HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/29/1992 TENTATIVE AGENDA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 29, 1992
Mayor Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M.
2] Approval of the Minutes of August 25, and September 8, 1992
3] Sioux Community Center - Presentation by Bill Rudnicki,
Wm Engelhardt Associates, Inc.
4] Municipal Facility Survey Results - Presentation by Bill
Morris, Decision Resources
5] Other Business
a]
bJ
6] Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: September 25, 1992
1. Attached is a memorandum from the City Administrator regarding
the Court Decision on Police Sergeant Promotion Lawsuit for
your information.
2 . Attached are the results of the September 15, 1992 Primary
Election.
3 . Attached is a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding NBZ
Appeal.
4 . Attached is the October calendar of Upcoming Meetings.
5. Attached are the unapproved minutes of the September 16, 1992
meeting of the Community Development Commission.
6. Attached is the October Business Update from City Hall.
4l
MEMO TO: The Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Court Decision on Police Sergeant Promotion Lawsuit
DATE: September 23 , 1992
Attached please find a copy of the Judge's decision on the lawsuit
between the City of Shakopee and Teamsters Local 320 - Police
Officers Unit. In essence, the Judge ruled that the test was not
valid because seniority was not specifically utilized by the Civil
Service Commission in the Police Sergeant' s promotional test. As
a result of that the Judge has enjoined the City and the Civil
Service Commission from using the current list for promotional
purposes. This list expires in December of this year.
The alternatives open to us at this time are: (1) Appeal the
decision to the Court of Appeals, or (2) Write a new test and
administer that to perspective applicants.
This item will be put on the October 6th agenda for discussion. No
immediate action is needed on this subject.
If you have questions on this please do not hesitate to contact
either the City Attorney or myself.
_ - --- �. 0Y4 4:10 u107 TO: 6728963333 PAGE: 2
09/22/92 10:21 DAKO"A CO. DISTRICT COURT-DIV I2
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF SCOTT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
•
Court File No. 9200814
Minnesota Teamsters Publics and
Law Enforcement Employees Union,
Local No. 320,
Plaintiff,
vs. FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS or LAW,
Shakopee Police Civil Service AND ORDER
Commission and city of Shakopee,
a Minnesota municipality,
Defendants.
Tho above matter came on for court trial before the
undersigned Judge of District Court on September 16, 17, and 18,
1992, at the Scott County Courthouse.
Plaintiff appeared by and through its counsel, John W.
Quarnstrom, Esq. Defendants appeared by and through their counsel,
Christopher J. Harristhal , Esq. •
Based upon the evidence adduced at trial and upon the
file, record, and proceedings herein, the Court makes the
followings
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Minnesota Teamsters public and Law Enforcement
Employees Union, Local 320 (hereinafter "Union" ) , is the duly
authorized bargaining agent for police officers in the City of
•
Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota.
2. The defendant City of Shakopee (hereinafter "City")
1
-- T. 014 4.',t3 37E1 TO: 6125963233 ?AGc: 3
09/22/97 10:21
DA;;OTR CO. DISTRICT COURT-D:V I 003
is the employer of the Union members. The Union and the City
entered into a collective bargaining agreement in 1990. (Trial
Exhibit No. 25) .
3 . The defendant Shakopee Police civil Servide
Commission (hereinafter "Commission") is a separate and distinct
entity from the City of Shakopee and has absolute control and
supervision over the employment and promotion of all members of the
police department. The Commission was created pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 419.
4 . Eight members of the union were candidates for the
1990 examination for promotion to sergeant on tha city's police
force.
5. The examination was conducted in December, 1990.
6 . The Union alleges that the examination was done in an •
illegal manner as records of seniority were not considered by thn
Commission in ranking the candidates and preparing an eligibility
roster.
7. The promotion test consisted of an in-basket
exercise, rankings of promotability by both supervisors and the
ether candidates, and an oral interview.
8 . The in-basket exercise was a written test in which
the candidate was directed to respond to various hypothetical
situations that could arise in the Course of a sergeant's duties.
9 . The promotability portion of the test consisted of
assessments of the candidates leadership and other skills, those
assessments being done separately by supervisors and by the other
2
cls 438 8161 TO: 6128963333 PAGE: 4
09/22/S2 10:22 DAKOTA CO. DISTRICT COURT-DIV I 004
•
candidates.
10 . The written instructions for the promotability
ratings directed the evaluators to confine their assessment to
behaviors and incidents observed within the two-year period
preceding the administration of the test.
