HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/30/1992 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: June 25, 1992
1. Attached are the June 17, 1992 minutes of the Municipal
Facility Survey Development Committee.
2 . Attached are the June 17, 1992 minutes of the Community
Development Commission.
3 . Attached is the July calendar of Upcoming Meetings.
4 . Enclosed is a souvenir copy of the Twin Cities Celebrity
Softball Classic program.
5. Attached is a memorandum from the Assistant City Administrator
regarding swimming pool wage rate errors.
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE
MUNICIPAL FACILITY SURVEY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
JUNE 17, 1992
The meeting was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. with the following
persons in attendance: Anne Seifert, Paulette Rislund, John Drees,
Jim Murphy, Jon Albinson, Bill Mars, Steve Johnson, Barry Stock,
Bob Loonan, Mark McQuillan, Jim Fehring, Kate Ellis and Jim Rose.
The following committee members were absent: Jane DuBois, Dick
Mertz , Dave Kaufenberg, Bill Bigot, Ione Theis, Joe Dellwo and Jim
Stillman.
Mr. Mars noted a change in the last paragraph of the minutes of the
last meeting. He stated that it should be changed to Mr. Morris
rather than Mr. Mars who will be preparing the questions for the
Committee' s review.
Mars/Albinson moved to approve the minutes as amended. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock noted that Mr. Jim Rose was in attendance this evening to
go through the draft survey questionnaire that Decision Resources
developed based on the issues identified at our last meeting. Mr.
Stock explained the process that would be utilized. He noted that
the consultant will go through each question on the proposed survey
and that the Committee should feel free to amend the questions or
delete them entirely. The Committee should also feel free to add
questions were they are deemed necessary.
Mr. Stock stated that the Committee' s objective this evening was to
complete a review of the survey so that it can be modified and
taken to City Council at a Committee of the Whole meeting on June
30, 1992 . Mr. Stock stated that the Sub-Committee would be invited
to attend the meeting. Mr. Stock asked Mr. Rose if the survey
presented this evening was within the 65 questions that they were
commissioned for. Mr. Rose responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Mars questioned if the term outdoor ice rink should be changed
to neighborhood ice rinks. It was the consensus of the Committee
to change the term outdoor ice rinks to neighborhood ice rinks.
Mr. Murphy questioned whether or not park facilities could be
separated from recreation facilities in question #7 . Since each
particular facility is addressed later in the survey, it was the
consensus of the Committee to delete it entirely.
Discussion ensued on whether or not it was important to know how
many members of the household are participating in City sponsored
recreational programs. It was the consensus of the Committee that
the other questions in the survey would pinpoint how many of the
programs and facilities are being utilized.
Official Proceedings of the June 17, 1992
Municipal Facility Survey Development Committee Page -2-
It was the consensus of the Committee to add a question that would
address how often people left Shakopee to use other facilities.
Ms. Rislund noted that the list of facilities does not include an
ice arena. Since many people are interested in the Hockey Bubble,
she felt that an indoor ice arena should be added to the list of
facilities. It was the consensus of the Committee to add ice arena
to the facility listing.
Mr. McQuillan suggested that picnic facilities be added to the
listing. It was the consensus of the Committee to add picnic
facilities to the listing.
In terms of recreations programs offered by the City, it was
suggested to delete adaptive recreation and outdoor center since we
do not presently offer those programs.
Mr. Seifert questioned whether or not we should include field trips
and other special programs as a recreational program. It was the
consensus of the Committee that in parentheses behind other youth
activities suggestions should be offered such as field trips.
Mr. Mars questioned whether or not the City was even considering
closing the municipal pool. Mr. Stock stated that since we have
recently stuck over $110, 000. 00 into a new liner and several other
improvements, he doubted very much whether or not consideration
would be given to closing the facility. It was the consensus of
the Committee that closing the facility should be deleted from
questions in the survey. It was the consensus of the Committee
that the questions on the pool should simply attempt to ascertain
whether or not the pool should be upgraded and\or modernized.
Discussion ensued on licensing vendors to sell products and
services in the parks. Mr. Stock stated that the point of the
question is to determine whether or not people want these types of
services offered in the parks. those services could be structured
in such a fashion that it would generate revenue for the City.
Discussion ensued on the need for ball fields. Mr. Loonan
suggested the questions be modified to state that if in the future
additional ball fields need to be built what should they be?
Either neighborhood complex or some other type of park system.
Discussion ensued on park funding for acquisition purposes. It was
the consensus of the Committee to add a question that directly
related to the possible acquisition of the property south of the
Senior High School. It was the consensus of the Committee that a
question should be added to the survey which would determine
whether or not Shakopee residents would favor acquisition of the
property south of the Senior High School for future recreational
purposes.
Official Proceedings of the June 17 , 1992
Municipal Facility Survey Development Committee Page -3-
In regard to the question on a bond referendum and how much
residents would be willing to support it from a property tax
increase standpoint, concern was expressed regarding the dollar
increments listed in the survey ($10. 00 increments) . After much
discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee to keep the
increments at $10. 00 levels since this particular question dealt
with park facilities rather than the actual construction of a
community center which was addressed later on in the survey.
Mr. Rose stated that he would take the changes made to the survey
back to his office and redraft the survey for submission to the
Committee of the Whole on June 30, 1992 . Mr. Stock stated that all
of the Committee members would receive notice of the meeting and
were encouraged to attend. The meeting adjourned at 8 : 45 p.m.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 17 , 1992
Chairman Mars called the meeting to order at 5 : 40 p.m. with the
following members present; Jon Albinson, Bill Mars, Cole Van Horn
and Mike Phillips. Commissioners Miller and Brandmire were absent.
Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator and Kate Ellis, Community
Development Intern were also present.
Albinson/Phillips moved to approve the minutes of the May 20, 1992
meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock gave a brief economic development update. He noted that
he has received correspondence from the Department of Trade and
Economic Development notifying the City that they have been re-
certified as a Star City for 1992 . Mr. Stock went on to state that
residential development in Shakopee continues to be strong. He
also stated that High Five Erectors has begun construction of their
facility across from the municipal water tower on the former
Velodrome site. He noted that he also expected the Brambilla
project to commence within the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Stock reviewed some of the materials that were covered at the
Committees last meeting in regard to the evaluation process that
the Commission is undertaking to analyze the redevelopment options
for the downtown area, particularly the two blocks north of 1st
Avenue. Mr. Stock noted that at our last meeting it was pretty
much the consensus of the Commission that it was difficult to
analyze the redevelopment potential of the two blocks located North
of 1st Avenue without looking at everything from the Minnesota
River up to the institutional area as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission then reviewed the Chapters that have been completed
to date including a description of the revitalization area,
identification of similar development situations; description of
the goals and objectives for the revitalization area; description
of the major assets and constraints of the area in question,
regulatory constraints and opportunities and existing development
proposals for the area.
Mr. Phillips questioned how the process would address some of the
immediate concerns such as the bypass construction and the
appearance of the buildings from the proposed bypass. Mr. Stock
stated that he hoped this process would provide us with the ability
to complete a comprehensive analysis of the area and a formal plan
of action. The plan of action would address the preferred
redevelopment option for the project area including financing
options and timing.
To give the Commission, Council and residents a better visual
perspective of what the mini bypass would look like in comparison
Official Proceedings of the June 17 , 1992
Community Development Commission Page -2-
to Block 4 , staff shared with the Committee a landscape model of
the downtown area that was completed many years ago. He stated
that Kate Ellis would be able to reconstruct the model with the
correct elevations for the mini bypass. This would give us a 3-D
image of the impact of the bypass on Block 4 .
Discussion ensued on the importance of the Minnesota River and the
Trail system on the downtown redevelopment.
Discussion ensued on the possibility of attracting factory outlets
to the downtown area.
Discussion ensued on the possible anchor tenants that could
stimulate activity in the downtown area.
Mr. Albinson stated that the Commission could brainstorm for weeks
on the possibilities for redeveloping the downtown area but the key
issue was what was economically feasible from a market standpoint.
He felt that determining what could be done from an investment and
market development standpoint was the key to this process. He
questioned how we get to the point from what we would like to see
to what is economically feasible.
Mr. Stock stated that the overview analysis portion of the
evaluation process focuses on the issues just raised by Mr.
Albinson. Mr. Stock stated that he concurred that this was the key
part of the process and the most difficult to complete. Mr. Stock
stated the perhaps the questions that the HRA is considering to be
included in the Municipal Facility Survey will help give us a
better understanding of what Shakopee residents feel they would
like to see happen with the downtown area. In regard to the market
situation, Mr. Stock suggested that perhaps we could develop a
short survey that could be sent to brokers and developers in the
are to determine their feelings in regard to the market climate as
it relates to our downtown area. In order for the survey to be
effective Mr. Stock stated that it would have to be brief and to
the point. Mr. Albinson stated that many of the brokers and
developers will have a good grip on what is feasible from a market
standpoint. He stated that they may have an idea of what the
market will allow and when it will economically feasible. He noted
that Minneapolis does a good job of redeveloping in that they
determine what will work in an area, acquire the property and then
hold out until the market is right for completing the project.
(i. e. : Block E, downtown Minneapolis) Mr. Albinson stated that
perhaps we should take control of the property and do the best we
can in the interim and wait for the market to allow us do what we
want.
Discussion ensued on an approach that was taken several years ago
to possibly gain interest in the development of a request for
proposal for development possibilities. Mr. Albinson stated that
Official Proceedings of the June 17, 1992
Community Development Commission Page -3-
the developers he spoke with were very hesitant about putting
together a proposal and expending significant amounts of money in
doing so and then having the City select someone else to do a
project. He stated that a solicitation for proposals in his
opinion would not attract any major interest. Mr. Mars stated that
he felt contacting developers for their input would have some
validity in determining what was realistic for the downtown area.
Mr. Phillips suggested that we possibly include people in the
survey such as Boarman Architects and Bossardt Corporation to get
their feeling on what could be accomplished in downtown Shakopee.
Mr. Albinson stated that he could provide Ms. Ellis with a complete
list of potential brokers to contact.
Mr. Stock stated that he would take the comments made from the
Commission and attempt to develop a developers survey.
Discussion then ensued on the questions to be included on the
Municipal Facility Survey in regard to the downtown area. Mr. Jim
Rose from Decision Resources was in attendance. He simply asked
the Commission to identify issues that they would like to have
addressed. The following issues were discussed:
1. Residents current perception of the downtown area.
2 . Resident perception of the downtown area after the
completion of the Mini Bypass.
3 . Whether or not residents would like to see
rehabilitation, demolition and/or new construction.
4 . What role the City should take in encouraging development
from a financial incentive standpoint.
5 . Do you presently shop downtown and where do you shop.
6 . What more would like to see in the downtown area from a
shopping standpoint.
7 . Do you feel there is a parking problem in downtown
Shakopee.
8 . Should the City take the initiative to improve the river
front in downtown Shakopee.
Mr. Stock stated that while the HRA wanted the questions
prioritized he did not feel there was time to complete the task
prior to the Committee of the Whole meeting on June 30, 1992 . He
would simply request the CDC members to attend that meeting and
help Council prioritize questions. Mr. Albinson questioned whether
or not a introductory description of the impact of the Mini Bypass
on the downtown area would be included in the survey. Mr. Rose
responded in the affirmative. This would be necessary in order to
give the respondents and idea of just what exactly is happening in
terms of the Mini Bypass.
The meeting adjourned at 7 : 05 p.m.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
4- 3
Ju 1 y 1 9 9 2
UPCOMING MEETINGS
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
1 2 3 4
City Hall Closed
for the 4th
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4:30pm Public 7:00pm City 7:30pm Planning
Utilities Council Commission
Meeting
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
7:00pm City 5:30pm
Council/SPUC Community
Joint Meeting Development
at SPUC Commission
7:00pm
Municipal
Facility
Commission
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7:00pm City
Council
Meeting
26 27 28 29 30 31
7:00pm Park &
Rec. Board
June August
SMTWT F S SMTW TF S
1 2 3 4 5 6 1
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Memo To: Mayor Laurent and Council
From: Barry A. Stock, Asst. City Admin. /C.S. Dir.
RE: Swimming Pool Wage Rate Errors
Date: June 26, 1992
Introduction:
During the hiring process for pool employees this year, several
mistakes were made by myself in terms of informing employees of
their 1992 wage rates.
Background:
Last year pool employees were hired at various job positions (Pool
Aide, Guard, Instructor, Cashier) and wage rates. Due to the
varied tasks at the pool, oftentimes employees were asked to
perform duties that were not covered by the job description that
they were hired for. For example, sometimes aides were acting in
a lifeguard capacity. During these times their hourly rate was
increased to lifeguard rate. In 1991 there were occasions when we
were paying employees three different pay rates.
When the 1992 pay plan was prepared staff took the necessary steps
to develop wage structure which placed persons at a position and
established rates for the entire season. We felt that this would
be much easier to administer and would eliminate problems
encountered under the former system.
Unfortunately, when the pool employees were notified that they were
accepted for employment errors were made on four persons letters in
terms of their wage rates. The employees in question were informed
that they would be receiving a higher rate of pay than they should
have actually received. ($5 . 41/$5. 05)
During the first pool payroll, the error on the three employees in
question was discovered. At this point staff informed the
employees that an error was made and that their wage rate would be
adjusted to comply with the pay plan rate for their position and
experience. This obviously did not sit well with the employees or
their parents.
The employees contend that they turned down other job possibilities
when they received their job acceptance notice and proposed wage
rate. While that may certainly be the case, I do not believe it
would be fair to all the other employees that we have hired and
placed on the pay plan.
In 1991, the employees in questions were paid at an Aide rate of
$4 . 37/hr. When they performed guard duties their rate of pay was
$5. 41/hr. Each of the employees in question were hired as Guards
in 1992 . Their rate of pay should be $5 . 05/hr.
Staff has informed the employees in writing and has apologized for
the an error was made in their hiring notification. We have
notified them that we will pay them at the notified rate
($5. 41/hr. ) for time worked through the payroll period ending June
27 , 1992 . Beginning with the next payroll period their wage would
be changed to reflect the correct rate ($5. 05) . The letter also
requests a response from the employee in terms of their desire to
continue employment with the City at the new rate. If the employee
wishes to seek other employment we will need to possibly advertise
accordingly.
Action Requested
No official action is necessary unless Council feels otherwise.
This is primarily meant to serve as background in the event you
receive calls.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JUNE 30, 1992
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M.
2] Municipal Facility/Downtown Redevelopment/Level of Service
Questionnaire
3] 5 Year Capital Equipment List - bring agenda item 13a from
June 2 , 1992 agenda packet
4] Adjourn
Dennis R, Kraft
City Administrator
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator
RE: Municipal Facility/Downtown Redevelopment/
Level of Service Questionnaire
DATE: June 24, 1992
INTRODUCTION:
Several months ago the Shakopee City Council approved allocating
$6,500 from the Park Reserve Fund to conduct a municipal facility
survey. The survey cost was based on sixty question units.
Council subsequently selected Decision Resources as the firm to
develop the survey questionnaire. A subcommittee was also
appointed by Mayor Laurent to assist in developing the survey
questionnaire. The subcommittee has completed their task and is
prepared to submit a final municipal facility survey to City
Council for their review and comment.
BACKGROUND:
The primary focus of the Municipal Facility Survey Subcommittee was
to draft questions on issues as they relate to park and recreation
needs. Shown in attachment #1 is the survey that has been
developed by the subcommittee. Following is a question unit
breakdown for attachment #1:
Park & Recreation - 60 units
Demographics - 10 units
HRA - 12 units
The agreement with Decision Resources allows for the development of
additional question units beyond the 60 unit base at a rate of $90
per unit.
In May, the Shakopee Community Development Commission requested the
HRA to consider including between 10 and 20 questions on the survey
that would address downtown redevelopment issues. The HRA
subsequently agreed to consider including a number of questions on
the survey to address downtown revitalization. The HRA did not
make a formal commitment to the questions but requested that if
possible questions on downtown redevelopment be prioritized.
Unfortunately, due to the time constraints the HRA questions have
not been prioritized. However, several members of the Community
Development Commission are also represented on the Municipal
Facility Subcommittee. These members will be in attendance at the
Committee of Whole meeting on June 30, 1992 to provide input on the
downtown revitalization questions drafted by Decision Resources.
Early on in the survey development process, the City Council also
determined that they wanted to include several questions on the
survey that would address levels of service. Neither the Municipal
Facility Subcommittee or the Community Development Commission have
done any work on this portion of the survey. It was staff's belief
that Council wanted to play the lead role in developing the level
of service questions. This being the case, Decision Resources has
provided a sample questionnaire which includes questions on a wide
variety of level of service issues that have been successfully used
in other communities. (See attachment #2) Some communities
conducting survey analysis have focused their entire survey on
level of service issues. Council should select from the questions
shown in attachment #2 those that they would like to have included
on our questionnaire. Council should also feel free to bring up
other questions or amend the questions as listed in the draft
questionnaire.
The process that I would like to use in developing a final survey
format would simply be to go through each question to determine if
it should be included on the survey, deleted or amended. This
process worked successfully for the subcommittee.
Staff would like to request City Council to make changes to the
survey as deemed appropriate and make a recommendation for formal
City Council action.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the questions for the proposed survey and come up with a
final questionnaire to be submitted to City Council for formal
approval. Funding for questions above the sixty question base
survey should also be discussed.
AWacii.ileA4 -4 (
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. Shakopee Residential
3128 Dean Court Needs Analysis
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 .2 '"� Mom DRAFT
Hello, I 'm — of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a polling firm
located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of
Shakopee to speak with a random sample of residents about issues
facing our community. I want to assure you that all individual
responses will be held strictly confidential ; only summaries of
the entire sample will be reported.
1 . Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS 1
you lived in Shakopee? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 2
SIX TO TEN YEARS 3 •
ELEVEN TO TWENTY YRS4 r
OVER TWENTY YEARS 5 I
DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED 6
2 . As things now stand, how long in LESS THAN TWO YEARS 1 s
the future do you expect to live TWO TO FIVE YEARS 2
in Shakopee? SIX TO TEN YEARS 3
OVER TEN YEARS 4
REST OF LIFE (VOL) 5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6
3 . How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT 1
life in Shakopee -- excellent, GOOD 2
good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR 3
POOR 4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
4 . What do you like MOST about living in Shakopee?
5 . What do you like LEAST about it?
Turning to park and recreational opportunities. . . .
6. In general , how well informed are VERY WELL INFORMED 1
you about the park and recreation- SOMEWHAT WELL INFORM2
al facilities in Shakopee -- would NOT TOO INFORMED 3
you say very well informed, some- NOT AT ALL INFORMED 4
what informed, not too well in- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
formed, or not at all informed?
1
7. How often have you gone to another AT LEAST WEEKLY 1
community to use their recreation- SEVERAL TIMES/MONTH 2
al facilities -- at least once ONCE/MONTH 3
each week, several times each SEVERAL/YEAR 4
month, once a month, several times ONCE/YEAR 5
a year, once a year, or never? NEVER 6
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7
IF "YES, " ASK:
8 . What facilities and in which communities?
I would like to read you a list of facilities currently part of
the park and recreation offerings in Shakopee. Of these facili-
ties, which do you or members of your household use?
USE NOT DKR
9 . Neighborhood playgrounds? 1 2 3
10. The municipal swimming pool? 1 2 3
11 . Large community playfields, such
as Tahpah Park and Riverview? 1 2 3
12 . Large community parks with picnic
areas, such as Lions and Memorial
Parks? 1 2 3
13 . Adult softball/baseball fields? 1 2 3
14 . Youth softball/baseball fields? 1 2 3
15. Pedestrian trails? 1 2 3
16 . Tennis courts? 1 2 3
17 . Neighborhood ice rinks? 1 2 3
18. The Indoor Ice Arena, also known
as "The Bubble?" 1 2 3
Now, from what you have heard or seen, how would you rate the
quality of each of these components -- would you rate it as t
excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
EXC GOO ONF POR DKR
19. Neighborhood playgrounds? 1 2 3 4 5
20 The municipal swimming pool? 1 2 3 4 5 i
21 . Large community playfields, such 1
as Tahpah Park and Riverview? 1 2 3 4 5
22 . Large community parks with picnic
areas , such as Lions and Memorial
Parks? 1 2 3 4 5
23 . Adult softball/baseball fields? 1 2 3 4 5
24 . Youth softball/baseball fields? 1 2 3 4 5
25 . Pedestrian trails? 1 2 3 4 5
26 . Tennis courts? 1 2 3 4 5
27 . Neighborhood ice rinks? 1 2 3 4 5
28. The Indoor Ice Arena, also known
as "The Bubble?" 1 2 3 4 5 !
1
I
I
2
29 . In the past year, how many members
of this household, if any, have
participated in city-sponsored
recreational programs?
IF MORE THAN ZERO IN QUESTION #29 , ASK:
30 . Which ones?
AQUATICS ( ) ; FITNESS ( ) ; ADULT ATHLETICS ( ) ;
YOUTH ATHLETICS ( ) ; SENIORS ( ) ; OTHER ADULT ( ) ;
OTHER YOUTH( ) .
C ZU7:tys F�c�
31. Were you generally satis- SATISFIED 1
fied or dissatisfied with DISSATISFIED 2
the program(s) ? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
IF "SATISFIED" OR "DISSATISFIED, " ASK:
32 . Why do you feel that way?
33 . Are there any additional recreational programs you would
like to see the City of Shakopee offer its residents? (IF
"YES, " ASK: ) What are they?
Moving on. . . .
34 . Do you think the City should up- YES 1
grade and modernize the Shakopee NO 2
Municipal Swimming Pool? DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
35. Would you support or oppose the SUPPORT 1
City licensing private vendors OPPOSE 2
to sell services and products in DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
the parks , such as snacks and re-
freshments?
In the future, more ballfieids may need to be constructed. Some
people want them to be developed across the City at various
neighborhood parks for convenience. Others believe that a cen-
trally located youth ballfield complex, with four to six ball-
fields in one place, would be more efficient.
36. How do you feel -- should youth NEIGHBORHOOD 1
ballfields be built in neighbor- COMPLEX 2
hood parks or should a centrally NEITHER (VOL) 3
located complex be built? BOTH (VOL) 4
DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
3
From : DPL
I would like to read you a brief list of recreational facilities
that are part of the Shakopee Park System. For each, based upon
what you have seen or heard, please tell me if you feel the
current facilities are sufficient to meet demands or if you feel
that additional facilities of that type are needed.
SUFF ADDL DK-R
37 . Neighborhood playgrounds? 1 2 3
38. Community parks? 1 2 3
39 . Youth ballfields? 1 2 3
40 . Adult ballfields? 1 2 3
41. Football/Soccer fields? 1 2 3
42 . Outdoor swimming pool? 1 2 3
43 . A Senior Center? 1 2 3
44 . Tennis courts? 1 2 3
45. Neighborhood hockey rinks? 1 2 3
46. Neighborhood skating rinks? 1 2 3
47 . Picnic areas? 1 2 3
48. Picnic shelters? 1 2 3
47 . Trails? 1 2 3
49 . Playground equipment? 1 2 3
50. Indoor ice arenas? 1 2 3
I would like to read you a short list of future park and recrea-
tional development that could be undertaken. In most cases,
however, a property tax increase would be required to fund its
construction. For each, please tell me whether you would strong-
ly support a property tax increase for it, somewhat support a
property tax increase, somewhat oppose a property tax increase,
or strongly oppose a property tax increase for it.
stS SmS SmO StO DKR
51 . The construction of additional
ballfields? 1 2 3 4 5
52 . Improvement and upgrading of
all smallneighborhood play-
grounds? 1 2 3 4 5
53 . Improvement and upgrading of
all community parks? 1 2 3 4 5
54 . Completion of all undeveloped
park areas? 1 2 3 4 5
55. Construction of a park shelter
and enclosed picnic area? 1 2 3 4 5
56. Expansion of the off-street
trail system? 1 2 3 4 5
57 . Connection of all walkways and
sidewalks into a loop system? 1 2 3 4 5
58 . Build an indoor pool complex? 1 2 3 4 5
59 . Purchase new playground equipment? 1 2 3 4 5
60. Construction of a senior citizens
center? 1 2 3 4 5
61 . Construction of a youth center? 1 2 3 4 5
4
StS SmS Sm0 StO DKR
62 . Construction of an indoor walking/
running track? 1 2 3 4 5
63 . Construction of an indoor ice
arena? 1 2 3 4 5
64 . Construction of a nature center? 1 2 3 4 5
65. Development of a nature trail ,
with instructional exhibits? 1 2 3 4 5
66 . Development of a riverfront park? 1 2 3 4 5
Changing topics . . . .
67 . Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR 1
acquisition of land by the City FAVOR 2
for future recreational facil- OPPOSE 3
ities? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do STRONGLY OPPOSE 4
you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
To fund new park facilities and new programs, a bond referendum
would be necessary. Residents could be asked to increase their
property taxes for twenty years to cover the bonds.
68 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 01
see your yearly property taxes $10. 00 02
increase to fund the acquisition $20 . 00 03
of land and park facilities? $30. 00 04
Let ' s say, would you be wiling to $40. 00 05
see your yearly taxes increased by $50. 00 06
$ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING $60 . 00 07
POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING $70. 00 08
ON ANSWER) How about $ per $80 . 00 09
year? $90 . 00 10
$100. 00 11
DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED 12
Many communities across the Metropolitan Area have either built
or are considering building a Community Center for recreational ,
health, and meeting space opportunities.
69 . Are you currently a member of a YES 1
community center in another city? NO 2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
70. Are you currently a member of a YES 1
privately-owned health club? NO 2
DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
71. In regards to facilities, if Shakopee were to build a Commu-
nity Center, what types of facilities do you think it most
important to include?
5
72. In regards to services and programs, are there any particu-
lar activities or programs and services the center should
offer to serve the needs of you and other members of your
household? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they?
73 . Do you favor or oppose the con- STRONGLY FAVOR 1
struction of a Shakopee Community SOMEWHAT FAVOR 2
Center? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 3
do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE 4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
74 . Why do you feel that way?
I would like to read you a list of facilities that could be
included in a community center. For each, please tell me if you
would strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strong-
ly oppose its inclusion in a community center.
StS SmS Sm0 StO DKR
75. An indoor leisure fun swimming
pool , with water slide and whirl-
pool? 1 2 3 4 5
76. A rectangular lap and competition
pool? 1 2 3 4 5
77 . A historical room featuring ex-
hibits about the city' s history? 1 2 3 4 5
78 . A gymnastics area? 1 2 3 4 5
79 . A batting cage for practice? 1 2 3 4 5
80. Racquetball courts? 3. 2 3 4 5
81 . An indoor running/walking track? 1 2 3 4 5
82 . Fullsize gymnasiums? 1 2 3 4 5
83 . A public access cable television
studio? 1 2 3 4 5
84 . A senior citizens activities cen-
ter, with kitchen facilities? 1 2 3 4 5
85 . A youth center? 1 2 3 4 5
86. A daycare center for the young
children of facility users? 1 2 3 4 5
87 . Arts and crafts room? 1 2 3 4 5
88 . An ice arena? 1 2 3 4 5
89 . An indoor bicycle track? 1 2 3 4 5
90. An indoor rollerblade rink? 1 2 3 4 5
91 . Meeting rooms? 1 2 3 4 5
I would like to re-read that list of potential facilities for a
community center. (READ THE LIST)
6
92 . Please tell me which ONE you most strongly favor for inclu-
sion.
93 . Which facility do you consider second in importance?
94 . Is there any facility that you would PARTICULARLY oppose
including in a center?
FIRST SECND OPPOS
An indoor leisure fun swimming
pool , with water slide and whirlpool? 01 01 01
A rectangular lap and competition
pool? 02 02 02
A historical room featuring exhibits
about the city ' s history? 03 03 03
A gymnastics area? 04 04 04
A batting cage for practice? 05 05 05
Racquetball courts? 06 06 06
An indoor running/walking track? 07 07 07
Fullsize gymnasiums? 08 08 08
A public access cable television
studio? 09 09 09
A senior citizens activities center,
with kitchen facilities? 10 10 10
A youth center? 11 11 11
A daycare center for the young
children of facility users? 12 12 12
Arts and crafts room? 13 13 13
An ice arena? 14 14 14
An indoor bicycle track? 15 15 15
An indoor rollerblade rink? 16 16 16
Meeting rooms? 17 17 17
ALL EQUALLY 18 18 18
NONE 19 19 19
DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED 20 20 20
If a bond referendum were necessary to fund the construction and
programming at a new community center, residents would be asked
to increase their property taxes for twenty years to cover the
cost of the bonds?
95 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 1
see your yearly property taxes $25 . 00 2
increase to fund this construe- $50 . 00 3
tion? Let ' s say, would you be $75 . 00 4
willing to see your yearly taxes $100. 00 5
increase by $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM $125 . 00 6
STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN $150 . 00 7
DEPENDING ON ANSWER) How about $175 . 00 8
$ per year? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9
Let' s talk about re-development issues facing the community. . . .
7
The City is currently involved in discussions about Downtown re-
development.
96 . What do you like most about Downtown Shakopee?
97 . What do you like least about it?
98 . Do you presently shop in Downtown YES 1
Shakopee? NO 2
DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
IF "YES, " ASK:
99 . What businesses do you patronize Downtown?
99 . Are there changes or improvements to the Downtown Area which
would induce you to shop more there? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What
would they be?
For each of the following changes or improvements, please tell me
whether it would make you much more likely to shop downtown,
somewhat more likely, or have no impact on whether you would shop
downtown. . . .
MML SML DKR
100. Re-routing truck traffic around
Downtown and off Main Street? 1 2 3
101 . More and closer parking in the
Downtown area? 1 2 3
102 . Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR 1
providing development incentives, FAVOR 2
such as tax breaks and zoning OPPOSE 3
changes, to attract particular STRONGLY OPPOSE 4
types of businesses to the Down- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
town Area? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE)
Do you feel strongly that way?
8
103 . What types of business, if any, should the City attempt to
attract Downtown? (PROBE)
104 . Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR 1
providing development incentives FAVOR 2
to particular type of facilities OPPOSE 3
and business to the Riverfront STRONGLY OPPOSE 4
Area? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
feel strongly that way?
There are a number of older buildings in the Downtown Area which
have historical significance. Some people think they should be
preserved and retrofited for business use. Others feel that if
it would attract business to the area, they should be demolished
and replaced with newer facilities.
105. How about you? Do you feel that PRESERVATION 1
the priority should be on histor- ATTRACT BUSINESS 2
ical preservation or on the at- EQUALLY (VOL) 3
traction of new business to Down- NEITHER (VOL) 4
town? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
I ' d like to discuss two particular places in the community. . . .
106. If you could choose, what would you most favor doing with
the Huber Park land on the riverfront?
107 . If you could choose, what would you most favor doing with
the old Railroad Building at Scott Street and Second Avenue?
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes. . . .
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let ' s start with the oldest.
Be sure to include yourself.
108. First, persons 65 or over?
109 . Adults under 65?
110. School-aged or pre-school children?
111 . Do you own or rent your present OWN 1
residence? RENT 2
REFUSED 3
9
1
112 . What is your age, please? 1 18-24-24 2
35-44 3
45-54 4
55-64 5
65 AND OVER 6
REFUSED 7
113 . What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation
of your spouse or partner?
M: F:
114 . What is the last grade of school LELISS S THAN
SHANOHIGH
L GHASCHL . . . 1
you completed?
TECH COL/VO-TECH 3
SOME COLLEGE 4
COLLEGE GRADUATE 5
POST-GRADUATE 6
REFUSED 7
115 . Could you tell me your approximate UNDER $12 , 500 1
pre-tax yearly household income. $12 , 500-$24 , 999 2
Does the income lie. . . . $25, 000-$37 , 499 3
$37 , 500-$49 , 999 4
$50, 000-$62 , 499 5
$62 , 500-$74 , 999 6
$75, 000 AND OVER 7
DON'T KNOW 8
REFUSED 9
116 . Is there anything else you would like to tell us that we can
report back to the City Council members, preserving your
anonymity?
117 . Gender (DO NOT ASK) MALE 1
FEMALE 2
Thank you very much for your time. Good-bye.
118 . REGION OF THE CITY:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
INTERVIEWER:
DATE:
10
P , fZ
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. -. SHAKOPEE RESIDENTIAL
3128 Dean Court QUESTIONNAIRE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 3flMf'LE OESi-io ii
S
Hello, I 'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide
polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the
City of Shakopee to speak with a random sample of residents
about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because
your city representatives and staff are interested in your
opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all
individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only
summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1. Thinking back to when you moved to Shakopee, what
factors were most important to you in selecting the city?
2 . Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR 1
crease in YOUR city property tax OPPOSE 2
if it were needed to maintain city DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
services at their current level?
IF "OPPOSE, " ASK:
3 . Aside from administration, what services would you be
willing to see cut to keep property taxes at their cur-
rent level?
4 . In comparison with nearby suburban VERY HIGH 1
areas, do you consider property SOMEWHAT HIGH 2
taxes in Shakopee to be very ABOUT AVERAGE 3
high, somewhat high, about aver- SOMEWHAT LOW 4
age, somewhat low, or very low? VERY LOW 5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6
As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of
Shakopee, Scott County, and local school districts.
5. For each dollar of property taxes UNDER TEN PERCENT 1
you pay, about what percentage do 10% TO 20% 2
you think goes to city govern- 21% TO 30% 3
ment? (READ CHOICES, IF NEEDED) 31% TO 40% 4
41% TO 50% 5
51% TO 60% 6
OVER SIXTY PERCENT 7
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8
1
As you may know, the City share of the property tax in your
school district is about percent.
6. During the past few years, has INCREASED 1
the City' s tax rate increased, DECREASED 2
decreased, or remained about the ABOUT THE SAME 3
same? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4
7. When you consider the property EXCELLENT 1
taxes you pay and the quality GOOD 2
of city services you receive, ONLY FAIR 3
would you rate the general value POOR 4
of city services as excellent, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
good, only fair, or poor?
I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each
one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the
service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
EXC GOOD FAIR POOR D.K.
8. Police protection? 1 2 3 4 5
9 . Fire protection? 1 2 3 4 5
10. City street repair and
maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5
11. Water and sewers? 1 2 3 4 5
12 . Snow plowing? 1 2 3 4 5
13. 911 Emergency Service? 1 2 3 4 5
14 . Animal control? 1 2 3 4 5
15. Park maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5
16. Trail maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5
17. Recreational programs? 1 2 3 4 5
18. Street lighting? 1 2 3 4 5
19. Building inspection? 1 2 3 4 5
20. Nuisance code enforce-
ment? 1 2 3 4 5
21. Property valuation and
assessment? 1 2 3 4 5
2
22 . Other than voting, do you feel YES 1
that if you wanted to, you could NO 2
have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
of Shakopee runs things?
Let's talk about local city government for a moment. When people
think about local government, they think of the elected officials
who represent them. . . .
23 . Offhand, do you recall the name GARY LAURENT 1
of the Mayor of Shakopee? OTHER NAMED 2
(IF "YES, " ASK: ) What is the DON'T KNOW 3
Mayor's name? OTHER:
Do you recall the names of any current members of the Shakopee
City Council? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) Which council members do you
recall? NAMED NOT NAMED
24 . 1 2
25. 1 2
26. 1 2
27. 1 2
28. Other 1 2
29 . How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL 1
about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT 2
City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE 3
fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4
30. From what you know, how would you EXCELLENT 1
rate the job performance of the GOOD 2
Mayor and City Council? (WAIT ONLY FAIR 3
FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel POOR 4
strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
IF OPINION STATED IN QUESTION #30, ASK:
31. Why do you feel that way?
32. How much first-hand contact have QUITE A LOT 1
you had with the Shakopee SOME
City Staff -- quite a lot, some, VERY LITTLE 3
very little, or none at all? NONE AT ALL 4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
33 . From what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT 1
how would you rate the job per- GOOD 2
formance of the Shakopee City ONLY FAIR 3
Staff -- excellent, good, only POOR 4
fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
3
IF RATING GIVEN IN QUESTION #33 , ASK:
34 . Why did you rate city staff as ?
Moving on. . . .
35. In general, do you feel that the RIGHT LEVEL 1
City is enforcing city codes and TOO EXACTING 2
ordinances at about the right NOT RIGOROUS 3
level, is too exacting, or is not VARIES (VOL) 4
rigorous enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
IF "TOO EXACTING, " "NOT RIGOROUS ENOUGH, " OR "VARIES, " ASK:
36. What codes or ordinances do you feel are not being en-
forced at about the right level?
37. Other than the police or fire de- YES 1
partment, during the past twelve NO 2
months, have you contacted anyone DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
working for the City of Shakopee,
whether to obtain information, to
get service, or make a complaint
of any kind?
IF "YES, " ASK:
38. What was the nature of your most recent inquiry; that
is, what information or service did you need?
39. What department or official did you contact first about
this inquiry?
40. In general, were you satis- SATISFIED 1
fied or dissatisfied with the DISSATISFIED 2
way your inquiry was handled? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
IF "DISSATISFIED, " ASK:
4
41. Why were you dissatisfied?
Let's talk about development for a few minutes. . . .
On a scale of one to ten, where ten is "excellent" and one is
"poor, " how would you rate Shakopee as a place. . . .
42. To find moderate priced
housing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
43 . To purchase starter homes
for young families. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
44 . To purchase senior housing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
45. To find adequately paid full
time employment opportun-
ities for ADULT residents. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
46. To start a business. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
47 . To find employment oppor-
tunities for city youth. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
48. To find a wide variety of
entertainment and dining
opportunities for people
and families of all ages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
49. To raise children. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
50. To spend one's retirement
years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
51. To find a wide variety of
retail goods and services. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
Changing topics. . . .
52 . Does the development across the WELL-PLANNED 1
city seem to have been well- NOT WELL PLANNED 2
planned for the future of Shak- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
opee?
53 . Do you feel that Shakopee resi- ADEQUATE 1
dents have an adequate opportunity INADEQUATE 2
for participation in the zoning DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
and land use decision-making
process?
5
54. Over the past five years, do you ABOUT RIGHT 1
think that the pace of development TOO RAPID 2
in the city has been about right, NOT FAST ENOUGH 3
too rapid, or not fast enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4
55. Which of the following two state- STATEMENT A 1
ments comes closest to your STATEMENT B 2
feelings? BOTH (VOL. ) 3
A. The City has been too hard NEITHER (VOL. ) 4
on developers and missed some DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
great opportunities that have
gone elsewhere.
B. The City is too easy on
developers and permitted fast
growth and environmental prob-
lems to occur.
Currently, Shakopee requires developers to provide additional
amenities, such as tree preservation, construction of trail
corridors, and parkland dedication or payment of park fees.
People in favor of these requirements feel that developers should
give something back to the city directly, even if it might
discourage new construction. People opposed to these
requirements feel that they discourage new construction and force
developers to go to other communities.
56. Do you support the City continuing YES 1
these types of requirements? NO 2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
Moving on. . . .
Let's talk about the general priorities that Shakopee should
establish for the future.
As you may be aware, the City of Shakopee must prepare a budget
each year to bring spending in line with revenues. I would like
to ask you, in the next few questions to make the same kind of
decisions. If you do not already have it by the phone, could you
please get a pencil and a sheet of paper. (WAIT IF NECESSARY) I
am first going to read you a list of ten categories of city
services and some examples of each type. Then I will read you
the number of dollars to be spent in 1992 for every one thousand
dollars of total spending. Please place this number to the right
of each service. (READ EACH CATEGORY AND THE ACCOMPANYING DOLLAR
FIGURE)
6
SERVICE 1991 NEW
SPENDING SPENDING
57. Police, Neighborhood Watch, the DARE Anti-
Drug Program, Animal Control, and Code
Enforcement. $368
58. Fire Protection and HazMat, hazardous waste
materials handling. $63
59. Public Works, such as Street Maintenance,
Snow Plowing, and Maintenance Garage
Operations. $157
60. Engineering, Planning, Community Develop-
ment, and Inspection Services. $52
61. Recreation, offers and organizes programs,
activities and facilities for youth, adults,
and senior citizens. Coordinates community
group activities and facility needs. $51
62 . Park Maintenance including General
Park Upkeep and Forestry Programs. $79
63 . Administration, such as legal records re-
tention, business licensing, Council/Com-
munity relations, economic development, legis-
lative liaison, and general city management
operations $52
64 . City Hall Operations, including insurance for
all City property, equipment maintenance, sup-
plies, janitorial services, utilities, postage,
printing, and 1/2 of the cost of city news-
letters. $114
65. Mayor, City Council, and Advisory Commission
Expenses. $10
66. Finance Department, maintaining tax and
revenue records and monitoring expenditures. $54
$1000 $900
The total being spent now adds to $1000. Suppose that the over-
all budget must be reduced to $900 -- a ten percent reduction. I
would like you to make changes in the amount spent for each
service so that the overall reduction can be made. You may
increase as well as decrease spending in any specific category,
but the final total must be $900. (ENTER EACH FIGURE IN THE
SPACES)
7
67. What is your primary source of information about community
events going on in Shakopee?
68. What is your primary source of information about City
government and its activities?
The City publishes a regular newsletter sent to each home.
69. Do you receive the newsletter? YES 1
NO 2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
IF "YES, " ASK:
70. How much of the newsletter do ALL OF IT 1
you usually read -- all of MOST OF IT 2
it, most of it, some of it, SOME OF IT 3
not too much of it, or none NOT TOO MUCH 4
of it? NONE OF IT 5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6
71. How would you evaluate its EXCELLENT 1
format -- excellent, good, GOOD 2
only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR 3
POOR 4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
72 . How would you evaluate its EXCELLENT 1
content -- excellent, good, GOOD 2
only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR 3
POOR 4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
73 . Does your households receive YES 1
cable television? NO 2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3
IF "YES, " ASK:
74. How likely would you be to VERY LIKELY 1
watch City Council Meetings SOMEWHAT LIKELY 2
if they were telecasted -- NOT TOO LIKELY 3
very likely, somewhat likely, NOT AT ALL LIKELY 4
not too likely, or not at all DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5
likely?
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes. . . .
75. Do you own or rent your present OWN 1
residence? RENT 2
8
76. What is your occupation and the occupation of your spouse,
if applicable? [HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD TABULATED: ]
M: F:
77. What is the last grade of school LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL. . . 1
you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE. . . . 2
VO-TECH SCHOOL 3
SOME COLLEGE 4
COLLEGE GRADUATE 5
POST-GRADUATE 6
REFUSED 7
And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your
answers are held strictly confidential. . . .
78. Could you tell me your approximate UNDER $12, 500 01
pre-tax yearly household income. $12, 500-$25, 000 02
Does the income lie. . . . $25, 001-$37, 500 03
$37, 501-$50, 000 04
$50, 001-$62 , 500 05
$62, 501-$75, 000 06
$75, 001-$87, 500 07
$87, 501-$100, 000 08
DON'T KNOW 09
REFUSED 10
79. Gender (DO NOT ASK) MALE 1
FEMALE 2
Thank you very much for your time.
80. REGION OF CITY
TELEPHONE NUMBER
INTERVIEWER
9
co Cip co)
a.) 7• ^=
cls
cy
SIS _ � ww � Z .1
S b. = o v� ...= =
q F caro yC
0 Q a, ri 0,3 a �, � M
-���� \�\ s 11 z c. C7 a
V . 4 N lib CD w LCL
ijk
r— .. '
-"" ..—_- - ——...,..:,‘NLW,'N.N-
\\ \\N \ \ • / CO C ~ r�o o as
�\ \\\ \\\� \. = = = > �' o c.> c >
\\ \ \ �� E� Q °o. VH pt E-
A
�� Ci.
mo
E., Q vs 0 . g �
CELEb c� cn
� w o0 x
� � ox = x •
• u
3