each subdivision that drains into the system. 19 . 06 acres The Meadows = Prairie Estates = 28 . 00 acres Total = 47 . 06 acres Storm Sewer assessment for The Meadows = 19 . 06/47 . 06 x 175, 460 . 44 = $71, 064 . 09 Storm Sewer assessment for Prairie Estates = 28 . 00/47 . 06 x 175, 460. 44 = $104 , 396. 35 B. Street Costs Split Total Assessable Street Costs = $168 , 655 . 25 The street costs will be split based on the footage of street within each subdivision. The Meadows footage (C/L) = 1808 ft. Prairie Estates footage (C/L) = 1441 ft. Total footage Street assessment for The Meadows = 1808/3249 x $168 , 655. 25 = $93 , 853 . 09 Street assessment for Prairie Estates = 1441/3249 x $168 , 655. 25 = $74 , 802 . 16 - PAGE 5 - C. Total Assessments per subdivision. 1. The Meadows Storm Sewer Assessment = $71, 064 . 09 Street Assessment = 93 , 853 . 09 Box Culvert Assessment = 9 , 087 . 33 TOTAL ASSESSMENT = $174, 004 . 51 2 . Prairie Estates Storm Sewer Assessment = $104 , 396. 35 Street Assessment = 74 , 802 . 16 TOTAL ASSESSMENT = $179 , 198. 51 GRAND TOTAL ASSESSED = 353 , 203 . 02 - PAGE 6 - V. Apportionment of Assessments within each subdivision. A. Prairie Estates Total Assessed Amount = $179 , 198 . 51 Because the two Outlots are about the same size, divide this up equally between the two Outlots. Outlot C = $89 , 599 . 25 Outlot D = $89 , 599 . 25 B. The Meadows Total Assessed Amount = $174 , 004 . 51 Divide this up between lots by acreage Outlot A = 62 . 42 ac Outlot B = 1. 04 ac Platted lots = 18 . 28 ac Total = 81. 74 ac Cost per acre = $174 , 004 . 51/81 . 74 ac = $2128 . 755933 per acre Outlot A assessment = 62 . 42 x $2128 . 10 _ $132 , 876 . 94 Outlot B assessment = 1. 04 x $2128 . 10 _ $2 , 213 . 91 Platted Lots = 18 . 28 x 2128 . 10 $38 , 913 . 66 Total r of lots = 47 Cost per lot = $38913 . 66/47 = $827 . 95 - PAGE 7 - Comparison of actual assessments versus feasibility report. I The Meadows i Prairie Estates Street - Actual I $93,853.09 i $74,802 . 16 Street - Feas. Rep. : $74 ,597 .42 i $59 , 686. 22 Storm - Actual I $71,064.09 i $104,396.35 Storm - Feas. Rep. $48,958 . 66 $71,922 . 48 Box Culv. - Actual 1 $9,087.33 - 0 - Box Culv. - F. R. i $8, 250. 00 - 0 - i TOTALS - ACTUAL I $174,004.51 $179,198.51 TOTALS - FEAS. REP. $131,806. 08 i $131, 608 .70 Reasons for the actual assessments being higher that the estimated assessments in the feasibility report. 1. The feasibility report did not include any assessments for the sidewalk or the boulevard trees, which are normally part of the overall street costs for assessment purposes. The sidewalk total costs were $27 , 135. 83 and the boulevard trees total costs were $14 , 099. 11, for a total of $41,23.4.94. This is in excess of what the increased street assessments are. 2. The actual storm sewer design resulted in a larger diameter pipe than what was estimated in the feasibility report (48" pipe vs 36" pipe) . In addition, additional storm sewers were needed as part of the street design that were not anticipated in the feasibility report. The final storm sewer design and runoff calculations for both subdivisions were provided to City staff by the developers engineer during the final design, but this information was not available during the feasibility report preparation. Prior to awarding the bid for this project, the City Council was made aware of the increased storm sewer costs. - PAGE 8 - 3 . Even though the actual construction costs went up, the actual engineering/administrative costs were less than estimated (10% vs 25%) , resulting in the total project costs only being 0. 6% over the estimated costs in the feasibility report. The reason that the assessments went up while the City portion went down is because the increased costs described above in #1 and 2 are all assessed items, rather than items that the City participated in. RESOLUTION NO. 3695 A Resolution Adopting Assessments For Vierling Drive, Between County Road 17 And County Road 79 Project No. 1992-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of: Vierling Drive, between County Road 17 and County Road 79 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1993 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 6. 5 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1993 and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3 . The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid ideownerw ithin thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in her office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before November 30th of each year the total amount of installments and interest on assessments on each parcel of land which are to become due in the following year. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-169001-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169002-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169003-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169004-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169005-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169006-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169007-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV, LOT 7 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169008-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 8 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169009-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 9 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169010-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 10 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169011-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 11 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-169012-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 12 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169013-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 13 BLOCK 1 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169014-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 2 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169015-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 2 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169016-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 2 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169017-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 2 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169018-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 2 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169019-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 2 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 7 BLOCK 2 $827.95 27-169020-0 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169021-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-169022-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169023-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169024-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169025-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169026-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169027-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 7 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169028-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 8 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169029-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 9 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169030-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 10 BLOCK 3 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169031-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 4 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169032-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 4 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION 1 ASSESSMENT 27-169033-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 4 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169034-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 4 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169035-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 4 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169036-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 5 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169037-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 5 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169038-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 5 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169039-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 5 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169040-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 5 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169041-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 5 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169042-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 7 BLOCK 5 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169044-0* GOLD NUGGET DEV. L 1 & 2 BLOCK 6 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-169046-0* GOLD NUGGET DEV. L 3 & 4 BLOCK 6 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169047-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 6 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169048-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 6 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169049-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 7 BLOCK 6 $827.95 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169050-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. OUTLOT A $132,876.94 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169051-0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE OUTLOT B $2,213.91 129 E. 1ST AVE. MEADOWS 7TH SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-138037-0 VIERLING PARTNERSHIP OUTLOT C $89,599.25 1461 CO. RD. 79 PRAIRIE ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 1ST ADDITION 27-138038-0 VIERLING PARTNERSHIP OUTLOT D $89,599.25 1461 CO. RD. 79 PRAIRIE ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 1ST ADDITION TOTAL = $353,203.00 1 /i6;e„,,," VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-169001-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169002-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169003-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169004-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169005-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169006-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169007-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 7 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169008-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 8 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169009-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 9 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169010-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 10 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169011-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 11 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-169012-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 12 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169013-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 13 BLOCK 1 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169014-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 2 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169015-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 2 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169016-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 2 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169017-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 2 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169018-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 2 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169019-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 2 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 7 BLOCK 2 $789.49 27-169020-0 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169021-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-169022-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169023-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169024-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169025-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169026-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169027-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 7 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169028-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 8 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169029-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 9 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169030-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 10 BLOCK 3 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169031-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 4 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169032-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 4 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-169033-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 4 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169034-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 4 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169035-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 4 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169036-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 1 BLOCK 5 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169037-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 2 BLOCK 5 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169038-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 3 BLOCK 5 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169039-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 4 BLOCK 5 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169040-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 5 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169041-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 5 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169042-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 7 BLOCK 5 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169044-0* GOLD NUGGET DEV. L 1 &2 BLOCK 6 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION VIERLING DRIVE ASSESSMENTS PROJECT 1992-3 P.I.D. NO. PROPERTY OWNER LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 27-169046-0* GOLD NUGGET DEV. L 3 &4 BLOCK 6 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169047-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 5 BLOCK 6 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169048-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 6 BLOCK 6 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169049-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. LOT 7 BLOCK 6 $789.49 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169050-0 GOLD NUGGET DEV. OUTLOT A $126,703.79 8857 ZEALAND AVE. N. MEADOWS 7TH BRKLYN PARK, MN. 55445 ADDITION 27-169051-0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE OUTLOT B $2,111.05 129 E. 1ST AVE. MEADOWS 7TH SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 ADDITION 27-138037-0 VIERLING PARTNERSHIP OUTLOT C $93,641.18 1461 CO. RD. 79 PRAIRIE ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 1ST ADDITION 27-138038-0 VIERLING PARTNERSHIP OUTLOT D $93,641.18 1461 CO. RD. 79 PRAIRIE ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 1ST ADDITION TOTAL= $353,203.02 J2 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: Planned Unit Development: Preliminary Development Plan Approval for Milwaukee Manor DATE: October 29 , 1992 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: Since the October 20, 1992 City Council meeting, staff has met with Mr. LeRoy Menke on several occasions to review the Milwaukee Manor PUD. In these meetings various design issues facing this project have been further discussed. The applicant has agreed to accept the conditions for the approval of the preliminary development plan set forth in the revised resolution, dated October 20, 1992 . In order to keep the project moving, staff is bringing the PUD back to the City Council for approval. The applicant is planning to submit the application for the final development plan by the November 9 deadline in order for it to be placed on the Planning Commission' s December agenda. The City Council tabled the vacation and the rezoning applications for Milwaukee Manor to November 17, 1992 . Tabling these items to the November 17 meeting was intended to allow time for the applicant to meet with the Planning Commission at their November 5th meeting to review the various PUD conditions. Since these items were tabled to the specific dates, they will be heard at the November 17 meeting. It should be noted that the vacation would occur with Phase 3 . As a result, Condition #3 from Resolution No. 3681 for the preliminary PUD provides for the City agreeing to vacate that portion of Minnesota Street within this project. The action that will be requested of the City Council at the November 17 meeting will be to support the future vacation. The rezoning request was also tabled to the November 17 meeting. Staff has recommended adding a condition to Resolution No. 3681 which approves the preliminary PUD subject to the successful rezoning of the site to R-3 from R-2 and R-4 . Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 3681 in its final recommended form. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the preliminary development plan subject to conditions. 2 . Deny the preliminary development plan. 3 . Table the item until the November 17 , 1992 City Council meeting. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3681, A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor, subject to conditions, and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 3681 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MILWAUKEE MANOR. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did recommend approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor on October 8 , 1992 , and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development for Milwaukee Manor, described on Attachment 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The two interior streets (Milwaukee Court and Milwaukee Road) shall be private driveways. 2 . The entire segment of the Dakota Street right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed with Phase 1 (60 ' width) so as to connect the two ends of the street. 3 . The City agrees to vacate that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way north of the alley and north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line with the City Council ' s approval of the final plat for Phase 3 of the development. The City shall retain a 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement in that portion of the Minnesota Street right-of-way proposed for vacation (north of the alley and north of 7th Avenue and south of the abandoned railroad line) for the existing water main. 4 . A minimum of 20 percent of the total useable area of the PUD excluding the Dakota Street right-of-way shall be provided for open space. 5. The open space area that will remain zoned R-2 (between the east property line of the proposed single family development along Market Street and a southerly extension of the west boundary of Macy 2nd Addition) shall be dedicated as a drainage and utility easement to ensure that open space is maintained. 6. With the application for approval of the final development plan, the developer shall submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan which reflects the following: a. The outlet from the City's pond shall be connected directly to the proposed storm sewer in Dakota Street, via a storm sewer pipe. b. The applicant shall submit a profile view of the entire storm water system on a single drawing, all the way from the outlet on the City's pond to the existing storm sewer at Market Street. c. The applicant shall submit copies of the most current grading plan. d. The applicant shall submit information on the proposed pond in the northeast corner of the plat, including such information as outlet type, size, discharge rates, storage volumes, cross sections, etc. e. The applicant shall submit additional information on the proposed detention pond labeled Outlet I, including cross sections and the design of the trail adjacent to the slopes of the pond. f. The applicant shall submit outlet velocities for the 30" storm sewer outlet and the second storm sewer outlet into Pond I. g. The applicant shall submit design requirements for the two stage outlet structures for both the existing City pond in the Eastview Addition and the proposed pond (Outlet I) . 7 . The applicant shall reimburse the City for $782 to cover the costs of the traffic analysis prepared by Stgar, Roscoe and Fausch for this proposal. 8. Park dedication requirements for the proposed development will be required. The lots in Wermerskirchen Addition, which are a part of this PUD, will not be required to make park dedication requirements since the requirements for this subdivision have already been met. However, the remaining areas in the project, including Lot 5, Block 1, Macy Plat; Lot 2, Block 1, Clifton 1st Addition; and the unplatted land will be required to meet the park dedication requirements. 9 . With the application for approval of the final development plan, the developer shall submit fifteen (15) copies of the final development plan and fifteen copies of all other supporting informational items. With this application, the developer shall also submit one reduced 11"x17" copy of the final development plan and one reduced 11"x17" copy of all other drawing submittals for review by the Planning Commission and City Council by the adopted application deadline dates. The submittal for the final PUD approval must include the following additional items: a. The location and dimensions of all driveways and buildings in the proposed PUD. b. The proposed revision to the design of the four-plex structures, showing the angled four-plexes to be located on Blocks 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 . c. The proposed revision changing from a tri-plex to single family homes in Block 16. d. The applicant must designate the location, dimensions, and sizes of the open space areas. The applicant shall verify that the open spaces are "usable" by providing an individual plan of each area illustrating all proposed amenities and/or landscaping. The reference to "park" must be deleted in areas proposed for open space, as these areas will not become public parks. e. Proposed landscaping products and information on the design of private yards, including their location and dimensions, must be provided on the required landscape plan. f. The location and type of all existing trees to be preserved shall be shown on the required landscape plan. 10. Approval of the title opinion by the City Attorney. 11. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of required improvements: a. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. b. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. c. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. d. Storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. e. Local streets within the plat will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. f. Street signs will be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $250.00 each per sign pole. g. Cash payment in lieu of park dedication shall be required. 12 . The developer must provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer for the areas where native soils are displaced or where the building sites are filled. 13 . Prior to approval of the final plat, final construction plans for all public improvements must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 14 . The developer shall be responsible for grading as approved by the City Engineer. 15. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon the applicant receiving a Certificate of Exemption (Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991) or receiving approval by the City with appropriate minimization / replacement measures. 16. The developer shall dedicate an easement for the existing riser pole and underground distribution lines as required by Shakopee Public Utilities. 17 . Aproval of the preliminary development plan for Milwaukee Manor is subject to the successful rezoning of the site to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) from R-2 (Urban Residential) and R-4 (Multi-Family Residential) as recommended by the Planning Commission. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Bond Sale Resolutions DATE: October 30, 1992 Introduction Council action is needed to award the sale of the 1992 bond issues. Background Council has authorized the issuance of 1992 improvement and tax increment refunding bonds. The offering statement for these two bond issues is attached for your information. Bond counsel will prepare the resolutions awarding the sale of the bonds. Alternatives 1. Adopt resolutions selling bonds. 2. Do not adopt resolutions. Recommendation Alternative number 1. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. A Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing The Form And Details And Providing For The Payment Of $1,665,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1992A, and move its adoption. Offer Resolution No. A Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing The Form And Details And Providing For The Payment Of $1,885,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992B, and move its adoption. c 0 SES13 7 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Boards and Commissions Expiring Terms DATE: October 28, 1992 INTRODUCTION: According to City Council policy, it is appropriate that Council consider at this time the reappointment of individuals whose terms on boards and commissions are expiring. BACKGROUND: According to the policy, ninety days prior to the expiration of terms each year, the Council shall be advised of the upcoming vacancies and the attendance record of the individuals whose terms are expiring, should those individuals be eligible for reappointment. At that time the Council shall consider the reappointment of those individuals. Should the Council determine that the individuals merit reappointment, they will be contacted to determine if they wish to seek reappointment. Council shall also announce the upcoming vacancies and that applications will be accepted from all interested citizens of Shakopee. Application Deadline: Since adoption of the current policy, there has been confusion on the exact date that applications will no longer be considered. Sometimes there have been insufficient applications received and Council has made nominations as late as the same evening of appointment. In 1990, Council set the final date to receive applications as the first meeting in January. This is the meeting that nominations are made. Unless Council directs otherwise, the deadline for receiving applications will be the first meeting in Janaury. Recommendation: Direct staff to provide Council with all applications received for Boards and Commissions until the first meeting in January and retain the right to re-advertise if an inadequate number of applications are received. Eligible Appointees: Attached is a list of the individuals whose terms are expiring and who are eligible for reappointment. Their attendance record will be placed on the table Tuesday night. Recommendation: Direct staff to contact all board and commission members whose terms are expiring inviting them to apply for reappointment. Summary: Staff will follow up on advertising, posting, and mailing notices on accepting applications for filling the expiring terms on city boards and commissions. A letter will be sent to each member whose term is expiring January 31, 1992 inviting them to consider reappointment, unless Council advises otherwise. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Announce that applications are now being accepted for expiring terms on city boards and commissions and direct staff to follow up with appropriate notices. 2. Move to accept all applications for boards and commissions until the first council meeting in January, 1993, retaining the right to re-advertise if inadequate applications are received. 3. Direct staff to contact all board and commission members whose terms are expiring inviting them to apply for reappointment. CITY OF SHAKOPEE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TERMS EXPIRING JANUARY 31, 1993 Planning Commission: Gayle Madigan Energy and Transportation Committee: Judith Case Eldon Reinke Jane Ward Park And Recreation Advisory Board: Dolores Lebens Paul TenEyck John Tieben Sr. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals: Housing Advisory & Appeals Board: Dale Dahlke Bob Turek Shakopee Public Utilities Commission: Terry O 'Toole Police Civil Service Commission: Richard Mulcrone Cable Communications Advisory Commission: Shakopee Community Access Corporation Board of Directors: James Bastyr Bill Harrison Community Development Commission: Mark Miller William Mars Community Youth Building Committee: Sara Call Robert Nead Darrell Trowbridge OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED OCTOBER 20, 1992 Ratings: Requested from Moody's NEW ISSUES Investors Service In the opinion of Dorsey& Whitney, Bond Counsel, on the basis of laws in effect on the date of issuance of the Bonds, interest on the Bonds is not includable in gross income of the recipient for federal income tax purposes or in taxable net income of individuals, estates and trusts for Minnesota income tax purposes, but is includable in taxable income of corporations and financial institutions for purposes of the Minnesota franchise tax. (For a discussion of related issues see"Tax Exemption"herein.) City of Shakopee, Minnesota $1,665,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1992A (the "Series 1992A Bonds") $1,885,000* General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992B (the "Series 1992B Bonds") (collectively referred to as the "Bonds" or the "Issues") Dated Date: December 1, 1992 Interest Due: Each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 1993 The Series 1992A Bonds will mature February 1 as follows: 1994 $ 35,000 1997 $165,000 2000 $160,000 2003 $155,000 1995 $200,000 1998 $165,000 2001 $160,000 2004 $130,000 1996 $175,000 1999 $160,000 2002 $160,000 The City may elect on February 1, 2001, and on any day thereafter, to prepay the Series 1992A Bonds due on or after February 1, 2002, at a price of par plus accrued interest. The Series 1992B Bonds will mature February 1 as follows: 1995 $220,000 1998 $400,000 2000 $175,000 1996 $365,000 1999 $165,000 2001 $180,000 1997 $380,000 * The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Series 1992B Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed$100,000 and will be made in multiples of$5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Series 1992E Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Series 1992B Bonds is increased or reduced. The Series 1992B Bonds will not be subject to payment in advance of their respective stated maturity dates. Common to Both Issues A separate proposal must be submitted for each issue. Proposals shall specify rates in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of True Interest Cost (TIC). The minimum proposal price and a good faith deposit in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond payable to the order of the City which must accompany each proposal are as follows: Minimum Bid Good Faith Deposit The Series 1992A Bonds $1,645,020 $16,650 The Series 1992B Bonds $1,866,150 $18,850 The Bonds will be bank-qualified tax-exempt obligations pursuant to Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and will not be subject to the alternative minimum tax for individuals. The Bonds will be delivered without cost to the Purchaser(s) within 40 days following the date of award of the Bonds. The City will name the Registrar(s) and pay for registration services. PROPOSALS RECEIVED: November 3, 1992 (Tuesday) at 11:00 A.M., Central Time AWARD: November 3, 1992 (Tuesday) at 8:00 P.M., Central Time Further information may be obtained from SPRINGSTED "Al SPRINGSTED Incorporated, Financial Advisor to the Issuer, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS (612)223-3000. For purposes of compliance with Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this document, as the same may be supplemented or corrected by the Issuer from time to time (collectively, the "Official Statement"), may be treated as an Official Statement with respect to the Obligations described herein that is deemed final as of the date hereof (or of any such supplement or correction) by the Issuer, except for the omission of certain information referred to in the succeeding paragraph. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Obligations, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the Issuer with respect to the Obligations, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. Any such addendum shall, on and after the date thereof, be fully incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. By awarding the Obligations to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a Proposal therefor, the Issuer agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Obligations are awarded copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described in the preceding paragraph in the amount specified in the Terms of Proposal. The Issuer designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Obligations are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a Proposal with respect to the Obligations agrees thereby that if its bid is accepted by the Issuer (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Obligations for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. No dealer, broker, salesman or other person has been authorized by the Issuer to give any information or to make any representations with respect to the Obligations other than as contained in the Official Statement or the Final Official Statement, and, if, given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the Issuer. Certain information contained in the Official Statement and the Final Official Statement may have been obtained from sources other than records of the Issuer and, while believed to be reliable, is not guaranteed as to completeness or accuracy. THE INFORMATION AND EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND THE FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, AND NEITHER THE DELIVERY OF THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT OR THE FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT NOR ANY SALE MADE UNDER EITHER SUCH DOCUMENT SHALL CREATE ANY IMPLICATION THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE ISSUER SINCE THE DATE THEREOF. References herein to laws, rules, regulations, resolutions, agreements, reports and other documents do not purport to be comprehensive or definitive. All references to such documents are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular document, the full text of which may contain qualifications of and exceptions to statements made herein. Where full texts have not been included as appendices to the Official Statement or the Final Official Statement, they will be furnished on request. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) $1,665,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1992A Terms of Proposal Schedule of Bond Years iv $1,885,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992B Terms of Proposal v-vii Schedule of Bond Years viii Introductory Statement 1 The Series 1992A Bonds 1-2 The Series 1992B Bonds 2-3 Litigation 3 Future Financing 3 Legality 3 Tax Exemption 3-4 Bank-Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations 4 Ratings 4 Financial Advisor 5 Certification 5 City Property Values 5-6 City Indebtedness 7-9 City Tax Rates, Levies and Collections • 10-11 Funds on Hand 11 General Information Concerning the City 11-13 Governmental Organization and Services 13-15 Proposed Form of Legal Opinions Appendix I Summary of Tax Levies, Payment Provisions, and • . Minnesota Real Property.Valuation Appendix II Annual Financial Statements Appendix III Proposal Forms Attached THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1,665,000 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1992A Proposals for the Bonds will be received by the City's Finance Director or his designee on Tuesday, November 3, 1992 , until 11:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 8:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated December 1, 1992, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1993. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1994 $ 35,000 1998 $165,000 2002 $160,000 1995 $200,000 1999 $160,000 2003 $155,000 1996 $175,000 2000 $160,000 2004 $130,000 1997 $165,000 2001 $160,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2001, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2002. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such order as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge special assessments against benefited property. The proceeds will be used to finance the costs of various improvement projects within the City. - i - TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $1,645,020 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $16,650, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. if a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City wi'l pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. • Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the - ii - Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Dorsey & Whitney of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 75 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated October 6, 1992 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/Judith Cox City Clerk - iii - SCHEDULE OF BOND YEARS $1,665,000 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1992A Cumulative Year Principal Bond Years Bond Years 1994 $35,000 40.8333 40.8333 1995 $200,000 433.3333 474.1666 1996 $175,000 554.1667 1 ,028.3333 1997 $165,000 687.5000 1 ,715.8333 1998 $165,000 852.5000 2,568.3333 1999 $160,000 986.6667 3,555.0000 2000 $160,000 1 ,146.6667 4,701 .6667 2001 $160,000 1 ,306.6667 6,008.3334 2002 $160,000 c 1 ,466.6667 7,475.0001 2003 $155,000 c 1 ,575.8333 9,050.8334 2004 $130,000 c 1 ,451 .6667 10,502.5001 Average Maturity: 6.31 Years Bonds Dated: December 1 , 1992 Interest Due: August 1 , 1993 and each February 1 and August 1 to maturity. Principal Due: February 1 , 1994-2004 inclusive. Optional Call: Bonds maturing on or after February 1 , 2002 are callable commencing February 1 , 2001 and any date thereafter at par. (See Terms of Proposal. ) c: subject to optional call - iv- THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1,885,000* CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1992B Proposals for the Bonds will be received by the City's Finance Director or his designee on Tuesday, November 3, 1992 until 11:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 8:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated December 1, 1992, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1993. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of$5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1995 $220,000 1998 $400,000 2000 $175,000 1996 $365,000 1999 $165,000 2001 $180,000 1997 $380,000 * The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed$100,000 and will be made in multiples of$5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The Bonds will not be subject to payment in advance of their respective stated maturity dates. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge tax increment income from the City's Tax Increment Districts No. 1 and No. 4. The proceeds will be used to refund in advance of maturity the following: the 1995-1998 maturities of the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1986A, dated July 15, 1986 and the -v - 1996-2001 maturities of the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1986B, dated July 1, 1986. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $1,866,150 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $18,850, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. -vi - CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Dorsey & Whitney of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 75 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated October 6, 1992 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/Judith Cox Clerk - vii - SCHEDULE OF BOND YEARS $1,885,000 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1992B Cumulative Year Principal Bond Years Bond Years 1995 $220,000 476.6667 476.6667 1996 $365,000 1 ,155.8333 1 ,632.5000 1997 $380,000 1 ,583.3333 3,215.8333 1998 $400,000 2,066.6667 5,282.5000 1999 $165,000 1 ,017.5000 6,300.0000 2000 $175,000 1 ,254.1667 7,554.1667 2001 $180,000 1 ,470.0000 9,024.1667 Average Maturity: 4.79 Years Bonds Dated: December 1 , 1992 Interest Due: August 1 , 1993 and each February 1 and August 1 to maturity. Principal Due: February 1 , 1995-2001 inclusive. Optional Call: None. (This page was left blank intentionally.) OFFICIAL STATEMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA $1,665,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1992A $1,885,000* GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1992B Introductory Statement This Official Statement contains certain information relating to the City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the "City") and its issuance of $1,665,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1992A (the "Series 1992A Bonds") and $1,885,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992B (the "Series 1992B Bonds" or the "Refunding Bonds"), together referred to as the "Bonds" or the "Issues." The Bonds are general obligations of the City for which the City pledges its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes without limit as to rate or amount. The Series 1992A Bonds Authority and Purpose The Series 1992A Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475. Proceeds of the Series 1992A Bonds will be used to finance three public improvement projects currently underway within the City. The composition of the Issue is as follows: Project Costs: 92-3 Vierling St. $ 562,500 92-6 Apgar St. 437,500 92-4 12th Avenue 978,000 Subtotal $1,978,000 Less: State Aid (380,000) Water/Sewer Funds (48,750) Net Project Costs $1,549,250 Capitalized Interest 77,336 Allowance for Discount Bidding 19,980 Issuance Costs 19,325 Subtotal $1,665,891 Less: Investment Earnings (891) Total Series 1992A Bonds $1,665,000 * The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Series 1992B Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $100,000 and will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Series 19928 Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Series 19928 Bonds is increased or reduced. - 1 - Security and Financing In addition to its general obligation pledge, the City also pledges special assessments against benefited property. Special assessments in the amount of $281,000 for Project 92-3 are expected to be filed by November 30, 1992 for first collection in 1993. Special assessments totaling $1,136,038 for the remaining two projects are expected to be filed in September (Project 92-6) and August (Project 92-4) of 1993 for first collection in 1994. Assessments are spread over a term of ten years, with even annual principal payments and interest charged on the unpaid balance at a rate of approximately 1.5% over the rate on the Series 1992A Bonds. In addition to special assessments, the City expects to levy taxes in the amount of approximately $23,000 annually for repayment of the Series 1992A Bonds. Capitalized interest in the amount of $77,336 is included in this Issue to cover interest through February 1, 1994 for projects not being assessed until 1993. The first interest payment on the Series 1992A Bonds, due August 1, 1993, will be payable from first-half collections of assessments, taxes and capitalized interest. The subsequent February 1 payment of interest will be made from second-half collections of assessments, taxes and capitalized interest and surplus first-half collections. Thereafter, assessments and taxes levied each year will be used to cover the August 1 semiannual interest payment due in the year of collection and the subsequent February 1 semiannual interest and annual principal payment. The Series 19928 Bonds Authority and Purpose The Series 19928 Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 469 and 475. Proceeds will be used to refund, in advance or maturity, the issues shown below: Net Issues to be Refunded Interest Rate Refunded Refunded (the "Refunded Bonds") Outstanding Call Date Amount Maturities $2,105,000 Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1986A, dated July 15, 1986 7.34% 2-1-94 $ 875,000 1995-1998 $1,645,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1986B, dated July 1, 1986 7.52% 2-1-95 940,000 1996-2001 Total Refunded Bonds $1,815,000 The Refunded Bonds were originally issued to finance public redevelopment costs within the City's Housing and Redevelopment Project Area Number 1; the 1986A Bonds are currently being paid by tax increment revenues from the City's Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 ("TIF No. 1") and the 1986B Bonds are being paid by tax increment revenues from the City's Tax Increment Financing Districts Numbers 1 through 6. The refunding of these issues is being done to achieve interest cost savings which are expected to total approximately $99,730, for a present value savings of$82,500. The refunding will be conducted by means of a "crossover" mechanism. The proceeds of the Refunding Bonds will be placed in an escrow account with a bank to be named by the City. Amounts in the escrow account will be invested in special obligations of the United States Treasury or other obligations of the United States or of its agencies, which shall mature in such - 2 - amounts and at such times as to be available to pay debt service on the new Refunding Bonds through the respective call dates of the bonds to be refunded. On each respective call date, the escrow account will crossover and pay the remaining principal on the original issue by calling in all of those remaining bonds. The City will continue to pay debt service on the issues to be refunded through their respective call dates. Beginning with the first interest payment due after the call, or "crossover," date for each issue, the City will start to make debt service payments on the new Refunding Issues, which shall have no principal payments prior to their respective crossover dates. Actuarial services necessary to insure the adequacy of the escrow account to provide timely payment of the debt service for which the escrow account is obligated will be performed by a certified public accounting firm. Security and Financing In addition to its general obligation pledge, the City pledges tax increment income from TIF Districts No. 1 and 4. Subsequent to the crossover date, tax increment income collected each year will be used to make the August 1 interest payment due in the collection year and the subsequent February 1 payment of principal and interest. Litigation The City is not aware of any threatened or pending litigation affecting the validity of the Bonds or the City's ability to meet its financial obligations. Future Financing The City has no further borrowing plans for the next 90 days. Legality The Bonds are subject to approval as to certain matters by Dorsey & Whitney of Minneapolis, Minnesota as Bond Counsel. Bond Counsel has not participated in the preparation of this Official Statement except for guidance concerning the following section, 'Tax Exemption," and will not pass upon its accuracy, completeness, or sufficiency. Bond Counsel has not examined nor attempted to examine or verify, any of the financial or statistical statements, or data contained in this Official Statement, and will express no opinion with respect thereto. Legal opinions in substantially the form set out in Appendix I herein will be delivered at closing. Tax Exemption In the opinion of Dorsey & Whitney, as Bond Counsel, under federal and Minnesota laws, regulations, rulings and decisions in effect on the date of issuance of the Bonds, interest on the Bonds is not includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes or in taxable net income of individuals, estates and trusts for Minnesota income tax purposes. Interest on the Bonds is includable in taxable income of corporations and financial institutions for purposes of the Minnesota franchise tax. Certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), however, impose continuing requirements that must be met after the issuance of the Bonds in order for interest thereon to be and remain not includable in federal gross income and in Minnesota taxable net income. Noncompliance with such requirements by the City may cause the interest on the Bonds to be includable in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation and in taxable net income for purposes of Minnesota income - 3 - taxation, retroactive to the date of issuance of the Bonds, irrespective in some cases of the date on which such noncompliance is ascertained. No provision has been made for redemption of or