Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/2000 TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR ADJOURNED SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 13, 2000 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 5:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Downtown Redevelopment Discussion Items: A. Phase I —Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2000 (Michael Leek) B. Presentation by Vision Shakopee! (Duane Wermerskirchen) 1. Potential Downtown Redevelopment Sites a. Block 25 (post office block) b. Fuller Street/Hwy 69 intersection and adjacent city parking lot c. Other sites 2. Public Facilities Discussion a. City Hall b. Library c. Post Office 3. Parking Needs 5] Discussion of City Hall Campus Directive 6] Discussion of Garbage/Recycling Issues Survey 7] Other Business 8] Adjourn to June 20th at 7:00 P.M. TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR ADJOURNED SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 13, 2000 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 5:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Downtown Redevelopment Discussion Items: A. Phase I —Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2000 (Michael Leek) B. Presentation by Vision Shakopee! (Duane Wermerskirchen) 1. Potential Downtown Redevelopment Sites a. Block 25 (post office block) b. Fuller Street/Hwy 69 intersection and adjacent city parking lot c. Other sites 2. Public Facilities Discussion a. City Hall b. Library c. Post Office 3. Parking Needs 5] Discussion of City Hall Campus Directive 6] Discussion of Garbage/Recycling Issues Survey 7] Other Business 8] Adjourn to June 20th at 7:00 P.M. ziCity of Shakopee,Minnesota /4-- Phase I Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2000 Application OLD SHAKOPEE REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, Phase I Application Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2000 City of Shakopee, Minnesota Contact: R. Michael Leek Community Development Director 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,Minnesota 55371 Phone (952) 445-3650 Fax (952) 445-6718 1 City of Shakopee,Minnesota Phase I Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2000 Application FUNDING CATEGORY: Planning/Predevelopment CONCEPT/PROCESS TO DATE/STATUS: The City of Shakopee, Minnesota is a historic city established in the 1850's and located on the southern banks of the Minnesota River. The city is easily recognized by its historic and healthy downtown district located on the intersection of STH 101/212 and C.R 69, as well as the surrounding higher-density, small lot residential development. With the opening of the new Bloomington Ferry Bridge and STH 169 in the Fall of 1996, Shakopee began to experience ever-more suburban-style development,with its attendant pressures for businesses to locate near STH 169. Because the Shakopee City Council is committed to maintaining the vitality and viability of its established urban core, it has taken numerous steps to insure the viability of the City's historic downtown. These steps have included the following; 1. River City Centre - The City entered a partnership to successfully redevelop two blocks of downtown into a mixed commercial/residential project that architecturally echoes the remaining historic buildings in the district. Completion of this project has spurred private investment in downtown,including the rehabilitation to historic appearance of the original"Rock Spring Cafe." 2. Vision Shakopee - The City helped organize and staff this"grassroots"effort to develop a vision for the future of Downtown Shakopee. 3. Commercial and Residential Rehabilitation Programs - The City successfully obtained block grant funds to be used for rehabilitation of commercial and residential buildings in and near the downtown district. 4. Riverfront Planning - The City has spearheaded efforts to open up the riverfront within Shakopee by establishing Huber Park,working with Murphy's Landing(which is on City-owned land)to secure funds for the rehabilitation of the historic inn and possible river connection to the Eden Prairie trail system). 5. Mini-Bypass - In the mid-1990's the City worked with Scott County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to divert major highway traffic away from the main shopping street,thereby promoting pedestrian traffic in downtown. GOALS: 1. Develop a master plan for redevelopment of Downtown Shakopee,the City's riverfront, and adjacent First Avenue Corridor, including the following; a. Identification of additional trail and sidewalk connections area; b. Identification of possible, additional redevelopment sites area; c. Identification of possible transit hub locations for City dial a ride and express bus services; d. Development of regulations that allow higher density and mixed use projects within the plan area, as in the existing downtown zoning district. NEXT STEPS: *Develop an RFP for planning services *Inventory uses in the project area 2 City of Shakopee,Minnesota Phase I Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2000 Application PROJECT COMPONENTS/THRESHOLD CRITERIA: Potential to Result in a Demonstration Model: The project area is already a"walkable" environment, and the project will enhance its character as a denser, mixed-use area accessible both by pedestrians and by transit. The project already has broad community support in the form of VisionShakopee!, a grassroots planning effort underway in the City. Regulatory and Implementation Solutions and Strategies: The project is intended to result in the changing of land use regulations and design standards to implement the goals of the project. That such changes can be effective in making the project ultimately successful is demonstrated by the City's existing downtown zoning district, which has allowed redevelopment to occur in the City's historic core Replication: The joint effort that resulted in River City Centre is already being replicated by other communities(e.g. Savage) in their downtowns. The elements of the project will easily provide models for other communities in the Region that are dealing with riverfront and mixed use development/redevelopment issues. Partnerships, Community Participation As stated in the Concept portion of this proposal, the project area is already the site of numerous partnerships, including VisionShakopee!, River City Centre,the Mini-Bypass, and others. 3 City of Shakopee,Minnesota Phase I Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2000 Application PROJECT FEATURES Significant features of the proposed project include; • Integration of Downtown and riverfront planning; • Identification of trail linkages needed to connect Downtown Shakopee,Huber Park, Memorial Park, and Murphy's Landing to the rest of Shakopee, Scott County, and the Regional Trail system. • Identification of potential redevelopment sites for targeting of investment for additional mixed use or higher density residential development (ranging from 5-18 dwelling units per acre). • Identification and establishment of a transit connection with Old Shakopee that could serve not only users of Shakopee Area Transit,but also Scott County Transit and Southwest Metro Transit. • Additional opportunities for partnering by the City with o Scott County HRA o Scott County o Murphy's Landing o Minnesota Department of Natural Resources o Minnesota Department of Transportation o Southwest Metro Transit 4 City of Shakopee,Minnesota Phase I Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2000 Application FUNDING: Downtown, Riverfront, and First Avenue Master Planning: $60,000 Development/Implementation of Master Plan for Huber Park $50,000 Development of Transit Hub Plan $20,000 TOTAL $130,000 5 -'`-�.'•. ;' I , I 4 '.,i 4 ---7';'C__---jt------' ' WI:, "`, r J F ° ''.. � <_ "fit^ ,kk '..--..1:"' � •�' -• � ,.+t ��.� � kIlk- � �ro '�'�;��� � ` i l Om , .., . , „,,,—.J . "'f , 0 ..t�� _ r - � " 9� � ad , � tI am � 40 - : : ..=-:-, , m \ ,t_ • I .,,,. \co: . - lois . n. •44,, 1 ._ ,:60,„Ir. •.: ., , •,,,•, _. .: ,,, ., ••_, ___ .100, triva,. 4,,,-4..‘i--.. : _ \---44 , 4 ,--t* , •-•,. _. ..,.,,,i: •-,...;:0_-:.4pit-••-••-•:: 1 1 —•_,-, _---...-4 -01.6 __,,, tow, , _4 H ,I. _ • _. ...7.4.sc I ,- ,- ,•-1,-, 4',, -',1•01 :t 'E. -_oma s,..sig are-To al'• c 1 i pp "�`.�J1 , �..F; 1 {I �, , {.V<�R..'" !g� Fg S # 44 '' ,�`' .# _.. :� T r. i• Imo' „ % F”—' L r� t *t ',, 3 "�' z ;! r , u , , ,. , fo.....1-Ae.';.,-,,.1 10, OAS WA -,giliOlf .. ''' ;:1-1 -s':' 2 ., „,„it ,,, .. 4 v,„,,.. . or, . '.',..: .'..7,e ....,t..4, sil „mak' ......„. ',-,-,-,--",,4,,..' 4. . K...-cor 1 :::.:se irgi ...„_. , .1.-, - -le!"7C.t„ _:. ,r, , . ,l'e, ili,io.rjt,.3-•,, off? ,N______ilii----;,,.1",4 s11118,041 4;`,.,,,,1,,,,,. ,,:a64)11s:I±.. '.,,:-.:04-.1---102100 T 1.R . �- "'"; l4 .. N ate 1, 13 + I� koat g • r�p y. �«« •.� s. •� .moi '4 OA. 41116_,.. ,Aba " 'i ill —.. 'Bw.iF. 1Cm * :< .. „ 1.4'.'''''',14.0_,L. i .)�. �' '�il ',1 V F r1Ba IV ess g loss •- 1 Letel . p ,� , z{ f� tw tr. - r { rC IO4 . " - sad *.°4A . ', i `l•ca ,� -1r* r ... 4 ma '- W Wit 1111 . rall 0y ' w` 31. 