Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1995 TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JANUARY 10, 1995 LOCATION: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 5: 30 p.m. 2] Approve the minutes of November 9th, 22nd, 29th, and December 14th, 1994 3 ] Funding of Capital Projects 4 ] Neighborhood Meetings 5] Blocks 3 and 4 , Shakopee City - provide direction 6] Other Business: a] Set date to meet with SPUC b] 7 ] Adjourn at 7 : 00 p.m. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator REMINDER: January 24th - Committee of the Whole at 5 : 30 p.m. r u - OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE NOVEMBER 9 . 1994 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 6: 08 P.M. with Cncl. Brekke, Lynch, Beard, and Sweeney present. Also present: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director; Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer; Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Lynch/Sweeney moved to approve the minutes of October 12th and 25th, 1994 . (Cncl. Brekke abstaining) Motion carried. Paul Bilotta gave a presentation on housing and discussed Shakopee's growth and home ownership rates in comparison with the metro area. Mr. Bilotta discussed the Federal Housing Affordability Standards criteria for affordable housing costs. He stated that Shakopee is slightly more affordable in home ownership than the metro area. Mr. Bilotta stated that Shakopee's participation in programs such as section 8, rental assistance, and single-family first time home buyer's is in excess of the percentage of the county population. Mr. Bilotta discussed the goals, objective, and policies from the Comprehensive Plan Review. Only those areas listed as alternates were discussed. Transportation Goal No. 1. Provide a safe, efficient and economical street system that satisfies both local and regional transportation needs. Discussion ensued on Alternative 1 of 1 . 3 .c. Streets shall be reconstructed in accordance with current City street standards or to the existing pavement width, whichever is greater. If a street is reconstructed in excess of current City standards, the full cost of oversizing will be borne by all City residents and not by the adjacent property owners. Consensus to direct staff to look into the cost implications of increasing the street width to 44 feet or reducing it to 32 feet. Transportation Goal No. 1 . 3 .d. Street construction standards will be examined to determine if a higher construction standard should be used in order to maximize pavement life and minimize maintenance costs to the City. h Consensus to retain Alternative 1 of 1. 3 .d.d that replacingn on going "a with "alternative construction standards" , process be applied to street construction. Official Proceedings of the November 9, 1994 Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -2- Transportation Goal No. 2 . 1.a. Provide a city-wide system of sidewalks and bicycle paths. Discussion ensued on Alternative 2 of 2 . 1. a. recommended by the Planning Commission: "The City will complete and implement the Sidewalk/Trail Plan to establish minimum levels of service, funding mechanisms and development requirements. " Consensus to retain Alternative 2 of 2 . 1.a. Transportation Goal No. 2 . 1.b. Discussion ensued on Alternative 2 . 1.b. The City will urge Scott County to include paved shoulders in its rural design roads and will share with the County the added cost of such features. Beard/Lynch moved to retain Alternative 1 of 2 . 1.b. but ending at "roads" , and replacing "urge" with "encourage" , and entering this under the roadway section. Motion carried unanimously. Transportation Goal No. 2 . 1. c. Discussion ensued on Alternative 2 of 2 . 1 . c. Along collector and Arterial streets, bicycle and in-line skating traffic circulation shall be provided on-street in a dedicated lane or off-street on a bicycle/pedestrian path and considered a minimum level of service. Sidewalks shall not be used for bicycle or in-line skating traffic. Consensus to retain Alternative 2 of 2 . 1.c. and broaden the language for not on foot traffic. Sanitary Sewers Goal No. 4 . Maximize the efficient use of treatment facilities by eliminating sources of infiltration and inflow in the collection system. Discussion ensued on Alternative 1 of 4 . 1.d. The City will oppose pumping permits for unbillable water. Consensus to retain Alternative 1 of 4 . 1.d. adding "within areas served by municipal waters. " Surface Water Goal No. 2 . 4 . Surface Water Goal No. 2 . 4 Preserve and protect wetlands. Discussion ensued on Alternative 1 of 2 . 4 . e. The City will not allow any mowing, burning, or other non-filling related alteration to an existing wetland without its expressed written approval . Consensus that no policy is necessary because wetlands are already covered by statutory requirements. Parks, Trails and Open Space Goal No. 3 . Protect and enhance recreational facilities and fish and wildlife habitat. Discussion ensued on Alternative 1 of 3 . 1.b. The City will encourage the expansion of DNR fish stocking programs in appropriate lakes and streams of the City. Official Proceedings of the November 9 , 1994 Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -3- Consensus to remove Goal 3 . 1.b. from the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Goal No. 1 . Promote safe, decent housing in a suitable living environment at a reasonable cost for all families and individuals. Discussion ensued on Alternatives for 1. 1.c. , whether or not to require inspections at the time of sale of single-family housing. Consensus to remove Goal l. l.c. from the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Goal No. 1. Discussion ensued on 1. 1.e. The City will enforce its ordinance mandating periodic inspections and minimum levels of maintenance for all multiple-family rental housing. Consensus to retain 1. 