Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: July 20, 2004 and July 22, 2004 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA JULY 20, 2004 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Menden, Joos and Helkamp present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg Voxland, FinanceDirector; Jim Thomson, City Attomey; Mark Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Director and Tracy Schaefer, Assistant to the City Manager. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, stated that item No. 15.A.4. Suspension of Noise Regulations for Test Pump for SPUC Well No. 15 could be deleted from the Agenda. Mr. McNeill also clarified that 15.F. 8. Property Liability Insurance Renewals was a Consent Agenda item. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Schmitt noted that he attended the ITT open house held in the Industrial Park with Cnc1. Lehman and Cnc1. Helkamp. He noted this business was a very good addition to the community and the City's industrial tax base. He noted he attended the Scott County Alliance.For Leadership And Efficiency (SCALE) meeting over in Prior Lake. He noted he attended the presentation held by the School District. He stated he meet with people from the YMCA that were looking at partnering with the City regarding recreational. facilities. He stated he also attended the park presentation held in the police building. Mr. McNeill, noted Resolution No. 6084, A Resolution of appreciation to Larry Meilleur, member of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the Planning Commission, for a long time, would be mailed to him. Joos/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6084, A Resolution Of Appreciation To Larry Meilleur, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda. Item no. 7 Approval of Minutes for the June 1,2004 meeting and 15.D.l. Final Plat for Valley Creek Crossing located north of County Road 78 and west of Marschall Road. Lehman/Helkamp moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. 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. Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the meeting minutes for June 1,2004. Motion carried 4-0 with Cnc1. Lehman abstaining because he was not in attendance at the June 1, 2004 meeting. Lehman/Helkamp moved to pay the Bills in the Amount of$I,673,525.13 plus $181,609.78 for refunds, returns and pass through fora total of$1,855,134.91. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted onthe bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Mr. Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Director, reported on the accessibility study and transition plan. It was noted this was a public meeting not a public hearing. He noted that Julee Quarve Peterson would be providing an overview of the accessibility study and transition plat1 that she developed for the City so the City could come into compliance with accessibility regulations. Mr. Themig gave a short background leading up to Council authorizing a study for accessibility. He noted that authorization for this study was given by the City CounciUn December 2003. He noted this study was initiated because of a response from a parent regarding accessibility to the future City Soccer Complex and for parents of sports participants getting access to other City sites. Mr. Themignoted there had been discussions with the League of Minnesota Cities . regarding what was required and they directed the City in a round about way to contact JQP, Inc., a firm, who did accessibility studies and transition planning. Mr. Themig noted that the City did not have a study and transition plan for accessibility in place at the time JQP, Inc. was hired by the City. Mr. Themig noted there were two sections to the study. These two sections were: 1) parks, trails and open spaces and 2) City buildings. Julee Quarve Peterson, JQP, Inc., approached the podium to share her findings ofthe study. She stated a copy of the findings should go to each department head regarding their department (the separate departments had specific issues that they could take action on). Ms. Peterson noted there are Federal laws and State laws that address accessibility issues and the City needed to be in compliance with the laws and could not discriminate in offering programs and services. Ms. Peterson noted there are four primary codes and laws that are in place. The ADA was just one of several components of the laws that were reviewed and incorporated into the Study that the City now had in hand. Ms. Peterson noted that Federal laws have applied to the City of Shako pee since 1973. Ms. Peterson not~d because of the building codes in place many newer buildings did have many design features that did comply with the federal and state laws. However, there had been updates to the compliance requirements. Ms, Peterson noted the State of Minnesota had a very aggressive disabilities community and there was a significant amount of case law in the area of the Minnesota Human Rights . Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Amendment. Ms. Peterson stated the Minnesota Human Rights Amendment had the most teeth as far as disibility compensation but there were other sets of laws that applied and had to be followed also. It was noted the "programs" talked about in the different laws covered awide range. These programs could be voting (does not have to be a City owned building), use of library services, City meeting participation, park and recreation programs, law enforcement and prisons just to name a few type programs. There were a group of individuals with a variety of mobility impairments from wheelchairs, scooters, canes, crutches, etc. She noted people with visual, hearing, cognitive disabilities and many more needed to be accommodated also. She stated all these individuals are legally covered under the law. According to the findings from Ms. Peterson some ramps may need to be modified, doors widened, signage located in a different spot, special needs or accommodations needed to be asked on the registration forms for various activities (bus lift, large print or sign language interpreter, braille material to name a few). She noted some policies, forms, procedures may need to be modified or some equipment may need to be purchased. A plan of action needed to be created (what was the City going to do, when was the City going to do it, who was responsible for doing it). She stated her report gave some guidance as to how this could be done. It was also pointed out by Ms. Peterson that the City was at a great risk of someone becoming injured if the right surface material was not used on playgrounds for safety and accessibility (there were several things that needed to be done here). Ms. Peterson noted her suggestion was many of the items only needed to be available upon request. She was suggesting that special needs people call 48 hours in advance to let the. City know what accommodations they needed so the City could make the accommodations available. She noted the City of Shakopee was at risk of noncompliance today and they had been for a number of years, She stated to have a plan hi place and to take action on the plan was highly suggested. Ms. Peterson included in her report how some of the items to bring the City into compliance could be done along with prioritizing what needed to be done. She stated many of the items could be done as maintenance items. She noted the City had the potential for an individual to file a complaint. She noted occasionally monitoring did occur by State or Federal agencies and also Federal Funding sources could be impacted ifthe City did not take action on the non-compliance issues. Ms. Peterson noted the City needed to figure out what programs they offered, what facilities and sites the City had to offer these programs at, some paperwork needed to be done (grievances procedures and notice requirement documents needed to be done [Ms. Peterson provided these forms]), public participation was required to establish the plan to fix the accessibility issues; windows of opportunity to fix the problem needed to be acted on (like maintenance time). Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page --4- She noted a meeting had been held with the various department heads and her preliminary findings had been distributed at that time. She stated she pointed out what she thought, as a consultant, the City should do first. She noted the transition plan the City worked. out needed to be on file. . The responsibilities of who did what needed to be spelled out and there needed to be a budget to make the changes possible. She suggested a committee be formed to help the ADA coordinator, Mr. llhernig. Cncl. Lehman asked Ms. Peterson some questions. She noted there was no grandfathering of accessibility laws. She noted every five years the requirements for accessibility need to be reviewed; the requirements changed quite frequently. Cncl. Joos asked staff for a list of the priority items that Ms. Peterson suggested be done now. Mr. llhemig responded to this request from Cncl. Joos. He noted the draft document included about $18,000 for priority one fixes. The funding source forthe $18,000 had not been identified yet. He noted there was work that needed to done with the parks. llhe parks plan did not fall under the 1341 that ADA requirements for construction of buildings fell under. Mr. llhernig noted for the next step he. envisioned a cross section of the employees and some people from the community to come together to review what was in the report from Ms. Peterson and to put a plan together to address the specific accessibility issues. These accessibility issues regarded the soccer complex, tennis court and the elevator at the junior high for swimming lessons. Ms. Peterson noted the School District had a report acknowledging accessibility issues for them, Mayor Schmitt asked for public comment. Pat Tietz, 916 Apgar Street, approached the podium to speak because she had a son with disabilities and was an advocate for the impaired. She noted she was very concerned about the accessibility improvements that needed to be done with new buildings. She could not understand how these things could have been missed in the construction process with all the professionals involved and now the City had to pay forfixes. Why did this happen? She also volunteered to help with an accessibility committee for changes for the impaired, especially for children. She stated that she thought it was the responsibility of the community as a whole to raise the awareness of accessibility. She noted she was very happy to hear about the accessibility study that the City had done. Mayor Schmitt noted the City had not finished acceptance of either of the City's new buildings and the City's new buildings would not be accepted until the buildings were brought entirely into compliance as of now, Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -S- encl. Lehman stated he was trying to understand why some things would be exempted and why some things would not be exempted for compliance. Arvid Somberger, 1960 13th Avenue West, approached the podium and commended the Council for doing a fine job regarding accessibility for residents of the community. Ms.Peterson explained to Mr. Sornbergerwhen and how federal dollars could be held up from the City regarding accessibility. She noted the School District would lose more money than the City. Mr. Sornberger thanked Ms. Peterson for bringing the level of awareness up for accessibility in the City of Shakopee. Mayor Schmitt asked if anyone else wished to be heard. There was no response. JooslLehman moved to accept the Accessibility Study and Transition Plan done by Ms.. Julee Quarve Peterson and to move forward with Ms. Peterson's suggestions in the priority one area by addressing those needs now and to move forward with a plan on addressing the rest of the accessibility needs and to put some money in the budget during budget planning time to address the accessibility issues. Mr, Themig noted he received a call from a resident who is a therapeutic recreation specialist and she volunteered her time to assist the City in their plan regarding accessibility. Mayor Schmitt stated he would like to see some strategies dealing with accessibility as they occur. He would like staff to know what they were going to do on an immediate basis andwhat needed to be done in the future. Mayor Schmitt noted he would like Mr. Themig's budget to include the money that would be needed to address some of the accessibility issues. Cnc1. Lehman thought the problem was bigger than just Parks and Recreation. He thought the problem was City-wide. Mayor Schmitt thought the process should be focused on the recreation programs, programs and the facilities that the City had. He thought Mr. Themig could handle this process because he was the one who handled all the City's facilities and the recreation programs. Cncl. Lehman noted that in five years the accessibility requirements may be different from today. Cncl, Joos called the question. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Themig, Facilities, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director, thanked everyone who came to speak on the accessibility issue tonight. Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Helkamp/Joos moved to open the public hearing on the application from Karen Sterling for a taxicab license. Motion carried unanimously. Judy Cox, City Clerk, reported on the application from Ms. Sterling fora taxicab license. She noted the Shakopee Police Department conducted the customary background investigations and found no reason that the license should not be granted to Ms. Sterling. Ms. Cox noted Ms. Sterling was planning on purchasing an existing business. She noted that Ms. Sterling would have the vehicle used for the business inspected and would provide evidence of insurance for the vehicle before the taxicab license would be issued. Ms. Karen Sterling noted that she thought the time to complete this transaction may need to be extended beyond the date of August 1,2004. She stated she did intend to buy the business but she was still looking for financing. Ms Cox noted if the license was approved as presented there would be no specific date on the license. Ms. Cox noted the license would be deliverable to the applicant upon surrender ofthe existing license. Helkamp/Joos moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Joos/Menden moved to approve the application and grant a taxicab license to Karen Sterling conditioned upon meeting all requirements of the City Code; and upon the surrender of the current license to Oscar Salas dba Shakopee Taxi, if Ms. Karen Sterling intended to do business under the name of Shakopee Taxi. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Lehman noted he attended the Huber Park design open house held at the Police Department meeting room. He noted he also attended the Shakopee Heritage Society Board meeting. He noted he encouraged this society to participate in the Vision!Planning study for the City of Shakopee. He noted that Anne Carroll was going to contact and meet with this group at one of their meetings. He noted he attended the Park Board Task Force and various options for a large park were looked at. He noted that public/private partnerships were discussed at this particular . meeting. He stated there was pretty good participation in this process. Cncl. Joos noted he also attended the Huber Park open house. He noted he attended the Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) meeting where they had some concerns regarding the Time Warner franchise agreement. The Time Warner concerns have now been taken care of because the Franchise Agreement between Time Warner and the City had been adopted by the City Council. Cncl. Joos noted the old SPUCbuilding had been talked about. Cnc1. Menden noted he attended the open house for the new high school and found the open house to be very informative. He noted he also attended the open house for Huber Park and noted this had been an opportunity for the community to comment on the process. He stated he Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -7- attended a Vision Shakopee meeting and at the next meeting the time of the Vision Shakopee meetings was going to be discussed as well as discussing having a yearly general meeting in the evening and having it open to the public. Cnc1. Menden noted he attended an Environmental Advisory Committee meeting and reported there was an opportunity for the City of Shakopee to use DNR Funds for the Natural Resources part of the comprehensive plan. LehmanlHelkamp offered Ordinance No. no, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee,Mimlesota, Amending Chapter 12.21 And 12.22 Submittal Requirements, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek reported on the amendment to the City Code relating to residential uses serving handicapped persons in the Highway Business (Bl) Zone. Mr. Leek noted this proposed text amendment was tabled back in June with direction to staff to take this proposed amendment back to the Planning Commission for possible reconsideration. Mr. Leek noted this amendment was discussed again by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission conCluded they were comfortable with the initial determination that they reached regarding the use the National Handicap Housing'Institute (NHHI) proposed for along Bluff Avenue. Mr. Leek pointed out the uses that the Planning Commission felt were similar to the use being proposed by the NHHI. Mr. Leek noted the Planning Commission also discussed other concems . relating to parking and density with the proposed developmentthat the NHHI was proposing. Mr. Leek noted the Planning Commission thought the conditional use permit process provided them with sufficient authority to address these concerns when the conditional use permit public hearing took place. .Mr. Leek notedthe Planning Commission did give some direction on a density standard (they proposedthe adoption on a floor area ratio opposed to a dwelling unit per acre). Mr. Leek noted back in June there was a concern regarding the cost of street improvements for Bluff Avenue and the adjacent streets that are to the east and west of the NHHI proposed development. Mr. Leek noted he and Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, meet with Mr. Bjerkeset from the NHHI to discuss these street improvement costs and the NHHI appeared comfortable with the costs for the street improvements and the City's assessment policy. Mr. Bjerkeset noted the funding for the project being proposed was HUD funding and this type funding mandated a few more conditions but the street improvement cost could be covered. It was noted by Mr. Leek, the street improvements would be assessed like any other property. Mr. Leek noted the amendment to City Code relating to residential uses serving handicapped persons in the Highway business (B 1) zone had been amended to contain the recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding the density determination. Lehman/Helkamp offered Ordinance No. 708, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11.36 Highway Business Zone (B-I), and moved its adoption. Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Mr. Leek pointed out to Cncl. Lehman that the sidewalks and trails for the NHHI were a key elementto their proposal and would be covered under the site plan approval. Mayor Schmitt asked questions of Mr. Loney regarding the street improvements. in the Bluff A venue area. Mr. Loney noted the street improvements could be discussed at the CIP meeting coming up soon. Mr. Loney agreed in a new development the street improvements were normally put in when a development was being done but this was an area of reconstruction. It was noted by Mr. Loney, the streets in the proposed project area were probably sub-standard. Mayor Schmitt felt the streets in the area needed to be improved to be fair to the residents; Mr. Leek pointed out one of the principle points of access to the proposed NHHI development was offNaumkaeg Street and that street had a paved surface. It was pointed out by Mr. Leek that if Bluff A venue were improved by the proposed development the amount of improvement would be ineffective and if Bluff Avenue were improved all along the street there would be high assessments for all current property owners. Mayor Schmitt was also concerned about leaving non-conforming uses (apartments 8-units each) in this area as non-conforming while approving Ordinance No. 708. He felt these apartments were about the same use as what the NHHI was proposing with their 23-unitbuilding. He wanted to be consistent. Cncl. Lehman noted the Comprehensive Plan Update would make many uses in the Bluff Area conforming. Cncl. Lehman noted that this project was strictly for handicapped residents and this specific use made this amendment to the City Code relating to residential uses serving handicapped persons in the Highway Business (B 1) Zone unique. " Motion carried 3-2 with Cncl. Menden and Mayor Schmitt dissenting. Lehman/Helkamp offered Ordinance No. 709, (Cable) Franchise Ordinance, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Lehman moved to recess at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Schmittre-convened the City Council meeting at 8:49 p.m. Mr. Loney reported on awarding the contract for Weinandt Acres Reconstruction Project No. 2004-1. He noted this project had been authorized by the City Council on June 15, 2004. The bids were opened on July 19, 2004 and it appeared that the apparent low bidder was Wm. Mueller & Sons with a bid of $307,927.90. Mr. Loney noted the low bid came in over the projected cost in the feasibility study by approximately 16%. Mr. Loney noted the anticipated assessment increase per lot and what the increase in the City's portion of the assessment would be. Mr. Loney noted the increase in cost could be attributed to an increase in the pavement section, additional drain tile and sand to name a few items. Mr. Loney.noted over half of the Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -9- residents had been contacted. Mr. Loney stated the residents knowing of the additional assessment cost still wanted the project to move forward; Mr. Loney noted a 5% contingency fee was added to the project in case more costs than anticipated were involved when the project started. Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6090, A Resolution Accepting Bids For Weinandt Acres 1 sl Addition Street Reconstruction, Project No. 2004-1 and moved its adoption; moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to perform consultant services on the Weinandt Acres .1 sl Addition Street Reconstruction, Project No. 2004-1; and moved to approve a 5% contingency amount on this project for use by the City Engineer in authorizing minor change orders or quantity adjustments on the Weinandt Acres 1 sl Addition Street Reconstruction, Project No. 2004-1. Mr. Loney stated that he thought the City was covered with the. items that had been included in the bid. He noted some extra materials had been included in the bid for sub grade excavation. This had been added just in case it was needed. Mr. Harry Weinandt stated he was comfortable that the residents wanted this project done even with the increase in assessments. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Loney reported on awarding the contract for the 2004 Pavement Preservation for Prairie View Additions Bituminous Overlay, Project No. 2004-2. Mr. Loney noted six bids had been received by the City on this project for bituminous overlay. He noted that the low bid was under the feasibility estimate. It appeared the low bid was from Buffalo Bituminolls, Inc. with a cost of $151,636. The approximate cost in the feasibility study was $167,000. Mr, Loney stated he was asking for a 5% contingency amount in case there needed to be.adjustments in some of the quantity amounts. Joos/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6091, A Resolution Accepting Bids For Prairie View Additions Bituminous Overlay, Project No. 2004-2, and moved its adoption; and moved to approve a 5% contingency amount on this project for.use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on this project. Motion carried unanimously. LelunanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6086, A Resolution Accepting Work On Vierling Drive, from Sage Lane to County State Aid Highway 17, Project No. 2002-5, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6085, A Resolution Accepting Work On County Road 17 and County Road 79 Pedestrian Bridges And Trail Over Trunk Highway 169 S,P. 7005-79, Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -10- S.P. 166-020-010, S.P. 166-010-007, Project No. 2002-8, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize execution of Change Order No. 10 for the Police building project, in favor of CM Construction, in the amount of $4,868. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the revised Mutual Aid Agreement for Use of Fire Personnel and Equipment, including the Mdewakanton Sioux Community. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to declare the 1992 Subaru Legacy, VIN:4S3BC6321N9615708 and the 1989 Oldsmobile Royal, VIN: 1 G3HN54COKW34 1 064 as surplus property. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to make applicationtothe U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office for a COPS Secure Our Schools grant. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the sign ordinance discussion. He noted that on June 15th staff was directed to review signs for businesses whose 3.2% malt liquor license was up for renewal to make sure the signs were in compliance with the City's sign ordinance. Mr. Leek noted planning staff reviewed 33 businesses and letters were sent to 30 of these businesses indicating to. them that they were out of compliance with the City's sign ordinance, Mr. Leek noted thatthe letter did state as directed by the Council, that these signs would need to be brought into compliance by the business o~ers within 30 days or the 3.2% malt liquor license may be reconsidered by the Council. Mr. Leek stated staffwas suggesting, because of the amount of interest generated by these letters, that 1) any .enforcement of the sign ordinance be set aside temporarily, 2) Council set a workshop date to discuss sign ordinance issues [three categories of sign issues have been raised] and 3) businesses with sign ordinance issues should put their comments in writing so the Council at their workshop could be notified on the type comments. Mr. Leek noted he had already received one letter from a business with some suggestions regarding temporary signs. encl. Helkamp stated that he thought Mr. Leek had some good suggestions. Helkamp/Joos moved to set August 10,2004 at 7:00 p.m. for a workshop to discuss possible revision to the sign provisions of the zoning code, and request that business owners submit their comments and suggestions in writing so that they could be fully considered by the Council and to hold any.enforcement on sign violations in abeyance until the Council has reached a final decision on any changes to the zoning code sign provisions. Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City.Council Page -11- Cnc1. Lehman asked if the workshop would be open to the public. Mayor Schmitt responded YES. Mr. McNeill noted that businesses that received a letter previously regarding.sign ordinance violations would be notified by letter regarding this workshop. Mayor Schmitt noted the purpose of the written comments would be to provide a working document whereby all those comments received from people could be received by the Council and would also allow staff time to research the solution for the complaint/suggestion so it would be amicable to everyone in . town. It was noted that there would be no enforcement action until Council had taken action 011 the sign ordinance most likely in the workshop on August 10, 2004. Cncl. Menden noted he would like to allow the business representatives present at this meeting time to state their comments. Charles Capesius, owner of Riverside Liquors, SOT east 15t A venue, approached the podium and stated that a few years ago he was told that his liquor license would not be renewed if he did not take care of a problem with some of his signs (Neons and extension cords). He noted two years ago the City had no problem with his neon signs; it was the extension cords that was the . problem. He did feel the sign ordinance did not have anything to do with his. liquor license. He felt the sign ordinance applied to all businesses and all businesses should receive the same penalty for violating the ordinance. He felt this was discrimination towards businesses that had liquor licenses. Mayor Schmitt asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mary Isaacson, Manager of Babe's Place, approached the podium and stated neon signs had been up around town for many years and not anywhere was it stated that neon signs could not be used. She was also concerned about the length of time a temporary banner could be displayed. She noted her neon signs advertised that her business was a liquor establishment and the signs were inside her business. She felt some ofthe sign ordinance was really far stretched. Mr. Leek addressed some of Ms. Isaacson's questions. He noted he.had conservations with his planners regarding neon sign placement. John Bernstein, owner of Valley Liquor, approached the podium and stated the thing he disliked the most was the way the City had handled the sign compliance issues. He would like to see uniformity with all business owners. He would like to know what the issue was. He wanted to know how far the City Council was going to push this sign ordinance compliance? Mayor Schmitt called for more audience comments. Joe Saba, owner of Saba's Bar and Grill, 911 east 15t Avenue Shakopee, approached the podium and noted one of his concerns was how did this all came about? How did compliance to the sign Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -12- ordinance get attached to the liquor licenses? As far as the sign banner being out of compliance at his establishment, he stated there was no explanation given by the City as to why these banners were out of compliance. He felt having the liquor license revoked was apretty stiff penalty for having a sign that was in the wrong place. Cnc1. Lehman noted the tape of the City Council meeting for June 15,2004 had the answers to the questions that Mr. Saba was looking for. This tape could be found at the ShakopeeCity Library. Motion carried 5-0. Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to proceed with an EA W for the Proposed Countryside project located south of TH 169 and west of CSAH 79. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enterinto an extension agreement with WSB Engineering, Inc. to prepare an EAW for the Countryside project south of TH 169 and west of CSAH 79. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lelunan/Helkamp moved to hire Andrea Weber as Park and Landscape Designer at Grade 7, Step D ($50,359), with aprovision to move her to the next step when she becomes registered by the State of Minnesota as a Landscape Architect. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to approve the hiring of Chad Lunder to the position of Building Inspector at StepD, Grade 7 ($50,359 annually) with a tentative start date of August 2,2004, contingent on successful completion of a pre-employment physical and background check. The position would be subject to the successful completion of a one-year probationary period. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director, reported on parkland acquisition. He noted he was not looking to acquire land tonight but to receive authorization from Council to proceed with formal discussion with the property owners and to develop some creative funding options. Mr. Themig noted the City had been looking for about 40 acres of parkland for an active park for several years. Initially the park was to be for active use but the needs of the community had now changed and the parkland was now needed for active/passive use. Initially some parkland along Q'Dowd Lake was discussed by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) but it was decided not to purchase that land. Parkland use was asked about in the Park and Recreation survey in 2003. It was found from this survey that acquisition for park and open space had a high priority with passive parkland being of importance now with the construction and maintenance coming in first for trails. Official Proceedings ofthe July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -13- Mr. Themig noted that four parcels of land had been id~ntified over the last few years as having potential willing sellers. He noted the PRAB reviewed these sites tins spring. He noted where passive/active parkland areas were reviewed. Mr. Themig explained all four sites and noted the PRAB toured the sites. The sites were located: 1) along Marystown Road, 2) along County Road 14 and County Road 79,3) along County Road 17 and County Road 42 and 4) along County Road 16. southeast of Dean Lake. The PRAB recommended that the City.proceed.with the County Road 16 southeast of Dean Lake parcel, option 4, as a priority site for acquisition. Mr. Themig noted the considerations for this site (pros and cons). The pros were: 1) being adjacent to an open space area owned by the City along Dean Lake, 2) the City has begun to acquire park land east of this area, 3) the Prior Lake Creek joins the greenway in this area that goes through this property, 4) and if development to the adjacent properties became a reality in the future more park property could possibly be acquired from the developer/s through park dedication requirements. The cons to the site located along County Road 16 southeast of Dean Lake are: 1) It was suspected that County Road 21 would intersect this parcel in some spot and impact the property, 2) possible timing issues with the property owners and 3) the concern being if there was enough room for active use, but it was a very interesting piece of property for a passive park. Some other considerations for this site are: 1) potential partnerships [School District, Prior Lake, Townships], 2) funding [there is $2 million in the CIP for 2005-2009 for parkland acquisition but this amount may need to be adjusted] 3) dollars from the County for right of way, 4) if development occurred in this area park dedication could offset some costs and 5) the impact of land acquisition on the CIP. Cnc1. Lehman noted that the pRAB was looking for the okay to spend further time studying this option and possibly using staff time to research some of the information found. Cnc1. Helkamp stated that he thought this was a great opportunity for the City. Cnc1. Menden agreed with Cnc1' Helkamp that this was a great opportunity but he was concerned about the uncertainty of County Road 21 and its impacts but he felt the amenities of the site made pursuing this property worthwhile. Cnc1. Joos stated he was in favor of moving forward on this request. He wanted to see if the County would participate (right-of-way) in some way. Mayor Schmitt noted a third fire station was being contemplated out in this vicinity. Mr. Themig explained how the discussion of the third fire station was coming along. He noted there was more work to be done before the fire station was a done deal. He noted the future fire station, as well, as what happened to Pike Lake Trail could be a player in this possible land acquisition. Mr. Themig noted after the transportation study was done he would send information to the City regarding Pike Lake Trail. Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -14- . Mr. Themig noted the property owners, the Shutrop's, of the possible parkland site were in the audience tonight. Mayor Schmitt asked the property owners if they had any comments. or questions. They had none. Joos/Lehman moved to authorize staff, the chair of the Parks and RecreationAdvisory Board, and Councilor Lehman (liaison to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board) to proceed with discussions for acquisition and development of funding options for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's priority land acquisition site, the Shutrop property. Motion carried 5-0. Cnc1. Lelunan thought before an appraisal was actually done a ballpark figure as to what the cost of the site from the Shutrop's should be known. The cost of the appraisal was thought to be approximately $3, 500 to $5,000 because of all the issues involved at this site. Cnc1. Lehman would like some information from the County regarding County Road 2 Un this vicinity. Menden/Joos moved to direct staff to proceed with an appraisal of the property using staffs discretion as to the cost of the appraisal. It was felt the cost of the site would be significant enough that an appraisal would be needed. Mr. Themig noted there was money in the Natural Resources Budget under professional services for the appraisal. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Leek reported on the request for the Final Plat approval of Valley Creek Crossing, located northofCR 78 and west of Marschall Road. Mr. Leek oriented the property. He noted the development would be a single-family development. He stated there were three exceptions ofthe east side of the property (farmstead and 2 existing homes). He noted Evergreen Lane was positioned in a way that if the farmstead or the two existing homes should develop in the future Evergreen Lane could serve those future residents. Mr. Leek noted the application for the preliminary plat was filed with the City in March and the preliminary plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and then approved by the City Council either the first part of Mayor late April. Mr. Leek noted that he did have a conversation with a property owner of the ACC 2nd addition that had some concems regarding the potential use of the park that was being proposed for park dedication. Mr. Leek addressed the recommendation on sidewalks within the plat. He noted the preliminary plat drawing when submitted showed Evergreen Lane being continued from ACC 2nd Addition to County Road 78. He showed where Evergreen Lane was now shown to terminate in the final plat of Valley Creek Crossing, He noted one of the conditions in Resolution 6087 talked about a sidewalk on Evergreen Lane. He noted that it had been the intention of the Park And Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and the Planning Commission that the sidewalk on Evergreen Lane be Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -15- continued to County Road 78. Mr. Leek stated that if the final plat for Valley Creek Crossing was adopted tonight he asked that Resolution No, 6087 be adopted with direction to amend that condition that relates to trails to address the sidewalk connection out to County Road 78 also. Mr. Leek addressed the proposed park for the Valley Creek Crossing. He noted the park dedication of this final plat would be met through a combination of cash and land dedication. He noted the land dedication was about 2.57 acres ofland; the proposed developed portion of the park would be about .86 acres. He noted there was a conservation easement in the area that was required with the previous plat of ACC 2nd addition. He noted there were no plans to locate a trail or walkway in the conservation easement but there would be pedestrian connections provided from Evergreen Lane into the park. He noted a pedestrian connection for the residents of the southern portion needed to be worked on. He noted there was no park plan for development at this point;. the applicant was required to go back to the PRAB with a park development plan so the PRAB could review the plans. Mr. Leek addressed condition no. ILE. in Resolution No. 6087 that stated "prior to issuance of building permits, the booster station required by SPUC shall be installed and operational". Mr. Leek asked to be allowed to amend that condition to reflect those lots that will be served by that booster station. The intent of condition H.E in Resolution No. 6087 was to reflect those lots served by the booster station. The building permits for the entire final plat of lots should not be held up just the lots affected by the booster station, Mr. Leek noted about 15 to 25 lots would need to be served. by the booster station. Cncl. Lehman noted the PRAB discussed the trail access to the conservation easement on the lots that backed up to Valley Creek Lane on the curvature. He noted the PRAB discussed thoroughly the elevation in the area where the trail would be. Mr. Leek noted there were substantial grades on the site and staff did not want the park dedication to accommodate the change in slope with the retaining wall. Thus, there was a condition relating to the retaining wall in Resolution No. 6287. .Dale Dahlke, developer of Valley Creek Crossing addition approached the podium and stated SPUC had an upper and lower pressure zone. Mr. Dahlke noted one of the lots (Lot 7) in the plat was going to be sold to SPUC so the 25 or 26 lots in the plat that needed to be served by the booster station were in an upper pressure zone. Mr. Dahlke asked that the final plat be approved and that building permits for the lots to be served by the booster station be given when SPUC had the water available. LehmanlJoos offered Resolution No, 6087, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Final Plat Of Valley Creek Crossing, and moved its adoption with two revisions. These revisions are I) the booster station requirement would be on lots SPUC staff required and Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page '-16- directed and 2) the trails coming down Evergreen Lane be extended down Harmony Road to Jennifer Lane to County Road 78. Cncl. Helkamp offered a friendly amendment stating the booster station required by SPUC shall be installed and operational prior to the issuance of any building permits for those lots thatSPUC determines would be served by that booster station. Cncl. Joos was okay with that friendly amendment. SPUC would identify which lots needed to be served by the booster station. Mary Hernandez, 1933 Raspberry Lane, approached the podium and requested that the final plat approval with respect to the proposed park and paths in Valley Creek Crossing be tabled until. a . meeting with the residents could be held with the developer and the builder to determine what impacts the paths and park would have on the residents in the area. She stated she was not told about this park and path when she purchased heriot in ACC 2nd Addition. She found out after closing on the property that there would be a park and a path adjacent to heriot. Mrs. Hernandez did state that her lot backed up to the conservation easement. She was not trying to delay Mr. Dahlke's development. She noted she choose this site for seclusion and privacy. Cncl. Lehman explained where the park was proposed to be located at this time. Mr. Themig noted there could be no development in a conservation easement. Mr. Themig also explained the park area to Ms.. Hernandez. She stated there was miscommunication in what people were being told also. There appeared to be much confusion by the residents with this park. Mayor Schmitt stated every plat he had seen of the ACC 2nd Addition, a park had been reflected in the manner that it was shown here. He thought perhaps this issue was between the developer/builder and the homeowner. She noted in the drawings from last June there was no mention of a park. She noted her realtor made calls to the City and Ms. Hernandez was assured there would be single-family homes behind her. She wanted to know how it was decided where park property ended and private property began? She was wondering about fence permits. Cncl. Joos stated the land behind Ms. Hernandez was zoned single-family. There was no zoning per se for parkland. Cncl. Joos stated when Ms.. Hemandez bought her lot this park may not have been in the plans yet. Mr. Leek noted there had been many discussions on the park in this area and there were some initial drawings that showed a proposed park towards the center ofthe plat rather than where it is proposed now. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Schmitt stated he thought this situation was between Ms. Hernandez and her builder/developer. i Mr. Themigstated there should be some public meetings with the homeowners in the area for this proposed park because there are some existing homeowners in this area. Mr. Themig noted all the homeowners would be notified of the meeting. Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -17- Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6088, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee Setting A Public Hearing To Consider A Petition To Annex 9.5 Acres Of Land Generally Located South Of Highway 169 And East Of Marystown Road, and moved its adoption. (Gregg Powers Property). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mayor Schmitt noted the meeting date for the project update for the visioning process from Anne Carroll, facilitator, needed to be set. The suggested date for the visioning meeting coincided with discussion on each Council members ride along. Lehman/Helkamp moved to set a workshop date for Thursday August 12 at 5:30 p.m. for the Visioning workshop and to discuss the ride-alongs the Council members took with Ms. Carroll at . that same meeting. Mr. Leek discussed the draft brochure for distribution during National Night Out that he prepared and its availability to the residents. Motion carried 5-0 Mr. McNeill reported on the source of funding for the City's participation in the Northridge Court apartments shortfall. The Northridge Court Apartments, a development of the Scott County HRA was anticipating a shortfall in this project of approximately $240,000. Scott County HRA, the City and Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) were asked to. share equally in tins shortfall. The construction of a 39-stall parking lot on Levee Drive was a questionable source for a portion of the $80,000 needed by the City. The Council membersdecidedthatthisparking lot on Levee Drive was necessary for the downtown area and fora trailhead parking lot forthe River Trail. Mr. McNeill noted that the parking lot could not be constructed at this time because of design issues and some SPUC undergrounding Issues to name a few issues that needed to be resolved. It was the recommendation of staff that the construction of this parking lot be allowed to be deferred until mid-year 2005. It was anticipated that a better product would be had if the issues were worked out before.the construction of the parking lot. Mr. McNeill noted the order of preferences to come up with the $80,000 for the shortfall identified at the last meeting were: 1) the Economic Development Authority (EDA) Fund, 2) the General Fund, 3) the Capital Improvement Fund (CIF). Mr. McNeill noted the EDA reserve fund balance was approximately $391,000 and no other projects were anticipated at this time. If the Council felt the Northridge Court Apartments was an EDA Project then those funds could be used for that shortfall. Mr. McNeill was of the opinion that a very strong argument could be made that this Northridge Court apartments was an EDA issue. Mr. McNeill noted that if the Council felt this way all that was needed was atthe next EDA meeting, it be directed that the EDA budget be amended to allow for a transfer from the EDA fund reserve to the Scott County HRA. Cncl Lehman noted the reasons he proposed that the EDA funding be looked at as a possible funding source. Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -18- Mr. McNeill noted that if the $80,000 were taken out ofthe CIF there would be projects that would not be done. Cncl. Joos was wondering if the City would be shortchanging themselves ifthe $80,000 was taken out of the EDA budget. Mr. McNeill noted the money in the EDA reserve fund balance was really undesignated money at this time. encl. Joos was concerned having this much money in reserve not earmarked for anything. Mr. McNeill suggested this item be reviewed at the upcoming budget sessions for 2005. Mr. McNeill noted the Scott County HRA had negotiated a firm price with their contractor for the 39-stall parking lot on Levee Drive and the contractor stated he would hold the price for a year. Helkamp/Menden moved to defer the Levee Drive parking lot to mid-year 2005 with the Scott County HRA constructing the parking lot at that time and to authorize the addition of the consideration of the $80,000 to the EDA meeting for August 4,2004, to transfer $80,000 from the EDA budgetto Scott County HRA for the City's portion of the shortfall for the Northridge Court Apartments. Motion carried 5-0. Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No, 6089, A Resolution Appointing Brian Spott To The Environmental Advisory.Committee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to approve the application and grant a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license to the Shakopee Jaycees, Inc., for the municipal parking lot at 2nd Avenue and Lewis Street, on August 6 and 7, 2004, with sales to cease at 11:00 p.m. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to approve the applications and grant an off sale liquor license, an off sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and tobacco license to RBF Corporation of Wisconsin dba Rainbow Food, 1698 Vierling Drive East, conditioned upon meeting all requirements of the City Code. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/He1kamp moved to set a hearing date for Wednesday, AugustA, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or thereafter, to review the action of the Twin Cities Stores, Inc. dba Oasis Market #528,615 South Marschall Road. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to affirm the increase in benefit for heart or circulatory malfunction for the Shakopee Fire Fighters, to go to $100,000 maximum benefit, and increase the disability benefit to 104 weeks, as provided by the Hartford Insurance. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). . Official Proceedings of the July 20, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -19- Lehman/Helkamp moved to accept the property/liability insurance'renewals from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trustwith a deposit premiumof$316,575. including increasing the employee blanket bond and not waive the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Lehman noted earlier this year Mr. Snook had been directed to work with the Shakopee Heritage Historical Society and he would like an update on what had been learned. Cncl. Menden noted there was much maintenance and upkeep needed for playground facilities that the school district and the City used. He wanted to direct staff if possible to consider working with the school district in some form to see how the City could possibly maintain those fields. He noted the City.used the fields more than the school district. This issue needed to be resolved. Cncl. Lelunan spoke to this issue. Cncl. Menden would like to see some type agreement to address the care of the fields. Mr. Themig also addressed this question, Mr. Loney noted this could be an item to discuss with the budget. . Cncl. Menden stated he would like to see the new City employees come to a Council meeting and introduce themselves. Helkamp/Lehman moved to recess to executive session to discuss labor negotiations at 10:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 10:50 p.m. No action was tal<en by the City Council during the executive session. Lehman/Helkamp moved to adjourn to Thursday, July 22, 2004. The meeting was adjourned at 10:51 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. ~11 ~th s. Cox .. City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 22, 2004 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. with Council members Menden, Joos, Lehman and Helkamp present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works/City Engineer; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director and Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director. Present from the Planning Commission were: Ryan Magin, Steve Clay and Deb Amundson. Absent from the Planning Commission were: Gayle Madigan, MichaelWillard and Mary Romansky. . Present from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board were: Hartmann, Souders, Dorenkamp and Madden. Members Absent were: Pass, Sornberger and Root. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, noted tonight there would be a joint discussion with the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding the CIP for parks for 2005/2009. Mr. V oxland, Finance Director, noted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the next five years for projects the Park and Recreation Advisory Board would like to see done hadbeen developed. The projects shown for 2005 would be built into the budget for 2005 after council direction was given on what projects should be done. This meeting was to focus on Park projects. Mr. Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director, presented possible park projects for 2005. Mr. Themig reviewed projects for 2004 that were scheduled and currently in the 2004 CIP. He noted a line item for $2 million for parkland acquisition had been added to the CIP for 2004 from 2003 because that line item had not been in the 2004 CIP before. Mr. Themig noted the second phase of construction for the soccer complex along 17th A venue also showed an increase of about $230,000 in the 2004 CIP. He noted why this increase was shown in the 2004 CIP. Mr. Themig noted Huber Park in the 2004 elP showed a decrease of about $186,000, which is moved to the 2005 CIP. Mr. Themig noted the reason why the decrease. Mr. Themig noted the possible acquisition of the Quarry site and approximate associated cost estimates for the site were now included in the 2004 CIP. Mr. Themig noted the boat landing was not included in the 2004 CIP before but it is now in the 2004 CIP. Except for the design piece (engineering is doing right now) this boat landing was being funded by grants. Mr. Themig noted two other park developments that have come up but were not reflected in the 2004 CIP. These were: Whispering Oal<S and Church Addition park. The Tahpah Park improvements in the 2004 CIP showed a decrease of $484,000 (these improvements were moved to the 2005 CIP). Mr. Themig noted there was still some money ($40,000) in the budget for small improvements projects for trails fdr2004 but no improvements were identified at this time. Official Proceedings of the July 22, 2004 I Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mayor Schmitt noted that the park projects for 2004 exceeded the amount budgeted for parks. in 2004. Mr. Voxland noted that the parks budget was not a legally adopted budget. He noted Council in the past did not adopt a legally adopted budget for Capital Projects through a resolution like the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds did. Spending in the park budget was controlled through what projects were actually done. Mayor Schmitt noted that the budget had not been revised during 2004, the actual spending had changed. Mr. Themig noted revisions would be made to the 2004 plan as estimates were received. Cncl. Menden noted and Mr. Themig concurred that this was a planning CIP for projects the City had an interest in doing. Mr. Themig noted park projects for 2005 might be: small improvement (possible sigllage for parks and making parks ADA compliant) and short trail projects, the quarry site, Huber Park 2nd phase, the River Bank stabilization (part of Huber Park), Prairie Village neighborhood park, the westerly park in Greenfield Addition, Providence and Westchester Parks, Southbridge area park, Dean Lakes Trail, Tahpah Park, Lions Park, Valley Creek Crossing and a Community playground, location yet to be determined. Mr. Themignoted the possibility of the City acquiring the Quarry site. He noted there was a draft of a concept plan for the quarry site. Cncl.. Lehman noted this possible acquisition of the Quarry site had not been a CIP item, it just happened. The offer was to good for the. City not to start looking at it. Mr. Themignoted what the 2nd phase of Huber Park consisted of. Mr. Themig noted that grants were being looked at for some portion of the riverbank stabilization. Mr. Themig noted the cost for building Huber Park was shown in the CIP for 2006. Mr. Themig noted the City.received this. request from the residents of Prairie Village for this park two years ago. Mr. Themig noted the park being proposed for the westerly park in the Greenfield Addition was more of a passive neighborhood park. He noted the east park of Greenfield Addition would have more active uses. Because of the in house staff (landscape architect) that the City now had, Mr. Themig noted some of the design and engineering costs had been decreased in park projects. Mr. Themig stated with the Providence and Westchester Park the City had the opportunity to meet some of the needs of an active park. It was noted that this park was large enough to be made serviceable. Mr. Themig noted the Southbridge park plan being focused on was the development of certain trail areas and some park development (possibly for older kids). Mr. Themig noted this park was not included in the Southbridge parks plan, this MnDOT concept park would allow for the connection to trails in the Dean Lakes area through the Southbridge development. These trail connections were a very important component to the park and trails master plan. The Tahpah Park improvements had been moved from the 2004 CIP to the 2005 CIP. Mr. Themig noted that the Tahpah Park parking lot project had been identified to be bonded with another street project. Because of ADA issues the play equipment needed to be removed from Tahpah Park in 2004. Mr. Themig noted several other projects for Tahpah Park. Mayor Schmitt noted something needed to be done with this park, especially with the parking. Mr. Themig noted the improvements to Lions Park planned for 2005 and 2006 and he stated in 2007 the.Lions planned on a major investment in Lions Park. Cncl. Joos addressed some of the ADA issues found with Lions Park. Mr. Themig noted the developer was going to develop the Official Proceedings of the July 22, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Valley Creek Crossings Park as part of his park dedication requirement. Mr. Themig noted the community playground had been in the CIP for several years. This playground would be an attraction to residents from other communities. Mr. Themig noted projects identified for 2006 were: improvements to O'DowdPark, Riverside Fields Park, Greenfield east park and Horizon Heights open space. Mr. Themig noted the temporary improvements to O'Dowd Park really did help with the abuse of that park. O'Dowd Park was slated in the CIP for 2007 for permanent park improvements. Mr. Themig noted the developer had already committed $50,000 towards the Riverside Fields Park. The money earmarked for particular park projects was discussed as to where that money should be identified. Mr. Themig noted there were some limitations as to what could be done with the Greenfield east park area. Mr. Themig noted the Horizon Heights open space had been in the CIP for several years but now had been moved up in the CIP process slightly. Cncl. Lehman noted this Horizon Heights open space was an issue in 1997. Mr. Themig addressed some of the regional trails in Shakopee. Mr. Themig proposed some projects for 2008. Mr. Themig noted the Prior Lake Spring Lake Greenway Corridor trail was in the CIP.for 2009 as well as a passive park at Mound St. and CR 79. The 10lh A venue and Spencer Park that was vacant was discussed. Mr. Themig noted there was money shown in the CIP for 2009 for the development of a community park if the City did acquire some parkland for a community park to be developed in the future. Cnc1. Lehman thought the CIP from Mr. Themig regarding parks was a pretty good working document. Mr. The:mig addressed the community center expansion possibility. He noted some of the things being looked at for the community center may/may not happen in 2005. Different task forces were working on different ideas. He stated he would bring back the figures from the different task forces when they were available. He did thinkthe replacement of the service building at the aquatic park should remain in 2005. This building had seen its lifetime. Mr. Themig noted if all projects were done as scheduled the park reserve fund would be in the negative in 2005 and 2006 and after those years the park reserve fund started to build itself up again. It was still in the negativejust not as much. Cnc1. Menden noted this was a very extensive list and perhaps some contingency money needed to be set aside to do the projects. Mr. V oxland addressed this question. Cnc1. Menden also liked the idea that developers were asked to help complete a park in their development. Cnc1. Joos noted there were tremendous dollars involved in the maintenance ofthe parks. Mayor Schmitt agreed it was time to get Official Proceedings of the July 22, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page --4- developers to help with the development of parks in their developments. Mayor Schmitt would like to see the funds, if they materialize, from Excel Energy be used to catch up the park development in some of the older/new parks in developments. Cnc1. Lehman brought up the question of whether or not the park dedication fees covered the land cost and the dollars to construct the parks in the developments. Helkamp/Joos moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 27, 2004 at 5:30p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Q~o~ -.Of City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary