Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1998 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 10, 1998 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 6:15 p.m. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] Downtown Parking Signage 4] 7:00 p.m. hearings on Tobacco Ordinance violations: a. Bret-Becca Inc. dba/Pullman b. Shakopee Council 1685 Home Association dba/Knights of Columbus c. Tom Thumb #250 d. Berens Market e. Superamerica#4035 f. Koehnen's Amoco g. Corp-Tool Inc. dba/Arnies Friendly Folks Clpb h. Shakopee Eagles i. Kmart #9638 j. Hennen's ICO 5] Other Business a. Selection of Auditor b. 1998 Pay Plan Miscellaneous Items 6] Adjourn to Tuesday, November 17, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Downtown Parking Issues DATE: November 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION: At its workshop to begin at 6:15 PM on November 10th,the Council will have an opportunity to hear a presentation by the Downtown Parking Committee concerning on street parking changes and general parking availability. It is also expected that there will be downtown business owners and property owners who will wish to comment on the proposed changes. BACKGROUND: Since April of this year, Economic Development Coordinator Paul Snook has been working with downtown business people looking at parking issues the downtown area. Including was parking inventory and availability, as well as parking restrictions. This summer,the EDA authorized a parking study to be done of the downtown area, analyzing issues which had previously been raised, and making recommendations. The results of that study was reviewed with the parking committee, and a summary was sent to downtown property owners. A meeting to review that, and obtain comments was held October 14th. At that time,there were some issues that were raised regarding on street employee parking, vs. a general two hour restriction in most areas of the downtown recommended by the study, and parking committee. Those are most noticeable in the First and Lewis area, and 4 or 5 property owners in the 100 block of Sommerville Street. A follow up meeting was held with some of the Sommerville business people the following week. At the November 10th meeting,business people have been invited to make comments on the proposal to the City Council. The discussion on the downtown parking issues and study will be led by one of the committee members. Also included in the discussion, if time permits, is a review of the downtown directional signage to parking lots. The funding for these signs is not identified. PARKING.DOC RECOMMENDATION: As this is a work session,no action may be taken by the Council. It may,however, direct that formal acceptance of the recommendations be placed for official action at a future meeting. If the Council concurs with the recommendation,there will need to be signage installed, and enforcement to begin on a regular basis. ACTION REQUIRED: Council should hear comments, and give any direction regarding implementation to the downtown parking plan as presented. u ➢L Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw PARKING.DOC CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Downtown Parking Committee FROM: Paul Snook,Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Parking improvement costs: paving of library lot,and pedestrian overpass DATE: April 22, 1998 In follow-up to last week's meeting,outlined in this memo are estimated costs of paving the parking lot behind the library, and estimated costs for a footbridge that would span County Highway 69 between downtown and the parking lot north of the highway. Paving the Lot Behind the Library The City Engineering Department estimates that paving the lot behind the library would cost between $25,000 and$35,000.This includes per square yard blacktop paving costs,contingency,and engineering costs. The low end of this range would be for a lot that has only the surface paving;no curb,gutter, lighting,and landscaping. The high end of this range would be for a lot that has all the above-mentioned amenities. Pedestrian Footbridge Over CH 69 The cost estimate for this as determined by MnDOT is$100 per square foot.Total cost estimate over a four lane highway(CH 69)is in the range of$200,000-$300,000.It should be noted that the footbridge would need to be handicapped accessible. Next Steps As the committee can see,the estimated costs of these improvements are quite high.Before any consideration is made by the City for pursuing these costly improvements,the current downtown parking situation has to be fully understood through the gathering of factual data. Only with an objective evaluation of parking operations, based upon the collection of factual data,can the true impact of parking on the commercial success of downtown be ascertained in an unbiased manner. The basis of any successful parking situation is the compilation of a data base;that is,the tabulation and maintenance of statistics for use in evaluating existing parking characteristics.Collecting data allows the parking committee and the City to objectively evaluate the parking situation downtown and to correctly . decide about such issues as additional spaces, increased enforcement or greater promotion. The data gathering process includes the following next steps: 1. Conducting a parking inventory(this is currently underway and nearly complete) 2. Conducting parking occupancy and turnover surveys. This data determines the peak occupancy, average duration, and turnover of parking by block,block face,type of facility(on-street and lot). This data will also determine who is parking where and when. Again, in order for the City to make an informed,objective decision on funding to increase the number of parking spaces downtown, that decision must be based on factual data. pkgcstmo.doc 1 .,,,, v cf) roF , '1-S aJougim i w I '-'4 1... H , 1-S iaouads 1 fimo( .1�� - "}s aIITA.zauzuzos M : \ N N ll -t4 . Oci a I \, / r 1-S STM O li e.II IN \b\t.ri \ '' \'( s ‘c.\%csk r1::, 1 • , N x `� 1-Scn soul-pH rtt!'l Eiirm ' 111 �tj . jt 11 OrliII , ,1 �s .zallnd r . „.; 411 o",..,Q ,, _ '-S pooMW / w III p 8 SHAKOPEE November 2, 1998 Dear Downtown Property Owner: Previously, you have been advised that a Downtown Parking Committee has been studying changes in on-street parking regulations. Their recommendations were reviewed with property owners who chose to attend an informational meeting on October 14th. The majority of concerns raised at that meeting centered on on-street employee parking, and impending enforcement of two hour restrictions recommended for most of the downtown area. The City Council will be holding a workshop meeting to hear these recommendations, and consider comments,both pro or con, on.Tuesday,November 10th, beginning at 6:15 PM. Because of a previously scheduled public hearing, a discussion of the downtown parking issues will need to conclude by 7:00 PM. The meeting will be held in the Council. Chambers of City Hall. No formal action will be taken by the Council at that meeting, but it is expected that this will be the primary opportunity to speak before the Council on this issue. Any implementation would be determined by the Council at a regular Council meeting, likely November 17th. If you have information which you want the Council to consider, but can not attend the November 10th meeting,you should submit written comments to the Council prior to November 10th. If you have questions,please contact either Economic Development Coordinator Paul. Snook, or me, at 445-3650. Sincerely, awduta-s- Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 impit rt,South• Shakopee,Minnesota• 55379-1351 • 612-445-3650 • FAX 612-445-6718 43 laUNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 135SOMMERVILLE ST. S SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-9998 November 9, 1998 To: Mark McNeil-Shakopee City Administrator Re: Downtown Parking Here at the Shakopee Post Office we have experienced a great many problems with the parking situation. Our customers are in and out of our facility within five to ten minutes, at most, and there are certain times of the day when there are no parking spaces available in front of our office. We have investigated adding more parking on the south side of our facility, however, it would not provide a solution to our needs. The cost would be much too high and would only provide three (3) additional spaces. The employees of our facility have been told to park on the south side of the railroad tracks, on Sommerville St., on Second Ave. or in the parking lot behind McGovern's in an effort to keep spaces available to, not only our customers, but for the other business customers on Sommerville St. We really only have five employee spaces behind our facility during the entire day, since our tractor/trailer that brings our mail needs the addtional spaces for manuvering room. I do notice that the other businesses on the 100 block of Sommerville St. S use this block for employee parking and I think, to be consistant with the rest of the downtown parking area, the 100 block of Sommerville St. S should be posted with time limits. This would give all the business customers a more wide choice of parking. If the postal employees can park elsewhere, I feel it fair to assume, all business employees should either use the public lot behind McGovern's or south of Second Ave. on Sommerville St. S. Another consideration could be the City of Shakopee actually constructing a lot, off street, for use of employees. My main concern is for the customers and not only the Post Office customers, but also the customers of other businesses in this area. If all the businesses on Sommerville St. S allow their employees to park on the street on the 100 block of Sommerville St. S, then obviously I will begin to allow postal employees to park there also. That will, in the end, mean that there would be no customer parking on that entire block of Sommerville St. S except for in front of the Post Office, where it is posted"30 minute parking". I'm looking for fair and equal treatment for the employees and customers of our Post Office and a consistant downtown parking strategy. Larry fil:tson Postmaster Shakopee, MN 55379-9998 FAX: (612)496-9722 Downtown Parking Study Chronology January/February 1998 • The Downtown Business Group and the Downtown/ 1st Avenue Revitalization Ad Hoc Committee formed a task force comprised of volunteers from both committees to deal with parking issues in the downtown area. Volunteering for the task force were Dave Jansen, Paul Schwaesdall, Bill Wermerskirchen, Bryan Turtle and Duane Wermerskirchen and Larry Matson. Mark McNeill and Paul Snook provided representation from city staff. • To initiate discussion,the Downtown Business Group identified the following parking concerns: -Parking information signs are needed to direct motorists to public parking. -2-hour parking is not being enforced throughout downtown. -Employees are parking on the street in front of shops. -There is a need for more short-term parking in certain areas. -There is insufficient parking for post office customers. -Parking lot next to library should be upgraded. -Parking lot across from downtown(on north side of bypass)is not used. March/April 1998 • The task force arrives at cost estimates for paving the lot behind the library and construction of a footbridge over County Highway 69. • The task force conducts a parking space inventory and occupancy survey on 1st, 2nd, 3rd Avenues and Fuller,Holmes,Lewis and Sommerville Streets and in the public parking lots. The surveys show that there is ample parkking, however the existing parking supply is not well managed (inadequate regulatory signing, lack of enforcement,etc.) May/June 1998 • The task force arrives at a list of recommendations for parking changes in the downtown area. The recommendations are based on the results of the inventory and occupancy surveys. • The task force recommends that the EDA enter a contract with WSB & Associates to further study the downtown parking situation. The EDA hires WSB to provide comment on the parking task force's recommendations and to advise regarding parking directional signs, with the possibility of doing a parking needs analysis at a later date after River City Centre is occupied. September 1998 • WSB completes their study and concurs with many of the recommended changes proposed by the parking task force. October 1998 • Downtown business owners were invited to discuss the results of the study and make comment before the City Council holds their workshop November 10. • Business owners on Sommerville Street discussed changes proposed for their street. --- - - - _ _ City of SHAKOPEE Parte SHAICOPIthi iiQWflt. IWU . Sig:fl.iUgit f October 5, 1998 A 350 Westwood Lake office 8441 Wayzata Boulevard WSBMinneapolis,MN 55426 612-541-4800 d:.lasOCW/4;Inc. FAX 541-1700 WSB Project No. 1014.43 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS City of Shakopee Downtown Parking Signing Study Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Data Collection/Existing Conditions III. Downtown Parking Issues IV. Downtown Parking Signing Plan Y. Conclusions/Recommendations Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Table of Contents • Section I- Introduction Parking in downtown Shakopee is essential to the vitality of the downtown retail community. Currently, it appears that adequate parking is available downtown, on-street or in the City-owned facilities. However, direction to the downtown retail customers in locating these parking facilities is lacking. The purpose of this report is to review the existing parking conditions (i.e. type and location of parking), review the downtown parking issues as outlined in the May 1998 memo from the Economic Development Authority(EDA) and develop a downtown parking signing plan. The following sections of this report address each of these areas as well as provide recommendations and conclusions on downtown parking issues. Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Page 1 Section II- Data Collection /Existing Conditions The downtown parking study area was defined from 3rd Avenue on the south, CR 69/CR 101 on the north, Atwood Street on the west and Spencer Street on the east. A field review of the existing downtown parking conditions was conducted. The review found the following parking restrictions in existence in the study area: 1. No parking restrictions 2. No parking 2 AM to 6 AM 3. No parking 2 AM to 6 AM/8 hour parking 8 AM to 6 PM 4. No parking 2 AM to 6 AM/2 hour parking 8 AM to 6 PM 5. No parking 2 AM to 6 AM/30 minute parking 8 AM to 6 PM 6. 24-hour parking The field review also found several sign posts in place with no signs installed on them. Figure 1 illustrates the downtown parking study area with the existing parking restrictions. Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Page 2 Section III- Downtown Parking Issues On May 28, 1998, a memo was sent to the downtown parking committee from Paul Snook, the Economic Development Coordinater, outlining several issues in the downtown parking study area. These issues are briefly discussed below. 1st Avenue 1. Issue: There should be two 15-minute parking spaces on each end of 1St Avenue between Holmes and Sommerville. Response: This would provide for the short-term customer. However, enforcement of a short time frame is difficult. 2. Issue: The spaces in front of Valley Sports should all be 2-hour parking(currently there is no limit) Response: This would be consistent with the rest of Pt Avenue. 3. Issue: Employees/business owners are parking all day in 2-hour spaces in the vicinity of 1st and Lewis. These should be left free for customer use. Continuous enforcement is needed. Response: Business owners should be enforcing employee parking on their own. An off-street parking lot should be designated for employee parking. 4. Issue: The parking lot behind River City Center should be all 2-hour parking. Response: This would be consistent with the rest of Pt Avenue. 5. Issue: The handicapped spaces on 1st Avenue in front of the building should be moved to the lot behind River City Center. Response: Handicap spaces need to be provided for easy access to businesses. However, there is no requirement for handicap on-street parking. The requirements for parking lots is based on the total number of spaces. Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Page 3 Holmes Street 1. Issue: Employees/business owners are parking all day in 2-hour spaces at Holmes and 1st. These spaces should be left free for customer use. Continuous enforcement is needed. Response: Business owners should be enforcing employee parking on their own. An off-street parking lot should be designated for employee parking. 2. Issue: There should be one 15-minute parking space in front of the Shoe Shop/Jerry's Pizza. Response: A 30-minute parking limit is recommended,which would be consistent with other areas in Shakopee. This would provide for the short-term customer. However, enforcement of a short time frame is difficult. Sommerville Street 1. Issue: Employees/business owners are parking all day in front of the dental office (five spaces; no time limit). This area should be changed to 2-hour parking with continuous enforcement. Response: This would be consistent with the rest of the business parking downtown. Business owners should be enforcing employee parking on their own. An off-street parking lot should be designated for employee parking. 2. Issue: Employees/business owners are parking all day in front of McGovern's Garage and Performance Shop (4 spaces; no time limit). This area should be changed to two 2-hour parking spaces, and two 30-minute spaces, with continuous enforcement. Response: This would be consistent with the rest of the business parking downtown. Business owners should be enforcing employee parking on their own. Additional short-term (30 minute)parking could be provided on 2nd Street. An off-street parking lot should be designated for employee parking. 3. Issue: The parking lot behind the library should be fully paved and marked (with lines/spaces). Currently,downtown motorists are unaware of this lot because it is not clear that it is a public parking lot. It simply looks like a vacant parcel. The City Engineering Department estimates that paving this lot Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Page 4 would cost between $25,000 and $35,000. This includes blacktop paving costs, contingency, and engineering costs. The low end of this range would be for a lot that has only the surface paving, no curb, gutter, lighting, or landscaping. The high end of this range would be for a lot that has all the above-mentioned amenities. Response: This lot would help provide additional off-street parking for employees. A supply and demand study should be conducted to determine actual need for this lot. Lot North of Highway 69 (at Fuller and 69) Issue: The City should consider options to make this lot more usable. Some options include: A. A brick crosswalk and landscaping at Fuller/69, and along the walking route from the heart of downtown to the lot, making this route more pedestrian-friendly. B. Open Fuller/69 to a four-way intersection so motorists can access the lot directly from 69;include a right hand turn lane on the west/south- bound lane. C. Lessen the elevation of the berm located between the lot and highway in order to increase visibility. D. Install directional and identification signage (as part of an overall parking signage program/plan), leading motorists to the lot. Response: These options would help provide better visibility and use of this lot. However, the issue would still be the customers crossing CR 69. This lot would be ideal for an employee parking lot. Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Page 5 2nd Avenue 1. Issue: The two spaces next to City Hall should be 2-hour parking like on Fuller in front of City Hall. Response: This would be consistent with the rest of the parking in the area. 2. Issue: The city lot in front of Pablo's needs better signage (defining 8-hour and 2- hour parking limits);The lot also needs to be repaired on the west side(a dip in the asphalt creates a water pooling problem). Response: This lot should be upgraded with signs and new pavement. 3. Issue: Post office parking on 2nd Avenue: Can it be done? If so, what kind of parking(diagonal/parallel)? How many spaces? If it cannot be done,why? Response: It appears that up to three spaces could be provided. It would be recommended that they be designated as 30-minute parking. Lewis Street 1. Issue: Employees/business owners are parking all day in 2-hour spaces at Lewis and 1st Avenue. These spaces should be left free for customer use. Continuous enforcement is needed. Response: Business owners should be enforcing employee parking on their own. An off-street parking lot should be designated for employee parking. 2. Issue: The landscaping of the City parking lot at Lewis and 2nd was not completed (particularly the north side of the lot). Response: This issue should be discussed with the city engineer. 3. Issue: The handicap space on Lewis, which was created for the needs of Country Medical's clientele, should be moved, if possible, to the parking lot across from Bill's Toggery. Country Medical has moved from this space,lessening the need for a handicap space on the street. Response: Handicap spaces would not be required on-street in this area. It would be recommended to remove these spaces. Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Page 6 Other 1. Issue: There is a lack of maintenance of the landscaped areas around all the downtown public parking lots (weeds, trash accumulation, etc.) Response: This issue should be discussed with the city engineer. Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Page 7 f Section IV- Downtown Parking Signing Plan A downtown parking signing plan was developed for the downtown study area. Based on the location of the existing downtown parking facilities (lots), a directional/guide signing plan was developed. The guide signing plan includes three (3) elements. 1. Initial Guide Sign: This sign would be placed on the major approaches to downtown Shakopee (i.e. County Road 69 eastbound and westbound, Spencer Street and Atwood Street). These signs would direct traffic to the closest city parking facility. 2. Route Guide Signing: These signs would provide route guidance from the initial sign to the actual parking facility, as well as signs between the facilities (additional parking). These signs can be optional or added at a later date. 3. Site Signing: These signs will be slightly larger than the initial signing or guide signing and provide identification of each lot. The attached Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the approximate location and sign configuration for downtown signing, as well as potential sign designs. This includes a preliminary sign design provided by the Economic Development Coordinator. The cost per sign would be approximately $350 each for the initial and route guide signing and approximately $450 each for the site signs. Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Page 8 Section V- Conclusions/Recommendations Based on the review of the downtown parking issues and the development of the downtown parking sign plan, the following conclusions can be made: 1. Specific downtown parking issues and recommendations as outlined in Section III, should be addressed with the downtown parking committee, downtown businesses and the city engineer. 2. A downtown parking signing plan should be implemented to direct customers to city lots. 3. Employers of downtown businesses should encourage their employees to park in city lots. Based on the conclusions as outlined above,the following recommendations are made: 1. Implement the downtown parking signing plan as outlined in Section IV and Figure 3. 2. Increase parking enforcement for downtown parking areas. 3. Following completion of the development on 1st Avenue,conduct a downtown parking study to help address the issues of parking restrictions. Downtown Parking Signing Study WSB Project No.1014.43 Page 9 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Ll Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Tobacco Penalties DATE: November 6, 1998 At the November 4th City Council meeting the Council was asked to consider offering the same maximum penalty to the tobacco violators set for a hearing November 10th, as was established for the Canterbury Inn. On October 26th, in order to facilitate a sale of the Canterbury Inn,the motel admitted to the violation, and accepted the maximum$200 administrative penalty. After Council approved that concept at the November 4th meeting (the intent being that any business who choose to admit and pay the penalty would be able to forego an appearance), it was pointed out to the City Clerk by a resident that the old ordinance(under which these violations are being prosecuted) also provided for up to a 10 day suspension of the tobacco license. That was not a consideration in the Canterbury Inn situation, as Canterbury had let its tobacco license expire January 1, 1998. However,we missed reviewing that aspect with the Council at the November 4th meeting. The Council should be given the opportunity to consider full penalties, including the suspension of selling privileges, in addition to the administrative penalties. Therefore, after discussion with the City Attorney and Mayor,the decision was made not to notify the tobacco violators of the action taken at the Tuesday night meeting; they are all expected to be in attendance on November 10th. ItAQ. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw TOBACCO.DOC Nov-06-98 12:53pm From—KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-083 P,02/05 F-103 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor aid City Council, City of Shakopee FROM: Jim Thomson, City Attorney DATE: November 6, 1998 RE: Tobacco License Hearings The City Council has scheduled the hearings regarding the sales of tobacco products to minors for November 10, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. An example of the notice that has been sent to the licensees is attached to this memorandum for your reference. Also attached is a list of the licensees who lave been violation notices. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether action should be taken against the licensee as a result of violations that occurred on November 21, 1997. The violations at issue occurred before the new tobacco ordinance was adopted. Consequently, the ordink,nce that was in effect at the time of the violations is the one that is applicable in this situation. That ordinance provides that the first violation is punishable by a civil pdnalty of up to $200 and a suspension of the license for up to 10 days. A second violation within any 12-month period is punishable by a civil penalty of up to $500 and a suspension of the license for up to 20 days. Some of the hearings involve second offense . However, none of the second violations occurred within a 12- month period from the time of the first violation. Therefore, under the old ordinance the penalty for a second violation is not applicable. (The new ordinance imposes greater penalties if the second violation occurs within a 36-month period.) Here is my suggestion as to the procedure for conducting the meeting: 1. 1 will give a preliminary statement setting forth the purpose of the hearing and a summary of the maximum penalties that can be imposed by the City Council. As part of my preliminary statement, I will inform the licensees that when their matter is called, they have the option of either admitting that the violation occurred or requesting the opportunity to challenge the violation. If they admit the violation, theiy will be allowed to describe any extenuating circumstances that they might feel grre applicable to them. If they request a hearing, the hearing will be conducted that evening after the City Council deals with the licensees who have admitted the violations. 2. After I have made my preliminary statement, the Mayor should ask if anyone has any questions regarding the procedure that is going to be followed. 3. I will then call [Tie first case. The representative of the licensee will come to the podium. The Mayor should ask the licensee whether they admit the violation. 11 the licensee admits the violation, they should he given the opportunity to explain JJT-152939 1 SH155-23 Nov-06-98 12:54pm From—KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-083 P.03/05 F-103 • any extenuating or mitigating circumstances. If the violation is admitted, the Council then needs to decide what penalty should be imposed. 4. In deciding the appropriate penalty, the City Council can consider any factors it believes to be relevant. For example, if this is the second time that the licensee has violated the tobacco ordinance, the Council can choose to impose the maximum penally which would include a suspension for up to 10 days. 5. For those licensees who request a hearing, I will start the hearing by putting into the record a certified copy of the conviction from District Court. I will also summarize the particular facts of the violation as yet forth in the police report. We will then give the licensee an opportunity to present any facts they would like to present. It is also possible that the police officer who was involved with the incidents and the minors who purchased the tobacco products will be asked to provide information on the violation. 6. Atter the hearin* is completed, the City Council will then maze a aecision as to whether a violation occurred and,if so, the amount of the penalty. I will be at the meeting to answer any questions regarding the hearings. 117-152959 2 Sti155.23 Nov-06-98 12:54pm From—KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-083 P.04/05 F-103 CITY OF SHAKOPEE TOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING V1OATION OF TOBACCO REGULATIONS Certified Mail TO: Canterbury Inn, Inc. 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee,MN 55379 Please take notice ttiat a hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Shakopee in the City Co4ncil Chambers, Shakopee City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota at 7:0t) p.m. on November 10, 1998. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether action should be taken against your license as a result of the violation occurring on or about November 21, 1997 regarding sales of tobacco products to a minor. The maximum penalty that can be imposed for a first violation of the City's regulations is a civil penalty of $200 and a suspension of your license for up to 10 days. The maximum penalty that can be imposed for a second violation within a 12-month period is a civil penalty of up to $500 and a suspension of your license for up to 20 days. You are notified that you have the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence as to whether a violation occurred. You may be represented by an attorney of your choice and to call witnesses on your behalf. If you do not appear at the hearing you will be deemed to have waived your right to present evidence on your behalf. Dated: October 22, 1998. By Order of the Shakopee City Council Judith S. Cox,City Clerk 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Telephone:445-3650 11T-1521158 SH 155-23 4 Nov-06-98 12:54pm From—KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-083 P.05/05 F-103 i 'cil °hi 18 a RI. ri Ms 1—, Hs b (D (D D-.) a1", NP �' PM tn ' ti SD n0 < rt3 - 0 Z . r, • a 0 0 m rr 0 1 hc (( ' Q O H Z f(DD O M 0 n p, p, 0 b' CTN w 00 _1 (A, -n at t 1coisi o; r- to •k 0 to 0 -`) tx1 6 ra 0AM � o t J LA H V `r'. En m 1a 17 0 i9 g> 1 a w6 k w .‘4 st 0• st:1 %%; t C --_... g . z... ,{al �N cul ; Z% .104 � C' 24 p NH ` v C CD C) c g- R n S9 n 1-4SO -,-, - N 6. 1 -G • t 3 h `� D 4r1 U1 O C n � w NI A Z. S7:c,pi PP, T-1.7-• "'^ �n .ter.• i nT i� re+.+ 7TC CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: 1998 Auditor Selection DATE: November 6, 1998 Introduction Council action is needed to select a new auditor for 1998 . Background The City' s current auditor was not able to provide the city with audit services for 1998 . Proposals were sought for new auditors. Ten firms were contacted for a proposal . Seven indicated interest is proposing. Six proposals were received. The committee composed of Bob Sweeney, Deb Amundson, Mark McNeill and myself selected three firms to interview. Interviews were held 11/5/98 with HLB Tauges Redpath, Ltd. , Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co. P.A. , and Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. The recommendation of the committee is to retain Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. at a fee of $17, 900 for the 1998 audit . The firm is based in St . Cloud with a local office in New Hope. Founded in 1945, it has 150 governmental clients with 54 being cities which include St . Cloud, Coon Rapids, Eagan, Apple Valley and Inver Grove Heights. Alternatives 1. Accept the proposal of KDV Ltd. 2 . Direct committee to make another recommendation. Recommendation Alternative number one. Action Move to accept the proposal of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. as auditors for 1998 in the amount of $17, 900 . regg o and Finance Director C:\memo\gregg\audltr98 CITY OF SHAKOPEE # s . b. Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Pay Plan Miscellaneous Items DATE: November 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION: Following the tobacco hearings at the City Council meeting on November 10th,the Council will be asked to formally approve items which have been reviewed by the Council before,but for which there appears to have been no recordable action previously taken. These items relate to changes in the pay plan, enacted November 1st. BACKGROUND: As part of the adjusted pay plan revisions reviewed with the Council on October 20th(see attached October 15th memo), some revisions were made,but not acted upon by motion. Staff asks that the Council take formal action on the following: 1. Formally approve the step placement implementation,used with the 1996 pay plan revisions, and recommended for the November, 1998. revisions, wherein employees who are to go up a pay grade are then assigned to the pay step of the new grade which was equal to, or the next higher step than what they were previously receiving under the old pay plan. 2. Tracy Menden, currently employed as Clerk Typist I in the Police Department, would be promoted to Police Records Technician, and placed at Step 1 of pay grade C. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Council approve by motion the promotion for Tracy Menden as outlined above, and that Council approve the implementation of the step placement as described previously. PAYPLAN.DOC ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, do the following: 1. That step placement of those Officer and Non-Union employees moving up a grade, shall be at such step of the new grade which is the next higher pay step compensation than what they were receiving under the previous pay plan. 2. Promote Tracy Menden to Police Records Technician. Both of these motions would be effective November 1, 1998. 1 ,ua n � �� O Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw PAYPI.AN.DOC CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Pay Plan Revisions DATE: October 15, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to adopt a modified pay plan, effective November 1, 1998. BACKGROUND: At the October 6th meeting, the City Council heard a presentation regarding proposed modifications to the existing employee pay plan (see attached memo dated Oct. 6). The direction that was given was that steps should be taken to get all employee's top steps to a minimum of 95% of the Stanton Group Six average top wage. (Stanton Group Six cities are suburbs from 10,000 to 25,000 population, as defined in the salary survey performed by DCA Stanton of municipal jobs in the seven county metropolitan area). It was agreed that,before final adoption,the plan be reviewed with employees for their input. Those presentations were held with nearly all employees on October 12th. While there were some individual questions regarding the comparison pay, generally speaking, the proposed plan appears to resolve many of the issues left by the 1996 pay plan. SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Park and Recreation Director-The plan as presented does get all top steps of employees not slated for reclassification to within 95%, with the exception of the Park and Recreation Director. Even with the split of pay grades,that position's top step is 1.3% below the 95% (or 93.7%of the Stanton Group Six average). It is recommended that the Park and Rec Director be placed 1.3%above the next higher step in the new grade"L", and then to go to the next higher step on his next anniversary. (In October, 1999, with this pay plan to be examined again after the new Stanton Survey comes out in July.) 2. Deputy Police Chief-The Deputy Chief is at Step 8 of the pay plan,paying $55,176 annually, plus the $344 lump sum received in 1998. This position is a unique situation, in that the revised pay plan still has the Deputy Police Chief making less than the unionized Sergeants, when overtime is considered for the Sergeants (the Deputy Chief job does not have"Pay for Performance", and is exempt from overtime). PAYPLAN2.DOC Step 8 of the new plan would bring the Deputy Chief to $58,982, less than the Sergeants pay with overtime. Our recommendation is to pay this position at 100%of market- $60,600. Which will be outside of the Grade"L". 3. Assistant City Engineer and Engineering Technician II - Both of these positions will be recommended for reclassification or promotion at the November 4th City Council meeting. 4. Clerical Revisions - Several job title changes, and one reclassification is recommended: A. Police Clerical -- Clerk Typist II's Donna Hyatt and Teri VanCleve are being recommended to be retitled"Police Records Technician", which we feel more accurately reflects their job responsibilities. These positions may need to be examined in the future. B. Clerk Typist I Tracy Menden has been employed part-time in Police since October, 1994. She is at Step 3 of the Clerk Typist I pay grade of the existing plan. Our recommendation is that she be promoted to Police Records Technician, the new suggested title for a Clerk Typist II. She would start at Step 1 of pay grade C. C. Clerk Typist I Barb Potthier in Parks and Recreation is recommended to be retitled Customer Service Representative;this results in no change in grade or step. D. Judy Techman, currently Clerk Typist I, should be reclassified as Office Service Worker, at pay grade B, at the next appropriate step. 5. Custodian- The current City Hall Custodian no longer does custodial work,but is instead doing building maintenance (repairs HVAC, etc.) Upon establishment of a new job description,this will be brought back to Council with a recommendation for reclassification. IMPLEMENTATION: A question for Council is whether it wishes to implement this as part of the January 1, 1999 budget year, or earlier. An earlier date (November 1, 1998)would separate adjustments for market equity, vs. cost of living. It is up to Council as to whether they wish to do this. Sufficient money exists in the 1998 budget for implementation. BUDGET IMPACT: Monies were provided in the 1998 and 1999 budget for market modifications. A memo with this financial impact on implementation of the pay plan,with some of the proposed reclassifications, will be available at the October 20th meeting. PAYPLAN2.DOC RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the pay plan, adjusting for market considerations, be adopted with an implementation date of November 1, 1998. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should,by motion, adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 5005 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4799, WHICH ADOPTED THE 1998 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE (on table October 20th) Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw PAYPLAN2.DOC CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum e., e 4, TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Pay Plan Miscellaneous Items DATE: November 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION: Following the tobacco hearings at the City Council meeting on November 10th,the Council will be asked to formally approve items which have been reviewed by the Council before, but for which there appears to have been no recordable action previously taken. These items relate to changes in the pay plan, enacted November 1st. BACKGROUND: As part of the adjusted pay plan revisions reviewed with the Council on October 20th(see attached October 15th memo), some revisions were made,but not acted upon by motion. Staff asks that the Council take formal action on the following: 1. Formally approve the step placement implementation, used with the 1996 pay plan revisions, and recommended for the November, 1998 revisions, wherein employees who are to go up a pay grade are then assigned to the pay step of the new grade which was equal to, or the next higher step than what they were previously receiving under the old pay plan. 2. Tracy Menden, currently employed as Clerk Typist I in the Police Department, would be promoted to Police Records Technician, and placed at Step 1 of pay grade C. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Council approve by motion the promotion for Tracy Menden as outlined above, and that Council approve the implementation of the step placement as described previously. PAYPLAN.DOC ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should,by motion, do the following: 1. That step placement of those Officer and Non-Union employees moving up a grade, shall be at the pay step of the new grade which was equal to. or the next higher step than what they were previously receiving under the old pay plan, effective retroactive November 1, 1998. . _ . . _ .. _ _ • , _ _ _. .. ._ . •. • 2. Promote Tracy Menden to Police Records Technician,placed at Step 1 of pay grade C, effective retroactive November 1, 1998. ILD Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw PAYPLAN.DOC CITY OF SHAKOPEE C Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: County Courthouse Parking Committee DATE: November 10, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to appoint a committee to research the County Courthouse parking situation. BACKGROUND: At a County Board meeting some weeks ago, Councilor Sweeney suggested that a committee be appointed to study parking issues around the County Courthouse. He suggested that staff people from the City, County, and School District, and affected residents be appointed to serve on the committee. RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: City: Police Chief Dan Hughes, Public Works Director Bruce Loney County: Internal Services Associate Administrator Barb Hobday,Building Maintenance Engineer John Rademacher. I.S.D. 720: Administrative Services Director Ron Ward Resident: Mark Wermerskirchen, one to be named. Commissioner Art Bannerman asked that he be able to make a recommendation for a resident to serve on the committee. We are still waiting to hear back from him on that. He did express concern about having to many staff people, and not enough residents. ACTION REQUIRED: So that the committee can get going before winter sets in entirely,we ask that the six recommended above be appointed, and appoint another resident as maybe mutually acceptable to the City and County. Mark McNeill City Administrator Document4