7ri " . Qt., ii vim ,i , �,I' .r1- a .f w. f s al ,. . ,;; .r•, at tili AI cn .' -.00 - d 2.) s 1 k 7iMa lii1j1l » '�` K . y imt 'z 1i-'S„ ,„. .. ...L .. _. . .... , , e. i - ,.kms ,�-! i'1 � •Ytwt~4 P ��� "«M1e�ea �vr � ��173 �@�' � ,-yJf i' � � •III ■, *: }�- - s "essx 4:tri -9'1 1e `VI '4E�]rSig n +'" i Ute.' ��A �,•„,,jel - , ...-slate 7 �i3i�Y -i`-' "API ' -r--I. i$s� �Or ,.+_ _ Y (CO_ „okr u�N 7`' „ , ;,•. i$its 1� �'' ” '� Mi� 'i .i-i7-Th''' I 5 7 ® lid : i lL �/.ti � Gina ,J !as li � V e,a-r-' I. r740.4-1,i. ' , emu •' a..,,:, 1 .�. .q: T fir” , * v "Y=i hi...,.-10dI4w.dis ''Fir' / it • . '- 'lir `�.-. ..' ti .e ... T*-jI „,,i-„, f r T :♦ ..M 100,1"04. w3 .i 1 ^ b- + .J _ r #�” d :3 77.. ` a f . , 1 ' Iiirt . . w.1lw A a■a a : , Z .,s ir lF :. y aic ,r p�� e. : , YI® _ ' 0 y inP.*•-;.-'''7,i.-.':,,''''''''ill -..-:-' ' :`',44-°3**. ''''' -^' ' le . loc..,g, 4, ..; er11,,in ,,,,„. ,:.....,,,ok, ,7.7 1,,,,ji * _ E.. air + —. i ��t�m}�, ;�ggl.°�y -a tl';�" p r*w f}t"•gyy.3 +-�.eE lkk 'f..�i. 1 pt iy 5 *1 ,,; r' 1r'-� .Wpi-4... iw ri"e = s ,' '7:..,4, i.w! P415111.0:ypY7� �...i'. _ ,e�^ nip mai „� i ; ^ r y�6'eyyp,p[[��kk^^�� i�L+ �:I R "� `rTi,��r �. •i a�M� i. _-. t '. � oy, -/ rV ^'4 y xi t , txRl 1,111312111 ' Imr i a - - 1..1., 'o-1Wel1e1IW!ipl,,h,i4,q,tII6.'..5,.4.• a1 '__'•. ''• '-...'' ''''.r._,_;•_•_-- 1 - ,,-s Lalli ad/CS4` _,__-,,1 ' - ''.'.',','' `, ri - ---.--.-,-....'..'.'''1,.' I'-..'z n,.1--,, .,.','-- ' a_.....':_.__. ' __. .:4- .t,1.‘-''!,,„''.'I-''.'1,i,','.•..,1, ,-''i.'.--.1,'- •,,''.. .,.,--,,-,%•)57.4.7,.. .-4.*!7F'',""-.- .. ii d .."� p$ -..., 'i' �.5-{wi 1I y+-� 3 . �.�- - 1l ]t`1�.->^td1 y,--;...--0,,,-.....,„{ ( tt41 -lit dialFT€ (J_..e,i' 'hF�l'F9 r . rio N w^ *10 © -. 111 Vt1 e c g ,-1 g tea,. ; rs colN © © O =CP I( 0 i1i r ll!.k. =F es`\i/`� ri- r AJrJ� a) _ 1 1 M t I ®� r r Y5110411-Vila MI-P.:1-t.l''''' to,/11111:4 IIIIIIIIII II .x`;111 r+ SU ,a„,,,,!„: .. . ., ....„ ___ „ -.,,,,,,,,„„.,,,......,„.„-„,„. .7--- 4 4,p ♦ �/�� l ✓• "-1-•` {i {II F— III �, 1.110 I r V aV ;) �-- (Ji cam"oom ( /�'lj�", 4,ry Y�Iiy '.IIIIN II-IP d ii ��� _■0 7, \ II.ONO11-11111, !-A- ;Ih\ ��.,'� '1 ' 8I 1111 ....1t". V110 i2I ,{zn n�r1 VnN _.61111110 III �,rISI 1111111111011111111. .1 , P A4,��- .�11I." iLigio NorIS LZiIIrma IiII /" I' :::,,,:: *11 wi ye F ;TSI` ,.. l ailkiligAlt n✓,, 11111111114 ,,kr im,. 1 rig.w.ARK- 7- i r ''''''. 1111111 is Ird iiit a 1 Eititailkilia- imrav A IIII lip ik co AEI i ii1,11 pli,,,,fi : _ diy/itg_fiA11111 111111111151.41.113111112/410 0 Ell A 1111111.11 I-,M° CO F4 •••,..* 'an mii - 111111 3 wfuo _1L4_1 ' ..�rI\ 7:::1 C (11) J i -o N Cl) sy O ria J r =I m CII) _. (11) 0 Why Are Downtowns Important? From the National Main Street Center of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Downtown advocates are commonly asked by city governments and businesses, "Why should we invest in downtown?" In response, here are a few reasons why your downtown or neighborhood commercial district is an important and worthwhile investment in the economic health and quality of life in your community. • Downtown is a symbol of community economic health, local quality of life,pride, and community history. These are all factors in industrial, commercial and professional recruitment. • A vital downtown retains and creates jobs, which also means a stronger tax base. Long- term revitalization establishes capable businesses that use public services and provide tax revenues for the community. • Downtown is also a good incubator for new small businesses--the building blocks of a healthy economy. Strip centers and malls are often too expensive for new entrepreneurs. • A vital downtown area reduces sprawl by concentrating retail and services in one area and uses community resources wisely, such as infrastructure,tax dollars and land. • A healthy downtown core protects property values in surrounding residential neighborhoods. • The traditional commercial district is an ideal location for independent businesses, which in turn: o Keep profits in town. Chain businesses send profits out of town. o Supports local families with family-owned businesses o Supports local community projects, such as ball teams and schools o Provide an extremely stable economic foundation, as opposed to a few large businesses and chains with no ties to stay in the community • A revitalized downtown increases the community's options for goods and services: whether for basic staples, like clothing, food and professional services or less traditional functions such as housing and entertainment. • Downtown provides an important civic forum, where members of the community can congregate. Parades, special events and celebrations held there reinforce intangible sense of community. Private developments like malls can and do restrict free speech and access. • Many downtown districts become tourist attractions by virtue of the character of buildings, location, selection of unique businesses, and events held there. THE VALUE OF YOUR DOWNTOWN By Alicia Goehring,Wisconsin Main Street Coordinator Occasionally I am asked about the significance of saving a declining downtown. Why go to all the trouble? Can't malls and discount centers take the place of downtowns in the future? The answer is most definitely no. Though malls and discount centers play important roles in our communities, downtown is much more than a shopping center. It is critical for everyone involved in a downtown revitalization program to understand the value of downtown. So,here are the"Top Ten Reasons To Save Downtown"(the order may be debated!): 1. Your central business district is a prominent employment center. Even the smallest downtowns employ hundreds of people. Downtown is often the largest"employer" in your community. 2. As a business center,your downtown plays a major role. It may even represent the largest concentration of businesses in you community. 3. A downtown is a reflection of how a community sees itself. . a critical factor in business retention and recruitment efforts. If the downtown is neglected,outsiders will see this neglect as a reflection of the entire community and its citizens. 4. Your downtown represents a significant portion of your community's tax base. If this district declines, its property will decrease in value. This increases the tax burden on other parts of your community. 5. The central business district is an indispensable shopping and service center in your community. Though it may not hold the place as your community's most dominant shopping center, it still includes unique shopping and service opportunities. Law,physician, accountant,and insurance offices as well as financial institutions are often located downtown. 6. Your downtown is the historic core of your community. Many of the buildings are historically significant. They should be preserved to help highlight your community's history. 7. Downtown represents a vast amount of public and private investment. Imagine paying to recreate all the public infrastructure and real estate in a central business district. Imagine the waste of past dollars spent if the downtown is neglected. 8. A central business district is often a major tourist draw. When people travel,they want to see unique places . .there isn't another downtown like yours in the world! 9. Downtown is usually a government center. Most likely it is where you city hall,county courthouse, and post office are located. The"one stop"shopping for government services is a notable feature of downtowns across the country. 10. And,perhaps most important,your downtown provides a sense of community and place. As Carol Lifkind,author of Main Street: The Face of Urban America, said... "as Main Street, it was uniquely American, a powerful symbol of shared experience,of common memory, of the challenge and the struggle of building a civilization . .Main Street was always familiar, always recognizable as the heart and soul of village,town or city. "In the end,this is why we revitalize our downtowns." DTIMPORT.DOC CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Hall Campus Discussion DATE: June 8, 2000 Mayor Brekke has asked that a follow up discussion be held regarding the directive that had been given to staff at the June 6th Council meeting, wherein a City facilities campus was to be acquired. The intent would be that this would serve the City's needs for 40 or 50 years. We would like to discuss briefly with you a couple of issues: A. Short term—beyond the next couple of years, the City will need office space. B. If the City buys a 20-30 acre site, what will be the source of funding? IAILW Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Major Expenditures/Funding Discussion DATE: May 9, 2000 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a report as requested by Council regarding major projects which have been discussed recently, and sources of funding for those. BACKGROUND: At the February 29th City Council meeting, before acting on a request to have a preliminary design done for the potential use of MnDOT Parcel 75 (Southbridge) as a park, and to make an offer on 10 acres of land(also for park purposes) in the vicinity of Sun Path School,the Council directed that a report be made on all major projects, and list sources of funding for same. Obviously, the City has a Five Year Capital Improvements Plan(CIP) in place that is intended to provide for logical sequencing and funding for these major expenditures. There are, however, opportunities/challenges which come up that may not have been anticipated in the CIP, but should be considered otherwise, if funding permits and they are the desire of Council. Obviously, in a high growth community such as Shakopee, those situations come up more frequently than a fully developed community. I have, with the assistance of department heads and specifically Finance Director Gregg Voxland, identified projects which have been discussed by the Council over the past year, some of which have been included in the CIP, and others which have not. They are described on the attached sheet. DISCUSSION: Obviously,there are many major expenditure items which are underway,budgeted, or being considered but not budgeted. As alluded to previously,the preferred timing would be to have each of these issues addressed through the Capital Improvements Plan. Several of them have been, at least in part—baseball stadium improvements, Sun Path park property, Parcel 75 improvements, City facilities. There are others,however, that have come up, either as a result of emergency situations (such as the pool improvements), unanticipated availability (such as MnDOT Parcels 39/43), or other projects which are being suggested by others (O'Dowd Lake park property and C.R. 17 landscaping). Other issues are those being requested by City Council. There is an opportunity that exists that one of the projects, the sale of MnDOT Parcels 39/43, which could be a net revenue producer for the City. Depending upon the amount land to be used for park on MnDOT Parcel 75, there could also be some available revenues from that sale. Overall,the City has only a set amount in each fund to spend. If it is determined by the City Council that an unbudgeted item is of high priority, other projects which were intended to be funded through that source will have to be deferred, or not made at all. Obviously,the major expenses for which there,have not been provisions made at this point are the City's facilities issue. (City Hall,Public Works, Police, Library). With the architectural studies, more firm numbers will be able to be worked into the Capital Improvements Project. Potential sources of funding other than referenda will need to be identified, and will be recommended at the time of CIP consideration. ACTION REQUIRED: The Council should review, and discuss. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw 2000 And Forward Project Funding 5/2/00 Source i Genera] CIE Park Res, Building Bonds lIE Unreseved Fund Balance 1/1/00 -1 1,918,000 3,522,119 1,630,632 3,934,612 154,120 Future 5 Year Revenue?? 2,500,000 I 2,000,000 4,000,000 t---- I- - 1 I. Total Est.Available 1,918,000 6,022,119 3,630,632 7,934,612 - 1 154,120 Projects I 1 - Pool Reconstruction 386,118 386,118 Baseball Stadium 241,651 87,531 154,120 MDOT Parcel 75 800,000 800,000 MDOT Parcel 43&39 740,000 740,000 Land By Sunpath(Hauer) 700,000 [" 700,000 CR 17 1 220,000 , 220,000 am.�...� Library 2,600,000_ 2,600,000 Police Station 3,000,000 3,000,000 Fire Station 1.1 1,280,000 1,280,000 Public Service Building Update 1,400,000 I 1,400,000 PW Facility 2,600,000 2,600,000 City Hall Expansion 1,500,000 1,500,000 ' „nh.,- ��� � � ; e o a .."`lia xi .1t"lil a-n 0.We'.: 9,6 A, 4 '- a; ,. a i°#'i•Y 7. .. �. , Other Projects In CIP 6,569,500 200,000 1,880,500 1 2,489,000 2,000,000 - j I 1 �y '^,g1El ° a et :'. a �. ". ""Z - 4(:j1p11 ::9 11'._.11 ..... .$" � _ Y„.,.0':. qua.: .`°.°'°'" +,_ •" _�_._ w. 1 A.-131a a ;; ,le� a�. i` z 111 L • . .'a ! > s'$ 't I..z New Projects Stans Park Tennis Courts 200,000 200,000 CR 17 Landscaping 60,000 60,000 CR 17 Noise Abatement O'Dowd Lake Property (Boldt) 1,000,000 1,000,000 Block 25/Downtown Improvements - River Front Development - Future Facility Site - Future PW Site - Future Library Site - Subtotal 1,260,000 200,000 60,000 1,000,000 -A o..... v_- �.. -:, . , i Operating Cost Increases 20002001 Five Police Officers _ 20,000 110,000 _ Ice Rink Operator 22,000 40,000 Recreation Director 5,000 10,000 Monens Bldg Rent/fumish 35,000 30,000 82,000 190,000 Sale of Eagle Creek Hall 90,000 Levy Factor Pay 2000 Levy 3,592,048 Percent Increase 00-01 $ 2.28% 5.29% ProjBob.xls Sheet1 5/8/00 8:34 AM I City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant SUBJECT: Refuse and Recycling Options MEETING DATE: June 13, 2000 Introduction The City Council is asked to discuss and evaluate the upcoming options for refuse collection and recycling contract—February 15, 2001. Background Over thirty years ago, Shakopee was the first City in Scott County to adopt an organized (closed)refuse and recycling system. Waste Management has exclusively provided such refuse and recycling services to Shakopee residents since December 1991, with the last agreement being renewed in February 1998. The City of Shakopee in cooperation with Waste Management, Inc. has developed a volume-based garbage collection system that helps slow the large increase in landfill disposal fees and provides an incentive to recycle. This effort is a planned response to Scott County's mandatory recycling ordinance. Waste Management provides each resident with a refuse container on wheels and a recycling container. In 1991 the Legislature passed a new law that attempts to end the allegedly wide spread problem of residents illegally dumping their garbage. The law requires all cities over 5,000 in population to ensure their residents and businesses have garbage collection service. Shakopee has followed this law 1) City Code requires all haulers to be licensed within the City 2) created an organized refuse and recycling system with Waste Management for residential services. State law also mandates cities provide for curbside recycling. As the City is aware, customer complaints have heightened recently. In response, City staff has suggested 1) evaluating all refuse/recycling options and 2) conducting a random city-wide survey to allow for resident feedback during the process 3)holding public meetings with residents to allow a time and place for them to be heard. 1 Minnesota cities use one (or a combination) of three methods for collection of refuse and recycling: 1. A"Municipal" system, wherein City employees collect the refuse and recyclables, if recyclables are picked up at curbside. 2. An"Open" system, where residents make their own arrangements with private haulers to pick up refuse and/or recycling. 3. An"Organized" (closed) system, where the City contracts with a private hauler to do all or portions of the City. Some cities contract with one hauler for the entire community; others bid it out by route, refuse and/or recycling services. Municipal System Due to issues of feasibility, equipment purchases and staffing levels, the municipal system is not necessarily a viable option for calendar year 2000. Organized System "Closed System"—Shakopee's Current System Pros 1. Economies of scale. Pricing—in theory-will result in lower prices. Greater concentrations of customers allow for more efficiencies for the waste hauler, ultimately resulting in lower prices for the customer. 2. Eliminates multiple garbage and recycling trucks traveling through City streets- This helps to preserve streets longer, since garbage trucks are heavily and notoriously hard on driving surfaces. 3. Safety is enhanced, as eliminating a number of trucks in residential neighborhoods proportionately reduces the chance of pedestrian/vehicle accidents. 4. Aesthetic appearance—it allows all refuse and recycling to be placed curbside (or in alleys) on the same day rather than having different haulers picking up potentially every day of the week. 5. A closed system streamlines the complaint process. Dealing with a closed system (one hauler) will make it easier for the City to monitor and enforce state county and local regulations. 6. A closed refuse program ensures collection at all households within the refuse collection service area. Cons 1. Eliminates customer choice. Customers have no leverage of switching companies to obtain better service. 2 2. Enhances liability issue of MSA 115A.471, which speaks to the issues of landfill capacities. Unless the refuse is brought to a Minnesota landfill or processed here, the potential of a future law suit from other states like Iowa to pay for the clean up of current landfills is greater, once the landfill reaches capacity or water and/or soil damage occurs. The City may become liable if the contracted hauler(in the closed system) files bankruptcy or leaves the business in the future. 3. If the City chooses to have its waste disposed in MN rather than surrounding states, costs could be as much as 1/3 higher than current rates due to additional processing fees. 4. City is responsible for streamlining the complaint process and follow-through with residents. Open System—Resident Choose Own Waste Hauler Pros 1. Eliminates the liability issue of MSA 115A.471,which speaks to the issues of landfill capacities. Unless the refuse is brought to a Minnesota landfill or processed here, a potential lawsuit is likely from a state like Iowa to help pay for the clean up of their landfills once the landfill reaches capacity or water and/or soil damage occurs. 2. An open system may foster more competition,thus—in theory- could result in lower prices for the customer. 3. Customers have increased flexibility in choosing their own provider. 4. Eliminates City from billing concerns and most disputes. 5. Most popular option in the Twin Cities, so many new residents are familiar with the option. Cons 1. Shakopee would have fewer measures in which to enforce its own regulations. 2. Difficult to assist residents when garbage services are not being provided, since there is no recourse through the City. When garbage is left on the streets, it is more difficult to determine the culprit. 3. May encourage illegal dumping/disposal of trash in City parks, City or business dumpsters, and roadside ditches. 4. Possibility of nonconforminance with State law that mandates each city ensures all properties have proper refuse and recycling pickup. 3 5. Possibility of different pricing structures—inequity-throughout the City based on the waste hauler chosen by the resident. 6. From my experience in the Chicago metro area and observations in the Twin Cities, two haulers—Waste Management and BFI- on average have the majority of the business in an open system. Although residents initially receive lower prices, these two companies have historically 1) bought local haulers then 2) raised prices leaving the residents with no recourse. These haulers have a large enough market share to keep prices low in the short term, but eventually raise them after regaining their monopoly status in the community. For example, Edina has an open system, but BFI services approximately 90% of its residents for refuse services. Likewise in Savage, Waste Management has over 80% of the refuse business in an"open" system. Action Required Council is asked to consider the above options for consideration for the February 15, 2001. Staff seeks direction on a resident survey on the refuse and recycling issues. After the survey results are received, staff will hold public meetings to allow for open discussion between the City and its residents. Tracy Coenen Management Assistant 4 } 6 Draft June 13, 2000 i. tu° oACL L June 13, 2000 Dear Resident: You have been randomly selected to respond to a Citywide customer survey related to your garbage service. Shakopee was the first City in Scott County over thirty years ago to adopt an organized garbage system. This was a planned effort in response to Scott County's mandatory recycling ordinance and State laws to help reduce illegal dumping. The City's three-year contract with Waste Management, Inc., which provides for curbside collection of residential refuse and recyclables, expires February 15, 2001. The City is currently examining options for service when that contracts expires, and values your opinions. Two options currently exist for cities the size of Shakopee 1) an open system, where residents pick their hauler or 2)the current organized system where the City contracts for refuse and/or recycling services for residents in the area of Shakopee with City sewer service. Both options have pros and cons. Organized System (Current System-City Contracts With the Hauler) Pros: economies of scale (more customers served by one company)which could result in lower prices and/or better service, elimination of multiple trucks in neighborhoods which enhances public safety and reduces wear and tear on streets; streamlining of complaints through City Hall; uniform garbage pickup. Cons: reduced customer choice,higher costs (if disposed in non-MN landfills, possible future lawsuits resulting from those landfills not being covered by MN pollution liability coverage) or increased costs to incinerate. Open System (Pick Your Own Hauler) Pros: customer choice, no City liability or involvement, possibility of increased competition between haulers resulting in lower prices and/or better services. Cons: difficult for the City to assist residents with complaints,may encourage illegal dumping, harder to comply with State solid waste/recycling laws. As the number of local haulers continues to decrease, limitations on customer choice and increased prices may result. In an effort to determine service quality and customer satisfaction, your input on current garbage services would be very helpful. Please take a few moments to respond to the attached survey and return it by Thursday June 29. Enclosed is a self-addressed stamped envelope for your convenience. Your answers will be completely confidential. Please contact Tracy at 952-496-9673 if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and participation. Very Truly Yours, Jon Brekke Mayor A Draft June 13, 2000 City of Shakopee Resident Garbage& Recycling Survey Please circle the best answer to each of the questions below. Garbage Collection 1. Which garbage provider do you currently use? (Please check one) Prior Lake Sanitation Randy's Waste Management Other 2. Which day of the week do you receive garbage service? Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 3. What size container do you use? 30 60 90 Don't Know 4. How many years have you lived at your current residence? Less than 1 Year 1-3 Years 4-6 Years 6-10 Years 10+ 5. How many members are in your household? 1-2 3-4 4-6 7+ 6. Do you: (Please check only one) Own your home Own a duplex,town home, condo Rent a duplex, triplex, fourplex Rent an apartment Other 7. How many times have you contacted Waste Management with a garbage problem this year? 0 times 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6times 6-7 times 7+times 7a. If you contacted Waste Management,were you satisfied with the outcome? Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't Know 8. How many Extra Service Garbage Coupons have you purchased this year? 0 1-3 4-6 7-10 10+ 9. How many times have you contacted the City with a garbage problem this year? 0 times 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6times 6-7 times 7+times • Draft June 13, 2000 9a. If you contacted the City, were you satisfied with the outcome? Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't Know 10. Please circle your response to the following questions with 1 (one) being a poor rating and 5 (five)being an excellent rating. a. Overall quality of refuse service provided: 1 2 3 4 5 no opinion b. Reliability of garbage collection: 1 2 3 4 5 no opinion c. Neatness of your garbage collection: 1 2 3 4 5 no opinion d. Courtesy of driver: 1 2 3 4 5 no opinion 11. Do you feel you receive enough information about your garbage service? Yes No No Opinion 12. Should all garbage haulers in your block or your neighborhood be required to collect garbage only one day in the week? Yes No No Opinion 13. What type of garbage service would you like provided in the City of Shakopee? Open System (You pick your own hauler) Closed System (City contracts with a hauler for garbage service) Other 14. Have you experienced any problems with your garbage and recycling billing? Yes No No Opinion 15. Are you happy with your current garbage service? Yes No No Opinion 16. Rates for garbage collection. (Please check the best choice.) Rates seem fair for the service provided. Rates are reasonable, but the service level should be improved. Rates seem high, but I understand environmental protection has caused an increase in disposal costs. Rates seem too high. Other Draft June 13, 2000 17. Approximately, how many large items do you set out for curbside pick-up in a year(i.e. mattresses, furniture, appliances, etc.)? 1-2 3-4 5-6 6+ Recycling Collection 1. Does your household recycle? Yes No 2. If you recycle,please circle your response to the following questions with 1 (one) being a poor rating and 5 (five) being an excellent rating. a. Overall quality of curbside recycling service provided: 1 2 3 4 5 no opinion b. Reliability of recycling collection: 1 2 3 4 5 no opinion c. Neatness of your recycling collection: 1 2 3 4 5 no opinion d. Courtesy of driver: 1 2 3 4 5 no opinion 3. Do you feel you receive enough information about how and what to recycle? Yes No No Opinion 4. What kinds of additional information would you like to have about recycling and reducing waste in your home?(Please check all that apply) What is recyclable? Information about hazardous waste? Other 6. What type of recycling service would you like provided in the City of Shakopee? Open System (You pick your own hauler) Closed System (City contracts with a hauler for recycling service) Other Public Education 1. How have you received information about the City's garbage and recycling programs? (Please check all that apply.) HomeTown Messenger City Staff Shakopee Valley News Refuse/Recycling Hauler City Web Site Other Friends/Neighbors 2. If information regarding garbage services was on the City website, would this be something you would access? Yes No We welcome your suggestions about how your garbage services could be improved. Thank you for your participation in the survey.