HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: January 18, 2005 (Adj. Reg.) and February 1, 2005
7
CITY OF SHAKOPEE C n. ~11'> 1>", 'T
ln~~ ", ,
f , l.t,. . i\\~;t'4.!1 :;'
Memorandum . taHii "
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
SUBJECT: January 18,2005 City Council Minutes ~
DATE: February 25, 2005
At the regular meeting of February 15,2005, the City Council minutes of January 18,
2005 were deleted from the agenda at the request of Councilor Lehman. Councilor
Lehman asked that additional information be included in the discussion on two items and
pointed out that a motion on page 5 was offered and seconded by the same person.
The attached minutes of January 18, 2005 include additional discussion as identified by
being underlined on pages 7 and 12. Also, on page 5, a correction has been made to the
motion that was originally noted as being made and seconded by Councilor Lehman.
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA JANUARY 18,2005
Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:23 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; Gregg V oxland, Finance Director; Bob Voss, Acting City Attorney;
Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director and Dan Hughes, Police Chief.
The meeting was late getting started because an executive session was held before hand to
discuss labor negotiations and pending litigation.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
Item No. 18. Recess for Executive Session to Discuss Labor Negotiations was removed from the
. agenda.
Helkamp/Menden moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried 5-0.
The following item was added to the Consent Agenda. 14.D. MUSA Extension and Rezoning to
R -1 B for property recently annexed and located south of Highway 169, east of Koeper Avenue
and west of CSAH 79.
The following item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 14.A. Amendment to Subdivision
Ordinance Regarding Park Dedication Fees.
Mr. McNeill noted there was a memo on the table regarding 15.F.3. Liaison appointments to
SCALE and this memo should be considered with the item that was on the Consent Agenda for
Liaison appointments.
LehmanlHelkamp 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.
LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the meeting minutes for December 21,2004. (Motion
carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the bills in the amount of $316,845.48 plus $170,990.60 for
refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $487,836.08. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following
approval].
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -2-
Susie Palmer, State Department of Public Safety, office of Traffic Safety, stated the Police
Department from the City of Shako pee has written and received Safe and Sober grants three
years in a row. She noted this is quite an accomplishment. She noted that the Shakopee Police
Department had done these grants in partnership with other jurisdictions.
Bob O'Brien, Law Enforcement Liaison for the Department of Public Safety for the metro area,
noted he did a crash report for the City of Shakopee for the last ten years under the guidance of
Police Chief Hughes and Mr. O'Brien noted the statistics in the report were impressive.
Chief Hughes noted the Shakopee Police Department was awarded an In-Squad Video Camera
from the Department of Public Safety.
, LehmanlJoos offered Resolution No. 6171, A Resolution Of The CityOfShakopee, Minnesota,
Accepting A $3,000 In-Squad Video Camera From Department Of Public Safety, To Be Used
For Traffic Safety, Enforcement And Education, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 5-0.
Ann Carroll, Vision/Strategic Planning facilitator for the City of Shakopee, gave an update of the
strategic and visioning process taking place for the City. She noted the visioning process is an
attempt to engage the people in the community to voice their opinions and desires as to what they
would like the community to look like. She noted work had been done with identity and
branding, a logo had been created and a brochure had been put together that had been distributed
by the Police Department at the National Night Out gatherings. Ms. Carroll noted other places
where the vision/planning exercises are advertised.
She noted the Council had made appointments to the steering committee at the end of December;
. this steering committee was now ready to be launched. She noted the steering committee was
moving the process forward under the direction and guidance of the City Council. She noted the
steering committee had a variety of responsibilities over time.
She noted over the summer the Council created an initial list of stakeholders and some
preliminary analyzes were done. She noted there were over 70 separate stakeholder groups. She
noted the steering committee would extend the work of the initial stakeholders. She stated more
work on partners and champions would be done on how to engage the partners and champions to
move this visioning process forward. She noted the ability to identify and articulate the common
ground as well as community values found in the community conservations process had been
worked on over the summer and fall and into the winter. She stated the community
conversations were an amazing process; the community had much caring and commitment to the
community. She noted 158 unique people and 16 groups had been utilized so far. She noted
there were many more opportunities for people to get involved and how the people could become
involved if they choose to. She noted it was the steering committee that was going to look at the
content within the topics. She noted some of the topics. She noted three independt:fnt sets of
documentations were done for each community conversation. These documentations were:
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -3-
groups were tracked that participated in the community conversations, the names of the
participants were tracked and the input by date was tracked. She stated this is a public process
and the ideas needed to come from the community base for this visioning process to work. She
noted where information regarding this visioning process was located. She noted the compiling
of the findings would be done as she went along. There was no need to wait.
She noted much of what she did depended on what was heard from the community as the
visioning process continued. She noted the plans from the vision should begin happening in late
Spring. She noted this planning would come out of what was learned in the inputting process. It
seemed the steering committee would be doing a lot of work with some guidance from her and
the Council. She noted a monitoring and evaluation process would be developed so this
visioning/planning process would keep developing. She noted there are six graduate students
from the Humphrey Institute who would also be helping in the visioning/planning process.
She noted she would continue to do updates for the Council. It was important to keep this
process open and accountable. She noted hard copies of updates would be available at City Hall
and at the Library.
Cnc1. Helkamp addressed some Chamber of Commerce issues. He noted the Chamber had put
together their business plan for 2005.
Cnc1. Lehman noted he met with the certified local government (CLG) task force about
preserving properties. He noted they would be looking for direction on two options as to how
this CLG should be structured.
Cnc1. Joos noted a survey was out regarding telecommunications issues in the bills from the
Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC). He noted the City still does not own the land where the new
Public Works Building was to be built and the City was getting ready to go out for bids on this
project. Mr. McNeill noted information was in SPUC's attorney's office. Cnc1. Joos would like
to see the purchase of the land for the new Public Works building finalized before the proj ect was
bid. He noted SPUC would also like to see some Council support for the lift station and for the
MUSA expansion across County Road 78 west of County Road 17.
Lehman/Helkamp moved to recess at 7:54 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic
Development Authority meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
Mayor Schmitt re-convened the City Council meeting at 8:06 p.m.
Mr. Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Manager, reported on the amendment to the
Subdivision Ordinance regarding park dedication fees. Mr. Themig gave the highlights of the
proposed changes. He noted three changes were being proposed and what these changes were.
He noted the method of the calculation for the land and cash contribution scenario was proposed
.
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -4-
to be changed, the second change clarified the basis of how the park dedication fees were
calculated, and third it changed when the park dedication fees are calculated and due. He stated
this amendment had been reviewed at the Park and Recreation Advisory Board meeting as well
as the Planning Commission meeting where a public hearing was held after notices had been
mailed out to the larger developers in Shakopee.
Cncl. Helkamp asked ifthere any provisions for a financial hardship for a developer on a case-
by-case basis. Mr. Themig noted this proposed text amendment did not allow for any provisions
for financial hardships. All developers would be treated the same. Cncl. Helkamp stated he was
concerned about the small developers and the fairness issue. Mr. Leek, Community
Development Director, addressed this concern and he stated that at this time, he did not think it
was necessary to provide a financial hardship clause. Cncl. Joos also addressed this question
with a suggestion as to how the plat could be done using a phasing process. In Cncl. Lehman's
mind the fees for park dedication did not suit the land that was in a non-sewered area. Mr. Leek
addressed some of the park dedication fees and the impact a non-sewered development would
most likely have on a park.
Mr. Themig suggested tabling this item to the next meeting so the Council had time to review his
report that went to the Planning Commission that possibly had more information regarding the
park dedication fee when it was applied to unsewered land. Cncl. Helkamp stated he was
comfortable with the text amendment written the way it was.
Lehman/Joos moved that the proposed text amendment regarding park dedication fees be tabled
until the next meeting to allow staff time to review the proposed changes and then bring back the
amendment. Motion carried 5-0.
Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6174, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee,
Minnesota, Establishing A Policy For The Naming Of Parks, and moved its adoption. (Motion
carried under the Consent Agenda).
Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the text amendment regarding mini-
storage facilities with exterior storage in the Highway Business (B-1) Zone. He noted mini-
storage facilities with exterior storage in the Highway Business (B-1) Zone would only be
allowed with a conditional use permit if the text amendment were approved. Mr. Leek did note
the proposed mini-storage that lead to this text amendment (located on Stagecoach Road, south
ofHwy 101 & north ofHwy 169) is located in an area with an industrial character where there is
no commercial or residential development. He noted staff reviewed this text amendment and had
some concerns regarding a mini storage with exterior storage in the B-1 zones that are adjacent to
residential areas. It was for this reason the text amendment had some conditions. He noted one
of the conditions was that this use not be located closer than 1000 feet from any residential zone.
He stated that the Planning Commission held this public hearing and recommended the approval
of this text amendment on a unanimous vote of7-0.
Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005
Shakopee City Council Page -5-
Cncl. Joos noted this was the gateway to the City and he did not have a mini storage in mind for
this area. He wanted to look at the bigger picture and find out why this piece of property is not
developing. He was not in favor of this text amendment. Mayor Schmitt noted it would be
impossible to screen this property entirely because of the height of the roads. Mr. Leek agreed it
was not possible to screen the entire property. Mayor Schmitt noted he would be much more
comfortable if the first condition read, "shall. not allow maintenance of any vehicles on site". It
was noted that the word "maintenance" needed to be defined.
Leonard Hovde, applicant, was present at the meeting to answer questions.
Paul Selle, partner with the applicant in the mini storage business located on Stagecoach Road,
addressed some of the issues that the Council had with the mini-storage. He addressed the
visibility ofthe site and he had pictures of the exterior storage already, in the area. He explained
the site they were proposing. He noted the site over the years had not been in high demand
because of site limitations.
Paul Struther, Architect for this project, noted some other facilities he had designed. He too
explained the buildings at the site in more detail.
Cncl. Helkamp felt there was discussion on two separate issues. These issues were: 1) do we
want a text amendment for this type business and 2) is this the way the City wanted to see the
gateway to the community developed. Cncl. Helkamp felt there were other ways to fix this use
in this B-1 zone than with a text amendment that would pertain to all B-1 zones.
Helkamp/Menden moved to table the text amendment regarding mini-storage facilities in the
highway business zone (B 1) so it could be revisited when it had been more finely tuned. Motion
carried 5-0.
Lehman/Helkamp moved to direct staff to come back with ideas as to how this mini storage
could be allowed on this site (on Stagecoach Road south ofHwy 101 and north ofHwy 169)
without a text amendment and to define what is allowable maintenance and what is not allowable
repair for this type use on this property. Motion carried 5-0.
Lehman/Helkamp offered Ordinance No. 722, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In The City Code, Sect. 11.03 By
Zoning Land Generally Located South Of Highway 169 And West Of Townline Road To Urban
Residential (R-IB) Zone, and moved its adoption and offered Resolution No. 6178, A Resolution
Of The City Of Shakopee Approving A Request To Extend MUSA, and moved its adoption.
(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Mr. Leek reported on the request to re-guide, re-zone and extend MUSA to property located west
of Marschall Road and south of County Road 78. Mr. Leek noted that MUSA had been extended
.
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -6-
to some ofthe property located at the intersection of Marscha11 Road and County Road 78 in the
southwest quadrant. He noted this MUSA was granted in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan by the
Metropolitan Council in 2002. The subject site was largely owned by Mr. Noterman. Mr. Leek
noted the Planning Commission did review this request and did recommend approval to the City
Council. Mr. Leek addressed the rezoning request to R-1B. He stated why the applicant is
requesting R-1B zoning rather than R-IA zoning.
Cncl. Lehman noted the rezoning to R-1B was not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan but would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Update if the Metropolitan Council did
approve the updated Plan. Cncl. Lehman would like to know the rationale for not waiting until
this updated Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Leek
addressed this request. He stated the developer wanted to more forward and getting this updated
Comprehensive Plan approved by the Metropolitan Council could be a lengthy process. Mr.
Leek did note that Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) did comment favorably on this request
regarding MUSA and the use of a booster station.
Cncl. Helkamp noted this subject area was in a phase two MUSA area. Mr. Leek addressed this
response. He noted there was flexibility to make adjustments in the MUSA phasing if
appropriate.
Cncl. Menden stated he would like to see the Council hold true to the phasing approach, as City
staffhad indicated where the MUSA should be allocated in the phasing program. Cncl.Lehman
noted this phasing of MUSA affected the SPUC booster station so in his mind he was in a
dilemma. Cncl. Joos wanted to see the flexibility so the SPUC booster station could benefit from
the extra users. Cncl. Helkamp thought this discussion was a week early. He would like to have
the MUSA (growth workshop) before any decision was made regarding this MUSA extension.
Helkamp/Lehman moved to table the request for a comprehensive plan amendment, MUSA
extension and rezoning for property located west of Marschall Road and south of CR 78. Motion
carried 5-0.
Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a reimbursement
agreement with Tollefson Development, Inc. and the City Of Shakopee for the design of Comity
Road 77 and County Road 79, from T.R. 169 to 2000 feet south of 17th Avenue. (Motion carried
under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize City officials to enter into an extension agreement with
WSB & Associates, Inc. for the design of County Road 77 and County Road 79, from T.H. 169
to 2000 feet south of 17th Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Helkamp moved to recess at 9:03 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page., 7-
Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 9: 16 p.m.
Ed Schwaesdall, Fire Chief, reported on the bids for three new fire trucks. Chief Schwaesdall
noted seven requests for bids were sent out but only two bids were received back and one sent a
letter with no bid attached. . He recommended that the General Safety/Rosenbauer bid be
accepted. He stated this was really the only company that met all the specifications and criteria
for the fire trucks. Some ofthe exceptions in the other bid were unacceptable to the fire
department.
Cncl.Lehman asked if it was North Central that did not meet the. specifications. for the bid.
Chief Schwaesdall responded that the bid from North Central Ambulance/Crimson Fire had put
in many exceptions to the bid and the design specifications were not met because ofthe
exceptions proposed. It was noted how the specifications were determined by the Fire
Department.
Cncl.Lehman pointed out in the equipment fund when the City planned on making these
purchases, the City anticipated $1.3 million and this bid came in at $1.3 million.
Cnc1. Joos was frustrated that really only one good bid was received back. Cnc1. Menden
suggested that these three trucks be sent out for separate bid. ChiefSchwaesdall noted.when a
package bid was done the bid normally came in much cheaper than separate bids.
Cnc1. Helkamp asked ifthe City had the option to sell the other fire trucks outright. Chief
Schwaesdall stated yes the City did have that option.
Cncl.Lehman stated that he wanted to make sure that the low bid in this case meets the legal
challenge of non-responsive.
.
Bob Voss, Acting City Attorney, stated the Fire Chief was saying some of the exceptions in the
two bids were quite significant and unacceptable. This was a material non-compliance and
therefore, the bids with the exceptions were non-compliant bids. This would withstand a
challenge.
Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6175, A Resolution Awarding A Contract For Three Fire
Trucks To General Safety Equipment, LLC of Wyoming, Minnesota, and moved its adoption and
encouraged the City to sell the fire trucks on their own. Motion carried 5-0.
Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into the agreement
between the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Law Enforcement Agencies 1033 Surplus
Equipment Program and move its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005
Shakopee City Council Page -8-
Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6172, A Resolution Of the City Of Shakopee,
Minnesota, Determining The Necessity For And Authorizing The Acquisition Of Certain
Property by Proceedings In Eminent Domain, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the
Consent Agenda).
Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, noted the County was here to review their
final draft of the Scott County 2005-2012 Highway Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Jerry Hennen, Commissioner from district 3, gave some introductory remarks. He noted whom
the two commissioners represented. He stated he was here to listen, hear concerns and to answer
any questions.
Leslie Vermillion, Public Works Director for Scott County, gave a brief presentation and noted
Scott County's Highway Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) had been a long and
painful process this year. She noted TIP had gone from a five-year Capital Improvement
Program to an eight-year Capital Improvement Program based on the funding and the requests
that Scott County had. She noted some of the priorities for the Scott County highway systems.
Some of these priorities were: 1) the preservation of the present system, 2) managing the system
based on safety and 3) expansion of the system. She stated the highest priority was the
preservation of the present system. She noted the County was exploring alternative modes with
various entities. She noted the County had a. $40 million deficit in the five year plan and that is
why the program is now eight years rather than five years with no new programs being added.
She noted how the County determined what projects would get done.
Mr. Loney noted the discussion of the final report was how this transportation plan related to the
City of Shakopee. He noted he had included a letter with staff s comments that he had sent to
Gregg Illka at Scott County. He stated Scott County was requesting comments of the final TIP by
January 21, 2005. He did state that the cities in Scott County were now being asked to be more
involved than previously in Scott County's CIP. He noted what the County was programming
for 2005 for the City of Shakopee. Mr. Loney did ask the County that if they found additional
funds in their program to upfront the money for the improvements to County Road 79 and
County Road 77 and 17th Avenue. The completion of 17th Avenue to County Road 83 was also
another large project the City of Shakopee would like to see completed. He noted there was no
money provided by Scott County for this project in their TIP yet the County had stated they were
willing to participate in this project. Mr. Loney addressed the 2006 and 2007 projects. He noted
the first leg of County Road 21 from County Road 16 to County Road 18 was now programmed
for 2008. The final leg for County Road 21 (up to County Road 42) was programmed for 2009.
Mr. Loney noted the last project for Shakopee wbuld be the County Road 17 improvements from
St. Francis Avenue to County Road 42 (2012). Mr. Loney noted County staff indicated there
were some safety funds that the Valley View Road project to County Road 83 may qualify for
(this was not mentioned in their TIP). Mr. Loney noted the City supported the County going
after some State Trunk turnback funds for County Road 101 and County Road 69. He noted the
Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005
Shakopee City Council Page -9-
City had concerns with traffic signals at certain intersections. Mr. Loney noted some of the other
comments from the City regarding the Highway Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). He
noted there were many Shakopee projects that had not made the list in the County's TIP. He
noted comments had been made on the County's Stormwater Management Plan. He noted the
County's highway funding was being impacted with some.ofthe rules and regulations of the
County's Stormwater Management Plan. He noted if some of these rules were changed some of
the project costs could be reduced.
Cncl. J oos stated that he thought the completion of Valley View Road needed to be a high
priority. He thought Valley View Road would be a reliever for Vierling Drive and 17th Avenue.
However, he felt a stoplight was very necessary at the intersection of Valley View Road and
County Road 83. He noted the alignment of County Road 21 was a key issue for the City and for
Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC). He noted SPUC was planning on purchasing some land in
that area for a sub station.
Ms. Vermillion noted the County was concerned about the intersection at CSAH 21 and County
Road 18. (Crossings Boulevard) She noted some additional study needed to be done for that
intersection. She also noted that this area ofCSAH 21 and County Road 18 was probably the
area where a major transit station would be constructed for Scott County. She noted the goal was
to get the EIS done for CSAH 21 by the end of2005.
Cncl. Lehman noted as a Shakopee taxpayer he was very disappointed in the final report
regarding Scott County's TIP. He felt the City's comments fell on deaf ears. He was quite upset
that the City had to carry the County financially on some of the road projects.
Cncl. Menden agreed with some of Cncl. Lehman's comments. He, too, was concerned about
the City of Shakopee getting their fair share. He would like to see the County provide some
justification as to why projects were chosen for the TIP. He noted the City of Shakopee had
some real immediate needs and he was wondering if the City of Shakopee' s comments would be
taken into consideration in the revised TIP. Ms. Vermillion addressed these comments. She felt
all the Cities were being treated the same. She noted there was a separate pot of money for
traffic signals.
Cncl. Helkamp noted some roadway improvements to Ms. Vermillion the County needed to
make at the intersection of Southbridge Parkway and County Road 18.
Cncl. Joos noted the City of Shakopee was the engine that was driving Scott County and he felt
some of the County's dollars should come back to the City of Shakopee; he shared this opinion
with Ms. Vermillion.
Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005
Shakopee City Council Page -10-
Mayor Schmitt noted if there was to be a transit station here in Shakopee then the roadways
needed to be supported in Shakopee leading to the transit station. This possible transit station
and the roadways leading up to it needed to be discussed in the near future. He stated creative
ideas were needed for the roadways leading to the transit station. Partnerships for the roadways
were discussed. .
Barb Marschall, Commissioner, noted when the County looked at transportation, they looked at
the transportation all across Scott County. She noted the comments from the Councilor's tonight
were the same comments that were being heard all across Scott County. She noted Scott County
did appreciate all the cooperative efforts that Shakopee has put forth and continues to put forth.
She noted safety concerns had been created because of this large shortfall the County had with
the roads. She noted there were always more needs than there was money for. She noted the
revised TIP when it became a plan for eight years was a more realistic plan now. She noted all
the comments made tonight by the Councilor's were considered to be critical by the County. She
noted many of the line items in the WMO were,being revisited.
Jerry Hennen, Commissioner, wanted to keep the conversation open and positive between the
cities of Scott County and Scott County.
MendenlLehman moved to submit the recommendations provided by staff tonight to Scott
County in regards to the 2005 to 2012 Highway Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Cncl. Lehman noted he would like to see a bit more lead time for comment time on various items
from Scott County and the City of Shakopee.
It was noted the traffic signal could be designed in so signals could be installed when warrants
were met at the intersection of CountyRoad 83 and Valley View Road.
Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Loney reported on the 2005 Street, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Capital
Improvement Program projects. Mr. Loney updated the Council on 2005 street reconstruction
projects and other roads to be constructed and some improvements to certain roads in Shakopee
planned for 2005. Mr. Loney noted the 17th Avenue Extension to County Road 83 would not be
a 2005 project but possibly a 2006 project. Mr. Loney also noted some other projects not related
to roads (sidewalks, streetlights, sanitary sewer, sewer extension, storm sewer. water control
structures) that were included in the 2005 Street, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Capital
Improvement Program projects. Mr. Loney noted if staff was going in the wrong direction with
these projects they would like to know now.
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -ll-
Gncl. Joos really had a tough time on extending Valley View Road out to County Road 83 with
no stoplight at that intersection. He thought it made more sense to finish 17th A venue out to
County Road 83. He did not want to endanger the public. Mr. Loney noted staff would do the
best they could to get a signal at the intersection of County Road 83 and Valley View Road. but
the City was not the highest jurisdiction at this certain intersection.
No Council action was taken on this presentation by Mr. Loney. Mr. Loney's presentation was
for information purposes only.
LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6177, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A
Report For Improvements To Quincy Street, Jefferson Street, Madison Street and Momoe Street
between 11 th A venue to 12th A venue, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the
Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize the purchase of a cab and. chassis from Boyer Sterling
Truck, Inc. for $62,187.48 and Box, Hoist, Sander and Plows from J-Craft, Inc. for $59,408.90
with the total purchase price of$121,596.38 to be expended from the Internal Service Equipment
Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the purchase of a new John Deere 1445 Mower, Snow
Blower and Broom from Siemon Implement, Inc. for the price of $30,520.41. The purchase to
be expended from the Internal Service Equipment Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
Mr. Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Director, reported on the Huber Park phasing plan.
Mr. Themig notedhe had been directed to bring this back at the last meeting but that timeline
just could not be met. He noted Stuart Krahn, Bonestroo, Rosene, & Anderlik, would give an
overview of the phasing plan as now suggested. He stated he would give an overview of funding
sources being explored and possible project reduction costs.
Stuart Krahn, Bonestroo, Rosene, & Anderlik, noted the phasing plan after revisions had been
made. Mr. Krahn noted the hard improvements, (structures) were all proposed to be made above
the 50 year flood line and 100-year flood line. Mr. Krahn noted the revised phasing for Huber
Park now was: 1) to be riverbank stabilization and an access road and one parking lot and 2) park
development. Mr. Krahn noted the time line for Huber Park construction. He noted the revised
phase one (riverbank stabilization, access road, and one parking lot) had a lower cost than the
phase one presented at the December 21, 2004 meeting. He noted the bottom line for the two
options for phasing (December 21,2005 and tonight's) were about the same. The same work
was being done but in a different order.
Mr. Themig noted a committee was working on the design of this park and there had been a
committee meeting to discuss project reductions. There needed to be direction tonight. He noted
,
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -12-
there were some deductions that could be made that would not affect the overall function of the
park long-term. Some deductions that would not affect the park's overall function were: 1)
eliminate the picnic shelter, 2) eliminate picnic tables throughout the park area, 3) eliminate
interpretive signage, 4) eliminate two overlooks,S) eliminate sound and lighting for the
performance area [not user friendly for some groups if eliminated], 6) eliminate benches
throughout the park, 7) eliminate pedestrian entry [ADA entry would still be there] and 8)
eliminate some landscaping. Mr. Themig noted this cost savings would be about $310,500.
Other items talked about for costs savings reductions were: amount of parking (eliminate one
parking lot), reduction ofthe scope of the performance area, discussion on the riverbank itself
(not as much riverbank stabilization). Mr. Themig noted he had also been directed to look at
funding sources. Mr. Themig stated there were essentially three funding sources. These are: 1)
use the general fund fund balance, 2) an interfund loan with the Council committing to a five-
year payback plan from the general levy or Park Reserve and 3) other funding sources are being
explored i.e. grants, federal and state dollars.
Cncl. Helkamp stated he liked the revised phasing program presented tonight, he agreed with all
the cost reductions proposed tonight that would not affect the overall function of Huber Park and
he agreed the Park Reserve Fund should only be paying for 1310 feet of the riverbank
stabilization and some other funding sources should still be looked for. He stated he did have a
concern about the proposed cable and pole riverbank stabilization method. He did not want this
type of riverbank stabilization to be seen from the park.
Cncl. Lehman stated he would like to see the total project cost for the park fit the budget. He felt
the park should be built first and then the riverbank stabilization. He stated that he thought that
there might be a good possibility to get some dollars from the State or Federal government. He
was not sure how much. We are going to meet February 11,2005 with Mr. Kline our senator and
our representative. This is one of the issues we are going to discuss. He felt there was some
opportunities here and he would hate to fund the project in totality when it might not be
necessary. He was opposed to spending park dollars on riverbank stabilization; he did not feel
the two were connected. He noted he would phase the lookouts in with the riverbank
stabilization and he would pursue other funding sources for the riverbank stabilization. He did
not know what the hurry was for the riverbank stabilization.
Mayor Schmitt wanted to know exactly what made up phase one and what made up phase two.
Mr. Themig noted phase one provided enough infrastructure to start building the community
playground in the fall of2005, if this is what the Council wanted to do. The riverbank
stabilization for phase one in the revised plan was $972,315 for all 2091 feet [Cncl. Helkamp
noted this figure would be reduced $360,000 with these funds coming from another source]. If
the overlooks (all three) were constructed the cost would be $121,000 [if two were taken out
there would be a reduction in this cost]. The roadway coming into the property and the one
parking lot would be $250,000. Mr. Themig, Mr. Loney; Mr. Krahn and Cnc1. Lehman noted
some possible funding sources and the probability of getting some of these funds.
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -13-
0
Mayor Schmitt noted he would like to see at least two members from the Council present at the
meeting when representatives from Washington come to talk about funding for the riverbank
stabilization. Mayor Schmitt was concerned that the state legislature had not been approached at
this point in time. He noted a local state legislature has offered to work with the DNR to get
some funds incorporated in the DNR funds outside the grant program. Something needed to get
going before February 8, 2005. Mayor Schmitt stated congressman Beard was waiting for the
City to do something. There was discussion as to what the City should do to get the ball rolling.
Helkamp/Lehman moved to direct staff to prepare a formal written letter to Mr. Beard to work
with the DNR to get funds included in their package funding (state dollars to protect the State
trail in Shakopee). Motion carried 5-0.
Cncl. Menden noted he would be available to go to the meeting if Mayor Schmitt could not be at
the meeting with Cncl. Lehman and the representatives from Washington.
Helkamp/Lehman moved to have Mayor Schmitt attend the meeting with Cncl. Lehman and the
representatives from Washington. Motion carried 5-0.
Cncl. Helkamp suggested covering the Park 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Program and the
deductions for Huber Park together. Mr. Themig noted he was agreeable to that. The two issues
were intertwined. Mr. Themig focused on the adopted Park Reserve Fund. He noted some
activity in this fund. He noted there was a fund balance now in 2005 but a deficit was shown at
the end of the year if all the planned projects were done. The revised Park Reserve Fund as of
Januaryl, 2005 showed a balance of$3.114 million with the projects that carried over from
2004. Mr. Themignoted some projects were shifted in the revised CIP but the bottom line still
showed a significant deficit. Cncl. Lehman suggested a possible fix for some of the Huber Park
funding.
Cncl. Helkamp noted perhaps the City should be looking at funding the Shutrop property from
another source. He noted this one piece would gobble up the whole Park Reserve budget.
Mayor Schmitt was unsure if any of the Park Reserve Fund items could be approved until all the
items that were to come from the Park Reserve Fund were laid out on the table at the same time.
There was discussion on the overlooks proposed with the riverbank stabilization and the DNR
trail in Huber Park. Cncl. Helkamp was concerned that if the riverbank stabilization was not
done now it would be one of those projects that would keep getting pushed out and never done.
Some of the DNR trail was washed out again but the trail was not considered to be in an
emergency situation where a grant would be given. Mayor Schmitt noted the shortfall of $2.7
million shown in the Parks CIP at the end of2005 was unacceptable. The projects needed to fit
inside of the spending level that was determined to be acceptable.
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -14-
Cncl. Menden noted he would like to see Huber Park get done but to him the bigger question was
which projects did the Council want done with a limited budget. Cncl. Lehman stated he agreed
the project scope needed to be scaled back. He did not see Huber Park being highly used in the
winter times and he felt the master plan for Huber Park was blown way out of proportion. He
was not sure the park needed to be so massive. Cncl. Joos noted Huber Park has been delayed
forever. He felt this park had higher priority than other parks and the City needed to move
forward with this park at least on a limited basis. Cncl. Helkamp stated that he too thought
Huber Park needed to remain apriority. Cncl. Helkamp stated considerable time, money and
effort had been spent on this park already. He did not feel leaving Huber Park unfinished was an
option. -
Mayor Schmitt and Gregg V oxland discussed the collection time for the park dedication fees.
Mr. Voxland stated the collection ofthe park dedication fees being collected at the time the plat
was recorded was not reflected in these budget figures. This new collection time being proposed
would mean more money for the Park Reserve Fund sooner rather than later as is the case many
times now.
Cncl. Helkamp noted he would like to see the design of Huber Park keep moving forward.
Mr. Themig noted there were two totally different design processes for Huber Park. These were:
Riverbank stabilization and Huber Park itself. Mr. Themig also stated depending on the
Shutrop's position related to the timing of the County's request for their response on the federal
funding for the right-of-way for County Road 21, there could possibly be a purchase agreement
from the Shutrop's at the February 1,2005 Council meeting. lt was noted ifthe City owned the
Shutrop property the federal funds were not eligible for that portion of property.
Helkamp/Lehman moved to table further discussion on the Parks CIP until the February 1,2005
City Council meeting because other funding options were being pursued for the Parks CIP and
this would allow staff time to work on the other funding options and the City Council would
have had their workshop on setting goals for 2005 and this would also allow time for the Shutrop
property negotiations to take place. Motion carried 5-0.
Cncl. Menden stated by tabling the Parks 2005 CIP the funding for Huber Park had not been
addressed. If the Council decided to move forward on the design for Huber Park, he would like
to see the design for the riverbank stabilization and the design for the park and park amenities
both move forward. He was of the opinion that if the design was not utilized now it could be
utilized at a later date. Mr. Themig stated that was a correct assumption.
Lehman/Joos moved to direct staff to move forward with the design for 1) the riverbank
stabilization and overlook and 2) Huber Park with the Huber Park portion not to exceed $1.4
million for City funding and Huber Park could be designed with some bid alternates in the design
portion. Motion carried 5-0.
Official Proceedings of January 18,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -15-
Mr. Themig noted there had been discussions at the PRAB of further reductions; the further
reductions would impact the scope of the park and as long as Council was okay with adjusting
the scope ofthe parkthe design could be worked so the City's $1.4 million figure was not
exceeded.
LehmanlHelkamp moved to set a joint workshop with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
and the Community Center Task Force for the Community Center Feasibility Study at 6:00 p.m.
on Monday, February 28,2005. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6163, A Resolution Amending The 2005 Budget, and
moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHe1kamp moved to authorize the appointment of probationary Police Sergeant Erron
Balfanz 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).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize the appointment of probationary Police Sergeant Jason
Arras at Step 3 of the current police sergeant's labor contract, ata monthly rate of $4,997.37.
(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize the hiring of probationary police officer John Norris at
Step 1 of the current labor contract, at a monthly rate of$3,529.21, subject to the satisfactory
completion of pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under
the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the addition of two Captain's positions for the Shakopee
Fire Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, reported on the position of the Assistant to the City
Administrator. He noted this job description had been amended from the job description
presented at an earlier meeting for this position. He suggested that 50% of the Assistant to the
City Administrator's position be for Economic Development and the balance of that full-time
position be for special projects (25%) and communications (25%). Mr. McNeill noted the
Telecommunications Advisory Commission recommended upgrading the technical position 50%.
Mr. McNeill noted the Telecommunications Advisory Commission wanted to meet with the City
Council to discuss their 2005 goals and objectives before a decision was made on the technical
position. Mr. McNeill recommended approving the job description for the Assistant to the City
Administrator as proposed and advertise for applicants. He would also like to have a workshop
date identified for a workshop between the City Council and the Telecommunications Advisory
Commission.
Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005
Shakopee City Council Page -16-
Helkamp/Menden moved to approve the amended job description for the Assistant to the City
Administrator's position and to authorize the advertisement of its availability. Motion carried 5-
O. (CC Document No. 373)
The Council decided to talk about a date for the joint meeting with the Telecommunications
Advisory Commission at the Council's January 25,2005 goal setting workshop.
Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the purchase of a Minolta DI-650 Digital Copier from
Loffler Companies, in the amount of$14,185. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the purchase of one police unmarked.car from Thane
Hawkins Polar Chevrolet in the amount of$15,591, in accordance with the State Of Minnesota
Automobile Contract #433406. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize the appointment of Mayor John Schmitt,
Council member Joe Helkamp, and City Administrator, Mark McNeill as Shakopee
representatives to SCALE; and Council member Joe Helkamp as liaison to the Scott County
Transit Review Board (TRB). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Helkamp moved to approve the applications and grant temporary on-sale liquor licenses
to the Church of St. Mark, 350 South Atwood Street, for February 5, 2005 and July 30 and 31,
2005. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanJHelkamp moved to authorize the purchase of five full size police squads from
Superior Ford in the amount of$106,558, in accordance with the State of Minnesota automobile
contract #432130. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
\
LehmanJHelkamp moved to authorize the purchase of a compact pickup from Thane Hawkins
Polar Chevrolet in the amount of$14,704.11 in accordance with the Minnesota State light truck
contract #433478. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Cncl. Joos stated Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) would like to know what the City's plans are
for the area around the intersection of Marschall Road and County Road 78. SPUC would like to
know the City supports them in making the purchase of a sewer booster station. SPUC would
like to see something in writing. Cncl. Joos noted the booster station was very expensive.
Mayor Schmitt noted the zoning needed to be addressed first and then something could be done
for SPUC.
Cncl. Lehman noted any comments regarding the 69/169 River Crossing could be sent to him or
Mayor Schmitt. He would appreciate comments.
Official Proceedings of January 19,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -17-
Helkamp/Lehman moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 5 :00 p.m. at the
Shakopee Police Station. The meeting adjourned at 12:11 a.m. Motion carried 5-0.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Carole Hedlund
Recording Secretary
.
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 1, 2005
Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:02 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; Gregg V oxland, Finance Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Mark
Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director (7:15 p.m.), Andrea Weber, Parks and
Recreation Landscape Designer and Dan Hughes, Police Chief.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
The following items were removed from the Agenda. Item No. 14.D. Skate Park Addition and
Item No. 14.G. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, MUSA Expansion and Rezoning from AUto
R2 for property located east of CSAH 83 and north of V alley View Road extended (RADS). The
applicant requested that Item No.14.G. be removed from the Agenda and Mr. McNeill asked that
Item No 14.F. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, MUSA Expansion and Rezoning from AG to
R-IB for property located west of Marschall.Road and south'ofCR78 (ACC) be changed to Item
No. 15.F.5.
Menden/Joos movedto approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
LehmanlMenden moved to approve the Consent Agenda as written. 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.
LehmanlMenden moved to approve the meeting minutes for January 4, 2005. (Motion carried
under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlMenden moved to approve the bills in the amount of$524,192.64 plus 191,115.49 for
refunds, returns and pass through for a total of$715,308.13. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following
approval].
Mr. McNeill noted several weeks ago the Council asked that a local group study the concept of
historic preservation, specifically Certified Local Government (CLG).
Mr. Jay Whiting, a member of the local task force to study this concept, gave a presentation. Mr.
Whiting noted the participants looking at this issue. He stated the CLG fit the City's mission
statement and he felt it should be investigated further. Mr. Whiting noted a survey was done of
33 Cites that used the Certified Local Government (CLG) status. He stated 12 surveys were
returned. He noted the amount of staff time spent on the CLG varied by the City. He stated the
benefits also varied by City.
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -2-
Kathleen Klehr, Scott County Historical Society, explained what a CLG was. She noted this was
a partnership with the local, State and Federal government to support and guide historical
preservation for small local governments. The CLG helped small governments protect
significant things from the local governments past. The purpose of the CLG was to encourage
local participation in historical preservation in identifying, evaluating and protecting historic
resources within the community. She noted CLG's ensure local preservation issues are
integrated into the local planning and decision-making process. She noted there were some small
grant opportunities with a CLG. She stated to be eligible for CLG status there were two main
components. These are: 1) a historic preservation ordinance needed to be enacted and 2) the
local government needed to appoint a qualified historic commission.
Mr. Whiting noted how tins CLG could be a value to the City. Mr. Whiting addressed how a
property owner's rights could be affected with a CLG. Mr. Whiting noted that the Commission
would receive Council approval at every step of the process. He noted the Council made the
final decision and there would be an appeal process in place for property owners. Mr. Whiting
noted the recommendations of the task force. These were: 1) look at the State CLG status with
an advisory board appointed by the COlmcil and 2) for the City to begin advertising for citizens
to serve on the advisory board. Mr. Whiting speculated that this would be a two to three year
process with City Council involvement. He noted the advisory board would begin with
developing procedures, criteria and steps to take in begimung the survey process.
Cncl. Joos asked what area of staff would work with this group investigating a CLG. Mr.
McNeill noted this would fall to the Assistant to the City Administrator once that person got on
staff. At this point, Mr. Whiting felt there would be very little staff time involved. Mr. Whiting
saw the Commission writing their own grants even though they were volunteers.
Cncl. Lehman stated he was against a State ~r FederalCLG. He noted he was interested in a
volunteer City program where property owners could decide the uses for their own property. He
noted the State and Federal programs affected the rights of the property owner. He did not
support the property owner losing rights. However, Cncl. Lehman did see the benefit to
Shakopee to encourage a volunteer City historic preservation group.
encl. Menden questioned how powerful of a Historic Preservation Ordinance would need to be
in place to be able to apply for grants? He too was concerned about property owners losing their
rights. Mr. Whiting stated the property owner's rights had been the crux of the issue. It
depended on how the ordinance was written. He stated again there was an appeal process that
would be put in place for the property owner.
Mayor Schmitt wanted to know what the benefit was to the community? Mr. Whiting noted the
CLG would have to come up with incentives so people would want to be involved before there
was a benefit to the City.
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -3-
Cncl. Joos felt it would basically be just the aowntown area that would qualify for historic
preservation. Mr. Whiting suggested some other historic preservation possibilities the survey
may come forward with.
Don McNeil, 1101 Naumkeag, noted many businesses and older homes were fading away with
the new growth taking place in Shakopee. He wanted to educate owners on how to fix their older
homes up. He noted Shakopee has an active historical society.
Mr. Whiting asked for direction whether this issue should be further researched. Ms. Klehr noted
what the grants could be used for.
Lehman/Joos moved to direct the Task Force working on historic preservation to look at a
"VOlwlteer City ordinance addressing historic preservation (seconded for discussion purposes).
Cncl. Helkamp stated he felt the first step the City should take was to establish a Historic
Preservation Advisory Commission. Then, he felt staff should be directed to come back with the
necessary resolutions to establish the Advisory Commission.
Cncl. Menden noted he would like to know ~he pros and cons of a CLG. He also wanted to know
what funding mechanisms were available with a CLG. He asked if the vollmteer group now in
place would be willing to provide this additional information. He would like a better feel of
where this was going to go before a Historic Preservation Advisory COl111TIission was set up.
Cncl. Lehman stated because the CLG he was proposing would only be a voluntarily ordinance
there were no legal needs. The property owner would be volunteering to do this.
Cncl. J oos withdrew his second on the motion. Motion dies for lack of a second.
Helkamp/Lehman moved to direct staff to come back with appropriate resolutions to establish a
Historic Preservation Advisory Commission and to start the process of advertising and then
interviewing candidates for this commission.
Cncl. Joos stated it would be nice to have some criteria as what we want these people be able to
do.
Cncl. Menden stated he still had more questions than answers. Mayor Schmitt stated he was not
comfortable with a volunteer type ordinance for Historic Preservation. Cncl. Joos suggested
tabling this issue until the new Assistant to the City Administrator was on staff. Cncl. Lehman
did not see the City having the money to fund any type Historic Preservation Ordinance except as
a volunteer one. Cncl. Joos stated if the project had worth and value then the City needed to find
the dollars to do it.
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -4-
Motion carried 4-1 with Cnc1. Menden dissenting.
Mr. Leek noted the first Visioning Steering Committee meeting was held on January 24,2005.
He noted Ms. Can-oll reviewed the progress of the visioning process to date. He noted
stakeholder analyses were done for a number of the groups. He noted there was ongoing work
with the Committee. Mr. Leek explained what a stakeholder analyses was.
Cncl. Joos noted the first Visioning Steering Committee was very successful.
Cncl. Menden noted he attended the School District meeting where the School District stated
they were looking at meeting short-term needs as well as long term needs. He noted the School
District was possibly looking at fitting an elementary school on the south side of old the high
school in conjunction with the City's expansion to the community center.
Cncl. Lehman discussed profanity on athletic uniforms. He noted the Park and Recreation
Advisory Board looked at this issue. Cncl. Lehman stated he was not sure this was just a Park
and Recreation problem; maybe the City should look at this as a Citywide issue. He noted he
attended the Board of Appeal and Equalization class that was mandatory to be attended to be
certified.
Lehman/Helkamp moved to recess at 8:04 for the purpose of conducting the Economic
Development Authority meeting. Motion calTied 5-0.
Mayor Schmitt re-convened the City Council meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Menden/Helkamp moved to remove the Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance Regarding
Park Dedication from the table. Motion can-ied 5-0.
Mr. Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Director, reported on the proposed park dedication
text amendment. Mr. Themig noted the proposed changes affected 1) a change in the formula as
to how credits are calculated for land/cash contributions 2) clarification that the park dedication
fee is based on the average fair market value of the undeveloped land that is under the City's
adopted Comprehensive Plan that may be served by municipal sanitary sewer and water service
and 3) it was clarified that park dedication is calculated at the time of final plat approval.
Mr. Themig noted the first change based the cash contribution on the percentage of un met land
dedication. Mr. Themig gave some exal11ples of this change. He stated this was an attempt to
remove the inequity that the City has.
Mr. Themig noted most developments whether large or small were done in phases. He stated he
checked with Jim Thomson, City Attorney, and the only money due at the time of recording the
plat was the money for the lots actually platted at the time.
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -5-
Cncl. Joos addressed the time of the parkland dedication and the parks development. It was
, noted the total cash from the park dedication might not be available right away because of the
phasing process.
.
CncI. Lehman questioned the park dedication fee being based on the average fair market value of
the undeveloped land that is under the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan that may be served by
municipal sanitary sewer and water service. He asked what would happen if the land was outside
of this area. Mr. Themig answered the park dedication fee was a Citywide fee regardless of
where the property was located. CncI. Lehman noted there still was a differential between the
land served by MUSA and the land not served by MUSA. Mr. Themig agreed. Mr. Leek,
Community Development Director, noted the average fair market value cost factored in the cost
to put together a park system and the relative impact each residential unit would have on the
park. This provided a more equitable way.
MendenIHelkamp offered Ordinance No. 720, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 12, Sec. 12.34, Parks and Dedications, and moved its
adoption.
Mr. Themig noted to Cncl. Joos that the park dedication fee could be used for park development
or the purchase of parkland. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, noted the statue was amended last
year to specifically say that the park dedication fee could not be used for park operation or park
maintenance but the park development (capital improvement) or parkland acquisition was an
acceptable use. .
Cncl. Lehman addressed the PUD. Mr. Leek stated the PUD did give the Council some
opportunity to vary from the ordinance.
It was noted that if all parkland is taken then the residents ofthe qty have to come up with the
money to develop the park. The best scenario was to take only some of the land required for
park dedication and take the rest of the park dedication in cash. Mayor Schmitt noted the park
land (private) in the Dean Lake PUD. It is noted the conservation easements in the Dean Lake
PUD allowed public use. Mayor Schmitt noted the City needed to come out of development
projects with the parks done and still some cash.
Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Themigreported on the final Greenfield West park plan and playground designs. Mr.
Themig noted Andrea Weber, Parks and Recreation Landscape Designer, gave a presentation of
the first in house park design. Mr. Themig noted this park plan was a neighborhood based design
process with much input from the residents. Mr. Themig stated the overall park design with play
structures that Ms. Weber designed would be looked at tonight.
.
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -6-
Andrea Weber, Parks and Recreation Landscape Designer, explained the design process to date.
She stated they were anticipating to be finished with the bid documents by early March and
hoped for a grand opening of the park in early summer 2005.
She noted the overall park was approximately four acres. She described the site and the character
of the undeveloped parkland as it is today. She stated based on the initial priorities that were
found from the initial meeting with the residents three park design concepts were developed. She
noted the first plan had space for an informal baseball field. She noted this plan did not receive
much interest. The second plan focused on activity in the center of the site with playfields on the
outer side. The playfields would be able to fit hockey or ice-skating. She noted this second plan
featured some basketball courts. She noted what was preferred in this plan. Ms. Weber stated
the third plan featured a long walking trail with the play area nearer to a residential street. It
appeared the second plan was the most favorable.
Ms. Weber noted there was support from the-residents for irrigation and sod. She noted all the
designs provided for this type support. Ms. Weber noted the Park And Recreation Advisory
Board advised strongly that the City should not be providing sod (this was a change in policy).
Therefore, in the final design plans more amenities could be included because of the elimination
of the sod and irrigation. She noted figure skating, basketball and tennis courts were
enthusiastically supported and hockey was a 50/50 choice. Ms. Weber noted some of the
amenities that had been included in the final design after the second neighborhood meeting.
Ms. Weber showed the proposed final design. She noted it had an alternate A and an alternate B.
She noted at the third neighborhood meeting it was requested that an alternate C be developed.
Ms. Weber explained alternate C. Ms. Weber noted the Park And Recreation Advisory Board
recommended alternate C. She noted this design had no provision for hockey but it did include a
pleasure skating area on the grassy area. Ms. Weber noted there was no irrigation or sod but,
there were playgrounds, a tennis court, a basketball court and a pleasure skating area on grass to
nan1e some of the activities provided.
Ms. Weber stated six proposals were sent to vendors and six proposals were received back by the
City. She noted what the proposals included. She noted there was $345,000 for the park in the
Greenfield Addition in the CIP in 2005. She noted her goal in the construction budget was
$300,000. She wanted to stay within the budget. She noted the final budget for alternate C was
$293,260. She noted she wanted to include a shade alternate for the 2-5 year olds play structure
because she had some concerns regarding the type shade structure being proposed.
Cncl. Helkamp asked how the cash park dedication compared to the impact this development
would have on the park. Mr. Themig noted the developer was required to dedicate
approximately 12 acres of parkland and he dedicated 9 acres of land and paid the balance in cash.
The cash for park dedication amounted to approximately 190,000.
I
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -7-
The lighting to the park was discussed. It was noted there was no sport lighting. Cnc1. Joos felt
the lighting should be provided for the pleasure skating area because, at that time of the year,
there was not much light in the evening and kids were in school during the day. He felt the
skating area would not be utilized very much without the lighting. Ms. Weber noted there was
no money for the skating area in the budget. The Public Works Department was providing
ongoing maintenance and the creation of the ice skating area on the grass. Ms. Weber
commented on why the neighborhood did not want any hockey in the park.
Cnc1. Lehman noted the lighting was an issue with the neighboring residents and the noise also.
This is what they wanted. Cnc1. Lehman noted no bid alternates were being asked for. Ms.
Weber noted there was a good size contingency and she was confident that dollar figures for the
development of the park were correct. She noted several people had reviewed it.
Mayor Schmitt asked if lighting would be available so the park could be expanded some day.
Ms. Weber noted some electrical service was being brought into the park now and some more
electrical could be stubbed in if that was wanted.
Lehman/Helkamp moved to direct staff to authorize the completion of the construction
documents for the Greenfield West park design and bid the project. Motion carried 5-0.
Lehman moved to recess at 9:00 p.m.
Mayor Schmitt reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m.
Helkamp/Joos moved to remove the Text Amendment regarding mini-storage facilities in the
Highway Business (Bl) Zone (Stage Coach Storage) from the table. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, noted this was a request for a text amendment. He
noted how this request had come before the City Council. He noted staff had recommended, as
the cleanest approach, a text amendment to the B I Zone that would allow mini-storage uses to
this site but with a condition to this Text Amendment that hopefully limited mini storage use to
this site. Mr. Leek was concerned about this usage in other B 1 Zones because of their proximity
to residential homes. Mr. Leek noted the Text Amendment had been tabled because of concerns
about the use. Mr. Lef1k noted he had discussed this issue with the City Attorney and these
alternatives were proposed. These alternatives are: 1) a text amendment, 2) a rezoning to 11 and
3) a planned unit development.
Mr. Leek noted there were some potential difficulties with rezoning the area to II. These are: 1)
a Land Use map amendment would be needed, 2) size of the parcel, 3) adjacent property to the
west is zoned B 1 (this could be a spot zoning issue) and 4) the lot size requirements were not met
for II zoning district.
.
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council . Page -8-
There were problems using a PUD for this site also.
Mr. Leek stated Jim Thomson, City Attorney, noted in situations like this he (Jim Thomson) tried
to draft text amendments so the particular use in mind was restricted to the area in mind.
Mr. Leek stated the best solution in his opinion to take care ofthe problem was a text
amendment. He noted there had been some revisions to the text from the last meeting. The
revisions included: 1) not allowing any maintenance of vehicles on site except for minor
maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil, wiper replacement and battery replacement; 2) the
City Code had been referenced for screening storage; 3) the fourth condition had been amended
to include not only residentially zoned land but also "residentially used land" and 4) condition
five was amended to say the exterior storage could not exceed the building footprint of all
buildings.
Cncl. Lehman noted some of the exterior storage/display in the Bl zone had been grandfathered
in. Mr. Leek stated those uses were legal non-conforming uses.
Mr. Thomson noted the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was structured in such a way that they
had the final say on conditional use permits (CUP) lmless there was an appeal. Mr. Thomson
stated absent an appeal the CUP would not come before the Council.
Mayor Schmitt noted the Council needed to be aware of what was happening and anyone could
appeal the CUP; the CUP did not have to be appealed only by the applicant.
Lehman/Helkamp, offered Ordinance No. 724, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11.36, Subdivision 3, Conditional Uses, and moved its
adoption. Motion carried 4-1 with CncI. Joos dissenting.
Lehman/Menden offered Ordinance No. 719, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending City Code Chapter 10, Section 10.21, Dog, Cat, And Domestic
Animal Regulation And Licensing, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
Lehman/Menden moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to authorize the transportation
addendul11 to the July, 2004 detoxification contract with the Dakota County Receiving Center.
(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda)..
Lehman/Menden moved to rel110ve the updated 2005-2009 Park Capital Improvement Program
from the table. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LelunanlMenden moved to table the Updated 2005-2009 Park Capital Improvement Progranl.
(Motion carried under the Consent A~<;mda).
,
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shako pee City Council Page -9~
LehmanlMenden offered Ordinance No. 721, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Amending Fees Set
For City Licenses, Permits, Services and Document and moved its adoption. (Motion carried
under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Menden offered Resolution No. 6180, A Resolution Creating the Accessibility Task
force, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlMenden moved to authorize preparation and submittal of the proposed grant
applications as outlined in the memo from Mark Themig dated 2/1/05 for Huber Park, Quany
Reuse Project and Accessibility Awareness Training for Staff. (Motion carried under the
Consent Agenda). (CC Document No. 374.)
LehmanlMenden moved to approve the grading permits for the PLSL WD channel restoration,
from CSAH 16 to 1500 feet south, with the permit fee and security requirements waived for this
project. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlMenden moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the corrected
easements for the Prior Lake Outlet Channel Restoration. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
Lehman/Menden moved to allow the issuance of seven building permits, Lots 4-10; Block 1,
Riverside Fields 3rd Addition subject to no Certificate of Occupancy, until the rear lot line storm
sewer has been installed and accepted by the City. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Menden moved to authorize the retention of Adam Ries, Wayne Senst, Vance
Campbell, Scott Blom, Scott MacKiImon, and Jon Wamsley, as Fire Fighters for the. City of
Shakopee. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Menden offered Resolution No. 61 '73, A Resolution Al11ending 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 nominate to Boards and Commissions the following list:
.
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -10-
Board or Commission Applicant/s No. of openings.
Planning Commission/BOAA Ryan MagiJ1, *, Tom Spicer (1 sl Choice) 1
Park and Recreation Advisory Arv Somberger*, John Clay, Leanne "
.J
Board Lehn, Lenny Schmitz, Tom Spicer (3rd
choice), Sonja Bercich
Shakopee Public Utilities John Angler*, Mark Miller* 2
Commission
Police Civil Service Carol Schultz, Barb Danielson, Sharon 1
Commission Frank
Building Code BOAA & 3
Housing Advisory and Appeal
Board
Environmental Advisory 1
Committee
Telecommunications Advisory Bill Anderson* 2
Commission
Economic Development Tom Spicer (2nd Choice) 2
Advisory Committee
Board of Review Richard Marks* 1
(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
.
Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, opened up the discussion of the goal setting session for 2005.
Mr. Me Neill stated what he thought the goals were that had come from the goal~setting
workshop. These goals are: 1) limit the number of building permits to between 500 and 750
through a competitive process [look at ways to come up with a competitive process {point
system}]; 2) concentrate on certain development areas [limitation on the west end north of 69 to
be industrial and the area north of the Bluff and adjacent to 169 to be commercial with the area
around the new high school east of County Road 15 being eligible for residential and some
commercial and the fifty acres located west of Marschall Road and south of County Road 78 was
okay for residential [Mr. Leek addressed this issue]; 3) extension of sewer on County Road 83
with help from developers [Ames property] - Mr. McNeill asked for direction on this comment;
4) The area along County Road 16 and north of County Road 16 in the neighborhood of
Riverside Fields development was a priority area the Council wanted to see MUSA extended to
[if County Road 21 was resolved and SPUC had water available].
Cncl. Helkamp noted the point system was designed to increase the quality of the development
and not to control the number of building permits. Mayor Schmitt remembered the number of
750 building permits could be used for limiting building permits using the rating system to
establish priorities. Cncl. Helkamp agreed t? this statement. Cncl. Lehman stated he was
thinking of the point system not to limitthe number of building permits but to control how much
work staff had to do. Mr. McNeill stated he was hearing there would be no limit on commercial
.
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -11-
and industrial building pennits; the number of 750 building permits pertained to residential
permits only. Mr. McNeill stated he would have to come back to the Council with how the
number of building pem1its would be limited to 750.
Mr. McNeill noted there were a couple of development questions on property at the intersection
of STH 169 and Marystown Road in the bluff area that staff would like some direction on. Cncl.
Joos stated tins area on the west end of town was not even in the City. It was in Jackson
Township. He was not willing to give away any more MUSA for land that was not already in the
City. Cncl. Helkamp asked to see the MUSA map. Mr. Leek provided the map. He noted some
of the land in Jackson Township was in the Phase I area for MUSA extension. Mr. Leek noted
the developers were talking to Mr. McNeill and were looking at large areas of property around
the Larry Theis property. There was discussion on the amount of MUSA used by property that
had been recently annexed from Jackson Township. Mr. Leek stated he thought there was
consensus from the Council, at the workshop, that they were very interested in a balance between
commercial, industrial and residential land supply in the City, Some of the areas in Jackson
Township being talked about now are guided for commercial and industrial. Mr. Leek asked if
the Council was interested in gettingto the commercial and industrial area in Jackson Township
and forget about residential development in the Jackson Township area for a while.
Cncl. Menden stated he would prefer lil11iting residential development to the south in Jackson
Township but he had an interest and saw a need to establish the commercial and industrial area
by the Larry Theis property. Cncl. Menden noted he was strongly in favor of the commercial
and industrial [the sooner the better] and he would like to keep the option open regarding
annexation. Cncl. Lehman noted the affect Senator Pogemiller's bill would have on the finances
of the City if it passed.
Cncl. Helkamp noted what the Council wanted to do regarding the sewer extension down County
Road 83. Cncl Helkamp stated the Council wanted to utilize the sewer pipes that were already in
the ground. Cncl. Joos noted the City was very vulnerable in this area without the sewer pipe.
Mayor Schmitt also addressed this comment. Mayor Schmitt noted the developers were looking
at paying additional costs to help the City get the sewer extended down County Road .83. Mr.
Loney noted there were some risks to the Cify extending that trunk sewer line at this time. Cncl.
Menden noted he would be willing to consider the sewer main coming forward especially if the
developers were willing to pay for it. Cncl. Lehman noted he was okay with extending the sewer
as long as the sewer could be extended down County Road 83 to County Road 42. However, he
thought the development in this area should be a third phase of MUSA. Cncl. Joos stated he
thought the Council needed to keep an open mind regarding development in the City.
Cncl. Helkamp noted the extension of sewer to serve the area along County Road 16 and north of
County Road 16 between the Riverside Fields development could be a 2006 or 2007 project.
Cncl. Lehman noted if a couple of developers wanted to pay for the sewer extension that fell
within the City's po 2 goal of financiCiI stability and he was all for it.
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -12-
Mr. McNeill noted each Council member came up with three top priorities they wanted to see in
2005 addressed. Mr. McNeill stated the proposed goals from the workshop were: 1) 4 out 5
councilors spoke of growth limitations, 2) a process to control growth was cited by three, 3} a
comprehensive plan amendment, 4) spending controls was listed by three, 5) maintain 2005
budgeted levels, 6) under spend the budget we have now, 7) complete the visioning process in18
months from when it began, 8) 2 members wanted to complete the Public Works structure, 9) fill
the vacant staff positions by July 1,2005, 10) complete the website, 11) establish an Economic
Development Program by September 1, 2005 and 12) Park property acquisition- Quarry Lal<e
purchase.
Mr. McNeill noted procedural items for City Council items were also discussed at the goals
workshop. Mr. McNeill noted what these procedural items were. Cncl. Lehman noted there was
to be no new discussion after 11 :00 p.m. at City Council meetings unless the majority of the
COlIDCil agreed to have the discussion.
Mr. Leek reported on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, MUSA extension and rezoning from
AG to R-IB for property located west of Marschall Road and south of County Road 78 (ACC).
Mr. Leek oriented the site. He noted the area that currently has MUSA. Mr. Leek stated this
MUSA was granted by the Council at the time it adopted the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Bert Noterman owned some of the property in the subject area (not an area in MUSA). Mr.
Noterman's property abutted Stonebrooke. Mr. Leek stated there was some question regarding
the booster station for this subject site. Mr. Leek noted the cost for the booster station including
the installation was $789,000 and the maintenance for the booster station was $17,000 annually.
Mr. Leek noted the construction ofthis booster station had not been approved, and when it was
approved, it would take about a year to construct that booster station. Mr. Leek stated the lots in .
Valley Creek Crossing could not be developed until the booster station was in place. Mr. Leek
noted he thought it was because of the tremendous cost of the booster station that Shakopee
Public Utilities (SPUC) was interested in having this booster station serve mote lots that just the
lots in the Valley Creek Crossing Addition. Mr. Leek did not think SPUC would spend
$800,000 on a temporary lift station.
Mr. Leek noted based on the requested zoning for the area the City was maybe looking at an
additional 80 to 100 lots, if this area was granted the rezoning request on the acreage located
west of Marshall Road and south ofCR 78. Cncl. Menden stated he would like to know how
many lots this booster station was designed to serve. Mr. Leek noted he would follow-up on
Cncl. Menden's question with SPUC. Cncl. Menden wondered if these additional lots would be
enough to offset the cost of the booster station.
Mr. Leek noted he had seen a concept of the development that Mr. Adams referenced in this
letter but the plan had not been looked at with any great detail at this point. The City did not
have a handle on the costs associated with that project.
.
.
Official Proceedings of February 1, 2005
Shakopee City Council Page -13-
Cncl. Lehman stated he thought this booster station was one of the special circumstances that the
Council found themselves making decisions on from time to time. Cncl. Lehman stated he could
find a reason for tlus booster station. CncI. Menden stated because this subject site was outside
of MUSA he did think it should be approved; at least the additional acreage. CncI. Helkamp
stated he thought this area was in phase two for MUSA and it should stay in phase two. He
would also like an answer from SPUC if the additional homes talked about were enough to
defray the cost of the booster station. He felt it was unacceptable for the rate payers in Shakopee
to pick up the bill for this booster station. Cncl. HelkaJ.np stated maybe the Council made a poor
decision regarding the Valley Creek Development but at that time the Council did have .the
numbers on the cost of the booster station. Mayor Schmitt stated the Council had never been
advised that the booster station would not be built. There was much discussion on the booster
station and development for the area that the booster station would serve.
Jim Thomson, City Attorney, stated this Comprehensive Plan Amendment needed four
affirmative votes. Mr. Thomson stated he recommended that the ordinance and the resolution be
acted on separately. Mr. Thomson recommended the rezoning to be addressed after the re-
guiding. Mr. Leek noted some ofthe subject site was already guided for single-family use in the
current Comprehensive Plan.
Joos/Lelunan offered Resolution No. 6176, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Approving A
Request To Amend The Comprehensive Plan To Re-guide Certain Property For Single Family
Residential Development From Rural Residential Development, aJ.ld To Extend MUSA To The
Balance Of Property, aJ.ld moved its adoption.
Joos/Menden move.d to remove the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, MUSA Expansion and
Rezoning from AG to R-IB for property located west of Marshal Road and south ofCR 78
(ACC) from the table. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion failed 3-2 with CncI. Helkamp and CncL Menden dissenting on Resolution No. 6176.
Cncl. Menden stated right now not all of the subject site was within MUSA and he did not see
the sense to rezoning it because he had no intention of extending MUSA to this property because
it was in the City's phase 2 area for MUSA.
CncI. Helkamp noted his intention was not to rezone a portion of the subject site because he too
did not plan on extending MUSA to it. When MUSA was extended to all of the first phase area
then MUSA can start to be extended to the phase 2 area.
Mr. Thomson noted state law required that the zoning Ordinance be consistent to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. As action stood right now Ordinance No. 723 would not be consistent to
the Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney recommended that the Ordinance be denied because
if passed it would not be consistent with the guiding. Mr. Leek spoke to this issue. Mr.
.',.,
.
Official Proceedings of February 1, 2005
Shalcopee City Council Page -14-
Thomson noted the review period was such that this action could be tabled and a new ordinance
be brought back at the February 15,2005 meeting.
LehmanlHelkamp moved to table the Ordinance No. 723 to the February 15, 2005 meeting, An
Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City
Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally Located South Of County Road 78 And West Of
County Road 17 From Rural Residential (RR) To Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone. Motion
carried 5-0.
LehmanlMenden moved to authorize the purchase of a compact pickup from Rochester Ford in
the amount of$24,871.65 in accordanc~ with the Minnesota State light truck contract #433477
(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Menden moved to amend the 2005 City Council Operating Policies and Procedures by
adopting the language prohibiting starts aftet 11 :00 p.m. on City Council meeting nights.
(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Cncl. Lehman asked about the League of Minnesota Cities taking a position for the Cities it
represented. He wanted to know how the City knew ifthe League's position was the same as the
City's position. His issue was the avenue that the City could take if there was a difference of
opinion. Mr. McNeill addressed this question. Mr. McNeill noted the overall good of all
communities needed to be looked at and then the vote needed to be based on that.
Mayor Schmitt discussed the directional signage for the Ziegler properties and the action staff
and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BOAA) took on it. He was concerned about the
deviation and he was concerned about allthe variance criteria being met. Cncl. Joos stated the
Ordinance should be the guide. The criteria should not be changed. Cncl. Lehman did not want
to change the criteria either. Cncl. Lehman noted there was an appeal process in place and the
City Council could overturn the BOAA decision at that time. Mayor Schmitt asked if the pty
Council should appeal the BOAA decision on the directional signage requested by Ziegler. Mr.
Leek noted this was a very unique circumstance. The BOAA normally did not go against staffs
recommendation concerning a variance. Cncl. Menden noted he supported the decision of the
BOAA. He was concerned about taking away authority from the BOAA and weakening that
body. Cncl. Lehman tried to understand the process and noted the process was just not there.
Cncl. J008 noted this was a 4-3 vote from the BOAA. He noted this was not an overwhelming
vote.
Mayor Schmitt wanted staff s findings left alone. The City Attorney noted different people
might interpret things differently. Mr. Leek explained the Board's thoughts on the findings.
Mayor Schmitt noted his problem with the situation was that the findings were changed and the
discussion was not documented that noted why the change was made. Cncl. Lehman noted the
problem he had with this was the wrath would be taken out on the elected body and not the
Official Proceedings of February 1,2005
Shakopee City Council Page -15-
appointed body that made the decision. He stated he felt the BOAA was a pretty good set of
people. Mr. Leek noted he would go back to the draft resolution and check to see if the findings
embodied what was in the record and on the tape as to what the discussion was. He thought they
were. He stated he would make sure it was embodied in the resolution before the BOAA took
final action.
Menden/ Helkamp moved to adjourn to February 8, 2005 at 7:00. This was a work session with
the Telecommunications Commission and the City Council. The meeting adjourned at 10:52
p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
:Ul~. or-
With S. Cox
City Clerk
Carole Hedlund
Recording Secretary
.
.
.