Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/14/1983
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: June 10 , 1983 1 . The City picnic for Councilmembers and employees is scheduled for Thursday, June 23, at 5 : 00 p.m. at Lions Park. As we did last year, department heads and City Councilmembers are chipping in for part of the food and beverage. This year we decided to supply brats and hoc dogs and the charcoal to grill them along with the condiments . The party organizers estimate that a $5 . 00 contribution from department heads and Councilmembers will be sufficient to cover this . Please get your money to Judy at your earliest convenience. The picnic is a little less than two weeks away so please put it on your calendar. We have been talking it up and I think we will even have a better crowd than last year. 2 . Even though we have had bad whether, as of yesterday, family pool pass purchases had equaled the number purchased by the same date last year. 3 . Early this week I had a $666 .00 phone call . I noticed on the County agenda that they were talking about the distribution of the new gravel tax, and I called the County Auditor to ask what the City was receiving for the Shiely Pit . I learned that they had not scheduled any money for distribution co Shakopee because they thought it was one of Shiely ' s other pits . As a result, my five minute phone call netted us the $666 . 00 that would have been shipped off to one of the Scott County townships . 4. At the last City Council meeting Dean Colligan mentioned that the deadline for the dram shop insurance requirement for businesses selling 3 . 2 beer had been extended. Judy has informed me that we are going ahead with the program based on the original deadline because we are all geared up; and because our ordinance implementing the local version would have to be amended to change the implementation date . If you have any questions or concerns about this contact Judy. I think the fact that we are geared up and ready to go speaks well of Judy and Jack for having spotted this requirement and done their homework in a timely fashion. 5 . Zylstra United has submitted a copy of the lease agreement with Joe Topic for the building at the corner of First and Lewis Street . The lease was executed as of June 7 , 1983 . 6 . A Councilmember, a believe it was Mayor Reinke , mentioned to me that Conklin had some kind of experimental farm plot on the sludge farm property. Don Steger has checked this out and Conklin is utilizing about 10 acres of the sludge farm property in order to test the products they are marketing. Non-Agenda Informational Items Page Two June 10, 1983 They need to make sure that the claims they make are indeed true, and determine what kind of claims to make in the future when advertising their fertilizer products . Don also told me that there were no permits required because there was no construction of facilities on the site . If you have any questions please contact Don. 7 . There will be an interesting vote by the members of the League of Minnesota Cities on Thursday, June 16th at the Annual League Conference. Thursday, June 16th is the date of the mini conference for which most of you are registered. This business meeting will be held from about 3 : 30 to 5 : 00 p.m. , and the interesting votes will involve the proposed consti- tutional amendments outlined in the attached memo. The amendments are being sponsored by the Metropolitan Loser ' s Group and the Association of Small Cities to enable the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities to take a position contrary to that of the League, and to break the veto power of the first class cities . The Metropolitan Loser' s Group and the Association of Small Cities are planning a one hour strategy session from 8 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 a.m. in a room at the conference hotel . If you have any questions regarding this material please contact me before Thursday. JKA/jms . June 6 , 1983 Dear City Official: The differences that surfaced during this past legislative session served as reminders of the broad diversity among our membership and were frustrating for many of us. However, reflection has focused ideas on positive structural changes in the League of Minnesota Cities which we believe can strengthen the long-term goals of the organization. President Jo Nunn, in her excellent and timely letter of May 19 to all City Officials, urged the membership to let the LMC Board hear how the League can be more effective in the future by building upon our diversity. Toward this end, a series of amendments to the LMC Constitution has been framed that will strengthen the LMC' s key role as the voice for all cities. In this way we will recognize that there will be issues and times when agreement is not possible and provide a procedure to deal constructively with such issues. Presently, the LMC Constitution contains provisions that prohibit affiliate organizations from holding positions in conflict with League policies. While this is certainly one approach to achieving unanimity, the end result has been to discourage affiliation and the ultimate goal of close cooperation among various municipal functions and organizations. Why would any organization choose to affiliate with the League if it were not ever permitted under any circumstances to hold a view different from the LMC? The disaffiliation of the Minnesota Association of Small Cities provides a recent example of the divisive effect of the present Constitutional provisions. Also, in the last six months we have seen a further splintering of the League ' s key central role in the funding of independent lobbying groups in the Metropolitan Twin Cities area. This extra-League activity was fostered by the frustrations of numerous members of our principal affiliate, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, in their inability to take a position different from that of the League. The amendments provide a clear and open process for accommodating diversity, founded on the belief that the League speaks for all cities. However, we realize that there are instances when affiliate organizations may need the freedom to take a differing position. The procedure outlined in the amendments requires communication between the League and its affiliates. It should result in encour- aging compromise in most cases and provide flexibility and a "safety valve" to allow our diversity to be expressed when a single position cannot be realized on an issue. The need to form additional splinter organizations will be greatly reduced if we are perceptive enough City Officials June 6, 1983 Page 2 to provide such a "safety valve" in our League structure. Real differences can be advocated when necessary and the League' s role strengthened in the vast majority of cases. A second change achieved by the amendments offered is the removal of the power of one class of cities to "veto" the desires of all other cities in the state. Taken to the worst, but most feasible case, the three cities of the First Class could override the desires of the other 852 communities in the state. The constitutional amendments propose that cities of any one class could prohibit a League policy or commitment only when the policy by its terms is limited solely to that class of cities. While such a "veto" has never occurred, the presence of such power vested in so few has unnecessarily threatened a truly open deliberative process for too long. This constitutional provision has actually discouraged sincere efforts to achieve consensus or compromise. How effective can the League really be if it is perceived that three cities can dictate League policy? We feel this perception is inaccurate and the constitutional provision fostering this image is a disservice to the cities of any class and to the League ' s performance. The provision grants inappropriate value on the arbitrary "class" distinction statutorily provided to cities. We offer the attached amendments to the League Constitution in the spirit of positive suggestions which ultimately will strengthen the League' s rightful position as the organization representing all the cities of our state. We urge your city to register for and attend the annual business meeting at the League Conference scheduled for Thursday, June 16, in Bloomington. We believe the future effective- ness of the League can be enhanced by the adoption of the offered amendments as detailed in the attached proposal. Please give your careful attention to the amendments and actively participate in the amendment process. We request your support. Respectfully submitted, James H. Lindau Bea Blomquist Milton Arneson Mayor Mayor Mayor City of Bloomington City of Eagan City of Roseau Dean Nyquist LuAnn Stoffel Eldon Reinke Mayor Mayor Mayor City of Brooklyn Center City of Hastings City of Shakopee Connie Morrison John C. Greavu Willard Vetter Mayor Mayor Mayor City of Burnsville City of Maplewood City of Skyline Robert Lewis Larry Donlin Daniel J. Guider, Jr. Mayor Mayor Mayor City of Coon Rapids City of Minnetonka City of, Woodbury Note PAopoised Changes cunde)ttined) : Detezcons: Ant�-tidIcie IV, Section 2 and 8 Change: Anticee VI, Section 1 Addition's: qe VIII, Section 2 LM-ti.cee IX -n er►,titr.ety 1111 Lig League of Minnesota Cities CONSTITUTION As amended, June 1982 ARTICLE I NAME AND PURPOSE Fourth - To encourage the improvement of all phases of municipal government by stimulating and fostering perti- Section 1. This organization shall be known as the nent research projects, by collecting, developing and pro- League of Minnesota Cities and its purposes shall be: viding information and advice and by holding conventions First - To be an effective vehicle for the development and municipal d conferences for the exploration of problems of expression of enlightened policies and positions concern- ing the structure and powers of local government and other Fifth - To foster harmonious and cooperative relation- issues of universal or specific municipal interest at the local, ships with local, state and federal organizations and agen- state and national level. cies in exploring common problems and developing Second - To develop and provide either alone or in con- mutually acceptable solutions to them. cert with other governments, organizations or groups, pro- ARTICLE II MEMBERSHIP grams of technical assistance and training which will make available to municipalities and their employees advanced Section 1. Any municipality in the state of Minnesota systems, concepts and techniques applicable to various shall be eligible to membership in the League. Wherever aspects of municipal operations. the word municipality is used in this constitution, it shall Third - To foster and promote the dissemination of infor- mean "city or urban town." mation concerning problems and issues affecting local Section 2. When a municipality becomes a member of government to special interest groups and to the public at this League, any official or officials of such municipality by large, the normal appointment pp procedure of such municipality i n 2. Thy for one-yeardterms. Twelve directors shalle become a or delegates to any official meeting Section 2. The president and vice president shall each e may delegatein terms. tythis League; provided that the mayor of such municipal; elected ty shall be ex officio a delegate to the conventions of the be elected for three-year overlapping - League. Electionsshafl be Section 3. Any municipality which shall have failed to - dues bythe first of January following the due date, held t the official shall buhosiness office meeting their athe annual designated ver- rms, shy its tion. shall be stricken from the membership roll. and until their elected or appointed successors have ion 4. Any member in good standing may withdraw signified their acceptance. The newly elected officers shall Sects resident shall serve as a from the League at any time upon official written notice, vention'cThe e immediately after pasthp close of the annualcon- and me shall receive a pro rata refund of its annualpay- member of the board of directors ex officio for onyear, aoso ment. long as he holds municipal office, and the president he Section 5. If, at any regular or special meeting, three- Association of Metropolitan Municipalities shall serve ex of- fourths of the members of the League vote in favor of fic.io. ueSection 3. To be eligible to be elected and to serve, or shall be dissolved within 90 days of the date approving dissolution of the League of Minnesota Cities, eesu sonconsinue shallto serve, as an be an officerlf tadmember municipality. eague, a per- acion. Any member of the Board of Directors who is absent for three Section 6. Immediately after a vote favoring dissolution consecutive regular meetings or who is absent for any four the board of directors shall proceed to settle any financial regular meetings during any consecutive 12-month period obligations pending against the League and to dispose all commencing July 1, shall be deemed to have resigned from the Board, and the vacancy shall be filled as provided in property held by the League. Any funds remaining afterer all claims have been settled and all property disposed of shall this Section. Any vacancy in an elective office shall be be returned to each h hicpatling member in proportion to declared by resolution of the board of directors and be fill- the annual dues fee which the member paid. ed for the remainder of the term by the board of directors subject to the approval of the membership at the next an- ARTICLE Ill FEES AND DUES nual meeting, except that a vacancy in the office of presi- dent shall be filled by the succession of the vice president. Section 1. Any municipality in Minnesota desiring to A vacancy in the office of director occurring at the annual become a member of this League may do so upon signify convention shall be filled by election at the convention for • ing a desire to do so and paying of the annual dues. the remainder of the term. Section 2. The dues for each municipality shall be based Section 4. The board of directors shall meet at such upon population as given by the latest federal decennial or times as may be determined by it, or by the president, or by special census. This fee shall be payable annually in ad- any three members, but shall meet at least four times an- vance on the first day of September. nually.A quorum of the board of directors is eight members • and action by the board of directors shall require the Section 3. The annual dues for each member municipali- favorable vote of a majority but not less than five members. ty shall be based on the schedule or schedules set out as ap- The board of directors shall be responsible for the general pendices to this constitution, which shall be adopted or management of the affairs of the League, subject to the pro- amended in the same manner as other parts of this constitu- visions of the constitution. It shall establish the positions tion. and fix the rate of pay for employees of the League. It shall adopt a budget for League operations for each fiscal year, The total dues for each member as thus calculated shall - which fiscal year shall be the year ending August 31. It shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. determine the various committees to be appointed. The board of directors shall have the power to purchase, own, Section 4. A special assessment may be levied upon the mortgage, or convey such real estate and other property in members for League purposes upon recommendation of the name of the League, in the name of a nonprofit cor- the hoard of directors and approved by the membership in poration governed by the members of the League board of the manner indicated in Article V. directors, or in the name of any member when authorized ARTICLE IV OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES by that member, as may be necessary for the purposes of the League. This grant of authority shall include power to purchase or sell on a contract for deed or conditional sales Section 1. The officers of the League shall be an elected contract or otherwise. The board of directors may president, an elected vice president, the immediate past authorize officers, agents, or employees or any of them to president ex officio, the president of the Association of enter into any contract or execute and deliver any in- Metropolitan Municipalities ex officio, the president or a struments or obligations in the name of and on behalf of the vice president of the National League of Cities if a Min- League. nesota city official ex officio, and twelve elected directors. The officers acting as a group shall constitute the board of ofSd rectors.on 5. Thepre shall be cthehairman annual the business directors. meeting and all other meetings of the League, but he may to him. He shall appointy board of directors. Such meetings may be for educational designateal ommittees othersto established preside the forbhimard of directors a bythlll or legislative commotion and shall appointPurposes, may cibstatewide or officersgor representatives of the League meetings, and may be for special classeseof or to such non-League bodies as may be appropriate. employees or for municipal officers generally. ppropriate. Section 6. In the absence of the president the vice resi- Section 2. An annual convention of the League shall be dent shall act as president. p held on the dates and at a place fixed by the board of direc- tors. The official business meeting shall be held during the Section 7. The executive director shall be the chief ad- convention at such time as the board of directors shall fix ministrative officer of the League, subject to the general and announce in advance with the program. A nominating supervision of the board of directors. He shall be appointedcommittee, and such other committees as the board of su the board t eirectors for indefiniteHeall be pomay directors may authorize shall be appointed beby temovedhe byo the di board of directors. shallperappoint at or before the beginning of the convention e and sake League employees and shall administer the Leagueoffice e reports to the business session. At the business session and the League services. He shall prepare an annual budget delegates from at least twenty member municipalities shall f g be considered entitled a quorum. Each represented municipality t andrevenuest expenditures for the consideration of the of directors and shall limit expenditures to the total shall be entitled to one vote (which shall be the majority ex- boardbudget approved by the board of directors. He shall submit pression of delegates from that municipality). Action on to the board of directors and to the membership an annual legislative matters and on amending the constitution shall report of League affairs, services and finances which shall conform to the voting requirements set forth in Articles VI be published in the League's offical publication. He shall and VII respectively; otherwise parliamentary have charge of the League records, accounts and property. shall be according to Robert's Rules of Ordey procedure He shall cause an official record of all meetings of the ARTICLE VI LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE League to be made. He shall act as treasurer and handle all League funds. The director and employees designated by him shall post a corporate surety bond at League expense. Section 1. Except as otherwise provided in this article, The accounts and finances of the League shall be ost- n®official commitment shall be made by the League on any Pthe proposed state or federal legislative matter unless it is ap- audited each year by a public accountant selected by proved bythe legislative committee and is further a g approved board of directors. by a two-thirds favorable vote of the delegates present and voting at the annual business meeting or at the regular or a Section 8. The board of directors may, on application, recognize as affiliates of the League organizations whose special legislative conference to which all the member municipalities are invited; but no proposal shall be made membership consists predominantly of Minnesota Part of the League legislative program under this section or municipal officials or employees. The general purpose of section 2 if the municipalities voting against it include all such affiliations shall be to encourage the maximum the cities of any one class and if such proposal is by its terms cooperation among the various municipal functions, among administrative departments and councils, and mfr �cmdted �o.�eey among the municipalities of the state through the League. .to such clThe board of directors may require for affiliate recognition legislative matter shallss bef by acclamlation;ities. but attThetanon any y time such conditions as to activities, membership and finances before the result of the vote is announced, the chairman as it deems appropriate;, ; , no cvcnt, howc may, and shall, if requested to do so by ten or more • - _•_ - --- _ delegates present, submit the question under consideration to a vote by municipality, in which case each member Section 9. A special committee shall be a municipality represented shall have one vote. n President every three years to study Leagued esyand Section 2. In lieu of approval at a business meeting or League services, commencing with the appointment of_. ',legislative conference an official commitment may be made such a committee in the fall of 1983. Additionally, special by mail ballot on any subject of legislation when authorized committees may be authorized by the board of directors for • . by the board of directors. No commitments shall be made the purpose of studying municipal problems, conducting by mail ballot unless ballots are cast on the question by at schools, making legislative recommendations or other ap- least 20 percent of the member municipalities through their propriate League service. The chairman of each such corn- legislative bodies and at least two-thirds of the mittee appointed by the president shall, on the completion municipalities voting approve the commitment. At least ten of his committee's work, make a report to the board of days shall elapse between the mailing of the blank ballots directors, convention or legislative conference in such form and the counting of the marked ballots. as the executive director may request. ARTICLE V MEETINGS Section 3. Subjects of legislation shall be initiated either by a League committee, by the council of any member , or by theSection 1. The League shall hold a general, statewide meeting olr tya legislative conference, Each subjectelegtes at the annualbthusines us in- convention each year, a legislative conference at least bien- itiated shall, if possible, be referred to a study committee, nially, and such other meetings as may be called by the whose recommendation shall be considered by the legislative committees before reference to the delegates for final action or before a mail ballot is taken. Section 4. A legislative committee shall be created prior Section 4. Establishment of the Association o. Se Metropolitan Municipalities does not prevent the furnishing to each session of the legislature to consist of the chairman of service by the League of Minnesota Cities staff to of any special committees studying legislative matters and the members of the board of directors. metropolitan area members in the same manner and to the same extent as to members in other parts of the state, but Section S. A regular legislative conference e any special service to the Association by the League of Min- before or during each session of the state leolaturlebfor t!a e nesota Cities staff shall be financed by the Association. purpose of approving an official League program on mat- Metropolitan legislation. Special legislative conferences may be Section S. The Associationhe of specified mat- ters of Municipalities may be dissolved by authorized by the board of directors when necessary. Section 6. The board of directors may, by a two-thirds in its bylaws. Upon dissolution of the Association this Arti- cle shall have no force or effect. its of all members, make a commitment on any bill ment of the com- mittee, pending when the bill is, in the judgment and ARTICLE IX AFFILIATE ORGANIZATIONS - of sufficient general municipal imp urgency to require such action. Acommitment adoptture a L ISL,TI VE C b 1TMi: za co may adapt under this section shall be presentedSection 1 _ A� g ate on ani League board commitment and not an official commitment 'e' cls'• ve o.Ptce,c.e�s an. eomm.i toren s cn of the League. accon..nce wit -t e vc on.an.czat con AMENDMENTS Su. ao.e.ic.i-eh on comm,itmen s must •e hu•mitted ARTICLE VII �:a .t e Lea'ue Boon' o, �O,ih.eetatr�s .on nev.cew be amended after The an. comment. I , . Lea•ue Boanr o► Dixit e.v ctotu> firs Section 1. This constitution tinmay b ya two-thirds vote of all e�enm-i-n¢� � a� z e ()tic on commitment a� municipalities day of the annual meeting y ro osed amend- aro ter Lea'ue 0' cy voting,eprovided that the p ' Ct wtt ' e ments shall have been prepared in writingon or before the ,cn Con, � e hu•m�.�yl, a, �-c,Zc.at first day of the meeting and distributed to the delegates. onran za-troch' • 1, •e ha not-c. .ce.' in wn,c/.i.ng w.ct n 30 a h 7.7'1' not .• h an, ha.c• a,� ARTICLE VIII THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN a.vaeate such o' c to e 'e' A " one MUNICIPALITIES j e �' exee � in accanr•nee w.rt Section 1 . The Association of Metropolitan Section 2. municipalities to include members of the League of Min- Sermon 2. An a ,.% %ate on'aN'i''`a't't"an anon nesota Cities situated in counties within the jurisdiction of nam e Lea'ue '• a .2e'-c�s ' . -,- the Metropolitan Council the Twin Cities Area may be notc.,.ecatc.on tie to Con, ' ct established within the League in accordance with this Arti cle. Zt-Va aa ' e on commitment w,c t an aro ter on en' • Lavoie parr cy may, Section 2. The bylaws establishing the Association of pnoeeer to a•vacate huc o' c an commitment Metropolitan Municipalities shall include provisions of o ' un'en .t a O ' 'cow con' avis membership, dues and finances, board of directors and of- ficers, , A. The a.P.i-e on camm,itmer�t �.n eonb•Zi.� .i� deemed meetings, committees andgsuch peon matters including ne�u•m.t�te' ,an a vole at an ann . ', ne appropriate, on. h e . ' mem•ett-S mem c-n' o t e commitments applying specifically to the Twin Cities • metropolitan area. a► e am apphOVe• a two-tUndz vote 0, tne ..etie'ate^is -n e s enc anv a vcii ad The Ahh a cca ti,o n o Mc>ir.o o P.i tan nab pn.o v,c'e• tat t a otc.c on commitment or-cc/L.t. a.P.-.i. ce�s ma at o •men m' 'e' out to mem•e'tz at 'ea -t seven 'e xis . ve a' aka CYl aCCan w.ct rah airc-on .t0 ,tne meeti.n• an. novirer t• at "e,e.e IX. at 'east 40 eneent a ,tea we�ce -n ct ten'once,, an. Section 3. The bylaws establishing the Association of B. Pnovided that the Learue Executive ►crrectan na' aP�so •men aa-' are• au seven Metropolitan Municipalities and amendments thereto shall / even be submitted to the board of directors of the League of Min- rah wh i nten notice a a t hue meet't'n wais to nesota Cities for a determination of consistency with this an• no w • ahe am at W a constitution. The board of directors shall consider them •e _ forthwith, and if it finds the bylaws and amendments con- ai1 ' ate m 'e$omvta (.neo ma'tOJi 5 �a: not. .e. sistent with this consitution, it shall approve them. Lail. re '• et huc pa' cy in can, ' et, C. A otic on commitment adopted Wrsua : to t . h ectc.o n h aa •e neh enter to z e Ze',&s.eatune as an aerate ol_i,eu on comnutment. TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 14, 1983 Mayor Reinke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. 2] Recess for continuation of Board of Equalization 3] Continuation of Board of Equalization a] Review appeals of petitioner' s assessed value/market value and equalization b] Continue to June 21st at 7:00 P.M. 4] Reconvene 5] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 7] Boards and Commissions: a] Recess for Building Code Board of Appeals b] Request from Chuck Mensing for waiver of building code c] Reconvene 8] Reports from Staff: a] Prospective Parks and Recreation Area Development Grant Proposal ring b] 1983-84 Liquor, Beer, and Wine Licenses - tabled June 7th )euros c] Restructuring of Metropolitan Watershed District Board of Managers 'rom une 7th d] 1983 Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation Program agenda e] Fire Department Purchases: 1] Air Packs, 2] High Pressure Steam Cleaner, 3] Power Saw f] City Code - informational 9] Other Business: a] b] c] 10] Adjourn to Tuesday, June 21st , at 7 :00 P .M. John K. Anderson City Administrator p 77, fr pit LAW OFFICES J ,;; 8 19:93 HVASS, WEISMAN & KING CHARLES T.Hvaes CHARTERED SI WEIs MAC N 715 ARGILL BUILDING t.,.9 J 3 g V .,..,. ROBERT cI.KING NORTH STAR CENTER FRANK d.BRIXIUS REEL]K.MACKENZIE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 333-0201 RICHARD A.WILLIAMS, JR. AREA CODE 612 CHARLES T.HVASS,cIR. GARY STONEKING MARH A.HALLHERG June 7, 1983 OF COUNSEL LINDA J.THEIS WALTER ANASTAS ROBERT J.KING,'LIR. The Honorable Eldon Reinke Mayor, City of Shakopee Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Shakopee Hillside Estates Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: This letter is written on behalf of Shakopee Hillside Estates, which is located at 850 Marschall Road. I respectfully request that the Board of Review consider the change in estimated market value of this apartment complex proposed by the Scott County Assessor. A copy of the change is attached for your information. The estimated market value has been increased from $514, 900. 00 to $740, 400 . 00, an increase of $225,500 . 00. This is a 44% increase in one year. Current annual real estate taxes total $22, 311. 42. Assuming comparable mill rates for next year, this proposed increase in market valuation will result in real estate taxes of approximately $32,000. 00. On a per unit basis, this means a tax increase from $620. 00 to more than $880. 00 per year. When I contacted Bob Schmidt of the County Assessor' s Office, he advised me that this increase in valuation was necessary to bring the value of apartment buildings in Shakopee in line with the value of those in Prior Lake. He said they use a rule of thumb for estimated market value of six times the gross annual rentals. The Honorable Eldon Reinke June 7, 1983 Page Two After receiving this information, i contacted representatives of Mark Management Company, Warner Holding Company and several other large apartment management firms in the metropolitan area. Based on the information I received from these firms, the $22, 311. 42 that I am presently paying in real estate taxes is consistent with the average real estate taxes that they are paying in the metropolitan area based upon the same gross annual revenues. It is more than they are paying on apartment complexes located outside of the metropolitan area. Therefore, I can only assume that the method previously used to assess and tax my property was consistent with that used throughout the metropolitan area and that it should continue to be used at this time. I am not familiar with the appraisal and taxation system employed in Prior Lake. However, I would think that the City of Shakopee would be more interested in equalizing the taxes its residents pay within the accepted norms in the metropolitan area. Ultimately, of course, these increased assessments are paid by the residents of the apartment itself. There is no justifiable basis for taxing residents of apartments in Shakopee at a rate one-third greater than residents of other cities in the metropolitan area. Also, a question can fairly be raised whether imposing an annual real estate tax burden of $880. 00 on a resident of each apartment unit is fair to that resident. There are many fallacies and shortcomings involved in using a simple six times the gross valuation method for apartment buildings, and I will not attempt to go into all of them here. However, one obvious point should be noted. As virtually everyone knows, it ' s not the gross revenues, but rather the net income stream that is used to determine value. Raising real estate taxes by $10,000. 00 annually reduces the value because it reduces the net income stream. The annual rents paid by residents will have to be raised by $10,000. 00 in order to get back to the same net income stream. However, using the six times annual gross formula, the "value" of the business has increased another $60, 000. 00, even though the net income stream hasn't increased by one penny. Thus, the annual rentals paid by the residents will have to be increased again in order to pay the increased taxes so that the net income stream can get back to even. Using this formula, you have an endless money machine because apartment residents will be continuously paying increased annual rentals to pay for the last tax increase, which was based upon the increased annual rental they paid based upon the tax increases assessed based upon the previous annual rental increase, which was based upon the last tax increase, etc. The Honorable Eldon Reinke June 7, 1983 Page Three In closing, I would like to add that Mr. Bob Schmidt of the County Assessor' s Office was very open and cooperative with me in explaining the process used by the Assessor' s Office. He handled himself very professionally, and I commend him for the way he handles a very difficult job. However, I respectfully submit that the system of valuation and taxation previously used by the City of Shakopee is the correct system and I request that my property again be valued upon that basis. Using that system, I believe the value of my property for 1983 should be $566,400. 00. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Yours very truly Prank J. Brixius FJB: jb NOTICE OF CHANGE IN 1HE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY IN SCOTT COUNTY AND OF EQUALIZATION MEETINGS FOR REVIEWING VALUES PARCEL # - 0 / -0 Date _57-6 -g DESCRIPTION: 45 5/47 /4' A z&_5- Class 34,0N:r"AP7 /{-b / Vs /14"044 L S A SON d�� Estimated Market Value $ 7 Li 0, 4 o Green Acres Value $ OWNER: o'c�/9A//' 23 ie/X/e)S 5'ct 5/Doe/ ,41M. 35'331 Ma et 7al a means -'e alto 7on7.- ?muter 7 coal at least be soli. for on the market toda7. lour assessor most make 31=t that the amcms .e o: she esti=amas Par 7ousaromestps71 mart values the same as other aromer7 that .3 si .lar to 7vt:ms. ?+temp7 C'_aee :ears a ^,.lass that Tour commeryr must be at itto tc7 the assessor according :sed for. There of Pzoer7, such.as res: s scm1 home- LJ '�aL ns is �,.C.,..3�ot _ _..ere a_ss ma=r ^.. asses r stead, ri ial '..sr... Cmestead _farm homestead, farm ion-homestead, commercial,, etc. after. •+ the azeesecr estimates the market 731.^.8 term es the Class, he or she =net mint=rl-the of to the class protest-7 i �Ia. Lhe. :Sei it `he CarMer value the Liymre ass �h. i 7aur p o e -7 is '�+''^ the maulasse�SOm• t•te '3C • assessed value of Toms ;roaerc7. Stats in asses fig ti-es a.^ the ' i _ 7. - :-e�_e �a.L 'homestead ,.o yul.. ,17 market 7a_:, of certain classes of oz^fie_,. �"^•''- would have a laNer assessed value than residential th:cmeetcad Par p:oPer7 with the same markat gala. if disagree with the estimated market val::e an 7vur protemt7, ar its c'_a..:sj..fi:at1ion, Tec �j mal toe ,_+ tali atm can at:mal to,y..:a lova: `card 0: review. Tom c3�at a�eaL ate State 3ca_.. ai :q or to the Sm ;i Cl.alms Di'.4ia of the tam cat..*-. =lees Tom have obtained a hearing from your local board cot..... bcard of equalization. mea.. ea._ Ari: 7ocxr "� 1J .L '44-1 division is availablefrom the office information CII the :�.�.nsCLa x:35 Co=t C_ 3 small C of the C emx,oz' C. tt i^ zour conpr. You can make your appeal by going in person or-5y-sending a letter or a representative to the meeting of your city or town board of review held at Shakopee City Hall for the district of Shakopee City on June 7th, 1983 at 7:00 Wpm. If you disagree with their decision, next you can appeal by going in person or by sending a letter or representative to the meeting of your County Board of Equalization held in the Courthouse in Shakopee on July 11,1981 at 9:00 A.M. If you disagree with their decision, next you car. appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court, or as soon as you receive this Letter you may make an appeal to the regular division of the Tax Court. The procedure for appealing to either is available from the Clerk of Court Office. cut here Return to: SCOTTCOUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, Courthouse,, Shakopee, MN 55379 I wish to apcear before the Board of Review relative to my assessment of the 1983 assessment year. PARCEL # SIGNED PHONE ' ADDRESS CITY/ZIP ' '.',<Iisit-y g, 0 ::,...1,1i...,. )Q4 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 MEMO TO: — 1983 Shakopee Board of Review FROM: Scott County Assesso'r's Office SUBJECT: Cecil Behringer Property DATE: June 7, 1983 & June 14, 1983____ Tax Parcel #27 904 010 1 & #27 904 010 3 (now valued on 1st parcel) Mr. Behringer is the owner of 9.92 acres of land in section 4 of Shakopee. The land has a bicycle track located on it and also a 30 x 60 metal building which was used for repair and construction of custom bicycles. The current value of the land is $158700 which is the same as has been used on this property since the 1980 assessment. The building values are $38000 which is the same value as has been used since the 1982 assessment. The value on the building does not include a value for the Velodrome. Appraisal Report by Russell C. Smith of Russell Smith Associates, Inc. The appraisal by Mr. Smith was conducted in December, 1978. Size of property at the time of appraisal was 40.00 acres. Appraisal indicates that the value for the property at this time was $8000 per acre with special assessments being paid by the seller. Appraisal also notes that 3 to 5 acre tracts were selling for $18000 to $20000 per acre in 1978. This land is currently valued at $16000 per acre which is the value for "Primary Industrial" with no rail, good road access, sewer and water. (See attachment). Vacant Industrial Land Sales 5/79 to 8/82 10/80 Outlot E Valley Park 1st Addn. $4000 WD $11870/acre. .337 acres 5/80 3 1 Valley Park 5th Addn. $55975 WD $24988/acre. 2.24 acres 2/80 5 - 8 1 Valley Park 5th Addn. $141592 WD $19056/acre. 7.43 acres 8/82 9 1 Valley Park 5th Addn. $44000 WD $22797/acre. 1.93 acres 5/79 11 1 Valley Park 5th Addn. $32066 WD $15953/acre. 2.01 acres 5/79 12 1 Valley Park 5th Addn. $32066 WD $15953/acre. 2.01 acres 12/80 W 350' of 1 3 1 Valley Park 6th Addn. $110434 WD $27540/acre. 4.00 acres 8/79 4 1 Valley Park 6th Addn. $75000 WD $25000/acre. 3.00 acres 1/80 5 1 Valley Park 6th Addn. $127000 WD $25400/acre. 5.00 acres ` 1 r • LAND VALUES ` (Other Than Residential ) PRIMARY COMMERCIAL $2. 50 per sq. ft. SECONDARY COMMERCIAL $1 .85 per sq.ft. • UNIMPROVED COMMERCIAL ACREAGE $30,000 per acre pertains to acreage with sewer and water readily available, highest and best use commercial or multi-family development, Example: Clifton PRIMARY INDUSTRIAL $20,000 per acre; RAIL $16,000 per acre; NO RAIL Sewer and water, good road access SECONDARY INDUSTRIAL $10,000 per acre improved $ 7,000 per acre unimproved. No railway, no sewer and water, good road access. $4,000 per acre unimproved - poor road access. URBAN RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE UNDEVELOPED $11 , 000 per acre For Commercial and Industrial Improvements See Marschall Swift RUSSELL SMITH ASSOCLATES, INC. 18 ESTIMATE OF VALUE In estimating the value of land, if vacant or in a situation where the improvements do not add any value over and above land value, the subject property is normally considered in the light of sales and offerings of land within the neighborhood or in other competitive locations. From knowledge of this type of market data, a judgment as to value can be made by the appraiser. Some examples of recent sales and offerings of properties which would be considered competitive with the subject property are set out as Exhibit 1 in the Addenda of this report. The prime competition for the subject land would be the abundance of available land owned and/or offered for sale by Scottland, Incorporated, Land to the south, west and east of the subject property have signs offering the land for sale. Inquiry was made of Scottland, Incorpora4g as to their actual asking prices, but only sketchy information was gained, They indicated that with utilities in and paid they were selling and would sell land in the .$18,000 to $20,000 per acre range; however, further inquiry indicated that these sales were sm la ler par 5 acres in size. A 40 acre tract would require a substantial discount compared to a 3 to 5 acre tract. Inquiry was made as to the asking • • - •• •' . •s- •. - • • • .• :•,• 44: •u •- • - property. The indication was that they could not answer that question; it would depend upon the circumstances and also they were "in the process of getting new appraisals". Consulting with other realtors and brokers active in the general area, the same type of indication as to asking prices by Scottland was found; i .e. , vague and indecisive. Without having a firmly established asking price and/or schedule of prices for the competitive land, no refined estimate of value for the subject property can be made other than to review history of sales in the area and competitive type locations. Someone looking at the subject property for development purposes would very likely also be inquiring of Scottland, "the competition". Because of the size of their ownership and likely "low" cost, they probably have the ability to reduce prices to a potential purchaser who might otherwise purchase the subject property. Giving consideration to the subject property considering it as a 4Q acre site in competition with the Scottland property and also giving consideration to market activit which has taken • .1 •- •- • - area, it is the o•inion of this a• •raiser that the fair an_ . •i.• - value of the subject property is equal to approximately $8,000 per acre with the s•ecial assessments now levied a•ai I - • • •- •- ' • 0 paid by the seller. Oftentimes it is more advantageous to a buyer to purchase the property without payment of the assessments and pay the assessments annually. If the assessments are assumed by the buyer, the purchase price or value should then be reduced by the amount of the assessments still outstanding on the property. S. RUSSELL SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC. 19 - ESTIMATE OF VALUE - Continued The subject site contains approximately 39 acres, net of roads. At $8,000 per acre, the value indication for the subject property would be $312,000. After inspecting the property and giving consideration to the various factors which affect value, it is the opinion of this appraiser that the fair and reasonable value of the real estate described in this report, with assessments for sewer and water paid by the seller, as of December 15, 1978, is: THREE HUNDRED AND TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($312,000) It would be recommended that in offering the property for sale, a higher asking price be established to test the market. io►t�;,•, CITY U le SHAKOPEE ` 4� /��w 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee., Minnesota 55379 "� •I1 :. MEMO TO: 1983 Shakopee Board of Review FROM: Scott County's Assessor's Office SUBJECT: George August inack Property — DATE:_ June 14, 1983 Tax Parcel #27 913 005 1 This piece of property is a vacant parcel of land that is comprised of 4.91 acres. This parcel is located in the Si- of the N 4 of section 13. County road #89 is adjacent to the east line of the property. The value of this parcel was increased in 1983 to $16400. The previous value had been $11000. The increase was made to bring this parcel in line with similar properties in Shakopee which were valued under the previous assessor's rates. These rates are as follows: RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE Unimproved 1st 2.50 acres @ $5000 = $12500 Remainder @ $1600 = $ 3856 Total = $16356 or $16400 As was stated earlier, this value is consistent with other properties of this type within the city limits of Shakopee. i j • l4 �a -- --- -- - •/� • -/^/� T11s Is x L:1171UtiS1•f 1(1251. C. /3 T I/w �. 22 11.15 111.1.% 1[ 1511 {A... [:..21 17.1227 6ilsy.: l ..1 ..T1 _ ,......;,....4.:J:x.1.1:•E:..a.:1:s}a:L;Al 1...1._x L:1..7:..I 1./"1.... L. 1. L_.1 I/1:131 I. 7• .•a L. 1......6. [=:7x1:1.3 Z:....I L.:1:...j . swan MOSS PLOYS OTTERS*- 7 4411 01 311.01 •.•�-.. 155.01 310.71 • US 47 -••:` 111401 115555 14 g ..- .44 23 'a a 11.•Sa F a.WSW/ - N. L40Wr • 0. Nadu ► .3011$ •5541 - X 1154611 1201•.CASSIAS 140017 ..' 1/7211 O$4K[{ 0241 :. ""k" 5757• $1131 --- 517•1 .. 551.10 . .. 101.0$ ... 1 - MtN- .-- 3,11117 '.. SO0 s11.N - //SSA .00.0 61,.11 KARL 0111501 • 0400 01.1105 • O 1201201. 11114.7 • 1 7[041.0 2/1.555• -- NS �r f _ fit 07 _ . 04401 w AY• 04042 •. 40wsor 5910.Q114 +4521 TM51rfW- 4 001156• C01411111011,02www 1/fit{ t • c•1$$.►1.51.411 M 553.31 .. $10.53 _ -- 111.10 •••-_ ZOO q7/ .• 501.0 507.45 •- , 4110117400411011 ' 001141.0 MARTINS • 40110 1400K1111 O. 115 724 - e. - . 131{42 w 14771 • •0.9• J0.14__ $110 077212114.40 - KZ.W11Y1• $8011 t. , 420 t __ 4[711$ moo 111.SO •• - i p DONALD •0071 1. •00T4 - ' Of NI O Q p 121/41 152202 r/701 I[TI 20500 271011 i - ■LW110 ►[01.450- 14)2.0 17ft+ 1005 - .. • 1414.11 •• .117 70 - • •10 2.011111$ 54015 lOs �.` M• 120111 40111 - 7104 21 t MY(. 1117 ROY MOO . M0 • N/ 111111 49 • - •07.27 = •. 56771 (.105400 •1051$ '\ 14034Nup - r 4 R[54a 7$ . g• °0040[2 S• ►15.64 g • f - 071551[$ 1:415[0 M7./► ••r: •551127 554 .E • 58CN*LI. S[$TO• « _ -I1$ _ i • 55[0 •7[115117 _� �-�_•- "' tor. _ - 1411775 .--�-�� r107D Noy O\ ~��.��-••• 1100411 O :1.111112E111.11111. KRL7ar $SON \` - �s i • I' • •,.. • r° o i 2=1r x 05 • ` it 1.01111.L I. LalSOS \\ 1$7.Sal O 2 T�r r., 1054 00000- *75310 IO • `... 0201 _ •j• • •• 400.4 -• '1.•' • NTT •T► -- N 13 - 115- 22 .<-4.,-,-,t,•„„ti. CITY OF SHAKOPEE (2) /,�1 , , 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 cx.i MEMO TO: 1983 Shakopee Board of Review FROM: Scott County Assessot's Office SUBJECT: Bruce Garness Property DATE: June 14, 1983 Tax Parcels #27 001 171 0 & #27 001 171 1 This property is the Shakopee Bakery located at 114 E. 1st Ave. The property was part of the reassessment of commercial parcels which was done in Shakopee for the 1983 assessment year. The building was constructed in 1890, is a 2 story structure of 1833 square feet with a 1 story only portion of 517 square feet. There is a basement only under the 2 story portion of the building. 1st floor remodeled in 1980. There is a 2 bedroom apartment on the 2nd story of this building. The value for the property was $8900 on the land, which is a 25 x 142 foot lot, and $33500 on the building for a total of $42400 on the property for the 1982 assessment. For 1983 the land value was left at $8900 and the value on the building was increased to $39200. The total value for the 1983 assess- ment is $48100. r,, <,,\,. CITY ® F SH .AKOPEE CO /Q�L ' 129 East First Avenue, Shakopec, Minnesota 55379 4 ' N I: I... ! MEMO TO: 1983 Shakopee Board of Review FROM: Scott County Assesso'r's Office SUBJECT: Keith Eastman Property DATE: June 14, 1983 Tax Parcel #27 001 248 0 This parcel of property is a parking lot used by the Eastman Drug Store. The lot size is 50i, x 120' + 8' x 120' for a total size of 7020 square feet. Of this, 6060 square feet is used as a parking area with blacktop. The value on this property has remained the same for the past 4 assessments, 1980 - 1983. This value is $17600 on the land and $2400 for the surfaced area. The total value for the property for these assessments is $20000. I g'e<<r„. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Q Vi`. At I29 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 5.5379 c.,....,.,___ i „, MEMO TO: 1983 Shakopee Board of Review FROM: Scott County Assessor's Office SUBJECT: Richard Halver Property DATE: June 14, 1983 Tax Parcel #27 001 186 0 This parcel is located at 210 1st Ave. in Shakopee east of Holmes. The property is operated as a refrigeration and auto shop. The building is approximately 90 years old, is 1 story, has no basement. The size of the building is 2906 square feet. This building was part of the 1983 reassessment of the commercial properties in Shakopee. The lot size for this property is 38 x 142 feet. The value on this property was listed in 1982 as $13500 for the land and $9000 for the building. The 1983 value is $13500 for the land and the build- ing value has been placed at $17100. The total value for 1982 was $22500 and this has been increased to $30600 for the 1983 assessment. Tax Parcel #27 001 187 0 This parcel is the portion of the property which serves as the auto repair operation. It is located at 221 E. 1st Ave. The building is a 1 story structure built in 1900+, has no basement, and is used as a garage. The size of the building is 1520 square feet. The lot size is 22 x 142 feet. The value on this parcel for the land was $7800 in 1982 and this has remained the same for the 1983 assessment. The building value has been increased from $4600 in 1982 to $7600 for the 1983 assessment. The total valuation has in- creased from $12400 in 1982 to $15400 for the 1983 assessment. Solo c1 1 `o`tr1r. CITY 0r' rs11. A. ri. t, r. ..c4 mi .,`j4 t% 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 v .i. �I! 1 , IJ 1J, / MEMO . • TO: 19 Shako ee 3oard of Feview FROM• Scott County Assessgr's Office • Hillside Estates Ap artments • Page 1. SUBJECT: June 14, 1983 DATE: Tax Parcel #27 006 015 0 This apartment building, which is owned by Mr. Frank Brixius, was part of the 1983 assessment of apartment buildings located in Shakopee. The build- ingis a 36 unit complex of 10325 square feet. All 36 units of the build- was ing are 2 bedroom apartments. There are no garages. The building con- structed in 1971. In 1980 the building suffered fire damage, but this was repaired by the January. 2nd, 1982 assessment date. Shakopee are As stated in the summation sheet, the apartment buildings in now valued using a system involving the "Gross Rent Multiplier", or GRM. This system uses the income produced by an apartment complex to arrive at a market value for the property. In Mr. Brixius's letter it is stated that I told Mr. Brixius that the county assessor's office used a gross rent at m t he tiplier of 6 as "a rule of thumb" on this type of building toarrive out of t market value. The number which we use for the GPM is not pulled hat, but rather arrived at by the known incomes for apartment are on thea on ervative ings and known sale prices of same. The multipliers used side to keep the apartment complexes in line with the county ratios for other types of property. Mr. Brixius also states that the property taxes which he had been paying on his complex were in line with other apartment complexes in the metro area. I am not aware of what the apartments buildings in the metro area d are paying in real estate taxes, but I do know that the GPM mefhoor tis used by many cities and county offices to arrive at taxable values pro- perties. Also, the courts in Minnesota recognize this method as an appro- priate one for the valuation for income producing buildings of this type. To illustrate this I site the following: In a Minnesota Tax Court decision dated 9/10/81. arlage vs. Hennepin County. Judge Carl A. Jensen presiding. File 1221 and 97 • , '0%\>. `' was dS. J1.. ` d3 0.3 t.� 4:i► �i�. �1r$ .14.;..4 �° l /. • '/. pee, Minnesota 55379 a 129 East First avenue, Shako otic �+.. � y T. MEMO TO: •: i. . ..-- . •.. ... • - FROM. Scott County Assessor's Office Page 2. • SUBJECT: Hillside Estates Apartments • DATE: June lL , 1983 • Appraisal of a 221 unit apartment complex in the City of Bloomington. 1. All apartment buildings in the City of Bloomington were assessed suing a GROSS RENT MULTIPLIER. • (Item #5 in "Findings of Fact") 2. This method appeared to show that all estimated market values were conservative. (Paragraph two of "Memorandum".) Assessors Data Exchange for the assessment year 1981. Article written in this publication explaining the GRM's used for the assessment of apartment buildings in the cities of BrooklynPark, New Hope, Excelsior, Maple Plain, Newport, Brooklyn Center, and Edina. • Mr. Brixius also states in his letter that he feels the method used• to value his building in the past was the correct one for tax purposes. The method which had been used to value the apartments in Shakopee was the square footage rate method. This method is not reliable when valuing apartments because the value that the complex will support is based on the income which the complex can produce, rather than the cost to re- place the- structures. The County Assessor's Office had the uriderstanding that Mr. Larry Martin, former city assessor for Shakopee, was going to use this method for the 1981 assessment. Why this was not done we do not know. The 1982 value for the property in question was $514900 based on a square foot method. The 1983 value •is $740400 based on the method using the GRM. ' 1 . 0e!, :,. CITY OF SHAKOPEE 0 ,f, fit--• �' yam` 129 East First Avenue, Shako, Minnesota 55379 u `I . y =—T' a, MEMO TO: 1983 Shakopee Board of Review FROM: Scott County Assessgt's Office SUBJECT: Vacant Lots in Horizon Heights 1st Addition DATE: June 14, 1983 Parcel Nos. 27 062 005 0 to 27 062 033 0 excluding properties sold. The vacant lots in this plat have remained the same for the past 3 assessment years. Some of the lot values are placed at $8400 and the maximum value for tax purposes is $9600. These lot values were placed at this level by the 1981 Scott County Board of Review. I have enclosed a copy of the minutes of this session of the Board. Below are listed the original lot values for the 1981 assessment and what these were reduced to by the County Board of Review. These are listed by parcel number. Parcel No. Original Values Adjusted Values 27 062 005 0 $16000 $9600 27 062 006 0 $16000 $9600 27 062 023 0 $16000 $9600 27 062 007 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 008 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 009 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 010 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 011 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 012 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 018 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 019 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 020 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 027 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 029 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 030 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 032 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 033 0 $14000 $8400 27 062 013 0 $15000 $9000 27 062 014 0 $15000 $9000 27 062 015 0 $15000 $9000 The differences in lot values are due to variations in size. 1 SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA JULY 13, 1981 (1). Pursuant to the provisions of M.S.A. 274.13, the County Board of Equalization met in Special Session at the Court House Board Room in the City of Shakopee on Monday, July 13, 1981 , and reconvened at 1:30 p.m. at which time the following members were present: -Commissioners R.E. Mertz, Wm. Koniarski, Anthony Worm, Doug Hafermann, and Roland Boegeman. (2). County Officials Present: A. Tom Hennen, Auditor B. Don Martin, Assessor C: Quentin Raddatz, Property Appraiser (3) . Scott County Property Owners Present: A. John and Sheila Sponsel , Jordan B. Marty Gulewicz, K-Mart Tax Representative C. Walt Muhlenhardt, Shakopee (4) . The Assessor reported to the Board of Equalization that the Belle Plaine City Assessor had checked Mr. Gunter Kaiser's property and recommended no change in the valuation; therefore, Commissioner Hafermann moved, seconded by Commissioner Boegeman, to concur with the recommendation. • Motion carried. (5) . A letter from Shakopee City Assessor, Larry Martin, was read into the record with regard to the K-Mart Distribution Center, Shakopee. (27-076-001-0) Upon the recommendation of the Shakopee City Council, Commissioner Hafermann moved, seconded by Commissioner Boegeman, to approve a reduction in the Assessors Market Value of the above named property to • $16,136,500.00. Motion carried. (6) . County Property Appraiser Quentin Raddatz reported on his findings upon checking the John Sponsel property in Jordan pursuant to the Board's direction at their meeting of July 6, 1981 . Upon his recommenda- tion, Commissioner Boegeman moved, seconded by Commissioner Hafermann, to classify one acre of his property as commercial and the remaining 4 acres as agricultural for the 1981 assessment, however leaving the valuation the same. Motion carried. • (7) . Upon the recommendation of the Shakopee City Assessor, Larry Martin, as conveyed in his letter of July 13 , 1981 , with regard to lots in Horizon Heights, Horizon Heights 2nd and Horizon Heights 3rd Additions, owned and developed by Walter Muhlenhardt and Eileen Muhlenhardt, Commissioner Hafermann moved, seconded by Commissioner Boegeman, to lower said lots to 60 percent of their currently listed value, provided that annual review take place and those lots that are sold are raised to the--regular individual lot value in the following assessment . Motion carried. COMMISSIONER'S RECORD "AK" (8) . Concerning Valley Warehouse properties owned and managed by Dick Doran of Burnsville and Shakopee City Assessor 's review of the assessment of said properties , Commissioner Boegeman moved, seconded by Commissioner Hafermann, to approve the City Assessor's recommendation to change the market value on Parcel 27 054 004 0 from $681 ,000 to $1 ,164,200 and to change the market value on Parcel 27 054 005 0 from $1 ,545,000 to $532,500, 'representing a 24 percent reduction. Motion carried. (9) . On a motion by Commissioner Hafermann, seconded by Commissioner Boegeman, the 1981 County Board of Equalization adjourned at 1 :45 p.m. gnthony orm, Chairman Board f Equalization • • • / / � I Annette Mistelske Recording Secretary - 1.11 F. R i • Co ty Administrator Clerk of the Board ux �Y° yu iv iihi. A OPEE C)� ? 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 G' ,,,,,i) MEMO TO: 1983 Shakopee Board of Review FROM: Scott County Assessot's Office _ SUBJECT: R.K. Ewert Property DATE: June 14, 1983 — - Tax Parcel #27 094 001 0 This property is a 4-plex located at 1140 W. 3rd Ave. The building was constructed in 1979 and is 2080 square feet. There is a garage building for the tenants which measures 22' x 42' . This property was part of the 1983 assessment which involved the adjustment of values for the 4-plexes located in Shakopee. This was discussed in the summation sheet for the 1983 assessr ent. The value for this property in 1982 was $14100 on the land which is 80' x 150' . The value for the building was $84500 for the 1982 assessment. The total value was $98600. For the 1983 assessment the land value was increased to $20000 and the build- ing value was increased to $113200 for a total value of $133200. After confering with Mr. Ewert after the first session of the Board of Review, the property was rechecked by Terry Morgenson of the County Assessor's Office and the value based on his inspection was reduced to $106700 for the building. This due to the lack of dishwashers, disposals and central air, which would reduce the rental value of the building. .Also, the garage is a poorly con- structed building when compared to the garages located with other 4-plexes. The main reasons for this opinion being no electricity to the building, no windows, and the siding was palced directly onto the studs instead of a layer of fiber board between the siding and the supports. Mr. Ewert has been notified of the adjustment in the 1983 value. He is still of the opinion that it is too high, but we feel he is correctly in line with other 4-plexes in the city and county. , I i i. T v. 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 (.1) r MEMO To. 1983 Shakopee Board of Review - FROM Scott County Assessor's Office SUBJJECT: Registered Land Survey No. 47 • DATE June 14, 1983 Tax Parcel Nos. 27 045 015 0 , 27 045 016 0 to 27 045 030 0 • This piece of property is an undeveloped RLS situated in the SW4 of • section 19. Part of this property was purchased by the City of Shakopee for a future. park. The remainder of the property is owned by Elmer Mar= schall and Daniel John O'Connell. This includes 16 tax parcels which are • valued on the attached sheet and which are classified as non-homestead agricultural property for the reasons stated on the attachment. Also, included in the assessment are two parcels not listed on the attachment. - These parcels are two ,tracts which are identified as #27 045.029 0, Tract CC and #27 045 030 0, Tract DD. Tract CC is a designated road which has . never been developed and Tract DD is a 4.60 4 piece of land situated north of the main RLS. Values for these tracts are; CC = $11400, DD = $20000. The value of this property was placed on the property for the 1981 assessment by the previous assessor, Larry Martin, and has not been changed since that • time. The total value of the taxable portions of this RLS is $266,100. • 1•1' , 's :c 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 L ;. .4 . - - . MEMO Tp; Board of Review FROM Larry D . Martin , City Assessor SuEcn LOTS IN R . L .S . #47 DATE: May 26 . 9 81 INTRODUCTION: Property owner has requested the valuation of these properties be reviewed. BACKGROUND : • For the 1980 1981 assessment, the properties in question were valued at $200 per .front foot of lakeshore which averaged out to be $20,000 per lot ; however, at that time no allowance was made for the lack of road improvements. A proper valuation for each lot would read as follows : Tract 0 front ft . lake 87 .65 @ $200 = $17 , 530 front ft . road 50 .00 @ 40 = 2 ,000 Indicated Value $15 ,530 • Tract P front ft . lake 113 . 6 @ $200 = $22, 720 front ft . road 100.0C @ 40 = 4 ,000 Indicated Value = $18 , 720 Tract Q front ft . lake 154.08 @ 200 = $30, 816 front ft. road 150 .00 @ 40 = 6,OCO Indicated Value = -$24, 816 Tract R front ft . lake 120 .00 @ 200 = $24 ,000 front ft . road 120.00 @ 40 = 4, 800 Indicated Value = $19, 200 Tract S front ft. lake 81 .00 @ 200 = $16, 200 front ft . road 135 .00 @ 40 = 5 , 400 Indicated Value = $10,800 Tract T front ft. lake 75 .00 @ 20C = $15 ,000 front ft . road 140.00 @ 40 = 5 , 600 Indicated Value = $ 9 , 400 Tract U front ft . lake 7 .00 �� 200 = $15 ,000 front ft . road 145 . 00 @ 40 = 5 , 800 Indicated Value = $ 9 , 200 •, 4 Board of Review Page 2 May 26, 1981 Tract V front ft . lake 60 .00 @ 200 = $12, 000 front ft. road 148.00 @ 40 = 5, 920 Indicated Value $ 6,080 Tract W front ft . lake 117.41 @ 200 = $23, 482 front ft . road 107. 56 @ 40 = 4, 302 Indicated Value $19, 180 Tract X front ft. lake 126. 29 @ 200 = $25 , 248 front ft . road 101 .00 @ 40 = 4, 040 Indicated Value $21 , 208 Tract Y front ft . lake 126.00 • @ 200 = $25, 200 front ft . road 101 .00 @ 40 = 4, 040 Indicated Value $21 , 160 Tract Z front ft . lake 122 . 96 @ 20C = $24, 592 front ft . road 101 .00 @ 40 = 4, 040 Indicated Value $20, 552 Tract AA front ft . lake 117.00 @ 200 = $23, 400 front ft . road 101 .00 @ 4C = 4, 040 Indicated Value $19, 360 Tract BB front ft . lake 117 .00 @ 200 = $23, 400 front ft . road 101 .00 @ 40 = 4,040 Indicated Value $19 , 360 In addition to the above adjustment , the City Assessor has learned that because the properties are actively being used fcr the production of agricultural products they are eligible for a non-homestead agricultural classification. RECOMMENDATION: Adjust the lot values as listed and change classification from vacant land to non-homestead agricultural . • } dG� Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant RE: Prospective Parks and Recreation Area Development (PRAD) Grants Date: May 10, 1983 Introduction The Minnesota State Legislature in its recent session approved a range of bills promoting jobs creation. One program encourages park-type improvements by offering grants. The staff seeks Council approval to submit a proposal for funding. Background A request for proposals was received by staff on June 6, 1983, with pro- posals to be submitted by June 15, 1983. The program is administered by the Small Business Administration in the Department of Economic Security. A total of $775,964 will be available. The minimum grant amount is $2,000, with no established maximum. The funds are to be distributed statewide with a larger proportion of funds to be allocated to areas of high unemployment. The plan for rating applications is vague, but is to be based on the following criteria: 1. Ability to hire unemployed persons 2. Ability to provide work of lasting benefit to the public 3. Ability to use small businesses 4. Ability to follow grant assurances and complete the work in a timely manner (the deadline for all work to be completed is September 30, 1983) The degree of funding for Shakopee will be a function of the extent these criteria are satisfied and the dollar amount requested by all communities. There are defined ways to meet two of the criteria. To meet the criteria for serving unemployed persons the job service must certify that persons are unemployed and not drawing unemployment. The grant will allow payment of up to $4.00 per hour plus fringe benefits to these persons from grant funds. The City can use its own funds to offer higher pay rates. To meet the criteria of serving small business the City must hire firms with no more than seventy employees. The cost of the following materials and landscaping activities are eligible project costs: 1) planting trees and shrubs, 2) correcting soil erosion, 3) terracing, 4) mulching, 5) cutting underbrush, 6) landscaping design services for projects undertaken, and 7) related landscaping materials. All improvements must be on public land and should be projects which wouldn't be undertaken without these funds. Bricks and mortar projects are to be avoided. Page Two Considering the grant criteria and fundable activities, staff has compiled the following list of possible projects. Because there is no local contribution required, it is recommend that the proposal solicit funds for all of these pro- jects. However, since the grantors may not be able to fund all requests, the projects will be prioritized in order to provide the state some guidelines on how to reduce the Shakopee request if necessary. Staff is still preparing the cost estimates which will be presented in greater detail at the Council meeting. List of Grant Projects 1. Improvements to sliding hill at Lions Park (contract with small business) 2. Improvements to boat landing in Huber Park (hired crew) 3. Correct erosion problems at Presidential Drive (hired crew) 4. Construct flower bed for Huber Park Trail (hired crew) (only if senior citizens agree to ongoing maintenance) 5. Assist in earthwork for Memorial Park bridge abutment (hired crew) 6. Clean up Huber Park including removal of old shelter and upgrading safety fence. (hired crew) 7. Planting crown vetch etc. to improve park maintenance in difficult terrain areas (hired crew) 8. Tree and shrub plantings in all parks and along boulevard (not priority since September deadline would require ball and burlap which is three or four times the cost of bare root planting). (hired crew) 9. Resurface tennis courts in Stans Park (contract with small business) The above projects envision hiring small contractors to do two of the pro- jects and a three-man crew for thirteen weeks to do the other projects. Staff recommends that Council authorize a pay increase to the lead man of approximately $1 per hour to try to get a person with supervisory experience who will facilitate a successful project. This approach will cost the city approximately $500-1000 and could be covered by the $1000 the Rotary donated to improve the boat landing (now in Park Reserve fund) . Requested Action Authorize appropriate City officials to submit a proposal for funding under the Prospective Parks and Recreational Area Development (PRAD) Grant Program in accordance with the program conditions and assurances. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant RE: Proposed Flower Bed along Levee Drive DATE: June 13 , 1983 Introduction The staff are proposing to apply for a PRAD grant and construct raised flower beds along Levee Drive if a volunteer organization agrees to maintain them. Direction from Council is needed to negotiate this request with an organization. Background Attached is a copy of a draft letter to Lavina Busacker, staff director of the Shakopee Senior Center. Council concurrence with the sentiments expressed in the letter is requested. The major issue is that a cooperative agreement with the Senior Center would provide the following division of responsibility: 1 . The City will till the beds each spring and purchase plants for the beds (a bed approximately 13 ' x 18 ' in Montevideo cost approximately $150 per year for plants ) . 2 . The Senior Center will plant , weed and water the beds . The best approach to providing water has not been resolved. A pump to bring river water or a line from Community Services are under consideration. Requested Action Direct staff to seek a cooperative arrangement for the ongoing maintenance of flower beds proposed adjacent to Levee Drive, with the City agreeing to provide spring tilling and purchase necessary plants , while seeking an organization to undertake planting, weed- ing and watering. JA/jms -,rsi tom.; M., CITY OF SHAKOPEE6 1 - L4 ° : tn` ' EXHIBIT A `� City of Shakopee Prospective Parks and Recreational Area Development Grant List of Projects by Priority 1 . Improvements to sliding hill at Lions Park n 6 ,400 Design $, 400 Administration $190 41-- ('to Contract 6 ,000 2 . Improvements to boat landing in Huber Park 2 , 700 Design 400 Administration 80 cJ Labor 700 Materials 1 ,600 3 . Correction of erosion problem at Presidential Lane 1 , 720 Design 100 Administration 50 1 go Labor 620 Materials 1 ,000 4 . Construction of flower beds along Huber Park Trail 5 ,650 Design 400 Administration 165 f t(0C Labor 1 ,200 Materials 4,050 5 . Earthwork for Memorial Park bridge abutment 700 Labor 700 Administration 20 1_ 40 (Design and materials to be contributed ) 6 . Clean-up in Huber Park 3 ,200 Design 100 Administration 95 .j- qS Labor 1 ,600 Materials 1 , 500 7 . Improve park maintenance in sloping areas 1 , 150 Design 100 Administration 30 r• 30 Labor 700 Materials 350 8 . Tree and shrub plantings in parks and along boulevard 12 ,050 Design 100 Administration 360 4-- 36,0 Labor 1 ,600 Materials 10, 350 9. Resurface two tennis courts in Stans Park 20 ,260 Contract and Administration 260 Materials 20,000 TOTAL $54 ,820 JULIUS A.GOLLER, II JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-1244 1859-1940 2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE SIIAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55329 June 13, 1983 Shakopee City Council Shakopee City Hall Shakopee, Minnesota55379 Dear Council Members: In re: Insurance Policy of Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau (Family Dining, Inc.) The above policy is. known as a Minnesota Surplus Lines Insurance Policy. We have others of this type but this policy has an endorsement which pro- vides among other things that'in case of insolvency, payment of claims is not guaranteed." I talked to Mr. Peterson who is the assistant to Thomas O'Malley in the office of the insurance commissioner. He advises that all surplus lines policies have this escape clause and it should be stamped on all policies. Accordingly, I do not recommend the issuance of any licenses secured by a surplus lines policy regardless of the insurance company involved. I would also suggest that the other liquor dealers who have filed surplus lines policies be notified to replace them with regular standard policies andthat the limited policies be returned when the substitute policies are submitted. Very t_ uly y. rs, Julius A. '. e II Shakopee City Attorney JAC/bpm cc: Trevor Walsten cc: Capesius Agency, Inc. — SET TAB STOPS AT ARROWS • • • • • • • • t Certificate of Insurance mord THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW. NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY R. L. Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGES 15208 Minnetonka Boulevard COMPANY A Minnetonka Minnesota 55343 LETTER COMPANY B LETTER - J - - - ■• ' !• . ns.Ur._ NAME AND ADDRESS OF INSURED - - - COMPANY C of Wausau Crystal Chalet Operations, Inc. LETTER & Crystal Chalet Liquors, Inc. COMPANY D 5301 36th Avenue North LETTER Crystal, Minnesota 55422 COMPANY E LETTER This is to certify that policies of insurance listed below have been issued to the insured named above and are in force at this time. Notwithstanding any requirement,term or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate may be issued or may pertain,the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all the terms,exclusions and conditions of such policies. COMPANY POLICY Limits of Liability in Thousands(0I 0) LETTER TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE EACH AGGREGATE OCCURRENCE GENERAL LIABILITY ' �$ BODILY INJURY $ El COMPREHENSIVE FORMri ''1,14. � 1'7 __g A ,r. ❑PREMISES—OPERATIONS 'd3 LL PROPERTY DAMAGE $ ❑ EXPLOSION AND COLLAPSE ❑UNDERGROUND HAZARD 1933 ❑ PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS HAZARD 11.I CONTRACTUAL INSURANCE r BODILY INJURY AND EllBROAD FORM PROPERTY CITY OF .: AKOPE� PROCOMBINPERTY A AGE $ DAMAGE El INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS ❑ PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY BODILY INJURY (EACH PERSON) $ ❑ COMPREHENSIVE FORM BODILY INJURY $ ❑ OWNED (EACH ACCIDENT) [I] HIRED PROPERTY DAMAGE $ BODILY INJURY AND NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $ COMBINED EXCESS LIABILITY BODILY INJURY AND ❑ UMBRELLA FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $ $ ❑ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA COMBINED FORM WORKERS'COMPENSATION STATUTORY_._ A and WC 6010 27 98 8/19/83 $ 100, EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY EACH ACCIDENT) B OTHER 1 $250,000 One Person Liquor Liability GA 32304 8/22/83 $500,000 One Occurrence _ •• ..• DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES & Property Damage $500 Deductible Per Claim Cancellation: Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing com- pany will IRRIP@PP oFo mail 10 days written notice to the below named certificate holder, 1=xtelltmecItTec NAME AND ADDRESS OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER: May 31, 1983 City Clerk DATE ISSUED: City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue J / Shakopee, MN 55379 A • ,_...4.Va E ACORD 25(1-79) R _ 1983-84 intoxicating Liquor Licenses: Approve the application(s) and grant a license to , On Off Sale Club Sale Sunday American Legion Post No. 2 x x O East First Avenue Veterans of Foreign Wars "M(25 132 East First Avenue. ' Lin e5 x x SS� Shakopee Council 1685 Home Assn. Inc . �1 East Fourth Avenue X j The Pullman Club, Inc . t 124 West 1st Avenue x x XX Corp . and Wittles, Inc . SURie5 1561 East 1st Avenue x x x Clair' s Bar, Inc . 3ORPLU S 124 South Holmes �/N e,S X x C .R.E. Restaurant Company o� 1583 East First Avenue x x << R. Hanover, Inc . jO 911 East 1st Avenue x x Lj Vertigo, Inc . � 101 East First Avenue x x The Friendly *Folks Club, Inc . SuRpLUS 122 East First Avenue t,jiueS x x x elc Family Dining, Inc .' 6268 East Highway 101 x Riverside Liquors, Inc. sogplOS 507 East First Avenue 1. N es x , Dennis P. Bruesehoff and Thomas J . Cox , A Partnership t 1104 Minnesota Valley Mall at Highway 169 South x The Weiss Company, Inc . 8522 East Highway 101 X Rep/H ce, s�CPlvs 1., �s � ( IC: y Goi-( -( 6 ,U ‹vi 04e, APPcou -r 2 r e `J'Y pd- WINE LICENSES : Valleyfair, One Valleyfair Drive Capone ' s Food Shops , Inc . , Minnesota Valley Mall 1983/84 Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses: Approve the application( s) and grant a license to . On Sale Off Sale Jim & Lucy ' s, Inc . ©K 210 West First Avenue x x Jackson E. Chi l quisL O‘(- 220 West Second Avenue x x oK Friendly Folks Club , Inc . 123 East First Avenue x • � Marlene Berg 222 East First Avenue x De- a - teGker 547-St- Sommez 1-1-e (f ex • Richard E . Cleveland ," 828 East First Avenue x en ) . e - - por • 6261) 6411F3 �ba, . . 409 Ea-sz-F-n-s t Avenue-- x t� Art Berens & Sons, Inc . 123 West Second Avenue x i 1„ 'Juba ' s Inc . 1/6W/1100 Minnesota Valley Mall x t�- ) Minnesota Valley Restoration Project /( �'� East First Avenue • x 1 Superamerica Stations Inc . ° 1155 East First Avenue x Valleyfair, Inc . One Valleyfair Drive x yy..- Jerome Franciscus 823 East First Avenue x Holiday Stationstores, Inc . o'� 444 East First Avenue x k Pizza Huts of the Northwest , Inc. 257 Marschall Road x 04) Valley Racquetball and Handball , Inc. /1/' 600 County Road 83 x oK Brooks Superette, Inc . 615 Marschall Road x n- Northern Racing Corporation Qst....6528 Valley Industrial Boulevard South x Capone ' s Food Shops, Inc . �_�fl/ 1145 Minnesota Valley Mall x �J"'" `The Sub-Machine Shop Inc . 0` 1350 East First Avenue x MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant RE: Task Force on Computer Needs Assessment DATE: June 13 , 1983 Introduction At its June 9 , 1983 meeting , the City Council directed staff to contact SPUC regarding the above listed task force . Communicating at a staff level , it has been requested by Lou VanHout that this matter be han- dled more formally with the Commissioners , and Council direction on the form of this communication is requested. Background and Alternatives A recent discussion with Mr. VanHout has demonstrated that he is vehe- mently opposed to SPUC involvement with this task force because he doesn' t have time to make this a priority right now. The issue was informally discussed at the last Commission meeting with two of the three Commissioners present and the informal consensus was against SPUC involvement . Mr. VanHout requested that a formal request be made to the Commission by the City Council , and suggested that the likely outcome will be no SPUC involvement at this time . The next SPUC meeting is likely to be on July 11 , 1983 . With this background the City Council has two alternatives : 1 . Send the attached letter which indicates City staff and one or more Councilmembers will attend the next SPUC meeting to explain the City ' s request prior to formal SPUC action, (probably on July 11 , 1983 , - Council should select delegate( s ) now) , OR 2 . Request that SPUC hold a joint meeting with the City Council on Tuesday, July 5 , 1983, at 7 : 00 p.m. to discuss this issue . The second alternative is more forceful and brings the task force issue more quickly to the fore. However if the Council only wants to invite SPUC participation but will go forward with a City needs assessment even without SPUC participation, then the attached letter will suffice . Requested Action ( select one of two alternatives ) Direct staff to send a letter to SPUC requesting their consideration of SPUC participation in a task force on City-wide computer needs 1 ) at their next meeting OR 2 ) at a joint meeting with the City Council on July 5 , 1983 , at 7 :00 p.m. JA/jms CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 % 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 June 13 , 1983 Mr. Wally Bishop, Chairman Shakopee Public Utilities 1030 East 4th Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 Re : Task Force on Computer Needs Assessment Dear Mr. Bishop and Commissioners : The City of Shakopee has programmed the purchase of microcomputer equipment into its 1983 Capital Equipment budget . However prior to purchase of those budgeted items the City Council seeks to conduct a broader needs assessment to assure that any equipment purchased will meet the longer-term growth needs of the City and SPUC. To that end the City Council adopted the following motion at its June 7 , 1983 meeting: Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to oversee the formation of a task force to advise City Council on a joint computer needs assessment for the City and SPUC, the task force to have representatives of SPUC ( staff and Commissioners ) , the City Council , City staff and liaison members from other agencies as appropriate , with a summary of the proposed task force mem- bership, mission and time line to be presented to the City Council on July 5 , 1983 , and SPUC on July 11 , 1983 , for approval . Discussion on a staff level has demonstrated that SPUC staff doubt that the Commission will make computer needs assessment a priority issue at this time . It was therefore requested that the task force concept be placed before the Commission at a formal level before informal discussion of the membership, mission and time line takes place. With this letter as an introduction I would therefore like to place the proposed task force before the Commission for discussion at your next meeting. We would also appreciate receiving a copy of the agenda and proposed time of your discussion so that City staff and/or City Council can be there to explain the proposal . Attached is an informal outline of the proposed membership, mission and time line which has not yet been reviewed by City Council . T /tc IIcart o / Progress Va / / zl An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Wally Bishop Page Two June 13 , 1983 If revisions to this proposal will make the proposal more work- able for SPUC, I would appreciate your comments . Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Sincerely, John K. Anderson City Administrator JKA/jms cc : Lou VanHout TASK FORCE ON COMPUTER NEEDS ASSESSMENT PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW Membership John Leroux Gloria Vierling John Anderson Steve Hurley Gregg Voxland Tom Brownell. SPUC staff and Commissioner representatives Meeting Schedule Bi-weekly meetings on Mondays from 3 : 00 to 5 : 00 p.m. beginning July 18 , 1983 are proposed. The goal is to present recommendations on computer needs to City Council. and SPUC at the first meeting in November. Task Delineation Meeting 1 - Police Computer Needs Meeting 2 - Computer Needs of Other City Departments Meeting 3 - SPUC Computer Needs Meeting 4 - Overview of Computer Services available at Scott County and LOGIS Meeting 5 - Overview of Computer Hardware and Software available to meet City/SPUC needs Meeting 6 - Adoption of Computer Needs Assessment for City/SPUC Meeting 7-8 - Recommendations on Computer Equipment Purchase to match Needs Assessment City Departments and SPUC would each conduct an internal computing needs assessment to present to the task force . City staff would prepare the format for this needs assessment and undertake other support activities directed by the task force . It is estimated that 100 hours of staff time would be consumed in needs analysis at an estimated billing rate of $20. 50/hour or $2050. An outside consultant could do this project for about $4000 with a two-week turn around. Doing the needs analysis in-house will take four or six weeks . June 13 , 1983 11-.1_, .6 .'n I (i. \e 1,, ' . . P Y c_4 - - . r- )2 i 0,--v) r n \,- ,___ _____------- c 7 � z /)› r .,, --i ...._':_i , _,16, (7, 2 ci rn (.- , / rri3 a z ----) .-G -i\\!. ;`.gro: n ,o_i F -J` ---i .3 1 m±-;- 9 o liCI ,4 (7:41;c:- / § : ,i __. cls .7 „.. ,.. <0 .c; IIII (AT• n 0) 3 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Appointment to Major Tax Study Commission Chaired By St . Paul Mayor George Latimer DATE: June 14 , ,1983 Introduction During the 1983 Legislative Session the Citizens League proposed that a Major Tax Study Commission be formed. Governor Rudy Perpich picked up on the recommendation and designated St . Paul Mayor Latimer as the Chair of the study commission. The Governor plans to name approximately 20 members to the commission, and the appointments will represent a broad range of Minnesota society, as originally envisioned by the Citizens League . Background In keeping with the City ' s efforts to plug into major state and regional boards and commissions that will affect Shakopee ' s future , the Mayor and I have discussed the possibility of recom- mending someone for appointment to the study commission. There are already lettez pouring into both George Latimer ' s office and the Governor ' s office endorsing candidates for appointment to the Commission. Given the nature of the appointment process, it was our feeling that we should consider someone who was well known by both the Governor and the Mayor and could speak knowledgeably about the State tax structure ' s affect on Shakopee . Because of the intense competition for appointment to this Commission , the Mayor and I felt that he probably had the best shot at being appointed, because of his contacts with the Governor and Mayor Latimer. Alternatives 1 . Recommend the appointment of Mayor Reinke . 2 . Recommend the appointment of some other Shakopee citizen with the appropriate background. 3. Make no recommendations for appointment to the study commission. Recommendation Unless some other strong candidate ' s name is suggested, the Mayor and I feel that he probably has the best shot at appointment to the study commission. Action Requested Pass a motion by City Council endorsing the Mayor ' s appointment to the Major Tax Study Commission recommended by the Citizens League and Chaired by Mayor George Latimer. JKA/jms