HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: June 29, 2004 and July 06, 2004
;
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,NUNNESOTA JUNE 29, 2004
Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 and Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator.
LehmanlHelkamp moved to re-open the public hearing to consider Economic Development (Tax
Abatement) Assistance for Challenge Printing. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Snook noted the preferable way to go for financial assistance for Challenge Printing was
with Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Mr. Snook stated at the last meeting a public hearing date
for TIF funds for Challenge Printing was set for July 6, 2004. Mr. Snook requested that the
public hearing for tax abatement assistance be closed for Challenge Printing, if there are no
comments, and no action is needed.
Mayor Schmitt called for comments from the audience. There was no response.
HelkamplMenden moved to close the public hearing for tax abatement for Challenge Printing.
Motion carried 5-0.
Steve Wischmann, from Kern, DeWenter and Viere, presented the 2003 audit report. Mr.
Wischmann noted the Gasby statement number 34 had to be implemented this year and that
implementation resulted in the audit coming in at the last minute and with the audit report
looking different. Mr..Wischmann noted the audit opinion changed slightly based on the level of
detail in the newly formatted audit report and Mr. Wischamnn noted there was some new
information in the report (management discussion and analysis and some other supplementary
information). Mr. Wischmann also pointed out that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
audit report (done by other auditors) was incorporated into this report. Mr. Wischmann noted
because of the way the reporting was done in the report the audit opinion of the other auditor was
not mentioned; both the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission and the City of Shakopee
received unqualified opinions and this is the highest level that can be received.
Mr. Wischmann noted the Management's discussion and analysis portion ofthe audit really told
the whole story of what happened in the City for the year 2003.
The statement of net assets was basically a summary document of the financial position of the
City. Assets, liabilities and net assets were contained this statement. Mr. Wischmann explained
some of the changes in new formatted audit report. He explained; 1) the net asset was the same
as fund balance in the past reports, 2) the business type activities were basically the enterprise
funds and 3) the government activities included the general fund, special revenue fund, debt
service and capital projects. He noted this statement was designed to give a long-term
perspective of the financial health of the City. Mr. Wischmann noted the net assets of the City
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -2-
was approximately $125,000,000 for governmental activities and the business type activities had
net assets of approximately $121,000,000. These two net assets were very good.
Mr. Wischmann went over the statement of activities. This statement replaced the old statement
of revenues and expenditures and changes in the beginning and ending fund balances. This
statement was designed to show what the costs of providing a service really were. It was shown
that some accounts took general tax levy to support the accounts.
Mr. Wischmann also pointed out some of the required supplemental information did not provide
full audit coverage but the information agreed with the auditing information. He noted this
supplemental information would show if there were budget amendments throughout the year.
Mr. Wisclunann noted there were minimal budget amendments on the revenue side.
Mr. Wisclunann noted there were no compliance findings with the Federal Government Audit or
the State Legal Compliance Audit. Mr. Wischmann did note they did comment this year (have
done in the past also) that there was a reportable cogdition. The condition was there were not
ideal internal controls due to the limited size of the staff and the accounting functions. Mr.
Wisclunann noted he was not recommending that there be any change, he did not feel this was a
material weakness. He felt the controls were adequate for the day-to-day operations. He just
wanted it noted that this was a reportable condition and it had been in prior audit reports.
Cncl. Lelunan noted this year the State mandated the change in the audit report; state aids were
taken away, thus making it necessary for cities to tighten up their budgets. Then when you try to
do the work with a small staff it is a reportable condition. He did feel this was not fair. Mr.
Wischmann noted many cities had this same reportable condition and many cities felt the same
way Cncl. Lehman did. Mayor Schmitt noted this was a GAAP issue. There was nothing in the
near future that could be done about this reportable condition.
It was noted there was not just one person in control of certain systems within the City. The City
did have checks and balances. Mr. Wischmann stated that he felt the critical areas were covered.
He thought to put the councilors and managements minds at ease that a little audit could be done
along with surprise checks and some follow-up. Mr. Wischmann noted that this action was also
part of the "normal" audit process. He noted no instances of non-compliance were found. Some
of the fraud procedures and audit standards were discussed. Mayor Schmitt noted he would like
spot checks done and that Mr. Voxland and Mr. McNeill be told what spot checks Kern,
DeWenter and Viere did do. Mr. Wischmann was acceptable to this idea.
Mr. Wischmann noted there was a stand-alone audit report under separate cover done by another
auditing firm for the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. Mr. Wischmann thought this report
was just recently issued.
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -3-
Cncl. Lehman was confused why the Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) audit would be
incorporated into the City's audit when SPUC was a separate entity from the City. Mr.
Wischmann stated that SPUC could be thought of as a subdivision of the City. There is a
relationship between SPUC and the City. Mr. Wischmann noted it was required to be in the
City's audit because the exclusion ofSPUC would be misleading to the financial statements. Mr.
Wischmann did state that SPUC did have the opportunity to hire their own auditing firm using
the same standards that Kern, De Wenter and Viere used and then those figures from SPUC's
audit report would be incorporated in the City's audit report. Mr. Wischmann noted that based
onSPUC's audit tests and the audit report, their audit results just merged right into the City's
audit report. Mr. Wischmann stated the responsibility 'for catching any improprieties with SPUC
would be the responsibility of SPUC and its auditors.
Mayor Schmitt noted the City was required to be consistent with other Cities in the State that had
utilities as part of their City and that basically was why the City of Shakopee was required to
incorporate water and electric information in their report.
The General Fund revenues for 2003 did change slightly from a percentage standpoint. The tax
component was 55%for 2003 and the percentage for the tax component for 2002 was about 53%.
The major change was the intergovernmental revenue went down from 10% of the General Fmld
revenues to 4%. This was about a $600,000 cut because of the local government aid and the fair
market value credit that the City did not receive from the State in 2003. The license fees and
permits fees were about 25% for 2003; they were 21 % in 2002. The charges and services portion
of the General Fund were fairly consistent for the years of 2002 and 2003. In 2003 the
percentage for charges and services was 12% and that percentage was 11% in 2002. He noted
the total General Fund revenues were $12. 7 million for 2003 and the in 2002 the total revenues
were $11 million.
The General Fund expenditures for 2003 increased by 2.2%. The expenditures for Public Safety
were up to 48% in 2003 and they were 47% in 2002. The general government expenses were
down about 2% from 2002. In 2002 the expenses were 27% ofthe General Fund where as in
2003 that percentage was 25%. The Public Works expenses were down about 2% from 2002. In
2002 the expenses from the Genera Fund for the Public Works portion was 19% whereas in 2003
that percentage was 17%.
Mr. Wischman noted there were expenditure increases in public safety, recreation and
miscellaneous expenses. He notedthe total expenditures were $9.8 million for 2003 and the in
2002 the total expenditures were $9.6 million. He noted the revenue increased significantly over
the expenditures. The General Fund balance increased from $3,500,000 in 2002 to $5,644,000 in
2003.
The City's General Fund balance for 2003 was just over SO% of expenditures. This put the City
in a good position (high average) according to the State Auditors website. For the year 2002 the
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -4-
City had a much lower percentage (below average). The City's General Fund balance was
basically for cash flow purposes.
Mr. WischmmID noted that the Debt Service payment schedule was going down each year. He
noted the general obligation bonds were substantially paid off in 2012/2013.
The national bond rating for the City as of 12/31/03 was Al and as of 4/31/04 the rating was
Aa3.Because the City's financial picture has improved the bond rating was raised to recognize
this fact. Mr. Wischmann was of the opinion that the City could maintain this bond rating or
perhaps raise it even higher.
Mr. Wischmann commented on some of the enterprise funds. Mr. Wischmann noted the
revenues exceeded the expenditures for the last five years in the Electric Fund and the Water
Fund and this was a positive trend. Sewer and Storm Drainage Funds also showed the revenues
. exceeded the expenditures but not to the point of the Water and Electric Funds. The Recreation
Fund continued to need some help from the General Fund. Many cities were having the same
problem with their recreation fund.
Mr. Wischmann addressed some of the internal service funds. He noted the equipment fund had
a pretty good year with revenues above the expenditures. Mr. Wischrnann noted it was the
building fund that probably changed the most. Mr. Wischrnann noted there was a transfer of
$1,000,000 in 2002 and another transfer of $1,000,000 in 2003 into the Building; Fund. He noted
there were building projects just over $10,000,000 in the last two years for the Building Fund.
Mr. WischrnalU1left some comparison figures with the City showing how the City of Shakopee
compared with neighboring western ring cities. He noted the City of Shakopee expenditures
were considerably lower than some of the neighboring cities.
Cncl. Lehman thanked Mr. Wischmann for his fine presentation and noted he was content with
where the City was at regarding audit figures.
Joos/Lehman moved to adopt the 2003 audit as presented.
Cncl. Menden commented that he would like to have seen the formal audit report earlier so he
would have had more time to review the document. It was noted that the change in account
procedures caused by the switch to Gasby 34 (mandated by the State) was the main cause in the
delay of the audit report.
Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. McNeill noted the beginning time of the July special meeting dates. He also stated perhaps
the Council wanted to reschedule the meeting date of the July 27, 2004 meeting. There would
Official Proceedings of the June 29,2004
Shakopee City Council Page --5-
most likely be a need to follow-up on the CIP meeting scheduled for July 22, 2004. Mr. McNeill
also noted that the plans for the new Public Works building needed to be discussed at a meeting
early in August.
The 5:00 p.m. start time was changed to 5:30 p.m. for the July 27,2004 meeting. This would
suit the Councilor's schedule better.
Mayor Schmitt would like a revised calendar with other meeting dates included in the calendar.
Mr. McNeill suggested that the discussion regarding the Public Works building be on August 10,
2004. This date was the first of four scheduled meetings regarding the budget.
City staff was directed to set these meeting dates as discussed. It was noted there would be a
special meeting July 27,2004 to further discuss possible CIP options of the City and at the
special meeting scheduled of August 10, 2004, the Public Works building would be discussed.
Lehman/Joos moved to recess at 6:57 p.m. Motion carried 5-'0.
Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
Mayor Schmitt opened the kick-off for the Visioning and Strategic Planning project that the City
was about to take 011' Mayor Schmitt noted the visioning and strategic planning process was
designed to reconnect and involve the residents of this community and the businesses that made
Shakopee their home along with some elements of government. This process was designed to
define and control the future of the City of Shako pee. The object of the process was to develop a
25-year vision for the community along with laying out the rules and tools to guide the City on
that journey. Some ofthe issues to be considered were: job creation, retail growth and
enhancement, seniors, arts, parks and recreation, transportation, housing opportunities, education
and family choices, to name a few; Mayor Schmitt noted there was a vast amount of talent and
wisdom out in the community and he would like to see this talent and wisdom come forth and
join in the visioning and strategic planning process. Mayor Schmitt noted that Anne Carroll of
Carroll, Franck and Associates would help with this visioning and strategic planning process.
Anne Carroll addressed the.audience and asked for their participation.
Mayor Schmitt set the stage by showing some statistics from the Metropolitan Council regarding
the City of Shakopee between now and 2030. Mayor Schmitt stated he was uncomfortable with
these figures; he thought they might be even higher by 2030. The City needed to try and
assimilate the growth projected and provide for this growth.
Carole Schultz, President of the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce, approached the podium and
stated this visioning and strategic planning process was very important to the Chamber and they
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -6~
wanted to be a part of this planning process for the City; she was here to offer the Chambers help
wherever needed.
Bob Loonan, current member of the School Board, congratulated Mayor Schmitt and the Council
for being proactive in what Shakopee will be in the future. He stated the School District was
interested in the residents of this City being proactive in determining Shakopee's future. He
stated the School District was behind this effort also.
Joe Helkamp, now speaking as a member of the business community, stated the business
community was really looking forward to participating in this visioning process.
A member of the audience speaking Spanish, representing the Light of the World Church located
on 151 A venue, approached the podium and spoke in Spanish. He stated they were happy that
they were invited to participate in this planning process also. They too wanted to participate in
this process (an interpreter was present).
GaylenCase, President ofVisioIl Shakopee, approached the podium and stated he was interested
in what happened to the City of Shakopee and what the City could do with the First Avenue
Corridor.
Cncl. Menden noted that he spoke with Ms. Diane Lee, principal at Shakopee Area Catholic
Schools (SACS), and SACS stated they were interested in getting involved with this process.
Mr; McNeiUstitted that all residents in the City of Shakopee were invited to get involved and
participate in this process. He noted the success of the visioning process was dependent upon the
amount of input received and participation from the community as a whole. Mr. McNeill noted
there was a contact phone number to call if anyone wanted to get involved with the visioning
process. That phone number 952A96-9663 would also be posted on channel 16 and on the
City' S website. . The residents were urged to become part of this visioning process.
Ms. Carroll reiterated that this was an opportunity for any person in this community to get
involved in this visioning process. This was a very inclusive process. She would bend over
backwards to involve everyone. This visioning and strategic planning process would be about a
24~month process.
Ms. Carroll thanked the Mayor and City Council for their foresight to do visioning and strategic
planning for the City.
Mayor Schmitt noted there were several processes with the visioning and strategic planning
process. The first process was to develop direction, strategies, goals and objectives then through
these goals and objectives the strategies to implement the goals and objectives could be defined
and ultimately result in a new comprehensive plan. Mayor Schmitt noted the City was required
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shako pee City Council Page -7-
by the State to submit a new comprehensive plan in 2008 and the City was just going to get an
early start on a new comprehensive plan. He thought there would be two off site gathering
places for primarily work sessions where people of various types backgrounds could mix and
share their own perspectives for the community.
Ms. Carroll noted there would be many, many informal events that would be taking place for the
visioning process as well as some.formal events.
Cncl. Lehman asked if the residents would know about these informal or formal events ahead of
time so the residents and businesses could schedule to attend these events around their other
obligations. "We will make it happen," Ms. Carroll stated. Ms. Carroll noted how this
participation would happen.
Mayor Schmitt thanked everyone for attending this meeting and he hoped to see him or herin the
future working on this process visioning and strategic planning with the same amount of
enthusiasm then as they showed today.
Now the joint meeting between the Council and the Planning Commission tookplace.,.'
Members of the Plmming Commission present were: Commissioner Magin, Commissioner
Romansky, Commissioner Madigan, Commissioner Amundson and Chair Steve Clay. Members
of the Planning Commission that were absent were: Commissioner Willard and Commissioner
Meilleur.
Chair Clay called the Planning Commission meeting to order.
The Planning Commission handled a few small items regarding the Planning Commission and
then the joint discussion between the City Council and the Planning ComlTIission reg~ding the
future development of the City of Shakopee.
Mr. Leek noted the process of doing comprehensive plans had been around since 1976. The first
formally adopted comprehensive plan for Shakopee was in 1981; in 1996 an update was
approved by the Metropolitml Council and adopted by the City Council. That 1996
Comprehensive Plan designated much ofthe City as future urban area. Mr. Leek noted this
Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1999 and accepted by the Metropolitan Council and adopted
by the then City Council in 2002. Mr. Leek noted the major difference between the document
for 1996 and the 1999 Comprehensive Plan was that the future urban area was more defined in
the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan now talked about a more specific land
use (Rural Residential). Mr. Leek noted many people particularly the Planning Commission
thought it was important to maintain the Rural Residential land use as an entrance into the City
so to speak. The job today was to build that rural residential type quality into the land use needed
today with the growing population in the City. Mr. Leek noted the process to update the current
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -8.
comprehensive plan was begun in 2001. The update for the current comprehensive plan has been
before the Planning Commission with a public hearing and the Planning Commission specifically
requested this joint discussion.
According to Mr. Leek, the key issue was how to allocate MUSA and where to direct
development under the comprehensive land use update.
Mr. Leek provided a general overview of the updated land use plan. Mr~ Leek noted within
Shakopee there was some land uses not designated because these areas were owned by the
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) or were held in trust by the Federal
Government for the SMSC. This made it quite hard to plan for land uses around the SMSC land.
Mr. Leek noted if the land is in trust then the City does not have regulatory authority over that
land. Mr. Leek noted that if the land is held in fee, the SMSC would not develop the land. They
were very clear in their policy that they wou.ld only develop land in trust because of the amount
of control they could then utilize.
Mr. Leek stated with this current comprehensive plan update the City wanted to look at some
important corridors within the City. These corridors were: 1) the downtown district out toRallI
Malting, 2) the 1 st A venue Riverfront area (identification of mixed uses and concentration of
business uses), 3) Marschall Road from pI Avenue to 10th Street (this area had the least amount
of change suggested) and 4) the west end (Jackson Township). Mr. Leek noted the west end was
of particular concern. The uncertainties of the 169/69 intersection was key to the area. Mr. Leek
noted the west end of town and some of Jackson Township did show some deviation for the land
use shown in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for single-family density. He noted there were a few
commercial areas and some industrial area along the 169 corridor (some industrial area exists
already) in the west end of the City and in Jackson Township.
Mr. Leek noted an update of the cIassificationma.p was done and the area around County Road
21 appeared to be of critical importance. He noted this area was in the environmental impact
statement (ElS) process. The future construction of the new Valley View Road was in the area
and it was not clear if that roadway could be extended east of County Road 83.
Mr. Leek noted another very important part of the comprehensive plan update was a description
of the greenway corridors the City wanted to maintain. The greenway corridors could consist of
easements, City owned land, narrow trail corridors (for habitat purposes) to name a few. Mr.
Leek was of the opinion the Minnesota River was the key to the greenway corridor plan. The
Bluff line that ran through the townships and the community along with the Prior Lake Spring
Lake Watershed Outlet channel were also key components. Mr. Leek stated the Environmental
Advisory Committee (EAC) noted other key connections that should be made to the greenway
corridor. Mr. Leek noted these connections suggested by the EAC would be incorporated into
the final document of the Comprehensive Plan.
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -9-
Mr. Leek noted the predominant end land.use in the update was single-family in character.
The big question was how did the City manage growth thru the use of the extension of MUSA.
Where is the acreage dedicated that is entitled to be served by MUSA. Mr. Leek noted the four
geographic areas identified as possible areas to extend MUSA to in phases. Mr. Leek noted
where these phases were located. Mr. Leek noted how other communities identified areas they
wanted to extend MUSA to. Mr. Leek noted whereMUSA was in the City now. Mr. Leek noted
there were several options available to extend MUSA. The problem of the extension of
roadways and utilities could be a reason not to extend MUSA in certain places. The four
geographic areas where MUSA was proposed possibly to be phased was not set in stone.
Cncl. Lehman was of the opinion the City needed some mechanism to slow growth down. He
was not sure what this mechanism should be.
Cncl. Joos did not think people should have to leave Shakopee because there were no lots
available. The lots with MUSA today were moving very fast. .Cncl. Joos noted the last
cmoratorium caused many of the issues being talked about today. The growth was extremely fast
aftedhe moratorium-was lifted;- Someway needed to be found to control growth because staff
could handle only so much growth. The City mainly wanted the developers to pay for roads and
infrastructure so there did need to be some growth or another way needed to be looked for to get
City roads and infrastructure paid for. Cncl. Joos noted normally the City developed where it
was cost effective. He saw the east side as being very difficult to extend services to with the
west end of town being easy to extend services to. He stated he was for adopting the 2002
Comprehensive Plan Update so the Planning Commission had the proper tools to work with.
Commissioner Clay asked if all the questions being asked tonight would be answered after the
City was done with their visioning and strategic planning (extended MUSA lines and
transportation). Chair Clay wanted to know how to proceed from this point until the visioning
and strategic planning process was completed. What should be done in the interim. What was
the most cost effective way to expand MUSA?
Mr. Loney noted the Prior Lake Interceptor (east end) and the Chaska Interceptor (west end) had
more than enough capacity for sewer. Mayor Schmitt stated that if the City had access to the
Prior Lake Interceptor then development on the east end of town was much more fathomable.
Commissioner Romansky asked if the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update was going to be
adopted by the City Council. Because if it was not then the Platming Commission needed to go
back to the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. They needed to know what they needed to do. What
would they use for the next two years? They would like to know what their guiding document
would be.
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -10-
Mr. Leek did note that ifMUSA was not extended to the west there would be no business or
industrial expansion area. This Industrial expansion was a secondary issue right now that would
be probably settled with the visioning process.
Commissioner Amundson noted the transportation corridor (17th Avenue) could not be continued
unless something happened in the newly annexed area of the City (west end). It was noted that
17th A venue needed to be continued to County Road 15. She stated the Planning Commission
was caught in a dead zone unless the City Council helped them out.
Cncl. Lehman noted his take on the visioning process. He felt the comprehensive plan should be
the plan that was worked off of. He saw using the vision of the plan that went out to 2025 as a
tool when the comprehensive plan was updated every five years. Cncl. Lehman stated he wanted
to adopt the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. He did agree with Commissioner Amundson
regarding the transportation along 17th A venue but he would like to see a ranking system,. rather
than phasing, for the extension of MUSA. He noted the Planning Commission needed the tools
to do their job. The question was where did the City want to focus their efforts.
Cncl. Helkamp did not think it would be prudent to have the Planning Commissionoperating-u
under the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. That comprehensive plan was very outdated. He felt the
2004 Comprehensive Plan Update should be adopted and to continue on with the visioning
process. He did not want to wait until the visioning process was complete to adopt a new
Comprehensive Plan. That would not be in the City's best interest.
Mayor Schmitt stated he was in favor of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update also but he had a
problem with MUSA being extended on the west end (Phase 1). He thought MUSA out to
County Road 15 was okay but anything beyond that he had a problem with. He did not think the
investments made by SPUC in the east end of Shakopee should be ignored. Mayor Schmitt
noted only part of the municipal services were represented at this meeting. SPUCneededtobe
in on the discussions. They had made some infrastructure improvements and they needed to be
involved. They needed to recover some of the money invested in their infrastructure. He also
noted that he thought Scott County would be constructing County Road 21 out to County Road
18 within the next three years. This in itself would cause development pressures.
Commissioner Madigan stated that she thought the Planning Commission was mostly concerned
right now with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. They needed to know if Council was
going to approve the update so they knew what do about developments being proposed. The
Planning Commission was concerned the comprehensive plan update was going to be thrown out
in lieu of the visioning process. What is the Planning Commission suppose to do for the next
two years?
Cncl. Menden felt the visioning process was very important and he to saw it as a tool in
developing the comprehensive plan. Mr. Menden felt the current comprehensive plan needed to
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -11-
be updated now. He thought the phase approach of extending MUSA made sense but he
wondered if those areas could be made smaller and a MUSA allotment set for the areas the City
wanted developed in the next 18 to 24 month. Mr. Leek addressed this issue. Mr. Leek asked if
the City wanted to control how fast MUSA was used up because of what developments would
mean for the use of City resources.
Mr. Leek stated he would follow-up on the ranking system if this is what the Council wanted
before they took fonnal action on adopting the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update. This follow-
up action would provide a couple sets of options for the Planning Commission to look at. There
could also be a redrawing of the phasing areas recognizing the issues on the east end and 011 the
west end. He thought perhaps a priority checklist of what was needed before MUSA was
extended would also be helpful. He thought this might help facilitate the process on accepting or
denying the Comprehensive Plan Update. Whatever option from Mr. Leek that the Council and
Planning Commission decided to use would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
Commission Magin noted he liked what he was hearing from Mr. Leek. He would like the plan
to be flexible enough so if something did arise the City would be able to act. He thought the
phasing areas might need to be divided up between the east end and the west end oftownto take
care of certain concerns.
Cncl. Helkamp stated he, too, liked what he was hearing from Mr. Leek. He would like to see
some other options based on the discussion. He felt there might be a blending of some ofthe
concepts.
Commissioner Clay stated as far as he was concerned the phasing process was like a moratorium
in little pieces. He felt Mr. Leek should work close with SPUC and withMr. Loney, City
Engineer, to make sure cost effective. ways were presented where the MUSA extension was
proposed. He would like to see some development on the west end so MnDOT realized a true
interchange was needed on the west end of town. He hoped what Mr. Leek brought forward
would be acceptable to the Planning Commission so it could be recommended to the City
Council and then be adopted by the City Council so the Planning Commission had the proper
tools to work with.
Commissioner Clay noted there needed to be a plan in place that would allow for the creation of
higher paying jobs in the City along with a higher caliber of recreational activities. He noted
right now as a City there was a tremendous industrial and commercial tax base. Maybe this was
enough. This needed to be looked at. Cncl. Lehman noted that he was willing to consider
limiting MUSA for residential. Cncl. Joosnoted that he thought affordable housing in Shakopee
still needed to be addressed.
Official Proceedings of the June 29, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -12-
Mayor Schmitt noted there were some uses that were not zoned for in the City of Shakopee and
perhaps that needed to be addressed. He also stated that the Council would like to move forward
with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update but there were some amendments to the update that
the Council would like to see first (consolidating of the phasing) for MUSA. Mr. Leek did not
think it would take a whole new comprehensive plan in 2008. Things like the stonn water plan,
transportation plan, etc. could just be incorporated into the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
The amount of growth that staff could deal with was discussed. It was felt staff had a good grasp
on the amount of the growth they could handle but they did need to let staff know what they
could handle.
Chair Clay for the Planning Commission took the gavel.
Madigan/Amundson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
Menden/Helkamp moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 6, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
. The meeting adjoumedat 9:05 p.m.
(:2~J- .~
dith S. Cox
City Clerk
Carole Hedlund
Recording. Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,NllNNESOTA JULY 6, 2004
Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Lehman,
Helkamp and Joos (7:07) present. Absent: Menden. 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 Director; Jim
Thomson, City Attorney; Mark Themig, Facilities, Recreation Director; Sergeant Flynn, Police
Officer and Tracy Schaefer, Assistant to the City Administrator and Bob V ose, City Attorney for
the Telecommunications Commission.
NOTE: There was a quorum present to startthe meeting.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
Helkamp/Lehman moved to approve the Agenda as written. Motion carried 3-0.
Ms. Schaefer reported on Operation Cleanup. She noted that City Council was asked to accept
Resolution No. 6071. This is a Resolution of appreciation to the Shakopee Senior High School
students recognizing their efforts in the downtown cleanup, Saturday, May 29, 2004. Ms.
Schaefer showed via the document camera a few pictures of the students clean up efforts in the
downtown. She noted a clean-up committee had been formed at Shakopee High School
consisting mainly of Hispanic and Latino backgrounds to help make the students aware of
volunteer activities within the City of Shakopee. She noted City staff provided the students with
the necessary tools for the clean-up work. She thanked the students and Counselor Kelly for this
clean-up work in the downtown.
Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6071, A Resolution Of Appreciation To The Students
Of Operation CleanUp For Volunteering Their TimeTo Clean Up Downtown Shakopee, and
moved its adoption. Motion carried 3-0.
The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 15.B.3. Extension Agreement to
Update the Blue Lake Hydrologic/Hydraulic Model, 15.C.1. Shakopee Fire Department Monthly
Business Meetings and 15.E.2. Severance Provisions for Natural Resource Director.
Cncl. Lehman noted that he would like the May 18, 2004 Council minutes on the Consent
Agenda to reflect the correction on the table. Mayor Schmitt accepted this request by Cncl.
Lehman. (Page 13, Res. No. 6054 passed 4-0 with Councilor Joos abstaining.)
Lehman/Helkamp moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as modified. Mr. McNeill read the
consent business.
Mr. Joos entered and took his seat at 7:07 p.m.
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page-2-
Motion carried 3-0 with Cncl. Joos abstaining.
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 May 18,2004. (Motion carried
under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Helkamp moved to approve the bills in the amount of$323,197.57 plus $114,005.66 for
refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $437,203.23. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following
approval] .
Ms. Schaefer reported on the proposed Cable Franchise Renewal.. She noted if Ordinance No.
709 were adopted tonight that ordinance would amend Ordinance No.1 00 that expired on
February 26, 2003. She noted that negotiations had been held in the informal process and finally
after three plus years an agreement between the City and Time Warner had been reached. Ms.
Schaefer highlighted some of points in the proposed franchise agreement. Some of the highlights
were: 1) the institutional network, 2) fiber use for connections to the INET, 3) public, educational
and government (PEG) support, 4) service to public institutions, 5) customer service, 6) drop fees
and right-of-way fee, 7) local office, 8) pole attachments, 9) bundling of information services
with cable services using vague language and 10) franchise fees. She noted that staff was
recommending that proposed Ordinance No. 709 be reviewed and commented on.
Ms. Schaefer noted the FCC customer service regulations and what the City believed they could
do and what Time Wainer believed they could do in response. to Cnc!. Lehman's comment
regarding the FCC customer service regulations. She also responded to Cncl. Lehman's
comment regarding the bundling of Time Warner's services and falling under the GAAP rules.
She noted staff would like to see some clarifying language regarding the payment on certain
cable products. Ms. Schaefernoted that it was dependent on what the FCC designated a service
to be (information or cable) whether or not the City received payment on a service.
Ms. Schaefer noted the City was losing the local Time Warner office and a loss of money
received for equipment and rent. She was hoping the growth inthe City would off set the lost
revenue. Cncl. Joos noted it was the City's infrastructure that Time Warner's services.used and
the City should have some revenue or control over that infrastructure. Ms. Schaefer noted the
City's response to the FCC's ruling regarding the modem being used as an information service (a
329 petition was filed).
There was concern that there needed to be language regarding the bundling of information,
telecommunication, and cable services in the IS-year Franchise Agreement. Ms. Schaefer noted
staff had presented two different language versions to Time Warner of the language staff would
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -3-
like to see regarding the bundling of services. Time Warner was not happy with either language
proposed; they stated that if they accepted language proposed by the City that they could/would
be out of compliance if the FCC or GAAP changes occurred.
Bob Vose, Kennedy and Graven, legal counsel for the City for the Franchise Agreement with
Time Warner, approached the podium and noted staff identified this bundling issue fairly
recently. Time Warner just recently stated they were going to begin bundling services and this
led staff to identify this issue. Mr. Vose noted staff was very open to dialogue with Time Warner
but so far this dialogue had not taken place. Mr. V ose noted the goal of staff is to fix the amount
of the franchise fee going forward and the basis for calculating this fee. Mr. Vose pointed out the
City did not want to have a standard that was not set today or one changing inthe future which
could result in revenue disputes with Time Warner. Mr. Vose noted that the GAAP standard that
Time Warner was proposing to use had several exceptions.
Mayor Schmitt noted the City did not have the ability to select what services Time Warner put
out over the network.
Kim Roden and Lance Leupold from Time Warner approached the podium and noted that Bob
Vose, Mark McNeill, and Ms. Schaefer along with other City staffhad done a goodjob for the
City negotiating the franchise agreement. Ms. Roden noted that now Time Warner was subject
to effective competition in the City of Shakopee whereas, there really was no competition 16
years ago when the original Franchise Agreement had been negotiated. She noted people were
concerned about their rising cable costs. She felt this franchise agreement had more for the City
of Shakopee than surrounding towns received in their franchise agreement. She noted that Time
Warner had been very aggressive in rolling out new products. Time Warner stated they were
"first" in many areas. She felt Time Warner was at a competitive disadvantage with some
companies in the City of Shakopee that are located in the ROW. She wanted the City to look at
the total picture. She stated that Time Warner believed the language regarding the GAAP issue
was already in the franchise agreement. She stated the concern regarding language for the
bundling of services was that if the FCC or GAAP changed federal laws Time Warner
could/would potentially be in violation with future federal law or be held out of compliance.
Time Warner could not adopt piecemeal language that might allow this to happen.
Mayor Schmitt stated in this opinion the basic franchise agreement was a pretty fair franchise
agreement but he was concerned with the issue regarding the bundling of services. He noted
there was a fiduciary responsibility now that the City was aware of this bundling issue. The City
should take at least a period of time to use the City's best resources to see if a way could be
figured out to come up with a language proposal for Time Warner that gives the City some
comfort level with this bundling of services.
Mayor Schmitt stated he would like to see this bundling issue tabled until the next regularly
scheduled meeting to allow staff, legal counsel and Mr. V oxland, City's Finance Director, to
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -4-
work with Time Warner to come up with some acceptable language so the City had an acceptable
comfort level. Cncl. Lehman agreed with this concept from the Mayor. Ms. Roden, from Time
Warner, noted she was agreeable to more discussions.
Lehman/Helkamp moved to table the franchise agreement until July 20, 2004 and directed staff,
legal counsel and Mr. Voxland, City's Finance Director to work with Time Warner to come up
with some acceptable language regarding the bundling of services (expressly GAAP). Motion
carried 4-0.
HelkamplLehman moved to open the public hearing on the issuance of revenue bonds not to
exceed $65,000,000 for St. Francis Regional Medical Center. Motion carried 4-0.
Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, reportedon the issuance of the revenue bonds forthe 8t.
Francis Regional Medical Center. He noted St. Francis was in the process of doing a major
expansion of their campus. These bonds would be for construction of parking lots, expansion
and renovation of the existing hospital. These items were anticipated to cost $42,000,000; the
additional $23,000,000 being requested is to refinance two previous bond issues from 1987 and
1988. The refinancing ofthe bonds would produce a lower interest rate resulting in a savings.
The City is being asked to act as a conduit for the safety of these bonds. Federal law does allow
this action. The bond sale would have no impact on the City's credit rating and any expenses
that the City would incur would be reimbursed.
It was noted that if St. Francis did not meet their financial obligations the City was not liable for
the bond payment.
Mr. Steinman noted the City, acting as a conduit for St. Francis Regional Medical Center, was
just permitting St. Francisaccess to their tax-exempt status. Mr. Steinman noted St. Francis
Regional Medical Center was only accessing the tax-exempt status and to some degree the City's
bond rating; and, they were using their own bond rating.
Julie Eddington, Kennedy and Graven, approached the podium and noted St. Francis was getting
two separate bond ratings. The hospital was using the hospital's own bond ratings.
Mayor Schmitt called for comments from the public. There were none.
Helkamp/Lehman moved to .close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0.
Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6074, A Resolution Giving Preliminary Approval To The
Proposed Issuance of Revenue Bonds Under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 Through
469.1651, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-0.
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -5-
Mayor Schmitt turned the gavel over to Commissioner Joos to convene the Economic
Development Authority meeting at 8:12 p.m. This was a joint meeting with the City Council
already convened.
Helkamp/Lehman moved to open the public hearing for the City Council on the modification of
the R~development Plan for the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project
No. 1 and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for a proposed economic development district within
the Project (TIF District No. 12 - Challenge Printing) and the business subsidy to be provided
under the TIF Plan. Motion carried 4-0.
Mr. Mc Neill reported that this was a joint public hearing for the purpose of the City Council and
the EDA to decide if they should authorize a tax increment-financing district and enter into an
agreement regarding economic development assistance for a manufacturing facility proposed by
Challenge Printing.
Cncl. Lehman left the Council Chambers at 8:15 p.m.
Joe Hanneman, Chief Financial Officer for Challenge Printing, provided a short overview of
what Challenge Printing is, who their customers are, the growth Challenge Printing has
experienced and what they need from the City. Challenge Printing was a $70,000,000 national
sheet feeding printing company with a wide variety of products and services. They employed
approximately 350 employees with the average annual wage being just under $50,000. He noted
the company had large, medium and small sized companies that they did business with. He
noted Challenge Printing's sales growth was about 41 percent over the last 16 years. Much of
the sales growth was a result of reinvestment into the company and many new products; thus the
need for larger quarters to achieve aggressive goals for more growth.
Cncl. Lehman returned to the Council Chambers and took his seat at 8:20 p.m.
Mr. Hanneman noted the City would benefit from: 1) proposed improvements of$5.6 million to
the building thus increasing the market value property and property taxes, 2) the creation of at
least 80 well paying jobs, 3) an increase of more than 400 hundred employees employed in this
community, 4) use of outside services from within the community for the company, 5) the
occupancy of a vacant building today and 6) Challenge Printing and employees giving back to
the community many of the dollars expended.
Mr. Hanneman noted that because of the proposed move, there would be financial pressure on
the company and assistance would be needed from the City and the County to offset some of the
costs associated with the move to Shakopee. Mr. Banman stated the cost to move to Shakopee
was $25.6 million. Mr. Hanman showed a breakdown of the moving cost figure. He noted there
was a gap in Challenge Printing's financing needs of about $756,000. He stated the tax
increment financing (TIF) from the EDA would help them cover this financing need.
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -6-
Mr. Hanneman stated since the first time Challenge Printing was in the Council Chambers a few
items had transpired to help bridge the financial gap resulting in a lesser financial need from the
City; he was of the opinion that this move could now take place with the help of TIF funds.
Mr. Bob Lothenbach, President and Owner of the Company, approached the podium and stated
that he believed the Shakopee location would be a great location for them because of STH 169.
This location just fit for the company. There were other options available but this location fit the
needs of the company best.
Mr. McNeill noted this use ofTIF would be to create Tax Increment District No. 12 in the former
Sumara building located on Valley Park Drive. Mr. McNeill noted initially a tax abatement form
of assistance was asked for but after looking at that type financing, it was felt that TIF was
preferable to the applicant and to the City. Mr. Mc Neill noted TIF would provide the applicant
$756,120 (a set amount) over nine years in a pay-as-you-go arrangement in the form ofa note.
The tax abatement would have been for 15 years. The $756, 120 represented a significant
portion (95%) of the total amount of the property taxes that would be paid to the City, County
and School District. Mr. McNeill stated TIF also provided another advantage to the City. That
advantage was no impact on the abatement cap for Economic Development projects. Mr.
McNeill noted a note would be given to Challenge Printing in the amount of$513,900 (this
figure was taking out the City's administrative handling costs (.05 percent) and taking out the
State Auditors percentage .04 percent). Mr. McNeill noted if Challenge Printing failedto pay the
property taxes there would be no money going back to them.
Mayor Schmitt asked for comments from the public. There were none.
Helkamp/Joos moved to close the public hearing for the City Council. Motion carried 4-0.
Cncl. Lehman inquired about the actual boundaries of this TIF district. Ms. Eddington, from
Kelli1edy and Graven, addressed this question and explained the boundaries of the TIF district.
LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6075, A Resolution Approving Tax Increment
Financing Plan For Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 And Modified Redevelopment Plan
For The Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No.1; and Approving A
Business Subsidy Agreement Between The Economic Development Authority For The City Of
Shakopee And Challenge Printing, Inc., and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-0.
Mr. Leek reported on the amendment to the St. Francis Regional Medical Center South Valley
Health Campus Planned Unit Development (PUD No.6). He noted the property was located
south of 17th A venue, east of Marschall Road and north of St. Francis Avenue. Mr. Leek stated
8t. Gertrude's and 8t. Francis were proposing to undertake significant expansions. Mr. Leek
noted some of the changes. These changes were: 1) parking changes, 2) future bed towers, 3)
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page-7-
medical office buildings, 4) a future two story hospital addition, 5) assisted living addition for St.
Gertrude's, 6) chapel for St. Gertrude's and 7) a new entrance for St. Gertrude's.
Mr. Leek noted draft Resolution No. 6076 before the Council tonight only addressed the
proposed amendments north of St. Francis A venue. Mr. Leek noted there had been several
amendments to St. Francis's original PUD.
Mr. Leek highlighted a few items in draft Resolution No. 6076 that pertained to the proper
alignment of future roadways. Mr. Leek stated that should Scott County not allow access from
County Road 17, the site plan would need to be revised along with the access to the site. Mr.
Leek noted that the City wanted the health campus to provide its own parking on site during the
construction phases. When the medical offices were constructed the City wanted the traffic
analysis that had been done for this site updated to ensure that access and traffic flow would be
appropriate when the medical offices opened.
Mr. Leek noted the Planning Commission did review the proposed PUD amendment and they
unanimously recommended approval with two additional conditions. The conditions have been
included in draft Resolution No. 6076.
Cncl. Lehman addressed the ponding issue. Mr. Leek noted there was an analysis of the ponding
on the site done for the proposed expansions and the ponding was believed to be sufficient,
however, there was a condition in draft Resolution No. 6076 that addressed the ponding. Mr.
Leek did state that the storm water calculations would be reviewed again with each expansion to
make sure they were adequate.
Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, explained how the drainage worked on the
site. He noted the storm water pond located in the northwest comer of the site was designed to
take into account future building expansions but the City did want to verify the calculations.
It was noted that four stories was the maximum height that the City's fire equipment could fight
a fire. Cncl. Joos noted two conditions where he would like to see names and phone numbers
eliminated. There was consensus to remove the names and numbers from the resolution.
Mayor Schmitt asked for comments from the public.
Tom O'Connor, President ofSt. Francis, outlined the importance of the expansion for the 8t.
Francis Medical Health Campus. He noted growth had been very significant to the hospital and
if new services were to be added there needed to be an expansion to the health campus. He noted
that 8t. Francis had held several community meetings and there had been much good input into
the expansion process from residents and others.
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -8-
Dr. Willey, physician at St. Francis Hospital, approached the podium and noted the medical
campus needed to keep pace with the growth and provide additional surfaces for the community.
There were times when patients needed to be sent to other hospitals for services because this
hospital was full. He noted he and staff supported this expansion.
He1kamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6076, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota,
Approving An Amendment To The Planned Unit Development For South Valley Health
Campus, and moved its adoption subject to the conditions pmyided and with a modification of
the removal of names and phone numbers from condition no. 15 and condition no. 18. Motion
carried 4-0.
Mr. Leek reported on PUD No. 25, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Dean Lakes 2nd Addition.
He noted this was a request for a number of related land use items. He noted a retail center PUD
for the commercial portion of the site was being proposed tonight and in addition the applicant
was requesting preliminary and final plat approval. Mr. Leek noted during the process of
reviewing the preliminary and final plat the applicant had amended the request to allow the final
platting of all six lots in the commercial area. Mr. Leek noted the applicant had also requested
conditional use permits for a drive up bank and a restaurant in the commercial area as well as a
variation for lots created in this retail centerPUD that did not have any street frontage (a zoning
. code requirement). Mr. Leek noted there was a condition pertaining to this variation, noting the
variation would be allowed if there were adequate cross easements of record for that purpose.
Mr. Leek showed the site plan that depicted the proposed retail center PUD. Mr. Leek noted the
original final plat only. final platted the lots for the residential development; the commercial site
was left in several Outlots. Mr. Leek oriented the retail center site on the north side of Dean
Lake Boulevard that was zoned commercial and the portion that was part of the business park
zoning. He noted the general type uses that were depicted. Mr. Leek noted there was an issue
with the right in access proposed on County Road 16. It was noted Scott County retained
jurisdiction over this roadway and Scott County had the last say. Mr. Leek stated after a meeting
with City staff and the County, it was staff's and the City's engineering consultant's opinion that
a right in would function very well in the proposed location. Mr. Leek stated he did get a letter
from Scott County reluctantly agreeing that this right-in could occur because eventually this
portion of County Road 16 would be turned back to the City. Mr. Leek noted in the conditions
of the conditional use permit for the bank it was made clear that stacking of six vehicles would
be required. Mr. Leek noted parking was an issue in the retail center PUD; the parking
requirements would need to be verified with each building permit application. He noted the
landscaping requirements would needto be reviewed and verified at time of building permit
issuance, also.
Mr. Leek showed the final plat drawings that were provided to him today. He noted the final plat
drawings were quite reflective of what was in the preliminary plat drawings.
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -9-
Mr. Leek noted the Planning Commission did review these requests and the Planning
Commission has recommended approval of the retail center PUD with the additional conditions
listed in Resolution No. 6077 and they also recommended approval of the preliminary and final
plat of Dean Lakes 2udAddition, Resolution No. 6078.
Mr. Leek was of the opinion that adequate internal circulation had been identified to serve the
internal parcels thus allowing the variation to City Code. Mayor Schmitt compared this
commercial development with the commercial development in the Southbridge area. Mayor
Schmitt was concerned about the entrance into lots 3, 4 and 5 with no street frontage. He noted
several residents had complained about the internal circulation in Southbridge and ending up in
dead end parking lots. He saw an opportunity for this to happen again with this proposed retail
center. Mr. Leek thought internal directional signage might help the people find their way out of
the site and City Code did allow that type signage.
The entrance to the restaurants was discussed. Mr. Loney noted it was a real possibility that
there would be a traffic signal at Deans Lake Trail at some point.
Mark Schoening, developer for Ryan Companies, approached the podium to discuss traffic flow
in Outlot A. He noted a lot of time had been spent thinking about the traffic flow. He noted
. Ryan Companies did many retail developments and they did not have any interest in designing
access points that were troublesome. He thought a good job handling the traffic situation within
the site had been done.
Mr. Schoening gave some more detail of the proposed projects in the final plat. There was the
office showroom that Ryan Companies would construct. There was some support for this project
by home contractors and home improvement contractors. They would like to get started on this
office showroom this fall. There was an office building that Ryan Companies was proposing to
construct and they would like to start this project in the fall also. Small office users were
showing interest ie. mortgage companies, real estate brokerage firms and small medical groups.
The bank was already under contract and they would be building a first class bank building
starting the spring of2005. He noted the hotel project was probably a little early for the market
place at this time (it could happen in the next 12 months). He noted there were some very nice
sit down restaurants Ryan Companies were negotiating with. There was also some strip retail
interest in the sites. He noted some retail firms had been deferred because Ryan Companies
preferred to work with a certain market clientele. Mr. Schoening noted Goodyear Tire and
Holiday StationStores (both currently under contract) would be located on the west side of
County Road 83.
The right in was discussed with certain reasons given why it was not a right in/right out.
Lee Koppy, Ryan Companies, approached the podium and addressed the restaurant traffic. He
noted there would be stripes and signage to draw attention to the traffic in other places.
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -10-
Mayor Schmitt asked for more public comment. There was none.
Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6077, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota,
Approving Dean Lakes Retail Center Planned Unit Development No. 25, and moved its adoption
subject to. the conditions as suggested by staffbut altering condition No. 13 by removing the
language pertaining to "painted block".
Cncl. Helkamp stated he would like to remove the words "painted block" from condition no. 13.
Mr. Leek noted removing the words "painted block" from the signage language would be
consistent with the new ordinance regarding building standards. Cnc!. Helkamp added this as a
friendly amendment that Cncl. Joos was agreeable to.
It was noted that there would be several different peak hours for all the various retail stores and
not all eight hundred cars were expected to be in the retail site at one time. It was noted that a lot
of time was spent in placing the uses on the site so traffic would have a lesser impact on the site.
Mr. Schoening noted internal signage could certainly be used to point out certain street arteries.
Motion carried 3-1 with Mayor Schmitt dissenting.
Joos/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6078, A Resolution Of The CityOfShakopee, Minnesota
Approving The Preliminary And Final Plat of Dean Lakes Second Addition. Motion carried 3-1
with Mayor Schmitt dissenting.
Lehman/Helkamp moved to remove the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide property
from rural residential to single-family residential, extend MUSA, and rezone property from
agricultural preservation (AG) zone to urban residential (R-IB) zone for Gonyea Land Company
for property located north of Valley View Road, east of Stag horn Drive and west of Canterbury
Road from the table and moved to approve a motion to place tlus item back on the table for
consideration at the August 17, 2004 meeting. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6079, A Resolution Setting The Public Hearing Date
To Consider The Vacation Of Easements For Property South Of Valley Industrial Boulevard
South, West Of Valley Park Drive And East Of Canterbury Road, and moved its adoption.
(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/He1kamp moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an easement
agreement, regarding construction and maintenance of a boat landing, between the City of
Shakopee and the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. (Motion
carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6082, A Resolution Authorizing The Execution Of A
Surface Crossing And Signal Agr~ement, Between The Union Pacific Railroad Company And
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -11-
The City Of Shakopee For The 2003 Street Reconstruction Project No. 2003-3, and moved its
adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LelunanlHelkamp moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension
agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to update the Blue Lake Hydrologic/Hydraulic Model at
a cost not-to-exceed $3,800. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Helkamp/Joos moved to recess the meeting a 9:40 p.m. Motion carried 4-0.
Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Sergeant Flynn reported on the parking request for parking on Roundhouse Street in the area of
the Prairie Bend Townhomes so seal coating could be done on private streets and driveways.
Sergeant Flynn noted that originally this street had been. signed "no parking" as a result of
residents in the area lobbying the City for the "no parking" signage. The Council in 2002 agreed
to sign Roundhouse Street "no parking". He noted the City agreed to this signing because of the
curvature in the road and Roundhouse Street being only two lanes wide between 4th Avenue and
County Road 16. Sergeant Flynn did note, at this point in time, 4th Avenue was closed for
construction. He noted the Police Department was coming from the original reasons that the
street was signed for "'no parking" and that was why the Shakopee Police Department was
recommending the request for temporary parking on Roundhouse Street be denied.
Mr. Loney noted Roundhouse Street was 36' wide and if parking were allowed on one side, the
roadway would still be wide enough for Fire Trucks to pass through.
Mayor Schmitt called for public comments.
Kari Kes, President of the Prairie Bend Villa's Homeowners Association, approached the
podium; Ms. Kes stated the Prairie Bend Villa's Homeowners Association was not looking for
permanent parking on Roundhouse Street between 4th A venue and County Road 16. They were
looking for a solution to the parking problem when the private street and individual driveways
would be seal coated. According to her recollection of when the residents askedfor "no
parking", it was because of the sightlines getting on to County Road 16 at the other end of
Roundhouse Street. She noted this seal coating project would take two to three days. The east
side of Roundhouse Street would be done one day and the other side would be done the second
day. The cars would only need to park on one side of Roundhouse Street each day.
Cncl. Lehman was concerned about the safety aspect. He would like to explore other options. It
was noted that access to the Prairie Bend homes could come from County Road 16 also. The
open space was discussed.
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -12-
Cncl. Lehman suggested to wait until 4th Avenue was reopened, then close 4thAvenue for one
day and get the whole project done in one day. Mayor Schmitt suggested permitting parking on
one side of Roundhouse Street and sign 4th Avenue as a construction area for two days to allow
local traffic only. Mr. Loney did agree that traffic was less on Roundhouse Street with 4th
A venue being closed.
It was suggested that there be parking allowed on one side of Roundhouse Street and it would be
signed as a construction zone for three days. Sergeant Flynn thought this would be the safest of
any of the options.
Joos/Lehman moved to allow parking for three days on one side of Roundhouse Street or as
designated by the Public Works Department, with proper setbacks from the intersections
allowing for proper sightlines at the intersections of 4th A venue and County Road 16 and with the
seal coating to be done before 4th Avenue is reopened. Motion carried 4~0.
Lehman!Helkamp moved to approve the hiring of Carrie 1. Ducket to the position of IT
Specialist at Grade 6, Step E (the second step or $43,000 per year) with a tentative start date of
July 19, 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).
Lehman!Helkamp moved to approve the additional eight weeks of a lump sum severance
payment, and deposit an additional $3,000 (for a total of $3,500) into an outplacement account,
for the benefit of Mark McQuillan, former Natural Resources Director. (Motion carried under
the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Helkamp moved to direct staff to bring back an amendment to the City's personnel
Policy reflecting the discussed severance provisions for involuntary separated long-term
employees, and outplacement assistance provisions per 7-1-04 memo from Mark McNeill (CC
Doc. No. 355). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Mr. McNeill reported on Derby Days Street/Parking Lot Closings and to authorize sidewalk sales
and to utilize the Public Works Department. Mr. Mc Neill noted there had been a conflict with
the farmers market, normally held in the parking lot across 2nd A venue from City Hall, because
of Derby Days the farmers market for that Saturday was going to be held on Lewis Street
between 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue. Mr. McNeill noted there would be a need to restrict parking
on 3rd A venue between Sommerville Street and Lewis Street for the farmer's market vehicles
only for Saturday, August 7, 2004 from 6:00 am to 1:00 pm. It was noted the farmers market
would be over by the time the street was needed for the Soapbox Derby.
Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the following parking and traffic related issues relating to
Derby Days, Wednesday, August 4th to August 8th, as modified:
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -13-
Wednesday, August 4th after 5:00p.m. until Sunday, August g at 12:00 p.m.
. Parking lot on 2nd Avenue between Sommerville Street and Lewis Street -Northeastern
comer-to set up tent.
Thursday, August 5, after 1 :00 p.m. until Sunday, August 8th at 12:00 p.m.
. Parking lot on 2nd Avenue between Lewis Street and Holmes Street- Southwestern
comer-to set up Family Fun Park (they will set up an entrance on Holmes Street for the
Apartments on 2nd Avenue to enter).
. Alley from Real Gem Parking lot on Holmes Street to Lewis Street and Lewis Street to
Sommerville Street.
. N orthside of Second A venue from Lewis Street to Sommerville Street.
. Lewis Street from 1 sl A venue to 3rd Avenue.
Thursday, August 51h 1 :00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m.
. 1 sl A venue from Holmes Street to Sommerville Street for the Taste.
Friday, August 6th 4:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.
. New pI Avenue from Holmes Street to Sommerville Street for the Classic Car Show.
Saturday, August 71h from 9:00 a.m. to 11 :00 a.m.
. 3rd Avenue from Scott Street to Lewis Street for the Kiddieparade.
Saturday, August 71h from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
. Scott Street from 2nd Avenue to 3rd Avenue for the Firefighters Open House displays and
waterfights.
. Lewis Street from Is1 Avenue to 41h Avenue for the Soapbox Derby
Saturday, August 7th from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
. Lewis Street from 2nd Avenue to 3rd Avenue for Fanner's Market.
. 3rd Avenue between Sommerville Street and Lewis Street for Farmer's Market vehicles.
Sunday, August glhfrom 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
. Hwy.69 entrance down to 10Ih Avenue to Spencer Street for the parade.
Cncl. Lehman thanked the Derby Days Committee for organizing this event on an annual basis.
Cncl. Lehman stated Derby Days proved to be successful yearly.
Motion carried 4-0.
Mr. Loney reported on the reconsideration of advertisement for bids for the Valley View Road
project, from Greenfield Addition to County Road. 83, Project No. 2004-3. He stated when these
bids were let, the Engineering Department was confident that the one easement that was left
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -14-
would be gotten. However, that did not happen. There were some complications and these
complications would take time to resolve. Mr. Loney noted upon further review the City may be
able to gain more right-of-way from the parcel to the north, the Gonyea parcel, if a plat would
come forward; gaining this extra easement would make it easier for the City to gain the right-of-
way that was needed to the south. Also a better understanding of who owned what right-of-way
in this area was needed. Mr. Loney stated that he felt it was in the City's best interest to wait and
do this project next spring. He thought the issues would be resolved by that time.
Joos/Helkamp moved to withdraw the advertisement for bids on the Valley View Road Project,
from Greenfield Addition to County Road 83, Project No 2004-3.
Cncl. Lehman questioned the alignment of Valley View Road and location of the right-of-way
that was needed. Mr. Loney explained how and why Valley View Road was designed the way it
was.
Mr. Loney noted not doing Project No 2004-3 (Valley View Road), at this time, even thought it
was bid with other projects, would not jeopardize the other projects.
Motion carried 4-0.
LehmanlHelkamp JUoved to approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination
and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operation, D, as requested by
Centex Homes, the developer for Park Meadows, from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on Saturdays to
8:00 A.M..to 9:00 P.M. on Saturdays with the start time being consistent with other approvals in
the past years. ApprovaUs contingent upon minimizing noise exposure near residential areas
and if complaints are received by the City, the suspension can be revoked at the discretion of the
City Engineer and blasting activities, if any, must be done from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on
Saturdays and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as
recommended by staff. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the Fire Department be paid for monthly business meetings
retroactive to January 1,2004. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize City participation in the Phase 1 feasibility/scoping study
of the SCALE Joint Law Enforcement Training Facility, and further authorize payment of $4,000
as the City's participation in the funding. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the application and grant a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent
malt liquor license to the Shakopee Jaycees, Inc., in the designated beer garden adjacent to the
concession stand at Tahpah Park, July 24 and 25, 2004. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -15-
Lehman/Helkamp moved to approve the application and grant an on sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
license to Sausalito' s Mexican Cocina Grill, LLC, 105 South Lewis Street, conditioned upon
meeting all requirements of the City Code. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Lehman/Helkamp moved to accept the resignation of Larry Meilleur from the Planning
Commission with regret, and authorize the appropriate City official to advertise for candidates
for the opening created by Mr. Meilleur's departure. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6083, A Resolution Changing The August 3, 2004
City Council Meeting Date, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6081, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among
New Parcels Created As A Result Of The Platting of Dean Lakes 1 st Addition, and moved its
adoption. (Motion carried under the ConsentAgenda).
Mr. Mc Neill reported on the Northridge Court cost participation that was being requested by the
Scott County HRA. He noted Council was asked to consider financial assistance to the Scott
County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), regarding development of the Northridge
Court apartment building. The Scott County HRA was experiencing a financial shortfall on the
Northridge Court apartments building mainly for the following reasons. These reasons are: 1)
the increase in the water availability charges (WAC charges) from Shakopee Public Utilities and
2) the amount of water looping that was required by Shakopee Public Utilities. The shortfall to
Scott County HRA was approximately $240,000. When the above two issues were discovered
the bids had already been let and Scott County's BRA budget for this project had been set.
Mr. McNeill noted that in the developer's agreement for Northridge Court apartments the City
agreed to transfer ownership of a former municipal parking lot to the Scott County HRA, in
exchange for the construction of a 50-space parking lot off Fuller Street, and for the Scott County
HRA to pay for Y2 the cost of a 39-space parking lot adjacent to Levee Drive.
Mr. McNeill stated after numerous meetings with the three entities involved [Scott COlU1ty BRA,
Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) and the City] it was decided the three entities would split the
cost. After SPUC's cost participation was subtracted out there still remained approximately
$160,000 to be split between the HRA and the City.
Mr. McNeill noted an alternative way the City could come up with the share of the cost
participation would be to not construct the 39-space parking lot. Mr. McNeill did note that after
Huber Park was totally constructed, if there would then be a need for the Levee Drive parking lot
it would be the City's responsibility to construct that parking lot alone. Mr. McNeill stated the
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -16-
City needed to decide if they would participate in the Scott County HRA's shortfall. It was
noted that the City did have an interest in the project.
The City's cost of approximately ($39,000) ~ of the cost for the 39-staIl parking lot could come
from wherever the Council decided but the logical funding source would be from the Park
Reserve Fund. Cncl. Lehman stated he would like to see that parking lot put in. Cncl. Lehman
would like to see a very significant amount, if not all, of the financial assistance from the City to
Scott County HRA come from the EDA Budget. Mr. McNeill stated he would have to take a
look at the EDA budget and then a budget amendment would most likely be needed. Cncl.
Lehman noted the Northridge Court apartments was an EDA project and that was why he
thought the financial assistance should come from the EDA budget.
Bill Jaffa, Executive Director for the Scott County HRA, approached the podium and stated he
felt the three entities could overcome an unfortunate set of circumstances. He stated this
Northridge Court apartment project would certainly satisfy some of the City's redevelopment
goals; he stated the building was scheduled to open August 1,2004. He stated the HRA was at a
point now where a resolution had to be determined for the project. The problem had been going
on for numerous months. He thanked everyone involved with the project for their support.
Mr. McNeill stated if the Council was willing to participate, he recommended the developer's
agreement be amended and brought back and then he would be. able to bring back the specific
impact the numbers would have on the City's budget. He thought right now what Mr. Jaffa
wanted was some indication whether or not what was being proposed was acceptable or not. It
was noted the Council would participate in the financial shortfall but the Council was uncertain
of where the funds would come from for this assistance.
Cncl. J005 really wanted the parking lot constructed now; he felt it really was necessary. The
money needed to be found from some place to allow the Levee Drive parking lot construction to
happen. Mr. McNeill noted the Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) could absorb the cost of the
Levee Drive parking lot if the Council wanted the parking lot done at this time.
Mr. Thomson, City Attorney, noted under the current contract the HRA was obligated to
construct the Levee Drive parking lot with the City contributing approximately $39,000. Mr.
McNeill was suggesting that the BRA be relieved of the obligation to construct the Levee Drive
parking and still keep that $39,000. There was discussion on relieving the HRA of their
obligation to build the Levee Drive parking lot; Mayor Schmitt did not like that idea, however,
nor did Cncl. Helkamp.
Cncl. Helkamp stated when the decision was made to give up the parking lot that the Northridge
Court Apartment building now sits on, it was key in the Council's mind that there needed to be a
new parking lot on Levee Drive to help make Huber Park a success. He stated he was not
inclined to give up th~t parking lot at this time. He did not think putting this expense on the
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page -17-
backs of the taxpayers was appropriate at this time; he noted there was support from the
community for this project, however. He stated he really was not willing to participate in this
cost participation agreement with the HRA and SPUC. He stated he would like to see the HRA
find another way to fix this financial shortfall.
Mayor Schmitt noted it would take two actions by Council to come up with the amount the City
needed to make up their $80,000 for their share of the cost participation. There would need to be
an amendment to the developers Agreement allowing the HRA to put the $36,000 given to the
HRA for a Levee Drive parking lot elsewhere and the Council would need to come up with
another $44,000; if the Council wanted to fund their portion ofthe HRA's financial shortfall this
way.
Joos/Lehman moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to take the necessary steps and
execute the necessary documents, to alleviate the shortfall, with the Scott County HRA for the
Northridge Court apartments.
Mr. McNeill noted he would follow-up with the numbers that the Council was looking at and
bring them back to the next meeting on July 20,2004.
Motion carried 3-1 with Cncl. Helkamp dissenting.
Cncl. Lehman noted he had invitations for the Council members to the neighborhood watch 12th
annual block party. He noted this block party was not held the samenight as the City's annual
national night out. He noted he, Mr. Mc Neill, Mr. Voxland and a representative for the League
ofMn. Cities Insurance Trust met with the Fire Department regarding Workman's
Compensation. He noted there were two problems with Workman's Compensation and he noted
what the City had decided to do to help alleviate the problems. Mr. McNeill noted the City was
continuing to do research on these problems and they would work with the League of Mn. Cities
Insurance Trust and work through the League of Mn. Cities to get the issues resolved. Mr. Mc
Neill noted he would follow-up on these issues and come back with some answers in the next
couple of weeks. Right now it was thought that it would take some legislative action at the State
level to get the Workman's Compensation issue resolved. Cncl. Joos would like a memo
explaining the issues. There was consensus by the Council that Mr. McNeill should pursue
getting the issues resolved with the League of Mn. Cities Insurance Trust and work through the
League of Mn. Cities.
Cncl. Lehman also noted that he attended a Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB)
meeting where the design and cost estimates for the Soccer Complex were discussed. Cncl.
Lehman noted the design and cost estimates for the Soccer Complex came in above budget. He
noted the proposed soccer complex was not for all seasons -it was not heated (this was a
concern). The PRAB was looking into redesigning the soccer complex to take care of some of
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page-18-
the concerns. Cncl. Lehman noted land acquisition for future parks was also discussed. He
noted funding was a challenge.
. Cncl. Lehman noted the PRAB would like to see all City Boards and Commission meetings
televised or rebroadcast. He, too, would like to see some consistency with having all the
Commission and Board meetings taped and televised.
Cncl. Helkamp noted he attended the Transit Review Board meeting. He noted a contractor had
been approved to conduct the Uniform Transit Management Study for Scott County. The cost of
the Study would be approximately $135,000 (many partners were identified for cost sharing).
Cncl. Joos noted he attended a SPUC meeting where the Scott County HRA Northridge
. apartments project was discussed. He noted the visioning process for the City was talked about
andSPUC noted they definitely wanted to be involved with the visioning process as well as
looking at the Comprehensive Plan from their perspective as discussed by the. City Council at an
earlier meeting. There needed to be communication between the City and SPUC.
Mayor Schmitt noted he received a call from Cncl Menden in which Cncl. Menden noted there
was a School Board open house scheduled for the July 12,2004 at Central Elementary from 5:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The basic issues for the School Boards open house were building concepts for
the high school.
Mayor Schmitt addressed the Visioning and Strategic Planning for the City. Mr. Leek noted the
informational document regarding the participants of the Visioning and Strategic Planning
Process for the City had been drafted but was not in complete form yet. Mr. Leek stated the
informational document would be coming soon.
,
Cncl. Lehman noted he had a concern with the visioning and strategic planning process. He was
concerned about the public knowing when there would be meetings and just what this visioning
process was trying to accomplish. He did not think there was a unified goal of what was to be
accomplished with the study. Mayor Schmitt addressed this issue and stated he would work with
Anne Carroll, Michael Leek and Mark McNeill and he would come back on July 20th with an
outline of the process to give it substance. He wanted all residents to be involved with the
process. Mr. Leek also addressed the process of the visioning and strategic planning.
Helkamp/Joos moved to recess for an executive session to discuss labor negotiation. Motion
carried 4-0. The meeting recessed at 11: 15 p.m.
Helkamp/Joos moved to re-convene at 11 :22 p.m. Motion carried 4-0.
Mr. McNeill reported that the City Council was coming out of an executive session where labor
negotiations were discussed and that no action was taken by the council members.
Official Proceedings of the July 6, 2004
Shakopee City Council Page-19-
Helkamp/Joos moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. The
meeting was adjourned at 11 :23 p.m.
~J.~
iE!th s. Cox
lty Clerk
Carole Hedlund
Recording Secretary