HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/1992 TENTATIVE AGENDA
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 11, 1992
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:00 P.M.
2] Accept the Special Call of the Mayor
3] Hiring An Architect for the Ice Facility
4] Variance from the Noise Ordinance
5] Waiving Review Period for Gambling Exemption
6] Other Business
7] Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
CITYTED S810 OF SHAKOPEE q>�.T '
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553791378 (612)445-36.50
August 6, 1992
The Honorable City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Mayor Laurent has notified me, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk of
the City of Shakopee, that a Special Session of the City Council
will be held at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, August 11, 1992 for the
purpose of considering actions on the following matters:
1. Request by Valley Paving Inc. for a variance from the Noise
Ordinance (Section 10.60, Subd. 3 of the City Code) for work
on Hwy. 169.
2. Waive the 30 day review period for the application for
exemption from lawful gambling license by Shakopee Ducks
Unlimited for September 15, 1992 at the Shakopee VFW Club,
1201 E. 3rd Avenue.
3. Authorize hiring an architect for the ice facility.
4. Any other business which may come before the City Council.
Respectfully,
Ju‘iijth S. Cox
C%ty Clerk
CC: Shakopee Valley News
Cable Company
ECHE
City Hall Bulletin Board
JSC:trw
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
MEMO TO: Mayor Laurent and City Council
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Acting City Administrator
RE: Noise Variance Permit Request
DATE: August 6, 1992
INTRODUCTION:
On August 6, 1992 I received a correspondence from Mr. Richard
Carron representing Valley Paving Inc. requesting a noise variance
permit. (See attachment #1)
BACKGROUND:
Section 10.60 Subd. 3D of the Shakopee City Code specifies that it
is unlawful to operate or permit construction activities involving
the use of any kind of electric, diesel or gas powered equipment
except between the hours of 7 :00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any weekday
or between the hours of 9: 00 a.m. and 9: 00 p.m. on any weekend or
holiday. Mr. Carron is requesting a variance to this section of
the code that would allow his copy to work throughout the night
beginning August 9, 1992 at 8:00 p.m.
Section 11.60 Subd. 3 D does provide for a variance or suspension
of the normal hours for operating equipment for a specific purpose
at a specific location and for a specific length of time by Council
action. The project in question involves the resurfacing of T.H.
169 beginning at Lewis St. continuing west to the railroad bridge
near Rahr Malting. The construction is expected to last 15 days.
It is my understanding that Council has granted noise variance
requests of this type in the past. Therefore, staff is
recommending that a noise variance permit be approved for Valley
Paving Inc. effective Wednesday, August 12, 1992 .
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the noise variance permit request.
2 . Do not approve the noise variance permit request.
3 . Table action pending further information from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Move to approve a noise variance permit request for Valley Paving
Inc. effective August 12 , 1992 for a duration not to exceed 15
working days.
WGVALLEY
PAVING+
INCORPORATED
SOUTH OFFICE NORTH OFFICE
8800 13th AVENUE EAST 4105 85th AVENUE NORTH
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 BUILDING B SUITE 103
PHONE (612)445-8615 BROOKLYN PARK, MN 55443
FAX (612) 445-0355 PHONE (612)425-2988
GsU�
r�
risl' �‘5. ,I I _ ;3 kIL r Li .1i4Iii -V .i fu^.a
L-Lr L.;_:.i] , .
0 N . ,'. . , 'L.1 W „ J_
YCUi c dill r. ,LIS, rl-i d 1iS . LIUElc,1 :4ii D BE CR .,iv,
n:tL.l. r -0)-yr
t FC M1'.
i'/5--• 6/3,--
Affirmative
1S-S6/SAffirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
S.P. 7009-57 (T.H. 169409)
May 20, 1992
The Contractor shall furnish qualified flagpersons to adequately control traffic when
and as directed by the Engineer. Qualified flagpersons shall conform to the requirements set
forth in Chapter 6E of the MMUTCD and the following: Flagpersons, while on duty, shall
wear orange or yellow hard hats and orange reflectorized vests. Flagpersons shall be fully
clothed when on duty--shirt or blouse, slacks or trousers, and sturdy shoes—and shall, except
in emergencies, use an approved "Stop-Slow" sign attached to a staff a minimum of five feet
long.
When a temporary lane closure is used by the Contractor, the closure shall be
incidental work and no direct compensation will be made therefor.
Temporary lane closures will not be permitted during inclement weather, nor any
other time when, in the opinion of the Engineer, the lane closure will be greater than normal
a hazard to traffic.
During the time of the lane restrictions, the Contractor's equipment shall "follow in
line" and shall use the roadway in a manner similar to all other traffic, unless otherwise
authorized by the Engineer.
Temporary lane restrictions will not be permitted between the hours of 6:00 an to
8:00 p.m. without prior approval by the Engineer. Work which will restrict or interfere with
traffic shall not be performed between 12:00 noon on the day preceding and 9:00 A.M. on the
day following any consecutive combination of a Saturday, Sunday, and legal holiday without
prior approval by the Engineer. If the Contractor is negligent in adhering to the established
time schedules, he shall be subject to the hourly charge as set forth in Section 1807 (Failure
to Complete the Work on Time) of these Special Provisions. The Engineer will have the
right to lengthen, shorten, or otherwise modify the foregoing periods of restrictions as actual
traffic conditions may warrant.
The Contractor shall provide, at his own expense, one vehicle or trailer mounted
electric sign board with flashing arrows for each work area where traffic is restricted. The
board shall be able to present three messages: left arrow, right arrow, and both arrows
simultaneously. The board shall meet the requirements of the MMUTCD and shall be
equipped with a light that is visible to personnel in the work area to indicate that the unit is
in operation. Furnishing and maintaining the electric sign board shall be considered
incidental work for which no direct compensation will be made.
8-S
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator((((��ni�
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Gambling Exemption for Shakopee Ducks Unlimited
DATE: August 7, 1992
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
On behalf of the Shakopee chapter of Ducks Unlimited, Mr.
Gregg Smith has requested that the City waive their 30 day review
period in order that they may receive an exemption from the lawful
gambling license from the Department of Gaming. They are planning
their annual banquet and raffle for Tuesday, September 15, 1992 .
The 30 day review period commences August 7th, the date that the
City Clerk acknowledged receiving a copy of the application.
Waiving the review period will allow the Application to be approved
in a timely manner so that members can sell tickets before the 30
day review period expires.
This application is in conformance with the Shakopee city code
which allows an organization to conduct one raffle per year (in
conjunction with a banquet and/or a dance) and the profits do not
have to be spent within the city's trade area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to waive the 30 day review period for the application for
exemption from lawful gambling license by Ducks Unlimited for
September 15, 1992 at the Shakopee VFW Club, 1201 East 3rd Avenue.
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator
RE: Ice Arena Architect
DATE: August 7 , 1992
INTRODUCTION:
On August 4, 1992 Council directed staff to work with Shakopee
Valley Ice Arena, Inc. and their plans that they have put forward
to the City and come back with recommendations in a timely fashion
with a proposal to bid the first phase of the project and with
recommendations as to whether or not to include the cement floor
and/or ice coil. In order to facilitate the action set forth by
City Council staff has prepared a project planning schedule for the
ice arena. In order to complete the project the issue of financing
and architectural services need to be addressed immediately.
BACKGROUND:
On August 7, 1992, I met with the City Attorney, Building Official
and Dave Kaufenberg to discuss how we should proceed with this
project. Shown in attachment #1 is a project planning schedule
that identifies the major decision points that will require Council
consideration.
Staff believes that in order to complete the project it is
essential for the City to utilize the services of an architect to
develop plans and specifications. Professional services such as
those provided by an architect do not fall within the State
guidelines for bidding. Therefore, staff has been in contact with
our existing engineering firms to determine if they have
architectural staff on board who could complete this project. Orr-
Schlen-Meyer is the only one of these firms that we have on board
at this time who could provide the architectural services needed to
complete this project. On Friday, August 7, 1992 I had an
extensive conversation with Mr. Gunnar Unger representing OSM. He
informed me that they have completed similar projects of this type
and that they could complete the project including construction,
administration and observation services within the time schedule
set forth in attachment #1. Mr. Unger stated that OSM could also
provide multiple bid packages so that project could be fast
tracked. Mr. Unger was hesitant to give me a price quotation over
the phone. However, he did state that he felt it could be done for
less than 5% of the project cost. A meeting has been set up with
Mr. Unger for Monday, August 10, 1992 to tour the existing
facility. Mr. Unger stated that he can have a proposal for Council
review on August 11, 1992 .
I also contacted two other architects that are currently being
utilized by the City on other projects. Boarman and Associates
stated that they could not commit to completing the project within
the allotted time schedule. They did however state that they felt
the project could be completed for 5% of the project cost.
Staff also attempted to contact Mr. Steve Cross who is completing
the architectural plans and specifications for the Tahpah Park
concession stand project. Mr. Cross could not be reached on
Friday. Staff will continue in our attempt to contact Mr. Cross
for a cost quotation.
Based on my preliminary conversations with OSM, I feel that they
could complete the project within the allotted time schedule. They
also have necessary staff to provide us with the type of services
that we need to complete this project specifically the experience
to complete multiple bid packages and construction administration
services. Therefore, staff is recommending that Council authorize
the appropriate City officials to utilize OSM as the consulting
firm to complete the architectural plans and specifications for the
Shakopee Ice Arena project.
In terms of financing this project, staff believes that the
following options are available:
1. T.I.F. Trust Fund - cash balance at 6/30/92 $6.3 million
2 . Capital Improvement Fund - cash balance at 6/30/92 $2 . 6
million
3 . General Fund - excess fund balance at 12/31/91 - $600,000
The Park Reserve Fund has not been listed as an alternative for
project funding since it only has a balance of approximately
$100, 000. The Park Reserve Fund could be utilized to cover the
architect costs associated with this project if Council so desires.
Utilizing either of the aforementioned funds obviously has an
impact on other projects or equipment acquisitions that the City
maybe considering. With the uncertainty surrounding Canterbury
Downs, staff believes that the Tax Increment Financing Trust Fund
should not be considered at this time. While the General Fund
balance is $600, 000 higher than our 25% target, staff does not feel
that this fund should be considered at this time. Utilizing this
fund would take away some flexibility that we now have in
determining where dollars should be allocated. Therefore, staff is
recommending utilization of the Capital Improvement Fund as a
funding source for this project.
Official Council action on funding is not particularly necessary
this evening providing that Council understands that a budget
amendment will have to take place at some point in time to cover
the costs associated with the ice arena project. If Council wishes
to go on record in support of utilizing the Capital Improvement
Fund at this time, a motion would be in order.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to utilize
OSM as the firm to complete the architectural plans and
specifications for the ice arena project.
2 . Table action pending further information from staff.
3. Do nothing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to utilize OSM as
the firm to complete the architectural plans and specifications for
the ice arena project.
Attachment S1
Shakopee Ice Arena
Project Planning Schedule
8/5 - 9/15 1. Staff develop draft lease agreement by and
between Valley Ice Arena, Inc. and the City of
Shakopee.
8/10 - 8/11 2. Staff analyze financing alternatives.
8/11 3 . Council authorize hiring an architech to develop
plans and specifications.
8/12 - 8/24 4 . Architech prepare archictechural plans
and specifications and analyze feasibility of
constructing concrete floor and new floor tubing.
8/25 5. Council approve constuction plans/specifications,
budget and financing plan.
8/25 6. Council authorize bidding.
8/27 - 9/10 7 . Advertise for bids.
9/17 8. Open bids.
9/17 - 9/21 9. Analyze bids.
9/15 10. Council review and approve lease agreement with
Valley Ice Arena, Inc.
9/22 11. Council award contract.
9/28 12. Construction begins.
12/1 14. Project Completion.
OH. 1 . 92 02 36914 + OSM AS SOC
P 0 1
Sateen
OMayer et
rr AAsscciates,AK.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis,MN 55413
612-331-8660
FAX331-3806 Engineers
August 11, 1992 Architects
Planners
Surveyors
Barry A. Stock
Assistant City Administrator Post.jr brand iex transmittal memo 71171 I alma ' si
City of Shakopee (�
129 East First Avenue �ie.
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Proposal for design services for rFnO
Valley Ice Arena, Shakopee, MN -
OSM Proposal No, 023792
Dear Barry,
As per your request OSM is pleased to submit the following proposal for complete design
services for the above mentioned project. I have reviewed the information gathered at our
Monday morning meeting with you, Mark Piddy and myself, and have also reviewed the
drawings furnished by you at that meeting. The proposal that follows addresses those issues
discussed, and therefore the proposal will respond to those guidelines.
As you know, OSM & Associates, Inc. is a full service architectural/engineering firm and
therefore this proposal includes all architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical
services necessary for the complete design of the facility. For the design of the under floor
piping for the new ice sheet and any equipment associated with that, we would employ the
services of our Ice Arena Consultant, Brad Lemberg, P.E. of I.C.E..
The proposed Civic Arena Facility Cost breakdown furnished at our meeting illustrates that
the project would likely be done in 3 phases. In order to insure that the Phase I portion of
the project fits into the long range plans of the City and the Hockey Association, it is
advisable that a Master Plan be completed, at least to the point of schematic design. to
insure that each increment along the way fits into the overall plan. To accomplish this
master plan, meetings would be held with those involved in the ultimate building program
for the project. This Master Plan would have in mind the long-range objectives of both the
City and the Hockey Program served by this arena.
PHASE I
Phase I would involve the removal of the existing facility and the construction of a new
precast concrete and metal roof structure approx. 120 feet wide, 250 feet long and 24 foot
high to the ceiling. This new building would attach to the existing concrete block structure
OB. 11 . 92 02 36PM +4OSM ASSOC
P02
Mr. Barry Stock
OSM Proposal No. 023792
August 11, 1992
Page 2 of 4
housing the ice making equipment,the ice resurfacing machine, and restroom facilities. The
intent going into the project would be to reutilize the existing dressing rooms and concession
area that are constructed of studs and plywood, However as we get into the project, it may
be determined from a code standpoint these facilities may need to be replaced.There is also
the issue of ADA Compliance that must be addressed. This will definitely affect the existing
toilet rooms. There has also been some discussion about creating a merzaninP on top of
the locker room/concession area/ entry portion of the building. This could become a large
meeting room with the flexibility to accommodate bleachers for spectators. This would in
turn introduce the need for a handicap elevator. This issue would be considered in the
Master Planning phase of the project. What actually comprises Phase I of the project will
largely be budget driven. A priority will be assigned to each of the components of the
project once they are priced. Phase I project would also include an evaluation of the current
bleachers from a code standpoint with the recommendation to correct any deficiencies
identified.
It is the intent that the main arena itself not be heated, as currently ice time extends only
from Sept. 1 until April 1. It may be desirable however to expand the use of this time for
recreational purposes to encompass a greater part of the year. How to deal with the
heating/cooling aspects of the building, if this happens will be considered later.
PHASE II
Options to be considered in this portion of the project would be a new concrete floor with
integral piping with a vapor barrier and insulation below. Coupled with this would be a new
dasher board system to replace the current system. A new Zamboni room added to the
North of the existing facility would also be an option. This would allow the Zamboni to
enter the new dashers at the straight section of boards rather than at the curve which is
currently the case.
Also involved would be a Concession Area,Office, Locker/Changing Rooms and associated
floor coverings, finishes, etc., and parking lot construction and associated lighting.
MISSILE
Phase III of the project would include bleachers, new score board kitchen facilities within
the concession area, handicap elevator and new refrigeration system for making ice.
08. 11 . 92 02 : 38PM + OSM ASSOC P03
Mr. Barry Stock
OSM Proposal No. 023792
August 11, 1992
Page 3 of 4
SCHEDULE
"Attachment #1" provided to OSM showed a very tight project schedule. This in fact may
or may not be possible to meet depending on how long approvals, etc would take. Having
a person to monitor and manage the project during construction wold be an invaluable assist
to expediting the process. OSM could furnish assistance in this area also and a fee to
provide this service is shown below.
PROJFCT DESIGN FEES
1. Master Plan Phases I, It and III of the project, Lump Sum Fee of Two Thousand Eight
Hundred Dollars ($2,800.00).
2. Phase I Fee to provide plans and specifications for bidding the Main Arena only as
described in the previous sections of this proposal. Lump Sum Fee of Eighteen
Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($18,900.00).
3. Phase II Fee to provide complete design services for those items shown in Phase II of
your proposed Civic Arena Facility Cost. Lump Sum Fee Twenty Nine Thousand Two
Hundred Dollars ($29,200.00).
4. Provide Construction Administration and Management Services during construction to
expedite the process. Lump Sum Fee of Four Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars
(4,800.00).
5. Phase III Fee. This will be determined at a later date when Scope of Services for this
portion of the project is clearly defined.
NOTE: Once the Master Plan is completed and the exact scope of Phase I is known,
the fee for that portion of the overall project will be set. ft could likely be
that some or all of the Phase II Fee shown above may actually become"Phase
I" Fee.
In addition to Fees would be our normal reimbursable expenses.
08. 1 1 . 92 02 : 3 SPM +. OSM ASSOC PO4
Mr. Barry Stock
OSM Proposal No. 023792
August 11, 1992
Page 4 of 4
In summary we would look forward to the opportunity to work with both the City of
Shakopee and the Hockey Association to make this project a successful one. We would be
responsive to both your budget and very tight schedule, and would make this project our
priority to insure that the building is available for use at the earliest possible time. If you
have any questions regarding this proposal, I would be happy to answer them.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES
Gunnar F. Unger, Jr.,
Director of Architecture
Ernes . e ton, P.E.
Vice President
su\023792.gu
PROPOSED CIVIC ARENA FACILITY COSTS
PHASE ONE
Footings/excavation $14,000.00
Fabcon panel wall system 115,000.00
Behlen roof system 205,000.00
Fire protection 50,000.00
Lighting/electrical 15,000.00
Doors/windows/hardware 10,000.00
Miscellaneous 10,000.00
Architectural 5.000.00
Sub-Total - $424.000.00
PHASE TWO
Concrete floor/cooling $119,000.00
Hockey boards 60,000.00
Block Zamboni room 20,000.00
Plumbing/heating/electric 20,000.00
Block locker rooms/concession/office 22,000.00
Carpentry work (labor) 16,000.00
Lumber material 32,000.00
Floor coverings 10,000.00
Parking lot surface and lighting 80,000.00
Miscellaenous 10,000.00
Architectural 5.000.00
Sub-Total $394.000.00
PHASE THREE
Bleachers (seating) $100,000.00
Scoreboard 5,000.00
New Zamboni 50,000.00
Kitchen facilities 15,000.00
Meeting room furnishings 10,000.00
Handicap elevator 10,000.00
Refrigeration system 250.000.00
Sub-Total $440.000.00
GRAND TOTAL $1,258.000.00
08,11/92 09:54 ARCHITECTURAL 42-8E-02 ees, *3
August 10, 1992
Enclose and Remodeling Agreement
between
Steven A. Cross (Architect)
and
city of Shakopee (Owner)
Architect will provide the following services to Owner:
1. Re-draw 'Zamboni' building plan to meet as-built conditions.
2. Re-draw ' Zamboni' building elevations to meet as-built
conditions.
SEE PLAN SECTION ATTACHMENT.
3 . Provide construction drawings and specifications for the
following:
a. Enclose existing area with a 220' x 120' x 24' (ceiling
height) concrete panel and steel truss structure.
b. New plaza, bathrooms, locker-rooms, concessions,
mezzanine and offices in a 30'x 150' area plan.
0. New addition and sloped roof for existing 'Zamboni'
building and required remodeling.
d. Painting and graphic design for arena (exterior) .
The Architect will provide the above services for a flat fee of
$9,000. 00 to the Owner. Drawing and Specifications materials are
to be completed on or before Sept. 20, 1992.
The Architect will provide the Owner with a reproductive master
of all Drawings and Specification materials.
The owner upon acceptance of this agreement will provide the
Architect with a $2,000. 00 retainer to begin work. The balance of
$7,000. 00 is due and payable upon completion of this job and _receipt of items (1-3) nby the Owner.
Q,
Signed: /1 , lAdddi Dated Aria /; /992
Steven A. Cross, AIA (Architect)
Signed: Dated
City of Shakopee (owner)
08/11,92 a9:5.` ARCHITECTUPRL 42-EE-02 003
August 10, 1992
Bid Package, Project Management and Site Inspection Agreement
between
Steven A. Cross (Arohiteot)
and
City of Shakopee (Owner)
1. Architect will provide the following services to Owner
using Architect's construction drawings and specification
materials of the arena in the following proposed Bid Package
format.
a. Footings
b. Wall panels
c. Roof structure and enclosure
d. Floor Blab (ice surface slab)
e. 30' x 150' support and '2amboni' area
2 . Issue and receive the above bid packages.
3 . Provide on site inspections and coordination of
construction drawings and specifications.
4. Approval of contractor pay requests for owner.
The architect will provide packages (a-d) at a flat fee of
$600.00 each. Phase (e) will be providedfor a flat fee of
$1200. 00. The total fee will be $3,600 with each payment due upon
phase completion.
By reducing the number of long span trusses within the distance
of 220' , the owner will achieve the following:
a. Lower construction cost
b. A better design tieing roofs on new and old together
c. The opportunity to utilize volunteer construction labor and
equipment in the support building at lower costs.
e. Easier main entry to building through non-load bearing long
span walla.
f. A clean break between construction areas, that can allow for
the use of temporary trailers as locker-rooms on a rush
schedule.p�e., //11 � q
Signed: jave....0 GG . Ceed4/1 Dated /4 l /992-
Steven A. Cross, AIA (Architect)
Signed: Dated
City of Shakopee (Owner)
08/11;92 39:55 ARCM I TECTIPAL 42-9E 004
1
I Steven A. Crow A. I.A.
I_ - 17466 Jaguar Path
Lakeville, MJ 55044
1 ; 612-698-1035 L
230'
220' I 30'
emPriersvreaer
t ce
seating m o
/ ! a 74
°. °u "o T
M
e •• 3
0 0
\..._ .0. J loHy �
benches ' 1
P L A N tomb oni ' plaza
nev ezlstin_1
I (open)
1
\—aignanc hand
matches slope of roof to be
24' added over existing zamboni
building and new zamboni loc.
mezaaine
16'
/If
1,
O
1 bathrooms a lockers'concessions
SECTION
TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 11, 1992
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2] Approval of Minutes of June 23rd and June 30th, 1992
3] 1993 Budget
4] Other Business
5] Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 23, 1992
Mayor Gary Laurent called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. with
Councilmembers Joan Lynch, Robert Sweeney, Gloria Vierling and
Michael Beard present. Also present were Dennis R. Kraft, City
Administrator; Dave Hutton, Public Works Director; Lindberg Ekola,
City Planner; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk.
Sweeney/Lynch moved to approve the minutes of May 26, May 29, and
June 5, 1992.
Mr. Kraft explained that Rahr Malting had obtained a conditional
use permit to erect a structure over 240 feet. In conjunction with
this construction, Rahr planned on building their own sewage
treatment plant. If they were to build their own sewage treatment
plant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would require them to
spend about $1, 500, 000 to correct problems up stream. Rahr has
decided to abandon building their own sewage treatment plant.
There is not sufficient capacity for Rahr to discharge into the
city sewage system; therefore, staff feels that the city can not
issue a building permit for the construction of a new malt house
unless additional sewer line capacity could be provided.
Mr. Kraft explained that Mr. Dan Boxrud, Short, Elliott,
Hendrickson Inc. , has been retained by the City to update the
City's comprehensive sewer plan. He also explained that Mr. Boxrud
has been meeting with staff and with representatives from Rahr
exploring alternatives for expanding the City's sewer capacity
which would allow Rahr to discharge into the City's sewer system
and thus be able to build the malt house #5.
Mr. Boxrud explained that while working on updating the City's
comprehensive sewer plan, they have been considering the City's
zoning and future land uses to determine future sewer capacity
needs. He explained that one consideration is the possible
annexation of property beginning at the intersection of Hwy 169 and
41 which property could drain to the River Interceptor. He stated
that this would further overload the River Interceptor, L-16 lift
station and forcemain. The Rahr construction compounds the
capacity problem.
Mr. Boxrud explained that the proposed VIP extension from CR-79 to
Tahpah Park will not have enough flow to keep it clean. He
suggested. pumping Rahr sewage up to the VIP extension which would
add additional flow to scour the VIP sewer.
Mr. Boxrud went on to explain three options for construction to
increase sanitary sewer service for the City of Shakopee. Option
"A" proposes that the Metropolitain Waste Control Commission (MWCC)
build a new lift station and forcemain capable of handling 10,000
gal/min. , along with a new interceptor to the Prior Lake
interceptor capable of handling all tributary flows. Option "B"
Official Proceedings of the June 23, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -2-
proposes that the MWCC build a new lift station to handle 3 ,700
gal/min. Option "C" proposes to allow MWCC to build a new lift
station to handle 3 ,400 gal/min. Discussion followed.
Mr. Hutton stated that he believes that MWCC would pay for some of
Option "B" .
Cncl. Vierling stated that MWCC would pay for oversizing if they
can see that it will save them money.
Representatives from Rahr were present and stated that with the
construction of a new malt house, that they wouldn't be at capacity
on January of 1994.
Sweeney/Vierling directed staff to proceed with Option "B".
Cncl. Sweeney stated that the City should proceed with negotiations
with Rahr for financing of the forced main.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney/Vierling moved to recommend to City Council to authorize
staff to proceed with feasibility studies implied in Option B.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney/Vierling moved to recommend to City Council to direct staff
to issue appropriate building permit to Rahr Malting subject to
condition of negotiation of an agreement on the Rahr diversion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Kraft provided Councilmembers with a new cost estimate for the
third scheme for the remodeling of the City Hall at 129 Holmes
Street. Ms. Tammy Eaglebull, Boarman, Kroos, Pfister & Associates,
Inc. , explained the changes included in the third scheme. She
explained that the elevator has been flipped and will open front to
back and that a hall may have to be added for the meeting room in
the basement for a second exit. She explained that the Council
Chambers are on the first floor and have been moved to the east
side and that they could look at raising the ceiling.
Cncl. Sweeney questioned why there needed to be a moveable wall
within the Council Chambers because there are ample meeting rooms
throughout the building. The City Administrator stated that he
thought there would be a cost savings of $33 , 000± to take out the
moveable wall from the plans.
While Mr. Kraft left the meeting to locate the earlier cost
estimate to verify the cost to delete the moveable wall, Ms.
Eaglebull explained that it would take five to six weeks to prepare
the plans once a decision is made on which scheme to go with and
probably an additional nine weeks for construction.
Official Proceedings of the June 23 , 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -3-
Mr. Kraft informed the Councilmembers that the cost for the
moveable wall would be approximately $10, 000.
Beard/Lynch moved to recommend to the City Council to proceed with
the details of the plan for remodeling the new City Hall as
presented tonight except: delete the moveable wall and raise the
Council ceiling. Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney/Vierling moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 P.M. Motion
carried with Commissioner Beard voting in opposition.
ydith S. Cox
ity Clerk
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE
SHAKOPEE COMMITTEE OP THE WHOLE
Shakopee, Minnesota June 30, 1992
Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. , with Comm.
Vierling, Lynch, Beard, and Sweeney present. Also present: Barry
A. Stock, Acting City Administrator; Gregg Voxland ,Finance
Director; and Dave Hutton, Public Works Director.
The Acting City Admn. introduced Bill Morris from Decision
Resources. He stated that the subcommittee which had been
appointed by the mayor to assist in developing the municipal
facility survey had completed its task, and Mr. Morris was present
to review and discuss the proposed survey questionnaire.
Mayor Laurent invited members of the audience to participate with
comments and questions relative to the Municipal Facility/Downtown
Redevelopment/Level of Services Questionnaire.
Discussion was held on the caller that does the survey disclosing
the length of time the survey questionnaire would take. Bill
Morris responded that the caller will ask for an appointed time to
go over the questionnaire. He added that 400 people at random will
be surveyed.
The first part of the discussion for The Committee of the Whole was
on that portion of the survey questionnaire pertaining to
recreational facilities.
Discussion was held on how to include in the survey, and determine
by the responses, if a particular City recreational facilities had
been used in the past and/or is currently being utilized.
Questions were raised on the designations for quality of life in
Shakopee as: excellent, good, only fair, or poor in Question No. 3 ,
("How would you rate the quality of life in Shakopee -- excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?") . Mr. Morris responded that this allows
for two positive and two negative responses.
Discussion was held on how a question "unit" was determined. Mr.
Morris stated that an open-ended question is one unit; a paragraph
constitutes one unit and where there is a listing of questions,
approximately three questions constitutes a unit. He added that
the length of time for a survey question and response establishes
a unit.
Consensus was to delete the word "currently" in the text prior to
Question No. 9, ("I would like to read you a list of facilities
'currently' part of the park and recreation offerings in Shakopee.
Of these facilities, which do you or members of your household
use?") .
Official Proceedings of the June 30, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -2-
It was decided to include, "used in the past" and "frequently" as
possible responses to Questions Nos. 9 - 28, pertaining to which
Shakopee park and recreation facilities are used.
Lengthy discussion was held on Question No. 29, ("In the past year,
how many members of this household, if any, have participated in
city-sponsored recreational programs?") . The discussion was
relative to the words "city-sponsored" and if the respondent would
be aware that there are other sponsored recreation programs, other
than city-sponsored.
New verbiage for Question No. 29 is, "In the past year, how many
members of this household, if any, have participated in the
following recreational programs. " The continuation of this
questions would then list the recreational programs, deleting the
need for Question No. 30, ("Which ones?") as: "summer aquatics,
fitness, adult athletics, youth athletics, other adult, other
youth. " , with examples for "other youth" program. This listing
eliminates the notation of "seniors" as a choice of program.
Discussion was held on the text prior to Question No. 36; the text
being ("In the future, more ballfields 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
centrally located youth ballfield complex, with four to six
ballfields in one place, would be more efficient. ")
The specific discussion on this text was why "baseball fields"
had been singled for by mention. It was concluded, with Comm.
Sweeney in opposition, that the final verbiage should be, "There
are two general approaches to building ballfields, some people want
them to be . . . (as noted) . . . be more efficient. "
Question No. 36 ("How do you feel -- should youth ballfields be
built in neighborhood parks or should a centrally located complex
be built?") should be noted after Question No. 66, which is a list
of potential future park and recreational developments.
Mr. Morris indicated that there will be rotation of listed
questions to prevent the same question coming up first or last.
Discussion was held on whether or not the word "convention" center
should be linked with the words "community center."
Comm. Vierling stated she believed that the discussion on including
the word "convention" with "community" center had come up during a
presentation by the Director of the Chamber of Commerce and how by
the inclusion of this word may allow for additional funding from
tourist convention funding programs.
Official Proceedings of the June 30, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -)-
Comm. Sweeney stated he did not believe Shakopee has a need for a
convention center and it should not be referenced in the
questionnaire.
Consensus was to not include the word "convention" in this survey.
It was decided to change the wording of Question No. 67 to read "To
fund new park facilities and new programs, a bond referendum
'might' (in substitution for 'would' ) be necessary. Residents
could be asked to increase their property taxes for twenty years to
cover the bonds. "
Consensus was to include a question relative to funding options
after Question No. 68 ("How much would you be willing to see your
yearly property taxes increase to fund the acquisition of land and
park facilities? Let's say, would you be willing to see your
yearly taxes increased by $ ?") .
It was decided to include the "library" as Question No. 92 in the
listing of facilities that could be included in a community center.
The text prior to Question No. 95 was changed to read "If a bond
referendum 'would be' (deleting the word '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?"
At the conclusion of this review, 57 question units had been
established. The cost per unit is $90. The Acting City Admn.
stated that there is funding for 60 question units from the Park
Reserve Fund.
Discussion was held on including a question regarding the priority
of adult recreation programs as a city-supported activity. Mr.
Morris suggested the following language, "The City currently
subsidizes both youth and adult recreation programs. If it is
necessary to prioritize these funds, should the emphasis be on
youth programs or on adult programs, or both equally. "
The Committee of the Whole responded favorably to including this
question, as suggested by Mr. Morris.
The Committee of the Whole then discussed the downtown
redevelopment portion of the survey questionnaire.
The Acting City Admn. stated that the HRA has adequate funds
budgeted for between 10-20 question units.
It was decided to re-word Question No. 102 to read, "Would you
favor or oppose the City providing development incentives"
(deleting the words "such as tax breaks and zoning changes", and
Official Proceedings of the June 30, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -4-
continue the question as) "to attract particular types of
businesses to the Downtown area?"
The Committee of the Whole suggested including reference to the
existing City Hall block in the text prior to Question No. 105,
which currently reads, "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."
Discussion was held on Question No. 107 ("If you could choose, what
would you most favor doing with the old Railroad Building at Scott
Street and Second Avenue?") , whether or not this question should
even be included in the downtown questionnaire survey.
Comm. Lynch stated she would like to see this question remain as a
part of the survey and suggested the following language, "If the
Railroad would donate the old Railroad Building at Scott Street and
Second Avenue, what would you like to see done with it?"
Discussion continued.
It was decided that Mr. Morris should come up with language, in
conjunction with Question No. 107, that would include a cost figure
as a part of this question.
Mayor Laurent suggested a question relative to the City using
reserve funding for some of the improvements outlined in the survey
or a combination of funding methods. He stated that this question
should be posed in the Downtown Redevelopment questionnaire as well
as in the Recreational Center survey.
It was decided to include a question regarding funding options
after Question No. 107.
Members of the audience believed a question should be included
relative to the City promoting commercial and industrial
development to continue to take the burden off the homeowner tax
payer. Discussion was held.
Another suggestion from the audience was a question regarding the
funding to hire a full time development coordinator to encourage
commercial and industrial uses, which would thereby also lessen the
tax burden for the tax-paying homeowner. The consensus by the
Committee of the Whole was that these questions would be better
placed in the portion of the questionnaire on Level of Services.
Discussion was held on including a question relative to the current
surplus in the TIF, and how a respondent could be asked to
prioritize how they would like to see this existing TIF surplus
Official Proceedings of the June 30, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -5-
funds spent. It was further discussed that this question could be
followed up with a listing of options. Discussion continued.
Discussion took place on how best to phrase this question since
many respondents would have little or no knowledge of Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) . It was suggested that a short education on TIF
may be necessary in order to get an accurate response.
Mr. Morris suggested phrasing the question in this manner, "If in
the future the City were to use any surplus funds, which of the
following areas would you prioritize as the most important use of
these funds. " He added that some of the options in the listing
could be: Expansion and improvement of recreation facilities,
completion of the final phase of the downtown streetscape, lowering
income taxes, new construction of roadways and bridgeways, and/or
capital improvement programs.
Discussion was once again held on Question No. 107, relative to the
Railroad Building and how a question of this nature would best be
phrased to get an accurate response.
Mr. Morris suggested that a cost figure may have to be included in
order to get valid response and that this question may have to be
broken down into two separate questions regarding the same subject.
The Committee of the Whole agreed that a cost of "in excess of
$125,000" should be included in the language for this question and
suggested Mr. Morris use two questions, if that was needed in order
to get an accurate response.
Sweeney/Vierling moved that the questions, as modified, in
Attachment 1 be referred to City Council for funding approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Morris stated that the Municipal Facility/Downtown
Redevelopment survey questionnaire has a total of 126 questions,
which will take between 26 - 27 minutes.
The Committee of the Whole then discussed the Level of Services
survey questionnaire, known as Attachment 2.
It was the consensus of the Committee of the Whole to delete
Question No. 5 ("As you may know, property taxes are divided
between the City of Shakopee, Scott County, and local school
district. For each dollar of property taxes you pay, about what
percentage do you think goes to city government?") as this question
really adds nothing to the understanding of the survey.
The Committee of the Whole decided to change the text ("As you may
know, the City share of the property tax in your school district is
Official Proceedings of the June 30, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -6-
about percent. ") that is noted prior to Question No. 6,
delete Question No. 6 ("During the past few years, has the City's
tax rate increased, decreased, or remained about the same?") , and
have the text and the following question, currently known as No. 7,
read, "As you may know, the City's share of the property tax as
noted on your tax statement is %. When you consider the
property taxes you pay and the quality of city services you
receive, would you rate the general value of city services as
excellent, good, only fair, or poor?"
Consensus was to delete questions Nos. 23 - 28, relative to
knowledge of our elected officials, as these questions are not
necessary and many would not be able to respond.
Question No. 34, ("Why did you rate city staff as ?")
after the previous questions on evaluating city staff, should be
deleted.
Discussion was held on questions regarding enforcement of City
Codes and specific ordinances the respondent would feel were not
enforced. The consensus was that No. 36 ("What codes or ordinances
do you feel are not being enforced at about the right level?") may
have to be deleted in order to cut the questions down to the number
units that has been funded.
Decision was made to delete Question Nos. 37 - 41, questions
regarding the respondent's contacting anyone working for the City.
Discussion was held on the value of retaining Questions No.
42 - 51 that discuss housing issues. These questions were deemed
non-pertinent to the level of services, which is the reason for
this portion of the survey questionnaire.
Discussion was held on Question No. 55 ("Which of the following two
statements comes closest to your feelings? A) The City has been
too hard on developers and missed some great opportunities that
have gone elsewhere; B) The City is too easy on developers and
permitted fast growth and environmental problems to occur.") . The
decision was to delete this question since only those individuals
directly involved with the City as either a developer or member of
a particular board would be able to answer this question
accurately.
Discussion was held on whether or not to include Question Nos. 57 -
66, questions relative to direct services supplied by the City
(ie: police, fire, engineering, administration, etc. ) . Mr. Morris
stated that these questions have received a good response when used
in other communities and take approximately 5 - 15 minutes to
answer.
Official Proceedings of the June 30, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -7-
The Acting City Admn. stated that Question Nos. 57 - 66 were
important to determine what our residents feel in regard to level
of services. Consensus was to allow these questions to remain as
a part of the survey questionnaire.
Discussion was then held on the inclusion of Question Nos.
69 - 72 and that the City does not publish its own newsletter. But
a possible question would be to address that issue to see if the
survey reveals a need for a community newsletter.
The first review of this survey questionnaire, Attachment 2, ended
with a total of 32 question units.
Discussion was then held on funds available to cover the cost of
the level of service questions.
Discussion was held that R.A.M.P. (strategic planning facilitator)
funds may be available to use for the excess questions in the level
of services questionnaire.
Sweeney/Vierling moved to recommend to the City Council the
additional 32 questions to those previously recommended. Motion
carried unanimously.
Sweeney/Beard moved to direct staff to search diligently for
funding of $2880 before the contingency fund is used. Motion
carried unanimously.
Bill Morris will prepare another draft survey, taking tonight's
comments into consideration. Before the actual survey commences,
a trial survey run will be conducted. Mr. Morris suggested that
to prevent any further delays, he would fax the next draft to City
staff by Thursday, July 2 , in order to be placed on the
July 7 Council agenda.
The Committee of the Whole extended their compliments to the
Subcommittee for all the hard work put forth in the survey
questionnaires.
Mayor Laurent asked for comments from the members of the
subcommittee. There were no further comments.
The Committee of the Wholerecessedat 9:30 p.m.
The Committee of the Whole reconvened at 9 :40 p.m.
The Finance Director presented the 5-year Capital Improvement List.
Discussion was held on the request for a new copier at the
projected cost of $20, 000 in 1993 and another projected copier
expenditure of $20,000 for 1996. The Finance Director stated that
Official Proceedings of the June 30, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -8-
copiers were only lasting about three years, and the existing
copier was in immediate need of replacement. It was suggested that
staff determine if some of the capital equipment items for City
Hall scheduled for 1993 be purchased in conjunction with any new
furniture or other equipment yet this year.
Discussion was held on the request by the Fire Department for an
aerial truck, projected to cost $550, 000 for 1993 . Specific
discussed was on purchasing vs. refurbishing the existing
equipment.
Discussion was also held on the possibility that surrounding
communities may be dependent upon the City of Shakopee purchasing
an aerial truck to prevent them from having to do so. It was
suggested that City staff contact some of the businesses located in
our neighboring cities, which could potentially have need for the
aerial truck, to see if an agreement could be worked out whereby
they could contribute financially to the purchase of an aerial
truck.
Mr. Ries and Mr. Huge were present, representing the Fire
Department. Mr. Huge indicated that the existing truck could
perhaps be sold for approximately $150,000, thereby reducing the
cost of a new aerial truck. They added that the truck could be
sold for parts, if for nothing else, since the aerial truck was
beyond safe, efficient use.
Comm. Beard asked Mr. Ries and Mr. Huge if they would still require
an aerial truck if neighboring communities had one. The response
was in the affirmative, with both Mr. Ries and Mr. Huge stating the
necessity for the City to have an aerial truck as it is used for
many purposes in fighting fires.
The decision, at this point, was to allow the Fire Department's 5-
year equipment projections to remain as indicated.
Discussion was held on whether or not it would be better to
purchase a street sweeper, as proposed for 1994, at a projected
cost of $120,000 or to contract out for this service. The Public
Works Director will do further research into this issue.
The Public Works Director stated that if the City were to eliminate
all gravel roads there would not be a need for a grader, as
proposed for 1994, at a projected cost of $130, 000. The Public
Works Director stated they may be able to continue to use the
existing grader until all gravel roads are eliminated.
Discussion was held on the gas pump card system, at a cost of
$25,000. The Public Works Director stated this should only be a
one-time purchase, and the use of a pump card would provide better
control on the gas pumps.
Official Proceedings of the June 30, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -9-
Discussion was held on whether or not the City could use a smaller
mower than the one projected for 1993 at an estimated cost of
$43,000.
The Committee of the Whole took no action on the proposed 5-year
Equipment List, but the consensus was to accept the report as a
preliminary working document.
No other business came before the Committee of the Whole.
Thee Committee- � of the Whole adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
t�yflith S. Cox
City Clerk
Jane Vanxaldeghem
Recording Secretary
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1993 BUDGET
DATE: August 7, 1992
Introduction
Attached is information in rough form on the 1993 General Fund Budget in
order to permit Council to begin discussions on the budget. The numbers are
subject to review and adjustment as time permits. On the outside, the department
recommended/requested version of the budget could require a tax levy increase in
the range of 30+/-% if Council wants a balanced budget (no use of fund balance) .
Background
Attached is information on the General Fund 1993 budget in the form of same
dollar levels as 1992, same service levels as 1992 and department requests for
1993. Initially, Council is furnished with just fund summary data on the
division level. This is the level at which Council actually adopts and controls
the budget. There is more detailed information available if Council wants to
review the volume of information submitted. Police and Planning particularly
submitted detailed memos with the budget request. All department heads are
expected to attend the August 11, 1992 council meeting to review their budget
request with Council.
Attachment A is the fund summary for the General Fund showing the major
categories of revenues and expenditures and the excess or "(deficit)" of revenues
and other sources over expenditures and other uses. The last three columns are
for the same dollar level, same service level and department request/recommend
respectively. Attachment B is the division summary showing the same columns as
above.
The same dollar level version of the budget is about 6% higher than 1992 due
primarily to the inclusion of the aerial truck as discussed by Council when
reviewing the Five Year Capital Equipment List. The aerial truck is funded by
a transfer from the Capital Equipment Fund. The same service version is about
11% higher than 1992 (6% for aerial truck) . The request version is about 20%
higher than 1992.
Please keep in mind that the recent years have had extremely tight levy
limits and therefore restricted expenditure budgets in terms of expansion of
services and staff. The 1991 General Fund expenditure budget was a 3.6% increase
over 1990 and the 1992 budget was a 10% increase over 1991. It must be pointed
out however, that the 10% increase included a fire pumper and the costs related
to the operation of the former Marquette Bank building and the integration of the
recreation operation. The City of Shakopee is growing and has the related
pressure for budget expansion due to development and population growth, more
streets, parks, administrative burden, etc. .
Payable 1992 tax levy for the City was $2,624,816. The scheduled levies for
debt service will increase by $29,857 (1.1% of pay 1992 levy) unless Council
decides to cancel two of the levies in the amount of $26,248 which then is a net
increase $3,609. Council used a transfer in from a closing debt service fund to
support the 1992 budget in the amount of $122,000. This type of transfer is not
available in 1993 and to replace that funding with taxes is an increase of 4.7%
in the tax levy. Without going any further, there is a potential tax increase
of 5.8% due to the above factors.
Council may wish to consider using fund balance for some expenditures that
are not annually recurring costs such as the items listed below. Assuming that
these items would stay in the budget, using fund balance would avoid the
necessity of increasing the tax levy by an additional 4.6%
Planning studies $71,500
Library carpet 10,000
Library ADA modifications 4,000
Pool pump 5,000
Pool ADA modifications 10,000
Pool health code modifications 10,000
Pool buildings painting 10.000
Total 120,500
Most of the major expenditure changes relate to personnel. The department
request version includes the following staffing increases;
Administration - add a temporary Administrative Assistant position
($10,000) .
Finance - position budgeted for filling late in 1992 is for full
year 1993 (increase $24,000) .
Legal - additional part time secretary ($10,000) .
Police - additional part time Community Service position ($11,700) .
Retain position assigned to SWMTF when that assignment terminates
for an effective increase in patrol officer staffing (annually
$36,120) .
Fire - additional five firefighters ($15,000) .
Engineering - additional position of Ass't City Engineer ($48,310)
and an additional engineering technician ($39,050) .
Street - additional maintenance worker ($30,000) .
Shop - additional mechanic ($30,740) .
Following is a summary of the major changes between the three levels of
budgets submitted.
The same dollar level as 1992. The major changes from the actual 1992
budget are:
Council Division
No significant change.
Administration Division
Reduction of MIS position to 32 hours per week.
Clerk Division
Due to less elections costs in 1993, the three budget versions
are slightly less than 1992 including some to postage and
printing cost increases.
Finance Division
Additional cost for a change in audit firms
Reduction/loss of Accountant position which will result in
needing to contract out annual report and budget preparation.
Legal Division
This would result in small general reduction in most budget
categories except professional services reduced by $1,300
Planning Division
Reduction in staffing may have to be considered, no long range
planning, no funding for increased planning commission work
including recording secretary, no intern and no computer for
Planner.
General Govt Buildings Division
Due to one less building to operate and no taxes on the new
city hall, all three levels of budget request are less than
1992 budget even when $10,000 is added to recarpet the library
and $4,000 for library ADA items.
Police Division
fr-new-CSOofficer-position @$11,700+, deleting the officer
position assigned to SWMTF, reduction in non-essential capital
equipment in the amount of $6,500 compared to recommendation
but capital is then $14,700 more than 1992.
Fire Division
Move the ambulance costs from Unallocated to Fire Division @
$29,000.
Inclusion of the aerial fire truck Council included in the
Five Year List, @ $550,000 which makes the division more than
the 1992 level.
Inspection Division
All three versions are less than 1992 due to staffing change
and reorganization.
Engineering Division
No change in staffing.
Street Division
Overtime increase $4,780
Pavement preservation restored to $95,000
Capital equipment decreases $26,800
Shop Division
No capital equipment (same as 1992)
Summer helper eliminated
Pool Division
Basically no change.
Park Division
No capital equipment (was $6,000 in 1992)
Recreation Division
Reduce Program supervisor to 3/4 time and Receptionist to 1/2
time. No new programs, possible program cuts, reduce service
to public?, reduce service to associations?.
Refuse/Recycling Division
Increase in the refuse collection costs and offsetting
revenues.
Unallocated Division
Move the ambulance costs from Unallocated to Fire Division.
Contingency at $50,000.
The same service level as 1992. The major changes to achieve the same
service level include;
Council Division
No signficant change.
Administration Division
Same service level at total $12,000 increase.
Clerk Division
Due to less elections costs in 1993, the three budget versions
are slightly less than 1992 with increase in postage and
printing costs.
Finance Division
A full years cost for the fourth employee in Finance —
increase of about $26,000.
Additional cost for a change in audit firms ($8,000) .
Legal Division
New part time secretary in Legal @ $10,000, printer @ $2,000,
pay equity adjustment $4,000.
Planning Division
Intern position included as it was in 1992 budget ($1,300) , no
long range planning, no computer for Planner.
General Govt Buildings Division
Due to one less building to operate and no taxes on the new
city hall, all three levels of budget request are less than
1992 budget even when $10,000 is added to recarpet the library
and included $4,000 for library ADA items.
Police Division
-A—new—CSC offioer—position-@$11,700+, retaining the officer
position assigned to SWMTF for an effective increase in city
force @ $36,120, reduction in non-essential capital equipment
@ $4,000.
Fire Division
Move the ambulance costs from Unallocated to Fire Division @
$29,000.
Inclusion of the aerial fire truck Council included in the
Five Year List @ $550,000.
Inspection Division
All three version are less than 1992 due to staffing change
and reorganization.
Engineering Division
Additional Engineering Tech @ $39,050, Secretary from 3/4 to
full time $9,260.
Street Division
Overtime increase $4,780
Additional Maintenance Worker
Pavement preservation restored to $95,000
Capital equipment decreases $26,800
Shop Division
Summer helper retained
Capital equipment included @ $45,000
Pool Division
Basically no change.
Park Division
Capital equipment @ $68,000
Recreation Division
Reduce Program supervisor to 3/4 time and Receptionist to 3/4
time. No new programs possible, reduce service to public and
associations?.
Refuse/Recycling Division
Increase in the refuse collection costs and revenues.
Unallocated Division
Move the ambulance costs from Unallocated to Fire Division.
Division requests/recommendations for 1993. The major changes for the
division requests include;
Council Division
Administration Division
Additional part time Administrative Assistant position, cable
access studio equipment, total cost increase over same service
level is $41,000.
Clerk Division
Due to less elections costs in 1993, the three budget versions
are slightly less than 1992 with postage and printing costs
increases.
Finance Division
A full years cost for the fourth employee in Finance — an
increase of about $26,000.
Additional cost for a change in audit firms ($8,000) .
Legal Division
New part time secretary in Legal @ $10,000, printer @ $2,000,
zoning ordinance consultant @ $6,000, pay equity adjustment
$4,000.
Planning Division
Intern position included as was it in 1992 budget ($1,300) ,
computer for Planner, $71,500 for consultant on 5 studies -
downtown $10,000, bypass noise $10,000, traffic control
$15,000, east Shakopee transportation $16,500, CR 17/bypass
$20,000.
General Govt Buildings Division
Due to one less building to operate and no taxes on the new
city hall, all three levels of budget request are less than
1992 budget even when $10,000 is added to recarpet the library
and $4,000 included for library ADA items.
Police Division
A new CSO officer position @$11,700+, retaining the officer
position assigned to SWMTF for an effective increase in city
force @ $36,120.
Fire Division
Move the ambulance costs from Unallocated to Fire Division @
$29,000.
Inclusion of the aerial fire truck Council included in the
Five Year List @ $550,000.
Five additional fire fighters @ $3,000 each, additional
training and conference budget due to OSHA, NFPA and hazardous
material @ $7,000.
Inspection Division
All three version are less than 1992 due to staffing change
and reorganization.
Engineering Division
Additional Assistant City Engineer @ $48,310, Additional
Engineering Tech @ $39,050, Secretary from 3/4 to full time
$9,260.
Street Division
Overtime increase $4,780
Additional Maintenance Worker
Pavement preservation restored to $95,000
Capital equipment decreases $26,800
Shop Division
Additional Mechanic
Summer helper retained
Capital equipment included @ $45,000
Pool Division
Concession area/shower area Health code compliance $10,000,
restroom/changing area ADA compliance $10,000, sand
blast/repaint buildings $10,000, new pump $5,000.
Park Division
Two summer employees ($3900 total 2 employees)
Capital equipment @ $68,000
Recreation Division
Reduce Program supervisor to 3/4 time and Receptionist to 3/4
time. No new programs, possible program cuts, possible
reduction in service to public and associations?.
Refuse/Recycling Division
Increase in the refuse collection costs and revenues.
Unallocated Division
Move the ambulance costs from Unallocated to Fire Division.
Action Requested
Review the budget requests for each division with the department heads.
Give staff direction on which version of each division budget staff should
proceed with processing, reviewing in detail and finalizing for further Council
action.
p Er) mm 00 It m a H
D4 D4 0 t O 0 0' 0.00 0 Z .'O MI N 0'C = fr+1 n H r Vi HDC < ED
0. m R m m 0 G M N m 0 0 m m HE 'Y 0 Y••O M m W
0 0• la H M m N H N O CY 0. 0 0 H N 0 m rt 0 m % 0
CO O• ry N h' Co 0 O R Y Y m C O m m n m m O m C 0
0a Y• N 0 En R m m Y• F* R H rt m m COR 'J • N m Cil
Y R MO 61^ 0 Y@ O 0 W R 0 Y N OG 0 0 Z
0 F Vl O. O F % P- Y Y R Y F Y Y W N O M Y C'1
O 'S 0 0 N CI TI m 0 H L VI M O 0 G 0
O m C M O m M ['I 0 0 0 m 0 m 'rd 0 P• M M 9
O N R Y• 0 0 H. % N 0 M M O N 0 0 O M W N r
0 0 w O. 'Fm 0 •d 0 ' C 4 O '+l n p
o R' m r• t•• m 0 m rt m m F O P. 0
O 0 N 0 C O la,
m B F Co RE m 0 'V Ca z
m ED R p m n 0 Y• m m I R m 3 0
B 0• C '4 m y rt m r < m n m
C m m x C 0 Ott n Y 9 0 C
n R K 73 v m rt
m rt m 0
W N C 0 La N o
H
Y y C 0
N
m 0 C
CO to
<n ,
Y I ^ C Y Y W H
.0 IN
O 0 QW N Y W r C10 co Y J W co m Y
LaJ 1 (n C l J J W W N N W J O1 Ol C VI In 0 R 0
W O f+ 0- In In Y C F O O Y Y C -0Fm
lP I lA W CO 0 0 VD N N CO W 0 l0 J C 1/40 N 0 Y
O W Na W to Vi W Y W Ln Y to vO 0 F Y N
WI ON O '0 Ln Y 0N1--E '0 l0 ON N NYWOO
Y I _ C Y Y .0 Na
N -
(p I l➢ J Y W nColm - -
Y N ED VI Iv 0 O Y
al I N Y Co 0 C CO W Y J 0 Y VI 4O ccN rt 0)
0' 1/40 0l J N N 0 O W F vi Ca Y J l0 Y w '0
1 -
Ol I Y F W O 0 J Vi Y co Y N F CO 0 0 1/4.0 Y
Y Y N 0 CO CO l0 W l0 J CO Y C W W l0 CO
'0 1 O' P W W Ol J W Y W 0 O lO CO l0 0l O J
1
-Cl' 0
Y 1 W Y Y Y C N m
_ N
Co I r. ED l0 0 Y W W ON Y Y Y 1/40 Cr, N 0 R Y
lli 1 fA 0 Y C' O W CO %0 W C l0 N N VZ Cl 0 Y. •0
J I CO C W Y ED Co O NO N Co 0Y W W az
w N
J I 'O Y 0 N) 0 N F EO J N Y O Y J l0 Y rt
N I 0 0 0 Y Y I-“O T 0 'D 0 C C o 0 l0 m
O O 00' S 0 0i-111.000 W 0000000
I
Y I ^ Y Y In Y N Y C N 0
n 0
Y Y Y W C Y W InO 0 0 Y 'COIN 0 Y N Y
1 .0 W W W W l0 W Co l0 Y W r W ON H w l0
I.' W I C W CO to N Co J Co La 0 Co Y l0 Y 10 CO M N W
-C co I N J O N 0 0 l0 CO F to J 0 co C C CO N
EIC Jvi y I v O Co b UUn OU000 0l In co IH O Ui FMD N' OO UCn
TO •-• NCil
- Y IY Y W Y N Y C m
N
u W I W l0 CC CO Y P Y U J O Y O Y lO ON N0 M V) Y
• W N N W In Y l0 O NO Y In C W ON -4 4 N `0
P I N W W 0 N O CT C J F Co Y lO Y ED W H.0 N '0
^-• 0 1 0 J CO Y O W O N W N J O W C C Co m
. (In I IT Co P W OW 4- 00 CO N O lO N O 0-
i
i r lLco C l0 W 00000 ON In 0 Ut Y o 0 Ln
I
to .. 40 A
Y 11-4 Y ON Y N Y C N 0
1 J Y0 0 N Ol J Y Na 0 Y lO 0 Na 0 O o H
CO I N ON In O In •O W J 0 Y W 0 W of J 9 m 110
C CO CO Y W W C C co Y to 1-“C) Co 3m 'O rt CO
C IO N J O La 0 N 0 W Y N J O Co 0 C W 'J'
l0 co CO Y 0 0c VD -a W Co N O N NO C a
0 1 0 or r 0 00000 m In 0 Yo 0In
c 'nOiromC) V1011-. '.1roc) ro r °400C) r C)
0 o N w £ W 'Y rt '.1 '.1 Y• O O Y N . Y O O
H pi 'i O M H. H O MOO N t5 Y 4 N 00 O N a G 'O H
• Y (D M x 3 OA"0 N H.,0 N Y. _ p W W h H. 7 W '4
pt Y m N g p N .^J N O rt ? ' 7 'Y. 7 O
'J" o rt w rt N O CD n H I.J. C) 0
N O M rt O N Oct W 0 N N Y N "1
M N 1/44 H. OG tS Y. G OO ci 0
O et 0 0 H. O Y. CI N L
n m 0 It o 7 7 Y w n
N a o Y O4 a rt W
�
• m 7 0 YH.
0 0
n In ❑ 4 'a 'v
ft to N a m
F _
O 0
C to 3
G H
a z
In z
ED m
rt co
O
co H
i9
PI
I-1
F 1-. to 9 C
Ico P N) F VI NY NY Y YY 'CY ft 1/44
N0 Vi Y N PO O N Co Y P W co J J 0 J O Y ft 'O
P VI F W P N N Co F+ P J Y 10 W W W P 0 W J G O
0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ w O Y.
I Vi N WO .O P W N Y W W Y W P 0 N CO N V Co Y Y 4
Y 0 O Y J F NJ NO O Co J O P N P P Oto O O to
Y.
0
-CO. 7
F Y 9
rt
to J N F U N Y N N Y 0 Y
N N NO N J W CO Co N P N .O Co b F a. b
N Y W F V Y 0 Co to J W NJ VI N O Co N G ,O
p+ Y
Co▪ CO O J Y 0 W 0 Y N F W J VD Y Y F OF V to Y
W cfn J W J W 0 0 W W O Y Co W tP N Y Y Vi
N
to Y C+
G Ca
10 Y Y N Y F P N Y t.. N H N Y N Y Na fA Y C Y
1I P 0 %O W Y O) P P W co P F W Y F Y W W `4 O• .O
Y 'o F Y N 0b000 to 0 Y O Y N Y O CO P
I
_ 0 N CO
N F P CO O F J O P Y to F 0 J O J O. P P N rt
IY Y NO CO P W CO J P to N J Vi P P F J O W
O 0 O 0 t o O O L n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IP
IUlW
Y YNYCJI PNY NJ NOYNYN- 0 Nr. OY
CO N 0 W Y N P F W N OO P O Y N Y PC 0
N N Y co co 'O ‘O to b F F Co Y Y VD 0 O W N 0 No
Y Y W
I N 0 ' CO N to J N 0 W W F Y P 0 0 0 P .D Y
10 0 Y Co co to co V• P m J J P N P W P O N W
I Ut 0 O Oto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IP
IPo
ul Y
P N
Y YNY WYPNY JN NY Y NfA t
Y
CO W V F Y Y J Co N P 0 P W NUY W W C Co b
IO N N N 0 WP F Y NO Co P O Y Co Y 0 O W
IY 0 O N N VI Co F J CO O Y VP N U b P D N H
C
I W O Y 0 0 0 CO W Co Co to V P N J Y P O Co
I In 0 000 000000000005000 N
I in 00
m 373 0
O 'd
10 N) Y W Y to Y P W Y W CO Y 0 Y N Y P-CO 0 P F+
IW 0 kO Y F Y F J co N N 0 0 J Y P rt w
m N N O W W J F O yo N W W F m O W O rt W
I W 0 0-
N Y VI P F 0 W to Co Y N N W P J F 0 N
0 0 Y 0 0 0 N In 0 Co N Ut cn No J 0 0 0 Y 0. 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1993 Budget Critical Dates
September 15 1992
City must certify proposed maximum tax levy and budget hearing date to the
County Auditor on or before this date. Another communication from the
state indicates that cities are also supposed to adopt proposed budgets
November 30 - December 21, 1992
Budget hearing held in this time period except not on Sunday or on
December 8. Final tax levy and budget adopted at the conclusion of the
hearing.
December 28. 1992
Final tax levy certified on of before December 28, 1992.