1. e. and to reference the ordinance mandating periodic inspections for health and safety ordinances. Discussion ensued regarding the language in the Comprehensive Plan such as "minimum level of service, " and "will/shall. " It was the consensus of Council to add some form of introductory statement regarding the language. Mayor Laurent recessed the meeting for a break at 7 : 53 P.M. Mayor Laurent re-convened the meeting at 8 : 10 P.M. Mr. Ekola, Planning Director, approached the podium. He introduced the Sewer, Transportation and Stormwater Maps to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan to Council. He stated that these documents would be very helpful in land use planning. Mr. Nummer, Staff Engineer, approached the podium. He discussed the allocation of the costs within the trunk sewer policy and the inequity of it. He stated that in dividing the costs over the entire area, costs would be distributed for the Chaska Interceptor to an area that did not benefit from it or have direct access to it. He raised the question equality and how a 20 year debt would be paid for on a 50 year funding schedule. Mr. Nummer introduced three alternatives to this problem. Alternative No. 1: Allocate the costs of all the trunks and the Chaska Interceptor to the entire MUSA area; the advantage is that it would spread the cost of the Chaska Interceptor over a larger area, creating a smaller impact on any particular property. Alternative No. 2 : In order to address the inequity, just the area tributary to the Chaska Interceptor should pay for it. However, should the properties benefitting from the Chaska Interceptor have to pay for that facility, when no other properties in Shakopee have paid for an interceptor sewer? Official Proceedings of the November 9, 1994 Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -4- Alternative No. 3 : Sewer costs should be funded by City-wide funding through a property tax increase, or sanitary sewer rate increase, rather than by a particular drainage area. Discussion followed. Mr. Nummer stated that the City must come up with $1, 700, 000, 00. by the fifth year of the agreement in order to make up the difference in what the trunk charges generate and the Met Council requires the City to pay. He stated that if the money were to be generated solely from sewer rates a . 44 increase per 1000 gallons would be needed through year five. Mr. Nummer stated that the motion made by Council previously was based on the overall condition of the Sanitary Sewer Fund, and that . 32 of the . 44 has already been dedicated through that motion. Discussion followed. Mr. Nummer stated that with Alternative No. 2 , in order to make the payment schedules some type of controls would need to be put into place, such as requiring that the area contributing toward the Chaska Interceptor be developed first, or the City would be subsidizing money again. He stated that there are two ways of doing this: through limited MUSA expansions, or to develop moratoriums for this area. Discussion followed. Mr. Nummer Discussed Alternative No. 3 and stated that by taking the cost of the Chaska Interceptor out and letting the Trunk Sewer Policy pay for trunk sewers, it could be paid for on a City-wide basis. He gave two options: 1) Have an ad valorum tax across the City. 2) Tie it to sewer use and distribute the cost based on sewer use. He stated that the advantage of both options is that the rates could be controlled. Discussion followed on a number of funding options and staff was directed to look at alternatives molding the options. Options included: assessments for sewer reconstruction, T. I . F. dollars, ad valorum taxes, area charge, trunk charges. Consensus that the Chaska Interceptor cost be included in a policy, and that the assessment policy be changed if possible. Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director, approached the podium. He presented the new zoning map and addressed two areas of concern: 1) Murphy's Landing and 2) Canterbury Downs. Official Proceedings of the November 9 , 1994 Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -5- Cncl. Sweeney proposed restricting the Major Recreational zoning in the current Canterbury Downs area to property owned by Canterbury Downs with the understanding that there is a PUD on the way which does not have any amphitheaters, and zone the rest of the property I-i, I-2 as appropriate, or R-4 as appropriate. Mr. Ekola stated that there are three alternatives for this area: 1) Leave the old race track district zoning in place until after the Comprehensive Plan is complete and the new zoning pattern can be established. 2) Adopt a text amendment for the Major Recreation zone which would establish amphitheaters as a conditional or planned unit use and establish requirements for a minimum lot size and minimum distance to residential uses. 3) Place the Canterbury Downs site into the Major Recreation zone placing all other surrounding properties into the desired new Residential, Commercial, and Industrial zones. Discussion followed. Consensus to look at the extra properties at the meeting on December 8 , 1994 and make a recommendation to the City Council to bring something back. Consensus to make a recommendation to the City Council to place the Canterbury Downs site into a Major Recreation zone. Sweeney/Lynch moved to recommend to the City Council the proposed action (to place the Canterbury Downs site into a Major Recreation zone) . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Ekola stated three alternatives for Murphy's Landing. 1) Put it in the Major Recreation zone as recommended by the Planning commission. - 2) Create a new institutional zone for public uses and place all public properties in the city into this zone. 3) Leave it as a Major Recreation zone and add the appropriate use restrictions at the time the property is sold. Discussion followed. Consensus to place Murphy's Landing in the Major Recreation zone, MR-PUD. Official Proceedings of the November 9 , 1994 Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -6- Sweeney/Lynch moved to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the map as modified with the earlier recommendation to place Murphy's Landing in the Major Recreation zone. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Brekke moved to adjourn at 10: 30 P.M. , to November 22 , 1994 at 5: 30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. 114A^OU/L, u ith S. Cox ty Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE NOVEMBER 22 , 1994 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 6: 15 P.M. with Councilmembers Brekke, Lynch, Beard and Sweeney present. Also present: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator; Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director; Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner. Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner, approached the podium. He discussed the Comprehensive Plan Mapping - Residential/MUSA. He stated that the residential/MUSA map brings together the information that has been presented before, for instance the Comp Sanitary Sewer Plan, Transportation Plan, BRW Plan, etc. Mr. Bilotta identified all of the Cities' existing MUSA boundaries in Northern Scott County and the regional transportation and sanitary sewer systems. He identified a number of land issues: the MWCC property, reservation lands, the Fischer gravel mine, Jackson Township properties, the area West of Deans' Lake outside the MUSA and the Ames property for mineral extraction for the bypass. Mr. Bilotta explained that the sanitary sewer plan map is critical for looking at growth phasing. He identified the 15 potential opportunities for trunk sewer expansion and showed the sewer subdistricts that each trunk would service. He explained that the Planning Commission is recommending MUSA extensions for H and K (H = 1, 000+ acres and will serve approximately 7, 300 people and K = 500 acres and will serve approximately 2 , 000 people) . He explained that this recommendation was based on the Planning Commission's desire to serve the largest logical growth areas with the minimum of public expenditure. These areas appear to be the most cost effective options. Discussion followed. Mr. Bilotta stated that at this time Jackson Township is indicating that they have no desire to annex to the City of Shakopee. The recommended growth areas assume the Jackson Township position will continue in the near future. Mr. Ekola stated that the intent of the meeting of December 14 , 1994 with the townships and the county might be to promote orderly development and to bring the County and Townships into closer cooperation with the City. Mr. Bilotta stated that the Planning Commission will be getting into specific concerns in December with their public hearings. General information is being presented to Council at this time and next time it will be more specific. Official Proceedings of the November 22 , 1994 Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -2- Dave Polacek approached the podium. He addressed some MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) concerns regarding County Road 17 and the bypass. He stated that he was not sure when the appropriate time is to address these areas. Mayor Laurent stated that Mr. Polacek should attend every meeting because the direction of any particular meeting is unknown. He suggested Mr. Polacek put his concerns in writing and submit them to staff to make it more formal and to receive more reaction. Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 7: 34 P.M. dith S. Cox ty Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE NOVEMBER 29 , 1994 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 5: 56 P.M. with Councilmembers Brekke, Lynch, Beard, and Sweeney present. Also present: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director, Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator (arrived late) ; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Barry Stock explained that he had just received a call from Mr. Bohram Akradi stating that he was running late. Mr. Stock asked City Council to take a 10 minute break. Mayor Laurent recessed the meeting for a ten minute break at 5 : 59 P.M. The meeting re-convened at 6: 16 P.M. Bahram Akraki, President of Lifetime Fitness, approached the podium. He reviewed his report on the Community Center Phase I . He pointed out that the size of the ice rink needs to be 36, 000 sq ft and not 10, 000 sq ft. He explained that either the ice facility or the community center could be built first. Discussion ensued regarding the competition between the Chaska Community Center and the Dakota Center which would affect the number of memberships to be obtained for the Shakopee Community Center thus affecting the profit of the center. Mr. Akradi stated that he felt confident he could meet the estimated construction costs based on his history of projections. He estimated the construction cost of the fitness center at $5 . 8 million, and the ice arena at $2 , 000j00O, 0O. Mr. Akradi explained that none of the three facilities in the area (Chaska, Dakota Community, and Shakopee) will break even on operating costs because of the population of the area of 40, 000 . He stated that the decision that the City Council needs to make is how much the City wants to do as a community service. Mr. Akradi stated that no one in the private sector would ever build an ice arena because of low revenue and high expenses and suggested that the City build one. He suggested limiting the hours the arena would be open and booking up the peak hours of 5: 30 - 10: 30 P.M. in order to minimize expenses. Mr. Akradi discussed possible membership rates based on the survey performed. Based on Chaska and Dakota' s fees he proposed a $20. 00 fee which was in between the two centers. Official. Proceedings of the November 29, 1994 - Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -2- Mayor Laurent stated that the City is short of recreational space at this time and that Council needs to take another look at the operational side of the Community Center issue. He also raised the question as to how much the City is willing to spend or lose in order to provide a service; noting that the current recreation program operates in the hole. Mr. Akradi was asked to breakdown the components of the Community Center in terms of operation and construction costs for separate components such as just a pool, just a fitness center, or any other combination. His response was that if you have a pool you need the locker rooms and/or showers, etc. He reminded staff that they are competing with full service facilities and in order to draw people in they need to provide a better service than the other centers do or a service that they do not provide; such as an ice arena. After discussion of various components Councilmembers came to the consensus that the meeting be adjourned and staff return at a later date with more specific options to discuss. Mayor Laurent thanked Mr. Akradi for his presentation which was done with integrity and professionalism. Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 8 : 12 P.M. - C)-. 6C.--, J dith S. C x ity Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 14 , 1994 (Joint meeting with Shakopee City Council, Scott County Board, Jackson Town Board and Louisville Town Board) Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 55 p.m. with Councilmembers Brekke, Lynch, Beard, and Sweeney present. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Lindberg Ekola, Planning Director; Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner; and Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer. Present from Scott County: Commissioner Dick Underferth, Art Banner, Commissioner Elect, and Jon Westlake, Planning Director. Present from Jackson Township: Supervisors Norbert Theis and Mark Luce, and Rosalyn Menke, Town Clerk. Present from Louisville Township: Supervisors Marion Schmidt, William Dellwo, and Bill Tech, and James Theis, Town Clerk. Present from Metropolitan Council: Julius Smith, Councilmember, and Jim Uttley, staff member. Mr. Ekola gave an overview of the bid letting dates and projected completion dates for the Southerly Bypass and the Chaska Interceptor. Mayor Laurent summarized the recent process involving the Jackson Township and City's annexation agreement and the annexation of property North of the Southerly Bypass to the City of Shakopee. He stated that he thought that the process went very well. Mr. Norbert