Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: April 12, 2005, April 19, 2005 (5p.m.), and April 19, 2005 (7 p.m.) OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SEUU(OPEE,NUNNESOTA APRIL 12, 2005 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Menden, Helkamp and Joos present. Also Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg V oxland, Finance Director and Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, opened the discussion on growth management. Mr. Leek noted in January 2005 very specific direction was given to staff to come up with suggestions for managing growth in the City. Mr. Leek noted what some of the measures were to manage growth. These were: 1) develop a growth measure limiting the number of units that could be built (500-750 units) and 2) develop a project scoring measure (quality). Mr. Leek noted Shakopee had a pretty regular growth rate until STH 169 was built around Shakopee. Mr. Leek also noted with the opening of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge and the 169 .. .... . ... - .. --oy-pas-stlie-citYlias experienced--groWt1ferevations:-------~----------------------------- __n.......__._..___.._____... _...... Mr. Leek noted some of the questions he had been dealing with and some of the balancing factors. He stated he thought there were three separate questions. These were: 1) what is the rate of residential support that City staff can support growth with the current staffing and resource levels? 2) are there other factors that the City Council needs to weigh to determine the optimal level of growth for the City [MUSA]? and 3) what characteristics, qualities or amenities in new residential development does the Council want to see [project scoring]? Mr. Leek stated over the last five years the average number of residential building permits was over 700 annually. Because of legislative action, the Council has had to find additional cuts in the budgets for at least the last three years and this affected the services the City had to offer their residents. Mr. Leek noted how growth also affected other entities (School District and Scott County). Mr. Leek noted there were a number of considerations the City needed to look at when they decided where to allocate MUSA. These were: 1) the growth and expansion of Shako pee served by public services that needed to be managed to maintained [how would this impact the City's fiscal soundness] and 2) annexation needed to be taken in an orderly and fiscally sound manner [orderly annexation agreement]. Mr. Leek noted the City had several policies referring to these considerations I.e. MUSA, roadways. Mr. Leek pointed out some ofthese policies. Mr. Leek noted how certain MUSA extensions would affect the number of building permits possible and the capacity for sewer service left for the City of Shakopee in the Chaska Interceptor. The availability of sewer capacity in the Chaska Interceptor could affect the annexation process and that would affect the commercial/industrial property. Official Proceedings of April 12, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. Leek noted there was property within the City that was ready for development (MUSA was already there). The Council may want to consider developing this property rather than annexing any more property, and/or consider facilitating private residential development on the eastern and southern parts of the City that have been within City limits for a long time. Some areas of the City may need to be developed sooner than previously talked about. Mr. Leek noted it did require more City resources (City services) on an ongoing basis to allow developments to occur. Mr. Leek noted staff thought it might be worthwhile to look at two options for growth management. These are: 1) somewhere between 500 and 750 building permits for an upper limit is where the City might want to be (660 permits possibly) but staff felt the residents would be better served at a lesser rate (440 units). Mr. Leek noted limiting the number of building permits to 440 would allow the existing staff to move into some areas that need oversight but because of demands on staff time have not been addressed. Mr. Leek stated either of these options would allow the City to have enough income to meet projections for what the City needed to rely on out of development driven proposals. If the City was looking only for income, they were no longer looking at growth management as was directed by the Council at a past meeting. Mr. Leek noted affordable housing was not addressed in the resolution before the Council because that did not seem to be a concern of the City based on the type housing stock that the City has. Mr. Leek noted there was the perception that Shakopee did have affordable housing in the new housing stock but it was more accurate to say the City did not have affordable housing in the sense of MHF A guidelines. It was only affordable housing within the market rate range. Mr. Leek noted there was a very substantial amount of sewered residential lots available today and perhaps these lots should be looked at. Mr. Leek also stated that staff did not see the developers doing as many plats as they thought they would be able to do. Mr. Leek addressed the point system he thought might be used to some extent for quality management. This point system was based on the point system used by the City of Maple Grove. He did state that it would take some staff time up front to do the scoring, adding to staff stress. Some of the points criteria are: I) community scale, 2) neighborhood scale and 3) unit scale. Mr. Leek noted the MUSA phasing areas as they are now. Mr. Loney addressed the sewer and the capacity bought by the City for the Chaska Interceptor for City use on the west end of town near the Jackson Township annexation areas (new high school & Countryside area). Mr. Loney noted the Metropolitan Council did think there was additional capacity that could be bought. Mr. Loney stated some of the area could be served fairly well by a gravity sewer line. Mr. Loney noted the question for staff and City Council was what development area can be brought in to use the existing facilities of the Blue Lake Treatment Plant and the Chaska Interceptor. There appeared to be limited capacity and the Metropolitan Council wanted to address the limited capacity of the Chaska Interceptor with a new Waste Official Proceedings of April 12, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Water Treatment Center. Mr. Loney noted Council did not put any limiting factors on the Prior Lake Interceptor and the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan showed sanitary sewer for the eastern side of the City going into the Prior Lake Interceptor. Mr. Loney did state the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) was planning on building their own waste water treatment plant so much of what was planned for the Prior Lake Interceptor probably will not be going there. This permitted freed up capacity for the Prior Lake Interceptor. Mr. Loney noted access to the Blue Lake Treatment Center was through 1) the Shakopee River District Interceptor to the lift station, 2) Prior Lake Interceptor and 3) the Chaska Interceptor. Mr. Loney noted staff would need to take a look and see if the River District Interceptor could be extended because there might be additional capacity in it if Rahr Malting went off line; there was discussion about that. However, looking at sewer plans required time and it did not seem that adding staff to look at sewer plans was a high probability, thanks to the State. Mr. Loney noted the City's sewer plan's needed to be looked at for revamping. There were many issues involved. Cncl. Joos addressed the timing of inspections needed for single-family versus multi-family. Mr. Leek noted both type inspections went fairly quickly; it was more of the timing of the re- inspectIOns that were needOOlliat took fIme, adaitional time. Ci1Cl-:-Joos also adoresseolne number of infilllots. Mr. Leek noted there would be more than enough sewered lots available in the City for several years. Cncl. Joos addressed residential lots being Planned Unit Development (PUD)'s. Mr. Leek noted there were other City's that required residential projects to be PUD'S; thus requiring more openspace and negotiating other terms of each project. This PUD process would give the City Council some discretion to say yes or no. Cncl. Lehman questioned the MUSA phasing designation and the impact it would have on land prices, as well as the legality of requiring a PUD for all residential projects. Mr. Leek addressed these questions. Mr. Leek noted if the City did make a change it most likely would not put the City in a legally bad position. Mr. Leek noted that the City might want to look into providing park credit for open space. Cncl. Lehman asked if anyone had studied the possibility of a local property value cap? Cncl. Lehman stated the action being considered could really punish the people all ready here and he did not think that was fair. Mayor Schmitt responded to this comment. Mr. Leek stated there would be available lots within the City for building on for several years, without any more annexation from Jackson Township, but to build on some ofthose lots would require up front costs by the City for sanitary sewer to some of those areas in the City. Cncl. Lehman wanted growth management defined. He felt if growth management was quality, this quality was accomplished in the standards required by the City, the location iflocation was growth management was defined in the first phase of MUSA. Just what was it that the City was trying to manage? Mr. Leek addressed this question. He noted the Council really needed to discuss what they were trying to do and then City staff needed direction on the way the City Official Proceedings of April 12, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -4- wanted to go. Mayor Schmitt noted it was the visioning process that would tell the Council what should be managed. Then Comprehensive Plans and Ordinances could be drafted to accomplish the vision of the community. Cncl. Joos noted Mr. Leek was correct when he stated the Comprehensive PlanlUpdate was always a moving target. Things, thoughts and people were always changing. The City was not in charge of the market place; but, the Council could decide what they wanted the City to look like. The City also was not in charge of the demographics that happened in the City. Mr. Leek noted neither of the proposals he was presenting tonight had an impact on the commercial/industrial at this point. The proposals were drafted only for the residential component. Cncl. Helkamp addressed exception 3.C. in the resolution for growth management along with 4.B. in the Review of the Policy. Mr. Leek responded to these questions. Cncl. Lehman stated he would like the existing Council in December and the Council in January to review the policy so everyone was on the same-,page. ------.- Mayor Schmitt noted to deal with growth, growth had to be looked at in a few ways. He stated the population increased by 50% in the five years from 2000 to 2005. The City needed to deal with the services to this population (sewer, education). The City needed to think about where the housing growth was and what it was. The Council had it within their power to limit growth today if they choose to do that. The Council had the tools to accomplish this. The tools were: MUSA, zoning, and annexation. If the proposed plats did not meet the criteria in the ordinance then they could be denied. The City needed to service what they allowed to be built with the taxes and fees that they collected. Mayor Schmitt noted a resolution would be appropriate for the developers/residents to understand what tools are going to be used to achieve a managed growth so the City's tax rating remained favorable. Lehman/Joos moved to direct staff to take the comments and concerns that all the Council members had made (regarding managing growth) and incorporate them into a document and to see what the City got. He preferred the 600 number of residential building permits but would like to see some flexibility built into using the PUD process to see what the City could gain from using that process. Cncl. Joos stated he would like to see affordable housing addressed in the motion also. Cncl. Helkamp and Mr. Leek addressed the affordable housing issue. Mr. Leek noted he could address this issue with the point system. Cncl. Helkamp felt it would be reasonable to have affordable housing included in the point system. Cncl. Menden stated he liked the point system but he asked Mr. Leek how the point system could be made fair across the board. Mr. Leek stated a draft of the point system as well as the growth management policy would go to the development Official Proceedings of Aprill2, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -5- community, that is active in the City, and they could give comments on the draft. Staff would then respond to the comments received from the development community. Cncl. Lehman noted the City needed to complete some of the Comprehensive Planning documents. He noted his motion was for all the councilor's comments to be incorporated and then these comments would come back and then they would be circulated when there was a final document. Cncl. Joos stated he would like a policy rather than a day-to-day enforcement. He felt staff could implement if a good policy was put together. Mr. Leek stated he thought Cncl. Joos was noting everyone needed to be going in the same direction (so developers would not be playing off someone and going where they thought they could get their way). encl. Helkamp felt the scoring criteria for the point system would go a long way to address a policy like Cncl. Joos wanted. Cncl. Helkamp stated that he thought time was of the essence. The City needed to get this policy (growth management) done as soon as possible. He preferred to see the draft the Council was looking at now go out to the development community as soon as possible and to have staff come --------15ack witlr1l1eir commentsaml"tIre-Council-'-s-oomments--m-omrtime. Cncl. Lehman noted the confines that a policy would have. Mr. Leek stated the developer could come back with revisions or continue working with staff. Mayor Schmitt stated it behooved the City to deal with the staging of development. The City needed to know upfront the length of time the development is expected to take. The City and the builder needed to deal with the flow of units that was logical. Mr. Leek stated he was making developers now give the planning staff staging plans. Mayor Schmitt and Mr. Leek discussed the Comprehensive Plan Update that is with the Metropolitan Council now. Mr. Leek noted this revised growth management draft would be back before the Council by next week. Cncl. Menden noted he would be more comfortable with the number of residential building permits being limited to 440. He stated this would allow staff more time to do the needed items that staff did not have time for now. Mr. Leek stated he thought this was the consensus of the department heads also. Cncl. Joos stated he thought the City could do some growth management by not annexing any more property from Jackson Township or to annex only small pieces. He would like to take a hard look at this. He would like to look at this but he noted if the Council did do this, the Council needed to recognize that there would be some investment from the City required to bring necessary services to some of the developable land that is now in the City. Jackson Township was quite easy to develop; certain areas of the City would be costly to develop. Official Proceedings of April 12, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Cncl Helkamp stated he thought staff was asking the Council to give serious consideration to 400 residential building permits. He noted hopefully this Council would review this in December and could revise the figure at that time if need be. He noted 40 residential building permits could be given out on the point system and staff needed to be able to respond to those building permits in a timely fashion. Cncl. Lehman noted he would not withdrew his motion because at the last Council meeting all the Councilors agreed on 600-700 residential building permits. He disagreed on changing minds. He would stay with 600. It was noted there was more police staff but not more planning staff from the previous high years to do all the work residents were asking for. Cncl. Menden wanted the motion repeated. LehmanlJoos moved to direct staff to take the comments and concerns that all the Council members had made (regarding managing growth) and to incorporate them into a document to see what the City got. He preferred the 600 number of residential building permits but he would like to see some f1~xibititybuiltintulIsing-tlre-P:tJD prul.:t:ss tCJse-e-whatiht: City l,;Qu}-d-gainfrom- using that process. Cncl. Helkamp noted this motion was too vague for his comfort. Cncl. Lehman stated hopefully staff would come back with what the negative impacts on growth are and if there is a market value increase around the corner for regular properties, hopefully staff would take a look at limiting any MUSA extension to annexation areas as Cncl. Joos mentioned. The point system issue that Cncl. Menden raised regarding fairness for all developments should also be looked at. Affordable housing was also discussed - Affordable housing would be part of the point system, Cncl. Helkamp wanted the drafts circulated simultaneously - Cncl. Lehman agreed to this. Mr. Leek asked ifthe revised drafts could be circulated to the Council within the next week and get a hands up if the draft should be disseminated to the developers for their comments. He felt public testimony should be taken at the Planning Commission, as well as an opportunity for additional testimony before the City Council. He wanted to give this subject as much of an airing as possible. There was consensus by the Council that this made sense. Motion carried 3-2 with Cncl. Helkamp and Cncl. Menden dissenting. Mr. Leek addressed the County Road 83 sewer situation. He noted a draft resolution had been presented to himself and Mr. Loney from Pulte Homes. He noted Pulte Homes was interested into stepping into the shoes of Centex Homes. Official Proceedings of April 12, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Mr. Leek noted part ofthe City's problem was not knowing the cost of the sewer line on County Road 83. He noted the developer was proposing an amount that the developer would pay. Mr. Loney addressed the sanitary sewer line. He noted the cost estimated to bring the sewer line down south on County Road 83 to the property involved would be approximately $525,000. He noted the City was waiting for Scott County to get the right-of-way or easements from the SMSC that was part of the twenty-acre land exchange that had been worked out but had not been finalized. The proposal from Pulte or Gonyea was that they would pay $150,000 towards a lift station and force main and they would still pay their trunk sanitary sewer charges in addition to the $150,000. Mr. Loney noted this sewer line location was a very iffy situation because there are many unknowns. Mr. Loney noted the proposal was such that Pulte would pay and so the City needed to guarantee a certain date (September I, 2005) to bring the sewer line down to the property. Mr. Loney noted this was not physically possible even if the City wanted to. Cncl. Lehman asked that the developer pay for the feasibility study since they were the spark that needed this service. Mr. Loney stated this was a good point. Mr. Loney did point out that per City poticy iftbe elf)' bad a designared-mmkiheCity did pay-tIre-1ru11kfees. _,.._.'._m.........._ Mr. Loney also pointed out the City did not have the right-of-way for Valley View Road. They thought they would get this right-of-way with a preliminary plat (park Meadows East) but that plat application had been pulled. Cncl. Lehman stated the feasibility report needed to be done and funded by the developer and the City needed the right-of-way for Valley View Road for that piece of property to develop. [Said property is located west of County Road 83 and north of Valley View Road extended.] It was noted much of this area was in phase two for MUSA. Mr. Loney stated the only other option was for a temporary lift station if this property wanted to develop. Mr. Loney stated the developers concern was if they could not develop these lots in a timely fashion the proposal was not feasible for them. Mr. Loney noted the City originally allowed some flexibility by stating if City staff could not provide a gravity sewer line in reasonable time the lift station could be considered but it would need further discussion by the City Council. This matter will come back to City Council at their April 19, 2005, meeting. Mr. Leek discussed doing an environmental study for the east end of Shakopee. He was suggesting doing an (AUAR). The cost estimate for an AUAR would be around $75,000 to $110,000 and the time estimate to do the study would be 9-14 months. Mr. Leek did not think 9 months was realistic. Mr. Leek noted the developers were not very interested in paying the costs of the AUAR. They did not like the thoughts of delays for their projects. Mr. Leek noted the AUAR was not in the City's 2005 budget. Mr. Leek noted this AUAR was a mechanism to let the City know what the impacts of developing that whole area were. Mr. Leek noted it was possible to include the land that the SMSC owned and this could provide the City some idea Official Proceedings of April 12, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -8- what was being contemplated for that land because the SMSC was not responding to the City's questions. This land did have an impact on how the City extended utilities and roadways. Mr. Leek noted the City did have this regulatory authority to require the AUAR on the SMSC fee property at this time. It was noted the SMSC preferred to develop under their own regulations. Cncl. Lehman stated it did not make much sense to spend money on land the City could not control. Mayor Schmitt agreed. Cncl. Menden addressed the AUAR. He noted there were unique circumstances in this area. He thought this AUAR process might be a viable process. Cncl. Menden thought this might provide some information on what the SMSC is planning for their land rather than the City trying to work around this big black box. He also noted there was much development coming in for plats that abut County Road 21 and he thought this AUAR process would be viable so the City could analyze impacts better for that area. Cncl. Menden noted he thought the cost estimate was low for the AUAR. Cncl. Menden also noted that the Environmental Advisory Committee [EAC] ----- was also gOIllg to look to see ifaIflttJAA was necessary for this area, th----eE-A:C may bes"el'rdtng a recommendation forward to the City Council to do an AUAR. Cncl. Lehman stated he would not be voting to put the cost of the AUAR in the 2006 budget. That budget would be tough already. Mr. McNeill introduced the discussion on building rentals (depreciation). Mayor Schmitt stated he challenged Mr. Voxland, Finance Director, on why the length of term for depreciation on certain buildings was chosen. Mayor Schmitt noted that some of the Council had the same thoughts as he. Mayor Schmitt noted he suggested to Mr. McNeill and Mr. Voxland there needed to be consistency with a rationale regarding the length of time to depreciate City buildings. He stated generally as a group it was decided that the City Hall building remain as it was, it was felt a 50 year depreciation schedule made more sense than the 40 years originally put on the new City buildings. Mayor Schmitt noted the basic recommended changes were on the library and the police stations moving to 50 years and the proposed community expansion moving to 40 years. These changes were not a done deal at this time. Mayor Schmitt noted this would reduce the annual building rental charge on the proposed new community center expansion to $625,000 from the previous $800,000 that was forecasted. Mayor Schmitt also pointed out this gave the City some element of consistency on depreciation for all their buildings. Mayor Schmitt noted one reason this was brought up was because at the last meeting Cncl. Lehman was of the opinion that the current building depreciation of$833,000 did not make sense for the proposed expansion of the community center. Mayor Schmitt stated if that was the case the people explaining the community center expansion needed a consistent set of numbers. Cncl. Official Proceedings of April 12,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Lehman wanted a copy of the length of depreciation for all City buildings and the cost difference with the changed lengths. Mr. McNeill noted at this point there was no change in what the direction had been. This was an impact on the operating costs. This could be addressed again. Mayor Schmitt noted the original presentation for the depreciation of the proposed community center expansion was 30 years and the other major buildings of the City were depreciated at 40 or 50 years. Did it make sense to depreciate the proposed community center for 30 years? Cncl. Helkamp actually thought the depreciation length for the community center should be shortened rather than lengthened. He explained why. Cncl. Helkamp also stated he figured the difference in the rental charge from roughly $800,000 to $600,000 was an insignificant amount when the whole picture was looked at when this was being presented to the voters at a cost of$27,000,000. These were all projected numbers. Mayor Schmitt noted this was 25% ofthe overrun in the first year of operation and this is what Cncl. Lehman was so concerned about. This was an opportunity to reduce the first year overrun by 25%. This was substantial in itself. ..~-_._.,-_.._----------~-----~-------_..._-_._----- .._._~-----_.- Cncl. Lehman noted the Council could go back and cap the total amount charged to any single building for building depreciation. This would result in a reduction in the operational subsidy. This was an option but no guarantee. Cncl. Lehman pointed out what the taxpayers in Shakopee needed to be aware of. Cncl. Menden stated he was open to the 40-year length for the proposed community center expansion realizing there would be need for some remodeling to the brick and mortar during that time frame. Cncl. Menden stated the year-to-year operating costs did need to go up. Pools were expensive to operate. Cncl. Menden and Cncl. Lehman addressed using truthful numbers to the Shakopee residents. Cncl. Menden felt the number should be justified from both ends. He did hear Cncl. Helkamp' s concern. Cncl. Lehman stated this was more than just a brick and mortar cost. There were operational costs involved but the City did not truly know what the operational costs were. The public needed to know this. Mr. Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director, noted the operational costs were known for the proposed expansion. They were clearly spelled out in the information being given out as well as there was building rental charge information also being given out. Mr. Themig also stated that a capital replacement fund was also spelled out; the current budget does not spell out a capital replacement fund. He stated the information was there. The Council did not want to take any action at this time on changing the length of time depreciation was captured on City buildings. They would look at this issue at budget time. Official Proceedings of April 12, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Menden/Lehman moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, April 19, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. fr:::J,~ City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary ---- - ----- ---- ------ ------------- ------ -- -------~--- --------- ------ ----- --- ------_...._~._._. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,NUNNESOTA APRIL 19, 2005 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Menden, Joos and Helkamp present. Absent: Joos. Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Mike Hullander, Public Works Supervisor and Dan Hughes, Chief of Police. Randy Sampson, President of Canterbury Park, gave a presentation on the proposed Racino for Canterbury Park. He thanked the Council and the community for the support received over the years for this concept at Canterbury Park. He noted all of the legislators from this area authored the bill in the legislature. He thanked Cncl. Helkamp for testifying before the legislature on behalf of Canterbury Park. He stated he appreciated Mr. McNeill attending the public hearing and the letters from Mayor Schmitt and Cncl. Lehman that were part of the public record at the public hearing. Mr. Sampson noted the Racino contemplated adding slot machine gaming that would be operated by the Minnesota Lottery and the authorization to do bank blackjack. The proposal consisted of an equestrian center, an event facility and a 250-room hotel and conference facility ~-,_.,- Mr. Sampson highlighted some parts of bill that laid the issues out. Section one dedicate 71/4% of the gross gaming revenues to the horse purses. Sections two and three were related to the card club and imposes a 5% gaming tax on the current card club operations and removes the 50-table limit that is currently in the state statute. Section five had some technical changes. Mr. Sampson noted 35% of the gaming machines revenues went to the State's general fund in lieu of tax from those proceeds. Section 17 described how the lottery would contract with Canterbury for a location. This would apply to racetracks that had conducted live racing for the past five years. The racetrack would receive 55% of the gross revenues of which 1 % is dedicated to the City and County. The 7 1/4% was required to by paid to the horseman out of Canterbury's share (55%). This legislation did require local government approval ( Resolution approval by the City Council). This would take place after the bill is passed. Mr. Sampson noted an $100,000,000 upfront fee was also a requirement and gambling attendance was restricted to the current gambling age population in Minnesota. The bill also required Canterbury to pay all the costs to the racing Commission of regulating the Racino. The slot machines would be owned and regulated by the State Lottery and the facility and licensing of the employees would be under the Minnesota Racing Commission. Mr. Sampson noted 11 states had approved Racino' s and in all those states the Racino' s had done very well. Mr. Sampson noted some figures the market research showed for the Racino. The estimates were believed to be conservative and impressive. Mr. Sampson noted it was believed this Racino would create approximately 1300 jobs for the end product and 650 jobs during construction. This was a very labor intensive endeavor. Mr. Sampson noted a temporary facility would be set up initially, after the passage of the bill, while the construction was going on. The permanent location would be next to the grandstand (attached but a separate building). Official Proceedings of April 19,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. Sampson discussed the equestrian center; there were none in the upper Midwest. However, there was a large show horse industry in Minnesota. He felt the equestrian center would stimulate the show horse and pleasure horse economic activity in the State of Minnesota. Mr. Sampson noted the equestrian center was tied to the revenue from the Racino. Mr. Sampson noted that Canterbury would privately finance the construction of the Racino. He was not envisioning using any public monies or City incentives (TIF). Mr. Sampson noted technically the bill was still alive in the House but it was dead in the Senate. He noted there was a long way to go but he believed there still was an opportunity to keep the bill moving in the House. He stated the Racino did impact the budget options for the State. He noted the House actually referenced the Racino at Canterbury. Mr. Sampson noted discussions are taking place with the northern Native American tribes - ...... ._...~~-regarding-a-merger-()f-the-Native-Am.efiean-g-ambl-ing-pF0p0sal-aml-th€-R-aGing-tQ-meet~theneeds---._. of all concerned. This merger would have no impact on the City or local government. This may end up being a partnership of some kind with the northern Native Americans and operating a Racino at Canterbury. There was no decision made at this time. He noted he would discuss with the City the merger between the two entities before anything was finalized. There was nothing being discussed that would affect the trust land of the Native Americans. The casino/racino would be subject to all local regulations. Mr. Sampson noted the equestrian center would be constructed to be used as a multi-purpose building. There were many natural opportunities for the use of this building. Canterbury already had some ofthe barns necessary. Mr. Sampson noted he planned on keeping the current excellent relationship between the City and Canterbury Park. He stated right now Canterbury's version of blackjack was not as popular as the blackjack that Mystic Lake had. At this point, there was nothing the City needed to do for the Racino. Mr. Sampson stated he thought a resolution of support would be helpful in the future. He suggested to wait and see because of all the confusion at the moment and the possibility of a merger. Mr. Sampson noted it could be June before there was a definitive answer. The Resolution of support from 2003 was not sufficient today, there needed to be a resolution from this specific Council. There was consensus to discuss the resolution at the regular Council meeting after this meeting. Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, updated the Council on the Council's goal for improved Infrastructure Maintenance. He noted some of the 17 recommendations from the SEH Study done previously. Mr. Loney noted that SEH recommended that a sanitary sewer policy be Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -3- developed. This was on the agenda tonight. They also recommended utilizing a pavement/asset/fleet management program. A computer maintenance management system was the tool Mr. Loney wanted to discuss. Mr. Loney noted he would like to use computerization for operations. He stated he was primarily dealing with two computer companies. These two companies were: 1) ICON and 2) CarteGraph. Mr. Loney noted how other Cities were gathering this information via the computer. He stated it did take a long time to gather the data but after the information was gathered initially the use of the information could be tremendous and many benefits could be seen. He stated it was important to get a GIS person to work with public works staff. Mr. Loney noted some ofthe benefits with a computer asset management system. He noted there was much cross reference possibilities and accurate record keeping for the City. He stated $10,000 had been budgeted for fleet management this year and he was looking at programs in that range. He noted what some of the fleet management tracking would cover. _..._-_..._~_....._-_...._.,- Mr. Hullander, Public Works Supervisor, noted there are many things in the system now that needed to be done better. The City could save a bundle of money. The City needed to know what they had. This was a huge issue. To get a handle on this situation, the Finance Dept. along with the IT Dept would need to help figure things out so this could be done. He thought the time with IT would be minimal because the Public Works Department would be working with the vendor themselves. This would be a huge part of the office service worker coming on board. Cncl. Lehman asked if the Public Works Department was planning on budgeting another $10,000 in 2006 for asset management. Mr. Hullander noted there would be on-going costs but he did not think the ongoing costs would be $10,000. There would need to be money budgeted each year. Cncl. Lehman noted he was looking at the hardware that would be needed in 2006. Mr. Hullander was looking at the money need from an operations standpoint. Mr. Loney stated he was bringing this forward to see if the Public Works Department could move forward with collecting information. The GIS person's role was critical. Mr. Loney noted they needed to go slow. They needed to meet with the new GIS person and IT to get their input. Mr. Loney noted the data now being submitted by developers to the City was adequate for either ofthe new systems. Mr. Hullander noted the Public Works Department was looking into the high liability areas first. Cncl. Lehman noted Mr. Loney was recommending removing the digital imaging collection data cost for $50,000, thus bringing the cost down to $45,000 to $68,000. Mr. Loney agreed to this statement. Mayor Schmitt noted there were major challenges in the IS Department. There were many projects and only a few people. There needed to be a master plan with a project management Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -4- chart and reports. He felt a mountain was being built and that things were getting away from the City. He was looking for a strategy and a plan as to how all this work could be done. Mr. Hullander stated the Public Works Department did not want or expect to move forward until they met with the GIS person. The GIS person was key. Cncl. Lehman noted this was the vision and Public Works was asking for the okay to move ahead and collect further information and they were getting that. Cncl. Menden stated a software program was a great management tool but it was a tool that was very dependent on the expertise of the person putting the information on the system. Mr. Leek noted there were not enough people in the IT Department now to handle this project. That was clear. He stated several more units of equipment could be expected if this project were to come to fruition. Mr. Leek noted some projects had been cleared out. He stated what some of these projects were. He recommended coming back with a report of what the projects are for IT to do now and a list of those project priorities along with a time line of when it was expected that _...".._.__n_..________ these projects would be done and to bring back a request for a new IT person so things had a chance to get done. Tfie CouncIl needed to commitif-al1-tl:1e needed projec~were-to-get__done. Mayor Schmitt stated the Public Works Department needed to continue the planning and investigation but he did not think there was sufficient information, at this point, to approve anything. He felt the GIS and IT person fell into the planning business. He felt this issue should be brought back at a later date. Cncl. Joos felt the fleet management program should move forward now. He did not want to wait to long on the GIS person to be hired. Cncl. Lehman stated fleet management needed to get going with the new building. He would like to see the positions studied and the sewer maintenance plan also studied with the positions and the other departments (IT, GIS and optical scanning) all put together in one room and hammer out the priorities structure. The fleet management system was a stand alone project. It was not tied to a GIS person. Cncl. Menden thought it was okay to forward on the fleet management system as long as it was independent of the GIS person go. Cncl. Helkamp thought it was critical that fleet management move forward; he also felt there should be sufficient vendor support to train the public works staff. He would like to see the public works staff operate the system independently and not relying on the IT department constantly. Mayor Schmitt noted the City could not do anything, if the project ran over the City servers, without the IT department being involved in some capacity. We cannot get away from that. Mr. McNeill noted strategies would be brought back as to how the projects would interface with the IT Department. Lehman/Menden moved to recess at 6:10 p.m. Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mayor Schmitt reconvened the meeting at 6:27 p.m. Anne Carroll, facilitator for the City's visioning process, introduced the students in her program that were working on this visioning process. This was an update on the visioning initiative. She noted many ideas were brought forth from the open houses and community conversations that had been held. This update would concentrate on a process update, discuss issue briefs, challenges and opportunities of the issues, next steps and questions would be addressed at the end of the presentations. Joos/Menden moved to adjourn to Tuesday, April 19, 2005 at 7:10 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. ~J.~ ~: s. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 19, 2005 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Menden, Joos and Helkamp present. Also Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg V oxland, Finance Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney and Dan Hughes, Police Chief. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was deferred to a future meeting at the request ofthe applicant. 15.C.7. Agreements for 17th A venue, County Road 77 and County Road 79 Improvements with the Developer of Countryside, I.S.D. #720 and Scott County. The following item was added to the Agenda. Item 16.A. A Resolution for the Racino. Helkamp/Menden moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Schmitt stated he attended a booster presentation for the Shakopee Sabers Basketball Team recognizing them for their Class III, A State High School Basketball championship for 2005. The following item was added to the Consent Agenda. 15.C.1. Reconveyance of Interceptor No. 7023 and 7024 and Lift Station No. 16 and item 15.C.2. Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Policy with a change in the language noting "all lift stations that the City is responsible for". The following items were deleted from the Consent Agenda. 15.8.2. Final Plat of Riverside Fields 4th Addition, located west ofCSAH 18 and north of Crossings Boulevard and 15.FA. SCALE Equipment Sharing Agreement. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Schmitt asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the meeting minutes for March 1,2005 (Regular Session) and March 15,2005 (5:00 p.m. Session). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkmap/Joos moved to approve the bills in the amount of $395,591.21 plus $170,620.36 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $566,211.57. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Lehman! /Helkamp moved to open the public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of an easement on property located at 801 Patterson. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the vacation of a portion of an easement for property located at 80 I Patterson. Mr. Leek noted this property was located in the northern portion of the ACC Second Addition and this easement was no longer needed for drainage and utilities. Mr. Leek stated the Planning Commission reviewed this vacation request at their April 7, 2005 meeting and recommended approval on a unanimous vote. Cncl. Lehman asked if a home could be constructed on the lot because of the location of the swale where the utilities and drainage easement is. Mr. Leek noted on the Certificate of Survey done by College Homes a house was depicted being located to the north of the swale. Mayor Schmitt asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak. There was no response. Joos/Helkamp moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MendenlJoos offered Resolution No. 6223, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Vacating Easement Within ACC Second Addition, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 5-0. Lehman! /Helkamp moved to open the public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of an easement on property located in Dean Lakes Second Addition, south of H wy 169, east of CSAH 83, north ofCSAH 16 and west of Dean Lakes. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Leek reported on the proposed vacation of a portion of an easement on property located in Dean Lakes Second Addition along the lot line of Lot 1, Block 3 in the Second Addition. Mr. Leek stated staff would acquire the amount of drainage and utility easement needed when the lot line was replatted and relocated. Mr. Leek noted the existing easement needed to be vacated. Mr. Leek stated the Planning Commission recommended the vacation of the easement at their April 7, 2005 meeting. Mayor Schmitt asked ifthere was anyone from the public who wished to speak. There was no response. Helkamp/Joos moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. LehmanlMenden offered Resolution No. 6224, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Vacating Easement Within Dean Lakes Second Addition, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 5-0. Cncl. Menden questioned the status of the City Goals and Action Plan. encl. Menden asked what the target dates for the growth management policy were and when could the Council Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -3- anticipate seeing this policy. Mr. Leek addressed this question. He noted there would be a public hearing in May at the Planning Commission and this growth policy containing comments, if any from the public hearing, would be back before the Council at their first meeting in June. Mr. Leek noted this policy document would be redistributed on April 18 and he would email this document to the Council for their review. Cncl. Menden noted there needed to be a joint meeting with the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC), the County, the School District and Jackson Township. It was good to have these meetings for the budget process. Mr. McNeill stated instead of the County giving their presentation there would be a joint County Board meeting with the City Council the second meeting in June, the joint meeting with Jackson Township was normally held during budget workshops and he would follow-up on the joint meetings with the School District and SPUC. Cncl. Menden stated the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) was looking at the value of doing an AUAR for the eastern part of Shakopee. A recommendation from them may be coming forward for this AUAR. Cncl. Joos stated the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) had an interest to meet with the City Council. Cncl. Joos noted SPUC had looked at the preliminary numbers if residential building permits were limited to somewhere between 400 and 600 permits. He noted SPUC had also looked at the water situation for the Bluff A venue Apartments and the looping policy regarding water. Cncl. Joos stated SPUC had a well head protection policy that the Council needed to be aware of because an infiltration pond was being planned to be in one of the well- head protection areas. Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6219, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Final Plat Of South Parkview 5th Addition. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek reported on the Final Plat of Riverside Fields 4th Addition, located west of CSAH 18 and north of Crossings Boulevard with the proposed corridor for County Road 21 being just north of Crossings Boulevard. This item had been tabled at the AprilS, 2005 meeting. Mr. Leek noted because of the roadway reconfiguration this is a revised preliminary plat that does not show the looped street that was shown on the original preliminary plat. Mr. Leek noted Switchgrass Circle now was a cul-de-sac that was 750 feet long. On the last preliminary plat seen by Council this cul-de-sac was over the 750-foot maximum length for a cul-de-sac. There was an easement agreement being worked on between Shakopee Crossings and Scott County for the emergency access that was required out to Southbridge Parkway from this development; there was a condition in the approval for the original preliminary plat that after the 100th building permit was issued there needed to be an emergency access point for public safety purposes (this was the permanent emergency access). This emergency access was required for Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -4- the long term as well as the short term. It was noted that it was very probable that the commercial development on the end of Switchgrass Circle would be done before the County got County Road 21 in place. Mr. Leek noted there was no access to the west because Crossings Boulevard had not been completed. The temporary access would no longer be needed when Crossings Boulevard was completed. It was noted that the development had not reached the trigger point yet (100th building permit) but this need for a permanent emergency access point needed to be planned for now. The permanent and temporary emergency access would only be for emergency vehicles. Mr. Leek noted Switchgrass Circle, which was a cul-de-sac, would function as a cul-de-sac. There would be no vehicular traffic coming into the cul-de-sac from the emergency access point. Mr. Leek noted the emergency access on this cul-de-sac was basically a life safety consideration if access was blocked at the other point. It was noted there were breakaways planned for the emergency equipment to use at this access point if necessary. Cncl. Lehman had a concern if the 750-foot Switchgrass Circle cul-de-sac now met the length requirement in City Code why was an emergency access needed. Cncl. Joos also questioned why an emergency access was needed if the cul-de-sac met the ordinance requirement, normally an emergency access was not required. Mr. Leek addressed the question. The sewer connectivity to Riverside Bluffs was discussed. It was noted that a connection coming from the east to Riverside Bluffs had been required in the final plat of Riverside Fields. However, the cost to hook up to a temporary sewer connection from the east should be in the final plat of Riverside Bluffs. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, addressed the easement for Lot 62 and Lot 61 in the Riverside Fields 4th Addition where the emergency access was proposed. It was noted there was a separate easement on each lot for drainage and utilities. However, the definition needed to be more specific, there needed to be more than just the words drainage and utility words in the language if the easement had another purpose in mind (i.e. emergency access). It was noted that condition II.C. in Resolution 6187 addressed the need for an easement agreement. Ryan Lewis, with Centex Homes, addressed the Switchgrass Circle cul-de-sac. He stated one of the purposes of the previous overlength cul-de-sac for Switchgrass Circle was to provide a shorter emergency access thru the commercial development until the second access was completed. He stated by shortening the cul-de-sac to 750' two lots were lost and the emergency access was longer. He noted Centex Homes was asking for the 800' cul-de-sac and they would then put in an emergency access or if the Council preferred there could be a 750' cul-de-sac but there would be no emergency access. Mr. Lewis stated he felt it was unreasonable for the City to expect Centex Homes to give up two lots. He also stated it was best not to have a looping street; in his opinion, this looping street would then encourage traffic from the commercial development to go through a residential area. He stated there were agreements in place for the maintenance of the emergency breakaway apparatus with the developer. Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Helkamp/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6187, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving The Final Plat Of Riverside Fields Fourth Addition with the removal of the permanent emergency access on lots 61 and 62 but keeping the temporary emergency access and keeping the length of Switchgrass Circle cul-de-sac to 750', and moved its adoption. Cncl. Helkamp stated the commercial area was a like a large parking lot, he did not see the commercial area as an overlength cul-de-sac. He did not like the permanent emergency access; the temporary emergency access made sense, however. This permanent emergency access would require maintenance and it would require winter maintenance that would be extremely difficult. He did not like the commingling of the traffic (foot, bicycle or vehicular) between the residential and the commercial developments. He wanted to see as much distance and separation between these two uses as possible. He did note the lots were more radial; the City, at the last Council meeting, had requested this and the applicant responded positively. He stated this was the best proposal the Council had seen to date on this proposed development. Cncl. Lehman noted the proposal at the last meeting had the shorter public safety access. Cncl. Menden stated he was concerned about the mobility of fire trucks moving through a full parking lot on the commercial side. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Menden dissenting. Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6229, A Resolution Setting The Public Hearing Date To Consider The Vacation Of Easement For Property In Jeffers Pond (Prior Lake City Limits), and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek reported on the need for certification of foundation level, final grades and topsoil. Mr. Leek noted there had been problems in the City resulting from these three conditions. Mr. Leek noted there were a number of plats where the grading was done before the preliminary plat was approved. Many times this resulted in grades not matching up with adjacent lots. Mr. Leek noted an alternative to having certification was hiring a contractor to check topsoil, grading and foundation levels and charge this service back to the builder. A second alternative of having staff verify the topsoil, grading and foundation level was looked at as well as a third alternative. This third alternative was to put the onus back on the builder to do the grading properly and the complaints could be given to the builder to take care of any of these problems, ifthere was an amendment to Chapter 4 of Ordinance No. 730 regarding top soil, foundations and grading. Mr. Leek noted he did receive a call from McDonald Construction stating this amendment would add additional cost to the buildings and there was also a letter on the table from Ryland Homes objecting to the proposed amendment because according to them there was no problem with multi-family housing and the cost was also an objection. Ryland Homes also stated they were unaware of any other City requiring an elevation certification as well as a grading certification. Mr. Leek did note that the City did have problems with all three issues. Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Mr. Leek stated that the information regarding certification of foundation level, final grades and topsoil was being passed around the building department and they were aware that changes to the topsoil, grading elevations and foundation levels were being looked at. Mr. Leek did state temporary Certificate of Occupancy's were issued in the wintertime to give builders time to get the landscaping in place; the final Certificate of Occupancy was held until the landscaping was in place. Cncl. Joos stated if the City was having problems with these issues, he was for a text amendment that addressed each of the issues. Mayor Schmitt stated he too was in favor of trying to fix all these problems now. Helkamp/Menden offered Ordinance No. 730, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending City Code Chapter 4, Construction Licensing, Permits and Regulations, and moved its adoption. Mark Sonstegard, Land Development Manager for Ryland Homes, approached the podium and stated he reviewed all of Ryland Homes surveys and grading plans. He noted he contacted Jim Grampre, Building Official for the City, with some questions. He noted he had some questions on the language in the proposed amendment regarding grading and building elevations. He requested that the multi-family homes be waived from the need of certification for grading. He also asked who would enforce this certification. Mr. Sonstegard did state that it was becoming common to do certifications for grading on single-family homes. He suggested that builders, surveyors and the City's building dept. get together and come up with a plan to get correct building elevations and grading elevations. He volunteered to be on this committee and he would provide a surveyor. Mr. Leek suggested tabling this issue after concerns were raised. He was not aware of Mr. Grampre's thought of requiring foundation inspections before the framing inspection was done. Lehman/Joos moved to table the issue regarding the certification of foundation level, final grades and topsoil and to have this issue comeback to the May 3, 2004 City Council meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Leek reported on the proposal in the form of a resolution regarding sanitary sewer for the Plat of Park Meadows East from the developer. Mr. Leek noted this plat of Park Meadows East was a previously approved preliminary plat. He noted originally Centex Homes was going to develop Park Meadows East but they had withdrawn from the picture. Originally, it was thought that Centex Homes and RADS (aka Ames) would work together and come up with a cost sharing agreement to get sanitary services along the east side of Country Road 83 and Valley View Road. Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Mr. Leek noted, since Centex Homes had left the picture, Gonyea Land Company was talking with Pulte Homes to see if they would be interested in developing Park Meadows East (located west of County Road 83 and north of Valley View). Pulte Homes was concerned about the timing of bringing the sanitary sewer down County Road 83. Pulte Homes was of the opinion that if the sanitary sewer was not extended down County Road 83 in a timely fashion for them, they would need to serve the Park Meadows East plat with a lift station. Mr. Leek noted there were problems involved getting the sanitary sewer down County Road 83 in this location. Originally', it was proposed to bring the sanitary sewer down the east side of County Road 83. However, when things did not come to fruition with Centex Homes and RADS, RADS sold their 37 acres of property along County Road 83 to the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC). The SMSC now owned much of the land in fee title in the area along County Road 83. It was originally thought that the County would secure easements along the east side of County Road 83 and the sanitary sewer would run in the easement, this had not happened yet. Mr. Leek thought there was movement towards getting the easements but the easements were not in place yet. The easements the County was trying to get did not include the easements for the SMSC property that formally was the RADS property. There were problems if the sanitary sewer ran along the west side of County Road 83 in this area. Mr. Leek noted three additional easements would be needed. These easements would be for the Hawkins property, the Snyder property, and the Koehnen property and Mr. Leek was of the opinion that eminent domain proceedings would be needed to acquire the easements and this all took time. Mr. Leek stated the Council may want a feasibility study done for this area; at the last City Council meeting, the Council expressed an interest in having the developer pay the cost for the feasibility Study. Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, noted having the sanitary sewer along the west side of County Road 83 in this area may be cost effective and advantageous for the City, but it also could take some time. It would be best to wait and put the sanitary sewer along the west side of County Road 83 when other properties were ready to develop. Right now the right-of-way for Valley View Road near the intersection of County Road 83 had not been acquired because the RADS property had not come to fruition. The plans and specifications were done for Valley View Road and the public hearing had been held but the right-of-way has not been acquired. Chances of getting Valley View Road completed in the 2005 construction season were getting quite slim. Mr. Loney stated there may be some areas of Shakopee where sanitary sewer service cannot be provided. He stated if a lift station were approved for the Park Meadows East Plat the developer was willing to pay $150,000 towards the sanitary sewer extension along County Road 83, pay for Official Proceedings of April 19,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -8- the lift station and pay $150,000 in trunk sewer fees. Mr. Loney also thought the developer should be responsible to pay for the operation and the maintenance of the lift station. Darrell Gonyea, 1053 Peninsula Point Road, Shakopee, stated at the August 17, 2004 meeting, when the MUSA was extended and the re-guiding and the rezoning were approved he thought the lift station had also been approved. He noted that RADS had come to him and asked to use the lift station. Mr. Gonyea noted that Pulte Homes would donate $150,000 towards the north/south sanitary sewer line extension if that extension was done by September 1,2005. He stated Gonyea Land Development Company would pay $150,000 towards the sanitary sewer extension along County Road 83 at the time of final plat, pay for the lift station and pay the trunk sewer fees. Mr. Gonyea stated the homeowner's association would pay maintenance and operation of the lift station and this would be in the developer's agreement. The reason Gonyea was willing to pay all this was because then they could move forward with their project. They realized there were several hang-ups for the north/south sewer extension along County Road 83. He also stated the developer would give the right-of-way for Valley View Road needed near the intersection of County Road 83 and Valley View Road. He noted the sewer lines within the development would be constructed in such a fashion that they could be connected to a trunk sewer line on either side of County Road 83. He noted the City would pay for the oversizing of the sewer lines. He stated he was okay with the conditions and he would work with Mr. Loney on the retaining wall issue pertaining to Valley View Road. There was discussion as to how the temporary lift station would affect the developments to the north. Mr. Loney addressed the capacity issue regarding some of the sanitary sewer trunk lines to the north of this development. He stated he thought the temporary lift station would be okay as far as capacity was concerned for future developments. Mr. Loney noted if the temporary lift station were approved this would allow some additional time for the City to look at sanitary sewer plans for this area relative to trunk capacities. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, felt the appropriate motion would be to direct staff at the time of final plat application to bring these issues back to the City Council. These issues were: 1) $150,000 would go into the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fund at the time of final plat application and 2) a condition at the time of final plat noting the homeowners association would pay for the operation and maintenance of the lift station and 3) right-of-way for Valley View Road would be given at time of final plat or before by the developer. Joos/Lehman moved to direct staff at the time of final plat application for Park Meadows East to bring these issues back to the City Council. These issues were: 1) $150,000 would go into the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fund at the time offIllal plat application; 2) a condition at the time of final plat noting the homeowners association would pay for the operation and maintenance of the lift Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -9- and 3) right-of-way for Valley View Road would be given at time of final plat or before by the developer. Motion carried 5-0. Lehman/Joos moved to direct staff to come back with a proposal to do a feasibility study on getting sanitary sewer in the area of Valley View Road and County Road 83 via County Road 83 and other options for a sanitary sewer in this area and to use sanitary sewer funds to fund the cost of the feasibility study. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Schmitt noted there needed to be discussion with the landowners in the area as to what their plans were for their properties and he volunteered to start the discussions with the . landowners. Cncl. Helkamp noted the sewer was along the east side of County Road 83 along other sections of County Road 83; the City needed to depend on the County to get the needed easements for the sanitary sewer so it could remain on the eastern side of Country Road 83. Cncl. Lehman felt it was critical to know where the sewer could go on in the area because of the tribal lands and possible future tribal lands along County Road 83. Helkamp/Menden moved to recess at 9:09 p.m. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the City Council meeting at 9:24 p.m. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the February 10, 2005 letter from Metropolitan Council Environmental Service (MCES) with comments regarding the MCES decision to reconvey L-16, Forcemain Segment No.7004 and Interceptor No. 7024 as presented. (CC Document No. 382) (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6217, A Resolution Adopting A Sanitary Sewer Policy For The City Of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate officials to sign the "Recycling Program Agreement" for 2005 between Scott County and the City of Shakopee. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). He1kamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6226, A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For The 2005 Street Reconstruction Project No. 2005-1, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6227, A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For The 2005 Bituminous Overlay Project No. 2005-4, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Helkamp/Joos moved to direct staff to utilize the pre-purchase agreements with Siemon Implement, Inc. on the John Deere 5420 Tractor for the price of $6,070.50 and the John Deere Gator for the price of$1,597.50. The purchase price to be funded out ofthe Internal Service Equipment Fund and to direct staff to invoice Vision Shakopee $1,597.50 to reimburse the fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to acknowledge the satisfactory completion of probation and authorize the retention of Derek Nordtvedt as Police Officer effective April 19, 2005. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to accept the successful completion of Robert Schmit's probationary period and grant him regular full-time status. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to acknowledge the satisfactory completion of probation and authorize the retention of Scott Weiers as Police Officer effective April 19, 2005. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the appointment of Kyle Sobota to the position of Planner I at Step F,Grade 6 ($42,953 per year), subject to satisfactory completion ofthe pre-employment physical, background check, and one-year probationary period. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to authorize the hiring of Lon Hensen as a full-time Records Clerk, effective May 30,2005, at Grade 3, Step C (36,320/yr). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to accept Jennifer Scheel's resignation and authorize the Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission to continue the testing process to fill the vacant police officer position. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Tracy Schaefer, consultant with Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC, reported on the solid waste/recycling contract renewal direction she was proposing for contract renewal with Dick's Sanitation (there were two concurrent contracts). The current contracts would expire in March 2006. She noted the refuse contract was for a closed organized system of residential services only. The contract covered all single-family dwelling units, townhomes and any apartment building up to four units within the MUSA area. She noted the current contract with Dick's Sanitation was for 1) refuse recycling and yard waste and 2) for the processing of refuse services with Hennepin County. Ms. Schaefer noted the City had three main options. These were: 1) simply renew the contract with Dick's Sanitation and maintain the current organized system, 2) issue Request for Proposals Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -11- (RFP's) to other interested haulers and processing facilities and 3) allow both contracts to expire and open up the system to all haulers in the community. Ms. Schafer explained the organized system and the advantages of the system and the disadvantages of the system. Ms. Schaefer noted it was determined that the advantages of the closed system outweighed the disadvantages. Ms. Schaefer noted the recommendation from Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC was for the City to continue some type of organized system with Dick's Sanitation and to renew that contract and negotiate a new contract with Dick's Sanitation for processing and to send the processing to Hennepin County or NRG. Ms. Schaefer stated after talking with the City's attorney, Jim Thomson, it was noted that the City did not have to send out an RFP for professional services each time the contract was up. Ms. Schaefer stated the City did send out an RFP in 2000 for refuse services. This was a legal method. Ms. Schaefer noted an RFP had been sent out at that time because there had been customer service complaints with the previous refuse hauler. These complaints were now few and far between. If the Council continued with Dick's Sanitation the existing terms would apply. Ms. Schaefer noted a few of the terms in the contract with Dick's Sanitation. Ms. Schaefer noted ifRFP's were sent out the staffing level at the City would be impacted. There would be a need for a consultant to do the RFP's and to go thru the process of analyzing the returned RFP's. Ms. Schaeffer also recommended that an on-line bill payment program be set up on line for all residents free of charge. Ms. Schaefer also recommended that the City request a $25,000 grant from Scott County SCORE CARD money to purchase additional recycling containers to continue the recycling program thus trying to keep monthly rates low and she also recommended a $5,000 grant from Scott County SCORE CARD funding for the purpose to continue environmental awareness education to the residents through the City's new letter, web site and any video production. Ms. Schaefer also addressed processing Shakopee's waste with Hennepin County. Ms. Schaefer noted at this time NRG (located in Scott County) is also able to accept Shakopee's waste and process it in a more environmental friendly way for part of the processing. Ms. Schaefer recommended the City Council direct Bradley and Guzzetta to negotiate a 5-year refuse agreement with Dick's Sanitation, request grants from Scott County's SCORE CARD fund and to negotiate the terms and conditions with Hennepin County and NRG for a processing agreement before the May 3rd City Council meeting. Ms. Schaefer noted staffhad worked with Dick's Sanitation's when the City switched to Dick's Sanitation regarding providing services for rental properties and paying for services on rental properties. Many customer service problems had been rectified when the City switched services to Dick's Sanitation. Cncl. Lehman noted many residents would like a free clean up day. He stated this would benefit the City as a whole to get the neighborhoods cleaned up. He understood there needed to be a Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -12- charge for some of the larger items. Mr. Mc Neill, City Administrator, offered his thoughts/experience on this idea. Ms. Schaefer noted there were special items that had bulk pricing and pick-up with Dick's Sanitation at this time. Allan Hastings, 1295 Miller Street South, approached the podium and asked to be heard. He stated he paid two garbage bills, one residential and one commercial. He noted no garbage had ever been picked up at his house, yet he was still billed for it with the closed system. He thanked Ms. Schaefer for taking his money from him for the refuse service, that money had been collected in his property tax assessment. He would like the freedom of choice restored in the City of Shakopee. He stated there were other people in the same situation he was in. Cncl. Lehman noted it was not Ms. Schaefer who was responsible for Mr. Hasting's property tax reflecting delinquent refuse pick-up fees, the City Council as a whole adopted the resolution to add the delinquent refuse fees to the assessment roll. Cncl. Lehman noted with an open system there were people who spoiled it for all the residents. Mayor Schmitt stated the Council needed to decide if the City wanted an open or closed system. Joos/Menden moved to have the City of Shakopee have a closed system (as it is today) for refuse hauling. Motion carried 5-0. JooslLehman moved to direct staff and consultant, Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC to 1) negotiate a new five-year refuse agreement with Dick's Sanitation; 2) request $25,000 for recycling bins and $5,000 for environmental awareness from Scott County's SCORE CARD fund; and 3) negotiate terms and pricing with both Hennepin County and NRG for a processing agreement before the May 3rd City Council meeting. Cncl. Lehman asked if the proposal came back and the City Council did not like the proposal could the refuse contract then be sent out for RFP's? Mr. Thomson, City Attorney, responded yes. Mayor Schmitt asked for comment's from the audience. Sheldon Swenson, Waste Management, thanked the Council for being receptive to his letters and phone calls. He requested that the Council review exactly what the current contract with Dick's Sanitation stipulated. He asked the Council to look at the multi-family situation. Mayor Schmitt noted the current contract did not include multi-family over four units. He would like to see townhomes, because of the associations, treated as a commercial business. He shared a letter from an association he received today. He would like the opportunity to sit down with staff and review Ms. Schaefer's presentation. Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -13- Ms. Schaefer noted the townhomes were added to the contract last time by the direction of the Council. She noted townhomes did receive a reduced rate from Dick's Sanitation because of the density of the townhomes. Rich Hirstein, BFr Waste Systems, stated the organized closed system had worked very well for Shakopee. He stated pricing, as well as service needed to be looked at for refuse pick-up in the City of Shakopee. He thought it was very important to look at this issue from a pricing standpoint as well. He felt the residents could save some money. He would like to see a one page RFP. He stated BFI was implementing a new recycling program that would be easier for the residents. Cncl. Lehman stated if the proposal negotiated with Dick's Sanitation was not approved then the City could do an RFP. The City was not in a hurry. Ms. Schaefer clarified the current rates for refuse pick-up for a Shakopee resident. She noted right now a Shakopee resident was under the metro average for pricing on a refuse container. She noted the pricing today was still competitive and Shakopee also processed their refuse rather than using a landfill because processing was more environmental friendly. Allan Hasting again approached the podium and addressed the freedom of choice for the residents of Shakopee to select a refuse hauler. Mayor Schmitt addressed Mr. Hastings comment. He noted the Council unanimously chose to use a closed system for their residents. This was thought to be the best way for the residents. Cncl. Lehman noted the City had not taken away a right from the residents. Mayor Schmitt called the question. The Council unanimously voted to limit debate. Motion (main) carried 5-0. Ms. Schaefer reported on the LaserFiche digital imaging software system. She stated it was recommended that the Council enter into an agreement with Crabtree Companies, Inc. to implement an imaging and scanning system that will store and manage the City's records electronically. Ms. Schaefer noted some of the costs the City would eliminate with a digital imaging system and some of the benefits that a digital imaging system would provide. Many technologies (vendors) were tested. She noted the committee determined it would be best to send out RFP's to only LaserFiche vendors. LaserFiche was very easy to use. Ms. Schaefer noted five RFP's were sent out and three RFP's came back. Ms. Schaefer noted one of the three RFP's was late and did not meet the RFP requirements. Ms. Schaefer noted after consultation with the City's Attorney the decision was made to reject the late proposal. Only two RFP's were actually extensively looked at. Ms. Schaefer noted Crabtree's proposal had an overall lower price, more experience and they had a working relationship with LOGIS. Ms. Schaefer noted the committee met and did agree that Crabtree would be the best software vendor. It was recommended that not Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -14- all components be purchased in phase one of the digital imaging system. The recommendation was to phase the system in three phases. Ms. Schaefer explained the different digital imaging system phases. She stated she had talked with Ms. Henke, the City's MI coordinator, and it was agreed that this was a very good investment for the City. Ms. Schaefer noted the budget impact of this digital imaging system. She noted initially $100,000 had been budgeted but because of the budget cuts $20,000 of this figure was now in the General Fund budget. She stated Crabtree's amount would be $32,738, $26,300 for the City to purchase the additional needed hardware and software and $21,000 to scan the backlog of documents. In addition there would be an ongoing cost of $5,434 for the annual support agreement and the server software. Ms. Schafer noted the phase one cost was approximately $21,000. Ms. Schaefer noted she recommended this operation be centralized through the City Clerk's office with Ms. Henke being the focal point for the server. Ms. Schaefer explained the back-up plan for the system. She noted there were a few options as far as backup was concerned. Mayor Schmitt noted the City needed a disaster plan for off-site back up. Ms. Schaefer noted there were options possible for that off-site back up. Helkamp/Joos moved with the assistance of the City's consultant, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC to authorize the appropriate City staffto enter into an agreement with Crabtree Companies, Inc. to purchase, implement, install, and train users on a LaserFiche digital imaging software system and to enter into a separate one-year software service maintenance agreement and authorize the appropriate City staff to purchase the necessary hardware and software to complete the digital imaging system and to work with Crabtree to find an appropriate method to scan the backlog of City documents with the total project cost not to exceed $80,000. Motion carried 5-0. Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6179, A Resolution Appointing Judges Of Election And Establishing Compensation, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill stated he thought Cncl. Lehman pulled this SCALE sharing Agreement off consent because Cncl. Lehman was concerned there was no maintenance log attached to the agreement. Cncl. Lehman stated all he wanted was some record of the maintenance that had been performed while the party was using the equipment. He felt the partying using the equipment should pay for the maintenance they performed or had performed. He wanted the maintenance records to be updated in a timely fashion. Mr. McNeill and Cncl. Helkamp each offered suggestions as to how this maintenance could be tagged. There was consensus that Cncl. Helkamp had a satisfactory suggestion. Official Proceedings of April 19, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -15- Helkamp/Lehman moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the intergovernmental equipment sharing agreement. Motion carried 5-0. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the application and grant a tobacco license to Tony's Super Mercado, Inc., 123 West 2nd Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution of support of the Racino Concept as proposed subject to the terms and conditions as defined by HF 1664. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Helkamp offered a friendly amendment that the resolution of support for a Racino at Canterbury Park be consistent with HF 1664. The motion maker was fine with this friendly amendment. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. McNeill noted in conversations with Chief Hughes, Chief Hughes noted if this Racino became a reality the Shakopee Police Department's work load would be increased by at least 20%. This statement provided the rationale as to why the City should receive the 1 % as stated in the proposal for the Racino at Canterbury Park. Mayor Schmitt noted the motion should read "subject to the terms and conditions as defined by HF 1664". Cncl. Lehman noted that Mr. Sampson stated he wanted to continue the positive relationship that Canterbury Park now had with the Shakopee Police Department. Cncl. Lehman brought up his previous suggestion regarding an e-calendar. Mr. McNeill noted this was not as easy as once thought. This would be added to the list of the many projects that Ms. Henke now had. Helkamp/Lehman moved to adjourn the meeting to Thursday, April 28, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the Police Station meeting room. The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. ~J.~ 71th s. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary