Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26 and 04/27/1982 TENTATIVE AGENDA - MONDAY - ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 26, 1982 Mayor Reinke presiding. . 1] Roll Call at 8 :00 P.M. 2] Review of clarification presented by cable companies in response to consultant ' s final report a] Outline by staff of responses received b] Evaluation by consultant of the responses received 3] Questions for consultant on Final Report a] Written questions by cable companies b] Questions by Committee and Councilmembers 4] Discussion of April 27, 1982 Public Hearing a] Review format and arrangements (memos attached to 4/27 agenda) b] Attendance of cable attorney or associate c] Permission to videotape the public hearing on April 27th 5] Other Business : 6] Adjourn to Tuesday, April 27th at 7 :00 P.M. John K. Anderson City Administrator Dear Eldon: I am sending you this note to inform you of my feelings on the PVT vs Zylstra Communications hearing to be aired publicly on Tuesday , April 27th. I am very much in favor of supporting our local businessmen who represent PVT. I will be at the public hearing on Tuesday night to hopefully voice my support of PVT and will look forward to seeing you at that time. Sincerely, Maggie Klein :alr}s3 nnouI o4 paau noA IN eanneo In U.S.A. Each office independently owned and operated. � "'" 3 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre RE: Format of Public Hearing DATE: April 21 ,. 1982 The format of the public hearing is to be presented by Mayor Eldon Reinke at the start of the public hearing. 1 . The purpose of this public hearing is to receive comments on the award of the cable communications franchise and adoption of a cable communications ordinance. The hearing is held in accordance with the rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board and the Shakopee City Code. Official notice of this hearing was published in the Shakopee Valley News on April 15 , 1982 . 2 . Jeanne Andre , Assistant to the City Administrator, will provide an overview of the franchise process . 3 . Presentations will be made by the two firms proposing service in Shakopee . The first presentation will be made by Progress Valley Totalvision and the second presentation will be by Zylstra-United Cable Television Company, the order determined at the April 20, 1982 , meeting of the City Council . Each presentation will consist of a 30 minute allotment for oral comments and visual presentations by the company, followed by a 15 minute question/answer period for questions by the City Council , Ad Hoc Cable Communication Committee and the City ' s Consultant . 4. A question/answer period open to the public and competing firms will follow the completion of the two company presenta- tions . a. Speakers will be recognized in the order in which they have signed on a list in the keeping of Judith Cox, City Clerk. b. Each speaker and each respondent to questions raised will be limited to three minutes . Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant , will time each speaker and give cues as the time limit approaches . c . The City Council will evaluate how long to continue the hear- ing after each party has had the opportunity to speak once . JA/jms TENTATIVE AGENDA - TUESDAY - ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 27, 1982 Mayor Reinke presiding. 1 ] Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M. in Shakopee Senior High Cafeteria 2] Open Public Hearing on Cable Communications Franchise 3] Introduction by Mayor Reinke 4] Explanation of franchise process by Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant 5] Presentation by cable companies proposing to serve the City a] Progress Valley Totalvision b] Questions from Consultant, Committee and Council c] Zylstra-United Cable Television Company d] Questions from Consultant, Committee and Council 6] Questions from the Public 7] Closing of the Public Hearing 8] Refer Proposals to the Cable Communications Committee for a Recommendation to the City Council 9] Other Business : 10] Adjourn. John K. Anderson City Administrator Format of Public Hearing On Cable Communications Franchise Shakopee, Minnesota Senior High Cafeteria April 27 , 1982 1 . The purpose of this public hearing is to receive comments on the award of the cable communications franchise and adoption of a cable communications ordinance . The hearing is held in accordance with the rules of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board and the Shakopee City Code. Official notice of this hearing was published in the Shakopee Valley News on April 15 , 1982 . 2 . Jeanne Andre , Assistant to the City Administrator, will provide an overview of the franchise process . 3 . Presentations will be made by the two firms proposing service in Shakopee . The first presentation will be made by Progress Valley Totalvision and the second presentation will be by Zylstra-United Cable Television Company, the order determined at the April 20, 1982 , meeting of the City Council . Each presentation will consist of a 30 minute allotment for oral comments and visual presentations by the company, followed by a 15 minute question/answer period for questions by the City Council , Ad Hoc Cable Communication Committee and the City' s Consultant . 4. A question/answer period open to the public and competing firms will follow the completion of the two company presenta- tions . a. Speakers will be recognized in the order in which they have signed on a list in the keeping of Judith Cox, City Clerk. b. Each speaker and each respondent to questions raised will be limited to three minutes . Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant , will time each speaker and give cues as the time limit approaches . c . The City Council will evaluate how long to continue the hear- ing after each party has had the opportunity to speak once. 0 April 27 , 1982 Public Hearing On Cable Communications Franchise Shakopee , Minnesota Wish To Name Address S.eak 7chr.) tn) C d Lows �Q r b©,c 1203 61-)fytiv, q , 4 )1 #ibl, 5AC e ./// 7e 7cavaii 4. -3,1:„ee,„) 9t,,y-e- k_ x4,1, � i/tti41 4-41 (LjuLtjli/L9s'- „AZ./ / / .SZ 01 ,"(a./(P/4 AIL Pku-0(1-X c-Liltjtit-peLi JOILemiL .0) April 27 , 1982 Public Hearing On Cable Communications Franchise Shakopee , Minnesota Wish To Name Address Speak / d4Yorlii r5 / YE 5 pk,r(m- 0 'N \ -e -e \ y 1-€ c; c< tr26a. 1)41/47 09_ k 6/e,i/e/i k S (r ‘,1. 31,45-7440,521A/ r3//)."Ala4 044.0 / 1((:/& 1/ 4;3L- 11.4 6 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant RE: Decision on Length of Public Hearing DATE: April 23 ,. 1982 In the format for the public hearing which was recommended by the Committee and adopted by the City Council , each member of the audience will be allowed to speak once , with a three minute time limit . After each person has had the opportunity to speak once , the City Council and Cable Committee can decide if they wish to continue the public hearing. The following procedure is recommended when making this decision: 1 . If it is very late and it seems that most perspectives have been adequately addressed the Council and Committee may choose to end the hearing. The Mayor can poll the members if this option seems likely. The audience can be invited to submit additional comments in writing. 2 . If it seems worthwhile to continue the hearing, the Mayor can poll the audience to see how many persons have additional comments . a . If there are only a few additional comments the Council and Committee could authorize a second list to be taken (during a short recess ) and allow all parties on the list to speak a second time . b. If a large number of persons wish to speak, the Council could authorize a second list to be taken (during recess ) and 1 ) Reconvene to allow comments only by those persons speak- ing on a topic not previously covered. 2 ) Continue the public hearing at another time to hear the additional comments of those on the list . It is suggested that the hearing could be continued at the Council Chambers at either a special meeting on Wednesday, April 28 , 1982 or Monday, May 3 , 1982 or at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on May 4, 1982 . JA/jms CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA POSITION PAPER ON METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PROPOSED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 . Shakopee reiterates the comments in its position paper presented by the Mayor at the Metropolitan Council ' s December 9 , 1981 meeting in Chaska. 2 . Shakopee endorses the general and specific recommendations being presented by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities out- lining those sections of the plan that are in conflict with or inconsistent with the Surface Water Management Act (Chapter 509 ) passed during the 1982 Legislative Session. 3 . Shakopee strongly objects to this attempt by the Metropolitan Council to broaden its role in surface water management when the role that the Council is proposing is in conflict with language and intent of the new legislation passed in i` 2<° under the Surface Water Management Act (Chapter 509 ) . Why for example does the Council ' s plan: a. Designate the Metropolitan Council for reviewing local storm water management plans when Chapter 509 designates Water Management Organizations (WMOs ) as the reviewing agency? b. Propose Metropolitan Council funding when plan approval by the Council is not designated by Chapter 509? c . Propose that the Metropolitan Council ' s detailed guidelines for watershed plan elements be required when those guide- lines go well beyond those contained in Chapter 509 , and when the Council ' s review should be limited to a given WMO' s plan effects on the four systems as defined in the Compre- hensive Planning Act of 1976? In our estimation the answer to each of the three questions above point to an attempt by the Metropolitan Council to create a fifth system comparable to the four now referenced in the Comprehensive Planning Act of 1976 . Clearly this was not the intent of Chapter 509 . 4. Finally, Shakopee intends to present the AMM' s list of conflicts between the 1982 Surface Water Management Act (Chapter 509 ) and the Metropolitan Council ' s plan to the Joint Legislative Commis- sion on Metropolitan Governance at its May 5th meeting as a clear example of the Metropolitan Council ' s disregard for the intent of the laws passed by the Legislature and an example of how that disregard has resulted in excessive regulatory cost to local governments that were never intended by the State Legislature . I IV. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS These 'evaluation criteria and s will be in the formal evaluation of franchise laptlications . utilezfd chisor reserves the right, in addition to this comparativeran- evaluation, to impose mimimun requirements in areas such ownership and legal qualifications , financial capability as y, etc . CATEGORY WEIGHT Experience/Background 10% Financial Resources and Commitments (financial goal , availability of funds) 12 . 5% Proforma Projections (projected revenues , capital costs and operating expenses) 5% Construction Plans (initial service area, line ex- tension policy, construction time table) 17. 5% System Design (design concept , channel capacity , interactive capability, technical standards , service security, head- end and importation facilities , interconnection, institutional ser- vice design, subscriber equipment ancillary services) 10% Programming and Services (broadcast station carriage , origi- nation programming, automated pro- gramming, local origination, access channels , access support , pay-cable services , interactive services , tiered structure, FM service , ser- vice to institutions) 15% Rates and Charges 17 . 5% System Reliability, Maintenance and Repair, Employment Practices 5% Response to Local Needs 7 . 5% TOTAL 100.0% -16- PHONE 612-445-6300 rig! FIR TATIONALBANK F SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 MEMBER FEDERAL DEPOSIT CORPORATION April 8, 1982 Mr. John Anderson City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: The First National Bank of Shakopee endorses the idea that the downtown area of Shakopee be set up as a tax increment base and that the increase in taxes on our bank building, from the recently completed remodeling project, be earmarked for the improvement of the downtown area. Thank you very much. Sincerely, ' 4411P Daniel G. Steil Assistant Vice President and Operations Officer DGS/mr THOMAS L. HENNEN SCOTT COUNTY AUDITOR COURT HOUSE 102 SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext. 180 Deputy Auditor April 14, 1982 THOMAS LANNON (Ext.168) Divisions of: Taxation ALLEN STICHA Mr. John Anderson (Ext.172) Shakopee City Administrator GARY McKIVER 129 E. First Avenue (Ext. 167) Shakopee, MN 55379 Licensing JEFF SNYDER CRYSTALZDENEK SUBJECT: Tax Increment (Ext. 171) Elections Dear John: MARY KAY KES (Ext.160) This letter is to confirm our conversation of April 13, 1982 concerning the property of the First National Bank of Shakopee (main building) . As I stated, it would make no difference if you amend the present district to include this property or if you establish a new district. The value in either case would be that payable in 1981 . The value for 1981 is $175,290. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. Sinc ly' Thomas/. . on Deputy Auditor TJL:jb An Equal Opportunity Employer AlW14 4 144 • , .#ic• TEL.: 445-2392 140 SO. HOLMES STREET SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 April 14, 1982 Mr. John Anderson City Manal3er City of Shakopee Shakopee, Minnesota Dear Mr. Anderson: In accordance with our discussion it appers to me that a downtown improvement plan has considerable merit and I am willing to exchange ioeas on the matter at a time convenient( to both of us. While I concur with the concept I have certain reservations regarding my own property which,based on tax consequenres,as well as location could alter my thinking. Yours very truly, %gyp „/ .RIChACI Mer Bonds Insurance Real Estate 405 East 11th Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 April 13 , 1982 Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: Thank you for including me in your Friday, April 9 , 1982 meeting at the First National Bank. The subject of downtown development is one that I am personally very interested in, and after listening to your review of the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee ' s "design concepts" and the possibility of implementing some of their various proposals for the Second Avenue area through the use of Tax Increment Financing, I am interested in pursuing any realistic proposals that can be identified. While it is necessary for me to reserve the right to make any final decisions regarding the inclusion of my property in a project , I am convinced that the City Council should fully explore the potential of including the First National Bank and other po- tential development in a tax increment district to finance needed public improvements in our downtown. Downtown plans have been proposed beforeand nothing has come of them. This is perhaps our last real chance to do something concrete . Sincerely yours , Joe Topi j e : A.5 .I-;:1". 6 . ,r- - . eP CO 0,i'''**I'Ll e;-)7. * 43",9100G, ,e77/../r/A-j,' .4:1-1 0'46,47-- -gr ,,,/// f 7:;Y:7 ei •ZA '":7e. - 7; C�`'"�'/ y�` �,/ �' APB C ,-d y �r 4� Ia.; 'f7,91:0, (I:Arc-A es iiir/ ef/ ,./1:::/:;•/1..i ,j7,, ,•./. l'IK.' -/ 0.7 ,,ter,,...70,4a--, .../).ertlf,7; r, /„. . ... ,„ 1