for an increase in the interest rate on the Bonds in the event that interest on the Bonds becomes includable in federal gross income or Minnesota taxable income. Interest on the Bonds is not an item of tax preference includable in alternative minimum taxable income for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax applicable to all taxpayers or the Minnesota alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals, estates and trusts, but is includable in adjusted current earnings in determining the alternative minimum taxable income of corporations for purposes of the alternative minimum tax and the environmental tax imposed by Section 59A of the Code. Interest on the Bonds may be includable in the income of a foreign corporation for purposes of the branch profits tax imposed by Section 884 of the Code and is includable in the net investment income of foreign insurance companies for purposes of Section 842(b) of the Code. In the case of an insurance company subject to the tax imposed by Section 831 of the Code, the amount which otherwise would be taken into account as losses incurred under Section 832(b)(5) of the Code must be reduced by an amount equal to fifteen percent of the interest on the Bonds that is received or accrued during the taxable year. Section 86 of the Code requires recipients of certain Social Security and railroad retirement benefits to take into account, in determining the taxability of such benefits, receipts or accruals of interest on the Bonds. Passive investment income, including interest on the Bonds, may be subject to federal income taxation under Section 1375 of the Code for a Subchapter S corporation that has Subchapter C earnings and profits at the close of the taxable year if greater than twenty-five percent of the gross receipts of such Subchapter S corporation is passive investment income. Section 265 of the Code denies a deduction for interest on indebtedness incurred or continued to purchase or carry the Bonds or, in the case of a financial institution, that portion of the holder's interest expense allocated to interest on the Bonds, except with respect to certain financial institutions (within the meaning of Section 265(b) of the Code). The foregoing is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of collateral tax consequences arising from receipt of interest on the Bonds. Prospective purchasers or holders of the Bonds should consult their tax advisors with respect to collateral tax consequences, including without limitation the calculations of alternative minimum tax, environmental tax or foreign branch profits tax liability or the inclusion of Social Security or other retirement payments in taxable income. Bank-Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations The City will designate the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, relating to the ability of financial institutions to deduct from income, for federal income tax purposes, interest expense that is allocable to carrying and acquiring tax-exempt obligations. Ratings An application for ratings of the Bonds has been made to Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's"), 99 Church Street, New York, New York. If ratings are assigned, they will reflect only the opinion of Moody's. Any explanation of the significance of the ratings may be obtained only from Moody's. There is no assurance that ratings, if assigned, will continue for any given period of time, or that such ratings will not be revised or withdrawn, if in the judgment of Moody's, circumstances so warrant. A revision or withdrawal of the ratings may have an adverse effect on the market price of the Bonds. - 4 - Financial Advisor The City has retained Springsted Incorporated, Public Financial Advisors, of St. Paul, Minnesota, as financial advisor (the "Financial Advisor") in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. In preparing the Official Statement, the Financial Advisor has relied upon governmental officials, and other sources, who have access to relevant data to provide accurate information for the Official Statement, and the Financial Advisor has not been engaged, nor has it undertaken, to independently verify the accuracy of such information. The Financial Advisor is not a public accounting firm and has not been engaged by the City to compile, review, examine or audit any information in the Official Statement in accordance with accounting standards. The Financial Advisor is an independent advisory firm and is not engaged in the business of underwriting, trading or distributing municipal securities or other public securities and therefore will not participate in the underwriting of the Bonds. Certification The City has authorized the distribution of this Official Statement for use in connection with the initial sale of the Bonds. As of the date of the settlement of the Bonds, the Purchaser(s) will be furnished with a certificate signed by the appropriate officers of the City. The certificate will state that as of the date of the Official Statement, it did not and does not as of the date of the certificate contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. CITY PROPERTY VALUES 1991 Indicated Market Value of Taxable Property: $529,555,364* * Calculated by dividing the county assessor's estimated market value of $523,200,700 by the 1991 sales ratio of 98.8%for the City as determined by the State Department of Revenue. 1991 Taxable Net Tax Capacity: $9,672,496 1991 Net Tax Capacity $14,634,316 Less: Contribution to Fiscal Disparities (2,761,339) Captured Tax Increment Tax Capacity (3,432,651) Plus: Distribution from Fiscal Disparities 1,232,170 1991 Taxable Net Tax Capacity $ 9,672,496 1991 Taxable Net Tax Capacity by Class of Property Residential Homestead $2,701,440 27.7% Commercial/Industrial, Public Utility(a) and Personal Property(b) 5,167,337 53.3 Residential Non-Homestead 1,109,938 11.8 Agricultural 381,377 3.9 Other 312,404 3.3 Total $9,672,496 100.0% (a) Northern States Power Company's$20 million Blue Lake Substation, completed in 1975, accounts for the major share of the City's public utility property. The plant is located on an 80-acre site in the northeast section of the City and houses oil-fueled gas turbine generators, an electrical substation, and fuel storage and maintenance facilities. (b) Reflects adjustments for fiscal disparities and captured tax increment tax capacity. - 5 - Trend of Values Assessor's Indicated Estimated Taxable Taxable Tax Market Value(a) Market Value Assessed Value(c) Capacity(d) 1991 $529,555,364 $523,200,700 N/A $ 9,672,496 1990 588,885,409 496,430,400 N/A 9,662,278 1989 524,636,084 476,894,200(b) N/A 10,619,183 1988 559,542,068 476,170,300 N/A 11,500,261 1987 525,531,579 449,329,500 $92,982,960 12,357,780 (a) Calculated by dividing the county assessor's estimated market value by the sales ratio for each year. The decline in value from 1990 to 1991 is a result of an increase in the sales ratio from 84.3% to 98.8%; the decline in 1988 to 1989 is a result of an increase in the sales ratio from 85.1% to 90.9% (also see footnote b). (b) The 1989 estimated market value of the City showed little increase from the prior year's value due to a reduction in value of several properties within the City including the following: Canterbury Downs Racetrack value was reduced to$42,300,000 from$48,000,000, Canterbury Inn value was reduced to $2,679,200 from $7,837,000, Valleyfair Amusement Park value was reduced by $1,300,000 and Wesray Container value was reduced by$1,000,000. In the case of Canterbury Downs Racetrack and Canterbury Inn, the values were reduced as a result of resale of the properties. The Valleyfair and Wesray Container values were reduced as a result of court actions challenging the County's valuation of the properties. (c) After adjustments for fiscal disparities and captured tax increment value. (d) For property taxes payable in 1989, assessed value of property was replaced with gross tax capacity in determining property taxes. Gross tax capacity was approximately 12.5% of assessed value for most property classes and, like assessed value, was calculated by applying a statutory formula to the estimated market value of the property. Beginning with taxes payable in 1990, net tax capacity has replaced gross tax capacity as the basis on which taxes are levied. Net tax capacity differs from gross tax capacity primarily by having lower values for homestead residential and certain agricultural property(see Appendix II). Ten of the Largest Taxpayers in the City 1991 Net Taxpayer Type of Property Tax Capacity Canterbury Downs Racetrack $2,052,488(x) Northern States Power Company Utility 974,233 K-Mart Corporation Warehouse and Retail Store 887,798 Rahr Properties Inc. Malting Company 801,153 Cedar Fair Inc. (Valleyfair) Amusement Park 504,938 Tsumura International Manufacturing 474,234 Certain-Teed Corporation Asphalt Shingles 267,267 Minneapolis Northstar Auto Auction Auto Auction Facility 236,421 Wesray Container Associates (formerly Anchor Glass) Glass Manufacturing 212,941 Conklin Company, Inc. Chemical Manufacturer/Distributor 150,783 Total $6,562,256(b) (a) Pursuant to an amended assessment agreement between the City and Canterbury Downs, the minimum market value of the racetrack has been reduced from$43 million to$14 million, effective for taxes payable in 1994. (b) Represents 67.8%of the City's 1991 taxable net tax capacity. - 6 - CITY INDEBTEDNESS Legal Debt Limit Legal Debt Limit (2% of Estimated Market Value) $10,464,014 Less: Outstanding Debt Subject to Limit -0- Legal Debt Margin at September 2, 1992 $10,464,014 General Obligation Debt Supported by Taxes and/or Special Assessments Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturity As of 9-2-92 8-1-82 $ 185,000 Local Improvements 2-1-1993 $ 20,000 1-1-85 120,000 Local Improvements 2-1-1994 30,000 1-1-86 255,000 Local Improvements 2-1-1996 130,000 7-1-86 355,000 Local Improvements 2-1-1997 195,000 10-1-87 705,000 Local Improvements 2-1-1999 430,000 9-1-88 1,100,000 Local Improvements 2-1-2000 765,000 12-1-90 1,930,000 Local Improvements 2-1-2002 1,885,000 10-1-91 1,725,000 Local Improvements 2-1-2003 1,725,000 12-1-92 1,665,000 Local Improvements (this Issue) 2-1-2004 1,665,000 Total $6,845,000 General Obligation Debt Supported by Tax Increments Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturity As of 9-2-92 7-1-86 $1,645,000 Tax Increment 2-1-2001 $ 1,280,000(a) 7-15-86 2,105,000 Tax Increment Refunding 2-1-1998 1,235,000(b) 10-1-87 2,660,000 Tax Increment 2-1-1995 1,125,000 12-1-88 1,015,000 Tax Increment 2-1-2001 835,000 11-1-89 1,965,000 Tax Increment 2-1-2003 1,785,000 11-1-89 1,635,000 Tax Increment 2-1-2003 1,485,000 12-1-92 1,885,000 Tax Increment Refunding (this Issue) 2-1-2001 1,885,000 Subtotal $ 9,630,000 Less: Refunded Bonds (1,815,000) Total $ 7,815,000 (a) The 1996-2001 maturities are being refunded by the Series 1992B Bonds. (b) The 1995-1998 maturities are being refunded by the Series 1992B Bonds. - 7 - Annual Calendar Year Debt Service Payments.Including These Issues and Excluding the Refunded Bonds G.O. Debt Supported G.O. Debt Supported. by Taxes and/or Primarily by by Special Assessments(a) Tax Increments Principal Principal Year Principal & Interest Principal & Interest( ) 1992 (at 9-2) (Paid) (Paid) (Paid) (Paid) 1993 $ 455,000 $ 811,783.75 $ 910,000 $ 1,460,386.66 1994 645,000 992,755.00 980,000 1,497,216.25 1995 805,000 1,111,730.00 1,060,000 1,451,057.50 1996 785,000 1,047,421.25 705,000 976,811.25 1997 745,000 963,505.00 745,000 978,805.00 1998 705,000 881,377.50 790,000 982,010.00 1999 625,000 762,733.75 580,000 732,317.50 2000 575,000 678,027.50 615,000 730,275.00 2001 545,000 615,675.00 650,000 725,330.00 2002 525,000 564,622.50 375,000 416,475.00 2003 305,000 320,663.75 405,000 419,175.00 2004 130,000 133,510.00 Total $6,845,000(b) $8,883,805.00 $7,815,000(4) $10,369,859.16 (a) Includes the Series 1992A Bonds at an assumed average annual rate of 4.80%. (b) 93.6%of this debt will be retired within ten years. (c) Includes the Series 1992B Bonds at an assumed average annual rate of 4.40%. (d) 94.8%of this debt will be retired within ten years. Summary of Direct General Obligation Debt Including These Issues and Excluding the Refunded Bonds Gross Less: Debt Net Debt Service Funds* Direct Debt G.O. Debt Supported by Taxes and/or Special Assessments $6,845,000 $(2,047,204) $4,797,796 G.O. Debt Supported by Tax Increments 7,815,000 (6,220,049) 1,594,951 * Debt service funds are as of August 31, 1992 and include money to pay both principal and interest. Special Obligation Debt On September 18, 1984, the City Council authorized and subsequently issued $3,140,000 Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1984, to refund in advance of maturity remaining obligations of the City's $5,300,000 Special Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1979. The City placed in escrow sufficient funds to pay when due the debt service on the 1979 Bonds. The 1984 Refunding Bonds will be paid from income generated by TIF District No. 1. The 1984 Refunding Bonds are special obligations of the City's Housing and Redevelopment - 8 - Authority and do not constitute a charge against the general credit or taxing power of the Authority or the City of Shakopee. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority issued $4,200,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds (Canterbury Downs Project) on March 1, 1985 to finance site costs of Canterbury Downs. The principal and interest payments are payable solely from the tax increments from the project and are partially guaranteed by a letter of credit and guarantees from the three major shareholders of Minnesota Racetrack, Incorporated. In addition, Canterbury Downs executed an assessment agreement guaranteeing a minimum market value of $43 million for the racetrack. However, the City and Canterbury Downs have recently amended this assessment agreement, reducing the guaranteed minimum market value of the racetrack to $14 million, effective for taxes payable in 1994. All of the outstanding principal of these bonds, totaling $1,350,000, will be defeased by the City on November 9, 1992 with available monies from the City's Tax Increment Districts No. 1 and 4. Indirect General Obligation Debt Debt Applicable to 1991 Taxable G.O. Debt Tax Capacity in City Taxing Unit Net Tax Capacity As of 9-2-92(a) Percent Amount Scott County $ 38,160,705 $10,110,000 25.3% $2,557,830 ISD 720 (Shakopee) 10,644,460 2,395,000 84.1 2,014,195 ISD 191 (Burnsville) 46,106,238 11,040,000 1.6 176,640 Dakota County Technical College 241,900,934 2,695,000 0.3 8,085 Metropolitan Council 1,931,451,484 43,370,000(b) 0.5 216,850 Regional Transit District 1,770,007,609 . 51,485,000 0.5 257,425 Total $5,231,025 (a) Excludes general obligation tax and aid certificates, general obligation debt supported by revenues and revenue debt. (b) The Metropolitan Council also has outstanding$477,285,000 general obligation sanitary sewer bonds and loans which are paid from system revenues. Debt Ratios" G.O. Net G.O. Indirect & Direct Debt Net Direct Debt To 1991 Indicated Market Value 1.21% 2.19% Per Capita (11,996 - 1991 Metropolitan Council Estimate) $533 $969 * Excludes revenue supported debt. - 9 - CITY TAX RATES, LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS Tax Capacity Rates for a City Resident in ISD 720 1991/92 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 Total For Debt Only Scott County 36.093% 34.080% 39.043% 41.839% 2.498% City of Shakopee 15.008 16.929 23.426 23.979 4.439 ISD 720 (Shakopee) 69.594 45.748 52.668 66.508 2.910 Special Districts* 4.312 4.669 5.029 2.782 0.724 Total 125.007% 101.426% 120.166% 135.108% 10.571% * Special districts include the Metropolitan Council and Regional Transit District. NOTE: For property taxes payable in 1989, taxes were determined by multiplying the gross tax capacity by the tax capacity rate, expressed as a percentage. This replaced the use of assessed value multiplied by mill rates. Beginning with taxes payable in 1990, net tax capacity has replaced gross tax capacity as the basis on which taxes are levied (see Appendix II). Historic Trend of Mill Rates Per $1,000 of Assessed Value for a City Resident in ISD 720 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 Scott County 33.004 34.865 35.833 43.848 42.710 City of Shakopee 17.465 18.190 17.426 17.790 18.788 ISD 720 (Shakopee) 55.630 67.193 60.306 72.038 53.450 Special Districts* 4.973 4.174 4.395 5.315 4.406 Total 111.072 124.422 117.960 138.991 119.354 * Special districts include the Metropolitan Council and Regional Transit District. NOTE: The foregoing mill rates are computed on the basis of total levies and do not reflect reductions for property tax credits. Tax Levies and Collections Collected During Collected Amount Collection Year As of 9-30-92 Levy/Collect of Levy Amount Percent Amount Percent 1991/92 $2,651,316* (In Process of Collection) 1990/91 2,450,728 $2,377,308 97.0% $2,401,548 98.0% 1989/90 2,138,093 2,092,690 97.8 2,128,862 99.6 1988/89 1,696,842 1,659,093 97.8 1,696,170 99.9 1987/88 1,706,254 1,648,929 94.8 1,663,696 97.6 * The 1991/92 gross tax levy includes $373,329 of Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid ('HACA'). The net levy of$2,277,987 after subtracting HACA is the basis for computing the 1991/92 tax capacity rates. Pursuant to Section 275.11, Minnesota Statutes, the City's per capita limit for all taxes payable in 1992 is $319.14. Certain special purpose levies have been authorized outside of the per capita levy limitation and are deductible from the total levy for purposes of determining the - 10 - City's per capita levy which is subject to the statutory limit. Beginning with taxes payable in 1993, there will no longer be a per capita levy limit for cities in the State of Minnesota. FUNDS ON HAND As of August 31, 1992 Fund Cash and Investments General $ 1,409,352 Special Revenue 1,761,876 Debt Service: G.O. TIF 55,703 G.O. Special Assessment 2,047,204 Capital Projects 3,995,340 Enterprise 6,305,082 Trust and Agency 6,925,463` Total $22,500,020 * Includes$6,164,346 of tax increment funds which are available, but not dedicated, for debt service. GENERAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CITY Shakopee is located in northeastern Scott County, approximately 25 miles southwest of the City of Minneapolis. Shakopee is the Scott County Seat and is part of the Minneapolis/St. Paul seven-county metropolitan area. The Minnesota River forms the City's northern boundary. The 1980 census population of 9,941 represented a 44.6% increase over the 1970 census count: The 1990 U.S. Census population count for the City is 11,739, an '18% increase since 1980. The City's 1991 population, as estimated by the' Metropolitan Council, is 11,966. The City encompasses an area of 29 square miles (18,560 acres). Major Employers in the City Approximate Number Employer Product/Service of Employees Canterbury Downs Racetrack 65-1,500* Valleyfair Entertainment Center 67-1,200* St. Francis Regional Medical Center Health Care 410 Wesray Glass Container Glass Container Mfg. 384 Scott County Government 365 Tsumura International Manufacturing 300 Toro Company Turf Care Products 300 Independent School District 720 Education 260 K-Mart Corporation Distribution Center 250 Conklin Company, Inc. Chemicals Mfg. 240 Certain-Teed Corp. Asphalt Shingles Mfg. 197 Shakopee Friendship Manor Corp. Nursing Home 150 Rahr Malting Company Malt 115 Shakopee Valley Printing Newspaper 115 Owens-Illinois, Inc. Corrugated Cartons 100 * Higher number indicates seasonal peak. Source: 'Shakopee Community Profile', Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development, April, 1992. - 11 - Labor Force Data . July, 1992 July, 1991 Civilian Unemployment Civilian Unemployment Labor Force Rate. Labor Force Rate Scott County 30,230 ` 3.8% 30,870 3.9% Minneapolis/St. Paul MSA 1,420,668 3.7 1,451,351 3.9 Minnesota 2,475,900 4.3 2,486,300 4.5 Source: Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training. 1992 data is preliminary. City-Issued Building Permits Total Permits New Single Family Home Number Value Number Value 1992 (to 8-31) 309 $13,777,491 77 $6,224,821 1991 426 18,513,241 99 7,164,850 1990 381 30,500,706 100 7,488,490 1989 407 61,598,852* 94 6,995,265 1988 347 11,769,593 93 7,012,737 1987 345 14,533,490 61 5,749,600 1986 354 31,452,685 64 5,360,124 1985 354 24,445,409 63 5,295,991 1984 373 34,677,908 56 4,543,541 1983 332 9,578,424 86 4,592,837 1982 306 7,378,890 60 2,539,810 1981 257 14,647,635 76 3,942,713 1980 227 33,635,025 29 1,734,240 * Includes an addition to the Blue Lake Treatment Plant valued at$45,000,000. Recent Development In July of 1991, the City of Shakopee acquired from Marquette Bank a 20,000-square foot facility at the corner of 2nd Avenue and Holmes Street in Shakopee. The existing City Hall services will be relocated to the newly-acquired site in early 1993. A number of road and highway related projects surrounding Shakopee are in various stages of development. Bid-letting for Phase 2 of the Downtown Mini By-Pass project is scheduled for fall, 1992 with construction expected to begin in 1993. Construction of Phase 2, which includes the roadway approaches on the north side of 1st Avenue and bridge, are scheduled for the fall of 1993. In the spring of 1991, construction commenced on Shakopee Southerly By-Pass. Phase 1 of construction was initiated on the eastern boundary of Shakopee city limits. Several other construction phases are scheduled for completion in the fall of 1994. A new County Road 18 bridge over the Minnesota River is under construction. Phase 1 of the project includes actual construction of the bridge over the river proper. Completion of the entire project and roadway enhancements is scheduled for 1995. - 12 - Residential Development The City has approved eight new residential housing plats in 1992, which will provide 217 new lots for development. Financial Institutions Full service banks in the City are Citizens State Bank and Marquette Bank of Shakopee. Total deposits for the two banks totaled $89,794,000 as of December 31, 1991. The Family Bank, a branch of Mankato, and a Minneapolis branch of Norwest Bank, Minnesota, N.A., are also located in the City. Health Care Facilities The 126-bed St. Francis Regional Medical Center provides general and acute care facilities and is located in the City. The Center has an active medical staff of 54 physicians and a consulting and courtesy staff of approximately 100 physicians. The Center's total full- and part-time employment is approximately 410. Also located in the City is Shakopee Friendship Manor, a 116-bed privately owned nursing home. Education Most Shakopee residents are part of Independent School District 720 (Shakopee); a very small percentage of City residents are within the boundaries of ISD 191 (Burnsville). Independent School District 720 had a fall, 1992 enrollment (kindergarten through grade 12) of approximately 2,895 students, and has approximately 300 employees. The District maintains three elementary schools, a junior high school and a senior high school. The Shakopee Area Catholic School provides parochial education for grades kindergarten through eight. The school has approximately 342 students enrolled. GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION AND SERVICES Organization Shakopee was incorporated as a City in 1870 and became a statutory city in April, 1975, having previously been governed under a home rule charter. The City has a mayor-council form of government, with the Mayor elected to a two-year term of office and the four Council members elected to overlapping four-year terms. The present Mayor and Council members are as shown below: Expiration of Term Gary L. Laurent Mayor December 31, 1993 Robert O. Sweeney Council Member December 31, 1993 Gloria M. Vierling Council Member December 31, 1993 Joan Lynch Council Member December 31, 1995 Michael Beard Council Member December 31, 1995 - 13 - The City's chief administrative officer is the City Administrator, Mr. Dennis Kraft, who is appointed by the Council. Mr. Kraft served as the City's Community Development Director for two and one-half years prior to being appointed City Administrator in 1988. Mr. Gregg M. Voxland, the City's Finance Director/Treasurer, has been with the City since 1978. Ms. Judith S. Cox is the City Clerk. The City has 76 full-time and 56 part-time employees. Services Police and fire protection for the City is provided by the Police Department, comprised of 18 full-time officers, and a volunteer Fire Department, comprised of 35 members. The City has a class 5 rating for insurance purposes. Municipal water and sewer services are provided for all developed areas of the City. Water is supplied by eight wells and stored in a two million gallon standpipe, a 1.5 million-gallon elevated tank, and a 250,000-gallon elevated tank. The water system has a pumping capacity of 6,487 gallons per minute; average demand is estimated to be 2.4 million gallons per day, while peak demand reaches 6.0 million gallons per day. The water system is designed to handle major extensions in the future. As of December 31, 1991, the water utility had 3,421 metered customers. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission is responsible for the management and maintenance of the municipal water system and electrical distribution system. The electric system purchases power from Northern States Power Company and has 5,076 metered customers. The Commission is comprised of three members appointed by the City Council to three-year terms. The Commission makes an annual contribution in lieu of taxes to the City in the amount of 23.77% of gross margin, or $240,384 (a limit established by ordinance), whichever is greater. Effective January 1, 1991, the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission purchased all the facilities located within the City of Shakopee which were owned and operated by the Minnesota Valley Electrical Cooperative. Interceptor sewer lines and wastewater treatment plants in the seven-county metropolitan area are under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission ("MWCC"), an agency of the Metropolitan Council. MWCC finances its operations through user charges based on volume. MWCC's Blue Lake Treatment Plant is located in the City and is undergoing a major expansion. Employee Pensions All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City of Shakopee are covered by defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the Public Employers Retirement Fund (PERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF) which are cost-sharing multiple-employer retirement plans. PERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated members are covered by Social Security and Basic members are not. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. All police officers who qualify for membership by statute are covered by the PEPFF. The City's contribution for employees covered by PERA for the year ended December 31, 1991 was $183,111. The City contributes to the Shakopee Fire Department Relief Association, a single-employer public employee retirement system that acts as a common investment and administrator for the - 14 - City's volunteer fire fighters. Total contributions to the relief association in 1991 amounted to $5,000 made by the City and $35,710 from State aids. Regional Government - Metropolitan Council The Metropolitan Council is comprised of 17 members who are appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate. Sixteen members are appointed to four-year terms from districts of equal population size within the seven-county metropolitan area. The Council chair, the 17th member, represents the Region as a whole and serves at the pleasure of the governor. The Council is accountable, in law, to the State Legislature. The Council's primary mission, as described in the 1967 Council enabling act, is to undertake those planning and coordinative actions that are necessary to insure the "orderly and economic" development of the Twin Cities Area. - 15 - (This page was left blank intentionally.) APPENDIX I PROPOSED FORM OF LEGAL OPINIONS • DORSEY & WHITNEY A Pwrn.zrsatf INCLUDING Paonsstoxsi.Co»oaanoxs 2200 FIRST BANE PLACE EAST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 (612)340-2600 • • TELEX 29-0603 TELECOPIEE (612)3410-2868 $1, 665, 000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1992A City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota • • • As Bond Counsel in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale by the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota (the City) , of the obligations described above, dated as originally issued as of December 1, 1992 (the Bonds) , we have examined certified copies of certain proceedings taken, and certain affidavits and certificates furnished, by ' the City in the authorization, sale and issuance of the Bonds, including the form of the Bonds . As to questions of fact material to our opinion we have assumed the authenticity of and relied upon the proceedings, affidavits and certificates furnished to us without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation . From our examination of such proceedings, affidavits and certificates, and upon the basis of existing law, it is our opinion that : 1 . The Bonds are valid and binding general Obligations of the City enforceable in accordance with their terms, except to the extent the enforceability thereof may be limited by the exercise of judicial discretion or by the application of state or federal laws relating to bankruptcy, ' reorganization, moratorium or creditors ' rights . 2 . The principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable_ from special assessments to be levied on property specially benefited by the improvements financed by the Bonds which have been pledged and appropriated for this purpose, and from ad valorem taxes heretofore duly levied on all taxable property in the City, but if necessary for payment thereof additional ad valorem taxes are required by law to be levied on all such property, which taxes are not subject to any limitation as to rate or amount . 3. The Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) , and applicable Treasury Regulations . I-1 DORSEY & WHITNEY $1, 665, 000 General Obligation City of Shakopee, Improvement Bonds, Series 1992A Scott County, Minnesota 4 . Interest on the Bonds (a) is not includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes or in taxable net income of individuals, estates or trusts for Minnesota income tax purposes; (b) is includable in taxable income of corporations and financial institutions for purposes of the Minnesota franchise tax; (c) is not an item of tax preference includable in alternative minimum taxable income for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax applicable to all taxpayers or the Minnesota alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals, estates and trusts; and (d) .is includable in adjusted current earnings of corporations in determining alternative minimum taxable income for purposes of the federal and Minnesota alternative minimum taxes . 5 . The City has designated the Bonds as "qualified tax- exempt obligations" .within the meaning of Section .265 (b) (3) of: the Code, and ._financial institutions described in Section 265 (b) (5) of the -Code may treat the Bonds for purposes of :Sections 265 (b) (2) and 291 (e) (1).(B) of the Code as if they were acquired on August 7, 1986. . . 6. The opinions expressed in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above are subject to the condition ,of the City' s compliance with all requirements of the Code that must be satisfied subsequent to. the issuance of the Bonds in order that interest thereon may. be, and continue to be, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes . The City has covenanted to .comply with these continuing requirements . Its failure to do so could result in the inclusion of interest on the Bonds in federal gross. income and in Minnesota taxable net income, retroactive to the date of issuance of the Bonds . Except as stated in this opinion, we express no opinion regarding federal or state tax consequences to holders of the Bonds . • . . We have not been asked, and have not undertaken, . to review the accuracy, completeness or sufficiency of any offering materials relating to the Bonds, and we express no opinion with respect thereto._ Dated: December ,: 1992 . . 1-2 DORSEY 8c ,WHITNEY A PAarwEilfIP INCLUD!WO PROFESSIONAL CoaPORATIOEa 2200 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 (612)340-2600 TELEX 29-0605 TELECOPIER (612)340-2868 $1, 885, 000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992E City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota As Bond Counsel in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale by the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota (the City) , of the obligations described above, dated as originally issued as of December 1, 1992 (the Bonds) , we -have examined certified copies of certain proceedings taken, and certain affidavits and certificate's furnished, by the City in the authorization, sale and issuance of. the Bonds, including the form of the Bonds. As to questions of fact. material to our opinion we have assumed the authenticity of and relied upon the proceedings, affidavits and certificates furnished to us . without undertaking to verify the same 'by independent investigation . From . our examination of such proceedings, affidavits and certificates, and upon the basis of existing law, it is our opinion that : 1 . The Bonds are valid and .binding. general obligations of the City enforceable in accordance with their .terms, except to . the extent theenforceability thereof may be limited by the exercise of judicial discretion or by the application of state or federal laws relating to bankruptcy, reorganization, moratorium or creditors ' rights . 2. The principal of and interest on the Bon.ds . are payable primarily from ad valorem tax increments which have been pledged and .appropriated for this purpose; and, to the extent not so paid, from ad valorem taxes required by law to be levied on all taxable property in the City, which taxes are not subject to any limitation as to rate or amount . 3 . The Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the _ meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as . amended (the Code) , and applicable Treasury Regulations . • 1-3 DORSEY & WHITNEY $1, 885, 000 General Obligation City of Shakopee, Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, - - Scott County, Minnesota Series 1992B 4 . Interest on the Bonds (a) is not includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes or in taxable net income of individuals, estates or trusts for Minnesota income tax purposes; (b) is includable in taxable income of corporations and financial institutions for purposes of the Minnesota franchise tax; (c) is not an item of tax preference includable in alternative minimum taxable income for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax applicable to all taxpayers or the Minnesota alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals, estates and trusts; and (d) is includable in adjusted current earnings of corporations in determining alternative minimum taxable income for purposes of the federal and Minnesota alternative minimum taxes . 5. The City has designated the Bonds as "qualified tax- exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265 (b) (3) of the Code, and financial institutions described in Section 265 (b) (5) of the Code may treat the Bonds for purposes of Sections 265 (b) (2) and 291 (e) (1) (B) of the Code as if they were acquired on August 7, 1986. 6. The opinions expressed in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above are subject to the condition of the City' s compliance with all requirements of the Code that must be satisfied 'subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds in order that interest thereon may be, and continue -to be, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes . The City has covenanted to comply with these continuing requirements . Its failure to do so could result in the inclusion of interest on the Bonds in federal gross income and in Minnesota taxable net income, retroactive to the_date of issuance of the Bonds . Except as stated in this opinion, we express no opinion regarding federal or - state tax consequences to holders of the Bonds : We have not been asked, and have not undertaken, to review the accuracy, completeness or sufficiency of any offering materials relating to the Bonds, and we express no- opinion with respect thereto. Dated: December , 1992 . 1-4 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ENTERPRISE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1991 AND 1990 Storm Totals Electric Water Sever Drainage Fund Fund Fund Fund 1991 1990 Operating Revenue Sales $7,133,373 $ 530,991 $1,079,640 $ 299,012 $ 9,043,016 $7,743,657 Cost Of Sales 5,350,071 5,350,071 4,479,500 1,783,302 530,991 1,079,640 ' 299,012 3,692,945 3,264,157 Operating Expense Operations And Maintenance 862,995 357,797 65,676 44,450 1,330,918 1,220,148 Treatment 965,176 965,176 983,134 Depreciation And Amortization 231,465 170,285 87,222 120,408 609,380 518,603 Total Operating Expense 1,094,460 528,082 1,118,074 164,858 2,905,474 2,721,885 Operating Income (Loss) 688,842 2,909 (38,434) 134,154 787,471 542,272 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income 233,200 87,867 154,481 • 110,620 586,168 631,524 Other Income 10,820 29,538 40,358 34,228 Interest Expense (88,228) (583) (88,811) (8,125) Other Expense (52,058) (52,058) Total Other Income (Net) 155,792 65,347 153,898 110,620 485,657 657,627 i Net Income Before Operating Transfers 844,634 68,256 115,464 244,774 1,273,128 1,199,899 Transfers To Other Funds (418,677) (99,704) (518,381) (434,233) ( Net Income (Loss) To Retained Earnings 425,957 (31,448) 115,464 244,774 754,747 765,666 (Retained Earnings January 1 5,301,925 1,137,906 2,264,206 881,821 9,585,858 8,820,192 Retained Earnings December 31 $5,727,882 $1,106,458 $2,379,670 $1,126,595 $10,340,605 $9,585,858 • • • III-12 • Li n n n 'O • • n O n '0 a .1 n .1.1 0 a en n N P n a n .0 • CO N 0 a a N N 4,0141 ,1 (0.-c O N 0 P P N ` L N W 0 P + n 0 a P 0 n N N N N P P P N N ..,. .1 N N Vv+ 0+ n 0 O n v VN n 0 P 41 .1 N 0, P1 n N P O N nPd Pd 4 w .... .1 ..1 en en ,•••••• 0 C N .1 II 4 v W N A A n 0 0 a '0.. .0 a a s 0 n is N a CO 01 e1 n N P O O a Pf V1 n P 0 O N N V1 0 O .1 '0 0 0 P1 0 CP. 44 a .+ a N 'O '0 N N n 'O V1 a V1 N 0 a Pi n '0 0 b • _ . . . C 7 n 0 n a a 0 a ._1 41 a 0 a .O n n N P M1 0 a O 4 u N N '0 n '0 .4 'O .1 0 P P ~ n 01 0 1 0 n N P1 P N 4 V V1 a P P N 1 0 P .a w1 y1 ! + .1 1 .4 0 .-1 P .1 < .1 .1 a .' .4 a 1 a v N M uN = N . .1 • O 0 .1 CO 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 41 P VI 0 0P N PI w 41 P 0 P CO 0 0 V110 a n G1 .4 41 N N n 41 .1 n O Y b 0 0 '0 O V1 n .1 .4 + N 0 CO 0 P n 0 0 CO 0 N H . . . . . N44010) 03 .-, 0 P.O P1 PI n 0 0 0 O n P1 0 a V1 el 'O h 0 'O a a O 10 P P1 .-4 N CO P1 41 0 0 N P 10 V1 a N 0 .1 N N P1.0 V) N P n 41 .1 N 41 01 a 44 . • .4 .1 a .1 .1 .1 a v .1 v v N N W 0) co. 4 n n n n n n n n n • b O 0 a 'O V1 n 0 a P n 'C P1 V1 a .4 N N b 0 n P1 N P v. en try 'O a .1 111 P n P 0 .-1 41 C . .O 0 .. 'O 41 P 0 a try N V1 a .1 co .-1 t•1 Pt = a v0 0 „ .O P1P1 V• a srto a O n 44 N N v.1 PI n N n .1 n 0 0 N 0 P1 P1 4 Y v v Nv N N v v v N .1 w •• w 5 aWN _ h a O N 0 N N 111 'O N .0 P N a N 'O •0 0 N P1 V1 a .1 N n n we .4 N 0 .0 N 0 P1 P P O P 0 n 01 I O q CO P .-1 n 41 N 0 N + 0 0 P1 .1 0 41 V1 a 0 I 00 > Y a '0 n N + P 0 N P '0 41 en n .1 'O P a .4 N • V N .4 41 n .-+ 0 1'1 CO N 01 P1 V1 0 N OO en .-1 ..1 >W. OL < N .a a .4 .1 a v1 v .1 N P .1 I IF-1 {r • co) u) II II z 0 < W N • n n . }p0.5. 14 0. b 0 0 co o P O O o O o .-1 .1 O .. 0 1.1 P1 N W U . N 0 'O o1 P1• 0 0 0 1.1 0 n P 0 n 0 n n n a Fa V V1 0 41 a 0 N Ol Is. P m P1 .1 1.f 0 01 N 4 n WW Z n V1 0 .+ 0 41 .+ 0 a 0 m .4 n P CO n a ...4 Z N .7 Z P N N N .1 41 n V1 0 n N 0 In 10 a P1 0 .. N r1 W 0 < CO L N .1 a N N ._1 n N '0 P1 P1 .1 P 0 Z ❑ N ..4 Oa ... .4 W 7,. _ 0< f00YGG N N 0. PC ❑zz 'C O. n a < U 0. _ O 1-1 W 7: ❑ N 1-1 G. , 4 n n n n n CO F W W N • 1 0 .1 N a '0 0 P1 .1 0 41 0 •O '0 N N a a Z U.T. (((Q=��� 0 Y 0 P P1 a a V1 P .1 V1 .1 0 0) a P1 N CO N Ca N U s al < 0 C O + O .1 P1 O) N P1 O N N P1 43 N +• CO 0 0- 3. H U .-1 P1 0 0 '-•P 0 N •O N a .-. 41 0 N N N N H < >4 w v v N en .4... ..... V1 N .. v V1 V1 O to O ❑ W N 0 Z 14 14 V1 Z U 0 61 0 .1 N 'O '0 0 N a m n n 0 N N P n 41 P a I Cd. .1 0 .1 n P V1 V1 n 0 0 61 a V1 a N n n 0 0 n V1 1I • V1 n +0 V1 n V1 'O 41 .1 0 N 'O P V1 .0 .1 .+ 61 P1 7 U 4 u .0 P' O0 a .4 V1 V1N .O a .1 P' 410 P1 P P 0 I 4 V P O .1 P 'O O n N n O .1 .1 .-1 N 0 0. 1.11 'O 0 n n • < a a 0 CON 0 0 P1 a41 .4 0 V1 n .1 .1 0 P C v v • .4 a .1 .4 we N .4 1 O to 1 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 01 a 0 0 a + a C' 41 P P 0 ! • P 0 a 61 0 0 0 P V1 n P1 a P .1 0 n P 0 41 O 77 w .1 10 n N 0 0 a N ! 'O P1 41 N CO P1 'O N .1 VI a e n n P n co P1 1,^1 n '0 a 0 n a 0 P1 0 V) 'O P n I O P1 V1 P .0 0 n P 0 P' 01 .1 n 0 N V1 41 41 n aI w 0 a P 'O .1 n P 0a P1 .1 N h 'O n .1 '0 0 a I • W .1 P1 .4.4 .4 v •• v N N 0) K 1 n • O 0 .0 < C 1~n .1 .1 w w 0 4 • - n 4 4 0 >, • 0 •• O C 0 -9 • 6 • • et 0 0 > o. 0 0 • ] 0•L Y 4 '- ) 0 CC w w w • '4 • o • W as 1 .0 n n u • CC • 0 u • • 0 0 0 0 6+ w V ❑ g .1 .. u e 0 n • 0 • • 0 n H G • > 0 1C1 u ►1 • 04444 0 >. b • • w 11 • • 1. • -1 0 4 V1 w w to V p W W a 0 • W 0 • w • a-f. 'p 0 0 0 C C C • • .0 E 0 7 O 0 44 4 0 • -4 O `4 '1 14 L V 0 • v v <C. CC 4 C. 0 > 0 • 0 0 0 w 0'C .1 1 5. 4 0 Y Y • to 3 -1 4 V -1 C V w .1 4 4 • • • P. 'C C O: • -1 w .1 0 14 W • C r 10 0 +4400 0 V • > 0 • 4 41.104 -6 • 0. 4 0 0 • w 0 C 41+ 00 .C . -+ 01414U4 -+ -1 ❑ 4 C .1 ❑ 01 • • w • 10 V .1 • w C •-1'' 4 0 • • •-•W -1 w w 4 ... -'4 • • C 4 00 w • w -1 • C.0.0 0 w w w 0.. 4 • w 4.2 4 4 0 • • • 4 . 0 0 'C 4 7 7 • -1 O 44 4 4 4 0 w • • 00 /O O 4 0 w ■ 0 w H 0 4 0 a a ac X a 1'. w •> 4 •• ••p, P. • t 0. )t•1 ...1 4.4 0 b. Z G.O 0 x > 2 O'O' % O W 0: m W 0 14 a t.. 11111 Y .. .. _ _ •b .0 in a 0 N n P 10 0 0 0 ♦ 140041` 00,.O 0 n n n .• Cf P .4 a a 'V • `O v1 P ® n r1 a f u n n .4 .r N .O n O n 4 a 0 w CO n ^0 N .4 • a N K O O P 4 .1 N N 4 0 n O .N. N N .ns n n 0 n 44 n v.4 .0 N 41 .1 4 Y n N v v f I N N • a v v v l A aV I 0) I N Pn a .r4n a v1 P.• n On O •0 4n n N n N 1 a O 10 .O n ip a es. a VI N n P .r 0 P. .4 b Pa et n N .O K .4O 3 • • .:oor: w 0 n .n . < 4 eer n• Y P n 0 .0 a n N 0 n. 0 40 n N O '4 0 40O n 0 .a n . . n P N I < . . o . . �.+ a .r .. v N n 401 • n 0 0 0 0 0 n ^ 0 0 a .... n 4 O n.00 n0 v .r 0 0 • a 000000 0 '00an .0a n n Nn el CO a n 14 Y 4 0 .Om n '0 0 0 .r P P 4 N n .+ n n K .O 0100000 N N a N .O 4.1 0 ..4 0 O P ..en . .D 4 .. n N . P 4 N n PnPn N N N a n n -4 N 0467 n4 a i 4 no u . . . v • 4 a0.d 0 n .1 v v N N 10 N N 4 .. .. ^ _ _ _ I 'O•1! .0 N n P n n a 0 .1 N .0 P .-I P 0 P P C u r1 P a P ,r O n 0. n n P P a n n .4 n n .7... _ _ _ i n .4 n 0 4 N .- n .1 1 N O 4 N .r N n P n n i 0 n N .O a 4 I v.. v.r .p v .y P 4 v N v n n I 4 Y a v n w • w 1'+ •'1 i 1 aw N N 1 *.. • 4 N 4 P N 4 .0 n .4 n P P P n a n N n 7 .-1 .0 a N N .I7 0 K n .. n 0 a a C P ♦ .O 0 0 0 n • • 04 P n n a a n P n .r0 a 40 4 n N ♦ US > Y N n P n .O .+ ' _ • •4 .-: • % • e[ U N n N CO .0 n n .� .r N n 0 •O a n 0 W M P. s„ .� N N ..1 n N N .r 0 .-I i N n n.O 4 O W Z 0 0 H A. W z •3. .. .. O X U 0 N •'7 0 0 .1 0 0 0 ./1 0 0 n 0 0 '4 •a •a• N .0 O 0 .0 0 0 40 V a .dra f .0 0 N 0 Z 4 4 �+ n 0 .-I a n .. n ..I n P N e4 n .O P n .-1 CO O M n 4 -4 n CO n .0 n n n Z CO 4 P N N 4 N n n 10 P 0 N a n a 4 n n n S. Q h0. ; N .ti .1 n H N .-. .t 4 .N.. CO N n n ..I ♦ W O < 04 W p .r .4 • h I '6W. 04 '' 0 .-1 n 0 Z5 ° " 4 ^ 'C . 4 a 4 .. .. ei 44 44 ,.y w i naNo. .40a + .004 .1 0 .0 P 0 n nO4 UW Y v4 a n N N a .p . .p n .p N ONPPP P P iGCOt rt e4 P n 4 n 0.n P n .A n f n O O>' N :5 n n n N n n 4 ^ P N N N N U N L■ Ybvynv WI v n f aM 1C W V lel el ^ ^ .no0 0 P P .4 N 0 . n P 0 0 0 n 44Ih. ..1• •7Y a N n a 4 P N . N ... ♦ n P O n n N N P f .. n n a nO.� NOn n V .O P n n 40 n O 4 4 P I n N .O1 n n P I4 n a -1 . 0 0 a in en 44 en Q 0 n e.n a .0 .0 Nn NP ♦ 4 0 O P K n i. N `o .r 44, n•• n • . In 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 In .+ 0 n .-1 0 0 0 n • n 0 ♦ N 0 0 a a n o n .p n O N N P 4 P Y 0. 5 4 N O n n P 0 P a P n P 0 n n a N n a 4 N a 0 n ♦7. P n CO P ... n CO' 4 tel n 'p n CO- 0 P N CO 0 O 0, .O a n .0 a 4 CO ...1 n n N a Y P N .0 .0 .. .0 P a a n .r n .0 n .O 4 n P w CW .+ of a s a .. a 40 N n • n pC 0 e e C n ▪ r. • • 0 4 _ • • 4 C >. • 7 w • 7 • • 4 G C • • Cay • 8 • v u ... CV Il w• • C.Y.17 4 O 414 • • ^ e 7Y • • A • 0>^ wU 4 4C0 • >• C 0 .+ 0 •0 O • 0 0 4 o u • w a w s Y �c a 0 CI ~~ u 0 4 .4 4 • w > C'' .0[ C 5 4 u w W • 0 .4 04 0 W C7 U 0 • 0 0 < • U -U. • • .-1 C! 4 0 y y 0 -4Y C 4 w 04 • .r 4 Y 0 • r 4 U • 4 0 .4 C1 6 • 4 w C.4 r w • u ... • Cad U • Y Y ` W *4 44 4 • .r • • • 4 0 0 0 'V 4 • 7 7 • ... 0 • 4 4 4 0 `�' 4 'O • • 4 0 C L w H C 4 U 4 404 Z O. H w • 4 • • H w „ 6 4 m `+ U = 0.0 0 O >< Xa 4OO 4O W C C H J 4. 10 . 14 W O W Lr A. III-10 4 ..A a f O 0 n A• ♦ .4. f N n a .4 •. nnONOn i 0 rA'01 0 elY • N 41 N •N 0 f N N 'II 4I N .' A 0 I1 • .4 N h ^ 94 PI ♦ P P 14 Y A v v v v v v v N v • • .� A a~ o b P O A O P. P • h n I CI OPnP•'fl r` .I naO • A M n ..4 '• n O O f N n A A A n ..• N 'R h A'• P ♦ ♦ P 3 ON '•♦ A• N M N Nf n A P n N 1u P A ♦P. A A P 41 A 0 O t n ♦ h ♦ N '0 @ N ♦ N M 004140 ♦ 'O 0 •144. A • .4 'O A n @ N A• (d N .4 ♦ A.4 A ♦ v v n n b •i .4 ^ 4 00000 A v1 ••0 0 0n 0 .0 .4 R00 M '0 n P1 .. b • O .n n • O 0 0 r. A • 'r1 .+ 0 •0 0 • N A N o • '• 414104400 A .. •01 0 n P. f A I. 6.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 PNr• @ ppn 0 0 RAn P. N n O pl 1•w'11 'O V1 Y3 •a 0 41 0 ••'o n P. .�•I1 'O O 4ra 0 n •P N n .4 ♦O 'r1 A N '• d A a N A P .1 . . . . .. .. .. • N ♦ A A A n n N '0 tl 0 u .... .. ... .. .. .. •y r. i. N • @ P P 0 0 P • •A '6 n n n y • • N t a ♦ '0 n .4 0 ♦ 01 •r1 N V @ @ C u .4 N n n P W n ♦ • n P A R Al 0 P P v n n'0 O 'O ♦ • tl A N n N n a A A v 0'O I1 P N n N ♦ h h'R 'h O N N Y Y .4 A v v .4 .y N v A a • a� • • v v I 44. • h n n• • P N 0 0 N I. 9p1 P 'O u1 N N ♦ 7 .+ •P. N f a r• I1 0 41 • P •a N 'O '0 W A 0 0 0 N P P. CO A V. '0 a A h N A A n n CO A N N Q .,..4 .y 4% r N A ♦ ^ N A a - N • 0 • I P 4 .4 40v .+ N IQ O P .. Z Ow A U _ _ 4 p0. Cal10cci 0. O O O O 0 0 A 0 0 A A 0 0 0 0 A N A p X CJ .r to • 0 0 .4 0 O A h . '0 n N O O O 0 N '11 s1 to W n u 'R O /1 O O 0 0 0 0 .. '0 0 11 0 n '0 P n N'f1 n O Co A N 1'. A a n • 0 A n • A h f Sze ..7 pp(� -' N N •n .I1 n Ii A '0 R 0 '0• A N 0 61 .4 444 < i u N ♦ .4 n '0 'O v A v v v @ 11 X • m A A o ^0 111 G m 0 ft.i41 $ m W _ 0 m N OO 0 G w CA 1401 00 '0 • -0 h♦ ON .4• h A0A n P h N 0 N P A A 0 ' 0 y u?v4. O N 1. O • „1 A N P I ♦ • nPPPN 0 0 R 0 r P O 0 NO NO U 34n 0 A• ♦ P. f N n .4 A M 4 W 4 u v v w vvvv Cl v N N 41 A "' 14 Q • • v • >p • 00 .4~Z WWW0 : 0 @ N A 0 ApAyN P .a N f P. P O •o f N A h P I/ P 44 • VI A'R P. ♦ nn O ♦ .4 41 O 04 14 C.3 la 4 ~ N AN 0 • O Cl 1 0 N P f f ♦ a II P. '11 n @ U' 1'�1O .. .4 • A ♦ v A N 40 II 00000 ' II 000 011 n O h 0 'R h n • • • 0 n n n • P n 0'O .4• • P q 0 • P 0 P u O' R 'r1 ♦N I1 O r1 P • 0 • • A n • ■ P h N O •• d d h 0 A • A 'O 7 N P 'O ♦ 0• P 'O 'r1 n • A n WI u 0 n VIP A A P♦ 0 41 d1 ♦ a ♦ n n • v . 441 N ♦ A.q f A A b 40 • • • 0 1 2 A a A n • • 14 ▪ : a I • > .4 U Q A : Y •1 A .►.a ■ u • Y • 0 • 0 o • • o 0 7 .. u u .•' O ■ Y Al Y Y 4 0 0 94 1.4 E A .+ 7 • 7 • • 7 lA U U O. 0 •w 7 • oh • " 3 ; s=" M ' 223 A A 10 Y • 0 > •.11 O . • Y 1• y id • : .4 A O• OY O! I . .44" 2 .Oi ~ • .• M M w4 • 14 7 • • 01 •• 0 •4.-1 .4 7 u 14! 14 4i • •-4 .d 3 a 14 M A ••• • • Y •• . : I 4.1011.4• 1404 A 4I v • IA 44 O O 0 u Y Q • • • a 4 = H 3. 3 i1•' tJ• H •i YOkb r. OOq 1 1 • • at ti tl b. 111-9 O n n n W .4.D N n n)O m 1. .1 0 N 41 n V) P N O 111 O. O P)N P♦1 O on n n N O 0.N N ON O on a O P1 40 .y N. P h .4 O O .0 a v1 1. .O O N O a P O O a 1. ..1 n V1 P N CO 0 _ CO CO P O v)O b on on .0 a V) n a P 0 v)a .D • -a 0 n :1 1.1 P n n A P N n P) el-4 I. .O N P V) 0 O 10 0 N 40 I) 1,0 P) .O P V1 01 M n ") .4 .0 P 4) a s O CO P. O n O v 0 V1 CO N P N .+ .0 O .r.0 1'f .+ P .-1 .-1 N N S4 .-1 ...1 Q CO ••-• .r ,E• 7 N 0 C b O Vi H 144 O h O O a 40 O N a i a .O n v) O n 4) N 40 V1 O .H P a 1•) Wn P O V1 In v1 i a O 0 N N WN O P .0 N P O N N CO P CO P. •O N N.0 v) n P 1p v1 i v)N a O N .+ N O .O V1 P 1p 0 ti 1P S O N .+O O a a .D 0 .a v1 a W a V) O P .0 v1 N P n P i n P i .+) N on n b 1 0 . O P P N P .-1 P N N N n ✓1 .-. n v1 a V1 P h •D P Al n a ..4 •a v1 n N .0 CO V) O V) P P1 P t') CO N .a .4 n .0.-) e) .4 0 N .-1 .0 4) 0) .1 .4 In C] = 4/1. N v - N N C. Z .4 N h a P 0 CO CO O 0 O P P Cr. /) 0 N W .-1 w 0 n .4 O n O O .-1 0 P P CO v) .0 v) • N N n P P CO r) 4) v) 0 P P a N en 0 2 -4 • N CO n CO n P P .0 O .O b v) O V1 a F<. U (/N] • O .1N i n .1i O e. .0 n n N n 0 U 4 a a n N on O 0 P 0 p' 11 N a .D Nn I+f .. W H y Z.4 E 0 N Z N Z CO S .-. 4 H W N .7 .0 w 0 01 01 a O .4 P 1'1 P 0 N (4 0 < 11 • O .0 N O P 10 O P P n 0 N N 044(4 Z R .O .0 .4... P •D a N 0 N N P of v1 O O CO v1 PI 1L 4 H LI t .r n n h 152 O P P O P O P CO P ✓1 n Y� ti b • N a v1 n ..~') 00.1 .N-1 N a .n-i 0 ,N.. a CA N .0 0 w N (a• i Ui , 0) N .a N r 0) 0 (4 O 0 N > 2 C! 14 14( J v U 00 ' ��� lC1 C111 .-. e N 0 n N V) .D N .O P n i N .O .0 0 N 1.) v) CO n 4 •+ • N n n a .r N 0 10 n O M P P 0 P 0 • • C CO P .--4 n v1 N O N a 0 co n .-1 0 .4 ) a 0 4-. C • > N N v) n .4 m 17 02 n 4) v) en n .i .O P a a {'0{a7 U co 44 N .4 a .0.0 a „ v) v CO N P 01 .4 41 h F N H V1 CI . W 0'1 O .-1 N 4) 40 0 N a O n n O N N P n 4.1 0, .A _ n nCO 4)v)a N a N n n O CO In v11- 44 4) a 0 h N V1 .O V).r 0 N 0. v) .O .0 vPf. •C . . b n 0 g i .1 h O P .0 0 n P) h N.O 0. 0 ...+ n1 ✓) CO vl O _P P O no U a 0 0 N O O n a In.4 O v1 n .-1 O P ,y �,,,� . v v v a ...-1 a N 47h 4 O 4 a OO .0 w 4 Y w 4 O 4 V O 7 Cw .I Y .t 1•) w .'. .0 44 > e o C s. 44 I. w 7 Y 4 D Y C O. d o E I w .0 W w D 1 > W C 0 U O V u 14 C7 w u • w ►, u • C W w w w u p p C .E-� n 44 .we w C 'C 4 4 4 ) G O Y u 0 -4 y w C 7 V O O w O 4 U • I... ✓ EV 0 W W 4 U ), p 4 ✓ C 4 0 7 •C > •Y O y 'O t "U" ^ y C C 0 0 C 14 C 0 012 Y H Y . w V) 4 0 0 W W 40 4 4 0 �C V7 -., CIN v w [ C 4 w O > U • 0 0 0 .. U .. < V V 4 4 �1 4 I.1 4 0 O • - w V)Z .0 4 y 0 H H W w N C -+ < w • w -0 y. a u 0 0 • 0 7 Y CC 4 0 p 4 .- C. w W Y 4 0 p 4 W C ti 0 P U o 0 w i 1. -P .0 C -4 c w O p C W C w w w 10 V .-1 4 4, 010-4,-, 14 u 4 • V 0• 0 4 .4 w C .0'O 0 4 • 4 0 U • V) -4 p • Y O' N 4 0 y U O w C 4 0o w • 0 -. 14 4 7 7 U w y C U v 4 • • 0 0 C 4 • • O 704 44 0 0 0 1. 0 U 0 0 4 • 7 7 p -+ 0 4 C O % 4 4 U w • Y 4:03 OC • 4 0.-+ C S y • H C 4U 44ax O.� O.1,-. H W 4 • V O -4 4 -' s Q . ► H N ..i re U ►. S • 7 • p V L • O u -+ 1D •• P.O U �ggP 0 x 4 0 7 • c .. - W 0 H W 0. CC p. IH-8 • N 0 0 ♦ 10 • A A P P4 A n.Af A 10 A 0 A • A P Ps P • 44A Ps A ♦ O N•f / I' AO• AN n OO N • P0N A N P A Ps111 .0 N N d AP • 0 N NN ♦ ♦ 0 0 .1 P ♦ el CO • N A 0 O ♦ • '0 O 0.4 .40441 O P n0 N P n P A N n A P ♦ 4 N A n.0 A O . 000 .-. 0. AP A n A n n • M1 + P A A n 1/1 9, A P A 10 P N.1 ♦ A ♦ Nis N 0 r1 O N P A n O aN A A n A A A A O N A A A 4 A A 4 A v v A a I a0 N • Ty C • O _ A. _ A 14Y 0 0 A 4 A CO b 4 A P'0 4 0 4 0 0 N P CO A 0 01 10 P 1 Al II w A A .0 N n CO A N 10 A 0 N 4 N O N 4 0 4 0 A ♦ 01 0.1 1 A U A P A O N Is A 4 10 4 N n d O 00 n f n A P A N ® : A p . , P 0 .404. 000.4 N O ♦ A A 10 N f P N N 4 P 41 N P A 10 •0 10 N 10 N 0 f A n N N n N N N 0 A A P 07 A N0 -6. N0 ♦ n P ♦n A 0 N ♦ ♦ n A P P N f 0 .O fa . . . . . N A A n A A 011A A A A A A N 4 A ❑ A v v A A Z a) N 0 4 Z M _ _ _ 1 CO 10 P O 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 N A CO I Y] A • 4 A N N CO CO 10 4 4 A A A N A f 5 2<?, Q 4 u CO ® 10 A '0 10 A A A P P f O P 'O 11 91 0 N n O n P P N A A f ..II 0. n 07 C.-'1 10 O 0 A A Z. A O v 0 O P n n P < U 0 4 0 A A A O d P A P P A 0 4 f H W 0 M Q O y❑y 0. 4 A 4 v A A v 10 f w < M N '0 Z O 2 CO ❑ P P. w 2 P Z K 0 A O 4 _ _ • H 1 w A A 4 ...I .• A 10 0 • 10 0 O N A 4 I w ❑ < 4 • ♦ n f A O N N n n N A 0 I 0. 2 H A -V+ ♦ O 0 A 0 0 O 4 ♦ 4 P co 1 • O fa 0( W H > N 10 N O pp ♦ 4 Al 4 n n 11 S a4 N P A A P N CO O f n 4 t z • P 10 1• N N f n v a A 4 0 i H W • y 1 Cr N W r. O N A A N f N S o w O ❑ e- C! • . H A .d M LI w .. C 0: ♦ N O P N O •0 A .4 n P P P A It N A I se • .O ♦ N N N A f n A 4 1p ♦ f A A f 10 0 I d 4 7 P P n 4 ♦ ♦ 4 P N A P ♦ b O n N A a I O • A C P. O • N A 0. n 10 0 0 A A A CO A CO A N f 4 n H 0 • > N ♦ n N CO '0 A n A A N A O `0 ♦ n 4 0 CO O. • A N A A n N N A 10 A O N A 10 A-1 CO 4g CO .4 v CO N H < H co w A A .0 N O N .0 P P A N O A A P O A 0 4 Is Z A a N 4 a O P N A A 4 A 4 A N A N 10 CO O d ■ A N a ♦ n d 0 n n N N P 0 0 P A A A N .0 GO Y • A f A A 0 0 < a A A A f An 10 A O A A P O 0 N tin .0 10 V n n N N 4 A n d ♦ A 0 0 f 4 O • O A n n A • P ♦ f A N A .O f n 4 U v v v v A A A f A a) N Y • Y .4 T • O en ,o 'Cr 44 • • n 0 Y 0 • 7 7 n J U 4 C 0 A A • v • 'C Y • > A o C /, • • • • • 7 • Y .0 r OC • O • x 7 O .0▪ O • v u 7 • w 4 n • U 4 M 2 0 a Y '., Y d • 5 u 1. • IN 44 • C WI to w • • ' w ^ • u • CC • • O A U • • r 000 y • a 4 -eg y 4 91 e..l Y C 9 44 Y > C n C G 4 > A 0 7 • C 7 • • O .. n O 0 0 • 4 Y • • 0 41 A • co w W Y U s. • Y 4 C • w • 0 • • 0 0. WOOL V 0 0 w H w 7 • • C ►1 '0 y x 0 0 0 C Y C • Y • ft C > • ... 0 C C w w 0 4 ■ to • 7 ❑ 05 ❑ • 8 N 0 7 • C < • • C Y L A A 0 0 v u v • CCCCCC Y C.. O > 0 • 0 0 C u U A pi, 0. ❑ .. A I. H w 4 to C -• M Y 0 • • • Lam -. 4 • eo x Y U 0 4 • 7 • 4 •• > W 17 •COL L 4 0 U 4 A 0 ie A0. i a • w •• C r 40 Y w ei C V t7 0 • • ' qcc . • • C A C w C • O • 7 u Y .e A • • A • O Y A • C A '0 L ❑ el W 4 • • 4 • r • A ■ u C •A A Y O ■ to C • ■ • O .44, 91 0 u 'AU • 04C140 . 5 u • C,0 L V • u A u u 0 v •• • 4 • 0 C Y i 4 0 C • U • • Y • U 0 'c Y • 7 7 • -� u Y C 0 x Y Y V • 4 • IC 7 a0 • 4 O.A C L C • H Y U 0. 4 O:S d� 4 A M W Y p•. p•. O A •• C L 'O P. H H ..1 A U 4 = pU 0 L O O 4 4 V• 4. O c n C ■ fi u 0 x 7 ea 7 ce 42 0 H w 4 .4 W 111-7 O0n PNIle 0 n ICI 00•1O n 00 N P 40n0.0 0 0 0 P J n .4VNN 00 N . ....N ON n .4 P 0 .4.4 111 .O .1 r1 1111 VI 0,.1 111 N 0 .. . N 10 4 0PNNPP 00 1+ 11100 .a 4 m n 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P 0 00 N.00.0 0 p♦ n 0 10 N 4.NI .r ♦ n .y I AP •1 el a.1.O .On O ..pp N N .0 41 N 0 .1 h .4 a CO 4.4 94 N CO ♦Nm ♦ N 0 ♦Nn1 0 0♦ ♦ N n PP n ♦ 0 .O O N .4 .+ .1.4 ♦ .4.4 N n •.4 v.� N• 44 n .• 1 1 •"1 .1 ` .r I] ..1 ■ b 4 y7 O C 840 Y n 0400.1040 ♦ NPP1•.*n ON n P 00400 P 0 P P W1 40 .4 .O N ♦ N ♦ O NN n P 0 N ON Y1 g n ♦ N0 0 0 v1 M 1 < if■ CO n n 11 OWN N .r n.4 N r1 N 0 0 n VI .-1 P.V I. m n .r 1 0. m ♦NN 4. 9.4/4/ N hn AP .O N Pnn h m .y O `.P '0 h N O!♦ M n A 0 N N v1•.-1.0 a .0 m h I .d ♦ m n P O .O n 041.• .O ••• N P P N N n .1 '0 .p n pO .r. .4 .+ P .1 N N N N N N .4 v.4 N N N I i N i1 v .4 .4 1 7N 1 z . ta I144 40 00 ♦ n n n n 0 0 0 0 0 m P1 .1 .4 . w .. o n 0 nA a 0rn ♦ NN0 0 44 n N .r n m A N O Oa IA CI _ M • ti0 P1 O n . m.+ n0 nmn0 .4 0 n n P .. a N Nm o .4 r1 n r1 .O vd ♦ ♦ N .O O CU n1 U a N .4 .4 . v ♦ 1 W pW 40 VP I M1V .7on N (~] < 0 • • '1 r1 n ••• m O N N ♦ 0 N N CO O .4 r. Z I. G 1" a n n f. O P P .4 0 0 0 m O N ♦ b W W F G f N 0 N P. CO N n O .1 0 .o ♦ O N I1 of m VI m .1 . ♦ P Nn .1 n n m .A 0..N1 r1 1s .. N c n ♦ .1rO Nm mNn .1 N n .tn6 'a2 N N n 40 i %..7 ppp� 41 • V F C .. n n n 00 m• a N m 0 0 0 P CO 0 .O r1 ♦ h p • N N ♦ .4 ♦ n 0 0 n N N m ♦ N .0 ♦ 0 • O a • 4 d N P N m ♦ N .w V 4, P ♦ .+.r h VI O 41' 0, ? O • VI .r Ps 4/ n v1 N O 0 40 #4 N n ♦ .0 r) m N n G U .4 O • N N .4 .-1 N r1 P. .4P. II .1 0 VI ♦ PI 44#4 .1 „ .r 0 0 44 CO 0 so .+ N t0 N N H < N '0 0 W VI •00 N O.PI 0 11•1 N P N.O m CO N N ♦ 0/ n P Z .4 N P N N ♦N CO N P n P m O 0 .r m N .+ 0 .I 14 • 0 0 .4n ♦N N n .i 10 N V1 4 n n 0 ♦ .. h •0 g 14 C . . . . . • 4' .1 m Co.1 0 n ♦ n 0 0 n N N 0. N .O 0 N .O C .O 0, .O .O h N .D h O O O .-I N n .p U • 0 N h CO N .1 0 ♦♦ ♦ n .4 ♦ n .N r1 n m C.) -. v N ♦ N.1 ♦ .4 .4 I N N 1 1. • Y .4 a •• _ .L • Y 0 a a O 4 • • 0 .. O ■ .s Y n O 0 -I .. • v • 41 4 0 4 0 • U 0 00. 0 0 ti W • 0 O 44 .. 7 u • C 4.0 1 W 0 10 w N • C V •7 1. 0 ww w Y 14 • AC W • .. .-. • Y • C • • 0 .1 • COV • L • Y Y • C .1 I. 1. M I C .. ° E-4"; .t • 7 •• 7 • • O O • • O W W 4 .+ '- w a 0 .44 V A •4 • Y M • •• A •• Q . 0 • • 11 V V O W W W O. 0 • M 0 sue 0 A a % : C • 0 III 0 • C b •J0 • y 164 14 y • 0 .4 - ON 0 • O0 • W1. C • .I • «< • • CY Y . .4 0 O *-• Y .. a 14 a ( • 0 0 C . V.1 0 •.I. M 44 11 UV '0 C •• • • • • 003 .1 • .1 • Y 0 v 14 V O • .. a • 0 • < • 0 4 0 0 •• .1 Y.a 6• W • C y y < 4 ..ii Y V P V w • G • N 0 0 0 •.r 14.4 • • '0 • C G w a • -1 L W C < 7 .+ M .. ... C a • w 10 . .�. • 4.40 • .1.. 1•. 0 0 l•0 0 11 • • O .. Y .moi• 0 i '- 0 a ..I..1 .w1 • w 0 1. 0 • • Y .. • C .0 Q O • .. .1 Y Y 0 .-' N • • • 0 Cl. • • w 0 0 0 • • 64 . 0 0 y 1. • 0 • .1 .1 d 4 14 V C 0 K 1. • w • • /1 0 .0 C K • V Y • C • F•. C w 0 a la Z Z 0.,0•.1.1 I. 10 44 ••, p•.100.4 .1 ■ C t : Y O N n 0 0 . ... . M 00 M INPn f P 0 000 O W 0 N M M P N M • •4aA0o 000 O O .rn1 M MO ♦ pp I .I4POO N • M M MPnn 000_ N ON as MM N ..n . wnA eMN0M . N On M O NM .4 a P.• 41 O P A a P P .. 0 n 08 4. n N ♦ a M1 V1 O .+ .1 O f N N 11 In O h ♦ N P P P a O WIN nP P Pn . O♦ P <44 . • + ♦ nONPn 00 .47 0 .. MnPMN NPN a •O1 OW WO P h -4.. ON WMNN fW OM h Q . N 0 + ♦ O N .. Nn MP N nN rO PN 0 NN N P CO N •-• . '0 • 1 N N N O H 0•110 W '04(04 .-400'0 NO 0 '04141P.- '00' -4 0 0 0 + W .. . . .40. 41 + co M .r ♦ f P '0 .400044141 N. 0 00 . ..00 . 0 000 .1 .n + h P N 0 .O P W f m N . . .. . M ♦ m . N P n m .� + n N P 000 n W n .. O Mom. v1 N O O.+ O f h .1 n .n n W ♦ + 11 ♦ n - 00' n n .O 0 V1 0OM N VN a .O a .r J1 + n N P .... O 0 a n N N ♦ O wet .. a N ♦ W O O + N .O a .. P .1 W .-+ n .n n 41 v.. M N P .•. NMNN ..11 ..M M- W .. M N M n N NO a N0 WV N m n Y1 o + m . W M ♦ N 0 . . mo e1 N n WN n .r.. .1 O I N N v ... n .. N .r o n N. N N A 6 N O NI m ♦ 0 0 N N 1 .... G N .. r1 •O •O 0 0 I1 .r 111 4• 41 u I•:N . I a P O O a a O A mo 1, 1 .0 .41 O ..1 n n COO 4 M P I 0 - a N .0 P P • • C CJ .4 .1 .O .4 N NO .O '4. 1 O.7 U..7 f N 10 .. M N .0 .O i UVD .4 A N .4 .•. H 0 •1 I O • CO O CO W m~ 1 U 001.2 W W CO CO 00 I U U • • < • 0 w P P P P C -. • .. .. .`4 .. .. •0. < N N N N NI O . CO W m m co N N N N w A • n v1 o a VI 0 O .- P V O I s.C v1O Oa Oaa 0 .0 Wa .. W P 41 Om o1a1-. ' 0 0 P en.. . .0 0 .. .. h .4 .. v7 IC 0 . .. .1 .`. MN 0 o - 0 0 1 1 0.0. a + a a V1 N N N • N P. < S A ^ a 10 .. O N .0 - H a 4 • • m n ., 4 .0 4 .. 0 0 0 .. .. .. t1 .1 0 0 • • • n .0 a P1 N P N ..V1 .. mI1 O .1 0 M n + J1 .0 N y H a+ 0. .4 N ♦ .. + N •O a N ♦ 0 .t1 0 ,0 n 0 P ,N 0 P P Z W Z P 14 0. 41 Y1 4 + W n m a a N W 4105 a J1 • 0 N a 'O N N Z Z 0 CO 14 U .1 Y1 N N .1 N N N O '21 0 ..1 n a P m P mW .4 41 N 0 P 0.'OC • 10 W .. N P .1 M ♦ a 0 0 W P .1 91 I X CD W 0 ~ U y C .0 O.•v N .. N n - .4 N - �UU.P1 < N Mi. W ..4 W < C1 .1 N N N .4 N N I 0. 11 Z O < w Z O W E .4 u P N N P .4 0 .1 + 0 b P 0 .n .1 41 l VI Z 40 0, 0 u •00 n V1 n W .4 .1 40 N W .0 m .O 0 • 0 .0 4• F. W -• .. .4 .. 0 Ph .. 410 N P n a + .. 0 ' C1 0. 0 Ph .-. n .. M ' NN n n n n .n I N • 4 P- P 01 .1N .4 P P N 0 0 .'1 .F.. U 0 U w 0. b W N O .O CO U N N 1 N N .0 w 1 O '0P'. 41 N .00 M 0 0 N n N N P • N i... 0. n n W N .. 04 n O N 04 N .0 . • 0 W en P .n n a 0 .. 0 h N n t1 0 . - b 1 t Pen . n n 0 CO .`. M f M n CO C •CO P m .4 1O 04 N a .4 .G y 1 p1 N N .4 VI a' N N .O N - N N •a a b N • Y C Q .0 .-. O .1 .n 0 .n I M N 01 0 N N M 1 IF4. • 7 .101.0 . .. n P .0 1 .O n n .4 M .1 •G .44 Ch 10 0 • M .. 0 0 0 0 • VO h .. .. D. • > CO .4 h . CO W. .O .-1N M .41 CO O N W P .4 .4 .4 .. N .4 N N .4 .4 .4 OO .. v1 mo . .n P 1O a COO 1 0 a h NN P .0 .1 CO • .1 P O 00 .n I .1 M a n .• .-. N .1 1 n • C. .nN N n .4 C -. .n o MM NI N W M o N. •-. h I.. P V .r .-. P ,. .r .-. w1 N n P N - .. N 9 N ... .-. N N • • .0 y • C C u • • Y ..u 0 0 C Y C u0 .-• -. • U 0 u O -4 o 2 0 C • u O O • bC O C m • O 0 • • pp CO .A C 7 0 5 U .4 m w U .4 • • y • 1 0 V 4. U 7 1. •O O 0C •D. •-' 'OC • C0 u C e we E • O' 0.-. 4 " 40. 0C11.0.. A 7 0 7-•. a M u • C! 0. C V. • O 4 Y • 0 mi. w W O A-O 0. .. C • 0 • .. u .1 Y Y C O • C 0. • A • • < • .. .. C > O U > • • .0 .0 Y .0 '. 7 • 41. 41 .4 .4 > 41. .. A u m • U U 0 •v 0 7 a. G u O -. w.. u u O. CG b -. 0. .0 .0 • 0. • • • 4 b A 0 0 .• 004 • 0 • • O' . M, .. C OC • • A 0 0 % < O • 0. .G .0O 10. • • u .. .4041'00 > C .4 '041 W .. u ,O r. w 0 <4 3..t.4 u > • 0 • 0 u u u /.. •..... 0 -. 1. C < L • 4 • • 14 -• .4 C u a-+ P. 41 • < 0 H • w u-0 0 'O w • • 7 • C A a+ 7.0 > •.r C > • b 4i < O.0 u -.1420 • u w 0. 0 u .-. • -. 0'0 A • • • U • C • O' • ■ • U u L u ''s u u 0 0 0 4 -. 0 • • .. 7 u • •. C • • 0 .. • • y .• W 7 • .. U 0. 0. C • Y GG /. -- Z 4 M h 4 • • • > C d O' • )1 4-. w 4 • • 4 41. ...1 w A Y O V V O • a Cl 7 • .. 0 u • •oo p • • 41 W •• -. L 4 • C-p • a C u w V V • • G • O > • O V Qppp N p -. 0 C • •W 0. ■ .OO 0 H .. D.0. C u OC 0 C 1 • • V 0 • 0. 7 7 C 4 4 V g Y A U 0 7 7 • • OGGG 0 • C 0 • 7 • • 777 * 0 < .( 1-. 0 p O a. 0. 0. < < «< 0 .4000000M u M um p4 a a+ W < .] 0 yP. I-.H I-.H III-5 - 04..00 OAN..000 NA 41 O♦^V... 0. 0 00 0 �000 O .PPN^rNO w n ♦^ P^P 0 41 e♦^N f . . 0f^♦ A. ^P.M♦wNO 00 w ew w0 AAA 0 •f ^ 1•.P - w.w f^ ^w^we/ • ^e .. PhPw^0O ^ 0A N -0.0.. O f^N N f 0 1 0 n .....00 0 N4 0 •.A ^0 4420 O ...H ^N ww N r1NN .1^ ..r1 N ON.�^N^w NO / e ^^ N A GGC • • N•O e P N r 1 N CO N • N w A N O m n .... N .'4111 1 . m y y44 .. f NI F. 0000 a : - • 22 : 2 'op o0 0 AO AN O p a1.p 2222 0~1 N.I N.11 •.O 1 •1 222'4822• O O O 01 0.O 0.11 00 P a. OI 0 Z P. N f.11 N II w.r .ry e'.O 1.•0..O O 0 0A 0 X11 1 P 041 P N .w .+ .NO. PAPN NM O01 0 .00 N ^O 00 ^r1 .^0 0 0 O • N N.„. ♦ON 0. .40.0 .00 0 Ow .10 0.r N 0 p p N N ♦ w p .. L ^^ e • 0 0 O 1 1.1 • Y 0•00 .'•r 0 O O 0 • 1 • Sy O w 01 .. - O O f f 1 • C GO r1w .. 0 • •P r01 .... .' 6 OA .0 3 ., 1 N .O r. .00 .p U 34 y p 1 p • .r .� 0 YC O ■ ^ ^ -� !b Y n P ^ ^ 0 4 • • P P 0 X • w P ^ ^ ^ .1 • ^ A O H I r1 ^ 1 p p 1 O O e 1. V . • pQ•. A 04 N 10 O. • PN 4 A NO P A0. w •^ .�M O . O .r1 0 n • P O A^ 4 A ti • N .1 O • .0 b A 0 0 N N N 0 y p 0 .p 0 L 41 • • F , OC I. ■ • A0.0 P.O wn N. P^ ti N ..PO N O Nn e w 04 nO 0 ! • • ANN O .0 ^ O p 14 M YO. 4.1 n n ♦ pOw^. 10 O rO 011 O 4. 101 F 4 , t_ yNId F 00.1 MrN ^0r1P O w1 • •• hA • O• • w ^ ♦p A NV 0 AI y P y ^ P .N •w O 0 ♦ .O OO h= . Y • w Or . N NO NN v N ~ • Nb1b . 0 pLO ^ • •Z 1N U •Y • 0.00.0O P P O P w f N eo w NNNn1 1 1 ^ • 0 0 O+ ow -.-+ ao •A we. PA . f O r 0 0 „ 6L i1. C h •N e 02N 1 ^. A • V p 04 pU • •�. • ANO AAN P P O A 1 A P • .• ^ r1 P F AA N^N P140 P A O O .CI 00 P N f 0 e O O 0• 01 O O n / ^ e A n „ O O r1 w1 0 0 N Al O 0 0 ..1 y - y y N N f f •O • p Y C • . •C AN O'0 .0.^ ^ 1 0. Art.O O ru en 1 M 7 .11 04. .w0 0 1 0w f Ort 0 O O au v O 1 N.. O 1 1 f 0 S 0.1 .w 0^ .N.. ! P11.AA Or 01 0 0 0 N ~ 0. "� 0 e 0 V p 0• .. . N y 1 • 1^ NO Al An P. 0 A n AllPe01 0 NO 0 . ^ P 0 11YO^ .1ne P ••N 1 w 0 H O 01 • APN 0^ M N A0N 0P 0 P i• ^ NN OP A ^ NNN N O .+N M ^ ^ O1 0 40 w 40 y. N 1 Y • w - • i p Y Y w C C Y • • Q Y S Y i• V Y • • 4• A 10• • 4 *C Y O C C 0 •Y Y • • w a COC Y > O O P. ... ■t •Y •• •4 •C g I. • • O' • C 88 L 0 Y 4 • a R t! . d.•i Y .• OC 1 > • • .1 : 11 w» Y 0 • • .4.0 w 4 4 • 0!.0 0. •C/ 4.: • C 0 `Y • 4 • • • A.4 •L 601 C A C • U • a y • • 0 > • •.0.0 4 • C • 14. 44A • • • • Y C Y U C CY •.. •... 1Y 6. a••►e - A ••44 > A.+ • C Y M • Y 0 .0 0 3 Y4 I0 COC • wa 00 Y • ! • '• •00. • • • •A < • l. f 4.1341 • O • • mU 1'• V< ! g A W Y > • 0 Y L • L L 0 0. • Y 4 -. Y • • W• > C Y a > A .. C S Y •.. .> g b 4 p.0001. • . 04 ., 00-0 • 4 . 41. 0 Y YA• C 0 A 1 C< 7 Q > 1•.r•. C > 0 Y Aw o • < 5C GG r Y w 0 0 • -4 6• 1. •, O w .. V R 4. 0 06 S 7 0 7 < Y C • 0 0 1•. Y 0. O O > ~ . 3 Y i.. r•C • i 0 m i 101 Q 4=.i • 4 F F 4 w w > • O X ..1 0'4 X 4 w 4 w • 4 W .1 O 1.w 0 0 X • N • • > • 0 V N ~ y • O Q • O.0 ! W Y Y ! • C O • • C • ■ V u • a 7 7 C Y Y of p9 • " V 0 C • 3•3 W O.C OG 01 F >R C Y CC= COIL' wU «FN OO..o.a. < <UU�C]OOm • 0.... OW YR7 ! C w Y 7 < . F. '� M0 R F F 111-4 ... ..O N 0 00 O M• ...... O M 0 •0 O.O.O N O 0 0 0 00 M 00 OM M 0 a CO .V P 0 r N a 0 0 00 M MV 00 O M N '0 / ....GA V7 N O O .. N 0 0 00 m 0.0 .4 0 M r N 0 2,0. O0O a'Or0O O PM HA NO a M N a P N N r N 0 N W0. N MO 00 M M M N .4440 ♦ O O N ..0 0 .4 N 0 ] CON N .y a • 17 N 11 4 L N f I. O4. OaOO OO P . m MN OOP M y aa0a0O . a OO n P mN a0.. M 1 W.v1'P rAMa OO 0 PM NM MP r .. 11 PP P.r10O P O M n VII P V1'0 NW M o r M 0'71 N O O a r N O a .. P N A0 40 O 0 0 M ....... P N.. O..N N O 00 r 0.41 .. a O a .. mV . 0 m O 0.m N w O . M a I N .4 .4 a r 1 N N 1 1 5 co 0 0 O O O O O I G4 ' ' 00 a 4 H ✓ . .0 .0 V1 n N C r • .0 0 P 1 w • 00 N h n mm 0. 00 - I 1 0 7 ..1 .. .1 O ti ./1 11+ Y N N 1 0 Y 5 C • r r r ✓ 4.0u P P P O 4 • • .n n ...1 < 0 -41 1 '0 V1 V1 •A < M M n O P P N 1 N w 1 NU O mi.. .O a 4 r n n COI O. 0 N 0 M M s w 0 m .n r N .n •^ M 440 V . r . .O 7 0 « ' O~ '0d M 1 b OO V N 4) .0 0 0 4 • • a ' 0 00 r O MN 41 0 I 0 H 0 • . 4 N O N , a 0 ON 0 h 41 41 H u 0. -i a h W -4. '0 M N M 0 'O Z 41 Z 4 a. 4 -• 1 z x § .4Z T 0 H O. '0 0 •I N O V n N. O n P ▪ N P 4 4 .O O a N M .•P O. N 11 X 0, 0. • r .O .. 0 'O M ,N .0 n 1 0 < 10. 0 C .. N m ..01 M .O 1 W - O.4. m N N 1 41 1 ❑ ... .A b _ O O. Ct V• 14 a m • N MW 0 r m 1 �44 .4 u .4 V1 0 N N N P Z >. 1 V 0 N 0 O O M H 0 o44 .. ae4.0 a '0 M M N 0 0 0 0.0 y O O at N N P >. 0 0 0 0. . . 0 N d O O 4. .. ..1 a a .n 1 0 •,.* N 1 -1 • 1 • O O. P 00. a 0 W.1• 0'0 m 0 W.. Y 0 0 N N a a N H .0 - V a 1. O M N - N 0 • .-. 0 A O O 0 V) W. N N M 1.1 .O N N 4 C Q OO a of M P P a CO .J • N M r r 0 .• a n y 0 .1 ..em M n a a ... y 0 . . • V • N M n 0 0 M `O > . > N M m .. m P o a• 0 0 0 O OM ' N N N N 40 -Irv. M.4 N P OCR O. COI 0 a .0 . P 0. N I • M h .n M V M O.r d N 1 4 1 • 0.4.1 .O '4 ^ ars O a ..4 N O m N M 'O a • ...IN .4 V1 O m a V .. .. N N •A .0 Y • Y s • v • ■ w ✓ a ✓y • C y C ClC� - v C U • 5 to O 44 is 4 o.• ma y 0 4 •• G • 4 .d - • 0. m ■ 4 Y 0 •• • L W C . C 1 C • ■ • Y w C 7.00 • 0.0 C./3 4.,4 o y V • •.. ..•i 0 4. • < w • •a w Y u 0 Y 0 w 4 4 4 > w CO .44 1. • -w b . -0.0 w 4 44 4 0 0. • • . 40 • 0 4 • Q • . w U 0. • .010: 0. 0 - Y •lab > C ) '4 ^• VI ✓ ,a00,5 u (10.011 4. 0C44 • 4 • • Y •-. 14 e • • 0 0 v w 4 4 4 .0 Y 040 > •. > • • -• .0 • w V • Y • • 7 0 • 10.0 . 1" 41• 0 • 0 4.0 ✓ C C • 0 0 4 -. H 7 . > M ... 7 • .. 0 • •O • • 4 O. ✓ -. 3 • .. 1-..... .. 0 C O .3 • ■ 4 1 4 * 4444 44 ..7 0 -. o Q.u • 0 0 . 0 0 - 41 • •. Y • ! 777 • C C .4 V O 0 • •... 0. 0 > • 0 -. ,.r C Y 0 0 01 O O .4 -••V c u o 0 • • o • a 4 4 0 0 o • • 4 • < 00000 ❑ .. o<a H 0- .• 00 4. 0 0 < ..1 0 Or H H III-3 P P n a '0 w or N.. N n n n .O .O n Cr 0 O N or.O a a P o.O O - p O N n.O 10v020415. O C n w P n n a n 100.0 .4.5 .4., N n 0 .C.O N.N O N n .O a NI N n n n N n O - P n n N N n 0 al Cr; ^ N P n a N .. ) N v .. n • • u l O — H • O n n n P O O N O O O 010 N • Y O P n CO ..a P.O O..P Is P n n O.O 0. n N a n n N n a 5 ..1 0 n n N O0 .040n N n • P 04N N.a.. 40 .4.4.015.41 a n n v"'1 ti n O O a N n N 041 ... N n.. .r n W » i .. 0 0.• -. L Oil .•.P aa Y H u f• N O»O . o Pt O.] 14 N 0 q JiJ • P P•• h „ •4< e n U ^ N P P b • N P 0 n n a F. n o H C .-.O n i 4.11n m n p„ U •• .4 n a V) h tl t O U • • J 0 0 n n n N O n• .O p N H u a P P O P V O a P n N W H •ZWZZS2 M H= NV P a b P 41 U O C7 U < O.h. .OW .WQ nN1<cO emW MP O10W N OZ P n�OySo .. N p I, G„ U a. O 4.4 v. i.. V> 01 ..i • • f ol n P O a • .O O n n H A -' ^ . N O.O n • O O O • 0.CO N ^N n N Np 0 • Cu n N C. I u C • CNI a or n N. .N. n v .. o N.-. ti or n b > • > U N O: n N.. p 0> N v>•O .. O N CO n O NI .pO .. N CO 0 .. I .n N a N N .-4 N • a a P O . C a .O a coP n a • P .. a U N N N • .... w I C C .+ - o an - • • C • w V w Y pCp u• 0 • u •.•.• w • a - C 42 C K u G U C p ; n �v > eE . • v a 5.. • w • ... w Y Y w W • A. > e U > o •.C.0 is 4C,G.•. • CVO .N C • w.0 O O X <• •Cr e • V < • 1� �z.. > eauW >.U < ot°. • 1~ • C d • YYYy u 44 • • .Yy •Ww • O. C 44 <w .0 p e U u • U U X •IL' • • > • O U N • • U V • 6 • U < < HO p w 4 0. < <y O < H III-2 APPENDIX III ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City is audited annually by an independent certified public accounting firm. Data on the following pages was extracted from the audited Annual Financial Statements for fiscal years ended December 1, 1991, 1990 and 1989. For all three years, governmental funds and trust and agency funds are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting; proprietary funds are prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. The reader should be aware that the complete audits may contain additional information which would modify, interpret or explain the data presented here. The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) has awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Shakopee for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal years ended December 31, 1984 through 1990. The City has applied for a Certificate of Achievement for its 1991 financial report. III-1 * * e m6; 6inp o 0 sov Os AV$ �Oy O�pom m O em m C) mL( m m mi6 mL NN q _ n m m >pONd m >> m ° O °T m CO t � N ca a0} 47). O m m 0 ` `�U ww > mQ° mv °o 2 C8CN ° mS mo W 8 ,m °O -OMwOM SM C o°E ° t, _co cl Qmm O pOOm8 co MO `3)N73 v m eOcO OU OZ m X mL_m * Sm ° E �ii C) min ¢ n c in NC (Cm mwa< nm �pDiCso n U EO N 6588mm�0iE ° O ° " c> MadWW�Wxx� WX � � E., -8 O O QLLZW N M LL Z w w w LL W Z U v Z Vto to O p C .-oCU m g0C mCc45 1] 8 m C)O = m m NCS m co pW m S° as (V O ..- L0 15 !F- • } W W � as> Qas o as o > 0O° O wOwNLhN CCnW ro m U i+ mCOP88o O O • 23 3 CC, m C) CO CO ° aC CmS Q N op O OmmNm m H CO m C . m CO 0 0 16 u'Su5 mu'Su'S�15 i] 2�g a) �2 m co rn Q U) LL Z W N M IL Z W W W LL W N V Z 0 CC v v ��eaa '°o * *aO �O � O coS $$ ' pp C)*oC)$ r5 -0 LLIV) Q) 00N4 � mo -• mo h C) `')pp MZ oi 0 m m � m D p� � CaS m o W> m} WWi ° > 0to ° '- O 9LU Q > ° Q0 -3 LLI g co • C • 2525 m MM >8 co m • � oi 6 mo cDN� E mx � > >§ 020 0 ° ° 0 C- 0m WV)Vy0SbmwmNhmm, yN cpcW(t) Z m 0 ' .- mmmmmQ4000 cc -c c) c * o o UJ Q > a a "a 00 ] To CC (13 5.Li Li c ui ui la'}0� LLZW N M it Z W W W Cl..-• W N to < Z a a: LU • in o W S N- w r? o I—WO ,.2) NNO z § coO SS >• g�Wa � m a � a »� 2 co m m u) ..ca co- 61 U� W WO W p "6..6 7.3 .1 o -6"5 ° C oo C) ) m• 1,-. C • N.S8 ° j CV j m in Cb-.5tlOOOmgO ° o Q L Ox0W C° CVenm 0 CNQ n AC� OCN - � O in Q eO > "' >• m> > in Q m m T m " m CO N VILZWN KLL W w LU iLLw N 1.6 to E9 o 0 W n CO > F- N c� co * m o 8 W M m 0) O •:( pO • N p 8O LUin- co „>> w co- 2 to 2609 coo (L m C O w 5 Ww - to ° q ° OCO (an) S0mm S 2°z (0 � 0 O x O x o < mQ os C W LLw N cg LL W it LU N v into z • O U aas m m Iiiiii m`H 7 C Ts U. m E E° m W 0 0 cn > F-. future years, but may be reinstated in the future. Under prior law the limitations generally did not affect debt service levies. For county governments, cities of 2,500 population or more, and smaller cities and towns that receive taconite municipal aid, taxes could be levied outside the overall levy limitation for, among others, bonded indebtedness and certificates of indebtedness, unfunded accrued pension liability, social service programs and the residual income maintenance program for which the county share of costs has not been taken over by the State. Debt Limitations All Minnesota municipalities (counties, cities, towns and school districts) are subject to statutory "net debt" limitations under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.53. Net debt is defined as the amount remaining after deducting from gross debt the amount of current revenues which are applicable within the current fiscal year to the payment of any debt and the aggregation of the principal of the following: 1. Obligations issued for improvements which are payable wholly or partially from the proceeds of special assessments levied upon benefited property. 2. Warrants or orders having no definite or fixed maturity. 3. Obligations payable wholly from the income from revenue producing conveniences. 4. Obligations issued to create or maintain a permanent improvement revolving fund. 5. Obligations issued for the acquisition and betterment of public waterworks and public lighting,heating or power systems, and any combination thereof, or for any other public convenience from which revenue is or may be derived. 6. Certain debt service loans and capital loans made to school districts. 7. Certain obligations to repay loans. 8. Obligations specifically excluded under the provisions of law authorizing their issuance. 9. Debt service funds for the payment of principal and interest on obligations other than those described above. Levies for General Obligation Debt (Sections 475.61 and 475.74, Minnesota Statutes) Any municipality which issues general obligation debt must, at the time of issuance, certify levies to the county auditor of the county(ies) within which the municipality is situated. Such levies shall be in an amount that if collected in full will, together with estimates of other revenues pledged for payment of the obligations, produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to pay principal and interest when due. Notwithstanding any other limitations upon the ability of a taxing unit to levy taxes, its ability to levy taxes for a deficiency in prior levies for payment of general obligation indebtedness is without limitation as to rate or amount. Metropolitan Revenue Distribution (Chapter 473F, Minnesota Statutes) "Fiscal Disparities Law" The Metropolitan Development Act, more commonly known as "Fiscal Disparities," was first implemented for taxes payable in 1975. Forty percent of the increase in commercial-industrial (including public utility and railroad) net tax capacity valuation since 1971 in each assessment district in the Minneapolis/St. Paul seven-county metropolitan area (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, excluding the City of Northfield, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, excluding the City of New Prague, and Washington Counties) is contributed to an area-wide tax base. A distribution index, based on the factors of population and real property market value per capita, is employed in determining what proportion of the net tax capacity value in the area-wide tax base shall be distributed back to each assessment district. 11-3 Property Tax Payments and Delinquencies (Chapters 276, 279-282 and 549, Minnesota Statutes) Ad valorem property taxes levied by local governments in Minnesota are extended and collected by the various counties within the State. Each taxing jurisdiction is required to certify the annual tax levy to the county auditor within five (5) working days after December 20 of the year preceding the collection year. A listing of property taxes due is prepared by the county auditor and turned over to the county treasurer on or before the first business day in March. The county treasurer is responsible for collecting all property taxes within the county. Real estate arid personal property tax statements were to be mailed out no later than April 15 for property taxes payable in 1990 and are to be mailed out no later than March 31 thereafter. One-half (1/2) of the taxes on real property is due on or before May 15. The remainder is due on or before October 15. Real property taxes not paid by their due date are assessed a penalty which, depending on the type of property, increases from 3% or 7% on the day after the due date (in the case of the first installment due) or from 4% to 8% on the day after the due date (in the case of the second installment due) to 8% or 12% on December 1st of the collection year. Personal property taxes remaining unpaid on May 16 are deemed to be delinquent and a penalty of 8% attaches to the unpaid tax. On the first business day of January of the year following collection all delinquencies are subject to an additional 2% interest penalty, and those delinquencies outstanding as of February 15 are filed for a tax lien judgment with the district court. By March 20 the clerk of court files a publication of legal action and a mailing of notice of action to delinquent parties. Those property interests not responding to this notice have judgment entered for the amount of the delinquency and associated interest penalties. The amount of the judgment is subject to a variable interest penalty determined annually by the Department of Revenue, and equal to the adjusted prime rate charged by banks, but in no event is the rate less than 10% or more than 14%. Property owners subject to a tax lien judgment generally have five years (5) in the case of all property located outside of cities or in the case of residential homestead, agricultural homestead and seasonal residential recreational property located within cities or three (3) years with respect to other types of property to redeem the property. After expiration of the redemption period, unredeemed properties are declared tax forfeit with title held in trust by the State of Minnesota for the respective taxing districts. The county land commissioner then sells those properties not claimed for a public purpose at auction. The net proceeds of the sale are first dedicated to the satisfaction of outstanding special assessments on the parcel, with any remaining balance in most cases being divided on the following basis: county - 40%; town or city - 20%; and school district - 40%. Property Tax Credits (Chapter 273,.Minnesota Statutes) In addition to adjusting the taxable value for various property types, primary elements of Minnesota's property tax relief system are: property tax levy reduction aids; the circuit breaker credit, which relates property taxes to income and provides relief on a sliding income scale; and targeted tax relief, which is aimed primarily at easing the effect of significant tax increases. The circuit breaker credit and targeted credits are reimbursed to the taxpayer upon application by the taxpayer. Property tax levy reduction aid includes educational aids, local governmental aid, equalization aid, homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA) and disparity reduction aid. The homestead credit, a direct subsidy by the State to the taxpayer which was available to residential and agricultural homestead properties in prior years, has been omitted and is now accounted for in the designation of lower class rates. Levy Limitations Historically, the ability of local governments in Minnesota to levy property taxes was controlled by various statutory limitations. These limitations have expired for taxes payable in 1993 and 11-2 APPENDIX II SUMMARY OF TAX LEVIES, PAYMENT PROVISIONS, AND MINNESOTA REAL PROPERTY VALUATION Following is a summary of certain statutory provisions effective through 1991 relative to tax levy procedures, tax payment and credit procedures, and the mechanics of real property valuation. The summary does not purport to be inclusive of all such provisions or of the specific provisions discussed, and is qualified by reference to the complete text of applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the State of Minnesota in reference thereto. This summary reflects changes to Minnesota property tax laws enacted by the State Legislature during the 1991 Regular Session. Property Valuations (Chapter 273, Minnesota Statutes) Assessor's Estimated Market Value Each parcel of real property subject to taxation must, by statute, be appraised at least once every four years as of January 2 of the year of appraisal. With certain exceptions, all property is valued at its market value which is the value the assessor determines to be the price he believes the property to be fairly worth, and which is referred to as the "Estimated Market Value." Indicated Market Value Because the Estimated Market Value as determined by an assessor may not represent the price of real property in the marketplace, the "Indicated Market Value" is generally regarded as more representative of full value. The Indicated Market Value is determined by dividing the Estimated Market Value of a given year by the same year's sales ratio determined by the State Department of Revenue. The sales ratio represents the overall relationship between the Estimated Market Value of property within the taxing unit and actual selling price. Assessed Value For taxes payable in 1988 and for prior years, property taxes were levied based on "Assessed Value." For purposes of determining "Assessed Value" of real property, the Estimated Market Value of the property was calculated by applying the statutory formula applicable to the property's classification. The result is the Assessed Value of the property. Tax Capacity For property taxes payable in 1989, the value of the property used to determine the property tax was "Gross Tax Capacity." Gross Tax Capacity, like Assessed Value, was calculated by applying a statutory formula to the Estimated Market Value. Generally, Gross Tax Capacity is approximately 12.5% of Assessed Value for most classifications of property. The Gross Tax Capacity multiplied by the Tax Capacity Rate, instead of the Mill Rate, determined the tax payable on a parcel of property. Beginning with taxes payable in 1990, Net Tax Capacity has replaced Gross Tax Capacity as the basis on which taxes are levied. The Estimated Market Value multiplied by the appropriate class rate (gross or net) yields the tax capacity (gross or net). Net Tax Capacity differs from Gross Tax Capacity primarily by having lower values for homesteaded residential and certain agricultural property. The formulas for converting Estimated Market Value to Assessed Value and Tax Capacity represent a basic element of the State's property.tax relief system and are therefore subject to annual revisions by the State Legislature. II-1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ENTERPRISE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1990 AND 1989 Storm Totals Electric Water Sever Drainage Fund Fund Find Fund 1990 1989 Operating Revenue Sales 55,825,944 $ 467,840 $1,262,371 Cost Of Sales 4,479,500 $ 296,033 $7,852,188 $4,015,945 4,479,500 4,015,945 1,346,444 467,840 1,262,371 296,033 3,372,688 3,348,319 Operating Expense Operations And Maintenance 827,603 283,831 55,092 53,622 1,220,148 1,084,190 Treatment 983,134 983,134 904,611 Depreciation 141,750 176,799 81,767 118,287 518,603 480,303 Total Operating Expense 969,353 460,630 1,119,993 171,909 2,721,885 2,469,104 Operating Income 377,091 7,210 142,378 124,124 650,803 879,215 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income 308,396 92,467 247,619 83,042 631,524 596,178 Other Income 15,527 18,701 34,228 49,196 Interest Expense (952) (78) (7,095) (8,125) (8,571) Other Expense (147,302) Total Other Income (Nat) 322,971 111,090 140,524 83,042 657,627 489,501 Net Income Before Operating Transfers 700,062 118,300 282,902 207,166 1,308,430 1,368,716 Transfers To Other Funds (360,508) (73,725) (434,233) (432,391) Net Income To Retained Earnings 339,554 44,575 282,902 207,166 874,197 936,325 Retained Earnings January 1 4,962,371 1,093,331 2,089,835 674,655 8,820,192 7,883,867 Retained Earnings December 31 $5,301,925 $1,137,906 $2,372,737 $ 881,821 $9,694,389 $8,820,192 III-13 CITY OF SHAXOPEE, MINNESOTA ENTERPRISE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1989 AND 1988 Storm Totals Electric Water Sever Drainage Fund Fund Fund Fund 1989 1988 Operating Revenue Sales. $5,405,857 $ 448,559 $1,221,308 $ 288,540 $7,364,264 $7,593,088 Cost Of Sales 4,015,945 4,015,945 4,139,755 1,389,912 448,559 1,221,308 288,540 3,348,319 3,453,333 Operating Expense Operations And Maintenance 707,642 269,393 55,557 51,598 1,084,190 959,136 Treatment 904,611 904,611 962,781 Depreciation 134,662 151,307 80,812 113,522 480,303 441,373 Total Operating Expanse 842,304 420,700 1,040,980 165,120 2,469,104 2,363,290 Operating Income 547,608 27,859 180,328 123,420 879,215 1,090,043 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income 264,763 97,887 159,249 74,279 596,178 342,822 Other Income 19,574 29,622 49,196 48,517 Interest Expense (312) (8,259) (8,571) (15,291) Other Expense (147,302) (147,302) (45,477) Total Other Income (Net) 284,337 (20,105) 150,990 74,279 489,501 330,571 Nat Income Before Operating Transfers 831,945 7,754 331,318 197,699 1,368,716 1,420,614 Transfers To Other Funds (358,124) (74,267) (432,391) (462,436) Net Income To Retained Earnings 473,821 (66,513) 331,318 197,699 936,325 958,178 Retained-Earnings (Deficit), January 1 4,488,550 1,159,844 1,758,517 476,956 7,883,867 6,925,689 Retained Earnings (Deficit), December 31 $4,962,371 $1,093,331 $2,089,835 $ 674,655 $8,820,192 $7,883,867 III-14 PROPOSAL TO: Mr. Gregg. M. Voxland, Finance Director/Treasurer SALE DATE: November 3, 1992 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445-3650 RE: $1,665,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1992A For the Bonds of this Issue which shall mature and bear interest at the respective annual rates, as follow, we offer a price of $ (Note: This amount may not be less than $1,645,020) and accrued interest to the date of delivery. % 1994 % 1998 % 2002 % 1995 % 1999 % 2003 % 1996 % 2000 % 2004 % 1997 % 2001 In making this offer we accept all of the terms and conditions of the Terms of Proposal published in the Official Statement dated October 20, 1992. In the event of failure to deliver these Bonds in accordance with the Terms of Proposal as printed in the Official Statement and made a part hereof, we reserve the right to withdraw our offer, whereupon the deposit accompanying it will be immediately returned. All blank spaces of this offer are intentional and are not to be construed as an omission. Not as a part of our offer, the above quoted prices being controlling, but only as an aid for the verification of the offer, we have made the following computations: NET INTEREST COST: $ TRUE INTEREST RATE: Account Members Account Manager BY: The foregoing offer is hereby accepted by the Issuer on the date of the offer by its following officers duly authorized and empowered to make such acceptance. Clerk Mayor SURE-BID Good Faith Check Submitted PROPOSAL TO: Mr. Gregg. M. Voxland, Finance Director/Treasurer SALE DATE: November 3, 1992 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445-3650 RE: $1,665,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1992A For the Bonds of this Issue which shall mature and bear interest at the respective annual rates, as follow, we offer a price of $ (Note: This amount may not be less than $1,645,020) and accrued interest to the date of delivery. % 1994 % 1998 % 2002 % 1995 % 1999 % 2003 % 1996 % 2000 % 2004 % 1997 % 2001 In making this offer we accept all of the terms and conditions of the Terms of Proposal published in the Official Statement dated October 20, 1992. In the event of failure to deliver these Bonds in accordance with the Terms of Proposal as printed in the Official Statement and made a part hereof, we reserve the right to withdraw our offer, whereupon the deposit accompanying it will be immediately returned. All blank spaces of this offer are intentional and are not to be construed as an omission. Not as a part of our offer, the above quoted prices being controlling, but only as an aid for the verification of the offer, we have made the following computations: NET INTEREST COST: $ TRUE INTEREST RATE: Account Members Account Manager BY: The foregoing offer is hereby accepted by the Issuer on the date of the offer by its following officers duly authorized and empowered to make such acceptance. Clerk Mayor SURE-BID Good Faith Check Submitted PROPOSAL TO: Mr. Gregg. M. Voxland, Finance Director/Treasurer SALE DATE: November 3, 1992 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445-3650 RE: $1,885,000* General Obligation Tax increment Refunding Bonds, Series 19928 For the Bonds of this Issue which shall mature and bear interest at the respective annual rates, as follow, we offer a price of $ (Note: This amount may not be less than $1,866,150) and accrued interest to the date of delivery. % 1995 % 1998 % 2000 % 1996 % 1999 % 2001 % 1997 The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Series 19928 Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $100,000 and will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Series 1992E Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Series 1992B Bonds is increased cr reduced. In making this offer we accept all of the terms and conditions of the Terms of Proposal published in the Official Statement dated October 20, 1992. In the event of failure to deliver these Bonds in accordance with the Terms of Proposal as printed in the Official Statement and made a part hereof, we reserve the right to withdraw our offer, whereupon the deposit accompanying it will be immediately returned. Al! blank spaces of this offer are intentional and are not to be construed as an omission. Not as a part of our offer, the above quoted prices being controlling, but only as an aid for the verification of the offer, we have made the following computations: NET INTEREST COST: $ TRUE INTEREST RATE: Account Members Account Manager BY: The foregoing offer is hereby accepted by the Issuer on the date of the offer by its following officers duly authorized and empowered to make such acceptance. Clerk Mayor SURE-BID Good Faith Check Submitted PROPOSAL TO: Mr. Gregg. M. Voxland, Finance Director/Treasurer SALE DATE: November 3, 1992 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445-3650 RE: $1,885,000* General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992B For the Bonds of this Issue which shall mature and bear interest at the respective annual rates, as follow, we offer a price of $ (Note: This amount may not be less than $1,866,150) and accrued interest to the date of delivery. % 1995 % 1998 % 2000 % 1996 % 1999 % 2001 % 1997 * The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Series 1992B Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $100,000 and will be made in multiples of$5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Series 1992E Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Series 1992B Bonds is increased or reduced. In making this offer we accept all of the terms and conditions of the Terms of Proposal published in the Official Statement dated October 20, 1992. In the event of failure to deliver these Bonds in accordance with the Terms of Proposal as printed in the Official Statement and made a part hereof, we reserve the right to withdraw our offer, whereupon the deposit accompanying it will be immediately returned. All blank spaces of this offer are intentional and are not to be construed as an omission. Not as a part of our offer, the above quoted prices being controlling, but only as an aid for the verification of the offer, we have made the following computations: NET INTEREST COST: $ TRUE INTEREST RATE: Account Members Account Manager BY: The foregoing offer is hereby accepted by the Issuer on the date of the offer by its following officers duly authorized and empowered to make such acceptance. Clerk Mayor SURE-BID Good Faith Check Submitted fab MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Brambilla SAC Charges DATE: October 20, 1992 INTRODUCTION: On October 14, 1992, staff received a correspondence from Mr. Philip R. Krass, Krass & Monroe, Chtd. , in regard to the SAC charges proposed for the Brambilla commercial development project in Shakopee. (See attachment #1) Mr. Krass has requested City Council to review this issue. BACKGROUND: In April of 1992, staff presented to City Council a memo requesting guidance in the treatment of SAC credits (See Attachment #2) . At that time, Council unanimously endorsed the action set forth in the memorandum. Since April, staff has been utilizing the guidelines approved by City Council in determining SAC credits. The site presently occupied by Mr. Brambilla is within the Mini By-pass right-of-way. Prior to 1985 on this property, the City did not collect SAC charges. Between 1985 and 1988, Mr. Brambilla did pay seven (7) SAC unit charges for various building improvements on the property. (See attachment #3) Mr. Brambilla is requesting that the SAC charges paid on his present site be transferred to his new site adjacent to Valley Industrial Blvd. North. Mr. Brambilla 's position is that since no building will ever be constructed on his existing site following completion of the Mini By-pass project that it would seem reasonable to have the credits transferred to his new parcel. The City's policy in regard to Mr. Brambilla's project is that the SAC units stay with the property and refunds or transfer of credits is not permitted. The City must make an irrevocable determination on a case by case basis to either keep (left over) SAC units site specific for future use or to have the units which then become credits applied for City wide benefit. According to MWCC staff, the larger Cities that have gone through the SAC credit issue for development have elected to keep the (left over) credits for city wide benefit and have not refunded them to the owners. In order to effectuate the request made by Mr. Brambilla, the City could exercise one of the following options: 1. Refund Mr. Brambilla for the SAC units that he has paid on his existing site. ($2 ,720. 00) The refund would be paid from the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Under this scenario, Mr. Brambilla would be required to pay his new SAC charge ($4, 200. 00) and the City would be able to keep the left over SAC credits on Mr. Brambilla's for the city wide benefit resulting in a $4, 900. 00 cash infusion into the Sanitary Sewer Fund. (Net loss to City when compared to status quo - $2, 720. 00. ) 2 . Refund the SAC units paid by Mr. Brambilla on his existing site at today's SAC charge rate in an amount not to exceed what the SAC charges will be on his new site. (Under this scenario the City would have to use money from the Sanitary Sewer Fund to pay the MWCC the required SAC payment for Mr. Brambilla's new site. - $4,200. 00) The City could still obtain city wide benefit for SAC credits on the original Brambilla site at today's SAC rate. (Net loss to City when compared to status quo - $4, 200. 00. ) Staff does not believe it would be appropriate to set precedence in the area of transferring, crediting and/or refunding SAC units. When Mr. Brambilla sold his current site to MnDOT he was duly compensated for the value of the property including all inherent property rights which included access to City sewer (SAC) and water (WAC) . Note that Mr. Krass's correspondence refers to a $6, 600. 00 SAC charge. The $6, 600. 00 figure is both SAC ($4,200. 00) and WAC ($2 ,400. 00) combined. The City does not have the authority to waive/reduce and/or transfer WAC charges. This fee is controlled by SPUC. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Maintain the status quo in terms of the SAC credit policy. 2 . Amend the SAC credit policy to allow for the transfer of credits to a property owner who relocates from a site that will not experience further development to a new development site within the community. (Cost to City - loss in City wide benefit equal to $4,200. 00. ) 3 . Amend the SAC credit policy to allow for a SAC unit refund to a property owner who relocates from a site that will not experience further development to a new development site within the community. The refund shall not exceed what has actually been paid on the initial site. (Cost to City 0 $2 ,720. 00. ) 4 . Table action pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: No action is necessary if Council wishes to maintain the status quo. James B.Croft tau off,r s Philip R.Krass" RAS S rlin D.Te SlaaDennis L.Monroe l[S[f1\U Patricia M.Weller Barry K.Meyer & Kathryn E.Kelby Mark J.Moxness x R E Timothy F-Moynihan WarlessValerie K.Wess \IJnl\T 0 -Certified Civil'hal Specialist *Also Admitted in Wisconsin ' chartered x AIso Admitted in California +Also Admitted in South Dakota i QCT 1 41992 October 12, 1992 _ Cal !, o � ✓ 1AKO Mr. Barry Stock Assistant Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Brambilla SAC Charges Our File No. 1932-9 Dear Mr. Stock: Thank you for the information you sent me relative to the City's position on the SAC charges previously paid by Mr. Brambilla on the parcel being acquired by the State of Minnesota. It appears to me as I reviewed the policy that it was clearly intended to deal with a parcel upon which construction or reconstruction of some building might be a possibility. Certainly that is not going to happen on the Brambilla piece and it seems unfair that Mr. Brambilla would be billed $6,600 SAC charge for his new facility while the City retains what is in effect a windfall from the SAC credit at the old Brambilla facility. I am requesting that the City Council consider the equities here and possibly modify its policy to provide for situations such as this, where the property owner pays twice, where there can never be a reconstruction on the first parcel, and where retaining such a SAC charge credit would simply be a windfall for the City. I will await your response and I thank you very much for your assistance and consideration. Very trul ours, ;, • . ..,,. .TERE . i :" p1.4it ip R. Kr.ss Attorney at Law PRK/mlw cc: Jack Brambilla C:\WP5O\LIT\COR\STOCK1/mlw Southpoint Center.Suite 11(X). 1650 Wesi 82nd Street.Bloomington.Minnesota 55431-1447 Telephone:(612)885-5999 FAX(612)885-5969 /14-4-ac 4tilet,771 2, TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator • FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Barry Stock, Ass't City Administrator RE: SAC Credits DATE: April 15, 1992 Introduction MWCC has revamped the Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) system in the area of credits for demolition or reduction of demand. Staff is seeking Council guidance for the treatment of SAC credits. Background MWCC has revamped and tightened up the handling of credits in the SAC system. Cities have treated credits in various ways and the result has been a potential large scale problem for MWCC in terms of managing the capacity for the sewer system and the financial impact of credits. Cities now have to identify and account for all credits. Staff has researched and is finalizing the list of credits on hand for Shakopee. MWCC will not refund cash to the City for credits. A couple examples at this point may best explain the situation; I. A house in the urban part of Shakopee is connected to the sewer system and has either paid a sac charge to connect to the system or is a pre-1973 house that is grand-fathered into the capacity of the sewer system. A house is one sac unit and the current rate is $700.00 per sac unit. We are talking about the capacity of the sewer system, not the usage or the daily/monthly flow in the system. Assume that this house is demolished, resulting in that vacant site not being connected to the sewer system. There is now a sac credit pending. It is pending until a new use for the site is established. A) . A new house is built on the site and the pending credit is applied to the new use of the site. No payment is made to MWCC for the sac charge for the new house. 1) The city can either collect a sac charge from the developer of the new house and keep $700.00 for sewer improvements or 2) "apply the credit" and not collect $700.00 from the developer. B) . A paved parking lot is installed on the site. There is no sac charge for the parking lot and the pending sac credit is now available for the city to use. 1) The city can either keep the credit resulting in having $700.00 for sewer improvements or 2) attempt to refund the credit amount to the owner or 3) hold the credit for a subsequent future change in use of that site. II. A commercial building with a sac value of seven units is demolished and a new building with a sac value of five units is built on the site, or a commercial building with a tenant with usage of a sac value of seven units moves out and a new tenant with a usage of a sac value of five units moves in. A. The city can keep the seven units of credit and charge the developer/owner for five sac units. B. The city can apply five units of sac credit to the new building/use and keep one or two units ($1,400) for sewer improvements. C. The city can apply five sac units to the new building anC. save one or two units for future changes on that site. D. The city can apply five sac units to the new building and refund two units ($1,400) to the owner. A complication to this example is when the tenant with the usage of five sac units moves out and a successor tenant moves in with a usage of 8 sac units. Does the City keep 2 units (7 > 5) and charge the new use 3 units, or keep the 2 units site specific and only charge an additional 1 unit? According to MWCC staff, the larger cities that have gone through the sac credit issue for development have elected to keep the "left over" credits (dollars) for citywide benefit and not refunded them to the owners of the property or reserved them for site specific use. The owners/developers may lay claim to the credit units and want the refund. MWCC will not refund dollars to the city but will carry credits forward against future sac payments due MWCC. The city must make an irrevocable determination on a case by case basis to either keep "left over" sac units site specific for future use or to have the credits be applied for city wide benefit. The decision can be split for some credits to be site specific and some city wide for any particular case. It is suggested that a staff member be designated to make those determinations. SAC changes for industrial users can be triggered by a three year review (MWCC will make these reviews) to see if there are changes in processing or operation that affect the use of the sewer system as opposed to changes in the plant which would be need a building permit and therefore cause a SAC determination. Rahr is discussing the issue of a separate treatment system and the latest information staff has is that Rahr has not made a decision to proceed or not pending information from MPCA. Council is requested to review the issue and give staff guidance and authority to make the site specific or city wide determinations. Alternatives 1. Refund unused sac credits to property owners. 2. Keep unused sac credits site specific. 3. Keep unused sac units for city benefit. 4. Combination of above. Recommendations The following criteria is suggested for guidelines to be used by staff in making SAC credit determinations. 1. City will not refund any dollars for SAC credits. 2. Multi use sites such as the mall or strip shops that are one site will have any credits kept site specific. 3. Total new use (demolition and new building) for residential and commercial will have any credits that are not used for the new application revert to city benefit and will pay sac charges for any increase in SAC units for the new use. 4. Industrial process change resulting in credits will be kept site specific. 5. Industrial physical facility change will be kept site specific. Action Move to set the following guidelines for staff to consider in making SAC credit determination. 1. City will not refund any dollars for SAC credits. 2. Multi use sites such as the mall or strip shops that are one site will have any credits kept site specific. 3. Total new use (demolition and new building) for residential and commercial will have any credits that are not used for the new application revert to city benefit and will pay sac charges for any increase in SAC units for the new use. 4. Industrial process change resulting in credits will be kept site specific. 5. Industrial physical facility change will be kept site specific. Attachment #3 SAC and WAC fees paid on Brambilla' s existing site: 1. Aug. 1985 3 SAC and 3 WAC paid: 3 SAC @ $340. 00/ea. = $1020. 00 3 WAC @ $357 . 00/ea. = $1071. 00 2 . Oct. 1986 1 SAC and 1 WAC paid: 1 SAC = $380 . 00 1 WAC = $360. 00 3 . July 1988 3 SAC and 3 WAC paid: 3 SAC @ $440 . 00/ea. _ $1320. 00 3 WAC @ $381. 00/ea. = $1143 . 00 Total SAC Fees Collected = $2720. 00 WAC Fees Collected = $2574 . 00 SAC and WAC Charges applied to new site (550 Valley Park Dr. ) 6 SAC @ $700. 00/ea. = $4200 . 00 6 WAC @ $400. 00/ea. _ $2400. 00 r MEMO TO: DENNIS KRAFT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DAVE HUTTON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: 2ND AVENUE PARKING DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1992 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council action on parking along 2nd Avenue. BACKGROUND Because of the narrow pavement width on 2nd Avenue, Staff is requesting that the City Council adopt parking restrictions during the winter plowing months. It will be difficult if not impossible to plow this street if parked cars are allowed on the street. ALTERNATIVES Staff has identified the following alternatives for parking restrictions: 1. Designate 2nd Avenue as a Snow Emergency Route, whereby parking would not be allowed during a snow plow operation, but would be allowed the remainder of the time. 2 . Sign this street for No Parking at all times, year round. 3 . Sign this street for No Parking, between the hours of 2 : 00 am - 6 : 00 pm, which is the same parking restrictions as in the Central Business District. 4 . Sign this street for No Parking, between November 15th and April 1st, which is the same time period the calendar parking ordinance is in effect. RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommend Alternative no. 1, because this street does not meet the criteria for being a Snow Emergency Route, which are normally collector-type, high traffic volume streets. This street is also 2 one way parallel streets on each side of the tracks, further diminishing its need to be a Snow Emergency Route. Alternative No. 2 is also not recommended because a year round ban on parking does not seem necessary. Alternative No. 3 is not recommended because with this type of parking restriction, the state law requires the Police Department to wait 24 hours after issuing a ticket before towing the vehicle. This 24-hour waiting period would not help move parked cars during a plow operation. Staff recommends Alternative No. 4 as being the least restrictive parking restriction for the residents while still providing the Mechanism for assisting the Public Works Department during a snow plow operation. In reviewing the amount of off-street parking available to each resident on this street, it does not appear that a parking restriction during the winter months will be a substantial inconvenience. The City Council may wish to table any decision on this issue until after the November 10th assessment hearing on the 2nd Avenue project, at which time staff could pressent the proposed parking restrictions to solicit public input from the residents. ACTION REQUESTED Move to designate No Parking on 2nd Ave between Sommerville Street and Naumkeag Street from November 15th to April 1st. ) 3c. ORDINANCE NO. , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SEC. 9. 50, PARKING DURING STREET MAINTENANCE, SNOWY WEATHER, AND IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SUBD. 2, SNOWY WEATHER, BY PROHIBITING PARKING ON SECOND AVENUE BETWEEN SOMMERVILLE STREET AND NAUMKEAG STREET DURING SNOWY WEATHER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Sec. 9 . 50, Parking During Street Maintenance, Snowy Weather, and in Central Business District, Subd. 2 . , Snowy Weather, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subd. 2 . Snowy Weather. A. Between November 15th and April 1st, inclusive, parking is prohibited on the West and South sides of Streets or Avenues on odd-numbered days for the day beginning at 2 : 00 o'clock A.M. and until 6: 00 o'clock A.M. ; and on the East and North sides of Streets or Avenues on the even-numbered days for the day beginning at 2 : 00 o'clock A.M. and until 6: 00 o'clock A.M. Calendar parking will be in effect and enforced when weather conditions warrant plowing and shall continue in effect until the same roadway has been plowed or removed to the full width of the roadway thereon. B. Between November 15th and April 1st, inclusive, parking is prohibited on both sides of Second Avenue between Sommerville Street and Naumkeag Street. " Note: The underlined language is inserted. Section 2 - General Provisions. City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty For Violation, and Section 9 .99, Violation a Misdemeanor or Petty Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: I� l� . City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley N = on the day of , 1992 . [2 .90] -2- MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: AMM Policies DATE: October 30, 1992 INTRODUCTION: The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities policy meeting will be held on Thursday, November 5th. Council members in attendance will need to be apprised of the will of the entire Council so that they can accurately represent the Council. BACKGROUND: Annually, the AMM adopts policies for the upcoming legislative session. Earlier this month copies of the policy were distributed to Council members. The membership meeting is scheduled for November 5th, and at that time the policies will voted on. If you have not already contacted me with your policy choices please be prepared to do so at the November 3rd Council meeting. ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss the policies and arrive at consensus on the top five and direct the Council ' s representatives to vote for those policies. / 3E ,_.., __, .. . ::::_i_i_. 6 s ...2 . L _ 7. , 2,i i a There are no anticipated "budget versus actual expenditure" problems within division totals apparent at this point (9/30/92) . Council will notice that the bill list looks somewhat different. This is the first bill list from the new financial system software that we are using as of November first. nn x O F F r n r n r r r r /� r /� F nA r r n a ,.r [+7 C F V F V r V r V n r V r V F V F V r F V r F r 7C n r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 F-1 �1 O' V1 r W N r 0 'o CO v ON V+ ZO r n r r r r r r r r r r r r r r n so so so so '.o . so so so so .o so .o so Si o so so .o '.a so so 'o 'o 'o 'o '.o so 'o 'o C=I n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n ?r \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ •___5___ \ 7C r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 70 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r v C11 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 4-1 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r CTI C CT1 n 7, = to n <n N N<n 74 'Ti r r PC N N N <n N N <n <o <n N > M <n N <n<n v -4 <n <n F F <n <n F r <n<n w w <n <I) w w I--• r Z - -4 �1 w UI CO CO h-' r w w Co CO r F V1 V1 w w F F N N <n <n <n -I -4 0 N N F F F F %0 '.o 03 CO -.) -I V1 V1 0 0 .1 -1 VI V1 F F CO F F0 0 0 0 . . . Z n N N .o '.o 0 0 0 0 w w coop r r 00 Lnu.1 00 0% 0% 0. w w 0303 H H 4- 4- ON ON 0 0 ON ON 0 0 ON O' 0% co O O O O O O N N '.O V7 r 'o 'o * * * * * * * :- * * * * * O - O C) of 4:7 C7 n n n n n 0% w to 9 72 0 til so so 9 9 44/6 zSI tri o H C S1 [HTI CHTI Z N 74 CP Z x n n 7o O Z t" xi 74 74 C CTI C7 - = n 'T1 n 9 0 Cl)M n n a H sl 4-4 0 G w c, 74 CO x 0 0 r ;�Uv 74 H x x C=1 < 1-4 H O CTI z z 9 Cl) x cn cn r CTI 1-- z Z Z 70 cn Cl) 9 Z CTI CTI al Z N 0 M H H CO Cl) h-1 n 0 71 Q+ ►C 74 b b z 1-1 H H 0 Z 9 n 7 x 7 " nn o NI Z cn cn H 0 n H Z H O 1-1 C O 9 n O C H n Z (-1 H Cl) Cl) Z CO K AHI 0 0 H7oo n O Z C .0 .0 .0 p b CC!) 9 0 CTI H 0% 74 H C 0% C C C C 0 C CII MZ H Cl) N H 1-1 CTI Cl) CTI 73 n H K7 n 'z1 Po '11 r1-1 H r n H 1-1 74 1-1 3K 73 Z Z Z \ H 1-4 - x 1-4 a z C=I ►--1 CTI r CII cn CO z Cl) 9 z -' ^o C) Z ill Z Z Z 0 C n C 7o n M H \ H H H H H Si 0 70 CA > b Cl) b b Cn r 1-1 CnH H H H H CO ^o H 9 4v \ 1-+ z \ z z Z .0 CTI r r CTI •4 r ^o cn H 'ZI H .3 H H Z CII 1--1 z > r a x r4 C tII tri Cm 1-1 n CII n CO cc, to !•-1 Z 0% Z Z Z O m CO til CII to r z ZZ Z >Z yCT1 > C=I cm Cm 1.1 1.1 0 0 z z 0 '0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w co 4- O` 03 r r F %o r r F 01 w Z 9 W F N r r N N r r v1 O. N N r C n r o W r o -1 -.1 r r r r Or VI r Z n I I I I I I I I I I I I I Co O F N F r N r r F F r F r F F CTI C W N N W N N N F W N F N N N 70 Z UI 0 r w r r r to V1 F w F F F H 0 0 0 0 0 0 V+ kr' 0 0 V1 0 0 O 0 0 r 0 '0 co 0 0 r F CTI N N PO 0 0 r 0 ON N 0 0 O% N N r r r r ' 0 0 r ON r r F 0 Z 04-4 0 NO 0r r r r V11-4 0Z's F F .0 < NW V1 N 0 N W r sI O% O% O% N 0 V1 %o 'D F I W co W N O% 0% W 1-I 0 1"' 0 to v SIr CO r `„ Z 0 z C Z b CO 0 C=I 70 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O O 0 Z 10 x = 44. = x = = x x x x x x x 9 11.3 00 r CD 1✓ , 6 �- . 6 6. 4Ar r Ar nr r nr nr m w / N NV - - r r v r r Or r r x zcNN o '.o CO V a% uN+ N) W N r 0 � CO~ z t~.' r r r 10 '.o '.o 10 1/40 s.0 `o =10 10 �o �o .c .o 1/40 1/40 �o NO ND NO Iii CM N3 6.2 ND ND ND ND ND N N N N N N) CD x\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ xfr . " r F-, 1-, r Fhr I- F-' h-+ h-+ F-- r r r r r r O 0 0 0 O rqm \\0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ \ \ .., \ I-. d o 0 a o C/3 1-- r- r 1-- r r- r r r- r r r 1-- 1-- rM 1% I--3 U C) 20 x OM C) VD<1) x ni XI N N N N N N N N N N NN N N w W N N r r NNN NN V) <0 V V V V NN NN r r > • F-1 W w 'o '.0 CO CO CO CU as ON N r- r N N )-• r Ln vt a. a. V V r r W W 0 r r 0 0 N N N N '0 'D '0 N 0' V+ V+ f- r-. h- 1-. CO CO 0 0 '0 'O V V C 0 ww l./1V+ V+ Vrn ao + + 00 00 '. 00 00 00 co Co 00 co co r r 'Z-] y r - VI V+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 r u V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N V V * * * * * * * * * * * * w O z z z z x x Z x x x H x T ro 'VW c '0 z z b a a 0 ac 0 o x a 0 S3 tT1 x Co x " CM g N 'V z a > a C)) z rn a OM M 0 0 x •c x SI SI m CD Z N N 0 Z .0 0 a 0 ai 'C H 7d Z '-3 Z C C n 0 f) C C 0 H V) b d O 0 0 0 0 i- F--1 0 E o ro il 1-IilU N H r� !-i 1--1 CT1 rn U) C=9 ti FC "C a a Z z V) T H H CA V) yC iU n V) V) C7 C ~ rzl O G7 [II C C r`1 r=' 5 xi U) \ UUn C Z U) v) 0 F' H b -0 C) hC-1 H CD a) N r C C 5h 0 C a a c: a CD x y V) 'b '° ~1 U) U) > > 00 SI r)' 0 U) 'b t' w 0 z r t' y co m Si' t I H \ tA=' H U)i c z Sin re C/) 1--' N z z 1--4 1--1 z z o 0 .o '.o 0 0 0 0 0 '.0 0 0 0 0 r r co Co ch r rn w r �i w r w w Z a N.) Nr r r CO N r N 1-- W w N N C C7 � V 0 0 r r CD N) r 0 r r r t.. X c) I 1 I I Lol W Cr r N N r r r r r W4r r r Z4W N N W W W w w V63 r N N U) y1- CO CO 'p w O 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 NLA 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO O O r OOOV UO W 0 0 OO oO 0O 0O0 Oo ZI-' p' V W h- r r M- F- r. h-• r r Vi <N I N N r Nr ' r r VI 0'o r V V r w t,) 0N N.) h- N0 0 0 o% SI z 0 z b CO 0 SI PC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w x x x w x x 0 0 C w a o0 r m N 0 0 / . w O r r A r * r .* r * -' A r r -. r . c0� Z r r V r V r y r v r V r r V r , 7C 0 w w w w w w w w w , s.0 CO .J a' v r lJ N r i Zo r 0 r r rrrrr r r r )_ HI-. r rr' rl-- r0 = • se se se se se se se se se '0 se se se se se se se se '0 sese I w :Tl se vO %O '.o 'O 'O '.O 'O %o 'o '.O 'O se 'o so se so 'O so so '.O 'o CTI 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N.) N IV IV N N N N N N N 0 7C \ \ \\\\\ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \ \\\\\ 7C I-. r r - I- r r r r rrrrr--. r r rI-' rrr 70 H r rrrrr r r r rr-. rrrr r rrrrr v c11 \ \ \\\\\ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \ \\\\\ 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H I--. r r r r r r r r r I-. r I r r r r r r r r r CTI CA CTI i 0 7D CTI 0 <n N , "JC 'TI r r 71:3 <n N N <n<n <n <n - - N . 3 H I--.<A <A<I) <I)<11 r r N.) N r r <n <n <n 0 0 r v) <n <n <n <n - -co<n N<n .' r r F-' w O' 0 0 '0 'O V -J v w r N <n <n <n O' a% 0 N N N N r , O a` O'. -J V CO )o w '.O 0 0'. 0 0 0 0 0 0 N VI 0 )O VI CO w CO CO v+ N N r r 'O 1 0 0 t...) L.3 P. 4's vrrrr VI 00 4^ F -a- -a, 0L's wvt .400 00 N0000r , H H Co Co 00 'o V N '0 . - V 00 Co CO 00 U' 4) N4300 -4 00 000 .' r N • * * * * * * * * w O Cn Cl Cn CA Cil Cn Cn C/) CA Cn cn C/) 0 Cn CA Cn CA b b b b b 4-- Pia 1-3 S3 9 9 9 9 9 H H a 9 9 9 9 > 9 O 9 9 9 9 '.D til M 7d 7d 70 7D 0 MI 0 N7CPCNNN 0 0 0 H 0 0 to 0 0 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H N [�7 (%) f!) N C%� 7C1 fOn 0 ro h7 ill "C "0 'V H H H H H 7d 7C CTl z CO CT7 SI Ch [T1 [TI 0 0 0 0 0 0 cm 00000 - 'o CTI sr CTI CTI CTl CTI H 7:1 '21 rrrrr cn x a - - - - . - "e coaywcorn 0 H 9 si si si SI SI 0 9 9 9 9 9 < •- 9 Z Z Z Z Z = .0 O H H H H H H e0 000000 9 C) C) 0 0 0 Z N Cn zzzzz Pz H "' "He .Hehc ►HC •aeHC `n 737 0 9 C 00000 C) z 0 H aHHHH 73 Z "o x C) 0 000000 Z .b PZ 's7 '17 'i] 'i] '=7 'T1 0 r .0 he H Z 0 CTI towcocow Cn CTI 0 .SI roo 'vao "0 00000 .0 C C C C C CTI .0 ho 73 7' 'V o 7d 'v 7d ro 'v MI 'c7 MI C H H H H H H C SI 0 0 CT1 CI) 9 TiC; 0 SI SI SI [;=v7 SI b SI C C C d C SI b 9 CTI CCM 9 9 CM 9 SI 9 9 9 9 Z H H H H H H x H C/) Cn H 0 r H cn H H H H H CTI 9 ZZZZZ C) CTI H Cn Cn H CM\ H Cn H H H H H Z r 0 0 0 0 0 C Z Z H H Z c/) Z H ZZZZZ C7 H Cn 9 H 0 CCC) C0 O 00000 CT1 0 0 990 � 0 9 00Cn00 n H H H H H SIC C" r C H C r C C C C C 7D H z Z Z z z Cn H 'a b Cn b b ho b b b H Z HHHHH z ro C/) cnro HMI Cl) 'o 'O "Cl 'vb "o H H r rarmr, CTIr rn r r r r r H Si CTI N PC 7D H Z H 'i!J H H H H H H Z Z Si C C CTI 0 CTI C CTI CTI CTI CTI CTI 0 9 9 Cl) H H Cl to v) H C/ Cn cn C/3 C/3 Z ZZ 0 C) 0 C) 0 SI SI CT/ CI CTI Cn Cn Cn O 0 00000 '0 0 0 0000' 00 0 00000 w a'. CI+ rC.1rr �J r r C.Jr4) VI r 'o r rwasrr Z 9 r N N co N co co r r r r N r 'O N r N) N r r 03 03 C 0 w .' CO r r N r 0 r r r CT r N r r r 4 r r r N Z 0 i I I $ I IIIIII I IIIII co 0 r r rrrrr w r r rrrrZs- r r -Cs rrrr sTra N N N N N N N -4 N N L.) w N w 4) Na w N N N N N 'JD Z r r w w w w w N r r r r r N CJ r r r r r r r H O LI' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r CO CJD CO 00 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 so so so so `o H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Os r r r r r Z r r r r r r r r r r rrrlrrr a. 00000 < w r C..) w w w w r w w w w ca Ca ca Ca CO O N) o. rrrrr v+ C..w v+ .' rrrrr 0 sr z 0 z C Z b co O CTI 7D O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O z b x = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = a co Go r CD LA_, A 4. yr 0orrr r n rn r A r r n r c� rVrr r I-. znVVr V V Vr V r V r * V r V r VI 1 . o •rD oro V or. LII 4, W N Fr-, 00 Z H o r 1- I- •�• 0 1- Io .0 _ - r r r r r rrrrr r x .0 1/40 1/40 1/40 .0 .0 •0 .o .0 1/40 1/40 .0 1/40 .~0 Z cm 0 .Nc N3 N3 esz IV ND ND o so .o .o .o .o .o .o .0 .o .o .o .o .o .o . .o rn N \ N N Ni Na N N N N Ni����� x \ \ \ \\ \ \ r r r rrrrr r r > Cr/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o > C) I-. r r 0 r O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O H H �-' r✓ r r r r r r I- r r r Cl)rn H rn 0 ;a w m 0 <A <A x rn <AN V) <I) {l) <-11 <A NN N N Ni N Cl)N -co N V F-' V1 V V I--' 1--. V> <A l I-. N N N - > F"1 r r W '. as 0. 00 1/40 CO 1 1-+ CO CO (a W CO 0o N V) v1 r W r W oo W (.F F-• i-. 0 01/4 0% r r 0 0 W v1 V r r ao CO 0 0 N N CO CO F-- r Ni r .0 10 N Ni 41 W 0 O OO rr OO aD .o .o v1 v1 00 00 00 00 0 .00. r 0. r wvi CO CO Z 0 O 0 Ni3 Ni F-. F-- . .0 V Ni 0 0 .1 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 r r r 0 V V1 V7 r r H H 0 N N >~ E C C C C C C C C C H H x 0En Si CTI > H> > z ZZZZZ ;o x r. N H CTI CIH I-1 r r H F-I H H H H SIO .o 73 %9 rn Z rn rn CTI 0 0 0 0 0 M N a ftl ftp C) "C '< 7D C) G1 G7 GJ G� pi Cl) cn Z ;rJ Fr1 H '3 Z '-3 Cl) C) H C�s7 C�:1 C�r1 Ctrl C�:7 O O Cb r Cl) O O G>'] CM 0 Cr/ .-4z Z z zz Z C O < z = � � r .3 > 0 99999 cn Cl)0Z N pp 'r1 rrrrr H 'lc 0 C3 0 xs Z Z Z z cncncncncn 0 rtri Zrnr, 0 `-4 '-3 0 > Z Si rn rn Cil SI t7 C3 Z Z c < < < < C 0 C) 'T1 toy C/) rn SI C 0 0 IV 0 av CO 0 0 0 0 XI PII C C .0 .0 H .0 ro 713 O CChf .-o ^C Psi C=1 ' C-I Cl) H H C-' Pi Er' O Z H H rn SI CM til 's1 pi t7 C7 Tl '0 H t71 crnrl g Cl) Cl) HzX 1-3 PI z z H H H I-1 Cr/Z H Cr/ H H cnN 0 C) H H H Cl) Z Z 0 Z C)C) Z Z Z Z X t7 00C) C) > til r r--f 0< C C r Cl) C CA C C cn C 0 M Cl) Z \ Z Z 0 'rod b Cl) s Z Z MI h1 .0 '11 SI H H H b b b r. to •b < oo z2 Cr/ Iri rr-1 z 0 Ir-1HH H H � r > > cn Cr) � y ti � rrnn Cl) 0 0 C) 0 rn z 4-3 rn rn Cl) H - Z 0 z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a. a. r o. r r r a. o. r w r rn r r o. r z > r Ni 0. CO 1,3 Ni r r V r N N r NiNiaD C 0r CO rNi r r r rrrrr .o r X C3 Ir r r r I III 1 CO 0 W N r r r r r r r r r r w L.4C r NiN N W N Ni W W Ni Ni N N N Ni os A Z r w w r r co r r r .o w vi - - I r v1 H 0 0 v1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r ON 0 0 r r 0 0 0 v1 v1 01 v1 v1 F-• 0 Ni v 0 0 OD "1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f- 0 H 0 0 v1 0 0 rn a7 0 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO r 0 Z 1-. 1-. .0 0 r r r rF-rrrF . 0 r < r 0. Vr r L.3 W r W V V V V V 1 r 0 .0 W co a0 Ni V V 0. 1/40 1/40 1/40 1/40 1/40 1/40 0 H co 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 .o .0 .o .0 .0 rn N Ni Ni N Na aowooa000 Z 0 z MI 0 rn PJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z b = = = = = = = = z ar C w > 00 r co / C7 n 5 O /) 1" r n r n r A n r A 4"- A F A A r til C .,- r r �c r - r * r r * r * r r r n Z V V r V r V r V 4' V - V r V 4, V r V r 7C n C' O' O' O• O• VI VI V+ VI V+ N F Co N r 0 NO Co �J ON v+ Z r CDn M. r r r r r r r r r r n z •D •0 •O •D •O •0 •D •O •D •O •O x CO VD •O •O •O •O •O •O •0 •O •0 •O CO n N N N N N N N N N N N n 7C \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ 7C ✓ r r r r r r r r r r 70 ✓ r r r r r r r r r r C SI \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ 9 O o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 a 1-1 r r r r r r r r r r r Si CNl) CI 0 20 x tii N <I) N n W N N r r NV) 7C 'l v Cm C+ 0 O r r 70 NN NN NN NN - - NN - - 9 1-i C• - v N N <P t/) r r r r r r -co N V) r r .0 l' v1 v1 3 - vt v+ v+ 0 0 N N) r 1--r 0 0 r r C• l' r N N v+ v+ Co Co 0 O O O 0 0 CO C0 4' .L' 0 0 O O 0 N - v1 v+ 0 O (42 w C O Z C') v+ O0 O0 NN OO OO OO m. N2 W 0O OO CM cm ►3 ►3 Cm 0 O O 0 . l' O O O O O 0 -4 W •O O O O 0 Cm CM * * * * * * * X * * * w 0 • c cn r ca n n a a a n r cnn o Z c 5 r SI r' .3 •o mA Ccn 9e a z NI rC r C 9 Co O N z Co - z > 9 9 C Z CI H > 0 Z Z 70 70 = H Cl) co ") z Co z z n x z I- O '•C n C) r ET) to o ro z ^) '17 0 Cl) C/) H 73 0 SI0 > Z < Z 0 e o a 7V r Co C n ►3 mo n O H ►3 CO n Kl Mq z 0 z ��o r r 0 0 ,r-7 PI tr" v) Po y x x[11 Ex] d n v) .4 rn \ cn CO 1-1 0 0 z pC cn z cn 4-4 z z z z C) 9 r-1 C7 Co n c O C) C) til SI CA 0 Si 70 7 \ Co Z CO CI Z Co til 9 n G' Cl) 1-1 r Cl) C: r x = Co Coz 'V CCI Co9a Cr, o 0 C CI Z X' � < o H m n \-7 Ccn rit n 1-1 Z CoSI [of 4-I Fi z z 4-4 H • z z CO o o O O O 0 0 Q` •D 0 1-4 j• r T F cr. W W N Co .L• Z a 4" N N A r N r N r 1, N C n W r r r r •o r r N O N = n II II 1 CO 0 I I I 1, 1, i, A A .0 - N . C=7 C W W W W W N W W vi N W 'rb Z CO •0 Co r •O r N N N r r H O O O 0 0 O r r O O O M. vi O O 0 o. 0 0 N •0 r O OM O 0 0 N 0 0 0 cn r 1"1 N 0 O 0 0 v+ 0 0 0 �+ o z co w 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w w o CO r 0 O o 0 o r ✓ r � CM cn r r v1 H C) SI z 0 z z ,,:iw o til 70 4-1 r1 1-1 4-4 1-1 1-1 1-1 r 1-1 1-1 r Z b 'c b mo ro ,TI 'v mi ro 'b "d 'v a w CC r cD �1 'T1 "7 ^T1 '11 '1 0 C C C C C C 0 z z z z z z C a a a a a a z * It 4t It 4k It 0 1-4r Co A -- r O 0 !--' W N — O O O A ---- A m 0 z C7 C z > xi 'C 'r1 H O 0 H w 0 r 'D 'D N V1 V) N W V) N h-' < F--. CO 4 F-• N O a\ a. .. h-' cr, Lri Co F-' ---1 W .L, V, CO VI V) N l'i W o CO r v v, 0 0 > In c.) 0 0 0 v, ON ON 0 0 0 0 0 b w ao CD 0 CO CO Co p Co CO Co Co p Co ppp d HHHHHHHHHHHHHH CD 4• _ 4- 4- 4 4- 4- 4- 4" 4- 4- . - . - 4- 4- rte.• 14 x LA) \0 \0 \O \O \O \O \O \O \O v0 '.0 \O\O re) �.' F•' N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O\ W H N �n O\ w -4 -,1 H CO N 0 n H• 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A •4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et 0 O\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,-S 0 TJ 0 Co O CO COCo Co Co Co Co HH 'AY t•� r-+ C b H H H H H H H r H H r r H r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 a H r H H r H H H r H r r r r n P CDD O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 n a I w > n � r - w 0 N \0 CO N 0 W CA a -..“-0 H N w '31 \O 0\ N --1 '.0 N 0 p H N) w H '-n Co O\ CO C\Lo VI "0 w .0 w0 z CP HL p 0 -4 H H w w 0 \O 0 Co 4-0 Nw \31 0 W 4' 0 0 4• O N N Co - - '.0 H p n 1 �'W *3s,.. �� _ 0 'TI �J =I �7 X1 _ �1 =1 Z r 7 W '1 cD cD CD cD cD CD cD lD (D (D CD (D (D H N�O W O 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 W Cl) '-h H. I. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. r. ... H. c+ c+ c* c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ 0- (D 0 'O Cly 'TJ S 0 'VM'U) 3 't7 '_i M '•j P t i i t I-I (D P Cr1 0 H (D H H .< < B Z '-3 C] P' B = '-) H a C) H a 0 > > H (I > a) F > CZ CD'-s 0" '1 P HHB B HB 0 CD Cl] Cl] N 'CS d 0 til ml W w w w w W w c... '..., w W w w w A r V) '0 \O VD VD \O VD VD \O '0 '0 \.0 7c O\ 0\ 0\ C\ 0\ 0\ O\ 0\ C\ C\ 0\ 0\0\0\ N V7 V1 .F- t- 4- 4- 4- 4- + 4' 4• . - J- 1-' 0 \O Co -4 O\ \n 4- W N H 0 0 0 z 0 O 3 'V 0 3 CII > ' = "0 A = = 3 C O Z tzi O P H '=J til t 1 0 P (p B• to > 3 .0 0 > > C!] B .0 O. CD 'K 0 C] O Ro CCD 0 POi o 1+3 0 P < '-h B (n B Imo• r. 0) 7C \ 0 7; H. < Cn HH' Cl)< c$- > CD ? P CA (D CD H CD O Co a 1 A X A Co N H �.. w -1 c3+ - w 1- N W \n \0 ON N 11 'O C\ w IN-H '.n CO H Or\ Co O\ w CO N• Lo CO 0 w 0 w t~•• 0 0 4- 0 N 0N / :".56c) rTh \I°ENT TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Filling New Position In The Finance Department DATE: October 30, 1992 Introduction When the 1992 Budget was adopted, it was planned to hire another employee in Finance towards the end of the year. One of the factors was in the planned timing was moving onto the new building. I am requesting authorization to begin the process of filling the position. Background When the 1992 budget was adopted, funding was included to hire another employee in finance later in the year. The 1993 proposed budget includes funding for the fourth position. The agreement with the county has been authorized by Council and the county board whereby the county will provide personnel services to the city at cost. Accordingly, I am requesting that Council authorization be given to have the county develop the posting, advertise and screen applications for this position. A proposed job description is attached. The Assistant City Administrator has contacted Labor Relations and the proposed position has tentatively been assigned a value of 75 points. The salary range for 75 points for an exempt position is $28,926 to $38,568. Staff will prepare an amendment to the pay plan to add the proposed position when a candidate is recommended to Council for hiring. Alternatives 1. Do not proceed to fill the position. 2. Modify the proposed job description. 3. Utilize the county personnel office to advertise and screen applications. 4. Proceed with filling the position without using the county services. Recommendation Proceed with filling the proposed position utilizing the county services. Action Requested Move to authorize advertising for the position of Accountant and utilize the services of the county Personnel Department for posting, advertising and screening of the applications. Position : Accountant Department: Finance Accountable to: Finance Director Primary Obiective of Position Assist the Finance Director in various phases of the operation of the department including maintaining required controls to assure sound accounting and reporting practices necessary for preparation of various financial reports. Examples of Work - Assist with the preparation of various financial reports and other reports and subsidiary schedules. - Assist with preparation of the annual budget. - Monitor monthly financial reports for completeness, accuracy and budget compliance and takes appropriate action including monthly input and reconciliations. - Keeps Finance Director informed of variations in accounting practices and other important observations as they are noted in the processing of accounting detail or otherwise. - Back up payroll processor in the absence of the primary processor. - Assist in the development and maintenance of departmental procedure and policy manuals. - Monitor and assist in utility billing processes, procedures and resolve complaints. - Perform various research and reporting projects as assigned. - May provide work leadership to other accounting personnel. - Performs other duties, assumes other responsibilities as assigned or apparent. Knowledge, Skills and Ability Knowledge of governmental accounting, financing and record keeping procedures and practices. Ability to apply the principles, theories and concepts of accounting to the city's accounting system. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships and communications with employees, management and the general public. Ability to work independently and with initiative. Ability to analyze facts, prepare and report conclusions, both orally and in writing. Ability to operate office machines and computers including Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect and other software. Training and Experience Bachelors degree in accounting. Experience in governmental accounting and financial operations desirable. 13i\ TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1993 Budget Items DATE: October 23, 1992 Some of the follow up items from previous budget discussions are: 1) Charge Sanitary Sewer Fund $10,000 annually starting in 1993 for administrative overhead and non-allocated staff time. 2) Charge Storm Drainage Fund $10,000 annually starting in 1993 for administrative overhead and non-allocated staff time. 3) Investment management fee. The new audit firm retained by Council was contacted. The firm has several cities charging such a fee including Minnetonka and Chanhassen. The usual range is 2-3% of earnings with the highest being 5%. A key consideration is what is reasonable in relation to the time staff spends on investments or the cost of management. Accordingly, charging a fee that would generate $50,000 may be hard to justify if staff is only spending $10,000 worth of time on investments. 4) Engineering multiplier for internal billing. The current multiplier effect is about 2.0. Based on 1991 charge outs, increasing the multiplier to 2.9 (of direct hourly wage rate) would yield an increase of $59,000 in engineering fees. Adding new employees to the department at 70% billable time for 1/2 half year of productive work at the 2.9 multiplier would yield an additional $56,000. Council can consider increasing the budget estimate of engineering fees by $115,000 and thereby reducing the tax increase. One thing to keep in mind is that to the extent that taxes are paying for a project (i.e. 75% of street reconstruction) increasing the fees will increase future tax levies for debt service. 5) Track fiscal disparities option. The track was paying $363,342 in fiscal disparities taxes in District 4. The Springsted schedule for the reduction in value shows an estimate of $62,661. If 21% of the fiscal disparities impact falls on property outside of the city, then the effect would be as if the city would levy $49,500 less when the option to change is exercised. 6) Recap 1991/92 levy $2,615,013 1992/93 proposed 3,329,350 Increase 714,337 Utility admin charge (20,000) Investment Mgt fee (20,000) Engineering fees rate change (59,000) Engineering fees new employees (56,0001 Reduced increase 559,337 21.4% New gross levy 3,174,350 Effect of fiscal disp option 49,000 1.9% Est. effective of tax increase 19.5% inc. 7) Net tax levy 1991/92 1992/93 Gross levy $2,615,013 $3,174,350 21.4% HACA (373,329) (417,232) 11.8% Fiscal Disp. Dist. Levy (295,6651 (318,3821 7.7% Net levy 1,946,019 2,438,736 18.1% Fiscal Disparities option 1.9% Net tax est. effect 16.2% City of Shakopee Track Fiscal Disparities Payments 91/92 Percent City City TCR Of Share Share Rate Total Value % of $ City 24.0% 18.12% 100% 0.18 School 66.5% 50.26% 97% 0.49 County 41.8% 31.62% 37% 0.12 132.3% 100.0% 78.6% For every dollar of track fiscal disparities that the "city" as a whole picks up, areas of the county outside of the City pay 21% In a manner of speaking, the City gains back some of the lost fiscal disparities Pay 1992 Track Fiscal Disparities $43M Value $14M Value District 1 286,463 FD Exempt District 4 363,342 62,661 FD Option -21% $49,500 na\iSE.N. f ,„..) , i -j MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator ) FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director I 1-,* 4;SUBJECT: Bloomington Ferry Bridge , DATE: October 27, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3692 , approving final plans and specifications for Stage 2B of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge for City Council consideration. BACKGROUND: Staff has received the attached correspondence from Scott County requesting City Council approval of Stage 2B of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge. Stage 2B consists of the north approach spans to the bridge located within Eden Prairie and Bloomington. There is some minor work being done within the Corporate Limits of Shakopee, hence the need for Shakopee to approve these plans. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3692 , A Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications for Stage 2B (North Bridge Approaches) for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge, Project No. S.P. 70-618-09 and move its adoption. DEH/pmp MEM3692 : .' SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (612) 496-8346 FAX (612) 496-8365 BRADLEY J. LARSON Highway Engineer DANIEL M.JOBE October i4 , 1992 Asst. Highway Engineer-Design DON D. PAULSON Asst.Highway Engineer-Construction Mr. Dave Hutton, P.E . Director of Public Works City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re : CSAH 18/Bloomington Ferry Bridge Dear Dave : We are submitting one set of construction plans for Stage 2B of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge project for City review and approval . Stage 2B construction plans involve the construction of the north approach spans of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge in Eden Prairie and Bloomington. However, since mitigation work, mainly converting existing CSAH 18 into a trail facility upon completion of the bridge, is included in this stage and some of that work falls within the Shakopee city limits , City approval is required. Design of this project is substantially complete . Continuing coordination with Mn/DOT may result in detail changes to the plans . However, such changes should be of a technical nature and should not affect the essential elements of the projects . Attached is a sample resolution for approval of this stage . Your earliest attention to the approval is appreciated. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact this office . Sincere-1 Bradley J . Larson, P .E . County Highway Engineer BJL/kmg Att. An Equal Opportunity IAffirmative Action Employer RESOLUTION NO. 3692 A Resolution Approving The Plans And Specifications For Stage 2B (North Bridge Approaches) For The Bloomington Ferry Bridge Project No. S.P. 70-618-09 WHEREAS, plans for Project No. S.P. 70-618-09 showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades and cross-sections for the construction, reconstruction or improvement of County State Aid Highway No. 18 within the limits of the City as a Federal State Aid Project has been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: that said plans be in all things approved. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney / 4) rjiys-b\j I RESOLUTION NO. 3696 A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RAHR MALTING COMPANY WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has received a check from Rahr Malting Company in the amount of $5, 000.00; and WHEREAS, the check will be used to purchase new carpeting for the Shakopee Public Library; and WHEREAS, Rahr Malting has been a community minded business and has graciously contributed to numerous community projects; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Shakopee City Council, on behalf of the City of Shakopee and citizens of the community, does hereby extend its thanks and appreciation to Rahr Malting Company for their generous contribution. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 3rd day of November, 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney T OIC_ MEMO TO: DENNIS KRAFT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DAVE HUTTON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: 1992-1993 SNOW AND ICE CONTROL PLAN ij V DATE: OCTOBER 27 , 1992 INTRODUCTION Attached is Resolution No. 3691, adopting the 1992-1993 Snow and Ice Control Plan of the Public Works Department for City Council consideration. BACKGROUND Each year the City Council of Shakopee adopts a Snow and Ice Control Plan for the Public Works Department. The adoption of a formal Snow and Ice Control Plan by the City Council is strongly encouraged by our insurance carrier, The League of Minnesota Cities, for liability reasons. In November, 1991 the City Council adopted the Snow and Ice Plan for the 1991-92 winter season by adopting Resolution No. 3492 . Attached is the revised Snow and Ice Control Plan for the 1992-1993 plowing season. Basically, this plan is identical to last years plan with the following revisions: 1. All reference to separate street employees and park employees has been eliminate, since all employees have been changed to one job title, namely Maintenance Workers, as part of the reorganization of the Public Works Department. 2 . All new streets constructed in 1992 have been added to the snow route assignment lists. 3 . Equipment changes due to purchasing new equipment in 1992 or selling old equipment have been made. 4 . Certain snow plow routes have been reassigned to different operators in order to maximize the efficiencies of the operation. 5 . The "on-call" contractor has been eliminated. This contractor has not been utilized in 3 years and the one time that the department requested assistance (during last years Halloween storm) he was unavailable. The department completed that storm with no outside assistance. Therefore, Staff feels that there is no need for an on-call contractor. If we ever get in a bind, there are numerous area contractors that could be called on to try and provide assistance. 6 . The utilization of the weather forecasting service, Total Weather, Inc. , was added to the plan. 7 . The minor damage section (section XII Accident Procedures) was modified for the following two items: A. Mailboxes that no longer meet U.S. Post Office construction requirements that get knocked over due to the weight of the plowed snow (for example rotten post, loose posts, etc. ) will no longer be replaced by the City but will be the homeowners responsibility. Mailboxes that are actually struck by the plow blade itself and damaged will continue to be replaced or repaired by the City. It is quite easy to determine when the plow blade hits a mailbox versus defective construction. B. Damaged grass strips narrower than 18" will be repaired in the spring by seeding, rather than sodding. Damaged strips wider than 18" will continue to be sodded. It is very difficult to use sod to repair very narrow strips of grass damage. Attached is the entire 1992-93 Snow and Ice Control Plan for City Council consideration. Staff realizes that the plan is quite lengthy, but outside of the above revisions, the plan is essentially the same as last years. Attached is Resolution No. 3691, which adopts this plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3691. 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3691. 3 . Table Resolution No. 3691. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. It is desirable to adopt this plan prior to November 15, 1992 . ACTION REQUESTED Offer Resolution No. 3691, A Resolution Adopting the 1992-93 Snow and Ice Control Plan for the City of Shakopee and move its adoption. i _ CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1992 - 93 i .... ...... A , 7 ,. L. _. . tk .: ,c., ;:_, y0AKORE� if ,; - -_ 1--- . 00.1 ). kAii_kiii . . s...._ , ,, i .- , 11. my 1 LI I _. gli_ 1,.,--9 Di w 1: li.'. --er a jr. _ . 11 L ei �• . -� :74;r:r — lif. •4141.'""*"'""'"': ,..i siii' *•. ; IV; • blitsi, - . . Aii.,.• ____,_1:2?3,.,,,,r--_-------\..7 6 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ill ill SNOW AND ICE CONTROL PLAN Document filed with Resolution No . 3691 ! MEMORANDUM,_ oi pmr 17,7. \1 i TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney DATE: October 23 , 1992 RE: Raffle Exemption for MN Thoroughbred Assoc. Attached is a draft ordinance to grant an exemption to the MN Thoroughbred Association for their proposed raffle(s) . This allows them to have raffles without spending their proceeds in Shakopee. The approach is not what we discussed at Council, but I think it resolves the problem. What do you think? Signed - ` 27 Karen Mart , Cit ttorney KEM:bjm [23MEMO] Attachment ORDINANCE NO. , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 10. 61, GAMBLING, BY REPEALING SUBD. 3 , EXCEPTION, AND ADOPTING ONE NEW SUBD. 3 RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Section 10. 61, Gambling, is hereby amended by repealing Subd. 3 , Exception, and adopting one new Subd. 3 , Exceptions, which shall read as follows: SEC. 10 . 61. GAMBLING. Subd. 3 . Exceptions. A. Any organization holding a State organization gambling license may conduct not more than one raffle in any given calendar year if it is held in conjunction with a banquet and/or a dance, without complying with Subd. 2 . B. Any organization exempt under Minn. Stat. 349. 166 may conduct not more than five raffles in any given calendar year, without complying with Subd. 2 , if, prior to selling any raffle tickets, the organization submits proof satisfactory to the City that more than 75% of the raffle tickets are reasonably expected to be sold to non-residents of the City of Shakopee. Proof may include evidence that the tickets shall be sold statewide, at a facility with a large regional attraction, or to a set of people not generally found in Shakopee (e.g. members of an organization of whom fewer than 25% are Shakopee residents) . Note: The underlined language is inserted. Section 2 - General Provisions. City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty For Violation, and Section 10.99, Violation a Petty Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City 91erk Approved as to form: / -- , City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1992 . (23MEMO] -2- ire MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Resolution No. 3699 , Apportioning Special Assessments DATE: October 29 , 1992 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: Parcel #27-055005-0 has been subdivided into two parcels. There are existing special assessments against this parcel. Because of its ' subdivision into two new parcels, it is appropriate to apportion the assessments against the two new resultant parcels. The attached Resolution apportions the existing special assessments against the original parcel between the two new resultant parcels. The two property owners of the new parcels have been advised of this proposed apportionment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 3699 , A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Land, Parcel No. 27-055005-0, and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 3699 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND PARCEL NO. 27-055005-0 WHEREAS, on March 19, 1991, Resolution No. 3375 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefitted by construction of Valley Industrial Boulevard North between CR-83 and Valley Park Drive, Project #1990-8; and WHEREAS, a tract of land benefitted by the said improvements, known as parcel number 27-055005-0, has been subdivided so as to create two parcels; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remaining unpaid against said tract between the two newly created parcels; and WHEREAS, the property owners involved have been notified of this proposed action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE: 1. That the 1992 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel 27-055005-0 is $16,876. 01 for the 1990-8 Valley Industrial Boulevard North Improvement Project and is hereby apportioned as follows: PROPERTY LEGAL P. I.D.NO. OWNER DESCRIPTION 1990-8 (69) 27-055005-0 Twin City Tile & Lot 1, Block 4 $6, 848 . 67 Marble Co. lying S'rly of 8857 Zealand a line drawn W. Avenue North from a pt. on Brklyn Park. Mn. E. line 634. 51' 55445 N. of SE cor. Valley Park 1st Addition 27-055005-1 John & Doris Lot 1, Block 4 10, 027.34 Brambilla lying N'rly of 114 N. Holmes St. a line drawn W. Shakopee, Mn. 55379 from a pt. on E. line 634 . 51 ' N. of SE cor. Valley Park 1st Addition Resolution NO. 3699 Page -2- 2 . That all other parts of Resolution No. 3375 shall continue in effect. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of November, 1992 . Mayor City Clerk Approved as to form , City Attorney_ Ladbroke October 30, 1992 Hon. Gary Laurent 129 First Avenue East Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Layoffs at Canterbury Downs Dear Mayor Laurent: On July 10, 1992, we informed you that there would be layoffs of many seasonal and non-seasonal employees at the end of the live meet on September 12, 1992 and shortly thereafter, at Canterbury Downs, 1100 Canterbury Road, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379. We enclosed with our correspondence a list of the affected employees, their job titles, the number of affected employees in each department, and the fourteen day period in which each employee would be terminated. These layoffs did occur and are permanent. We also informed you that the employment of other employees after 1992 depended upon whether the Racing Commission would permit simulcasting for a period after October 9, 1992. Our list identified these "conditional" employees as well. Ladbroke was notified in September, 1992, by the Racing Commission that simulcasting would be permitted until December 31, 1992. Affected employees were notified of this extension. Ladbroke is still seeking the Racing Commission's approval to simulcast after that date. Ladbroke may know by late November whether it will or will not have the Commission's approval and if approved, the period of simulcasting. Ladbroke intends to simulcast for the approved period if an extension is granted. The employment of almost all employees at Canterbury Downs will be terminated at the end of the presently permitted simulcast period (December 31, 1992), or shortly thereafter, if Ladbroke is not permitted to simulcast after that date. These layoffs will be permanent and the entire track will be shut down with the exception of a few maintenance and other employees. Ladbroke does not know whether it will re-open the track for the 1993 or any future live meet season. None of the employees (union or non-union) have bumping rights. We have enclosed with this correspondence a list which provides the names of the employees who will be terminated during the period December 31, 1992 to January 13, 1993, their job titles and the number of affected employees in each department, unless Ladbroke is permitted by the Racing Commission to simulcast after that date. Employees represented by the union are designated by the codes "SNU" or "FNU". (See the legend enclosed with the list.) DAA017A7.WP5 Ladbroke Racing Corporation 28001 Schoolcraft Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150-2288 Phone(313)525-1217 FAX#(313)525-2288 We have also enclosed a list which includes all the names and addresses of each affected employee. The employees who are represented by a union are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The chief elected officer of the local union (local 292) is Greg Shafranski and he can be reached at 312 Central Avenue, Suite 292, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414. The chief elected officer of the national union is J.J. Barry and he can be reached at 1125 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. The enclosed list reflects the total number of employees who may be affected. This notice is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and any provisions under Minnesota state law should either one of those acts apply to any closings or layoffs and/or the employees who are affected by the same. If you have any questions please contact William J. Bork in writing at 28001 Schoolcraft Rd., Livonia, MI 48150-2288. Sincerely, LADBROKE RACING CANTERBURY, INC. (..,&0_,....tw--- /67-V--- William J. Bor 9Vice President Racing Operations cc: Dennis Kraft DAA017A7.WP5 OGDEN ; ■ ■ ■ ■ _ Y> y .. �_. . . October 30 , 1992 NOV 0 21992 Mayor Gar aurent CM OF SHAKOPEE 129 Fir Avenue East Shak ee, MN 55379 - RE: LAYOFFS AT CANTERBURY DOWNS Dear Mayor Laurent , We regret to inform you that Ogden Entertainment Services will cease operations at Canterbury Downs, 1100 Canterbury Road, Shakopee, MN 55379 on December 31 , 1992 or shortly thereafter causing permanent layoff of all remaining employees . The union employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The business representative is John Beneke and he can be reached at 312 Central Avenue, Suite 292 , Minneapolis , MN 55414 . This notice is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act and any provision under Minnesota State law should either one of these acts apply to any closing or layoff and/or the employees who are affected by the same. If there should be any questions or concerns please contact me at 496-7732 . Thank you for the consideration. Sincer-ly, /! Robert J. P hl General Manager