Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: February 25, 2003 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Mayor Mars called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Linle, Joos 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; and Gregg V oxland, Finance Director. Shakopee Public Utilities Commission members present: Mark Miller, David Thompson, Chair Joan Lynch, John Engler and Cole Van Horn. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, stated that the street sweeper, to be replaced, needed to be declared surplus property before it could be advertised for sale. Lehman/Helkamp moved to declare the Pelican-brand street sweeper as surplus property. Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Judith Cox, City Clerk, reported on the appointments to the various Boards and Commissions for the City of Shakopee. She noted an interview panel consisting of Cncl. Link and Cncl. Helkamp and the respective Vice-Chairs ofthe various boards and commissions interviewed the applicants. Their recommendations were: Brian Young for a three year term for Shakopee Public Utilities Commission; Stan Von Bokem for a three year term for the Police Civil Service Commission; Jeff Jansen, Barbara Felber and Marschall Walker for the Economic Development Advisory Committee with their appointment to their three year terms to the EDAC be at the March 4th EDA meeting; Brian Madden to fill Tim Williams unexpired term and reappoint Jim Dorenkamp and Dave V osejpka for three year terms each to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board; Eldon Reinke for a three year term for the Transit Commission with three remaining openings; Gene Juergens for a three year term with two openings remaining for the Building Code/Housing Advisory and Appeals; Brian Call and Eldon Reinke, each for a three year term for the Board of Review; Deb Amundson; and Gayl Madigan each for a four year term for the Planning Commission/BOAA; Noreen Duffy for a three year term for the Telecommunications Commission and Kathy Gerlach and Jim Tumwall each for three years for the Environmental Advisory Committee. Ms. Cox stated that should the City Council concur with the recommendations of the interview panel they could offer and adopt Resolution No. 5854 incorporating the recommendations. Ms. Cox also noted that two council members needed to be appointed to sit on the Board of Review. She noted that the Board of Review consisted of five members consisting of three (3) citizens and two (2) council members. Ms. Cox stated two terms on the Board of Review were expiring this year and both the incumbents have reapplied with no other applicants. - .-,.'. Official Proceedings of the February 25, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Lehman/Link offered Resolution No. 5854, A Resolution Appointing Individuals to Various Boards and Commissions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Mars appointed Cncls. Lehman and Link to the Board of Review and they accepted the appointment. Helkamp/Mars moved to appoint Cnds. Lehman and Link to the Board of Review. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Joan Lynch, Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC), welcomed Brian Young to SPUC. Mr. Young will stmi his tenn on SPUC April 1st when Mr. Thompson's term has been completed. . . '..~ Mr. Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager for SPUC, reported on the history of SPUc. Mr. Van Hout noted the relationship of the City of Shako pee with SPUC. Mr. Van Hout stated it was Minnesota Statutes that lays out the ground rules for municipal utilities. Mr. Van Hout noted that municipal utilities are not covered under public utilities in all aspects. Mr. Van Hout noted that Shakopee Public Utilities Commission began with a three-member commission and in 2002 the commission membership was increased to five members. The City Council has appointed a liaison representative to SPUC. The Commission is part of the City of Shakopee and abides by the codes and rules of the City. Mr. Van Hout specified some of the rules set by the State for the City Council and Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to interact by. Mr. Van Hout noted some of the similar-but-separate things that each separate body does independently of each other i.e. employ staff, sets rates, uses bonds, and does specifications. Mr. Van Hout also noted separate activities of the two entities i.e. public improvement assessments, (primarily water) ordinances are done by the City Council and SPUC sets an annual contribution to the City and, makes arrangements to buy power. There are also some things the City Council and SPUC are required to agree on by State Law before action is taken and these are: 429 water extensions, power agencies (arrangements to join a power agency) and combine Revenue and G.O. Bonds. Mr. Van Hout noted that communication is required by Shakopee City Code. SPUC needs to inform the City Council of any rate increases and this is done by SPUC when they send their resolutions to City Hall. There is a requirement for joint meetings if one is requested by either body to discuss pertinent issues. The City Council and SPUC do occasionally have joint meetings and there is normally a City Council liaison at all of SPUC's meetings. Mr. Van Hout noted there was an appeals process in place for commissions and there were specific regulations regarding the process. Cncl. Lehman had a question regarding the appeals process and Mr. Van Hout addressed the question. Mr. Van Hout also noted that there are some Official Proceedings of the February 25, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -3- things that SPUC does for the City such as: billing (storm sewer), and collects fees on building permits for water meters. Mr. Van Rout along with Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, repOlied on the new building for SPUC. Mr. Van Rout noted the location of the building was north of 4th Avenue and the building needed to keep on schedule. This building would house their administrative department and double as a service center. Mr. Loney gave a brief overview of the 4th A venue reconstruction project and Viking Steel Road improvements that will affect the SPUC building site. Mr. Loney briefly described the project area and touched on some critical issues peliail1ing to the building schedule. Mr. Loney noted that the City of Shakopee was looking at upgrading Viking Steel Road to a 9-ton 2 lane paved road with utilities. However, Mr. Loney asked the traffic engineer to re-Iook at the traffic counts with all the information the City has now regarding development in this area to see if Viking Steel Road should be made a four-lane. Mr. Loney stated there were mainly right-of-way acquisition issues involved with the project and there is the need from property owners for their cooperation; so far the project is moving along nicely. Mr. Loney stated that the cooperation of the residents regarding right-of-way would determine how fast this project moved along. Mr. Van Rout and Mr. McNeill reported on the disposition ofthe existing building and its replacement. Mr. Van Rout noted there was no reason for Shakopee Public Utilities to keep the existing building once the new SPUC building was completed and moved into. Mr. Van Rout thought the value of the land was worth something. Mr. Van Rout introduced Jerry Fox, Finance Manager for SPUC. Mr. Fox approached the podium and noted that the current building was on a four-acre site. Mr. McNeill stated that from the City's need this site would probably be good from the standpoint of size and location for a future City campus. Mr. McNein would like a lease agreement for retention of the land if SPUC were agreeable to this because the City building fund would be depleted when the new Library and new Police Station are completed. Re would like to start these discussions on a lease agreement for the land. Mr. Loney reported on the development and coordination issues of the SPUC/City Project. Mr. Loney pointed out that on projects with assessments (429 projects) that there needed to be coordination between SPUC and the City. Mr. Loney noted that there was a State requirement that both the City and SPUC needed to pass a resolution in favor of the project in order for that project to move forward. This is something that has to be done. Mr. Loney did a plan telling the Council and SPUC what needed to be done and what would involve staff. Mr. Van Rout addressed the undergrounding/line relocation issues. Mr. Van Rout noted that undergrounding electric lines was costly. Back-up lines are needed because repair can't be done in a minute. Cncl. Joos noted there are more benefits with undergrounding than just aesthetics for the City. Cncl. Lehman was concerned about the cost of under grounding electric lines in bedrock. Mr. Van Rout addressed this question. Mr. Van Rout deferred to Mr. Joe Adams. It was noted that an underground line does not have the lifetime of an overhead line. Official Proceedings of the February 25, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Mayor Mars discussed the numbers in Mr. Adams summary of major projects. Mr. Adams approached the podium to discuss his list of major projects for SPUC. Mr. Adams addressed Mayor Mars question and stated that all the numbers Mayor Mars mentioned in the summary were directly related to the growth ofthe City (equipment and material needed to serve new customers coming on line). Mr. Adams figured it would cost between $7 billion and $16 billion to underground all the electric lines for SPUC in the City of Shakopee. He noted the wide variance in this cost estimate was because of the unknown bedrock condition. There was bedrock but just how much and how deep was an unknown. There would be some customer's costs also when the undergrOlmding was done. Mr. Adams noted customers needed to pay for the service line to their home. Mr. Adams addressed what happens when a few large customers drop SPUC's service. Mr. Adams noted there were some costs recovered from the growth of Shakopee through the rate structure when new developments came on online. Mr. Van Rout reported on the long-term water issues. Mr. Van Hout noted that Mr. Jolm Crooks, Water Superintendent, prepared some information for tonight's meeting. Mr. Van Hout stated that there were some water features that would be needed (pump houses; wells, booster . stations, tanks) and these would cost money. Mr. Van Hout pointed out that the water supply to the City was increased by 80% by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This amount was adequate for now but an eye needed to be kept on the supply amount because it takes a long time to get approval for more and with the cuts coming because of the State budget deficit this process may take even longer. Mr. Van Hout stated with the growth of the City more water will be needed in the future. Mr. Van Hout addressed the Wellhead Protection Plan. He noted the Wellhead Protection Plan puts the burden on the water supplier to protect their water sources. This plan is overseen by the Minnesota Department of Health. This makes it necessary for the water supplier to come with a plan to identify susceptible areas and then to monitor that area and come up with a plan as to what should/needs to be done. This puts the burden on the water supplier to go to the City and let them know where the water is at risk so it can be protected better through their Comprehensive Plan. It was noted by Mr. Van Hout that the MPCA is on top of any possible water contamination and the biggest contaminant of the City's ground water was nitrates from fertilizers and animal refuse. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, addressed the Well-head Protection Plan as it impacts the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Leek gave some history on the Comprehensive Plan coming to Cities. He noted that the City does updates on their Comprehensive Plans more frequently than requested by the Metropolitan Council. He stated there are three things that have triggered greater attention to the coordination of SPUC and City planning over the last few years, particularly in matters over the water supply. These are: 1) the opening ofHwy 169, [triple Official Proceedings of the February 25, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -5- building activity - residential]; 2) the landscape with respect to environmental concerns and regulations and 3) the cities venture into annexation. Mr. Leek felt perhaps the electric issue needed to be looked at regarding the areas that are annexed and perhaps this needed to be reviewed by SPUC just as the water issue is reviewed by SPUC. Mr. Leek stated there is a need for the Council and SPUC to work together in planning. There may come a time, when the Well- head Protection Plan that SPUC is responsible for is endorsed by the City and it becomes a part of the Comprehensive Plan providing a better mechanism to track the impact of City land uses on the water. Mr. Leek addressed the contamination possibility of the City's ground water and what could'be done. Mr. Leek noted there are protections built into the planning and Wellhead Protection Plan. Mr. David Thompson stated that right now SPUC is looking to combine their resources for water by teaming up with the City, Shakopee Public Schools and SACS to site the next four wells on the joint soccer field owned by Shakopee Public Schools. Mr. Thompson noted the planning on these four wells, at this time, would take SPUC water supply need into 2012. Mr. Leek noted the idea of the ability for long-term water interconnections with other communities is being looked at by the Northern Scott County Groundwater Work Group. Mr. Van Hout reported on the long-term electrical issues for the SPUC service area due to annexation areas. Mr. Van Hout noted that a map of the electrical lines ofSPUC would be on file with the City in case of an emergency as well as addressing a plan for future expansion of the City. Mr. Van Hout pointed out Resolution No. 710 which dealt with SPUC joining a power agency. There was still some checking that needed to be concluded before SPUC made a recommendation to join. Mr. Van Hout noted when SPUC looked into purchasing electric for future long-term use it was detennined that joining a power agency was the better way to go. Mr. Van Hout explained the power agency that SPUC was looking at joining and the advantages that SPUC would have by joining this power agency. Jerry Fox, Finance Manager for SPUC, reported on the refinancing of bonds. Mr. Fox reported that SPUC is going forward and refunding a bond issue that is ten years old. The bonds are being called and by doing this advanced refunding SPUC can save approximately $183,000. This refunding of bonds will be happening over the next couple months. Gregg Voxland, City's Finance Director, approached the podium and stated the City and SPUC try to coordinate issuing bonds to gain an advantage for the interest rate. Mr. Van Hout and Mr. McNeill reported on the City Contribution from SPUC. Mr. Van Hout pointed out Resolution No. 672 that lays out how and why a contribution is made to the City. Mr. Van Hout noted that past practices have been that the Commission would propose to the City and each body would adopt resolutions concurring. Mr. Fox stated the approximate contribution Official Proceedings of the February 25, 2003 Shakopee City Council Page -6- from SPUC to the City in 2003 would be $1,100,000. This is the amount that is budgeted as well as some other contributory money. The contribution for 2002 was thought to be slightly less than the 2003 amount. Mr. McNeill noted the late Cncl. Sweeney was looking for the adoption of a franchise fee for the City when he was helping with SPUC Resolution 672. The intent ofthe franchise fee was to equalize the contribution that was really being made by customers of Shakopee Public Utilities for electrical service and not from EXCEL customers in the Shakopee area. There was much objection expressed at a public hearing regarding a franchise fee and the Council then backed off. Mr. McNeill noted SPUC Resolution No. 672 has reduced the contribution rate from SPUC to what it would have been with a franchise fee imposed, however the franchise fee has never been imposed. This franchise fee may need to be looked at again in the future. Mr. McNeill addressed some coordination issues. He suggested that there be an annual meeting in February or March between SPUC and the City Council. The big picture could be addressed at that meeting. The more detailed issues could be addressed by City staff and Shakopee Public Utilities staff at monthly meetings. JooslLink. moved to recess for an executive session to discuss labor negotiations. The meeting recessed at 7:47 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Mars re-convened the Council meeting at 9:00 p.m. There was no action taken by the City Council during the executive session. Helkamp/Lehman moved to adjourn. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 'WJA J. C{J Mith s. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary