Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/1993 TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE July 27, 1993 7 : 00 P.M. SHAKOPEE CITY HALL 129 HOLMES STREET SOUTH Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2] Approval of Minutes of June 29, 1993 33 Hearing for Alleged Liquor Violations - Jerry' s Bar 4] Other Business : a] b] S] Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 29, 1993 MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Laurent, Cncl. Vierling, Beard, Lynch and Sweeney. PLANNING COMMISSION: Chrmn. Joos, Comm. Zak, Madigan, Kelly Mars and Christensen. CDC: Chrmn. Albinson, Comm. Miller, VanHorn, Dirks. STAFF: Lindberg Ekola, City Planner Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant Planner Dennis Kraft, City Administrator Barry Stock, Ass' t City Administrator Debra Zabel, Recording Secretary I. ROLL CALL Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 15 PM. The roll call was taken as noted above . II . ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLANNING STRATEGIES Sweeney/Lynch moved to adjourn the meeting at 9 :00 PM. Jon Albinson asked whether the public would have an opportunity to input on the discussions . He stated that he might excuse himself from the CDC Board because of possible conflicts of interest . It was recommended that Comm. Albinson remain at the meeting as part of the CDC. Cncl . Beard spoke against the motion. Comm. Mars suggested a possible continuation of the Committee of the Whole meeting if it begins to run late. Motion failed with Cncl . Sweeney voting for the motion. Mr. Ekola, City Planner, gave a brief introduction to the meeting. He discussed the planning process for the East Shakopee Area Transportation Study, the Comprehensive Sewer Plan, the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan and the overall Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ekola went over the three alternative land use plans . Mr. Ekola stated that the plan submitted to the Met Council was alternative one. Official Proceedings of the June 29, 1993 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Cncl . Sweeney stated that the Met Council has several topics or concerns, such as the ten acre lots instead of 2 1/2 acre lots in the R-1 acres . Mr. Kraft informed the Council that Shakopee did a survey to see how many acres were vacant it was determined they had 1100 acres . However, the Met Council says Shakopee has 2900 vacant acres available . Mr. Ekola commented on the effects of the MUSA line and transportation with surrounding cities, such as Prior Lake and Savage . He stated they had looked at the future roadways and the sewer lines where it separates the urban and rural areas . Mr. Kraft commented that the Met Council was planning on making Shakopee a part of the developing area and taking away the free standing growth designation. Mr. Ekola explained the alternatives, viewing them in 20 years . He stressed that the land use plans are preliminary and intended to initiate discussions on future growth patterns for the City. He stated that with Alternative #1, although the land use plan proposes Agricultural uses past Dean Lake, the area is currently zoned Light Industrial . This area is not served by water and sewer but could develop in 20 acre parcels with their own private water and sewer. Rezoning to Agricultural uses could be a legal concern. Mr. Ekola said Alternative 2 would include approximately 145 acres of commercial development as a large regional shopping center. There would be about 80 acres used for multi-family residences to the West . There would be about 300 acres of single-family to the South and West. To the South would be about 400 acres of more I-1 industrial . Mr. Ekola explained Alternative 3, stating that the commercial • had been reduced to about 60 acres, with multi-family, single- family, and some industrial uses . Mr. Ekola stated that Shakopee needs to look at the vacant land, absorption, land use for households and acres, and the bypass . Mr. Ekola answered Cncl . Beard, stating that CR-21 will be a four-lane road with limited access . CR-21 would be designated as an arterial . Chairman Albinson commented on memo 4 in the packet and stated that it seemed one sided and wanted to comment on a few points . He commented that Alternative 1 would be considered share-growth, and felt the Alternatives 2 and 3 are the same Official Proceedings of the June 29, 1993 Shakopee City Council Page -3- as far as how they would promote Shakopee. Chairman Albinson stated that the Council should not stick with the projection numbers or any fixed number until more data has been obtained. Comm. Christensen commented that this meeting should be involved in looking at the big picture and not trying to obtain too much data. Chairman Albinson stated that each Alternative is going to have an impact on certain things, such as public works, schools, and he would like to have a break down on costs of each Alternative to measure the differences . Chairman Joos asked which Alternative would have the most effective control of growth, as far as, being able to control the growth within the confines of what Shakopee is right now. Comm. Miller asked if anything had been done in relationship to the downtown, the CR-17 corridor, and the existing mall and how the new growth would effect the existing plans for these areas . Mr. Ekola stated they have looked at CR-17 but not from an economic development view. He stated the plans they' re proposing focus on the physical planning issues . Comm. Miller asked Council' s opinion as to what would happen to the downtown stores and growth if one of these Alternatives were used. Comm. Dirks suggested that they should be looking at what the assets of Shakopee are. Cncl . Sweeney stated that since this development will not be taking place within the next year, there should be some consideration of the legislative actions . He felt that there would be a chance that Representative Orfield' s bill could be voted in and then Shakopee would have to restructure all of its plans . Comm. Miller stated that instead of looking at small portions of the City, one needs to look at the whole City and see how each step would effect everywhere not just one area. Mr. John Schmidt, audience, commented that the downtown area may become small shops, such as antique stores, and remain this way since there is not enough land for further development . He suggested that the East end of Shakopee could be accessible to about 75, 000 - 100, 000 people, however, the East end also has a few problems such as, school districts, more cost to the residential areas because they are not within Official Proceedings of the June 29, 1993 Shakopee City Council Page -4- the Shakopee City limits . The commercial tax aspect would flow to the Burnsville school district . He also commented on the fiscal disparities effecting the commercial area by about 60 percent . Mr. Schmidt suggested discussing with the Met Council about what Shakopee should get in return for housing one of their major regional sewer treatment facilities . He sated that Highway 21 needs to be a large concern for the City. Cncl . Beard stated that if the East side of Shakopee were to be developed that would attract growth to the entire City. Mr. Kraft commented on the trade concept being used by the Met Council with Jordan and Prior Lake and how Shakopee would react to such a trade in the Eastern portion of the development . Comm. Mars commented that the characteristic map being used, that was accepted by the Planning Commission and passed on to the City Council, was what the Planning Commission viewed as the big picture and should be used as a starting point . He stated that across CR-18 would be a regional-commercial are and Dean' s Lake area would become urban. Chrmn. Joos suggested that each committee had the basic questions and ideas in front of them and maybe they should return to their own groups and discuss these matters again amongst themselves for further direction. Comm. Christensen asked about the re-zoning process for these new developments . Mayor Laurent stated the any re-zoning seems to be limited to rural nature . He sated the City can rezone the areas but they can' t expand the MUSA. The Met Council has the authority to extend the MUSA. Mr. Stock stated the committees still needed some answers on the number of available acres and from there to get information about absorption and growth. He commented that there needs to be an economic analysis done on each section in order for the committee to discuss it any further. Mr. Kraft brought up the land in the Eastern portion of Shakopee in the MUSA line that is under the moratorium. Chairman Albinson stated this portion of land has a zero net developable area because of Sheeley' s mining operation, there is 180 acres of NSP land in the moratorium area, also the Spande property for the bypass and the land along the South side of 101 which is undeveloped. Official Proceedings of the June 29, 1993 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mr. Kraft asked if the interceptor would be placed in Shakopee then would development in land occur because then the people would have to pay for it. Mr. Stock suggested using a sub-committee, comprised of a couple members of each committee or maybe a consultant could be hired to obtain some of the information needed. Comm. VanHorn asked what the costs would be for the tax payers in Shakopee for each of the Alternatives suggested. Mr. Kraft stated that the costs would be depend on the development that was actually done. He stated if the residential development would increase then the cost for the tax payer would increase. Cncl . Sweeney suggested continuing for a month so each committee can meet and discuss more possibilities and obtain more information. Comm. Kelly stated that the City should not rush into any development along the bypass or CR-18 interchange, because this could only create problems in the future . Comm. Zak commented on the ISD 720 staff who commented on the school district boundaries and the difficulty changing boundaries in these areas . He stated that this was their job to make these changes and they should deal with the issue directly. Cncl . Beard suggested getting together with the Main Street America and discussing some ideas. III. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Laurent adjourned the Committee of the Whole meeting at 9 :20 PM. MEMORANDUM .4.5 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney DATE: July 8, 1993 RE: Conduct of Liquor Hearing On July 27, 1993 , the City Council, in a committee of the whole (acting as a hearing board) , is scheduled to conduct a hearing regarding alleged liquor violations . This hearing shall follow the administrative rules of evidence, and be taken down by a court reporter. A detailed chronological list of these procedures is set forth below. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall issue a report, with a copy to all parties . The City Council may direct staff to prepare the report . The party who is adversely affected has a minimum 10-day period to file exceptions and present arguments to the City Council . After this period ends, the City Council (acting in its usual capacity) , shall review the report and the exceptions (if any were filed) and hear arguments . The City Council shall adopt a resolution containing its decision, based on the record, including findings of fact, conclusions, and an order. This decision is provided to each party. Within 30 days the aggrieved party may appeal to the Court of Appeals. PROCEDURES FOR HEARING BOARD 1 . PRELIMINARIES . The speaker for the hearing board (probably the Mayor) opens the meeting by stating essentially the following: This is a hearing to consider action against Jerry' s Bar for liquor violations. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with administrative rules of evidence. The City shall present its information first, then Jerry' s Bar shall present its information. All speakers shall be given an oath, and will be requested to step up to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Are the parties ready to proceed? (Wait until both the City Attorney and the representative from Jerry' s Bar say yes. ) Does the City wish to make an opening statement? 2 . OBJECTIONS . At any time during the opening statement, questioning of witnesses, or closing argument, either the representative for Jerry' s Bar or the City Attorney may make an "objection" . The hearing board must make a ruling on the objection. If the objection is not clear, ask the objector for more explanation. If you wish, you may ask the other side to respond to the objection. The law provides that you "may admit and give probative effect to evidence which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. [You] shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. [You] may exclude incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial and repetitious evidence. " 3 . OPENING STATEMENT. Ask the City Attorney if she wants to make an opening statement . When she is done, or if she says no, ask the representative from Jerry' s Bar if he or she wishes to make an opening statement . 4 . CITY' S CASE. After opening statements, say that the City may call its first witness. (The City Attorney will identify someone to speak, who comes to the microphone . ) The speaker for the hearing board presents the oath: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? The City Attorney will begin to question the witness . 5 . CROSS-EXAMINATION. When the City Attorney is done questioning the witness, the representative for Jerry' s Bar should be asked if he or she wishes to cross-examine the witness. If so, then when that is done, the City Attorney must be asked if she has any "redirect" . If so, when it is done, the Jerry' s Bar representative should be asked if there are any further questions. Keep asking each party in turn if there are any further questions until each says no. Remember that the hearing board members have the right to interrupt at any time to ask questions . 6 . The City Attorney calls her second witness . This witness is given the oath, and questioning proceeds as above. The same procedure is followed for all her witnesses . 7 . JERRY' S BAR' S CASE. When the City Attorney says she is done or "rests" , it is Jerry' s Bar' s turn. Each witness is called to the microphone, given the oath, and questioned by the representative of Jerry' s Bar. The City Attorney is given the opportunity to cross-examine. This follows the procedures set forth above in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 . -2- 8 . REBUTTAL. First the City Attorney, and then the representative of Jerry' s Bar, shall be given the opportunity to submit "rebuttal" evidence, which is simply more testimony to refute something an earlier witness said. 9 . Any questions by the hearing board should have been asked by now. If any remain, ask them. Keep in mind that no factual information or evidence may be used in making your recommendation to the City Council unless it is stated or presented during this hearing. 10 . CLOSING ARGUMENT. The City Attorney is invited to make a closing argument . When she is done, the representative for Jerry' s Bar is invited to make a closing statement . 11 . Now everybody is done except the hearing board. The hearing board has to issue a report of the facts it heard, and may make a recommendation as to a penalty. (The hearing board may want to request staff or the representative of Jerry' s Bar to prepare a draft report for it . ) Penalties are limited to three: suspension of the liquor license for up to 60 days, revocation of the license, or imposition of a civil fine of up to $2000 . When the report is approved by the hearing board, it will be forwarded to the City Council, with copies to all parties. 12 . At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing board also may wish to set time frames for preparation and mailing of the report, and schedule the time for filing exceptions. This must be at least a 10-day period. A reasonable time frame would have the City Council considering the report, exceptions, and arguments at its August 17, 1993 , meeting. If you have any questions regarding this, please let me know. Signed I 4 K-ren Mar y, Cit • torney KEM:bjm [8L1Q] -3- TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING WITH JACKSON & LOUISVILLE TOWNSHIP BOARDS JULY 27, 1993 8 :30 P.M. SHAKOPEE CITY HALL 129 HOLMES STREET SOUTH 1] Roll Call at 8 : 30 P.M. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] 1994 Shakopee Budget Discussion -Fire Department 1994 Budget -Fire Department 5 Year Equipment List -Recreation 1994 Budget 4] Fire Service Contracts Discussion 5] Project Updates (Verbal) -Chaska Interceptor -Shakopee Bypass -Upper Valley Drainage Way -VIP Trunk Sewer 6] Other Business a] b] c] 7] Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator 478 TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Township Joint Meeting DATE: July 21, 1993 Attached are materials for the joint township meeting on July 27, 1993. The materials are: Fire Department 1994 budget request printout Five Year capital equipment request list for the Fire Department Recreation Department 1994 budget request printout Council has previously received the materials but has not taken any action regarding them. o d .- LI H C vii w 1~-' 0 C V) 0 0 0 H H ~ 0 z '-C z 0 C1 C) d W W 1-1 q '. rt •'D '11 n• w m g n 0 CD 0 CD C) H F'•b $ W a o N In rt 7d cD r• r-• ri C) o b r• tr1 31) rt a ~up0 w • a n r• C 1-.40 EN NCD rt rt CD `•C O▪ w r• '0 rt a 0 i-.'LI o0 o 0 11)n E /-. m 11 Inwa a) MI rb rr lCD 3-' 0 CD Iot y • rt N In 0 rn 0 o m rt rtrtCD p. 0 CD r) CDD L.35 In a'b 9 s2^ m w 'd In w r•• 11 r•-tn r• rt CD •• rtl Oo CD 0 -' C 3/3 rrt CD d O g 0 0 r 0 NP)• 0 CM0 CM w y 0 C l'" In - co PW I-' a m o {n X w a n 'd 1-. o w w w w r� rt En H. 00• tnl~ a0 0 0 'b 0 0 ( In rt 0 (1)• .d 'z] r,• • 0 In 0 0 cD r• 0 rt O rti 0 11 0 f" N • rt r• rt 0 N En 0 rt CD 11 0 �ro11) 0•- ri cD rt rt rt 1-" x' w 0' m n 11 Po, Cr 0w 1- CA .Sb o r 0 r• w u, r• 'C m oho rt 1R '0 0 - In w O H, 1-h M •tn 0 Q^ In r'• —1 0 H n' CA 0 m O rt AW rt co w x r• rin 0 r• 0 0 r• r• m0 CM 0- a0 C-1 vo r0i .n n' A- w In 1-" N O ro w O 5 rt m a w 0 0 O rt O a In 0 ✓ 0 a o w O w rt r• CD U1 N rt C � r• N• I W t✓ Cr 1✓ ▪ 03 CD U1 I-4* HIn 0 N In n' r• "Ii In * * 4- * 4" 4" 4' 4- 4- 4' 4' 4" 4- 4" * 4" 4- 4" 4" 4' 4" 4" 0 o r * * tit * w W W W W W W W N N N N * H F-' h-' F-' H h-' I-' CC F-' %O * H In H La '.0 co (' In La N N H La N.) N H Ln La N Na N 1.4 0 * 0 0 0 W 00000f-i000ONO 0 H1-. 4- Nr0 --' t' 0 Hn Hbb .> H H OC3CHH ^dtt1J�oMcn H Ex 'x1 'xibcncn H Z C r 9 r COHZ7:3 X V/ 0X.0C0C r 0 rxi 1-11-1t'399 tTf H b VIZH V] Hpi- ["' cnOG" HH ''0rCV ryo cn 0 H cn En 'trCZCtifHPI1-+ t 0 11:1C' Cii99 H H 9 H C Cif H E H C:f b 9 trf b 0 X r tT a H En ri O 1"1:19 b 47' 7� H Hrxocn • H H 7d Ox ''o HH 0 H z H r 1.0CIH Z o t'f En z 'Tf V/ cn Z CI Cil Crf 7d 'C H t"' cnZt'fCfOQ+ Z H 0Ccn 0 roR^ Z cn En 1-1 H 9 Cx1 H C c) cn t'1 tri 0 tri Z cn IV Z 0 O r A tx1 tJoCrl 21 En ZHZr' 9 HHO HH 1-3 d H rC-I \ Cl) () 7d to t9-' 3 - r 't z Z 0 Cl' L-' Z En • '• •cn Z O tN�f Pt Z H C x 0 ttH Tl C Z r rC-1 C7 'OC 0 0 Z H Z 0 C t En t-' VI Cil Cif cn H N CA En H 0 z -CA Pt H N H 0 0 In In 1--' 1-' N W 1-' F-' W W H '� C) W 0 0 '.O h-' 0 co N N h-' co V kr) . 1' 0 1--' 0 W 0 CII E H .c 0 0 .n 00000\0 o1-00000 La O W Orr.O -J 9 O 0 0 In 0000x, 00000000 l,+ OOOLnvOLA) r 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 0 0000000 CO el V In In kr) N N H 4-' W W kr) H 4- 0 0 0 1-' 0 co N N 1--' 4- vvo 4- h-' 4" 0 J- O w Z w 0 '.o 0 0 In O000o'. 0001- 00000 Co Ow0Hr0 �JHIN-' E 0 0 0 O In 0000 n00000000 Ui OOOIn V 0w �v 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 0 0000000 En {„ -a> x rn 'v Crf N N N -o Lo vo O N La i 0 O N O 0 0 1C O 0 0 0 0 0 0=7 t,> b O N O N t7 La i H N O 0 0 0 0 r• W rt PP 0 CD m C0 rn O P1 0 D P1 n n N PI r• N Wm N C K G C N 0 G G cD )-. P) r• f) [) to rt r) to W f) 0 r) xnaCD CD CD a0. 0. x o ,C 0 Cr1 P-' 0 ,--, o ' ' 1 Cl) 0t711-3.n cD n > CD Pr) m P) 0 0 W H. to a H ro cD rt P) 0 r• 70 Cn II cD cD n w rt f- '0 Cu cA Z n r--, m w 1n s a ro w r• m 'd 0 rt H cD r• 7y N rt P) cn cD 0 II n '0 rt mQq xPPI ~0 II Co r• 9 r-+ 4- r• r• 1� w 1•'• lb • ) II < CD rt U) r• rt 0 ... r• et et CY r U, cn rt co 0 rt M r-' 1✓ In N 1--' .0 O In CO 0v P" O• O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W 1--' �l H In .0 1--' In 0 a' 0 Ls, In 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W N F' 4, W W a. .0 r ON 0 Ln to Ln o .D a, In 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 000 00 0 0 000 00 0 N N F-' V h-' a. .0 ON a. 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I—. P. 1—, r .0 I . CT 0 rn 0 .0 .0 0▪ 0 0 0 0 a0720 00 0 0 0 00 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1994 BUDGET Program Budget 1993 Object 1991 1992 1993 Y-T-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Code Description ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUEST BUDGET 001 -GENERAL FUND DIVISION 32 - FIRE PROGRAM 0321 - GENERAL FUND WAGES FT REG 2,152 1,013 3,730 285 3,730 0 WAGES - TEMP 74,537 60,962 82,000 21,342 90,000 0 PERA 96 45 170 13 170 0 FICA 2,729 278 285 330 1,150 0 FIRE PENSION 5,000 25,191 25,200 0 30,000 0 MEDICARE 51 683 250 0 0 0 HEALTH & LIFE 151 53 285 0 300 0 WORKERS COMPENSATION 8,409 7,953 9,000 7,680 9,000 0 OPERATING SUPPLIES 12,676 7,191 8,600 2,238 11,000 0 MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS 2,696 2,180 4,000 607 4,000 0 BUILDING MAINT 1,698 477 4,000 5,294 9,000 0 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 15,749 5,832 12,000 6,596 17,000 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,000 3,852 4,000 565 4,000 0 POSTAGE 4 58 100 14 100 0 TELEPHONE 1,548 1,528 1,800 698 1,800 0 TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 585 2,031 2,000 0 2,000 0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1994 BUDGET Page 2 Program Budget 1993 Object 1991 1992 1993 Y-T-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Code Description ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUEST BUDGET PRINTING/PUBLISHING 10 402 650 40 650 0 INSURANCE 17,188 22,207 20,000 22,186 22,000 0 UTILITY SERVICE 6,788 8,813 8,000 4,801 8,000 0 CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAINING 3,000 2,530 10,000 3,315 10,000 0 RENTALS 0 0 0 91 0 0 DUES 422 315 700 240 1,000 0 SUBSCRIPTIONS/PUBLICATIONS 0 0 0 95 0 0 EQUIPMENT 27,012 247,427 574,900 0 50,000 0 TOTAL 0321 - FIRE MANAGEMENT 186,501 401,021 771,670 76,430 274,900 0 O 9 t7 vi W F•-' til H H ll7 I-' 0 C) < f/) O O 1-4 H H H H 0 z ?•C z 0 .. •• Co C) 0 t) 0 b C) ro ro w 0 r• CD t•+ 0 w P) •r• a CD 0 0 9 x x rt tr' f) r; 0 0 N ca w 0 rt H. r• 0 r-, rt 0 til 0 r• w w m CCD \ r° 40 rt 0 . Q. a ro 0 r• • O ro rt 0 to ib 70 r• w 0 CD cD b rt o0 0 w v) 0 f) 9 0- ht) r-' rt rt rt CD 0 co to Co co 0 rt• 0 0 r• M rt rt 0o CD 0 w r• r• CD p •� M 0 d 0 H G 0' i rt 0 CD 'd 0 ri • 0 tD r• o co 0 m a 0 w CD rt 0 0 to r• rh w < 0 n 0 P �b 9 r• o CD N to En rt C �' a own 0 w rt CD CD 0 f-' wwrt —S n 0 r• o \ 3 0) o CD I:0fl ¢. v rt B htl 0 r• rt C) rt d {n r-' r• cn Co CD ri to w o N' 0 N r Go ri m H �C y CD d rt w r• O r• 0 d p In cD va r• rt 0 H d rt 0' C a 0 -Cl) w 0 0 o 0. G n co O fD r• CD N o to 0 • c) d 0 rt 9 m rt r0 b b r• rt 0 M 0 ri r• 11) w fD CD 0 0 fD v) 0 w r a I.. r� m I (o 0 r• -CO rt r• rt M f-' .. rt LC 0 - w r• ri ON \ N w o � 0 p. 113 0 I . w b C 0 0 r•Uo CR to PI O D) CD ri 9 0 �C • rt N 0' O b 0 P3 w rn n rt a ar 0• CD * * 4, * 4" 4, 4' 4, 4' 4" 4, 4, 4, 4" 4, 4, 4, 4' * ., 4" 4- 4, 4, 4, 4' 0 0 H * * In * 4' N w w w w w w co w N N N N * H H H H H H H by H kO * H 111 H w U' w 'D co a\ In w tJ N I-' 4, w N H H V Cn w N) N) H 0 L+ •C) * 0 0 0 CO 0 CAI 00000H0000N0 0 01--' HtvI-, 01 C+7 C) 4, O H H 9 Cnzoc) HbHHbbtri bdzco H (") Ex 'roiivcEn H Z 9 C ) < r 9 r 9t/ 00HZMCryo :hA000 r 00Vy - tr199 an r7oCIZHCAH � �t Cl) 0 H En tx10En 'r1r0ZCtrrlrrt 10r1r0itH' oro rd ro7Ct9-� 99EE tt C) " 9 H 0 Cl) I CIH 5 H t71 ro w tr1 ro 0 7o r tri tm c) H CA r H 0 ro 9 IV f7' PcfH 1-+ rxao cn • H HH Z H r '-c1H t71 H Z 0 (I) C/) Z tri Cl) CA Z x Cr) Cr)CHr ) PO 0•< H r 9t7CnZtr100Ce, Z H C c cn 0 9f?+ CnCn H H 9 try HX ra 0 C') En tr1 t71 0 9 rotr1 Z H ro Z 0 0 r A t71 cn bo Cr) ft' cn Z H H 0 Cl) Cr) CA CII0 9 Z › r t-'> 9'' 0 1-1r H H H d 'r] t9' b celt7.1 f?' ttI EEin r •H Z fr Cl) 0 Cl) 9 Cr)nn Z En H 0 t71 to Z < Cl) OH til < Cl)[r1 0 H H x rr, c H Z 'V[710 CZ') 0 c) tom] t0r1 ni En t tx1 Ell Ell CA CA CA CA 0 H C H CA � L} H b H 0 7t7 kO NCA H H Z 0 4" V H H N w N N V 4' a.' w CT H V 4' H ON 00 74 E H H 0 In V co N co to co 0 0 0 In w '.O w In N CO In 0 > try H a) 00001n 0000000 H tr 04, aN4, E00N) t-+ 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ',Cl to tr1 0 el 1 �' t�o H IN N r-' Z 0 H 1-' H W� H tri a.' 0 Z I - _ _ _ _ Ln NJ H H i-. co0 4, H 0 7C 06-' O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO I En -En x NH H H nil W V H H N w N N V 4, En V P- 1-,La -'-' ON A = C H 0 H 0 is V CON CO In CO 0 0 0 U' w CO CO In 0 1` H N H 0. 00001n0000000 H In 4' '00N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.d ., 4 0 • A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (4 W (4 W (..) W W NJ N NJ NJ NJ NJ I- F-• ha r r r fa r.. r. )... 1.. co 0) (11 W N NJ 0-- to A W N I- r V 01 A CO N NJ N r r 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 1-- 0 0 0 0 0 N VI 0 O r NJ I-- VI N r r 0 NJ r 1-0 0 n C r -0 -1 -i v -0 3 m C I 3 0 v C) C 2 3 m < fl) n 1_I 2 r-( D r ON 72 m 0 c O D -o m 4 1-4 CD r C z0 77 C 1-( -I -I m A S A rn D C7 C) m O G) < > rN-1 co.-. r� A --I < -0 D m 2 v r 0 73 D N PI 7[ 3 r 1-I D D m A m 0 c) -1 D H r H h 2 C) N D 1 1 -i Z 2 r 2 D 4-4 1-4 N 15-4 N Z Zm N0 rm W 1 -4 0) 1- • ^C) CN 0 1-1 Z C) C Z D -< R• m mm Al)N m \ C m 0 1-1 -1 m V) O r 4 C) 3 I -1 Im 13 W 70 C N D m > Ui N N C) 3 m r —1 m 71 A I H• < co H1-1 z m m 3 m o 1-( r- V) r 1-1 2 R. C A D m m I v O A C) 1-C --1 (n z -I v < CO z m C (-)m N m z 1- r- 1-1 N V) A2 Z i mm2 D mm < 2 W Z -1 O C) Z I-1 N N C) O s--I s M C) D h N m0 Z z -4 N D C)r 1•., -i CO N A r r W r A C..) oo D r - - - - - - -A VI NJ N V VI V W 0 A r 1- W W r A r (0 Co (n V1 r 0 W A 03 O VI r Co V W V 0 n Co N) r (4 V r 0 0 Co A N C.) 0 A V V W W V 0 CJI r' 1-1 A VI CO -< W0 NJ CO A 0 0 NJ VI 1-• O N NJ t0 N 00 V V CO NJ N 0 (O VI 0) 5-r r.,.(0 -< u) CO 1-•A 0 o -n =co D C V) C)r CO 0 2 -t CO C C) D Fa C CO a m 7C 0) 1-- W CO D NJ (0-1 0 NJ (5.1 r r O) r r (0 VI N W V 0 A CO V r- n 5-. - - - - - - - - -A V1 W W O C..) r N W 0 V1 CO W CO A m CO r V V1 W V 0 r W r 0) W A O) CJ 1-- A VI r A NJ 01 O) N m V VI 0) A 5- NJ r 0) CO NJ r oo NJ CO V 411 0 W r CO A A N 0 0 CO I-. C I-• O(o r V r W 0 C)(0 NJ (4 N W 5- N 0 r (..) 0) r CO A r 0) m W NJ oo VI 0o O O VI O - -4VO 1 O O O O O O O 0 (0 W V) N.) A V 0 W (0 O 0 0)0 A V0 V 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O D< C) I r --I-I(0 V CO CO N r r W N A N A A N V CO >0 C.) W V r W N) 03 _ _ _ r- r V N CO N N W CO A 00 NJ r 0 00 (0 CO A tT O r (O C.) I- N CO O 00 CO A VI o) O O 0 0 0 Vt (0 0) 0 NJ W Co O P. NJ 0 N O VI 0 z m M'0 0D C73 r r m-4 °) r C.) o (n 3 NJ W NJ N V r P. 0) W C7) r V A r N -4 m N 03 VI Co 0 0 0 Vo W (0 W 1 tVI NJ oo CPO A ? VI O O O O 0 O O 0 r VI 0 A 0) A (0 0 N 0 O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 17 W 73 CO 0-o -0 0 o m(n (o II --1 m CD 1 0 tl (,,) • iOf • • • W • • • • • • • • ! 1•; • il A 0 151 0 Q VI 0' . 0 am F (n n F -4 C) m i O > 0 0 i -I -o C D F-/ -I 11/ t r v � > FIF{ D ; v r mf g Z m -I r x r. v 0 0 m 7 H Z < 0 H H N -4 F-1 C O z Z m V M I I f I 1 I I n n n 1 N n ( N i n n to D t I4 0 1- 1 -I CO I C co ( CO I Dr A. r r f 1- - I 0 () ( C...) I-- r f r-• r-f F r N N 1 < r -I 1 0o 0 0 N r.Co -< In CO N r A 0 11 0 4 la V) n 7 CO u D C N (7r Wc, 2 Il -lfD C 0 D It C(0 Iym 7C 0 NDN c0 -I 0 V If r f9 f - n .. m 00 N 171 N N E G) 0 O N II II II n 0) If Cr I-• N 0 CO to N 0 CO o ii m(4 n -4 w it o n 0 0 off N n n n D< N C) f r If -I-1(D to n c f /D I-• H >0ca n 1-- 03 n r N A O O n N n to 0 n Tom N m v N.OD I n C 73 r II m-1 fs n N 3 o ii -I N Z W ii —1 O II O 0 O N 1 n t n 1 .` N y N CO 70 IICO N 0v -o N 0 0 n n m(n (.0 i n -Im 0 I II 0 n N BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of the minutes from the 1991 & 1992 joint meetings with the Townships. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 9, 1991 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 07 P.M. with Councilmembers Zak, Wampach, Sweeney, Vierling and Clay present. Also present were Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Mark McQuillan, Program Supervisor for Parks and Recreation. Present from Jackson Township were: Supervisors James Ramaker and Norbert Theis; Treasurer, Earl Weckman; and Clerk, Rose Menke. Present from Louisville Township were: Supervisors Bill Dellwo and Marion Schmidt; and Clerk, James Theis. The joint meeting took place in the Jackson Town Hall . The City Administrator explained the costs to the City of Shakopee for park maintenance, recreation department, and the operation of the swimming pool. He also identified the revenues to support them. He also identified the populations of each of the three government jurisdictions according to the 1990 census data. Using the populations to establish a ratio he explained the gross and net costs per capita for each of the three programs. Mr. Kraft then explained the gross and net costs by participants by program and by households by program. Mr. Kraft then identified four options the townships may wish to consider to share in the costs for programs enjoyed by some of their residents. Discussion followed among City Councilmembers. Cncl.Clay suggested that there be a brake so that the townships could talk among themselves about the material just presented. Vierling/Clay moved for a recess at 8: 10 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent re-convened the meeting at 8:22 P.M. Mayor Laurent asked for comments from the townships. Marion Schmidt stated that she believes that the townships have nothing to do with the parks and if the park costs are not included in the user fees, that is Shakopee's problem. She thought that the townships were only looking at the recreation user fees. Jim Ramaker said that he supported cost sharing for the recreation programs as discussed a few months ago in the amount of approximately $2, 800 for Jackson. This is what he presented to his people. What has been presented here tonight is a lot more. He is against sharing in any costs other than what was presented last year. Norbert Theis said that the townships have other problems. He said that it is hard to sell the cost participation idea and that they have their own ball field and tennis court. Proceedings of the City Council April 9, 1991 Page -2- Jim Ramaker stated that Shakopee has come back with a lot more costs than presented last year. He said that he was afraid that this would happen and that it is good to see this now. Mayor Laurent explained that City staff has provided all this information which City Council is seeing for the first time tonight. He said that they are all policy makers and that they must take this information and decide what they want to do with it. He explained that as a Council they must represent and protect their citizens from subsidizing programs for other jurisdictions. Shakopee is looking for some funding by the townships to offset costs for township participants or fees will need to be raised for non-resident participants. Discussion followed. Mr. Norbert Theis and Mr. James Ramaker agreed that Jackson Township is willing to contribute to the costs of the recreation activities according to the formula discussed last year. Representatives from Louisville would like to take the two alternatives (township pays or user fees) to their residents. Consensus was to use the following formula for computing cost to the townships based on the number of participants per activities: Recreation expenditures minus revenues times the ratio of participants per activities among: 1) Jackson Township, 2) Louisville Township, and 3) City of Shakopee and those outside all three jurisdictions. Bill Dellwo suggested considering increasing adult fees, but holding down fees for young children for the future. Sweeney/Zak moved to accept a contribution from the townships as calculated (expenses minus revenues times participants per activity per government jurisdiction) in lieu of non-resident fees. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Zak moved to stop collecting a user fee retroactive to December 31, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. (Mention was made that there are non-resident participants outside of Shakopee and the townships. Either Shakopee pays for them or they can charge a user fee for them. ) Rose Menke stated that the user fees already collected by Shakopee can be credited against the user fees to be paid by the townships for 1991. The townships agreed that they could make their 1991 user fee payment to Shakopee by April 1, 1992. It was acknowledged that payment to Shakopee by the townships would always be one year behind. Proceedings of the City Council April 9, 1991 Page -3- Mayor Laurent thanked everyone for their cooperation in working together on this matter. Norbert Theis and Bill Dellwo thanked the City Council for working with them. Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, April 16, 1991 at 6: 00 P.M. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. 0/?c. 4u ith S. Cox C y Clerk Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 28, 1992 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 4 :29 P.M. with Councilmembers Joan Lynch and Robert Sweeney present. Councilmembers Gloria Vierling and Michael Beard were absent. Also present were Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Gregg Voxland, Finance Officer. Dave Hutton, Public Works Director, arrived later for discussion on the Special Assessment Policy. Sweeney/Laurent moved to approve the minutes of March 31st, April 14th, and April 16th, 1992 . Motion carried with Cncl. Lynch abstaining. Janet Williams, Director of the Scott County Library System, addressed the City Council. Ms. Williams stated when she sent the library's annual report to the City, it occurred to her that she hadn't met with Shakopee officials since 1980. She also stated that all officials may not know how the library works and who is responsible for what. She then provided the Council with information about the Shakopee library. The current agreement between the County and the City was signed in 1977. Under this agreement, the City provides the building, insurance and utilities; and, the County provides the staff, materials and furnishes the building. It is renewable annually unless one party notifies the other. The County has the same agreement with all seven cities. Ms. Williams explained that the first library in Shakopee was located on the northerly portion of the Marquette Bank building in 1969. It was later moved to its current site in 1970 and was subsequently tripled in size in 1980. 95% of the County funding comes from county dollars and 5% comes from the regional system. Ms. Williams explained that approximately 9, 780 Shakopee people have library cards, including township residents, and that in the county approximately 38, 000 people have cards. In the last number of years they have been experiencing problems with the clientele and are training their people how to handle them. Ms. Williams said that the use of the library is up and that March is up 13% from the previous March. The county is growing and that during a recession the library is usually used more. The library serves as a meeting place. On April 1st, fines were implemented. - There are two terminals for use by the public to access the catalogue to learn what is available in the county system. Ms.Williams stated that for the future she would like the City to budget for new carpeting which could then be coordinated for furnishings provided by the county. She stated that the current building is adequate for the services being provided. Official Proceedings of the April 28, 1992 Committee of the Whole Page -2- Mayor Laurent thanked Ms. Williams for coming and providing the Council with the information. The City Administrator explained the County's sentencing to service program whereby individuals can do work for cities rather than go to jail. He said that it is different than community service because there is a whole crew put together which has a supervisor and equipment. They are available Thursday through Sunday. He said that the program is currently costing the County $22, 000 a year and that they would like cities to participate by pledging one-half of the cost. Savage has agreed to $2, 200 in 1993 provided at least three other cities also pledge. Council directed the City Administrator to meet with Department Heads to identify any projects the city may have that could be done by a crew. Discussion ensued on the agenda for the joint meeting with the townships. The Mayor reported on the Council meeting with the fire department. He said that the Fire Department provided the Council with a lot of good information and that they will be providing a quarterly report in the future. No changes were made to the tentative agenda. The Council decided that it was not necessary to meet on Thursday at 7 : 30 A.M. They also set Committee of the Whole meetings for Monday, May 11th at 7:00 P.M. and Tuesday, May 26th at 7: 00 P.M. . The meeting on the 26th is tentative and may have to be changed if the May 12th Board of Review needs to be continued to that date. Mr. Hutton, Public Works Director, explained that the Council has a special assessment policy and a number of other policies which he recommends be all incorporated into one document. He stated that he and the city attorney are working on incorporating all policies into one bock. He explained that he has kept his memo on the special assessment policy general and has listed several issues the Council may wish to discuss tonight. The Council discussed benefit appraisals and where and when they may wish to obtain appraisals on properties benefitted by construction of public improvements. Cncl. Sweeney stated that if a policy were written keeping the 2nd Avenue Improvements in mind, it would be applicable to other parts of the community. Mayor Laurent stated that he is not advocating doing benefit appraisals, -but if we are going to do them, we need a policy. He stated that if there is an appeal, an appraisal could be obtained so that the matter could be settled rather than going to court. He stated that he wants the city to have a fair assessment policy, one that can be held up in court, and that he believes that the current policy is fair. Cncl. Sweeney stated that he believes that some parcels next to the railroad on 2nd Avenue are not assessable at all. He stated that Official Proceedings of the April 28, 1992 Committee of the Whole Page -3- where parcels can not be assessed enough to pay for the improvements along the gravel streets, the cost may have to be funded some other way. This will result in it taking longer to improve the gravel streets because the city will have to utilize some of its funds. Consensus of the Council was to allow Mr. Hutton to take a stab at drafting a policy on where and when to obtain benefit appraisals on properties benefitted by construction of public improvements. Discussion ensued on improvements to gravel streets. Mr. Hutton explained that the City policy is to assess streets receiving new construction 100% and to assess streets receiving reconstruction 25%. He asked if Council wished to differentiate between urban and rural streets. Some rural streets which have not been constructed include Valley View, Muhlenhardt, Pike Lake, and Maras Street. Urban streets needing construction include Jasper, Viking Steel, the road between 10th and Shakopee Avenue just West of the church, on Bluff North of 1st, Brook Lane East of the Dairy Queen, and Webster East of the correctional facility. He explained that assessments for rural roads may be high because the parcels in the rural area are larger than those in the urban area. Consensus of Council was to continue with the current assessment policy and direct Mr. Hutton to identify the exceptions that fall outside the policy and how those improvements might be paid for. Mr. Hutton advised Council that the petition received for improvements to Muhlenhardt Road is a legal petition. It is signed by the required number of abutting property owners. He stated that the petition did contain a clause stating that the petitioners only agree to pay 25%. He said that if Council stays with the 100% assessment policy, the petition should probably be recirculated so that the people who signed it know that it is going to be assessed 100%. Consensus of the Council was to delay accepting the petition until Council has the opportunity to make changes to the special assessment policy after Mr. Hutton identifies exceptions that fall outside the assessment policy and how they might be paid for. Mayor Laurent recessed the meeting at approximately 7 : 05 P.M. Mayor Laurent re-convened the meeting at the Jackson Township Hall, at approximately 7 :20 P.M. Present from the City of Shakopee were: Councilmembers Robert Sweeney, Joan Lynch, and Mayor Laurent; Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Mark McQuillan, Program Supervisor; and Pete Ries, Fire Chief. Present from Jackson Township were: Supervisors James Ramaker, Mark Luce and Norbert Theis; Earl Weckman, Treasurer; and Rose Menke, Clerk. Present Official Proceedings of the April 28, 1992 Committee of the Whole Page -4- from Louisville Township were: Supervisors Bill Dellwo and Marion Schmidt; and James Theis, Clerk. Mark McQuillan stated that it was about one year ago when the three governing bodies met to look at a variety of different ways to fund recreation for the Townships participants. It was agreed to go with what was originally discussed in 1990, to use the participation per activity as applied to the City's current year's ad valorum net tax contribution towards recreation. He explained that the figures used for the formula for the percentage of the dollar share were incorrect. The figures used for the City of Shakopee were 8, 000 to 9, 000 higher than they should have been because the figures included both fee and non-fee activity users from the City of Shakopee. He explained the process used this year to come up with the number of participants in fee activities from the three jurisdictions. These figures affect the percentage of participation from the communities. Mr. McQuillan stated that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board also discussed not using the current budget year. Since we are - using the participation figures from the preceding year, it would make sense to use the actual recreation expenditures from the previous year also. He said that the Advisory Board is recommending using 1991 participation figures and the 1991 budget expenditures, which last year was $89, 858.00. Mr. McQuillan explained that, because of the amount of time it takes to come up with accurate figures showing the amount of participants in fee activities from the three jurisdictions, staff is recommending using a fixed rate. The fixed rate could be used over a three year period with a percentage increase. Marion Schmidt and Norbert Theis stated that they thought what was discussed and decided on was that each township participant was to pay an additional $3 . 00 per activity. They did not remember anything about the participation formula explained by Mr. McQuillan. Discussion followed. Norbert Theis explained that Jackson has budgeted $2 , 880 for 1992 and $3, 000 for 1993 for their participation in the recreation costs. He said that they do not have the money budgeted for Jackson Township as identified in Mr. McQuillan's report. Mr. Theis asked Shakopee to provide the Townships with copies of the budget for recreation including where the costs are and the fee schedule for participation in order that they can discuss this matter further. Consensus was that the Townships would be provided with this information and that they would get back to the City Council. A brief discussion ensued on what vehicles and man power are • dispatched to a fire. Mr. Norbert Theis asked what was being Official Proceedings of the April 28, 1992 Committee of the Whole Page -5- planned for a second fire station. He asked if the townships could be appraised well in advance when the City plans major purchases for the Fire Department. They need to know this information well ahead so that they can budget accordingly. The Fire Chief was asked to provide the townships with a copy of the booklet which the Fire Department distributed to Councilmembers at the Committee of the Whole meeting on April 14th. Mr. Kraft, City Administrator, advised the Township Boards that Shakopee will be surveying about 400 people in the community to determine the needs for a community center. Mayor Laurent stated that some time ago there was a meeting with the Jackson Township Chair, the Shakopee City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator, and himself about orderly annexation. Mr. Norbert Theis stated that there was an agreement between the City and Jackson signed sometime ago. He agreed to send the City copies of the agreement and the map of the boundaries within the agreement. Mr. Theis stated that he thought annexation should be put on the back burner and that he would like to see a sewer plan. He said that they aren't going to give up any property and have it lie in the city limits and not do anything with it like the Vierling property. He said the City of Northfield had a good annexation plan that Shakopee may wish- to take a look at. Mayor Laurent asked if there was anything the Townships wished to talk about. Mr. Norbert Theis stated that he would like to sit down sometime and talk with the engineer and see what is planned for the valley interceptor. He said that he attended a recent meeting of the Shakopee Planning Commission when there was discussion on a pump for the Link property. He said that he thought it would be foolish to put in a pump just for the few houses Mr. Link is putting in when there are other properties where the highway is cutting off which will lay dormant if something isn't done. Councilman Sweeney asked if Louisville Township wanted to be involved in the discussions with the Engineer at the same time as Jackson Township. Mr. Dellwo responded yes. Mayor Laurent asked if there was anything else that anyone wished to talk about. There being no response, Mayor Laurent thanked - everyone for attending the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8 : 48 P.M. U 1., Jud 'th S. Cox City Clerk Recording Secretary