Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: April 5, 2005 (6:15 p.m. Session) and April 5, 2005 (7:00 p.m. Session) OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION SfUU(OPEE,MINNESOTA APRIL 5, 2005 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 6: 17 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Menden, Helkamp and Joos present. Also Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director, Michael Leek, Community Development Director (6:30 p.m.) and Dan Hughes, Police Chief. Mr. McNeill began the discussion on building rental rates. He stated the building rental rates had an impact on the overall taxes once the community center was up and operating. Mr. McNeill noted it was in 1998 when the building rental fund (building depreciation fund) was established by the City. This fund was to be funded primarily through building rentals. This was the City's way of putting money aside to construct new buildings for City services. Mr. McNeill noted because the State changed the law two years ago, the City no longer needed a referendum to construct most buildings; they could now be financed with a bond sale that would be retired with a levy each year. However, a recreation building (cClmmunity center) still needed a referendum. Mr. V oxland noted in his report that it typically was cheaper to borrow the money than it was for the City to finance the building themselves. Mr. McNeill noted if bonds were sold the people actually using the building would be paying for that building. This was an equity solution. Mr. McNeill also pointed out that when this building rental fund was originally set up there were fewer City buildings. Mr. Voxland also pointed out when the building rental charge was figured each year, he also factored about a 3% inflation factor in the building rental charge. Mr. Voxland was suggesting this inflation factor be increased from about 3% to about 6%. Mr. McNeill stated right now the building rental was figured on 30 years for the expansion to the community center. lfthe building was anticipated to be used longer then perhaps the building rental charge should be figured on 40 or 50 years, the existing community center was depreciated at 50 years (at this point that building is only 9 to 10 years old and is need of some repair). Right now the City was pretty much all over the board in the length of time on depreciation of other City buildings. Mr. McNeill noted the information put together by the consultant on the proposed addition to the Community Center initially has $60,000 a year factored in for repair work or equipment replacement. Mr. McNeill noted this figure over time was being recommended to be adjusted to $250,000 per year. Right now $1,000,000 annually in building rental charges is anticipated to be charged to replace the community center building in 30 to 50 years. The question was "did the Council want to ignore the building rental charges on this building and go with the consultant's recommendation and rely on a referendum when the building needed replacement or did the Council want to stay with the building rental charge"? There was a consensus to stay with the building rental charge. A policy discussion followed. Mayor Schmitt stated there was no consistency in the number of years right now being used for building depreciation on City buildings. Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Cncl. Lehman stated he would like to know the rationale on having anywhere from 20 to 50 years used. for a length of depreciation Cncl. J oos stated the use of every building was different and the type of use really determined the longevity of a building. Cncl. Lehman stated the pool systems were not a 50-year system. He felt there was a rationale but he would like to hear it. Cncl. Lehman also had a question on the 6% inflation factor being ~ecommended. Mr. McNeill addressed this question. Cncl. Helkamp noted to date the City has not been able to fund all the building needs through the building fund. He thought the City would need to continue to use a blend of bonding and building rental. Cncl. Helkamp stated he thought many of the amenities in the proposed new community center would need to be updated long before thirty years. He stated going longer than thirty years was going in the wrong direction. He thought thirty years time for depreciation purposes was good. Mayor Schmitt noted a method for improvements called a leasehold could be used and this would help the inflation. Mayor Schmitt noted this building (existing community center) was built a few years before the building rental fund was created. Other City buildings had also been built before the building rental charge was envisioned. Cncl. Helkamp noted the building rent money that will be collected for the Public Works building will be used to pay for the bonds rather than new taxes. Cncl. Menden stated he was in support of the building rental fund because it helped avoid some peaks and valleys. He was concerned about the community center because that building had paid in funds to the building rental fund but now those funds were not there to help pay for that building. Cncl. Menden noted he would be more comfortable having a separate building rental fund for each building. Cncl. Lehman noted there were some departments that could not generate enough revenue to pay for itself (i.e. Fire Department). Cncl. Helkamp stated each building would have its turn to get all the money. Cncl. Menden noted all buildings were not playing at the same level. The community center because of it use needed to go out to the public for a referendum and other buildings did not. Mayor Schmitt stated the logistics was that all buildings should be treated equally. The community center did not have the same weight as a public safety building. Mr. McNeill clarified the way the building fund was sent up. it could only be used to make a building habitable (i.e. roof replacement). There was consensus to continue to use the building rental charges for the community center as approved at the last meeting (30 year depreciation). If the referendum was successful this would mean a 23% percent increase in levy for next year. Mayor Schmitt thought it was decided to be consistent and the depreciation charge on all buildings should be for the same length of time for similar uses (the existing community center was depreciated for 50 years and the new community center will be depreciated for 40 years). Mayor Schmitt stated he was not comfortable using 30 years for depreciation on the new community center. Cncl. Joos stated if any building was going to need changing it was going to be the commlIDity center; this was a high use building. Mayor Schmitt noted 30 years Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -3- depreciation on the building and leaseholds on the improvements made more sense to him. Cncl. Lehman noted if the community center referendum passed the Council did have the option to come back and cap the dollar amount charged per year to the community center and taking the difference to offset the operational general fund dollar amount for staffing which would lower the impact to the taxpayer. Mr. Themig clarified currently there was a $848,000 building rental charge for the expansion for the community center plus the $153,000 building rental charge for the existing building and another $60,000 in the operating performa for capital replacement costs. Cncl. Lehman stated he would like to look at using the 6% inflation factor for the building fund during the budgeting process. Mr. McNeill stated that the other agenda item could be deferred to and added to the 7:00 p.m. meeting agenda as item 15.F.6. LehmanlMenden moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, April 5, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. ~J.~ Uth s. COx City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary , OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,NITNNESOTA APRIL 5, 2005 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Menden, Helkamp and Joos present. Also Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Bryan D. Shirley, Acting City Attorney; Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director and Dan Hughes, Police Chief. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was added to the Agenda. 15. F.6. Market Value Homestead Credit. The following item was deleted from the Agenda. 15.E.8. Authorize Hiring a Planner I. LehmanlMenden moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried 5-0. The following item was added to the Consent Agenda. 15.D.3. Parking Control Signage on 4th A venue from Shenandoah Drive to. County Road 83. The following item was deleted from the Consent Agenda. Approval of the March 1, 2005 (regular Session) meeting minutes. There was additional language to the March 1,2005 minutes on page 13 regarding the Shutrop property that Cncl. Lehman wanted reflected in the minutes. This additional language will be brought back at the next Council meeting on April 19, 2005. LehmanlMenden moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried 5-0 Mayor Schmitt asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Lehman/Menden moved to approve the meeting minutes for March 10, 2005. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMendenmoved to approve the bills in the amount of$601,937.78 plus $41,360.73 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $643,298.51. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Cnc1. Lehman stated he attended the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) meeting. He stated he had also been contacted by Senator Kline's office that there would be a meeting with City staff and the Army Corp of Engineers to take a look at the riverbank erosion. He noted he also contacted Steve Swiggins office, speaker of the House, regarding the Racino at Canterbury. Official Proceedings of AprilS, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Cncl Joos noted he attended a Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) meeting. He stated they authorized their attorney to go forward with eminent domain proceedings for property for sub stations. Cncl. Joos noted SPUC would also be requesting Public Works to help with repairs on the new building that had not been done to SPUC's satisfaction. Cncl. Helkamp noted he attend a Chamber of Commerce Board meeting. He noted he had gone to the Capital to testify on behalf of the Racino for Canterbury Park and delivered letters from Mayor Schmitt and Cncl. Matt Lehman. Cncl. Menden noted he attended Vision Shakopee along with representative Beard. Helkamp/Menden moved.to recess at 7: 16 for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the City Council meeting at 7: 19 p.m. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to extend MUSA and Rezoning requested by Mark Liesener for property located north of CSAH 16 and west of Riverside Fields (this plat is for Riverside Bluffs). Mr. Leek noted a version of the proposed preliminary plat was under review ofthePRAB and the EnvironmentalAdvisory Committee (EAC) and will be under review of the Planning Commission this week. Mr. Leek noted the request tonight was to extend MUSA to a portion of the site (14 acres) the balance of the site already had MUSA extended to it previously. The request was to rezone to single family residential (RIB). He noted ifMUSA was extended to the 14 acres and the portion was also rezoned to single-family those actions would be consistent with the action taken in 2003 for the balance of the site. Mr. Leek noted Southbridge was to the north of the site and the possible future alignment of County Road 21 was to the north of the site. Mr. Leek noted there was a condition in the original resolution for the earlier MUSA extension to the site that noted the City Council reserved the discretion to reallocate that MUSA under certain terms. Mr. Leek noted where MUSA was approved to be extended had been rezoned and that zoning district was intended for sewered development. He stated the Planning Commission reviewed this MUSA and rezoning request on March 3, 2005 and on a 5-2 vote the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to extend MUSA and rezone the property. Mr. Leek noted soon the City would require a staging plan on proposed developments from developers regarding the MUSA extension. Mr. Leek noted he had inserted a statement of the City's Comprehensive Plan goals regarding the extension of MUS A and the criteria that should be followed regarding that extension of MUSA in the staff report. He stated staff intended to Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -3- include this information with every application for a comprehensive plan amendment for MUSA extensions along with a detailed analysis as to whether of not the criteria has been met. Mr. Leek noted this MUSA request was within the phase one area and was adjacent to land on three sides that already has MUSA extended. This is the site that the developer is willing.to have the sanitary sewer come from the Riversides Fields Addition (short term). Staffis of the opinion the site should be served by sanitary sewer that comes from the west and goes to the Prior Lake Interceptor across the Noecker property. It was thought Mr. Noecker would be forthcoming with a preliminary plat for his adjacent acreage fairly soon. Mr. Leek noted at the time the other Liesener property had MUSA extended to it, Mr. Liesener did not own the narrow strip of property. Lehman/Joos offered Ordinance No. 727, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sect. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Located North Of County Road 16 And West Of Riverside Fields From Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone/Light Industry (1-1) Zone To Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone, and moved its adoption and to approve Resolution No. 6212, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Approving A Request To Amend The Comprehensive Plan To Extend MUSA To Property Located North Of County Road 16 And West Of Riverside Fields,and moved its adoption. Cncl. Menden stated Public Works was not recommending a sanitary sewer hook-up coming from the east (Riverside Fields Addition) on a temporary basis for this site. How can the Council recommend extending MUSA when there was no sewer hookup available right now? Mayor Schmitt noted there was an issue regarding the sanitary sewer hook-up. Mayor Schmitt noted that the plat to the east was required to extend sewer to the west of the property which is to the east of this plat. Mayor Schmitt asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to be heard on this issue. Mark Liesener, applicant, stated because it had been difficult to get a development on the Noecker property approved, alternate ways were being looked at to get the sanitary sewer to the site. According to Mr. Liesener, it was very questionable if Mr. Noecker would develop the property. He stated he was requesting the MUSA extension and the rezoning to have a possibility of at least meeting the requirement placed on property that did have MUSA granted to it. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Menden dissenting. Official Proceedings of April 5,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Lehman/Menden offered Ordinance No. 728, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending City Code Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek reported on the request to extend MUSA and rezone property from rural residential to urban residential from the Pavek Family Investments Corporation (College City Homes) for property located north ofCSAH 16, east of Hill dale Drive and west ofCSAH 18.. Mr. Leek clarified that this was not a request for re-guiding. He stated the adopted Comprehensive Plan guides this property for single-family use and the updated Comprehensive Plan carries that guiding forward. Mr. Leek stated the consideration by City Council of this item was held up because Scott County raised an issue with the alignment of County Road 16 and the intersection of County Road 18. Mr. Leek noted that as a part of the County Road 16 study the alignment of County Road 16 had been looked at through this area to Preserve Trail. The County Board came to the conclusion that they would not make any change vis-a.-vis the alignment of County Road 16 and County Road 18. After this application was made, the County decided they wanted to take another look at the intersection and alignment of County Road 16 and County Road .18 regarding safety impacts. Mr. Leek hit a couple ofhigWights of the study done by the County's consultant on the realignment of County Road 16 and County Road 18. Mr. Leek noted that at Preserve Trail, the west leg of County Road 16, and the east leg County Road 16, the number of accidents are small and it is clear that all the accidents relate to left turning movements. The County's consultant noted there was need to do some longer corridor planning for this area to deal with possible future conditions (more speed and higher volume of traffic) on County Road 18. Mr. Leek noted two alternatives were proposed. These were: 1) the realignment of County Road 16 to Preserve Trail which would split development and 2) not realign County Road 16 but make sure access at the west and east legs of County Road 16 and the intersection of Preserve Trail would be limited to a % access (left turn movements would not be allowed). Mr. Leek noted it was clear to the County and to City staff that if County Road 16 were not re-aligned, there should be no signalization at the intersection of Preserve Trail and County Road 16. Mr. Leek noted some alternative routes for southbound traffic from County Road 16 to County Road 18. Mr. Leek noted this site was adjacent to Riverside Fields, and could be served by sewer and water. Mr. Leek stated the Planning Commission did review this request for MUSA extension and rezoning, and they did recommend to the City Council on a unanimous vote to approve the request to extend MUSA and the rezoning of the site. Mr. Leek noted that Pavek (College City) had about 54 single-family lots planned for the area. Official Proceedings of April 5,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mr. Leek noted he and planning staff also had some discussion on the Hillsdale Drive development. He stated he had received a letter from folks on Hillsdale Drive, indicating they and some of their neighbors had interest in the ability to connect to sewer and water ifthis goes through. Mr. Leek noted there was a request from the Stonebrooke Golf Course to hook up to the public system. There was discussion on how the Metropolitan Council would treat a MUSA extension to existing developments. Cncl Joos asked if there was any discussion on County Road 21. Mr. Leek noted.the EIS was on schedule for results to be known by late summer on this study. Cncl. Joos stated he was inclined to go with alternate no. 2 if County Road 21 was done before County Road 16. Cncl. Helkamp stated he agreed with Mr. Leek that it was not good to split land zoned for single- family by an arterial roadway and all of the homeowners on Preserve Trail would then be affected by all of the traffic and that would be bad as well as not being able to turn left on to County Road 18 off County Road 16 would be bad. He did want to see a left turn available on to County Road 18 off County Road 16. Mr. Loney noted no changes were proposed for right now. Mr. Loney stated it really was the grade of County Road 18 that was a problem for signalization. There was some give and take. This was not a perfect solution. Cncl. Lehman noted he liked alternative two also. Cncl. Lehman suggested to put in a three way stop at County Road 16 and County Road 18 until County Road 21 was built and to leave it there until the County did something about it. Cncl. Menden stated he did not think it was a good alternative to divide a neighborhood with an arterial street but the no left turn was not a good choice either. Randy Peterson, College City Homes, stated he felt there had been good discussion on the road problems in the area by the City Council. Lehman/Joos offered Resolution No. 6217, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee Approving A Request To Amend The Comprehensive Plan To Extend MUSA To Property Located West Of County Road 18 And North Of County Road 16, and moved its adoption and Ordinance No. 729, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Located North Of County Road 16 And West Of County Road 18 From Rural Residential (RR) Zone To Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 5-0. Lehman/Joos moved to direct staff to convey to the County that alternative no. 2 would be the Council's preferred alternative and to let the County know the concerns regarding no left turns (the residential would take the brunt of the traffic). Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Cncl. Helkamp proposed a friendly amendment "the City did not want to loose the left turn movement at Preserve Trail and both legs of County Road 16 until County Road 21 or an alternative was built". Cncl..Lehman did not want this friendly amendment; he preferred to see the County force the City to loose the left turn capabilities rather than the City admitting they would allow the loss of the left turn once County Road 21 was built. Cncl.Joos was concerned about safety if this left turn was allowed until County Road 21 was built. He thought perhaps the City Engineer should have a say when the left turn became a safety issue and should no longer be allowed. Cncl. Lehman noted he would accept a portion of the friendly amendment and that was "no changes until alternative traffic measures were in place". The motion now read: Lehman/Joos moved to direct staff to convey to the County that alternative no. 2 [not to realign County Road 16 but to make sure access at the west and east legs of County Road 16 at County Road 18 and at the intersection of Preserve Trail at County Road 18 would be limited to a % access (left turn movements would not be allowed)] would be the Council's preferred alternative; and, to . let the County know the Council's concerns regarding no left turns (the residential would take the brunt of the traffic) and no changes would be permitted until alternative traffic measures were in place. Motion carried 5-0. LehmanlMenden moved to authorize appropriate City officials to enter into the contract with 4- Paws Animal Control Services and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMendenmoved to declare the items listed in the March31, 2005 memo from Sgt. Balfanz as surplus property and authorize staff to appropriately dispose of these items. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). (CC Document No. 379) LehmanlMenden moved to declare the 1994 BMW 740, VIN: WBAGD8323RDE90647 as surplus property and authorize staff to appropriately dispose of this item at an auction. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden moved to table the final plat of Riverside Fields 4th Addition to the April 19, 2005 City Council meeting. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek reported on the request for a fmal plat of South Parkview 5t1t Addition, located north of Vierling Drive and west of Jefferson Street. Mr. Leek noted the site consisted of approximately 5.48 acres and a couple of streets that basically were cul-de-sacs (Park Terrace and Park Circle). Mr. Leek stated Vierling Drive was located to the south. Mr. Leek noted the final plat did vary slightly from the approved preliminary plat from 1985. The reason the final plat varied from the preliminary plat was because of the realignment of Vierling Drive. Mr. Leek noted there were a few more lots than originally contemplated because there was slightly more land due to the realignment of Vierling Drive. Mr. Leek noted the extra homes were not a substantial departure from the preliminary plat. . Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Mr. Leek noted the applicant requested the Council to consider a reduction in the width of the cul-de-sac to 100 feet where 120 feet is required (Park Circle [City plowed]) and to reduce the right-of-way required on Park Terrace [City street] to 50 feet rather than the 60 feet required. Mr. Leek noted the prepared Resolution did not address this request. Mr. Leek noted the right-of-way width was important to the City because this was the width available to accommodate utilities in addition to the roadway. Mr. Loney, City Engineer, noted the 60-foot width was a standard in the City's ordinance. Mr. Loney stated the City did vary from this standard in the Southbridge area. They did go down to a 55'width right-of-way. The real issue was with the room available for the small utilities. Mr. Loney did state a 50' right- way-could work with a 32' wide street with no 10' drainage and utility easements. The real issue here was this request should have gone thru the variance process. Mr. Loney stated the City could live with the 50' width right-of-way but he did not recommend going to a 100' wide cul- de-sac. Cncl. Helkamp pointed out ifthis 50' right of way were granted the builder would gain five feet on each side of the street for each lot. Mr. Leek noted staff would like to make fmdings of fact if the 50' right-of-way were granted. Mr. Leek noted there were not many homes located on these streets and there was not much traffic anticipated. The 32-foot street (Park Terrace) was not a collector street. Cncl. Lehman noted the narrower street was what the City wanted because it was cheaper to plow and the traffic was limited. Just narrowing the street would not get the developer the additional feet on each side ofthe street that he wanted, so Cnc1. Lehman was not sure he wanted to have a 50' right-of- way but he could find justification for a 56' right-of-way quite easily. Mr. Loney noted he did not have a problem with the 32' wide street; that width street worked just fine. Mayor Schmitt feltthe issue was "there was one additional lot from the preliminary plat already added and now additional lot frontage was wanted to create additional lot frontage". He did not understand the logic ofthe move. If the City was going to go toa 50' right-of-way then the ordinance needed to be changed. There needed to be consistency. Mr. Leek noted it was the realignment of Vierling Drive that gave this proposed development more land and that is why there was an additional lot. Cletus Link, 1216 Jefferson Street, noted this request was made because of the configuration of the property. He stated the two curb cuts were already established and they found themselves with more length in lots than width to the lots. This limited the footprint of the building site. He stated they did not want to go for a variance because they felt they could not prove any hardship. One reason they proposed this narrower street was because of the benefits now for the City with a narrower street. Mr. Link suggested leaving the street width the same but cutting the boulevard size from 11 ~' (normal) to seven feet. He noted Centerpoint Energy was proposing cooperation Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -8- between all utility companies where only one trench 30" wide be dug for all utilities. SPUC did not agree with the 30" trench idea. Mr. Loney noted when City Code allowed a 33' back-to-back roadway versus a 37' back-to-back roadway. There was the option of a 33' back-to-back roadway for this development. Mr. Loney did not think the Cul-de-sac would generate more than 200 cars a day. He stated the City preferred to see small utilities located as least five feet away from the curb so it was not undermined. Mr. Leek stated narrowing the street was not the issue. The issue was the amount of right- of- way. Mayor Schmitt stated he was not sure Mr. Link was accomplishing what he wanted by narrowing the front footage. Mr. Leek stated at the building setback line in the front, 60 feet of width was needed. Mr. Link agreed what he was asking for would not fix the problem. Mr. Link stated they could live with what they had but it would be more difficult. It was suggested Mr. Link look at some of the houses on certain lots and take into consideration what size deck could be put on the house and lot. Helkamp/Joos moved to table the a final plat of South Parkview 5th Addition, located north of Vierling Drive and west of Jefferson Street to allow additional time to figure out the placement of certain homes and what type deck would be allowed. Motion carried 5-0. Cncl. Lehman asked Mr. Link to take a look at a 33' back-to-back roadway if there was need to reduce the easement. The City got a benefit from this narrower street width. Lehman/Menden offered Resolution No. 6221, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Vacating An Easement North Of County Road 42 And East And West OfCSAH 17, City Of Shako pee, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden offered Resolution No. 6022, A ResolutionAccepting Work On Weinandt Acres 1 st Addition, Project No. 2004-1, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden moved to authorize the appropriate City official to extend the Cleaning Contract to December 31, 2005 under the same terms and conditions as noted in the 2004 cleaning contract with Coverall Cleaning Concepts with the addition of Holmes, Huber and Scenic Heights Parks. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden moved to restrict parking on both sides of 4th Avenue, from Shenandoah Drive to County Road 83, and direct staff to implement the necessary signage to restrict parking. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Helkamp/Joos moved to recess at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the City Council meeting at 8:39 p.m. Mr. Loney reported on the award of the contract for the new Public Works building. Mr. Loney stated the plans and specifications for the new Public Works building were done by Oertel Architects. Mr. Loney noted the new Public Works building was a 38,000 square foot building with abase bid with nine alternates included in the bid package. Mr. Loney stated what the bid alternates were. He stated unit prices had been added also. These unit prices mayor may not be used by the City. Mr. Loney noted the low contractor was selected on the base bid and alternates that would be selected. The unit prices were not factored into. the bids by the contractors. Mr. Loney noted what the unit prices were for and what the price was (vehicle lifts and imported soil). The recommendation would be from the committee consisting of Cncl. Helkamp, Cncl. Lehman, Mike Hullander and Mr. Loney. Mr. Loney noted 16 bids were received and they were very good competitive bids. Mr. Loney noted the committee met and examined alternates. Mr. Loney stated based on the base bid and the alternates that the committee felt were best to have now, CM Construction was the low bidder. It was noted this construction firm had done the Police Station. Mr. Loney stated Mr. Oertel had a memo regarding the check out of CM Construction and his bid; Mr. Oertel also recommended CM Construction. Mr. Loney stated the total cost of the base bid and the selected alternates was $4,735,004. Mr. Loney noted that alternate no. 9 was a $50,000 deduct (car wash system). Mr. Loney noted there were also indirect costs that totaled $1,667,500. Mr. Loney noted the Council desired to get this total building cost down to $6,000,000; right now the total cost was about $6,402,000. Mr. Loney stated in the 2005 CIP budget $6.6 million had been budgeted for the new Public Works building. This was $6,000,000 from bonding and the other $600,000 was from the Storm Drainage Fund ($300,000) and from the Sanitary Sewer Fund ($300,000). Mr. Loney noted the justification of why the Storm Drainage Fund and the Sanitary Sewer Fund could be used. Mr. Loney stated a further recommendation of the building committee was for the three in ground big lifts (flush with the floor). These unit prices were deemed acceptable. The three smaller 12,000 pound lift unit prices were not deemed acceptable and a re-evaluation needed to be done. The unit prices for the three smaller lifts were not recommended at this time. Mr. Loney noted the large lift unit price items would be brought back as a change order. He was asking for $100,000 for unforeseen change orders (contingency), $160,000 for vehicle lifts and $60,000 for building permits. He also requested to continue to use the services of Cnd. Helkamp and Cncl. Lehman to review change orders throughout the project. Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Mr. Loney stated if the base bid with every alternate were selected the price would be $4,839,000 not including the indirect costs. Mr. Loney addressed alternate number 2, in the amount of$20,300 (epoxy/urethane floor covering on the vehicle maintenance area). He noted the building committee felt if there was extra money in the Sanitary Sewer Fund or the Storm Drainage Fund this alternate would be worth considering.. Mr. Loney stated the committee selected certain alternates and reduced the cost of the alternate package by about $100,000. Mr. Loney stated the committee did not think selecting only the base bid (that would be close to $6,000,000) was the acceptable way to go. Mr. Loney stated if alternate number two were added along with the other alternates selected, CM Construction would still be the low bidder. Cncl. Menden noted with the alternates selected now and the base bid, the City was looking at approximately $6.4 million. Mr. Loney stated exhibit no 2, the base bid and perhaps alternate no. two was recommended to be awarded to the contractor. He was also asking for a $320,000 in contingency (we know there are more costs). Helkamp/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6218, A Resolution Accepting Bids On The Construction Of A Public Works Building, Project No. 2005-5, and moved its adoption with the addition of alternate No.2 (epoxy floor coating) and noting the Sanitary Sewer Fund and the Storm Drainage Fund could be utilized for the project as proposed and to authorize the contingency of $320,000 for vehicle lifts, building permit fees and other change orders. Cncl. Joos stated he would like the alternates explained and how the conclusions were arrived at. Cncl. Lehman explained the alternates. Alternate No.1, painting ofthe vehicle storage ceilings, joists, deck and mechanical/electrical work was asked for because these were dark areas where the trucks were parked; but, it was felt that this could be done at a later time or in house. Alternate No.2, epoxy floor, if the building project was tight on money this too could be done at a later time. This really was not a necessity but it was better to have it now. Alternate No.3, upgrades to the existing public works building, were needed because it would be an eyesore next to the new building. Alternate No.4, the 5-ton crane, was thought to be priced at a very good price and would be cheaper included now rather than later when it would be a capital project. Alternate No.5, gas canopy, the gas canopy over the gas pumps was deleted because this could be added in at a later date. There was not a good price on this item. The footings were part of the general bid so the canopy would only need to be bolted on in the future. Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Alternate No.6, skylights, if they were not done now, they probably would never get done because there would be a new roof and the City would not want to disturb a new roof. Alternate No.7, the relocation of the watermain systems and the storm sewer ($30)000) was a real good price. This was very inexpensive insurance in case the Public Works building expanded 20 years down the road. Alternate No.8, truck wash bays $126,000) these are vehicles owned by the City and they should be taken care of (they are expensive equipment). Currently, the trucks are washed outside at the fire hall (winter-ice). This alternate was taken for safety purposes plus it was a really good bid. Alternate No.9, carwash) was a $50,000 deduct. This bid was taken with a local company. Cncl. Lehman also pointed out a percentage of the work done in the building was for maintenance on the vehicles used for the storm water and sanitary sewer. It was felt from an equity standpoint a portion of the money could be justified to come from the Sanitary Sewer Fund and the Storm Drainage Fund. Cncl. Helkamp stated he felt the upgrades to the old building were a bargain at the cost stated ($138,000). He felt it was appropriate to have the City buildings look nice if other buildings in town were expected to be kept up. There was discussion on the above ground and the in ground hoists. Motion carried 5-0. Menden/Joos moved to appoint Cncl. Helkamp and Cncl. Lehman to serve as liaison on the building project and to review change orders throughout the public works building project. Motion carried 5-0. Lehman/Menden offered Resolution No. 6216, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 6156 Which Adopted The 2005 Pay Schedule For The Officers And Non-Union Employees Of The City Of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). /" Lehman/Menden moved to authorize the appointment of probationary Police Sergeant Clay Johnson at Step 3 of the current police sergeant's labor contract, at a monthly rate of $4)997.37. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden moved to authorize the hiring of Jacob Rudolph as a probationary part-time, 30-hour per week, Community service Officer at an hourly rate of $14.116, subject to the satisfactory completion of pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -12- Lehman/Menden moved to authorize the hire of Kristine Lyndon Wilson as Assistant to the. City Administrator position, effective April 25th, with the provisions outlined in the memo from Mark McNeill dated March 24,2005; (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). (CC Document No.380) LehmanlMenden moved to accept the completion of Dale Gade's probationary period in the Engineering Technician II position. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden moved to promote Dale Gade to Graduate Engineer, at Step F, Grade 6 in the City's Non-Union Pay Plan, effective April 12, 2005, upon approval by the City Council. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden moved to approve the revised job description for the Graduate Engineer position as outlined in the memo from Bruce Loney dated April 5, 2005. (motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) (CC Document No.381) LehmanlMenden offered Resolution No. 6215, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota, Approving Premises Permits For The VFW POST 4046, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden moved to approve the applications and grant on sale and Sunday on sale intoxicating liquor licenses to RT Minneapolis Franchise, LLC, dba Ruby Tuesday,.4135 Dean Lakes Boulevard, including outdoor dining, conditioned up a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building Department, evidence of liquor liability insurance and compliance with the CUP conditions in Resolution No. PC05-027 relating to outdoor dining. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden moved to authorize entering into the Host Fee Agreement with Xcel Energy and Scott County for payments in lieu of personal property taxes. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill reported on the need for workshop meetings. There were several things that needed discussion. These were: 1) computerization maintenance management plan for Public Works, 2) the Racino 3) police radio system for dispatch, 4) joint meeting with Anne Carroll, vision steering committee and the students and 5) growth management. A meeting for April 19, 2005 at 5 :00 p.m. was suggested for the first three issues. A meeting for April 28, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. was suggested for the fourth item. It was felt the sooner the growth management workshop took place the better. A meeting for April 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. was suggested for the growth management discussion. Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -13- Cncl. Lehman asked for an on-line version of a calendar again for scheduled City Council workshops, special meeting and Council meetings. This had been asked for previously but it was found to be more challenging that originally thought. Mr. McNeill reported on the SCALE Public Safety Training facility. Mr. McNeill noted SCALE was asking each jurisdiction to participate in the funding for a safety training facility. He noted the logical thing to do at this point was to only look at a 40-acre parcel ofland for the facility. He stated he did not think any City was comfortable with proceeding with construction. at this time. He noted SCALE had asked for a resolution. Mr. McNeill stated at the last meeting the Council expressed their negative thoughts regarding the funding mechanism. Mr. McNeill suggested these thoughts be included in the resolution. Mayor Schmitt noted he had sent an email to the City suggesting that there be a base fee for all players involved with the construction of the training facility then variables. He stated there were basic costs regardless of the size of the department i.e. police and fire. Mr. McNeill noted it was the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) that really posed the problem with how charges for the,training facility should be structured. Cncl. Lehman noted he was not opposed to the training facility but he did have an issue with SCALE regarding the Market Value Homestead Credit. He felt the Market Value Homestead.. Credit should be addressed. In his opinion the charge for the training facility to Shakopee really was not equitable. He stated he would not accept the inequity. He would accept the concept and go out and look for land. Cncl. Helkamp liaison to .SCALE stated.he would take this comment back to SCALE. Cncl. Helkamp noted there was more background information and SCALE had not really begun to finalize the method of payment. Cncl. Lehman stated he would like to see SCALE take a position with the State on the Market Value Homestead Credit and other issues. Cncl. Helkamp stated he would bring this comment , back to SCALE. MendenlLehman offered Resolution No. 6222, A Resolution Supporting The Scott County Association For Leadership And Efficiency Joint Public Safety Training Facility, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. McNeill stated the legislature most likely would be looking for ways to bridge the deficit gap and he and the League of Minnesota Cities expected the Market Value Homestead Credit to take a hit (probably all). He noted Shakopee's share ofthe Market Value Homestead Credit was $545,000; this amount had been included in the budget for 2005. He noted staff recently looked at places in the 2005 budget that possibly could be cut further. Some of the cuts were maintenance items that would need to be dealt with eventually. \ Official Proceedings of April 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page M14M Cncl. Lehman addressed the State funding. He stated the oneous for the tax increases needed to be put back on the responsible party. The responsible party was not the City. Cncl. Helkamp noted he would pass along these comments to SCALE and to the State legislators also. Cnc1. Helkamp discussed the Sanitary Sewer Fund and Storm Drainage Fund paying their share of rent for the new Public Works building for 2006. This suggestion could possibly help the shortfall. Cncl. Joos stated he would like the City to take a look at the idea suggested by Cncl. Helkamp. Cnc1. Joos also stated he would be willing to follow staff recommendations for cuts. Cnc1. Helkamp stated he did not want to cut electronic imaging any longer. He noted there were record storage issues right now. Mr. McNeill noted staff would follow-up on the sanitary sewer and storm drainage rental fees and they would take a look at the underspend for 2004 with Mr. V oxland, City Finance Director, and he would come back with further suggestionsfor recommendations to recoup the $545,000 that most likely will be lost with the Market Value Homestead Credit not being received by the City from the state. He stated in the 2006 budget some programs may need to be looked at for some cuts. Cnc1. Menden stated there had been some good suggestions tonight but he was concerned about losing needed positions. Cnc1. Lelunan wanted to know "if in 2006 if the State cut the Market Value Homestead Credit completely on top of the estimated Market Value increase without the state bought down tax reduction what would the total tax increase as a percent be". He felt it would be huge. Mayor Schmitt felt the electronic imaging should not be cut. He wanted to see the website and the City servers get up and running before any more major software was bought. Cnc1. Joos would like a discussion on creating efficiencies for departments. Helkamp/Menden moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. ~ j. O;C its. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary