Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: June 7, 2005 (5 p.m.) OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,NUNNESOTA JUNE 7, Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Council members Men Lehman, Helkamp and Joos present. Also Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrat Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director and Bruce Loney, Public Works/City Engineer. Members of the Scott County Board present: Bob Vogel, Jerry Hennen, Jon Ulrich, Joseph Wagener and Barbara Marschall (5:10). Also present: Dave Unmacht, Coun Administrator, Lezlie Vermillion, Public Works Director, and Michael Sobota, Community Development Director" Board Chair opened the joint meeting with the City Council and the Scott County B Mayor Schmitt addressed the need for the city and the county to come together to t about current issues. Mr. McNeill stated that this was an opportunity for Council members and the memb s of the County Board to address any issues they have. Cncl. Joos first offered the need to develop and understand where County 21 is goin to be. He described County 21 as being a key component in planning for the future th needs to be identified as soon as possible. Cncl. Joos noted the need to purchase Ian with the issue of land expense and keeping it cost effective. He expressed the need first identify the corridor and get the right-aways bought so everyone can move fo with these issues. Cncl. Joos also offered the issue of needing to cut into CR 101 for the water connection in developing Huber Park, and questioned the county's pol y. Cncl. Helkamp also expressed the need to immediately address the issue of County oad 21 and the intersection of South bridge Parkway and County Road 18. Cncl. Helk noted the opportunity to bring tax value into both Scott County and Shakopee. He offered the need to get 17th A venue finished for the high school. Cncl. Helkamp ofn the need for a Transit Hub on the south side of the Highway 169 Bridge. Ms. Marschall addressed the issue of the County Road 21 and 18 intersection, alon addressing 17th A venue. Ms. Marschall also addressed the Transit management pI Ms. Marschall noted the need for working together with partnerships. Cncl. Lehman addressed three main issues; transportation, taxation and unity. Cncl Lehman offered that unity (working together), is a big part in making sure that it is beneficial to everyone involved. Cncl. Lehm~ offered that the 69 river crossing is oing to be important for the future for Scott County and Shakopee; and that this is where transportation and unity need to come together. Cncl. Lehman stated that "transportation" in general is really important along with taxation. Official Proceedings of the June 7, 2 5 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. Ulrich offered transportation as a priority. Mr. Ulrich addressed congestion an funding for transportation as key issues. He also offered discussion regarding the tr Mayor Schmitt stated that highways, park and ride, and zoning are all issues. Mayo Schmitt stated that economic development is being overlooked. He suggested that be created where the tax base is also supported by economic development, in the fo jobs. Mr. Hennen discussed the importance of protecting our natural resources. Cncl. Menden also described transportation as being one of the main issues. Cncl. Menden noted the difficulty in trying to find the funds for the 800 MHz system and in trying to find sizable Park Property. In addition to transportation, Cncl. Menden the issue of utilities. Mr. Vogel added that his emphasis is on the Comprehensive Plan Update that the c ty is doing. He stated that the 800 MHz system is also a priority. Mr. Loney opened discussion regarding the Joint Truck Wash Facility. Mr. Loney ated that a new public worl<s facility is being built and that the existing building will als i e kept, for storage and for public works operations. Mr. Loney added that there is an automated small vehicle wash in the new building, so that the washing could be do inside the new building, to prevent slippage and for better operations. Mr. Loney discussed the opportunity to upgrade this truck wash to an automated system, WIDC could also be used by County Staffs Transit Fleet. Mr. Loney stated that the Coun would have the funds from the Metropolitan Council and that upgrade would be approximately $145,000.00. Mr. Loney added that it would be located down in the facility and they would jointly share in the building of it and would also share in th operation and maintenance costs based on usage. Ms. Vermillion added that this is a tremendous opportunity for partnering. Ms. Vermillion stated that 60-65% of the bus operation is in the Shakopee area, so the majority of the buses would be able to use this area for washing and this would also e available for other vehicles to use. Mr. Loney stated that they are proceeding ahead based on a verbal from the county, ut need to bring an agreement back to City Council. Cncl. Joos addressed the issue of noise in adding all these vehicles to the surroundi area. Mr. McNeill stated that noise would not be an issue, because of the time of operati Official Proceedings of the June 7, 2 5 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Ms. Vermillion offered that there would be cost savings in going to the automated washers and therefore the time savings for staff would be tremendous. Cncl. Helkamp added that this would be a great opportunity for Shakopee. Cncl. Le an stated that he is also in support of this, Cncl. Lehman also addressed the ability to rk it out so both parties are not using it at the same time and also addressed the issue of maintenance costs. Mr. Menden, Mr" Vogel, and Mr. Hennen all supported the idea. Cnc!. Lehman asked if some of the cost savings would be utilized in other areas of County's Capital Improvement. Ms. Vermillion stated that the region will also bene t, so some of the operational dollars will go down. Mayor Schmitt offered that this subject would be brought forward at the next City Council meeting. Mayor Schmitt opened the Transportation Discussion. Mr. Loney introduced discussion on Future Funding of County Road Improvements offered this as the main issue. Mr. Loney offered the need to meet Scott County's n Mr. Loney expressed trying to find other ways of funding for county roads. Ms. Vermillion offered other plans for funding. Ms. Vermillion offered evaluating ort- term funding. Ms" Vermillion stated that they are open to all different ways of fund i g. Ms. Vermillion offered that the County is aware that County Road 17 is an issue. Commissioner Wagener left the meeting at 5:35 p.m. Cncl. Joos offered that there be more creativity in dealing with County Road 17, rat r than just putting up a stoplight. Ms. Vermillion stated that a bonding bill has not been issued for transportation. Ms Vermillion added that there are all different types of funding options that are being looked at. Cnc!. Lehman questioned traffic volumes. Ms. Vermillion stated that they do look the volumes, safety, the capacity needs and the age of the infrastructure. Mr. Vogel discussed right-of-way preservation that will help if done through development. Mr. Vogel also addressed the importance of partnerships. Official Proceedings of the June 7, 2 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Mayor Schmitt offered using state funds. Ms. Vermillion stated that there wouldn't any turn back money to upgrade a county road from the State. Mr. Sobota offered that transportation and land use go closely together and therefore eed to be paid attention to. Mayor Schmitt questioned which approach was being taken in terms of lobbying the tate for highway funding. Ms. Vermillion stated that there are three key components in transportation funding; 1) gas tax, 2) license tab fees, and 3) the remainder of the (Minnesota Vehicle Excise Tax). Mayor Schmitt offered that when we move from one fund to another we aren't deali with the real problem. Mr. Unmacht addressed that there is also a local solution based strategy. It was add that there is not just a reliance on the state strategy; there is also a new federal strate .It was expressed that there is frustration with the state; therefore other options locally e being explored. Cncl. Lehman offered the concern that the bulk of proposed county road improveme s are outside Shakopee and Shakopee is where the bulk of the dollars are coming fro Mr. Hennen offered that there can't be "tunnel vision". Mr. Hennen offered that the are other county expenses in addition to roads. Mr. Ulrich stated that the ability to do these projects is limited as there is wide spec of needs for the county. Cncl. Lehman offered balancing issues of services. Mr. Vogel addressed the Scott County WMO. There was a lot oftime spent on it an staff did an excellent job on resolving some issues. Mr. Unmacht offered that this discussion take place again in 6 months. He offered the other issues on the Agenda be discussed at a later date and the meeting move on Presentation by Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. Mayor Schmitt called for a recess at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Mayor Schmitt offered The Presentation by Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed Dis ct. Official Proceedings of the June 7, 2 Shakopee City Council Page-5- Mr. Loney stated that they have been trying to revise A Joint Powers Agreement tha signed in 1981 between the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and the Watershed Di for the Prior Lake Outlet. Mr. Loney added that this agreement is out of date and ne to be revised and that this is what is being worked on, This presentation is being presented so that the Council can give any feedback and then it can be modified and later on be brought back to the Council for ratification. Ms. Shannon Lotthammer, District Administrator with the Watershed District, prese Ms. Lotthammer stated that the Outlet Channel has been existing under the initial Jo Powers Agreement (JPA) since the early 1980's. Ms. Lotthammer added that the ou on Prior Lake was constructed in the early 1980's, and then a channel was connecte and improved, to carry water from Prior Lake to the Minnesota River. Ms" Lotth stated that in 2003, partners completed a study of existing and future needs and the conceptual re-design of the Outlet Channel. Ms. Lotthammer added that the re-desi of the Outlet Channel is necessary because of the development in the Watershed Distri As a result; there is a forecasted increase in frequency of lake outlet discharges and oa need from the city for reliable outlet for stormwater. Ms. Lotthammer addressed the existing erosion and that this also provides an opportunity to improve water quality, aesthetic, and channel habitat. Ms. Lotthammer added that other alternatives have b tn looked at for addressing these needs. Ms. Lotthammer addressed the principles for Channel, which include; a durable Outlet Channel that meets partners' needs, fair distribution of costs among partners, minimizing costs through development, outlet channel design which is based on full build-out, and design and maintenance based ecological principles. Some JP A challenges mentioned were; lb.t Partners have diffi rt needs, there are differences between hydrologic and hydraulic models constructed b partners, construction phasing and timing of cooperative agreement to meet construc on schedule and developing a fair cooperative agreement. Ms. Lotthammer added that e original intent was to use one model to determine cost share. She also added that ea partner had their own model, but each model was created for different purposes and showed different results. Ms. Lotthammer noted that the cost to merge all the new information from each partner's model was greater than $50,000.00, with no guarant e of satisfactory results. Ms. Lotthammer stated that they then convened a Technical Advisory Group to discuss modeling differences and devise a cost-share approach th relies on existing information. She added that the Technical Advisory Group includ ,; the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District, the City of Prior Lake, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and the City of Shakopee. Ms. Lotthammer noted Technical Advisory Group meetings broke up into 3 areas; they evaluated partners' models, they used existing data to explore cost share options and they met to review e findings. Ms. Lotthammer discussed the meeting highlights. Ms. Lotthammer prese ted a map showing the Modeled Areas. Ms. Lotthammer addressed the summary of the Model Comparison. She stated that in relating to the Model input, the models are ve close in total areas and Curve Numbers, though individual sub-watershed delineatio differ and in relating to the Model Output, the model results are very different, and Official Proceedings of the June 7, 20 5 Shakopee City Council Page -6- runoff volumes and flow rates differ between each model. Ms. Lotthammer offered , things that the Cooperative Agreement Funding Breakdowns could be based on; 1) Runoff Rate: Modeled flow rates or Runoff Rate Goals 2) Runoff Volume: Modeled volume or Expected runoffvolume 3) Area. Ms, Lotthammer offered Potential Scen for Discussion. The Technical Advisory Group agreed that the potential benefits of additional modeling did not justify the costs and that there was no perfect answer, so moved toward using a simplified approach that uses runoff rate goals and areas to determine the cost share. Ms. Lotthammer addressed the Runoff Rate Goals Provide the Partners. Ms. Lotthammer expressed the importance of these Goals being achiev She added that they used the idea of a duration factor to calculate construction cost-s e by segment. Ms. Lotthammer stated that; for each segment, they then applied that information and developed the cost-share breakdown for each segment and for the 0 cost. Ms. Lotthammer discussed the Maintenance Cost-Share. She stated that they: estimated unit costs, considered breakdowns for wet and dry years, compared to the breakdown for construction, discussed annual and partner costs by segment and then developed a recommendation. Ms. Lotthammer discussed the estimated maintenanc costs and the estimated maintenance costs per partner. She also offered Constructio Phasing and Annual Costs, along with Annual Costs for Each Partner. Ms. Lotth offered the following TAG Recommendations; 1) Employ a simplified approach usi runoff rate goals and relative drainage area to determine the cost share 2) Calculate c st share by segment 3) Only apply cost share from the point where partner's stormwate enters the channel and downstream 4) Use same formula for construction and maintenance and then 5) Meet annually to discuss project plans and needs. Ms. Lotthammer stated that the Watershed District would be drafting a revised agreemen, which would require a Joint Powers Agreement between the cities and the Watershe District. She stated that there then would need to be a separate agreement between Watershed District and the Sioux: Community to factor in their contribution. Ms. Lotthammer added that the attorney would review the agreements and then it would sent out for all of the partners to review prior to finally executing the agreement. Sh stated that the channel design and construction costs incurred while the JP A is under development will be reimbursed according to the cost-share agreement. LehmanlLoney discussed the reason for Shakopee paying twice the cost of Prior L Cncl. Joos would like to have a legal opinion on the fee land and the trust land of the Sioux: Community. Discussion followed regarding the fee land and the trust land. Cncl. Menden asked if the runoff rate could be lowered, therefore lowering the cost. Mr. Loney stated that this could possibly be done through large ponds. Official Proceedings of the June 7, 2 5 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Cncl. Lehman questioned what would happen if the developer wouldn't give an easement. Ms. Lotthammer stated that it would then need to be purchased. Cncl. Lehman expressed the issue of having two different amenities on a property. Loney stated that the stormwater plan in policy is that developers have to meet the stormwater management plan for the runoff of their site. Mr. Loney offered that thi something every developer is required to do. Mr. Loney also discussed funds and 0 channel options. Mr. Menden asked if there were currently adequate funds budgeted to cover these it Mr. Loney stated that there are enough funds in the CIP to cover these items, but th funds then need to be replenished. It was the consensus of Council members that staff move forward with this process. Menden/Joos moved to adjourn the meeting to the regular meeting at 7:10 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. n~~.C-r- Judith S. Cox City Clerk Alysia J. Vinkemeier Recording Secretary