Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: January 18, 2005 (Adj. Reg.), January 18, 2005 (Special) and January 25, 2005 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,NnNNESOTA JANUARY 18, 2005 Mayor Sc1unitt 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. MichaelLeek, 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 handto 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-IB for property recently annexed and located south of Highway 169, east of Koeper Avenue and west ofCSAH 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. Lehman/Helkamp 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/Helkamp moved to approve the meeting minutes for December 21,2004. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lelunan/Helkamp 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 Shakopee 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. Lehman/Joos offered Resolution No. 6171, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Milmesota, 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. AIll1 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; tins 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 initia1list 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 iftIley 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 independent 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 infOlmation 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 plamling 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 tlns process open and accountable. She noted hard copies of updates would be available at City Hall and at theLibrary. Cncl. Helkamp addressed some Chamber of Commerce issues. He noted the Chamber had put together their business plan for 2005. Cncl. Lehmal1notedhe 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. Cncl. 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 tins project. Mr. McNeill noted information was in SPUC's attorney's office. Cncl. Joos would like to see the purchase of the land for the new Public Works building finalized before the project 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. Lelmlan/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 IS, 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. Cnc1. Helkamp asked if there 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. Cnc1. 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 Cnc1. 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. Cnc1. Helkamp stated he was comfortable with the text anlendment 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, MiImesota, Establishing A Policy For The Naming Of Parks, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried tmder 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 conmlercial or residential development. He noted staff reviewed tins text anlendment 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 PI aIming Commission held tins public hearing and recommended the approval of this text amendment on a unanimous vote. of 7-0. Official Proceedings of January 18,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Cnc1. 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 comf0l1able 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 of the 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. Cnc1. 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. Helkanlp/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. Lelmlan/Lelunan 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 011 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 OfTownline 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 of the property located at the intersection of Marschall Ro~d 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-IB. He stated why the applicant is requesting R-IB zoning rather than R-IA zoning. Cnc1. Lehman noted the rezoning to R-IB 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. Cnc1. 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 staff had 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. Cnc1. Joos wanted to see the flexibility so the SPUC booster station could benefit from the extra users. Cncl. Helkamp thought tIns 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 ofCR 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 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 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 A venue. (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. 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 of the exceptions in the other bid were unacceptable to the fire depm1ment. Chief Schwaesdall noted the bid from North Central Ambulance/Crimson Fire had put in many exceptions to the bid and the design specifications were not met because of the exceptions proposed. It was noted how the specifications were determined by the Fire Department. Cncl. Joos was frustrated that really only one good bid was received back. Cncl. Menden suggested that these three trucks be sent out for separate bid. . Chief Schwaesdall noted when a package bid was done the bid normally came in much cheaper than separate bids. Cncl. Helkamp asked if the City had the option to sell the other fire trucks outright. Chief Schwaesdall stated yes the City did have that option. Bob Voss, Acting City Attorney, stated the Fire Chiefwas 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 Tlu'ee Fire Trucks To General Safety Equipment, LLC of Wyoming, Minnesota, and moved its adoption mId encouraged the City to sell the fire trucks on their own. Motion carried 5-0. LehmmllHelkamp 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). Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6172, A Resolution Of the City Of Shakopee, Mhmesota, 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). Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005 Shako pee City Council Page -8- 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 Vemli1lion, 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 altemative 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 progranls 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 A venue. The completion of 17th A venue 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 would be the County Road 17 improvements from St. Francis Avenue to COlmty 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 Tnmk turnbackfunds for County Road 101 and County Road 69. He noted the City had COl1cems 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 comnlents had been made on the County's Stormwater Management Plan. He noted the County's highway funding was being impacted with some of the 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. Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Cnc1. Joos 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 of CSAH 21 and County Road 18 was probably the area where a maj or transit station would be constructed for Scott County. She noted the goal was to get the EIS done for CSAH 21 by the end of 2005. 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 ofCncl. Lehman's comments. He, too, was concerned about the City of Shalmpee 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 Shako pee'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 Shako pee; he shared this opinion with Ms. Vermillion. 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. Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -10- 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. Menden/Lehman moved to submit the recommendations provided by staff tonight to Scott County in regards to the 2005 to 2012 Highway Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Cnc1. 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 County Road 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 I 7th 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. Cnc1. loos 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. Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6177, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report For Improvements To Quincy Street, Jefferson Street, Madison Street and Monroe Street Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -11- between 11 th A venue to 12th A venue, and moved its adoption. (Motion calTied 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 calTied 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 plml. Mr. Themig noted he had been directed to bring this back at the last meeting but that time line just could not be met. He noted Stumi Kralm, 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. Kralm 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 ofthis park mld there had been a cOlmnittee meeting to discuss project reductions. There needed to be direction tonight. He noted 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: amOlmt of parking (eliminate one parking lot), reduction of the 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) Official Proceedings of January 18,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -12- 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 was opposed to spending park dollars on riverbank stabilization; he did not feel the two were cOlmected. 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 Cncl. Lehman noted some possible funding sources and the probability of getting some of these funds. 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 Febmary 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 aformal 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. Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -13- Helkamp/Lehman moved to have Mayor Schmitt attend the meeting with Cncl. Lehman and the representatives from Washington. Motion carried 5-0. encl. 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 plillU1ed projects were done. The revised Park Reserve Fund as of January 1,2005 showed a balance of$3.114 million with the projects that canied over from 2004. Mr. Themig noted some projects were shifted in the revised CIP but the bottom line still showed a significant deficit. Cnc1. Lehman suggested a possible fix for some of the Huber Park funding. Cnc1. Helkamp noted perhaps the City should be looking at funding the Shutrop propeliy 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 Flmd 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 illld the DNR trail in Huber Parle. Cnc1. 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 illld never done. Some ofthe 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. Cnc1. 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. Cnc1. 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 a priority. 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 illld Gregg V oxland discussed the collection time for the park dedication fees. Mr. Vmdand stated the collection of the 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 thillllater as is the case many times now. Official Proceedings of January 18, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -14- 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. It was noted if the 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 stafftime 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 carried5-0. 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 pOliion 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. 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 of the park the design could be worked so the City's $1.4 million figure was not exceeded. Lehman!Helkamp 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). Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6163, A Resolution Amending The 2005 Budget, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp 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 $4,997.3 7. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). - Official Proceedings of January 18,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -15- Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the appointment of probationary Police Sergeant Jason Arras 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/Helkamp 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). Lehman/Helkamp moved to approve the addition of two Captain's positions forthe 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 Assistantto 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. 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). LeInnanlHelkamp moved to authorize the appointment of Mayor JOInl ScInnitt, Official Proceedings of January 18,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -16- Council member Joe Helkamp, and City Administrator, Mark McNeill as Shakopee representatives to SCALE; and Council member Joe Helkan1p as liaisonto the Scott County Transit Review Board (TRB). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp 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). Lehn1an/Helkamp moved to authorize the purchase of five full size police squads from Superior Ford in the amount of $1 06,558, in accordance with the State of Minnesota automobile contract #432130. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/HelkaII).p 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 calTied 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. Cuc1. 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. Cnd. Lehman noted any comments regarding the 69/169 River Crossing could be sent to him or Mayor Schmitt. He would appreciate comments. Helkamp/Lehman moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. at the Shakopee Police Station. 111e meeting adjourned at 12: 11 a.m. Motion carried 5-0. l1~o:- ~ \ City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA JANUARY 18,2005 Mayor John J. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 6: 17 p.m. with Council members Matt Lehman, Terry Joos, Joe Helkamp and Steve Menden present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; and Gregg V meland, Finance Director. Lehman/Joos moved to recess for an executive session to discuss labor negotiations and pending litigation. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 7:20 p.m. No action was taken during the executive session. Joos/Lehman moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. /..MkJ. 0/ ~th S. Cox Ity Clerk Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA JANUARY 25,2005 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. in the training room of the police station with Council members Helkamp, Joos, Lehman, and Menden 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 Voxland, Finance Officer; Dan Hughes, Police Chief; and Mark Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Director. This was a workshop to discuss how to manage the City's growth and establishing goals and objectives for 2005. Mr. Leek identified the various mechanisms in place governing development: comprehensive plan, subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance and a capital improvement plan. Mr. Leek identified potential issues involving development in the eastern part of the city, southern part of the city and the west end of the city such as sewer and water challenges, the need for county road extensions, bluff, woodland and wetland areas, SMSC land, and existing rural subdivisions. Mr. Leek noted that defining growth management could mean a number of things: limiting growth, modify the processes in place governing development and changing the type or mix of types of development that occurs in the City. Mr. Leek stated that staff would like direction from Council so that they can bring to Council modified mechanisms to manage growth. What definition does the Council have in mind for "managing growth"? Which geographic areas of the community does Council want to focus investments in infrastructure in order to facilitate development? What mechanisms does Council want to have staff develop further and put into place for growth management? Discussion followed. Mr. Leek summarized the discussion of Council. He stated that there appears to be a consensus in a process of looking at the design of a proposed development before it is reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, much like Maple Grove. Areas desirable for development include areas with access to the Chaska Interceptor around Marschall Road and it is unclear regarding the east end of Shako pee involving the Shutrop property. Mayor Schmitt sta,ted that there needs to be a policy out of the Metropolitan Council that addresses MUSA (Metropolitan urban service area) with the reuse of property. Councilor Lehman stated that there are transportation issues that need to be addressed if there is going to be development to the east, i.e.: CR 18, HWY 169 and CR 16. Official Proceedings of the January 25, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. Leek stated that he was hearing that there are unresolved issues at the east end that need to be resolved before to much development occurs; that it is critical that the corridor for CR 21 be identified so development can be planned for; that there is an interest in developing around Marschall Road where there is access to the interceptor and to the east bringing sewer down CR 83. He stated that discussion is pointing to a process that would take the design of plats out of the formal process; develop in areas where there is infrastructure around Marschall Road, the Prior Lake interceptor and the east end first; that there needs to be a balance between residential, commercial and industrial uses; and that 500 -750 building permits per year seems to be a reasonable number for current staffing. Mr. McNeill reviewed the 2004-2005 goals and objectives from the April 4, 2004 session and retreat with Don Salverda, as well as the current status of each. Mr. Leek updated the Council on the Strategic Visioning Steering Committee meeting that took place the night before. Council members established goals and objectives for 2005. Each Council member listed ten items that they would like to see accomplished by the end of 2005 and then were asked to identify their top three priorities. Results of the tabulation ofthese goals will be presented to the Council at a later meeting for approval and adoption. Going around the room, department heads were asked to identify three tasks that they would like to see accomplished in 2005. These too will be reduced to writing and presented to the Council at a later meeting. Discussion ensued on meeting times and the need for extra meetings. Council talked about starting 7:00 p.m. meetings earlier for long presentations or having separate meetings and not starting discussion on a new item after 11 :00 p.m. There was a consensus to try both starting the meetings earlier and having separate meetings depending on how big an issue is. Councilor Menden excused himself from the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Council set a meeting date of Tuesday, February 8,2005, at 7:00 p.m. to meet jointly with the Telecommunications Committee to discuss the Telecommunications Committee's goals for 2005. Helkamp/Lehman moved to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. o( uJt J 0/ J iA.CY t{/. " ~ith S. Cox City Clerk Recording Secretary