Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: October 07, 2003 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,NnNNESOTA OCTOBER 7, 2003 Mayor Mars called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Link., Joos, Lehman and Helkamp 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; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Tracy Schaefer, Assistant to the City Administrator; Terry Stang, Fire Chief and Dan Hughes, Police Chief. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was added to the Agenda. IS.A. 4 To Approve a Purchase of an Additional Police Car for Administrative Purposes. Joos/Link moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Mars reported that on September 9th, he attended a Scott County Alliance for Leadership and Efficiency meeting. A brochure to highlight the mission of the committee and to note some of the joint activities involving the County and the Cities within in Scott County was developed. Mayor Mars also noted that on September 26th he attended the Livable Communities Advisory Commission and the forty-one applications for grant money for Livable Communities grants from the Metropolitan Council were reviewed. Mayor Mars stated that Shakopee did not advance for further review of their application for this grant money. Mayor Mars noted that he attended the Minnesota Mayor's Association seminar regarding resiliency of leadership and there was a discussion also regarding state aid cuts and ways for cities to generate more income. Mayor Mars also noted that Mayor Ron Jabs of Jordan and he presented a brochure to the Minnesota Mayor's Association showing what the City of Jordan and City of Shakopee and Scott County were doing in an attempt to alleviate the dollar shortage. Mayors Mars also noted he attended the ground breaking for the new Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Northridge building for senior citizens. Mayor Mars noted that there would be a Special Olympics event at Louisville Lanes in Shakopee on October 11 with Mayor Mars giving the opening remarks. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. IS.C.l Waiver of Subdivision Criteria for Willis Smith, 2175 Valley View Road, and 15.F.3 City Hall Closing on December 26,2003. Lehman/Link moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Mars asked ifthere were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Lehman/Link moved to approve the meeting minutes for August 14 and August 19,2003. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the October 7,2003 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Lehman/Link moved to approve the bills in the amount of$885,112.15 plus $257,239.85 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of$I,142,352.00. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Mayor Mars opened the public hearing on the proposed vacation of easements and right-of-way within the proposed plat of Thomas A. Philipp Addition located east of the intersection of 17th A venue and Independence Drive. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the proposed vacation of easements and right-of-way within the proposed plat of Thomas A. Philipp Addition. Mr. Leek stated that Preliminary Plat approval had been granted by the City Council for this development. Mr. Leek oriented the site via the document camera. Mr. Leek noted there were a number of easements that were required on this property in anticipation of development on the site. Mr. Leek noted there were three separate easements: one for the anticipated extension of 18th A venue, one for potential extension of utilities and another one for the extension of utilities (storm water drainage). Mr. Leek noted these easements were no longer needed because of the new plat and the applicant had petitioned for the vacation of these easements. It was noted by Mr. Leek that the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the vacation of these easements with conditions. Mr. Leek noted that staff was confident that the easements would be addressed with the conditions. Mayor Mars called for public testimony. There was none. LinklHelkamp moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 5955, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Vacating Easement And Right-Of-Way East Of The Intersection Of 17th A venue And Independence Drive, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Mars opened the public hearing on the proposed assessments for 911 emergency SigllS. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, noted that this public hearing was to take testimony from individuals that had comments on costs related to the installation of the 911 signs. Mr. McNeill lloted that last Fall Scott County approached the City to see if the City would be interested in participating in a countywide program for emergency identification signs for rural addresses. Mr. McNeill explained why these rural addresses had became an issue. Mr. McNeill noted that the Council last year did chose to participate in this program and at that time the Council did discuss how these signs would be paid for. Mr. McNeill noted that because in Shakopee the address signs were for just a small proportion of the residents, it was decided to bill those residents affected directly. Mr. McNeill did note that no advance notice was sent to the property owners that were going to be receiving the signs in an effort to keep costs down. Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mr. McNeill did apologize to the residents that were offended by that decision. Mr. McNeill did note that if the 911 bill was not paid this amount would be added to the individual's assessment amount along with an $8.00 assessment fee, payable in 2004 along with taxes. It was noted that after tonight a notice would go out for the costs again and people would have 30 days to make this payment before the charge went on their assessments. It was noted by Terry Stang, Fire Chief, that these 911 signs were reflective and extremely helpful in finding addresses when there was an emergency. Dan Hughes, Police Chief, also supported having these signs. Mayor Mars called for public testimony. Dawn Kahnke, 2224 Valley View Road, approached the podium and stated that she did not think it was fair that the residents getting these signs were not notified ahead of time and were not given an option to put their own signs up with specific specifications. She felt that it was discriminatory that only certain people had to pay. Mr. McNeill stated that the advantage of doing the signs the way they were done was that there was now uniformity to the signs and this helped the visibility for the first responders to an emergency situation. He also stated that the contract from the County addressed rural areas only. Lehman/Helkamp moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. McNeill addressed Cncl. Lehman's question on the 911 sign if development occurred on the property within one-year. Mayor Mars noted that a letter had been received by the City from Ms. Joan L. Schultz regardillg the 911 signs proposed assessment. Helkamp/Lehman offered Resolution No. 5957. A Resolution Adopting Assessments For The Installation Of911 Emergency Address Signs For Rural Addresses Within The City Of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Mayor Mars stated that this type sign would give him piece of piece of mind if were living in the rural area of the City of Shakopee that a first responder in an emergency would be able to find his address. Motion carried 5-0. Cncl. Link noted he attended the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) meeting and some of the items discussed were: to study the cost per gallon of water sold to the City of Savage that needed to be charged keeping in mind that the City of Shakopee needed to be served first and SPUC's concern about the construction of their new building on Viking Steel Road. Cnd. Link reported that SPUC accepted the appraisal on the current Shakopee Public Utilities building by motion and Cncl. Link noted that SPUC would like a panel of two Council members and two Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -4- members from the utilities to review the appraisal and come to some determination on the sale of the current building and property. Mr. Loney gave a quick update on the Viking Steel Road construction project. Mr. Loney, Public Works/City Engineer, noted that the plans for the Viking Steel Road project were about 80-85 percent done. Many issues had been completed and designed at this time. The right-of- way needs have been identified for the most part. There were a couple of major property owners (Kelley Fuels and United Properties) that needed to be dealt with but progress was being made. Mr. Loney thought bids would be gotten this Winter and the project would start in early Spring. Mr. Loney noted he presented this plan to Jerry Fox, Shakopee Public Utilities Finance Director. Mr. Loney noted he would continue to give Mr. Fox updates as to the progress of the Viking Steel Road project. The project at this date was ahead of schedule. Cncl. Helkamp noted he attended a Chamber and Visitors Bureau Board (CVB) meeting and noted they approved a joint marketing effort to get some costs efficiencies. Cncl. Helkamp noted he also attended a Chamber Board meeting where it was discussed that the Chamber building was currently using a septic system and they were curious if they could hook into the new sewer pipe as it went by their building. It was noted that there was rock in this area and there was a reason why they were on a septic system. Cncl. Helkamp noted a special meeting was held with the Chamber and the CVB to discuss some by-law improvement to better address the lodging tax. Mayor Mars noted that at the Mayors Association meeting ways were discussed to raise fees for the City. Mayor Mars noted some of the tourist cities were considering fees on visitors that impacted the City. He asked Cncl. Helkamp if the CVB ever discussed this type idea. Cncl. Helkamp reported that no additional ways to raise money were discussed. The CVB was quite happy with the lodging tax. Cncl. Helkamp noted the City did receive a very small percent of this lodging tax. It was noted by Mayor Mars there would now be ajoint meeting between the City Council and the Economic Development Authority. Mayor Mars opened the public hearing on the Revised Business Subsidy Policy for the City Council. Mr. Snook reported that this was an attempt to update the Business Subsidy Policy for the City of Shakopee by incorporating changes into the policy that were in the Business Subsidy Law of the State of Minnesota. Mr. Snook noted the City Council and the EDA needed to give direction on the wage floor for the Amended Business Subsidy Policy and an opportunity needed to be given for public testimony on the Amended Business Subsidy Policy as well as a public hearing regarding the Amended Business Subsidy Policy needed to be held on October 21,2003 based on changes to the law. Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mr. Snook noted there was a scheduling error and the original public hearing was to be tonight but the notice for the public hearing did not get published on time; therefore, the public hearing would be on October 21,2003. Tonight would not be the official public hearing, however, if there were residents in the audience that wished to speak on this Amended Business Subsidy Policy they were encouraged to speak and their comments would be put on record. Mr. Snook stated the Business Subsidy Act was enacted in 1999 and the City of Shakopee developed and adopted a Business Subsidy Policy in 1999. The law provided a detailed definition of business subsidy and described the procedures and requirements that applied when a City provided a business subsidy to a person or an entity. There were substantial changes made by the legislature to the Business Subsidy Act. The City had incorporated these changes into its proposed Amended Business Subsidy Policy. Mr. Snook noted the amendments to the Business Subsidy Act imposed new standards for business subsidy criteria. These new standards were reflected in the proposed policy. The criteria in the new standards could no longer be adopted on a case-by-case basis as was done in the past. Mr. Snook also noted that the new Amended Business Subsidy Policy must stipulate criteria requirements for minimums that a person must meet in order to quality for a business subsidy. Also, Mr. Snook noted that a specific wage floor and wages needed to be set for the jobs that were expected to be created. Mr. Snook noted the proposed policy had the federal minimum wage as the minimum wage and the wage floor. Mr. Snook noted that he surveyed different cities regarding how they established wages for their Business Subsidy Policy. The different ways he found were: 1) a wage could be determined using a percentage of the federal minimum wage (currently $5.15 per hour) or 2) some cities used the federal minimum wage as the floor and then asked that the wages be sensitive to other factors. Mr. Snook gave information on the hourly wage goals for the current business subsidy recipients in the City of Shakopee. These current business subsidies were for: ADC Telecommunications projects, the Seagate Technology project and CertainTeed Corporation expansion. These wages ranged from 233 percent of the federal minimum wage to 377 percent of the federal minimum wage ($12.00 per hour to $19.46 per hour). Mr. Snook replied to Mr. Lehman's question regarding the requirement that a business needed to stay at the site for at least five years after the benefit was received. Mr. Snook noted that there would be provisions stipulated in the agreement between the business and the City to address the site requirement. It was noted that not everyone would get a business subsidy there were certain criteria that needed to be met to get the subsidy. Mr. Mars also questioned tying the benefit to the number of years at the site. It was noted that specific information for each business subsidy would have its own agreement with the City and it Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -6- was in this agreement that specific criteria would be mentioned. The Amended Business Subsidy Policy being discussed tonight was a general policy with general criteria that all Business Subsidy applicants needed to meet. Mr. Snook noted that from the time that the Amended Business Subsidy Policy took effect until now all the goals ofthe stated Amended Business Subsidy Policy were met. Mr. Link was concerned that this Amended Business Subsidy Policy would make it easier for companies to get abatements in this City. Mr. Snook stated that he thought the Amended Business Subsidy Policy created more standards and tighter standards that needed to be met. Mr. Helkamp was not happy with the statement that subsidies under $100,000 did not need a public hearing. He felt all subsidies should be required to have a public hearing along with Mayor Mars agreeing that a public hearing was needed for all business subsidy applications regardless of the amount. He would also like to see the time that it took a company to meet goals open ended as opposed to meeting them within two years. Mr. Helkamp noted that he was of the opinion that a livable wage was in the area of $35,000 per year and that $35,000 per year could not be attained working 40 hours per week at the federal minimum wage. He felt the City of Shakopee needed to be at least at 330 percent of the minimum federal wage and it needed to be specified that this wage was. exclusive of benefits. Mr. Lehman wanted to see the wage studied. Mr. Mars noted that this was a public hearing and it would be continued to October 21,2003. He would take public testimony tonight and include it with the public testimony taken on October 21, 2003. He called for public testimony on the Revised Business Subsidy Policy at this time. Kathy Gerlach, 4855 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium to get a few things clarified. She wanted to know if she had the most current document. Mr. Mars noted that she would be given a recent copy of what was on the table tonight. Ms. Gerlach asked a question relating to the public hearing and the goal of the business applying for the business subsidy. She was also concerned about the possible deviation from some of the criteria. The intent of the deviation was not to allow the creation of zero jobs but to let some other criteria become more important than wages andjobs. Ms. Gerlach stated she would wait with the rest of her questions until the public hearing scheduled for October 21,2003. Joos/Lehman moved to continue the public hearing on the Revised Business Subsidy Policy to October 21, 2003. Mayor Mars noted that everyone should be prepared to discuss at the October 21 meeting: I) if a public hearing should be required for business subsidy applications less than $100,000 and 2) what the wages and wage floor should be (Mr. Mars would like to see the wages at 200 percent or better of the federal minimum wage). Mr. Mars also questioned the tax capacity. How was it Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -7- defined? Hewondered how someone went about judging the increase in the tax capacity (increase in the tax base of the new facility)? There was discussion on the tax capacity. Mr. Snook did say that more would be known about the tax capacity of a particular business as the process moved along for each business subsidy application. Mr. Mars would like further information regarding the length of time a business needed to achieve goals before they would need to begin paying back the business subsidy if the goals were not being met. He was also concerned about an extension for a business to comply with the requirements. Mr. Link did not like the idea of a business subsidy because of all the growth the City had; the subsidy was not needed. Mr. Mars noted that the goals should be set high; the policy would be tightened up with high goals. Mr. Snook noted this Revised Business Subsidy Policy was also a tool that could be used by current businesses for expansion purposes. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Lehman noted that he would like to see at least 200 percent of the federal minimum wage as the wage floor. Mr. Helkamp stated he would like to see the wages at least 330% of the federal minimum wage exclusive of benefits and he would like the Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC) to take a look at the Revised Business Subsidy Policy. Mr. Mars polled the EDA members and the Council members to get their idea on a livable wage. Mr. Link would like to see at least 330 percent of the federal minimum wage exclusive of benefits. Mr. Mars would like to see 200 percent of the federal minimum wage exclusive of benefits. Mr. Lehman would like to see 200 percent of the federal minimum wage exclusive of benefits. Mr. Joos would like to see the wages determined on a case-by-case study. Mr. McNeill suggested that the EDAC take a look at the Revised Business Subsidy Policy and make a recommendation. The joint City Council and EDA meeting was now finished. Mayor Mars now continued with the City Council meeting for October 7,2003. Lehman/Link offered Ordinance No. 682, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally Located North Of Valley View Road, East Of Mathias Road And West Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Of Pheasant Run Street From Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone To Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlLink moved to authorize the appropriate officials of the Shakopee Fire Department to purchase the 2 Hurst Tools from Alex Air Apparatus, for $10,594.00. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlLink move to authorize the Shakopee Fire Department to purchase 22 - Scott Air Bottles, 3 - Scott AP50 Air Packs, 2 - Scott RIT Packs, and 2 - Scott 4.5 Charging Hoses from Clarey's Safety Equipment for a total of $29,576.00. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlLink moved to authorize the appropriate staff to declare the following vehicle as surplus property: A 1994 Acura Integra, VIN# JH4DC4357RS019992. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City staffto enter into agreement with Simplex Grinnell for alarm monitoring and annual inspection services. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlLink moved to approve the requested waiver from Willis Smith from the minor subdivision criteria for property located at 2175 Valley View Road which would create a lot with an accessory structure located on it. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlLink moved to extend the approval of the preliminary plat for Stonebrooke by an additional 12 months. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill opened the discussion on the purchase of an additional administrative Police Car for an additional detective to handle the drug crimes and gang related crimes that are becoming a problem for City of Shakopee and also to be used as an unmarked patrol, and for use by other investigators and community service officers. Cncl. Lehman had a question regarding the manufacturer. The police car was changing from a Ford to a Chevrolet. He was wondering how this change would affect the maintenance and was this car budgeted for in the 2004 budget. Chief Hughes approached the podium and noted that there were several different models including Chevrolets within the police department fleet already and yes this vehicle was budgeted in the 2003 budget. Chief Hughes noted the current "State Contract" had expired and on the City Attorney's advise a second bid for a car similar to the one being requested was received and that bid was considerably higher than the car that was being requested. The bid from Hinckley Chevrolet was the low bid. Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Helkamp/Lehman moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to purchase a 2003 Chevrolet Impala administrative staff car from Hinckley Chevrolet for a price not to exceed $16,000. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the request of Heritage Development to allow the use of a sales trailer on the site of Shenandoah Apartments. Mr. Leek noted that this sales trailer was placed on the property without a permit. Mr. Leek noted Shenandoah Apartments are under construction and when the City realized that there was a sales trailer on site, the developer was notified that sales trailers were not permitted in the City of Shakopee. Mr. Tousley, from Heritage Development, has submitted a letter requesting that they be allowed to use this trailer until one of their buildings was completed and they could use it; the letter also stated that they would work with the City of Shakopee to amend their City Code to allow this trailer. Mr. Leek reiterated that the City of Shakopee had a policy on the use of sales trailers. It was Mr. Leek's opinion that the only exception to this policy was in the case ofthe Southbridge Planned Unit Development (PUD); that sales trailer was noted in their PUD and it had to rotate from neighborhood to neighborhood, as each neighborhood was completed. At that time there were some loopholes in City Code that permitted this sales trailer and since that time City Code had been amended to prevent the use of sales trailers. Mr. Tousley, representative from Heritage Development, approached the podium and noted this was the first time that Heritage Development had run into a City with an ordinance that did not allow the use of a sales trailer in a construction area. An outside sales office was very critical to their business, according to Mr. Tousley. It was not nearly as effective to put up a sign with a phone number. Mr. Tousley showed pictures ofthe sales structure. The building was actually considered a temporary commercial building as opposed to a sales trailer. This structure was needed for about 90 days and then a building would be ready. It was noted that this structure did not have wheels underneath it. There was a possibility that the full 90 days would not be needed. Mr. Leek noted there was not a specific definition in City Code to describe a sales trailer or a temporary commercial building. Mr. Leek noted that if the "sales trailer" were considered a temporary commercial building there would be a problem with that because of the zoning district. Mr. Leek offered a couple of suggestions. LinklHelkamp moved to allow Heritage Development Company to have the working structure on site for no more than 90 days and to pay permit fees for having this structure on site. LinklHelkamp suggested an amended motion that stated "waive the restriction of City Code Sec. 11.61, Subd. 2, 5, to allow the use of a sales trailer on the Shenandoah Apartments site for a period not to exceed 90 days upon payment of a building permit fee to be determined by the building official". Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Cncl. Helkamp offered a friendly amendment to the amended motion. Cncl. He1kamp would like to see the permit fee doubled because initially this structure was brought in and put on the site without a permit. The motion maker accepted this friendly amendment. Cncl. Joos had a problem with this motion. He stated this structure was already in violation of City Code and if this were allowed now then a precedent would be set. Cncl. Joos would like to see another solution. Mayor Mars concurred with Cncl. Joos. Mayor Mars offered a friendly amendment stating rather than the language "no more than 90 days" the language should say "the day that a building occupancy certificate was issued that the structure be removed from the site". This was fine with the motion maker and the seconder. Motion failed 2-3 with Mayor Mars, Cncl. Joos and Cncl. Lehman dissenting, on the main motion as amended. Joos/Lehman moved to direct Heritage Development to remove the sales trailer on the Shenandoah Apartments site immediately. Motion carried 3-2 with Cncls. Link and Helkamp dissenting. Mr. Leek reported on the possible revised language for the Comprehensive Plan update regarding the revised text for the Riverfront/First A venue district. Mr. Leek wanted to make certain that the Council's concerns on terminology were addressed before he submitted this proposed text to the residents. Mr. Leek stated once the language had been finalized to the Councils liking an open house date would be set with at least two weeks notice being provided to the residents and business owners and he would provide the residents and business owners a copy of the text with the notice that was sent to them. After the residents and business owners were satisfied with the text, Mr. Leek would incorporate this text back into the overall document and it would then be distributed for local government review for 60 days. Mr. Leek noted that the public hearing dates would be set for shortly after the 60-day review period so staff would have local jurisdiction comment for the public hearing. Mr. Leek noted that in the first part of the section he was directed to change the language in, he did not change the first part because that language was from comments received at earlier open house meetings or that had been obtained at tactic interviews; if this language had been changed that would not accurately reflect what the information had been from the business owners and residents. Mr. Leek noted the Planning Commission had not seen this llew text. They would most likely see this possible revised text after the open house. Mr. Leek noted that a public hearing for the text amendment had already been set. Cncl. Lehman had a question on the interim use regarding the low-density residential portion of the text. The Councilors, Mayor Mars and Mr. Leek addressed this question. Official Proceedings ofthe October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Mayor Mars thanked Mr. Leek for his and staffs good work on this proposed text. Mayor Mars noted that this definitely was a step in the right direction for the First Avenue corridor. Cnds. Joos stated he was opposed to this; he did not like the mixed use. Cncl. Joos was not satisfied with the revised test. Cnds. Lehman, Link and Helkamp as well as Mayor Mars were satisfied with the proposed text and direction was given to Mr. Leek. Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, gave an update on the City's possible participation in some Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements with MnDOT. Ms. Julie Carr, representing MnDOT from the Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations, along with Josh Collins, from the Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations, were present to make a presentation of the safety program that MnDOT had for City's such as Shakopee. Mr. Loney noted the City had been meeting the past few months with the Union Pacific Railroad in light ofthe improvements that the City needed to do with the Union Pacific railroad crossing on Viking Steel Road. When the City proposed to do the reconstruction of Viking Steel Road and upgrade the Union Pacific railroad tracks and signal these talks began. The Union Pacific Railroad noted they would be interested in participating financially on some safety features regarding the Viking Steel Road crossing if there would be some crossing closures elsewhere in the City. Mr. Loney noted that the City had been submitting grant proposals for safety improvements and a grant had been approved for railroad crossing safety improvements to Spencer and Sommerville Streets. Mr. Loney noted that the new program available to the City was a program with a 90/10 split. The Federal Government would cover the 90 percent and the City would cover the 10 percent of the cost. This program represented quite a savings for the City of Shakopee. This program also allowed additional funding to the City ifthere were railroad crossing closures. Mr. Loney did note that closing a railroad crossing did require a public hearing. Mr. Loney, via the document camera, showed a map denoting all of the City's railroad crossings in the downtown area. Mr. Loney stated that Ms. Carr thought there might be a need for the City to look at all of their downtown crossings in the Union Pacific corridor in a comprehensive railroad safety study. Mr. Loney stated that he was looking at getting some railroad crossing signals at Spencer and Sommerville Streets as an added safety measure. Mr. Loney noted where other Union Pacific crossings were in the City of Shakopee. A recess was taken at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Mars re-convened the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Ms. Julie Carr, from MnDOT's Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations, approached the podium and gave her presentation. Ms. Carr stated she worked with the federal Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -12- program for securing dollars for railroad safety. Ms. Carr gave a few basic facts regarding at grade railroad crossings in the State of Minnesota. She noted that her office funded new and upgrades of current systems. She noted that in the past years the State of Minnesota had received approximately $5 million to $7 million a year for railroad safety. She stated how railroad crossing were identified that needed some safety improvement. Mayor Mars asked Ms. Carr why the railroads were not more proactive in providing safety improvements. Ms. Carr stated that it was the local road authorities that were responsible for the improvements at railroad crossings because in most cases it was the road that went over the railroads right-of-way. Ms. Carr noted the railroads did see the need for the improvements and they did want to participate to some extent. Ms. Carr did state that it was railroads responsibility to maintain the signals at railroad crossings for the life of the crossing at no cost to the local road authorities or the State. Ms. Carr stated that if the City were truly interested in pursing some improvements the railroads would be active from this point on. Mayor Mars wanted to know if a crossing were closed did the 100 percent match pay the upgrading at the crossing affected and the reconstruction of the at grade railroad crossing. Ms. Carr noted that funding could be used for some of the upgrade to the affected crossing of the closure. It was noted that the railroad through downtown impacted the downtown substantially because it was so close. Ms. Carr noted that it was basically the downtown crossings that MnDOT had been looking at. In a Metro ranking of752 passive railroad crossings, based on accidents, the rankings for Shakopee crossings were: Atwood Street 22, Spencer Street 103, Sommerville Street 140, Scott Street 142 and Apgar Street 148. Ms. Carr noted that the City's hopes to get this funding was pretty far out because the metro funding funded about eight crossings in the metro area per year. Ms. Carr noted that a request had been received from the City of Shakopee for Spencer Street and Somerville Street. She identified the need by looking at the corridor of the railroad from the City of Savage to the City of Shako pee. Tonight she was asking if the City wanted to fund the match of 10 percent at each railroad crossing as required by a City and if the City would like to participate in a Study. She noted the Union Pacific Railroad would participate in this study also. She also requested that two Council members participate in the study. She was not familiar with the day-to-day traffic flows in the City. She thought this would be a great opportunity for the City to see a comprehensive plan and to get some funding from the Union Pacific Railroad as well as from the Federal Government. Mayor Mars noted the City recommended Spencer Street and Sommerville Street for the railroad crossings upgrade; it was noted that if the City wanted the improved railroad crossings elsewhere within the Union Pacific Railroad corridor that was possible to do. Mr. Loney noted that these two crossings in particular were asked for because of the comments resulting from the speed lawsuit with the Union Pacific Railroad. Mr. Loney noted it was signals that were being requested. The Union Pacific Railroad was looking to see if gates would be required at the Viking Steel Road crossing. Mr. Loney stated lights would be required at least. Official Proceedings of the October 7,2003 Shakopee City Council Page -13. Cncl. Link wanted to know why a study was needed; the traffic congestion was never going to improve. Josh Collins, with MnDOT, approached the podium and stated that "study" was really a term used to revisit the crossings to see what potentially needed to be done at other crossings. It really was not a full blown study. It was noted there was no fmancial obligation on the City's part for this study to take place. Cncl. Lehman thought it was worthwhile to take a look at the railroad crossings within the downtown area. Any improvement was something that would help with the safety to all who used the crossing. Mayor Mars stated the program in front of the Council tonight was unique in that it was a 90/10 split; the split used to be 50/50. He felt this was a significant savings and if two railroad crossings could be upgraded for a 90/1 0 split each that was a real improvement. LehmanlMars offered a motion authorizing participation in railroad safety improvement projects for the Sommerville Street and Spencer Street railroad crossings with MnDOTs Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations. Mr. Loney noted the money would come from the Capital Improvement Fund. There was discussion as to whether Sommerville Street or Atwood Street should be the second street to get the railroad crossing upgrade. Mayor Mars made a friendly amendment that there would be two signals and he would like Atwood Street added as a possibility for one ofthe signals and he would like to see further discussion on these signals and funding. Cncl. Lehman was not interested in the friendly amendment. Cncl. Lehman restated his motion. Mayor Mars as seconder of the motion accepted the change in wording, as follows: LehmanlMars authorized participation in railroad safety improvement projects for the two railroad crossings to be determined by the study done by MnDOT's Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations. Motion carried 5-0. Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the City to participate in further railroad safety improvements project with MnlDOT's Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations to develop a small comprehensive safety plan for the City of Shakopee. Motion carried 5-0. . Mr. Loney reported on awarding the contract for the construction of a salt storage building for the Public Works Department, Project No. 2003-8. He noted that two base bids were received for this 72 x 72 building from Greystone Construction and Ebert Construction. He stated that there were four alternates included in the bid package. These alternates were: 1) to add all Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -14- additional 24 x 24 square feet of salt storage to the building if the bids were reasonable, 2) to put a six foot high jersey barrier opposed to 4 four foot jersey barrier, 3) to put an eight foot high L shaped barrier opposed to a four foot high shaped barrier and 4) to put two fan units, associated duct work, electrical and concrete pads to create better ventilation within the salt storage building. Mr. Loney noted that the bids were very good and very competitive; however, they were higher than what was projected in the CIP. Mr. Loney stated that originally more of a temporaiy building (building on concrete blocks without a front door and electrical) had been being looked at and it was those potential figures that were used in the CIP. The new design showed the building to be put in a permanent location and fastened down on concrete piers so the building would be anchored solidly. After looking at the additions of the new design, Mr. Loney determined that the bids were in order. The building in the base bid was large enough for the needs now and it was recommended that the 24 x 24 square feet of salt storage space be eliminated at this time (alternate no. 1), it was also recommended that the 6 foot jersey barrier be eliminated (alternate no. 2) as well as the two fans, associated duct work, electrical and concrete pads (alternate no. 4). However, Mr. Loney looked at the 8 foot L shaped concrete barriers in Belle Plaine and noted that they provided much more storage, were a better design and this alternate was a good alternate. Mr. Loney noted the contractor would need to. be met with to see what deducts the City could get if the electrical and the front face of the building were eliminated. This was an attempt to reduce the costs. Another cost saving measure would be to but the concrete piers on a floating slab; Mr. Loney recommended against doing that. LinklHelkamp offered Resolution No. 5958, A Resolution Accepting Bids On The Construction Of A Salt Storage Building On the Public Works Site, Project No. 2003-8, and moved its adoption and to award the bid to Greystone Construction along with alternate no. 3 (installing 8- foot tall L shaped concrete barriers at the interior in lieu of 4-foot barriers). Mayor Mars discussed the architect's costs. He would like to discuss the architects costs based on a percentage at a future date. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Lehman dissenting. Mr. McNeill reported on the architectural services for the Public Works Building expansion. Mr. McNeill noted that he had talked with Mr. Van Hout, Public Utilities Manger, regarding appraisals on the current Shakopee Public Utilities Building and noted that Mr. Van Hout had received a copy of the appraisal from Patchin Messner Appraisers for the building. The first appraisal was for just under one acre of land, that was the old railroad right-of-way at the south end of the Public Utilities storage yard; this appraisal was $50,000. The 3.9 plus acres where the SPUC building is currently was appraised at $800,000 with caveats. Mr. McNeill noted that three of the five Shakopee Public Utilities Commissioners (SPUC) endorsed this $800,000 figure Official Proceedings of the October 7, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -15- but also passed a motion endorsing the concept that a panel sit down to negotiate what the actual cost of the parcel would be. This panel would consist of two commission members, staff and two City Council members. Mr. McNeill gave some background on what property SPUC owned. Mayor Mars thought the master plan concept contract needed input from the SPUC appraisal and he also needed to appoint two councilors to a panel with this panel sitting down with SPUC and negotiating a price. Mayor Mars noted he would make a recommendation to the Council on October 21 of the appointment of Council members that he would like to appoint to this panel. HelkamplLehman moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement with Oertel Architects for the master planning of the Public Works Department expansion for $5,500 and to delete the 3-D color model for the final design ofthe project and to delete the portion for the Engineering Department. Motion carried 5-0. City Attorney, Jim Thomson, stated the ownership of the land where the current SPUC building was located needed to be researched to determine the actual ownership ofthe.land. Mayor Mars asked the City Attorney to give some background history on the land where the existing SPUC building is located. Lehman/Link moved to accept Ed Seidow's resignation from the Shakopee Fire Department with regrets. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Link offered Resolution No. 5956, A Resolution Appointing Judges Of Election And Establishing Compensation, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Link moved to authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Oertel Architects to prepare reroofing plans and specifications for Downtown Fire Station (No. 50). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehtnanlLink moved to authorize City Hall to be officially closed on Friday, December 26th. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Link offered Resolution No 5954. A Resolution Declaring The Amount To Be Certified, Ordering The Preparation of Proposed Assessments, And Setting the Public Hearing Date For Delinquent Garbage/Recycling Bills, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the October 7,2003 Shakopee City Council Page -16- LehmanlLink moved to direct a $40/assessment penalty be added to assessment amounts for City Administrative costs for the delinquent garbage/recycling bills. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill reported on the open meeting law insurance. Mr. McNeill stated this coverage was not carried as part of the City's standard insurance. Mr. V oxland provided information that came from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust regarding open meeting law insurance. Mr. McNeill stated that if the City were to add this insurance for elected and appointed officials for Boards and Commissions for the City that would add $ 2,641 per year to the insurance premium. Mr. McNeill explained in brief how the open meeting law insurance worked. Mr. Thomson also attempted to explain. Mr. Thomson stated there was no liability to the City for a violation of the open meeting law. Lehman/Joos moved to direct the City not to pursue open meeting law insurance any further. Motion carried 5-0. LehmanlLink moved to approve the application from Myron C. Webster, 3960 Eagle Creek Boulevard, and grant a senior citizen deferent for parcel #27-909005-0 for the 2001-4, CSAH 16/83 Improvement Project, pursuant to the conditions outlined in Section 2.82 of the City Code. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlLink moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to spend no more than $1,500 from the library building contingency fund and no more than $1,500 from the police building contingency fund for the grand opening ceremonies in November. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Joos had a Council concern regarding several people running red lights. Cncl. Joos also thanked Mr. Snook for giving correct answers to questions answered in the Star Tribune newspaper. Joos/Helkamp moved to adjourn to Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the Council Chambers. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m. ~d.P1 ~th s. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary