HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.B. Proposed Assessments for 911 Emergency Address Signs-Res. No. 5957
CITY OF SHAKOPEE ~f 6,
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - 9-1-1 Emergency Address Signs
DATE: October 2, 2003
INTRODUCTION:
The Council is to hold a public hearing at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, October ih, to receive
comments on proposed assessments for properties in Shakopee who have received the
white on blue 9-1-1 emergency address signs.
BACKGROUND:
In Fall, 2002, the City Council heard a proposal from Scott County, asking if rural
addresses in Shakopee should participate in 9-1-1 emergency address sign contract that
the County was administering.
The reason for the 9-1-1 emergency address signage was to deal with inconsistent and
sometimes difficult to find address locations in rural sections of the County. Perhaps a
major factor motivating the program was an emergency call some time ago for medical
assistance, during which the responding ambulance was delayed by several minutes due
to an inability to find the summoning location. The family of the individual needing
medical assistance later sued, and was awarded multiple millions of dollars in damages.
As a result, the County sought and took bids for a contract which provided house number
address signs for all rural addresses in Scott County. It also offered that contract to the
cities of the county, so as to assure consistency. In Shakopee, it was determined that
there were approximately 200 addresses that would qualify for that. The City Council
agreed to participate.
PAYMENT:
It was determined by the Council at that time that the individual addressees would be
responsible for payment, and that a billing would be sent after the cost was known. The
City received the bill for that, and bills were sent to the benefited properties in
September. They were given the option of paying the amount (either $22, $28, or $29,
depending upon the sign post length, or whether it was shared with another sign), by
September 22nd. If they were not paid it would be assumed to be assessed, following a
public hearing. Assessments not prepaid within 30 days of the date of adoption would
have as additional one time cost of $8.00 per parcel to offset the cost of the assessment
process.
Several participating townships made the decision to pay for these signs through general
property taxes, as most property owners received an equal benefit.
Of the approximate 200 properties, 123 made payment by the due date. One issue which
has been raised by some property owners is the lack of notice by the City that they were
receiving the signs, and that it would be their responsibility for payment. In order to be
consistent, it was determined that all rural address properties in the City would receive
the signs. The decision not to notify the benefited properties at the time of the
determination to participate was my decision, and that was solely to try to keep costs as
low as possible for this relatively low cost, but labor intensive contract. My apologies to
anyone who feels that the decision not to send a "notice" letter was wrong.
There will be ongoing costs for this program. In speaking with the County, newly
constructed properties will be billed $100, which will cover the cost of the sign
fabrication, placement, and inspection. I believe that much of the inspection cost for new
signs within the City could be reduced if the City places the signs, in that there are not the
distances to travel within the City that the County has to deal with. The actual cost for
new signs to be placed within the City can be determined at a later time, and will be
dependant on the cost of fabrication, and reasonable inspection and placement costs.
Further, the County intends to bill properties for replacement signs that are either stolen
or damaged. Unless the sign is intentionally removed by the property owner, I propose to
make as policy that those costs be that ofthe City.
RECOMMENDATION:
The public hearing should be held.
Following the public hearing, the Council should adopt a resolution declaring costs to be
assessed for unpaid 9-1-1 emergency address signs.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Ifthe Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 5957
A RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED
FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS IN THE 9-1-1 SIGNAGE SIGN
PROJECT, FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:th
RESOLUTION NO. 5957
A Resolution Adopting Assessments
For The Installation of 911 Emergency Address Signs
for Rural Addresses Within the City of Shako pee
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of
the City of Shako pee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of:
The fabrication and installation of 911 emergency address signs for parcels in the rural
address area of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota , in conjunction with a contract
administered by the County of Scott, Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. That such proposed assessment amounts and benefiting address locations, together
with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the
addressed parcels named herein; and each tract therein included is hereby found to be
benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied
against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in one installment, payable with the first installment
of taxes payable 2004, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday
in January, 2004, and shall include in addition to the amount shown on the attachment a
one-time assessment charge of $8.00, payable as of the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the
assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property,
along with the special $8.00 assessment fee, to the City Treasurer, except that no $8.00
assessment charge shall be levied if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days
from the adoption ofthis resolution.
4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in her office and
shall certify to the County Auditor on or before November 30, 2003 the total amount of
installments and interest on assessments on each parcel of land which are to become
due with taxes payable 2004..
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2003.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
911 Sign Markers
(People Not Paid)
7501 Eagle Creek Blvd American Legion/PO 262 27 -014005-0 $29.00
3560 Marschall Rd South Robert Mintz 27 -050003-0 $28.00
3662 Marschall Rd South Ryan Hintz 27-060001-0 $29.0.0
"'"..,." ....~~I~ ,...,..~~I, 0.....1 I. .L. 0 ""7..1. "'..,. ".,,,, ...",
7632 County Road 1 01 Cropmate Company 27-105001-0 $29.00
1393 Stagecoach Rd Robert Hamill 27-107001-0 $28.00
1109 Stagecoach Rd Superior Supply Co 27-110001-0 $28.00
2384 Marschall Rd South David Meyers 27-135002-0 $22.00
4087 County Rd 79 Barry Lusignan 27-140001-0 $28.00
405 County Rd 72 Dan Yarusso 27 -140003-0 $28.00
663 County Rd 72 Gregory Miller 27 -140007-0 $28.00
-"".... "7r;.
=~ ,c. f - I "T'<"uu 'V "'....~.vv
3240 Marschall Rd South John McReynolds 27-161001-0 $28.00
965 County Rd 78 Craig Dickson 27-165029-0 $28.00
514 County Rd 78 Cuddigan Custom Homes 27-252001-0 $29.00
544 County Rd 78 Cuddigan Custom Homes 27 -252002-0 $29.00
584 County Rd 78 Cuddigan Custom Homes 27-252003-0 $29.00
2791 Marschall Rd S Robert Boldt 27-306-001-0 $28.00
7380 County Rd 101 Robert C. Rost 27-902-009-2 $28.00
6800 County Rd 101 JCH Properties of MN, LLC 27-902-022-0 $28.00
6801 County Rd 101 William G. Pearson Jr 27-902-023-0 $0.00
6783 County Rd 101 Metropolitan Sewer Board 27-902-025-0 $28.00
3521 County Rd 101 Peaveylnc 27 -904-007-0 $28.00
3960 Eagle Creek Blvd Myron Webster 27-909-005-0 $28.00
1579 Stagecoach Rd Darrin Thompson 27-913-022-0 $28.00
8065 Eagle Creek Blvd James Zoschke 27-913-047-0 $29.00
8370 Eagle Creek Blvd Scott McKenzie 27 -913-052-0 $22.00
8380 Eagle Creek Blvd Mark Minea 27-913-054-0 $22.00
8464 Eagle Creek Blvd Ronald Nasby 27-913-057-0 $28.00
8450 Eagle Creek Blvd Steven Schmidt 27-913-059-0 $22.00
8537 Eagle Creek Blvd Greaory Hanks 27 -913-066-0 $29.00
8735 Eagle Creek Blvd Lawrence Kraayenbrink 27 -913-069-0 $29.00
7301 Eagle Creek Blvd Terrance Hanson 27-914-001-2 $29.00
7755 Eagle Creek Blvd LSPI Exchange Corp 27-914-006-0 $29.00
7835 Eagle Creek Blvd Gerald Klegstad 27-914-007 -0 $29.00
4815 Eagle Creek Blvd Edna Waalen 27-915-009-0 $28.00
4835 Eagle Creek Blvd Stephen Qualy 27-915-012-0 $29.00
5420 Eagle Creek Blvd Sally Novak 27-915-015-0 $28.00
4767 Eagle Creek Blvd Troy Jensson 27-915-017-0 $29.00
5025 Eagle Creek Blvd Brian Larson 27-915-019-0 $29.00
4751 Eagle Creek Blvd Keith Clemens 27-915-021-0 $29.00
5085 Eagle Creek Blvd John Barker 27 -915-026-0 $28.00
5331 Eagle Creek Blvd Robert Lambrecht 27-915-031-0 $28.00
5310 Eagle Creek Blvd Evan Steine & Heidi Graf 27-915-032-0 $28.00
5284 Eagle Creek Blvd Christopher & Kathryn Link 27-915-033-1 $28.00
2036 Canterbury Rd S Beverly Koehnen 27 -916-009-0 $28.00
1776 Canterbury Rd S Michael Hawkins 27-916-012-0 $28.00
1730 Valley View Rd E John Huth 27 -917 -006-0 $28.00
2104 Valley View Rd E Joan Schultz Family L TO 27-917-007-0 $28.00
1898 Valley View Rd E Merle Theis 27 -917 -008-0 $22.00
2224 Valley View Rd E Jesse Kahnke 27-917-018-0 $28.00
1772 Marschall Rd S Grant Sweeney 27-918-002-0 $28.00
1712 Marschall Rd S Lance Nemanic 27-918-004-0 $28.00
i:\receptionist information/911 signs.doc October 1 , 2003
911 Sign Markers
(People Not Paid)
1460 Valley View Rd E Saloman Avila 27 -918-009-0 $29.00
2051 Marschall Rd S David Pasco 27-918-009-1 $28.00
1480 Valley View Rd E Mark Thone 27-918-009-2 $28.00
2021 Marschall Rd S Leroy Houser 27-918-009-4 $28.00
2000 Marschall Rd S Russell Hanson 27-918-011-3 $28.00
1834 Marschall Rd S Kevin Thompson 27-918-013-0 $28.00
2460 Marschall Rd S Mary Dearborn 27-919-015-7 $28.00
2231 Marschall Rd S Carol Balfanz 27-919-016-0 $28.00
2468 Vallev View Rd E William Schmitz 27-920-006-0 $28.00
1785 County Rd 42 MN Green Landscaping 27-920-012-0 $28.00
2366 CanterburY Rd S Robert Weckman 27-921-002-0 $28.00
2311 Canterbury Rd S Timothy Bisek 27-921-003-0 $29.00
2326 Pike Lake Rd Frank Marzario 27-923-001-1 $28.00
3475 Marschall Rd S Gerald Schmitz 27-929-007-1 $29.00
3241 Marschall Rd S Loren Steinke 27-929-010-0 $28.00
3258 Marschall Rd S Robert Imker 27-929-012-0 $28.00
1127 County Rd 72 Michael Roberts 27-931-004-0 $29.00
1980 County Rd 14 Raymond Fickes 27-932-004-0 $22.00
3693 Marschall Rd S Kenneth Bauer 27-932-008-0 $28.00
3876 Marschall Rd S John Listerud 27-932-011-0 $28.00
-C;tP\' \ t\> \)944.00
i:\receptionist information/911 signs.doc October 1, 2003
Cf.6.
JOAN L. SCHULTZ F AMIL Y L TD 2104 V ALLEY VIEW ROAD: SHAKOPEE. MN.
OCTOBER 4, 2003
MARK MCNEILLl
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
DEAR MR. MCNEILL;
THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPLY OF SEPTEMBER 22 AND OCTOBER 1, 2003 LETTERS
REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE V ALLEY VIEW PROJECT, ABOUT MY LETTER
CONCERNING MANY THINGS.
ONE PART IS THE 911 EMERGENCY ADDRESS SIGN. I WON'T BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE
10nTH HEARING SO TillS IS MY FORMAL CONTESTMENT OF THE CHARGE IN WHICH THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE IS ATTACHING TO 200 PROPERTIES OF $28.00 EACH ACCORDING TO
SIGN SIZE THAT WE DIDN'T CHOOSE. WE STILL HAVE OUR 'FIRE #' ATTACHED TO MY 8
IN. PIPE MAILBOX OF '0160' WHICH WAS USED ALL THESE YEARS.
ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1971 OUR BABY ANTHONY DROWNED (2 YRS.,2 MOS., 12 DAYS
OLD) AND THE EMERGENCY HELP DIDN'T FIND US AND WENT PAST V.V. RD.(ROUTE 2
THEN) AND WENT UP CTY. RD. 17, (MARSCHALL ROAD NOW). PRECIOUS MOMENTS WERE
LOST. IT'S NOONE'S FAULT BUT IT DID HAPPEN BEYOND OUR CONTROL. WILL THIS
HAPPEN AGAIN, NOONE KNOWS! WE ALL TRY TO HELP ONE ANOTHER ALONG THE LONG
ROAD OF LIFE.
SOMEONE HAS TO LET ME KNOW WHY U.S. HOMES ASSESSMENT IS $5,000.00 LOWER
THAN IT WAS ON MAILING 9/8/03 FROM $139,194.24 TO 134,194.24. MINE REMAINED THE
SAME. I KNOW IT MUST BE DIFFICULT FOR ALL OF YOU TO CONTEND WITH ALL THE
GROWTH IN SHAKOPEE, WE ALL NEED ASSISTANCE. I SEE NO RELIEF FOR ME UNTIL
DEVELOPMENT GETS ME OUT FOR GOOD FROM MY BEAUTIFUL PLACE. IT JUST DIDN'T
HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. WE MOVED OUT HERE UNDER NECESSITY WITH EXPECTING THE
10TH CHILD AND OLDEST ONE WAS 12 Y2 IN 1969. WE HAD MUCH OF THE TOWNS KIDS OUT
HERE ENJOYING THE WOODS, TREE HOUSE, ROPE SWING, ALL THE ANIMALS, POOL AND
WE WERE BLESSED BECAUSE WE DID OUR BEST. MONEY IS NOT THE KEY, LOVE IS WHAT
WE THIEVE FOR IN TillS LIFE. BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF THE LAND IS ONE OF THEM. I
WOULD APPRECIATE PEACE AND QUIET NOW THAT MY CHILDREN ARE RAISED AND
~
1
THAT SEGMENT OF MY LIFE IS IN THE PAST.
AT 4% INTEREST ON $105,241.07 IS $105,225 FOR 25 YEARS IF INTEREST ISN'T
COMPOUNDED. WILL I BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND ALL THE BUSINESS I MUST CONDUCT
BEFORE I TAKE MY LEAVE? WHEN MY HUSBAND DIED AT AGE 50 & I HAD TO RAISE 5 OF
THE 11 CHILDREN FROM COLLEGE DOWN TO 4TH GRADE & BE EVERY OFFICER IN OUR
CORPORATION THESE LAST 19 YEARSf I'VE SPENT FROM MY 'WANT' TO PAY OFF THE
LAND IN WHICH WE'VE GRADUALLY PURCHASED THROUGH THE YEARS. I DIDN'T 'BANK'
ANY IN INVESTMENTS WHERE IT CAN BE HIDDEN FROM ASSESSMENT. CITY CAN SEE MY
WORHT BUT YOU CAN'T SEE THE OTHER RESIDENCES WHO BANKED TIIEIR WORTH A.ND
THEIR ASSESSMENTS WERE REDUCED FOR CITY CAN'T SEE THEIR WORTH. YOU CAN SEE
WHERE I SPENT MY WAGES, IN LAND AND REAL RESTATE. OUR FAMILY GREW UP HERE
WITH WORK AND PLAYAS THEY GREW. YOU CAN'T PUT A $ SIGN ON LOVING, CARlNG
AND SHARING OUR WHOLE BEING.
PLEASE DON'T EVER TREAT US LIDE ONE OF THE LAKEWOOD, OHIO PEOPLE WHERE 55
HOUSES ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO BE TORN DOWN UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN OVER
ROCKY RIVER THEY ARE BEING CONSIDERED 'BLIGHTED', STATUARY WORDS THE CITY
SETS THE STANDARED AS SUCH. THESE PEOPLE HAVE LIVED THERE 38 YEARS AND HAVE
A BEAUTIFUL VIEWS AND THE CITY WANTS TO TAKE IT AWAY. IT'S A NATION-WIDE
EPIDEMIC TO TAKE AWAY TO UPSCALE. AT THIS RATE 90% OF DWELLINGS SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED 'BLIGHT' AS MANY ARE LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. MANY TIMES
'EMINENT' DOMAIN' IS USED, NOT JUST FOR PUBLIC GOOD OF ALL, BUT FOR ULTIMA TEL Y
A PRIVATE BUSINESS. 100 YEARS AGO IT HAPPENED IN NEW YORK WHERE OFFICES FOR
THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS BUILT AND THAT'S A PRIVATE BUSINESS.
WHERE WILL IT STOP? - IN BULLDOZING US LITTLE PEOPLE OUT OF OUR LIVES THAT
WE'VE BUILT FOR THE GOOD OF ALL?
ALSO/THE CITY SHOULD PICK UP THE WEEDS IN WHICH I'VE HAND-PULLED WHERE
SOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN LAID INSTEAD OF SEED SOWN, WHICH HASN'T MATERIALIZED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
2