Theis noted that there are some areas within the annexation that may not have access to sewer. Mayor Laurent stated that the City has hired a consultant to look into this matter and that there may be a need for a lift station. Mr. Nummer stated that the preliminary indications are that this area will be able to be served but that some homes may need to be built on slabs or be designed as split entry homes, depending upon the depth of the sewer. Mr. Bilotta reviewed the current status of the City's comprehensive plan. He also identified the areas planned for MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) expansion and the rationale for their selection. Mr. Theis expressed concern that the Chaska Interceptor was going through Jackson Township and that they had had no input and that they can not hook-up to it. Mr. Uttley responded. Mayor Laurent explained that when designing a system, you have to look at all of the areas that will ultimately be served. He explained that Shakopee has not yet adopted their comprehensive Official Proceedings of the December 14, 1994 - Shakopee City Council (COW) Page -2- plan and that the purpose of this meeting is for everyone to be able to give input. Mr. Smith explained that it is legislative policy that sewer be extended to cities only. Urban areas, townships should become incorporated or annexed to cities. It is general policy that they don't want urban townships. Mr. Uttley agreed with Mr. Smith. He said that the trend is to reduce the number of government bodies and consolidation of smaller cities with larger cities. Mr. Smith explained that the Chaska Interceptor came about quickly. It is policy to phase out small plants and to replace them with larger metro plants. He said that- the Chaska Interceptor is going in primarily because the Chaska plant needed replacement and primarily now because of the bypass construction. It is funded out of SAC (sewer availability charge) charges, primarily. Mr. Westlake explained the status of the County's comprehensive development plan. Mr. Norbert Theis stated that he would like to see 2 1/2 acre lots and ghost platting so that the area can be planned for future development when sewer is available. Discussion followed on the viability of the ghost platting process. . Mr. Westlake stated that controlled growth is desirable so that services can be provided and so that the problems that come with growth can be handled. He stated that more development equals more problems and suggested that the townships weigh this before they do more development. Mayor Laurent stated that he would like to see another joint meeting after the Scott County Comprehensive Plan is more refined in January. Cncl . Sweeney reviewed the City of Savage domestic water supply problems. Mr. Uttley stated that it is good that the cities are getting together. He explained that a water plan from each municipality is needed by 1996. Mayor Laurent thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 9 : 31 p.m. i1Ute, 7 th S. Cox, City Clerk R ording Secretary J TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Project Funding DATE: January 6, 1995 Introduction At the 12/14/94 Council meeting, Council directed staff to prepare funding options for the bypass drainage commitment. Background Council committed to participation in the cost of drainage work for the south bypass several years ago. The cost had not been included in the CIP process. The approximate dollar amount was not known until very recently and came as a surprise to city officials. The amount for the first part of the work covered is about $750,000 compared to the $1, 060, 000 previously considered and it is expected that the city will have to pay in March 1995. The second part could be about $400,000 due in August 1995. Funding options include; 1. CIF - use out of fund balance if not used for another project. CIP projections shows funds available but this would draw down substantially on the CIF. 2 . TIF - use the "cushion" if not used for the Chaska Interceptor or use part of amount earmarked for community center. 3 . General Fund Balance - Could result in serious draw down on fund balance. 4. Recommended option - Storm Drainage Fund - This fund does not have sufficient cash to fund the payments based on the CIP projections. Revenue bonds would need to be issued. Payments on $1, 150, 000 at 6.5% over 10 years would be around $170, 000 per year. Council could use a tax levy to make the bond payments if it is a G.O. Revenue issue. This is an expenditure not shown on the attached CIP page. 5. Combination of above options. Attached are pages out of the CIP for the projected status of the Storm Drainage, Sewer and CIF funds. Also attached is a partially completed schedule of potential bonding for construction projects in 1995. It appears that the cost for the Chaska Interceptor and the River Trunk may be substantially less than projected. The Chaska project could be as low as $2,125, 000 compared to $4,000,000 previously estimated and the River Trunk could be around $300, 000. Engineering may have more solid information at the council meeting. fin\gregg\projects\bond95 • 0 0 0 0 0 CND CCD ' O N N O CO O N O O r T O cc to tO Cf ". et- N C') `9 CDD aro I.• 49 c9 49 a N N 49 49 0 CO • OoCD0 tDD st st CO CONO of C) 0 co N C) r r N C') " CO CO '- i9 (A . to 49 CV N . 49 49 .. E • • • ES O O O O O N N L7) 0 C 0 U) � vt ti h. 0 FA 0 co i co N U) N. CN') CL r '- N r T tD cD .Q — *" 49 i9 49 49 49 CV N ' 49 'A C N C U. N 0 E 0 0 0 0 N N ♦4-. a) r00 0 00 0 0 co co a > CC O O O W W 0 0 C) N r` p O G N r NH '7 � N O CD CD . T _ _ E Q • i9 f9 4 9 V9 49 i9 Q lL Q. Q. 13 ( I Y • 000 0000 N N a) +-a+ O O 0 0 0 0 0 CO Co • E +'' W O O O O O 0 O N N = N O 0 O co O O r O co ID as •O 0 O w f9 N V' 49 N CO C r _ _ Q H i9 .aft a) >' U a I U 0 0 0 0 0 CC ND COO tr) p r r O co_ r N a) 'o to N ' F-. CD 'Nyi 0 co C5) O T r N O h to f r H H c9 r 49N r r H 49 c9 t0 toO ` C O 0 r r E Nco N co v -J m J U C a) O a) m O C cd B_ d 1 O O ca Q C aa)) o) m c) to C co y U) co L ,.. ,.. a) C > -3- C .0 m > 3+ 0 < d ct! C m tZ '' O C C C C u)V ] C NQm t1an. U. C3 Ccd 0 W W W W CL. 03 • 000 0 000 • o o in .ID 0 v 0 C'))_ n 0. 0 0 v N v c\I NI- C) r- V 0 N 0 0 COD co N N. O O 0 N • N O N N N N I-- N i9 N r r 49 69 49 49 44 49 49 49 0 0O00CDNCO r t0 CO CA r. 6 r O 0 N. co co N OC) N r N N N r � N 'd' N N C9 K 49 49 49 r r- t9 H C+9 as 000 O O 000 O N )n 000 O O 000 O O O Cgi CA 'Q_ O Cr) Tr. O O O r C7 N O N Cr) r 0 Cn r O O O CD O of L N N d' O co N O O O O O CD CL (� Co.40, N O r N O N Q co N �-+ r r ' N r CA C9 49 4 49 49 co o C9 C H i9 CDC E C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U)0 )n0 ►: J C 0 N. 0 0 0 0 COD CA Cr) . . LL —i o c CD Iii L O - N 1N�! u�) co r N CONN C) CD 0 Cl) flE CD v} C9 i9 (� 0 0 0 Cf) 0 0 CA 0 U) > L Q) 0 0 0 r 0 0 r N 0 (� +J RS Cr) 0 Cr) N O 0 0) co C) 0 in L) +_ V C- .0 in st O O '7 to O C O V C Q) (' to Cr) Cn CA CD (� •O U .+�/ CND- C9 0 C9 H .�.i C9) f9 cd i� C) r cu L r r r m Q u) eL 0) O 49 i9 '9 V O C CO O !1 .. d N I U �) O �) CSD- q M coN0 to >,� ((� ,a co L O) C) N- N N N co N N CC) V' "0 cVQ -0 •• O Cr) N H Cr)e- O C!) N N C) O C p) C9 C+9 C9 C9 69 N es to CA Cv C C c N N C7 0 CU C') CO r C = o r c c`.) g o w E r O CQ •` r 'c,;* C7 cJ c'10 h N 0- C y ^ C S �� C ,41 N N d `- `' J ?+ 2 a.- E CD 2 o y 0 , `. '- V as d Q = C I C O C CU 0 0 crl C3 C) L C W C➢ CU C d C) U c4 C) i W Z...- ll. u- Y > C C C = 0 V. > tu c3 la y C ct r N %� C Y .0 C C N CO 11) 0CE u- cCCI- 73 L. CU ) .0 1.- Y • cC d a c C a F. OOUCC W w 0 rn Q DOF- NNNv40o 0rU C) a) N .Q C^O r d N l0 Cn 4.9 40 . 49 CV K (09 CV r r C9 VL00OCI tN COC a) O P- V• C) N U_ (C) ,- ,,,o 0 UU) 449 t) 69 r N 440 Cr)N w- 49 49 49 49 49 49 CO 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) CD) t% 1. Nr. N 0 CO r t? i 2 y0 0 co cocN to; tU) H N N CL cd v 49 t1) 49 v �'` (o Co C) L C r-' 49 49 H 49 49 CAC) co C .c . . ti a) O O C) J ; 040NMMa 0 0 O N O O E • Co 'a CD al O V• t9 v H H co (No 0 �. N Q r �9 4.9 44 " VI K 0 Cr; CIS W r t UE a Ein a 'Fsocoa) L' D .0 " 0 0 0 0 0 O M CI L~. '0 co Q + Y O 0O 0 N N n N c o C7 ' +r • al r O r . CON CA In u) W CO CO (--• 0 a .0 • � c*) O M r r 0) 10 Cp >'49 V f1 0 O n h r O 0 CO t O C I� 4...0 •f:5-. co a V y"' r 49 49 49 49 ve co NI- 49 y 0.. O H ` Oto a) >, o cc,O) r C 0 0 0 0 0 O M M 0 •'- 00y co U I 0 U) Lf) C) 0 v CD N 0 'D 49 a LOO N N r 0) CC) CO U) 0 CRi E 0) 0 0 0 Cr; CO r CO i OO C) O 1) O� r • 0) C') r st• 49 'C H r O 10 cob C T '- 49 49 49 49 " r r r r 49 49 49 C CA H d d • C �- Cu o v LL C '- CO CD N a) C o CO to • 0 c 0 y r N 0 C d 1 N 11 U C d 0. O vii N d a. d CU 7 TS CD r r) O. W • c i E W c E • � > LL a a) > C = O (t; a 0 Lo d 2O CO C) to (� C) d C) co a. U tocC CC) C) CO -- CX W W X n5 m < W OU D 0 -e O O • O O O o O O •O .0 0 IA in p0. �- "- IA U) N IA O O IA O IA IA O Ir" U O M yIA{A IA M i IfO C) e- N e- e- C'- IA e- CC IA O O O M N •O yr co CL) \ 0 O O N N inSO CIC 7 CO N- N O N N IUA O Lt u. N M N M Yr M O• 0 0 11- MO -4 e- 0 •0 -: \ 0 0 Cs N '0 O 0 07 0 0 PNtiO0 1- - S -* .4 co -t N a a .- O O •O O O F— CO 1 e-- 0 N M N N e- A Le N e- M ▪ W OO IA F- O O O O w NO N. \ CI. 0 O O O O C e- e0 \ O O O O CD G ¢ •` CO .4 F S v S CO II//t� �1 IA N P IA M .0 N 0 N 0 ti •O '0 �! \ e- 0. N N N. M N r. M CC 1 N M O 0 M M O aMI U IA N M e- CO N • I- e- P OO OO M 'C3C M ') \ O O O O M M M O •N .- II((11 Cppp L co M M N M1 ^ e- O N IA O O O O t... M O C \ a aO N. O • )I L IA O pp -- 1... M P O C) M .4 N. M IA 0 •- CC 7 > a (C .p .- CO •0 -4 0. P N M .O CO 43 fr O > a+ 3 CD a0' O. co in IiA N. 0 O M 0.MNI \ v1 N 1 M S > O O = Lp� E 43 -4 \ O .0 .0 P P SIA > In _ in a \ N. .O COO .O M O• O. IA N N .TM AP0a O - O O O 0CI MP E VI \ a 0 0 O O U) C U) \ O 0 O Ia EIA E U > Q M IA 1- N. r L •-. r 0) 0 O L L O. a - 0) a 01 • C CI V •C j CCD _ LU EC O C O 01 O CO � .. o a 0.1 N N• C a w CL o .7+ a w co (/) 0 •IA a O 12 2 p O 0 C •- w- . CO ar E u i0 O i0 Cl > 1i U. U. C C Q U 001 CL) - 0 .0 -2 U Cl it Cl 7 v1 7 7 Vl C1 E ,3 l7L. N Cl aLe •C C _ - C1 L 4t L 1.- U) a.- C N -' LL 0) -0 4, U 0 U C) C) C1 C7 L a. a. N a. >. 4O/ O _ •O O C 0) C a U) < > In X ++ 3 0 U. U. CO C) C C 0) L L 7 C 0 0 Cl Cl Cl CO 0 N r or i. 0 0 0 C a •.- a - a U. W a a CC Q F- 3 N N a F- co "- a _ a a W MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: David M. Nummer, Staff Engineer PfI`1 SUBJECT: Funding of Capital Improvements Sanitary Sewer DATE: January 6, 1995 INTRODUCTION: The City Council has been dealing with sanitary sewer issues for some time now, and the issues seem to get more complicated rather than easier. In the past, staff had identified three separate issues, trunk sewer charges, funding for the Chaska Interceptor, and the financial condition of the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Attempting to deal with these issues separately has been largely unsuccessful due to their interdependence. In an effort to clarify the relationships between these three issues, staff has reviewed them as a whole in a more conceptual manner. Specifically, individual expenses have been determined, the forces driving those costs have been identified, and possible revenue sources assigned to these costs. Staff will be present at the January 10th Committee of the Whole meeting with a brief presentation on this cost analysis approach. Staff will also present recommendations for funding the Chaska Interceptor, and establishing a Trunk Sewer Policy. An analysis of the impact both of these recommendations will have on the Sanitary Sewer Fund will be provided for Council review. DMN/pmp FUNDING g 4sf ` SJaMeS sa6Je40 `\ aoueualuiew ,k sio;daoJajui `4< :., ,,2 Num.'. ` SMOOW _, •0.z ;w ax, peayJanO uol}onJlsuooaej punA JaMaS keliueS I Nor 4 I. sa6JegO s;uawssass., eed asee sea j M01 1 NunJl ii ? i 7 tE flUsv C = m >CD ts:>i cn -' V 0 till V1. V co o = •t'Ai :.n 7 E:: : O0 O (� E:;t cc) gCD d X rig ... i::: E 1 O W 7 E • O �i 7 Cc Z = = iEiiiSD n E`'` O C ♦ 7 (D Ei;; ig CO h (� v E: ; CD m © €>:' i li :;:.:iii': zca N o (n N ::: ...z k:iiiii 0 1 I (n (DIEn;i;. C i cn �»::: cfl i T • ` J D D m r r� Y vim. �+�� 7.":63•2'..i..):":;•", ':•.irr •. `' �`./5;fff�//.i.' .f,:..;. .,;',,.:;,:Zi r= y: ( 2 ps co 0 m c o• CO n � n xn :CD " m = mN ? . m CD CL) • v c) G u -L Ffi m N z ED W O v c PP EA EA EA. -— CD O O CO CO CT Cr 0 OO -0p O p CA 0 0 O0 0 0 p O EA 69LA -a 6N) OO co N - tD Ca O J v N CO CO 0 O 0 EA Op 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 EA -69 EA - N Ffl -a CO N Ca cD n W W NO p O O) V O O O O O O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i O .mss J - NJ W CO tO CO NO O ED 0 0 0 0 0 0 v p 0 0 0 O • CJ L7 CD 69 EA EA 69 -a * - v to --.I !" (7)-4 JJ) CT CT CD 71 v N 0 0 p O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o_ O O 6A N Efl (� .) 69 -• 0 N .. O pW0 J O 'O ." CO 0 0 v ''...1 0 O p O O 0 0 0 0 00 (dB44 LA EA N CT) .6i) N N LAN o O Ca 0 v O o Ca 0 C O p 0 0 00 O 0 O p 0 O O O 69 N FA N N 0) EA N p cD cfl O W W O O CO N _. C3) CT CT O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 69 0 O O0 0 EA ffl N n) FA ? CST � c (0 • .P Ca co - co CD CA CJ O O OO LA 0 0 0 O - 0 0 - 0 0 0 OO co C) m H C) O K --i 5W m m 'f1 5. cn m - d CD CD 0 y m m ° ro CD C- z `-° O CD c ' O N N -o C) N — C . 0 m 69 69 69 EA CO 0) co 0) Cr) o 0) w j o 0 00 0 690640 O 0 El)0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O o 0 0 69 6EA 68 9 69 0) NJ U) CO CO A 9 j-N) p 69 69 N CD t0 CO CO CO CI) Co v v v A 0 W W co co O b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b 0 EA EA O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 EA 64 69 69 Ca 69 A 0) EA 69 EA A (0 CWO COIF A 00)) Cr)WN.) 0 N W CO N V 0 O O O O O 0 O OO D O O OCC 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 E9 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 • 69 69 69 O O - A EA 0 � 0) v N 0 0 0) (0 CJS () W - OCa A CCM 0) Cr) W W O Co W CO A O Co O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0) 0 69 0 0 000 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 p) 69 EA EA b9 CD 69 CP C.7) 69 Co v O 69 69 69 �,,) O CO W tD CD OJ� W Co 0 Ca A — -+ W W A t0 m O O -Co O 0 0 0 0 c Cr Cr 0 0 0 69 0 Cr 0 0 0 0 0 Cr 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 69 to N 0 CO EA 0 - -CO W W CO CO (0 O -4 CCM CO O CP) CT N.) 0) W Ca O 0 0 b O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 69 EA EA EA 69 N N N N CO 0 Cr CO CT -. A A CSO COCOO -• 0 CO v co N.) 0 U7 W W -° W W C) .a O O O O O 0000 0 O O O O O O O coop O O O O O O O O 0000 N EA EA N N 69 N 0) 68 EA CO 00 W O W N.) 69 CCPISO CSO Ca N Cca 8 OJI - 03 A -� W W 0) W W -J O v N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 c.n0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O N N N O N" 69 0) 6j CM v 69 EA EA Cr 0 (0 C0 -4 C„) Ut CO 0) 0� CT Ut -+ W W 00 Cn v —1 N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn Ui 0 EA CD 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O o co n.) -. >< 0 CD -o 0 i� a) 0 ca - f) _. N (7 -I- O O rn > -? > j; _ -n 0 Zi cor X N m w m 2303 P CD d' o) C.- z n Z D o a a c c C) m =4 rn m 0 N -' Z N w -< m = Ej y4 (ft EA tn 64 w (A EA co (II EA v rn W -4 co to N) 0 C' UNi CWn O 1I 0 ? 11 al o N O CO O 0 O O O 0 p O 0 0• -00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EA 69 69 68 -69 0 69 EA EA , 69 N CO to O W 0 N 0) UI CO to A U.1 (J1 O 0 (JI W W W - O t7) CO 0 N 0 0 0 0 p O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 EA EA W W EA (�JA 69 EA - to (Ti (0 O W (0 O O CO (WD Ute) O t (0 - 0) O 0 O 0 rs)rn0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 6!9 EA EA 69 ? EA EST 69 69 E9 to (0 00 (0 EA (n CO - W to EA 0) (0 U) W 0 (0 - -4 0 v 00 6. 0) ..a U7 CO 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O tT O 0 0 ig EA CD s EA 69 COA * - W 69 U) EA EA -A to (2CD O • -? - (D O O (3CTNUi0 W -J tT N O N W W ( T p O O O O O 0 O O O = -0) 0 p co co 0 co O co O O 0 _ 0 o co co CA EA 69 EA EA 69 EA .8 O N A ' ) W cA N co - EA-69-4 W N O O ? CO O 0 O ? Co J 0 U7 0 0 0 O O 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O FA 69 _' EA EA 69 69 A O N N W N - a) . p O ? ? gyp. (D U) 00 Cov 03 W -4 _a W v Co 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 EA - N EA 69 EA EA 68N N p -- W W Nv EA0 A 0 p. W 01 - 00 0 W N O) 0 CO 0 - 0 Ut W N CO O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 O 0 0 0 0 N N EA EA N N EA EA EA (A A 68 FA EA O W W N t)) Ut (On 0 Co Co O v UNi W (0 W v 0. 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 - - - - O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i I Account Balance - !Il -614 . N N W VI -CO-64 0C') 0 00 o sb 0 O O O o O 0 O O p O 0 co 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 00 0 p O O C CO COSD ~ j \ o O_a 0 / \ raiK § - O co CD 73 --xx OFi; CT v O n CO v -65. -' 1 0 f} i \ 0 -nC ,i N liti y COQ En -n _ ,,- a CD 0 N 0 00 SD el "' 0 el Ogil CO • --I —I CO 1 t' . O co m C co n C) O CD) OC C O - C 7 69 EA It co W O — t0 O t0 0) O N 0301 O O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 - 69 EA 69 69 -a. -.I N 0) W CO Q1 0) ul Q) t0 tp W --I (P a) O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O 64 EA EA EA ..a ? CO 03 v W CO V n OO O O 0 o 0 0 0 D AlN n EA p y o s 69 EA - O O 0) EA ? CO = CJI w (31 ._, N 0) w oo r* N cc) o O O o (q c9 to 0 0 0 0 3 EAI EA A) TI - ..a M CD 0 CD CD EA 69 N 0 ' O O J co -4 0 N �I co v O O O O O O O O O O O O O EA EA N 69 -- ja v EA O (O O O O v v �a O O O O O O O O O O O O EA 69 43 EA N EA O O W (-71N W O O O O kft EA EA N EA p O IV N O ca co O coCCO a O 0 O 0 - CO cn -i "11 T7 ?i (A 73 Dc W 0 - 0 c co--D ° o o CD CD) 3 3 Ce N ? mCNo d Cn n - CD fi '' o x o — - • n N j i zvU d Ofca "l (D o (D a 0 3 n N - CDCI) ^" 7 CO n N N y -s n C O m 0 co CD coN N C 'O N o � 3 r4 CD CP co N O EA p CC' Co 0 CD CD N EA O \ O — CD O 0- 0 CaN O O N 0 COOO JOJ W OOCrO co co V7 ? O ? (ll CO EA U) W co O 00 CDO kia CD - AEA EA O EA O N O •-•O O T -P. O O -P. 0 Oa' co O — C.)1 N O co W O s 0 W N 1 -` co J EA O -a W O D CO0 0 CD 0CD�� E.9 69 V oN 0 —_+ 0 7.-....; 01 W v -4 -+ O CD CO -4 - 0 J Ni N W -� Ni CO OVI CI-a -a - O CD N CD A 0 CO 6A O O .A O co (/) EA EA 6A co _ CO O � P . NJCT)la ---.• 0 0) N.) _. v J 0 J CO 0 � - CO •Oco � CO � W O W co (n W (D N C EA O CD CD COO CD 69 CD O l� O CO 71 NJ 69 6A O EA CD N p —A O c N CO W Oa W —. 0 —J O1 Cr CD 0 a' -P. 0 J CO 0 Cr CO O 0 O) CO O O EAN O CNji O O � EA 6A EA 6A p co -P. O O EA •-• U1 O W Co W N O V O N O W 'co •A O — CO N O CO O O CD W — (D O CD CO CO CO N N O O O Cr co O EA EA EA EA 0 O -P. 0 -.a A CD _EA N O N N-0 — 01 0 — Co 0 0 a' 03 O O "ow N O O — — W CO ? O CO N EA O N O O 0 Cr (=, N EA N co -P. 0 -A O W N 69 O N N O -' CO O J — N W O N O 0 —PI N) 0 O CO -"L CO CO CO co O . J O -J O co N O N O O 0 U1 0 W � � EA EA 6A - 63 - co -0. 0 Cr CO W N CO N N O —CO O Cr O CO 0 Co 11 O CD W - - CO O O N 0 --- 0 —1 N CJ) CD CO _ 4 (S 71 LA TO: Dennis Kraft , Shakopee City Administrator FROM: Lou Van Hout , SPUC Utilities Manager RE: Savage / Shiely Water Issue, Meeting wi DNR DATE: 1/9/95 Dennis : The Utilities Commission directed me to set up a meeting between themselves and the DNR. After some discussion, the consensus was to broaden the meeting by inviting the City Council and the Planning Commission so all would have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the DNR. The direction given was: - SPUC staff was to contact the DNR and request that they send one (or more) representatives to a meeting with the Utility Commission and other policy bodies of Shakopee, (Done) - to advise the DNR of the probable attendance of both State Senator Johnston, and Representative Kelso, (Done) - to request that the meeting be scheduled for 3 P .M. Friday February 3 , (or as an alternate - February 10 ) to allow time to gather facts and to enable attendance by the legislators and the various Shakopee policy bodies, - to see if the meeting can be held in the conference room at city hall, due to space limitations here (can this be done? ) - to plan for a "committee-of-the-whole" type meeting, - to notify other Shakopee bodies like the CDC about the meeting. I will he on vacation until January 23, so Joe Adams would be the one to contact here at SPUC if some items need to be ironed out . Obviousy the thing will need some coordination if it is to come off successfully. First of all, is it possible to get the city hall conference room for this? Second, it would seem to me that the contacts to the Planning Commission, CDC, etc . would best be handled through city hall along with the contact to the City Council . ( If not , please let Joe Adams know, and he will handle it . ) Is this O.K. with you? TO: Dennis Kraft , Shakopee City Administrator FROM: Lou Van Hout , SPUC Utilities Manager RE: Savage / Shiely Water Issue, Meeting with DNR DATE: 1/8/95 Dennis : The Utilities Commission directed me to set up a meeting between themselves and the DNR. After some discussion, the consensus was to broaden the meeting by inviting the City Council and the Planning Commission so all would have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the DNR. The direction given was : - SPUC staff was to contact the DNR and request that they send one (or more) representatives to a meeting with the Utility Commission and other policy bodies of Shakopee, ( in process ) - to advise the DNR of the probable attendance of both State Senator Johnston, and Representative Kelso, ( in process) - to request that the meeting be scheduled for 3 P.M. Friday February 3 , (or as an alternate - February 10 ) allow to gather facts and to enable attendance by the legislators and the various Shakopee policy bodies, ( in process) - to see if the meeting can be held in the conference room at city hall, due to space limitations here (can this be done? ) - to plan for a "committee-of-the-whole" type meeting, (O.K. ? ) - to notify other Shakopee bodies like the CDC about the meeting. (city staff ? ) I will be on vacation until January 23 , so Joe Adams would be the one to contact here at SPUC if some items need to be ironed out . Obviously the thing will need some coordination if it is to come off successfully. First of all , is it possible to get the city hall conference room for this? Second, it would seem to me that the contacts to the Planning Commission, CDC , etc . would best be handled through city hall along with the contact to the City Council . ( If not , please let Joe Adams know, and he will handle it . ) Time was short , hope I am not stepping on any toes . Is this O.K. with you? Memo To: Shakopee City Council From: Lindberg S. Ekola, Planning Director RE: Scott -Hennepin Regional Trail Date: January 6, 1995 NON AGENDA INFORMATION ITEM Last year, the Cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Hennepin County Parks Board, and Scott County ect received thepreliminary approval for an maximum grant amount avaSabEe A grant for the Scott -Hennepin Trail. The pro of$500,000 for the proposed trail project under the Transportation Enhancement Program Funds (pedestrian/biking) category. The total project cost estimated with the grant application was $650,000 with a local match of$150,000. Construction was tentatively scheduled to begin in July of 1996. The collaborative project includes 8.5 miles of rural trail and 1.5 miles of urban trail. Attached is a map of the trail location and its various connection points within the City of Shakopee. As a joint project, a cooperative agreement needs to be developed. In order to prepare the appropriate agreement, the Scott County Highway Department had further refined the project cost estimates. A significant increase in the project cost has been generated. The estimated project construction cost is now $1,130,000. Approximately 75% of the trail as initially designed would be located in the City of Shakopee. The basic cost sharing concept discussed by the various staff members proposed that the right-of- way acquisition and design costs would be shared by two counties and the trail construction shared by the three communities. The resulting cost share in the draft cooperative agreement is as follows: Right-of-Way Acquisition/Design Costs: Scott County $145,975 Hennepin Parks $145,975 Trail Construction Costs: City of Shakopee $472,500 City of Prior Lake $107,100 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community $ 50,400 Obviously the $472,500 is not an acceptable amount to the City of Shakopee. The project design is being revised at this time to reduce the cost impact to the City of Shakopee. It is anticipated, based on discussions with the appropriate State and Metropolitan Council officials, that trail 1 design revisions which reduce the overall cost can be made while still receiving the full $500,000 matching grant amount. Staff will be working with representatives from the other agencies to further refine the design and project cost. A second funding alternative for this financial avalanche is also being researched at this time. Representatives from Hennepin County Parks have identified that the Metropolitan Council is seeking revisions to their Capital Improvement Program open space budget. They believe that it might be possible to get more funding upwards to $400,000 - $500,00 for the project. The trail project represents a tremendous recreational and transportation opportunity for the City and the County but there remain several major challenges. No action by the City Council is required at this time. The purpose of this memo is to provide the City Council with an update on this major trail project. If members of the City Council have any questions, please call me at 445-3650, or Brad Larson, County Engineer, at 496-8346. Thank you. (trail.cc) 2 / J r°,41:1 ".1'• ATTACHMENT ,� '44 I -l ¢ �. ,la ,f — • .� 1I. to �+•.� /� ; I .° ;-nom' -,1 _I • �•�',;,-f I : _1.:� w es. M°° i� i ' ,. ,( •'-i•‘J). is. - ,t�: `moi t.4` U ,e-^`•. i 1 1 ] . 44 ��. __ ;o `, —S -- ._, izi , ... n.\....) _1. r ! L__ ___ O a ��..�`.�/l_.�- I it 1 �,.., d i �d - ttc .,¢•-) -S• A r 1�1Ji \c 7 1�� 2— 11l' 1-_-_-_-_---:_:_-", i ----rt- - �• --1 'ir= .v,o , .,i ii /- J - _ \,-,i,.:,.... .,,,,,,_,.....,"v.,a.. 11 ,),-.10 ., .,.. 7 k'. / j.... ..,„j L., ..--g---,t-—4,3. . _ / (. . ...„3,‘ 5 3_, z ..,, 4Ill :.1`� , s� ,�•,41„.7..Ir ^,r1/ N a ii■i '�I14 1 I .3fw4 2.2Z.7.--.'• Y Z i¢. fid. 1 _ , u a ;� _:l� A\ , i 1 -7... :t.)"'"" ov 07,17.‘ 1.4•03441••. (:11\it Cii.i.1.4 I,..1 - -14-,,,,,,\ t„, .:=..,, , .9 . - "mr,, AV kir , ....,,,vii- v ..„, .,4.7..,. ,....L .= -.., ,„. ,....,.. =Ez : o 7,.v-:11... 1 - it,1, \..4.3, tit M . =r .! l. --3.121 _ oro L�, - n . .,Yu,.a Q. LT r. • -v ` • ~ .‘•• \- v=1=4 - _\ - �; -- � � \ `\ t:l''.\� \ :� ,• .. 14 Com. c:. - .1M ' s ATTACHMENT 3 _ Destination and.Origination Points Hennepin - Scott County Trail System 1. North side trail access parking lot. 2. Minnesota River bridge - existing Hwy 169 bridge. 3. Downtown Park-n-Ride lot. 4. Huber Park. 5. Ft.Snelling to Chaska Trail - DNR. 6. Pedestrian underpass. 7. Downtown Shakopee. 8. Scott County Courthouse. 9. St.Francis Regional Medical Center. 10. 10th Avenue Park-n-Ride lot. 11. Shakopee Senior High School. 12. Stans Park. 13. Upper Valley Trail - City of Shakopee. Connecting facilities - East - Shakopee Junior High School, JEJ Park, Country Village Apartments, future commercial developments. West - Lions Park, Sweeney Elementary School, Tahpah Park, Shakopee Town Square shopping mall. 14. Shakopee Bypass. 15. Future St.Francis Trail. 16. Residential neighborhoods - Hillwood Estates, Beckrich Park Estates, Stonebrooke, Hillside Estates, Dominion Hills, Maple Trails. 17. O'Dowd Park and Trail. 18. Spring Lake Regional Park. 19. Mystic Lake/Dakota Country Casinos. 20. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. 21. Community/Recreational Center. 22. Downtown Prior Lake. 23. Cleary Lake Regional Park. 24. Park n-Ride lot. 25. Prior Lake City Hall 26. Prior Lake Library 27. Shakopee Library 28. Residential Neighborhood - The Wilds 29. Lakefront Park 30. Grainwood Crossing 31. Julius A. Coller Historic House (434 S. Lewis St.) 32. Heritage Park K-WP60\MISG1TEP2 03/22/94 Rev.3/29/94 a a V Q Z N Q f O • — N Q Z w 0 Z03 0 t Q 1-: o N Q I ( w O W at w a a coa lc O Cl j o ' 41 Y y a N* W w g % o v 61 a e� m'b riE o W �[9[ti[£LZV‘� 0 CC 6 Q S O O w t 0 N (+ 0 Q U) N I I— ww Q O U U OJ Z �, Z o • CC o UWo 0 LL z Q • O r- 0 O 0 a I 3 • ui a v O Q = 0 O 0 (./) 1- Q o H in Z 0 W O N f u! Oit, O O o JN Cl O g F Ow ¢ 1-L 1- Z J a ¢ ONT ZesO 0 F. 0 I OCD J oLLNa 0 • w F- O) O Na ¢ 2ZLo w 0o : 1- = F5 ajO • 0 3 < F fl- Q. " uwi w til a Cf.) E . , .• Z ¢ F m ,,,17-' C1 w tu J JCA _ • . t N J N J 3 . Z a 3 O g, x p O • Z Q J Q ZO 0 a y F a z ¢ w - Q N Z Z 2 < Z 0 0 ¢ cC IL 2 I- = NNZ o 0 aQ, U y J O ILv ¢ (nwt 1-Qo o Q W D ~ w aaC 0 m • 0 w ¢ w Q ur w w 0 F- • - a icc =- F=-• I- (0 6 cc• w o Ilia U m o ,_ N M O U'+ N 3 0 Z • Z 0 .. .. �T I • - 0 0 0 Z w F 0 un ui Q a = N N a W F O Sc0 vcn W m N Q 19 w W } N W Z M = N 2 _ f; D Fo O O • W a Z LL I- ' o H F- fa W w 0 W N W W Z o ci) (n W W w } J J a CC O O O 0 F Z N N h F. W , N f• W a_ a. W Q m v _ _ [n W Q N 1n w D `^ Q O r M M cM- 27 W W O Q ›_CC 4,74:00272829a0+ � ��\ Z 3CcS Iyi r 0 W i I w ry t W 0 _ _ 4 a IL at o = n `13 v 0 ai W O co 01 ip W W W W W O .. W W a CC CC CC CC CC Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q } dJ o OO N Q p Ti O 00 mQN 0 co 1- W D W 0 a W T a O O - W O 0 Q Q Q Q 0 O Z N n 0 o o 0 w W W W Z W J Z0 Z— cc W � F- 0 W J J J Q W • Z cr a.a. a • Z Z Z Z M W D 0 Q Q O W ¢ J F- F- I F- J ❑J 0000 .7 � Qaaa � J p h O n I- ; . . Wz b M O O O Q Q M CC W Q W p CMO N N N cr Ca M Q Z Z Z Z cr w MQ W W W W 00 o QQ N 2 }- ~ W H p W f- O Z J_ Q 1n M m m M CO N (Z7 Q P § J J J J 0 > p 0 3 D ii r it I- I-- I- I- 0Z d WLLO J W = Z O fA fA fA lq N O Q S F Q C7 F- 0z J_ J_ J_ J 5 co O >- Z x13 G • — Q ' a f- j J W CC N N N V Q Q O m p p Q Q W 2 OO Og = r N M TY N co n co a c' z 0 0 0 Q ( CO INFO 2 T EM : MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Building Permit Fee Survey DATE: January 9, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Approximately 2 months ago the City Council received a request to reduce the building permit fee value as determined by the Building Official for a project in Shakopee. Following the discussion, Council directed staff to complete a survey of nearby communities to determine whether or not the building valuation method used in Shakopee was consistent with what was being applied in the area. BACKGROUND: During the first week of January staff completed a survey of four communities within the immediate vicinity of Shakopee to determine the appropriateness of our building permit fee methodology. The City's survey included the communities of Chaska, Savage, Eden Prairie and Prior Lake. Each city was requested to determine the buildingpitefeeted fee for four typical building projects. The building projects were taken from actual projein cts in Shant kopee. A summary of the survey results is 1 . Note that all of the communities surveyed use the same building valuation method for determining project value. It should also be noted that in nearly every case the City of Shakopee had the lowest building permit fee. The primary difference between the fees charged in each community are summarized in attachment #2 . It should also be noted that while the cities of Savage and Prior Lake both use the building valuation method, they have not yet adopted the 1994 State Building Permit Fee Schedule. They are still operating under the 1988 UBC fee schedule . Therefore, when they do adopt the new 1994 Fee Schedule their fees will be even higher than as shown in the attached summary. u k $ $ 0 2 k \ a) / 69 a 6 ■ 2 2k E mO co u $ v• \-- Et- r ® 6 ct 7 q °e6co .> ° L at ƒ J 7 G 2 \ / / > -0 & q k $ Lo c ¥ o o / g / 03CO > J R 2 > H 4 6 s ® Co » = o c @ E in © © \ / cv In•& N co 0 r » $ $ 70 CO / 7 7 w 69 > O 63 CO UJul ci CO - $ & 2 N q CO \ ® 2 > I �t ao a a 0 I $ » $ o UJ w / � 5c? aq � q 0 c. 0 ow ooLoo - 0Em a q / 7 o ° o «u_ CI)q N � 0 « N2 /< � 2 � / 17g5 �gec 7f 0) 2 a) w 2 0 0 CD N o Q 2 U ® 2 0 ® w o d « u) o d 3 0 0 = O R 7 O k Q Q 2 n 2 7 $ $ `- « « ± e2 w $ \ d z > \ I = S 7 > a % > � & - co Attachment #2 Summary of Additional Building Permit Fees Charged in Nearby Communities Chaska Sewer Connection Charge - $500. 00 per SAC Savage Sewer Conncection Charge - $3161. 94 per adjusted gross acre. (Urban) $2107 .96 per gross acre. (Rural) Collector Street Charge - $229 per single family lot plus $1400. 00 per net developable acre due at time of platting. Non Single Family Res. - $3054 . 00 per net developable acre due at time of platting. Prior Lake City Water Tower Fee - $700. 00 per SAC Collector St. Charge - $400. 00 per SAC Eden Prairie Sewer Connection Charge - $520. 00 per SAC Honorable Mayor and Council MEMO TO: Y gj FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator I RE: Minnesota Department of Human Rights Charge of Discrimination/Joseph Dixon vs. City of Shakopee - Police Department DATE: January 10, 1995 The Dixon charge was about a black male who alleged he was discriminated against by the Shakopee Police Department on May 6, 1994 . The City submitted evidence that indicated that no Shakopee Police Officer was involved in the stopping of the charging party. I was informed today that the charge is being withdrawn against the City of Shakopee and the case has been officially closed. If you have any questions on this please contact me. 1995 NOM F . b 1995 an Meeting Schedules SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT Jan 8 Jan 9 Jan 10 Jan 11 Jan 12 Jan 13 Jan 14 5:30pm 7:30pm Planning Committee of Commission the Whole Jan 15 Jan 16 Jan 17 Jan 18 Jan 19 Jan 20 Jan 21 City Hall Closed 7:00pm City 5:30pm - Martin Council Community Luther King Development Day Commission Jan 22 Jan 23 Jan 24 Jan 25 Jan 26 Jan 27 Jan 28 5:30pm Committee of the Whole Jan 29 Jan 30 Jan 31 Feb 1 Feb 2 Feb 3 Feb 4 7:00pm Park & Recreation Feb 5 Feb 6 Feb 7 Feb 8 Feb 9 Feb 10 Feb 11 4:30pm Public 7:00pm City 7:30pm Planning Utilities Council Commission Feb 12 Feb 13 Feb 14 Feb 15 Feb 16 Feb 17 Feb 18 5:30pm Community Development Commission