HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/1987 �lU
TENTATIVE AGENDA
WORKSESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 14, 1987
5:30 Arrive at Canterbury Inn 2nd floor conference room for
Strategic Planning Worksession
5:45 Buffet dinner served
6:30 Business portion of Worksession convened by Mayor
Other business:
1. Reconsideration of Resolution No. 2709 Initiating i
Vacation of 13th Avenue in Hauer's 3rd Addition -
memo on table.
2. Joint meeting with the Scott County Board to discuss
their proposed County Admissions Tax (information
attached) .
a. Letter from Valleyfair (attached)
b. Letters from Canterbury Downs (attached)
c. Letter from Rep. Becky Kelso (attached)
7:30 1987 Strategic Planning Worksession (material attached -
City Administrator facilitator)
• Note if the instructions are carefully followed you may
begin filling out the worksheets prior to the work-
session.
10:00 Adjourn
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk X/
RE: Resolution No. 2709 Initiating Vacation of 13th Avenue
in Hauer's 3rd Addition
DATE: April 13, 1987
Introduction
Dale Dahlke, developer of Hauer' s 4th Addition, has requested
that the public hearing on the vacation of 13th Avenue be
expanded to include the vacation of Onyx Drive and a portion of
Limestone Drive where it abuts 13th Avenue.
Background
Mr. Dahlke was contacted by his surveyor late last week and
advised that it is necessary to vacate Onyx Drive and a small
portion of Limestone Drive in order to permit the recording of
the proposed plat of Hauer's 4th Addition. This is due to the
fact that Onyx Drive is being moved and that a small portion of
Limestone Drive, where it connects to 13th Avenue, is being
replatted a bit differently in the 4th Addition.
The simpliest way to handle the request is to reconsider and
amend Resolution No. 2709, which was adopted on April 7th.
The legal notice appearing in Wednesday' s paper has been
corrected to include this amendment.
Alternatives
1. Adopt a new resolution getting a different hearing date for
the vacation of Onyx Drive and part of Limestone Drive.
2. Reconsider Resolution No. 2709.
3. Do nothing.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 2, reconsider Resolution No. 2709.
Recommended Action '
1. Reconsider Resolution No. 2709, Initiating the Vacation of
13th Avenue and Certain Easements According to the Plat of
Hauer's 3rd Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. Move that the resolution be amended to include consideration
of the vacation of Onyx Drive and a portion of the southerly
100 feet of Limestone Drive.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2709, as amended.
RESOLUTION NO. 2709
A RESOLUTION INITIATING THE VACATION OF 13TH AVENUE
AND CERTAIN EASEMENTS ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
HAUER'S 3RD ADDITION, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a petition has been received by abutting property
owners requesting the vacation of 13th Avenue as shown on the
recorded plat of Hauer' s 3rd Addition, Scott County, Minnesota,
as well as the vacation of the utility and drainage easements as
shown on Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 11, Block 3 , Hauer's 3rd
Addition, and
WHEREAS, the plat of Hauer's 4th Addition has received
preliminary approval by the Planning Commission and the City
Council and one condition of the approval is that 13th Avenue
within the plat of Hauer's 3rd Addition be vacated, and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council that 13th
Avenue as delineated within the plat of Hauer's 3rd Addition be
realigned as delineated within the preliminary plat of Hauer' s
4th Addition, and
WHEREAS, Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 11, Block 3 , Hauer' s 3rd
Addition will be replatted in the plat of Hauer' s 4th Addition
with the necessary utility and drainage easements, and
WHEREAS, the platting of Hauer' s 4th Addition also requires
the vacation of Onyx Drive and a portion of the southerly 100
feet of Limestone Drive, and
WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City
Council that the said streets and easements no longer serve a
public use or interest, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing must be had before such action can
be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must
be given.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, That a hearing be held in the
Council Chambers on the 5th day of May, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. , or
thereafter on the matter of vacating the following streets and
easements:
1) 13th Avenue
2) Onyx Drive
3) Part of the southerly 100 feet of Limestone Drive
4) Utility and drainage easements within Lot 8, Block 2
and Lot 11, Block 3
as shown on the plat of Hauer 3rd Addition.
Resolution No. 2709
Page Two
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That two weeks ' published notice be
given by publication in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted
notice be given by two weeks posting a copy of such notice on the
bulletin board in the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse,
on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall and on the
bulletin board in the First National Bank of Shakopee.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
1987.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1987.
City Attorney
si �.L'I /
ruses .w
u1 f
i 11 - \•
o
! O
'A
� 1i 11�i
4
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 110
Lam; SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1382 (612)937-6100
JOSEPH F.RIES REOEljiE�
Administrator
F.BRANDT RICHARDSON APR 9 ]Bgj
Deputy Administrator
BARBARA
NESS
Asst.
SASC/ry O
Administrativer SHgKO?
April 8, 1987
Mr. John Anderson
City Administrator
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee—�, MND 55379
Dear Maer-sonT
Yesterday the Scott County Board passed a resolution seeking authority for
imposition of an admissions tax on major amusement facilities within the
county. The estimated $500,000 to $700,000 raised by this tax would be
dedicated to the county road and bridge fund, to be used for improvements
of the transportation system on routes which directly or indirectly carry
traffic to and from the major amusement facilities in Scott County.
The purpose of this tax is to provide relief to property taxpayers from
the expected additional costs of the improvements. The amount of revenue
raised by the proposed admissions tax would offset approximately $30 to
$50 of additional property taxes on a typical Scott County residence.
For your information I am enclosing copies of the Board's resolution, the
proposed bill , a press release sent to local newspapers, and a brief
question and answer paper explaining the reasons for this tax.
On behalf of the Board of Commissioners, I ask your City to support the
proposed legislation. If your City Council agrees with the need for this
legislation, we ask your assistance in conveying support to legislators
and ask that you pass a formal resolution stating your position. If I can
be of any assistance in this regard, please feel free to contact me.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. John Anderson
April 8, 1987
Page 2.
As a follow-up to this request, the County Commissioner from your District
will be contacting you to provide assistance or answer questions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
✓H"M71
Brandt Richardson
Deputy Administrator
BR:jm (� /� c
Enclosures Q`-A
cc: Commissioner R.E. Mertz
Face 1 0; 2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Date a -- - - Resolution No. 87026
Motion by Commissioner Seconded by Commissioner
RESOLUTION NO. 87026; REQUESTING AUTHORITY TO TAX
ADMISSIONS TO MAJOR AMUSEMENT FACILITIES IN SCOTT COUNTY
WHEREAS, the major amusement facilities and recreational attractions located in
Scott County will draw more than 3.5 million visitors to the County in 1987; and
WHEREAS, on a daily basis the number of such visitors frequently is greater than
the resident population of the county, thereby exerting a significant demand for
county services; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of Scott County to provide services in the
areas of transportation, public safety, criminal justice, human services, land use
planning, and environmental protection; and
WHEREAS, the source of funds for such programs is the property tax, which has
been increased substantially in Scott County to pay for these services, including a
36% increase in the road and bridge levy in the last year alone; and
WHEREAS, Scott County has expended $3.5 million on highway projects in northern
Scott County since 1984; and
WHEREAS, additional programmed and potential highway improvements in this area
may cost in excess of $26 million and,
WHEREAS, even though all of the aforementioned projects do not directly benefit
the amusement facilities, these costs are indicative of county costs for providing an
adequate road and bridge system in the area; and
WHEREAS, further increases in the property tax to pay for these additional
services are unwarranted and fail to yield either economic efficiency or equity in
taxation; and
WHEREAS, a tax paid on admissions to major attractions would raise revenue from
those who require these services; and
YES NO
Koniarski Koniarskl
Bohnsack Bohnsack
Mertz Mertz
Stromwall Stromwall
Page 2 of 2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Date April 7, 1987 Resolution No. 87026
Motion by Commissioner Seconded by Commissioner
WHEREAS, in addition to the Commissioners present here today, Commissioner
Stromwall has recorded his support for a tax on admissions;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners in and for the
County of Scott hereby requests the legislature of the State of Minnesota to grant it
the authority to tax admissions to major recreational attractions within the County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners hereby states its intent
to use these funds for the improvement of the transportation system on routes which
directly or indirectly carry traffic to and from the major amusement facilities in
Scott County.
YES NO
Koniarski Koniarski
Bohnsack Bohnsack
Mertz Mertz
Stromwall Stromwall
03-17-87 (REVISOR ] XX/MS 87-2383
Senator Schmitz introduced--
S. F. No. 1014 Referred to the Committee on Taxes and Tax Laws
I A bill for an act
2 relating to taxation; authorizing Scott county to
3 impose a tax on admissions to major amusement
4 facilities; providing for expenditure of the proceeds
5 of the tax.
6
7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
8 Section 1. [SCOTT COUNTY; ADMISSIONS TAX. ]
9 Subdivision 1. (IMPOSITION. ) The board of commissioners of
10 Scott county may by ordinance impose a tax on admissions to
11 major amusement facilities in the county. In this section
12 "major amusement facility" means a place of amusement that has
13 been constructed with a capacity of 10,000 persons or more or
14 that was the site of an event that had a paid attendance of
15 10,000 persons or more on any day during the preceding 12-month
16 period, except a place of amusement owned by the Scott county
17 agricultural society.
18 Subd. 2. (RATE. ] The tax shall be imposed at a rate not to
19 exceed 25 cents per paid admission. The board of commissioners
20 may by ordinance change the rate subiect to the limitation in
21 this subdivision. The tax imposed under this section is not
22 subiect to the restrictions in Minnesota Statutes section
23 240.15.
24 Subd. 3. (COLLECTION. ) The commissioner of revenue may
25 enter into agreements with the county to provide for the
03-17-87 [REVISOR J XX/MS 87-2383
1 collection of the tax by the state on behalf of the county. The
2 comissioner may charge the county a reasonable fee for its
3 collection from the proceeds of the tax. The tax shall be
4 subiect to the same interest, penalties, and enforcement
5 provisions as the tax imposed under Minnesota Statutes, chaptef
6 297A, including the confidentiality requirements of Minnesota
7 Statutes, section 297A.43. _
8 Subd. 4. [USE OF PROCEEDS. ] Money received by Scott county
9 from the tax imposed under this act shall be paid into the
10 county road and bridge fund and used for the purposes of that
11 fund.
12 Sec. 2. [EFFECTIVE DATE. ]
13 Section 1 is effective the day following final enactment.
PRESS RELEASE
PROPOSED SCOTT COUNTY ADMISSIONS TAX
APRIL 7, 1987
Today the Scott County Board of Commissioners called for the imposition of
an admissions tax on major recreational attractions in the county, in
order to provide property taxpayers with some relief from the rising costs
of county roads, bridges, and services.
According to Board Chairman Bill Koniarski, "It's unfair for county
property taxpayers to bear the entire burden of services and highway
improvements, when someone who comes to Scott County for a day of
recreation pays little or nothing toward the costs of roads, criminal
justice system, and other county functions."
Koniarski points out that on a busy day, up to 75,000 people can visit the
major attractions in Scott County - a number far greater than the
currently estimated 55,000 residents. "In effect, on those days and many
days of the year, we are asking the 55,000 residents of this county to
provide services for a population of 130,000. We firmly believe that
those who use county services and facilities should pay for them."
Press Release, Admissions Tax
April 7, 1987
Page 2.
The proposed admissions tax has already been introduced into the Minnesota
legislature by Minnesota Senator Bob Schmitz and Representative Becky
Kelso. As presently written, the legislation calls for up to a $.25 tax
on admissions to amusement facilities which are either constructed for or
serve at least 10,000 people per day. This would likely affect
Valleyfair, Canterbury Downs, the Renaissance Festival and Starwood,
producing from $500,000 to $700,000 of revenue for the county each year.
"The most obvious county cost we face in the immediate future is the
improvement of the county highway system," Koniarski continued, "and we'll
have to make these improvements one way or another. By asking the
recreational patrons to assume some of these costs, we hope to hold the
county road and bridge levy at a more reasonable level than we have been
able to do in the past."
The potential $700,000 in relief for county property taxpayers is
significant, according to the County Board Chairman. "To raise that
amount with a levy - which we certainly don't want to do - would cost the
owner of a $75,000 house about $36 a year." A $100,000 homestead would
have to pay about $53 each year to raise an amount equal to the proposed
admissions tax.
Press Release - Admissions Tax n
April 7, 1987 J'
Page 3.
The cost of road and bridge improvements is foremost in the consideration
of the County Board. Even with State and Federal participation, local
share of costs for the replacement of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge will
likely exceed $4 million. In addition to $3.5 million spent recently on
county roads in northern Scott County, planned and potential projects
could reach another $26 million. "Not all of these projects directly
benefit the attractions, of course," according to Koniarski, "but they
show the magnitude of costs the county must bear to provide an adequate
road and bridge system in the area."
In addition, the County has had to deal with rising costs in the area of
the criminal justice system, such as provision of a new minimum security
facility in Jordan, and it also delivers a wide array of other types of
support services - such as Human Services programs.
"These businesses are good corporate citizens of Scott County and we are
neither trying to punish them nor take advantage of them," Koniarski said,
"but we believe this admissions tax is a reasonable method of raising
` revenue to support this large recreational population." The Board also
believes that most, if not all , of this tax will be "exported" to visitors
who live outside of Scott County.
According to the resolution adopted by the County Board, the funds would
be used to pay for the improvement of highways and bridges which are
directly or indirectly affected by amusement traffic.
- QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS April 9, 1987
ON THE
PROPOSED SCOTT COUNTY ADMISSIONS TAX
1. Q: What is the Admissions Tax?
A: The Admissions Tax would be a flat fee imposed on admissions to
major amusement facilities in the county, authorized and
imposed by the legislature and administered by ordinance of the
County Board. A "major amusement facility" is a place of
amusement that has been constructed with a capacity of 10,000
persons or more or that was the site of an event that had a
paid attendance of 10,000 persons or more on any day during the
preceding twelve-month period. The tax would be up to $.25 per
ticket as set by ordinance of the Board of Commissioners.
2. Q: Why tax admissions?
A: The recreational attractions in Scott County draw up to 75,000
people per day to the northern area of the county. Relative to
the 55,000 residents of the county, the influx of such a large
number of people places a significant burden on public systems
which provide services to these visitors. Since these 75,000
patrons make relatively little or no contribution to county
revenue, county property taxpayers are paying for services
provided to these visitors. The admissions tax is a means to
have visitors pay a fair share of the cost of county services,
providing relief for county property taxpayers.
3. Q: Why is the tax a "flat tax" and not a percentage of the price
of admission?
A: The costs borne by the county are a function of there�sence of
a visitor, and are not related to the ticket price. For
example, the county must provide a sufficient highway system
for a visitor regardless of whether the travel is to a facility
which charges $3.00 for admission or $13.00 for admission.
Thus, a "flat tax" better reflects the actual cost of county
services provided.
4. Q: Why does the county need this revenue?
A: Since 1984, Scott County has expended $3.5 million on highway
projects in northern Scott County, and has approximately $1
million in additional construction currently under way.
Additional programs and potential highway improvements in this
area may cost in excess of $25 million. Even though all these
projects do not directly benefit the amusement facilities,
these costs are indicative of the cost the county must bear to
provide an adequate road and bridge system in the area.
Because of the increasing costs of the highway improvements and
maintenance, the county's road and bridge levy last year
increased by 36%.
Page 2. April 9, 1987
The proposed tax and use of the funds relate only to the
county's need for highway improvements. However, any
discussion of the total burden of these facilities should also
recognize that the county has many other costs - such as public
safety, court administration, jail detention, probation
services, emergency management, land use planning and zoning,
and provision of a wide array of human services.
5. Q: If the $700,000 from admissions taxes had to come from
taxpayers instead, what would the effect be on residential
taxes?
A. A homestead with a market value of $75,000 would pay an
additional $35.60 per year; a $100,000 property would be levied
an additional $52.80 per year. This would be an increase of
28% to 33% in the portion of a homeowner's net taxes paid to
the Road and Bridge Fund on homestead property.
6. Q: How much money would the admissions tax generate?
A: Since the precise data on admissions is regarded as proprietary
by some of the businesses, it is difficult to accurately
estimate the revenue which would be generated by this tax. At
$.25 per paid admission, however, a reasonable estimate would
be $600,000 - $700,000 per year.
7. Q: What will the admissions tax revenue be used for?
A: The funds will be dedicated to the county road and bridge
fund. In their resolution of support for this legislation, the
Board will state their intent to use these funds for the
improvement of the transportation system on routes which
directly or indirectly carry traffic to and from the major
amusement facilities in Scott County.
8. Q: Which amusement facilities will be affected by this?
A: It's difficult to be certain, since much of the data on
admissions is regarded as proprietary. It is likely, though,
that at least Canterbury Downs, valleyfair, the Renaissance
Festival , and (according to estimated attendance) Starwood will
be subject to this tax.
9. Q: Aren't the amusement facilities paying property taxes?
A: The amount of property tax paid by the amusement facilities
varies widely, but in general it is not sufficient to pay for
the cost of services provided nor on a per capita basis is it
an equitable share. For example, each day of the year a Scott
County homeowner of a $75,000 house pays approximately $.30 to
the county road and bridge fund; in contrast, a patron at a
recreational facility (on the average) pays less than one penny
to the county road system.
Page 3. April 9, 1987
10. Q: Aren't you singling out the recreational attractions as a means
to pay for highways in Scott County?
A: Scott County is vigorously seeking funds from federal and state
governments for major highway projects within the county. In
addition, the county suppports legislation to establish a
"wheelage" tax, which would provide revenue to the county from
owners of vehicles. And, of course, the county has relied and
will continue to rely extensively on taxes from property owners
to fund highways, in addition to committing nearly all of its
revenue sharing funds to this purpose. It is now time for
those users of the highway system who have not contributed
sufficiently - the patrons of the recreational attractions - to
pick up a fair share of the cost.
11. Q: Haven't the amusements been good corporate citizens of Scott
County? Isn't this a punitive approach?
A: The County Board is proud of our amusement industry and
appreciates the benefits they provide our citizens through
employment, economic development and other community
contributions. The county must raise revenue sufficient to pay
for the services it provides, and the Board believes that those
who use (directly or indirectly) county services should pay for
them. The Board does not intend to punish any industry, but
neither does it intend to subsidize one at the expense of
taxpayers.
12. Q: Why should an amusement facility pay taxes into the county road
fund when visitors use state roads to reach the facility, and
when the immediate access roads are already in and paid for?
A. (1) . Despite this perception, many visitors do, in fact, use
county roads either as principal routes or as alternatives
due to the congestion.
(2) . When state roads become congested, other traffic may be
diverted to county roads. Since the transportation
network is a system, imposing a cost on one element (state
roads) can result in additional costs on other elements
(county roads) as well.
(3). The county may bear part of the financial burden for major
routes which are primarily funded by federal or state
funds. For example, the federal funds for the Bloomington
Ferry Bridge will likely require matching funds and other
commitments which, depending on the level of participation
by others, could range from $4 - $18 million.
Page 4. April 9, 1987 a
(4). Payment for local access roads solves only the traffic
problem in the immediate area of a facility, not the
problem of congestion on Scott County's entire road
system.
13. Q: Since some attractions pay the 6% sales tax on admissions and
others do not, aren't you putting some operations at a
competitive disadvantage?
A: (1 ). The Admissions Tax is rationally designed for the purpose
of raising revenue to recover a small part of the costs
which recreational attractions uniquely impose upon the
county's highway system, because of the volume of highway
users which they attract to the county.
(2). It is the County Board's concern - but not its
repsonsibility - to ensure that businesses remain
competitive with each other. It is the Board's
responsibility to ensure that the taxes which it levies
are levied in an equitable manner; we believe this is -tFe
case under the proposed bill. The tax will apply equally
to all businesses which are subject to the admissions tax.
When the county levies property taxes on homeowners, for
example, it does not take into consideration an
individual 's federal income taxes, state income taxes,
sales taxes, excise taxes, or any other form of personal
tax. To consider corporate or sales taxes paid by
business when the county levies taxes (property or
admissions) on a private enterprise would be just as
inappropriate.
It is, of course, of concern to the County Board that
businesses in the county be successful and profitable. It
is the Board's opinion that a tax of $.25 per ticket will
not place the attractions at a significant competitive
disadvantage, particularly when viewed in the context of:
(a) Total per capita spending for a day at an amusement
facility;
(b) Travel cost (i.e., an additional $.25 for the
consumer is less than the cost of driving one
additional mile to the destination); and
(c) Recent price increases imposed by some of the
attractions.
Page 5. April 9, 1987
Relative to the above costs, the Board believes this to be
a nominal and reasonable tax. The Board believes that an
Y
so called "price resistance" (price inelasticity of
demand), if there is any at all , would likely be offset by
increased patronage resulting from reduced traffic
congestion and decreased travel time to the amusement
facility due to the transportation improvements.
(3). As a point of information, it is the Board's understanding
that only Canterbury Downs is not required to levy the 6%
state sales tax on the price of admission. However, on
each ticket Canterbury Downs must collect a $.40 state tax
and a $.10 tax for the City of Shakopee - 16.67% on a
general admissions ticket.
(4). State sales tax is irrelevant to the question of the need
for county revenue. State sales taxes are paid to the
state and do not offset county costs relating to the
amusement facilities.
14. Q: Isn't there some other way of solving the problem of
transportation and other county costs?
A: Yes. The County Board could pass all costs on to property
taxpayers, as they have done in the past; but this approach is
not consistent with the premise that users should pay for
services rendered, nor is it fair to property taxpayers.
Alternatively, the Board could pass on all of the costs through
the admissions tax by seeking a much higher tax than the
proposed $.25 per ticket. It is the Board's opinion, however,
that the proposed tax rate represents a fair allocation of
costs to the attraction industry.
The Board considers the proposed mechanism and rate to be a
very reasonable method of sharing a part of the total burden of
rising county costs with those who impose a significant share
of this burden.
BR:jm
Family Amusement Park REC��V
One Valleyfair Drive,
Shakopee,MN 55379 �a �Q
R �
April 6, 1987p�N
gKppF�.
FT. m It May Concern:
Valleyfair opposes the admissions tax for several reasons :
I . We do not think it is legal.
2. Tax is imposed not on the many businesses that benefit from
the influx of people to the County because of Valleyfair,
Canterbury Downs and the Renaissance Festival, but
specifically on those entities themselves.
3. It does not specify exactly where the monies are to go.
4 . It does not specify how much money is needed.
5 . Once implemented, there isn't any limit that the tax could
become in future years.
6 . There is no time limit that the tax can be collected.
7 . Since 1978 our attendance has increased only 16% but county
real estate taxes have increased 317% and the city real
estate taxes 253%.
8 . It limits our ability to put capital monies back into
Valleyfair.
9. We already pay a city fee for non-used services .
10. We are in competition for the leisure dollar with other
entertainment facilities such as Canterbury, the Zoo, the
proposed Mega Mall, etc. Some of these facilities have a
subsidy of some type. We never have had a subsidy. We pay a
sales tax on our tickets where others do not.
11 . This tax would be levied on anyone over age three at
Valleyfair. Other facilities do not charge for a large
portion of their attendance and would escape the tax.
April 6 , 1987
Page 2
Some alternatives might be:
1 . User gas tax should be used to pay for road improvements .
2 . General sales tax such as Bloomington used to pay for
Mega Mall improvements.
3 . Some type of vehicle tax.
Sincerely,
Walter R. Wittmer
Vice President/General Manager
A*RW:dv
jC
CA VERBURY.
D O W N 5
April 7, 1987
Mayor Eldon Reinke
and Members of the City Council
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Admission Tax
Dear Mayor Reinke and
Members of the City Council:
Attached are letters to Scott County staff and County Board
concerning the proposed admission tax.
Unless the "takeout" bill passes in its entirety, we know we
cannot afford this additional expense. Even if it passes,
this new tax will be an intolerable burden on a new company
which lost $7.9 million last year.
We believe that in any event the questions asked to the
County in our letter and other questions should be answered
to the satisfaction of everyone adversely affected by the
bill.
In any event, we believe that any such tax should be levied,
collected and spent by the local unit of government which
has primary jurisdiction over the amusement facility, which
in our case is the City of Shakopee. Moreover, if the
racetrack fails to succeed because of the excessive pari-
mutuel tax and/or proposed admission tax, the City of
Shakopee will be the governmental unit most adversely
affected in terms of our ability to pay real estate taxes
and City's present admission tax, jobs in the City provided
by the racetrack and spin-off businesses, spin-off
development and real estate taxes therefrom. Additionally,
808 to 858 of the traffic coming to and from the racetrack
use Highway 101, Highway 18 and 169 Bridge in Shakopee so
any admission tax should be used only for improvement of
those projects which only the City can ensure.
Canterbury Downs/1100 Canterbury Road/P.O. Box 508/Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/(612)445-7223
City of Shakopee
April 7, 1987
Page 2
I would appreciate an opportunity to appear before you to
discuss our concerns about this bill. Please call me or
Bruce Malkerson at 445-3242 if you have any questions or
concerns related thereto.
Sincerely,
CANTERBURY DOWNS
Stan Bowker
General Manager
SKB:ap
Attachments
C.C. John Anderson
Bruce Malkerson
Fred Corrigan
CANTRBURY
D 0 W N S
April 1, 1987
Mr. Brandt Richardson
Deputy Administrator
Scott County Cou^_ House
428 South Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Brandt:
On March 26, 1987, Canterbury Downs received the S.F. 1014
which apparently was introduced recently at the request of
Scott County. This bill authorizes the County to pass an
ordinance requiring an admission tax of un to $.25 per
patron on certain amusement facilities in Scott County. As
general counsel of Canterbury Downs, I have met with our
management staff and the owners and I have been asked to
summarize some of our concerns about .the bill in its present
form.
we believe that by meeting with you, now that we know what
the bill is, we can obtain further information to help us
understand the rationale forthebill in its present form.
Hopefully, thereafter, we andothersto be specially taxed
can support some form of the bill. From our perspective, we
have always had an excellent working relationship with the
County which we want to preserve and enhance. Hopefully,
this letter can provide a basis for discussions.
1. we had been previously informed that:
a) A tax, if any, would probably apply to all
amusement facilities in the County, including but
not limited to the existing Valley'air, Canterbury
Downs, Little Six Bingo, Murphy's Landing,
Renaissance Festival, Raceway Park, and Scott
County :air.
The present bill apparently seeks to and only
would tax Vallevfair, Canterbury Downs and the
Renaissance Festival. I would like to know why
the others were excluded and the amount of tax
which would have been calculated at the various
rates had those amusement facilities been
included.
Canterbury Downs/1100 Caraerbury Road/P.O. Boz 508/Shakopee.Minnesota 5 53 79/16121 445-7223
2 V
Mr. Brandt Richardson
April 1 , 1987
Page 2
b) A tax, if any, would probably be authorized by
statute un to $.10 per patron, and there was only
a possibility of a tax un to $.25 per patron. why
has the potential amount increased and what is the
justification for that increase?
c) A tax, if any, would be allocated in the bill,
only for roads and bridges in Northern Scott
County where the amusement facilities to be taxed
are located.
There is no such provision in S.F. 1014. If there
is to be a tax, it should be allocated in the bill
to the projects which at least have some potential
.. . ._ positive i=Dact to the amusement facilities
singled out for the special tax. Allocation by
ordinance does not work because of the ease of
changing the ordinance and the inevitable future
Political pressures to use the revenues elsewhere.
Another alternative, if there is to be a tax, is
to provide that each city in the County has the
authority to levy a tax on the amusement within
that city, and if the amusement is outside of a
city, then the county may do so.
d) Consideration would begivento giving an off-
setting credit on the proposed tax with the
admission taxes already paid by an amusement
facility. Canterbury Downs already pays, pursuant
to M.S. 240.15 a $.10 tax to the City and a $.40
tax to the State.
e) There would be a provision that would assure the
singled-out taxpayers, who already pay real estate
taxes, that the admission tax revenue would not be
used in lieu of the level of funding already
existing or proposed by the taxing authority for
roads and bridges, but that such funding would be
continued and augmented by this special tax.
2. So we can analyze the effect of this bill, we would
like to see:
a) A summary of how much revenue it is anticipated
the tax wi'_1 raise, what level of tax the County
will adomt (the difference and impact on us
between $. 01 and $.25 per patron is of course
substantial) .
Mr. Brandt Richardson
April 1, 1987
Page 3
b) A summary of the specific proposed uses for this
revenue for each year.
C) A summary of any facts which support any rationale
proposed for levying such a tax on these amusement
facilities.
d) A summary of any facts which support a decision to
tax these facilities only, and not tax other
facilities which attract traffic into Scott County
and benefit generally or specifically from new
Projects, including but not limited to:
1) Other amusement facilities who will not pay a
tax.
2) Grain terminals.
3) Trucking terminals.
4) Retail stores.
5) Other commercial, industrial, recreational
and residential projects. For example if the
316-acre Canterbury Downs had been developed
for single-family residential homes at a
density of 2.2 homes per acre, at an average
Of six trips per.home per day, there would be
4,171.2 car trios per day or 1,522,488 car
trips per year. At least two, if not three,
of these trips per day would be during rush
hour. The ec_uivalent tax at $.25 per patron
for the 1,393,000 patrons in 1986 would be
$501 per unit (316 x 2.2 = 695.2 homes -
$348,250 : 695.2 homes = $501) .
The average thoroughbred attendance of 13 ,000
patrons per day at 2.5 patrons per car,
results in 5,200 trips in and then out for
each racing day only, all during non-rush
hour and 2/5 of the racedays are on weekends
when there is far less tra`fic. Moreover, we
race only 125 to 150 days each year, and a
residential subdivision generates traffic all
year. We are not suggesting that there be a
special tax on residential homes. We only
wish to point out the unfai-gess of taxing
just one type of entity instead of having a
r_m retie.^.sive taxing program for road and
Yr. Brandt Richardson
April 1, 1987
Page 4
bridge projec=s, if one is found to be
needed. I an sure that a review on
industrial and commercial traffic generation
and costs would yield similar disparities.
3 . The bill will have an adverse impact on the growth and
development of amusement facilities in Scott County
with a resulting adverse iapact on busineses which
benefit from such growth and development and adverse
effect an the tax base of and employment in the County.
When an admission tax is levied, the business cannot
Pass on that tax to the _patron because the patron is
Price-sensitive to total ticket price including
admission tax when he or she decides whether to attend
a facility. The price elasticity of the present
admission structure is such that any increase in tax
must be absorbed by the racetrack and cannot be passed
on to the patron.
The patron looks at the total cost of admission: the
base ticket and the admission tax. In the case of
Canterbury Downs, the general admission price,
including admission tax, in 1986 and in 1987 is $3.00.
In fact, when we increased our general admission price
from $2.50 in 1985 to $3.00 in 1986, we received many
complaints, and our attendance went down. The
racetrack general admission price in 1986 was among the
highest in the nation fc= a racetrack. This price
included $.50 in admission taxes already.
Therefore, if there is any additional admission tax, we
cannot pass it on the pa:ron; it must come out of our
operating revenue which as you know resulted in a
substantial loss in 1986..
The same impact on patrons will be experienced by the
other facilities in the County and will be analyzed by
others who are considering adding other similar
facilities, tax base and employment opportunities in
this County.
4. For the reasons noted abcve, Canterbury Downs cannot
Pass this tax on to the pat=cns and cannot afford to
pay it. In 1986, Canterbu=y Downs suffered an
estimated loss o£ $7.9 m_llion. If the proposed
modification to the take_ bill had been in effect:
1986, our loss sti'_1 would have been $2, 684,724. We ^
2
Mt. Brandt Richardson
April 1, 1987
Page 5
cannot afford to continue to suffer these losses. An
additional admission tax in 1986 of $.25 per patron
would have increased that loss by $348,250 (1,393,000
thatzlossaby $1 per admission tax would have increased
y $139,300.
We will not know if there will be any modification of
the teceout bill until the end of this legislative
session.- Therefore, for this reason alone we are very
concerned about this bill and questions raised in this
letter and our obvious inability to pay the tax.
Canterbury Downs should not pay any taxes except real
estate and corporate income tax .like all other
companies. This is especially true given the newness
Of the industry and the losses to date.
In 1987, Canterbury Downs will pay $2,250,000 in real
estate taxes and I am sure the amount in 1988 will be
even greater. Who else pays that much now or is likely
to do so in the future in this County?
I realize that the County does not receive the normal
allocation of the real estate taxes paid because of the
T.I.F. district, but that will change over time, and in
addition much other new investment has taken place and
will take place in this County because of Canterbury
Downs, yielding additional tax base. Finally, a
Portion of the T.I.F. dollars are being used to pay for
turn lanes on Highway 18 and semaphores on Highway 101,
all to the benefit of the entire County.
5. The adverse effect of this tax on Canterbury Downs will
also adversely impact the horse industry as a whole.
That is why M.S. 240.15 recuires that before the City
may levy an admission tax up to $.10 per patrona
Public hearing must first b ,
e conducted by the Minnesota
Racing Commission to determine such impacts and the
Commission must find that the admission tax is
necessary to meet extraordinary expenses to the City
caused by the racetrack. This proposed bill does not
provide such safeguards and should be provided to make
sure t=at the entire racing industry is not adversely
affected by the adverse effects of a tax.
6• An analvsis of traffic patterns shows that the rush
hour traffic problems in Scott Ccumpv are not caused by
patrons coming to or going from Ca-cer:n-; Downs.
During the week, 85$ of our patrons are in cur parking
Mr. Brandt Richardson
April 1, 1987
Page 6
lot by the first :ace which is 4: 00 p.m. , and 953 to
1003 of the patrons are in the parking lot by the
second race at 4:30 p.m. , all of whom therefore miss
rush hour traffic from 5:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. 0n
weekends, there is no rush hour with which to contend.
We agree that addaional traffic carrying capacity
throughout the day from additional road and bridae
Projects in Northern Scott County would be of general
benefit to everyone using the roads. That has been
H true for years prior to Canterbury Downs. We all
recognize that during rush hour, for rush hour
vehicles, additional roadandbridge projects in
Northern Scott County are needed, especially when the
Bloomington Ferry Bridge is closed. However, our
Pat--ons are already in our parking lot during the p.m.
rush hour and do not leave until 8:00 p.m. when there
is no "rush hour" traffic.
Therefore, we see no special benefit to us from such
projects and we do not see any extraordinary adverse
impact on the road system from our patrons.
7. Assuming the County can demonstrate that there is a
need for the revenue from the admission tax, and that
it will be spent on road and bridge projects in
Northern Scott County which specifically benefit the
singled-out businesses to be.taxed, there should be a
sunset provision in the bill so that the taxpayer knows
that the admission tax will not continue beyond that
point when the agraed upon projects are funded. We
believe three years is sufficient and if there is still
a coudemld
be
need thereafter, similar legislation
could be introduced.
S. Sum=ary
We realize that Scott County as a whole needs better
roads and bridges in Northern Scott County and we want
to assist where ficiancial'_y possible and fair. That is
Why we were probably the first private company to help
£ora and and certainly toe firs and only company to
ccntribute to the Scott County Transportation Coalition
in an amount of $25,000. We have directed our staff
and staff of related companies to assist that effort at
all times, which they have done.
However, given the present cirCu=stances and the
prcposed bill, we cresent_y feel that we have (and two
Mr. Brandt Richards..
April 1, 1987
Page 7
other amusement facilities) been singled-out as the
"easy source" of additional funding which is not true
or fair and we cannot afford to may it.
Stan Bowker, the c=_neral manager, and I look forward to
meeting with you as soon as possible to review this bill and
its accompanying r=ationale.
Please let me know when you are available.
Very truly yours,
(MIINNES�OT�A (R''�ACETI_RACX, INC.
y�)A � (J- 1Il �
Bruce D. Malkerson
BDM:ap
C.C. Stan Bowker
F-1
CANTROURY
D O W N S
April lo, 1987
Mayor Eldon Reinke and
Members of the City Council
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Proposed Scott County
Admission Tax
Dear Mayor Reinke and
Members of the City Council:
As you are aware, legislation has been introduced to grant
the statutory authority to Scott County to levy an admission
tax on major recreational attractions. In light of our
present financial situation, we are not in a financial
position to absorb this significant tax that cannot be
passed on to our patrons but will be absorbed as an
additional cost of business. However, if there is to be a
statute which would allow a governmental unit to levy such a
tax, that tax should be levied only by the City of Shakopee,
for numerous reasons, including the following:
1. The City is most familiar with our business and
understands best the impact of such a tax on our
ability to remain economically viable.
2 . The City already has the express authority in the
statute to levy a tax up to $.10 and it is clear that
the prior legislative intent was to have the City,
which is most directly affected, be the taxing
authority, not the County.
3. Virtually all of the roads that our patrons use are
within the City. The roads and bridges, if any, which
need upgrading are in the City.
4. The citizens of Shakopee who may believe that the
racetrack patrons (or patrons from present and future
facilities in the City) add to the previously existing
traffic problems within the City will want their City
Canterbury Downs/1100 Canterbury Road/P.O. Box 508/Shakopee,Minnesota 55379/(612)445-7223
City of Shakopee
April 10, 1987
Page 2
to have control over such a tax to ensure it is spent
for the direct benefit of roads in the City which will
benefit not only the City but the entire County. As
the potential taxpayer, we feel the same way.
This procedure would be similar to that used in the
cities of Minneapolis and Bloomington, where the cities
levy the tax on admission and certain other sales, not
Hennepin County.
Since the effect of the tax will be same for the
County, there should be no objection to the procedure.
5. The statute should be written so that a tax could be
levied by any city which has such an amusement facility
within its limit, and in the case of a unincorporated
area, the County could levy the tax.
Any such tax, whether it be by a City or the County,
would be dedicated to roads solely in Northern Scott
County, and perhaps specifically for the Highway 18
Bridge.
Procedurally, the City could collect the tax in the
same manner as it presently collects the $. 10 tax and
by contract with the County or by direction in the
statute, the tax revenue could then be allocated to the
County for expenditure on the Highway 18 Bridge.
The present bill could be amended to read as set forth
in the attached exhibit.
6. The bill should have a sunset provision so its effects
can be studied periodically and the statute can be
extended, if necessary.
7. If the City were the taxing authority, it could be
assured that the tax proceeds would be spent on
projects in Northern Scott County. The bill as
proposed only states that the tax "shall be paid into
the county road and bridge fund and used for the
purposes of that fund". Therefore, the tax could be
spent anywhere in Scott County.
8. We have asked the County staff to answer the questions
in the attached letter and we have received no
response. We believe that everyone affected by this
City of Shakopee
April 10, 1987
Page 3
proposed tax should know the answers to these and
similar questions before this bill proceeds. A special
tax of this nature should not be considered for
adoption unless there are facts to support such a tax.
9. We would like to be present at your meeting on April
14, 1987 to discuss our concerns.
Very truly yours,
MINNESOTA RACETRACK, INC.
&C,jX-X- D- A
Bruce D. Malkerson
General Counsel
BDM:ap
Enclosures
c.c. John Anderson, City Administrator
Brandt Richardson, Scott County
Assistant Administrator
03-17-87 [REVISOR ] XX/MS - 87-2383
PRo �gostb Gl1R ��eS /-� t2c. {-ti �rod wR �tl"eN
Senator Schmitz introduced--
S. F. No. 1014 Referred to the Committee on Taxes and Tax Laws
C, )I
'J -Its of gOVQ�(urxeA)+ 13
I A bill for an ac
2 relating to taxations authorizingScott county to
3 impose a tax on admissions to major amusement
4 facilities; providing for expenditure of the proceeds
5 of the tax.
6
7 BE -IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
8 Section 1. [SCOTT COUNTY; ADMISSIONS TAX. ] 1N
9 Subdivision 1. [ IMPOSITION. ] The/�boar, ss ners-af-
10 Scott count me b ordinance im ose a tax on admissions to
)O"_fC. L u: lfh:ra the Lr AL uroi+' or �ooeRN/:+RUT
11 major amusement facilitiesAi ^^ �--^- '�• In this section,
12 "major amusement facility" means a place of amusement that has
13 been constructed with a capacity of 10 .000 persons or more or
14 that was the site of an event that had a paid attendance of
15 10,000 persons or moreon any day during the preceding 12-month
16 period, except a place of amusement owned by the Scott count
17 agricultural societ - -
1 Subd. 2. [RATE. ] The tax shall be imposed at a rate not to
?_000 RNW a body of -rn¢ (.cAL UNLto-f
19 exceed 25 cents per paid admissiolS The,]°�d� -emmi�sfenerz .000eRN-
rn
20 may by ordinance chance the rate subiect to the limitation in
21 this subdivision. The tax imposed under this section is not
a
22 subject to the restrictions in Minnesota Statutes, section
23 240.15.
24 Subd. 3. [COLLECTION. ] The commissioner of revenue may
/m 4.¢/.. UN�T �� yyOU¢RNYHCs,+7-
25 enter into agreements with theneeunty to Provide for the
�oc4l UA1[fi of godz9N ✓nea7 yylegos [ hz � � /� 1
W61 ��i7�]e M43�n &Avs n4eA1T ¢Ffei.L fy is locaa7ed�
j F rhe-
5
he5
03-17-87 (REVISOR ] XX/MS 87-2383 2
)Ocou- oeb Z CST 90,3epe mew T'
1 collection of the tax by the state on behalf of theAGGanT, . The
The. 4OcofL L) uiy of �o gee o xe�t
2 commissioner may charge the -eaufttlt a reasonable fee for its
3 collection from the proceeds of the tax. The tax shall be
4 subject to the same interest penalties, and enforcement
5 provisions as the tax imposed under Minnesota Statutes, chapter
6 297A including the confidentiality requirements of Minnesota
7 Statutest section 297A. 43. The �oca� uuiT of
l. _ ., ...
SeeooeRurneNT
8 Subd. 4 . (USE OF PROCEEDS. ) Money received by ���w-•-. °J
9 from the tax imposed under this act shall bepaid into the Sc,-T7-
in
c,-TT10 county road and bridge fund and used for thz purposes of -trhat`
11 F+t+�: RoAO /a.uPP>� K6-�c. ! N'�� ROJ2MQNJYS 7n �heP
12 Seg. 2. (EFFECTIVE DATE. )
13 Section 1 1s effective the day following final enactment. j
LOA'( �8 GR d9 e /0w D -rheR� f1F",p- 7'`0
�/n�JRo3,0me)ot-5 �Jo (2hk o [ tie so� lheo' LY
R ( 0kC 'of iJijqy LjNe. of tkP— epZoq?osecl /0l
QY ��gss - - - -
sU �jd g T//lcs sTi�7v7`e sl2�RZL �¢t�7o �r�a1�«ip«y
rj � �ePesvl�cC ori 0�ee.e-w� bec231 � l`(9 � .
Minnesota
Becky Kelso HOl2Se Of
Distnct36A '� "'
Scott and Carver Counties —~?� Representatives
Committees:
Education —: i._'-_g-
Health and Human Services,Vice Chair ""- Fred C. Norton, Speaker
Economic Development and Housing
Business Finance Subcommittee,
Vice Chair
Future and Technology April 6, 1987
Long Term Health Care Commission RE^EIVEb
Walter R. Wittmer APR 8 1981
General Manager
One Valleyfair Drive
Shakopee, MN 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Dear Walt,
As I have been re-reading your written remarks (regarding the
proposed Scott County admissions tax) I have to say in all
fairness you make some very strong points.
Having lived in Shakopee for many years I have observed Valleyfair
to be a very good corporate citizen; a fair and honest employer,
and most obviously a great asset to the community.
I do not wish to be a part of anything that will be detrimental
to your business or to do anything that will make Scott County
a poor place for similar businesses to flourish and grow.
In my very short time in this office I have had one goal that
has come before anything else, and that is to do everything
within my power to improve our transportation system. Although
receiving federal funding for the Bloomington Ferry bridge
- last week was a giant step forward, I am very worried about
the county's ability to come up with the needed matching funds.
The admissions tax proposal seemed like a feasible approach.
I believe you have the right to see that proposal tightened
up as far as specific time lines and uses are concerned. I
will suggest to the county that some compromises should be
worked out between yourselves, the other attractions and the
city of Shakopee, before we proceed with the bill.
Sincerely, //
`� / y /f
Becky Kelso/\.�'�
State Representative
BK/ph
cc: Brandt Richardson, Scott County
John Anderson, City of Shakopee
Reply to: Z� 329 Stare Office Building.St.Paul.Minnesota 55155 Offico:(612)296-1072
u 151 S.Shannon Drive.Shakopee.Minnesota 55379 Home:(612)a45-6656
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Strategic Review Worksession Outline
Objectives
• Make a collective assessment of the City' s internal
strengths and weaknesses, as well as our external
opportunities and concerns.
• Decide what of this assessment represents the greatest
challenges to the ability of the City to achieve Mission
Statement goals.
• Identify what needs to be done to respond effectively to
these Mission Statement goal challenges.
• Formulate time and action plans for satisfying these
selected needs.
Agenda
• Review of Strategic Review process (attachment No. 1) .
• Definition of a Strategic Need (attachment No. 2) .
• Identification of external and internal situation or trends
that are or could have material positive or negative impact
on Mission performance (use attachment No. 3 worksheets) .
• Selection of three or four most critical Strategic Issues
confronting the City of Shakopee (use attachment No. 3 work-
sheets) .
• Identify what needs to be done to address these key
strategic issues (use attachment No. 3 worksheets) .
• Discussion of possible actions and time table to accomplish
these strategic needs (use attachment No. 3 worksheets) .
Attachment No. 1
STRATEGIC REVIEW PROCESS
Effective management of a business concern requires a clear
understanding of:
• Who are we?
• What are we trying to accomplish?
• How are we doing and why?
• What do we need to do better or differently to meet our
objectives?
• How are we going to do it?
A strategic review is simply the process one goes through to get
answers to these questions.
Step One - Mission
Write a clear and conside description of your business that
answers the following questions:
• What industry are we in?
• What is our special or unique niche in that industry?
• Who are our customers?
• What is our special appeal to these customers?
• What are our performance standards or objectives?
• How do we measure our performance?
Step Two - Assessment
Sit back and take a good hard look at your business and the
environment within which it operates. Write down what you
believe to be:
• the four most important circumstances you are occurring or
about to occur externally (customers, suppliers, public
policy, competitors, etc. ) that are most threatening to your
business
• the four most important external circumstances that are
having or could have a positive impact on your business
• the four most important internal strengths of your business
(sales force, vendor relationships, customer service,
control systems, etc. )
• the four most important internal weaknesses of your
business.
Step Three - Key Issues
Now review the impact of the items listed in your assessment on
your ability to achieve your business mission and extract the
four issues that you believe are most critical to your business ' s
future success. Could be either:
• external threats that must be countered, and/or
• external opportunities that should be pursued, and/or
• internal strengths to build on, and/or
• internal weaknesses that must be corrected.
Step Four - Plans
For each of the four identified key issues, write down:
• what exactly you plan to do about it
• when it is going to get done
• who is going to be responsible for getting it done
• how are we going to know when it is done?
Step Five - Review
At the end of each year prepare a written report on:
• what plans were fully completed
• what plans were not completed and why
• a critical assessment of the process and product (see
worksession wrap-up)
• a list of "do' s" and "don'ts" for next year
Step Six - Year Two
Return to Step One.
Worksession Wrap-Up
Here are some questions to ask in making your assessment of this
Strategic Planning Worksession.
• Was our strategic review process regarded by the
owners/managers of our business as essential and valuable?
— - ----- - Were they truly committed to it? Were they directly
involved?
• Were we able to clearly focus on the really core issues
facing our business?
• Was the strategic review process characterized by order and
system?
• Was our assessment of internal and external factors truly
critical, comprehensive and the product of rigorous
analysis?
• Were our plans realistic in the sense that they focused on
objectives that could be achieved?
• Were the plans decision oriented? Did they serve to
influence the outcome of our major business decisions?
• Did the strategic review process receive the monitoring and
reappraisal necessary to make it a constant presence in the
conduct of our business throughout the year?
Attachment No. 2
A STRATEGIC NEED should be:
• a matter of sufficient importance that When satisfied will
have a material effect on the City' s achievement of one or
more Mission Statement goals.
• not simply a short-term annoyance resulting from a policy
execution deficiency or a factor not subject to reasonable
control. IN THE PAST ITEMS THAT FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY
HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND LISTED ON OUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
IN THIS PROCESS THEY WILL BE COLLECTED AND DEALT WITH AS
REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS OR QUARTERLY OBJECTIVES FOR
DEPARTMENT HEADS TO INSURE FOLLOW-UP.
• something that can't be satisfied within the City' s current
policy, programming and/or resource allocation.
• something we (board, administration, staff, citizens) can do
something about.
• sufficiently limited to scope that satisfaction within one
or two years is possible.
• capable of being easily and clearly described both as to
what it is and why it is important.
• able to be satisfied through a series of specific actions
with the person(s) responsible for the action(s) identified,
the nature of the action(s) described, and the time for
completion specified.
Attachment No. 3
City of Shakopee
1987 Strategic Planning worksession
"Thought Organizer"
A. Draft the Mission Statement. Underline what you believe to
be priority areas.
B. List four situations or trends that you have observed in the
community or elsewhere that you believe will or is impairing
our ability to carry out the mission.
1.
2.
3.
4.
C. Do the same for those external situations that you believe
are supportive of our mission performance.
1.
2.
3.
4.
D. Now think about the City organization itself (staff,
facilities, finances, management, attitudes, etc. ) and list
four things you observe as making achievement of mission
more difficult.
1.
2.
3.
4.
E. Do the same for those internal situations you observe as
being a real plus in terms of our mission performance.
1.
2.
3.
4.
F. Now review all of the above and extract the four issues that
you believe are most critical to our future success. Could
be either weaknesses to correct or strengths to build on.
Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4
G. For each of the four items you identified as most critical,
jot down a few ideas as to what we might do about it.
Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4