11 . A candidate had to receive a 70% score on both the
in--basket and promotability portions of the test in order to
proceed to the oral interview. Three of the eight applicants did
not receive passing grades. This group included the two patrol
Officers having the greatest amount of seniority.
12. The Commission then interviewed the five finalists
and submitted an eligibility roster to the city council. The city
council can select any of the top three finalists for promotion.
13 . Officer Erlandson has already been. promoted to
sergeant from that eligibility roster.
14 . The Union seeks to enjoin the Defendants from any
further reliance on this roster, based on the lack of consideration
of records of seniority and other alleged improprieties in the
testing process.
15. Thomas Steininger was appointed ass Chief of Police
for Shakopee in February, 1990.
16 . Steininger testified that when he became chief he no
longer allowed supervisors to have access to patrol officers'
personnel files.
17. Steininger testified that when he completed the
promotability as assessed by supervisors portion of the test, he
3
-
•sac rrsum: 612 436 8161 TO: 6128963333 PAGE: 5
OS/22/92 10:22 DAKOTA CC. DISTRICT CaLJRT-DIV I 005
• i
did not have written records of seniority in hand, rathor, he ,
relied upon his personal knowledge of the candidates. •
18. Steininger testified that he did not know what
records , if any, were supplied to the candidates to assist them in
considering their fellow candidates, seniority.
19. Steininger testified that he did not know what
records of seniority, if any, were made available to the evaluators
conducting the oral interviews.
20. Steininger assumed that more experienced officers
would have "an advantage' in completing the portions of the in-
basket test relating to office rules and prooeduree.
21. Marcia Spagnolo was a member of the Commismion in
1990 and participated in the oral interviews.
22. Spagnolo did not receive or review records of
- i
seniority as part of the evaluation process.
•
23 . Spagnolo testified that she took seniority into
consideration in making her assessments as follows: the' candidatea
were invited to submit resumes, which provided then with an
opportunity to inform the Commission or their background and
experience; the last question during the interview was open-ended
and provided the candidate with an opportunity to provide input
regarding his seniority; and she has lived in Shakopee for
approximately 30 years and has anecdotal information about the
candidates differing numbers of years of seniority.
24. Only four of the five candidates submitted resumes.
The closing question inappropriately put the burden on the
4
.,o;« !v.Qo 1 Vc mum: 612 438 8161 TO: 61.28963333 PAGE: 6
0922/52 13:22 DAKOTR CO. DISTRICT CO:ART-D:V I 025
applicant to provide information on seniority in lieu of records of
seniority. The anecdotal information possessed by Spagnolo
regarding seniority does not meet the statutory requirement of
•
consideration of records of seniority and, indeed, as regards two
of the candidates, was grossly incorrect.
25. Richard Muicrone was a member of the Commission in
1990 and participated in the oral interviews.
26. Mulcrone testified ha received no written
instructions requiring any consideration of seniority. Mulcrona
testified that he doesn't recall receiving any written records
regarding the candidates' seniority.
27. Harold Brull is an industrial organizational
psychologist and a licensed psychologist. He is employed by
•
Personnel Development, Inc. and participated in preparing and
scoring the 1990 sergeant promotion examination.
28 . Brull testified that seniority was a consideration
in preparing the test in that the job posting required that
candidates have three years of police experience and the
promotability index included a question relating to knowledge of
office procedures, meaning that an applicant with no seniority
wouldn't be familiar with departmental rules and regulations and
presumably wouldn't score as well as a candidate who did have some
experience with the department.
29. The job posting required three years of police
experience. The written test instructions directed that
promotability assessments be based upon behaviors observed within
5
"ca cv.v'v ftr e rriw,: 612 436 9461 T3: 61289E3333 PAGE: 7
0322/92 1 a:23 D4KC i A CO. DISTRICT COJRT-DIV I 807
the two-year period preceding the examination. These parameters
result in seniority, in this case, being considered only to the
extent that the patrol officer has three years of police
experience.
30. The statute would not require consideration of
records of seniority if "seniority" was synonymous with meeting the
minimum experience level required to apply for the sergeant
position.
31. The Union additionally alleges that the results of
the 1990 sergeant examination were influenced by bias on the part
of supervisors and/or peers. The Union has failed to eatablinh tho
existence of such bias.
32. The Union additionally alleges that the commission
had amended the Civil Service Rules it issued in 1977 by adding a
requirement that seniority be factored in to the promotion test
results in the form of a .125 numeric formula for each month of
service. The Union has failed to establish that such an amendment
was unanimously adopted by the Commission as required by its Rules.
33 . The Union additionally alleges that prior sergeant
promotion examinations had required that the candidate have three
years of experience with the Shakopee Police Department. The Union
has failed to establish that such a requirement existed in the past.
or in 1990.
34 . Defendants argue that the final ranking of tha
candidates' test results would be the same even if the .125 numeric
formula for seniority was applied to each of the five finalists'
6
. _.-.. , nyM. we 4::t, 0;51 T0: 61289e3333 PA3E: 8
09%22/92 12:23 D4 OTA CO. DISTRICT CCU T-D'.0 I 009
total scores and, therefore, the issue of any alleged improprieties
in the administration of the teat is moot.
The Commission is required to at least substantially.
comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes section 419 .06.
The Commission has failed the substantial compliance _
requirement in that promotion is to be based upon competitive '
examination and uponQLde
of efficiency, character , conduct, and
seniority. There has been no showing that any records of
efficiency, character, conduct, or seniority were made available to
or reviewed by any of the evaluators involved in the tasting
process . Anecdotal information and mere conjecture are not
sufficient to meet the statutory requirement of review of records.
Chapter 419 does not mandate the inclusion of a numeric
formula for seniority; it does require Consideration of records of
seniority. It is speculative to assume that the' test results would
be identical as to all eight applicants if records of seniority had
been considered by the evaluators .
35. Defendants allege that the Union has a conflict of
interest in pursuing this litigation 8e retesting
of the candidates i
could result in modification of the existing eligibility roster
and, therefore, one or more of its members could be negatively
impacted by this litigation. Uncontroverted testimony Was provided
that the voting members of the Union unanimously voted in favor of
pursuing this litigation. The Union would have a conflict of
interest in declining to pursue its members' mandate.
36. Defendants allege that the Union lacics standing to
7
..i'v.. - -- - -•''
09/22 10:36 1992 FROM: 812 438 6161 TO: 6128963333 PAGE: 9
09/22/92 1E:24 D4-:07A CO. DISTRICT COAT-DIV I 009
pursue this litigation as there has been no showing of harm to ite:
members, i.e. the five finalists' rankings would not be altered
even if seniority points were added to their test scores in the
form of the .125 numeric formula.
Chapter 419 does not mandate the inclusion of a numeric
formula for seniority; it does require consideration of records of
seniority. It is speculative to assume that the test results would
be identical as to all eight applicants if records of seniority had
been considered by the evaluators,
37 . Defendants allege that the Union failed to exhauot
its administrative remedies in that the Union did not file a
grievance against the City of Shakopee• The Union is not alleging
a violation of its collective bargaining agreement with the City.
Rather, the Union alleges that the Commission failed to meet the
statutory requirement of fair and impartial testing. The Union has
no collective bargaining agreement with the Commission and,
therefore, no formal grievance process with the commission. There
are no administrative remedies to be exhausted,
eased upon the foregoing, the Court makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF L?IW
1 . Plaintiff has met its burden of proof in showing that
the Commission's 1990 Sergeant Test was not conducted fairly and
impartially as the test did not include consideration of records of
seniority.
2. A permanent injunction against Defendants' further
reliance upon the test results is appropriate.
B
H D - -
09/22 10:37 1592 FROM: 612 438 8161 70: 6128963333 PACS:: 10
99/22/92 10:24 DAKOTA CO. DISTRICT COURT-DIV I 010
Based upon the foregoing, the Court makes the following:
ORDER •
1. The above-named Defendants, their agents, .
•
representatives, attorneys and all others in active ooneort or
participation with them bo, and hereby are, restrained and enjoined
from using, referring to or in any way relying upon the 1990
Sergeant Test conducted by the Shakopee Police Civil Service
Co mission.
Dated: September c9c , 1992. BY THE cOURT
Patrice I( Sutherland
Judge of District Court
••
9
#o?
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PRIMARY ELECTION
Precincts I II III IV V TOTAL
Registered Voters 1188 1069 1615 1766 1241 6879
Voters 371 327 306 343 314 1661
% of Registered
Voters Voting 31% 31% 19% 19% 25% 24%
THIRD COMMISSIONER DISTRICT
TWO YEAR TERM
FOSLID 121 98 63 82 93 457
LINK 129 98 99 77 95 498
LOONEN 24 31 36 69 43 203
BOB VIERLING 12 16 10 2 4 44
GLORIA VIERLING 66 64 78 94 58 360
UNDER VOTES 3 5 5 10 4 27
OVER VOTES 16 15 15 9 17 72
4* 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney
DATE: September 11, 1992
RE: NBZ Appeal
As you know, last month we received the Court of Appeals
decision in the NBZ appeal. The Court ruled that although we
could not entirely revoke their conditional use permit, they
could not place a ready mix plant on their mining site. They are
now seeking to appeal this decision to the Minnesota Supreme
Court. George Hoff, who is handling this case for the City, will
file a response by the end of the month. We do not feel this
case is of state-wide interest, or badly decided, so we will be
arguing against the Supreme Court granting review.
If you have any questions or comments about this, please let
me know.
KEM:bj m
[11MEMO]
cc: Dennis Kraft
Lindberg Ekola
4i- Li
October 1992
UPCOMING MEETINGS
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4:30pm Public 7:00pm City 7:30pm Planning
Utilities Council Commission
Meeting
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
7:00pm City 5:30pm
Council Community
Meeting Development
Commission
7:00pm Energy &
Transportation
Committee
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
7:00pm Park and
Recreation
Board
I
September November
SMTWTFS SMTWTFS
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 29 30
09/22/1992
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
Vice Chairman Albinson called the meeting to order at 5: 30 p.m.
with Commissioners Brandmire, Miller, Unseth, Van Horn, Albinson
and Phillips present. Commissioner Mars was absent. Barry Stock,
Assistant City Administrator was also present.
Van Horn/Brandmire moved to approve the minutes of the July 15,
1992 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock gave a brief economic development update highlighting the
following projects - Rahr Malting, Canterbury Downs, and potential
hotel development projects.
Mr. Stock then gave a brief update on the Universal Forest Products
proposed wood treatment facility. Mr. Stock stated the Universal
Forest Products has applied for a rezoning of their property to
construct a wood treatment facility. Mr. Stock stated that the
rezoning has been denied by both the Planning Commission and City
Council. The City Council has directed staff to work with
Universal Forest Products to develop a possible change to the
planning text that would allow wood treatment facilities as a
conditional use in the I-1 zone. Mr. Stock stated that staff is
also investigating the possibility of relocating the proposed
facility to another area within the City that is properly zoned.
Universal Forest Products currently has approximately 12 full-time
employees. When the proposed plant is complete they expect to have
approximately 24 employees. Mr. Stock noted that Universal Forest
Products would not meet all three of the development criteria as
set forth in the City's tax increment assistance program. Mr.
Stock questioned whether or not the Commission would be in support
of waiving the employment guidelines in this case to retain
Universal Forest Products in Shakopee. Mr. Stock stated that he
does not know if Universal Forest Products would even consider
relocating just a portion of their facility to a separate site in
Shakopee. Mr. Stock stated that he thought it would not be cost
effective to have two separate plants in Shakopee. However, this
has not been confirmed by Universal Forest Product officials. Mr.
Stock went on to state that Universal Forest Products sight is
adjacent to a multi-family residential area. Additionally,
Universal Forest Products industrial business neighbors are
currently non-conforming uses.
Commissioner Mars arrived at 5: 38 p.m.
Mr. Miller stated that he felt that the State and Federal
Government had regulatory agencies in place that could best monitor
the hazardous chemical issues as they relate to this project.
Commissioner Brandmire stated that he was concerned about the
devaluation of the adjacent property if this type of project were
allowed. He stated that he felt that the devaluation of adjacent
Official Proceedings of the September 16, 1992
Community Development Commission Page -2-
property might more than offset the increased tax base as a result
of the new project. Commissioner Mars questioned what the City's
role should be in assisting businesses such as this in relocating
their project to a more suitable site from a land use standpoint.
In regard to the use of tax increment to relocate this development
project, Commissioner Brandmire stated that he did not feel that it
met the criteria in terms of employment and therefore should not be
considered.
Mr. Mars stated that he felt amending the City Code to allow this
type of project as a conditional use permit was essentially
developing a loop hole and at this time with the information that
he has he could not support it. Mr. Mars stated that it might be
a bit premature to make any final decision on this until we have
the opportunity to meet with the developer and ask further
questions on their proposal. Mr. Stock stated that a meeting has
been set up for September 17th with the Developer and City staff to
address in greater detail the concerns expressed by City Council
and the Planning Commission. He stated that he would report back
at the next meeting on the status of the project.
Discussion then ensued on the Downtown Analysis. Mr. Stock stated
that during the past month he has had the opportunity to visit the
Communities of Stillwater and Red Wing. He stated that both
communities have undergone downtown redevelopment projects in the
last two years. He noted that in Stillwater the St. Croix River
tends to be the major focus of attraction. Stillwater also has a
large number of antique shops which attract many tourists. Last
year Stillwater embarked on a downtown redevelopment project which
included complete infra-structure improvements and sidewalk and
pavement reconstruction. The project was financed through a 25%
assessment and 75% tax increment policy. Initially Stillwater
intended to include streetscape elements such as lighting and
benches. However, as the project commenced it was determined that
there were not adequate funds to complete the project as initially
proposed. This greatly upset many of the downtown business owners.
From a building redevelopment standpoint, Stillwater has taken a
regulatory approach. The City created a historic district that is
on the national register of historic places. The City also has a
Historic Preservation Committee that reviews all building permits
in the downtown area. All projects must meet the national
register of historic places development guidelines. The City of
Stillwater did not develop any programs to offer assistance to
property owners who are improving their buildings.
Red Wing is situated on the Mississippi River approximately 30 mile
south of St. Paul. Red Wings downtown is quite a bit larger than
downtown Shakopee. The twelve to sixteen block area is developed
to a much greater intensity than downtown Shakopee. Several years
ago the Red Wing Shoe Company purchased the St. James Motel and
completely rehabilitated it to it's original condition. The
Official Proceedings of the September 16, 1992
Community Development Commission Page -3-
project cost was $10 million. The City created a tax increment
district and captured the increment from the project. The City
then acquired the property adjacent to the St. James Motel which
was subsequently resold to the Red Wing Shoe Company who again
rehabilitated an entire block once again generating a project value
of $10 million. The City again captured the increment from this
project. The captured tax increment was utilized by the City of
Red Wing to build a parking ramp adjacent to the Red Wing Hotel and
also complete several park and outside mall thoroughfares in the
downtown area. The City of Red Wing also purchased the old
railroad depot which was subsequently sold to a developer. The
private developer again invested several million into the
improvement project which again was captured by the City in a tax
increment project. The City of Red Wing is somewhat unique in that
they have a separate Housing and Redevelopment Authority with a
full-time Executive Director and a separate Port Authority with a
full time Director. Both the Port Authority and Redevelopment
Authority are active in promoting economic development and
redevelopment projects in the City. Several years ago the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority took a proactive stance in developing
two major housing projects in the downtown area. Both of the
projects are comparable to the Shakopee Senior Highrise in terms of
density. Mr. Stock stated that both Red Wing and Stillwater have
significantly improved access to their river front. Chaska has
also invested significant dollars into their downtown park square.
All three of the communities surveyed believe that these park areas
are critical to the success of their downtown areas.
Commissioner Brandmire stated that he would like this report to
address things that the City can do that would not be a direct
financial contribution to a developer. Such as, improving the
river front and Huber Park area and development of additional
parking areas in the downtown.
Commissioner Brandmire stated that he felt that if the City
aggressively promoted public projects such as this that downtown
business owners would perhaps take the initiative on their own to
improve their property.
Mr. Albinson stated that generally he concurred with Mr. Brandmire
but that there was a feeling several years ago that the City had
contributed a significant amounts already to the downtown area and
that to date there has been very little new private investment.
Mr. Miller stated that while the river is an amenity it will never
be the St. Croix or Mississippi River. However, with the Minnesota
River Valley Trail and the natural amenity that the river has to
offer that some type of improvement along the river is critical.
In Red Wing a private developer had to invest $20 million before
the rest of the
Official Proceedings of the September 16, 1992
Community Development Commission Page -4-
downtown business owners got the message that perhaps they too
needed to improve their buildings. Mr. Brandmire stated that
generally a business owner reacts once the crowd is there. It is
difficult to tell a business owner to incur development costs up
front not knowing the future.
Mr. Stock stated that ultimately the Committee should develop a
work plan addressing all the concepts that need further analysis.
We also need to evaluate the cost benefit of spending one million
to acquire and demolish Block 4 versus spending one million on
public improvements. Discussion ensued on the development options
for Block 4 . Commissioner Van Horn stated that he felt it was
premature to make a decision on what to do with Block 4 until such
time that we decide what we want to do with the overall downtown
area. Mr. Van Horn stated that he felt it would be silly to
demolish Block 4 without having addressed what' s going to be done
with the other City owned property in the downtown area. Mr. Stock
stated that this is where the work plan concept would come into
play. Early on when we began this process we recognized that you
couldn't solely look at Block 4 without looking at the entire
downtown area. Perhaps there are several other steps that the City
needs to investigate and pursue prior to making a formal decision
on the development of Block 4 .
Commissioner Mars stated that at this time he was of the feeling
that the City should acquire the entire block. He stated that he
felt the price will never be lower and that we could then have
development control. Commissioner Miller stated that he was not in
support of that action because then the City would have to play the
role of landlord until such time that something was actually done.
Mr. Stock stated that perhaps the Commission should identify those
things that need to be done irregardless of what is done with Block
4 . Consensus of the Committee was that the following issues needed
to be addressed if the City of Shakopee really is interested in
rejuvenating downtown Shakopee: 1) Housing component, 2) Open
space/green space development, 3) River front improvement, 4)
Parking.
Mr. Miller stated that it would be beneficial to have some general
budget cost estimates to do some of the public improvements that
have been discussed this evening. Mr. Stock stated that he could
develop some preliminary cost estimates for some of the items that
have been presented by the Commission. Mr. Miller suggested that
the Commission set a work session to address the various public
improvement ideas that have been discussed this evening. It was
the consensus of the Commission to set up a work session for
October 7th at 5: 30 p.m. Mr. Stock stated that he would get back
to each Committee member with an exact meeting location and agenda
format.
Official Proceedings of the September 16, 1992
Community Development Commission Page -5-
Brandmire/Miller moved to table discussion on the downtown analysis
and directed staff to set up a work session for October 7th at 5:30
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock stated that he would like the Commission to discuss the
possibility of amending the tax increment assistance policy
guidelines. Mr. Stock noted that at the present time there are
three development criteria that a potential prospect must meet in
order to be eligible for tax increment assistance. Discussion
ensued on what position the City would take if a prospect did not
meet all the criteria to an exact T. Mr. Miller stated that he
felt the guidelines were simply established to be that.
Commissioner Brandmire concurred and stated that Section L of the
guidelines allow the City to approve projects which substantially
comply with the development criteria as set forth in the program
providing other tangential items such as building materials,
building quality, job quality, etc. exceed normal standards and
have in the Council 's judgement a significant positive impact on
the Community. Mr. Miller stated that he felt that the guidelines
have worked for the past several years and that they should not be
modified at this time. He went on to state that everytime a policy
is amended it tends to loose some of its strength. It was the
consensus of the Committee to maintain the status quo in regard to
the industrial development incentive policy and the eligibility
criteria as set forth.
Mr. Stock stated that the agenda included a proposed listing of the
projects that have been identified by the Planning Department for
further analysis. Mr. Stock questioned whether or not the
Committee would like to be updated on each of the plans in greater
detail by the City Planner. It was the consensus of the Commission
that they would like the City Planner to give a presentation on the
proposed listing of projects. The Commission felt that they may
have comments and/or suggestions in terms of prioritization and
project scope. Mr. Stock stated that he would place this item on
an agenda at a later date for further discussion.
Brandmire/Phillips moved to adjourn the meeting at 7 : 25 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL
Vol. 6 No. 10
Dear Chamber Member: October 1, 1992
Administration
Construction on the City Hall remodeling project Voter turn out for the September 15th election was
commenced on Wednesday, September 23rd. On 24% of registered voters of Shakopee. Historically,
September 15th Council authorized soliciting bids voter turn out in Shakopee for a presidential
for furniture in the new facility. City Council is election is 85-90%.
expected to review the furniture bids in late
October or early November. Building occupancy On September 15th, John Tieben, Sr. was
has been set for late December. appointed to the Park and Recreation Advisory
Board to fill the unexpired term of Ron Larson.
On September 1, 1992 Council authorized staff to
solicit bids for Council Chambers Audio/Video in
the new City Hall. The bid deadline is Thursday,
October I, 1992. The new audio/video system will Community Development
significantly improve viewing on the cable
system. Associated with the new City Hall On September 1, 1992 Council authorized staff to
construction will be the activation of the solicit bids for the Tahpah Park Concession Stand
government access cable channel. This new cable Improvement Project. The bids submittal deadline
channel will allow the City to disseminate was Thursday, September 24, 1992. Staff will be
information to the public on an ongoing basis. submitting the bids to City Council for their
The City will also have the option to begin review on October 6, 1992. Providing that the bids
televising all board and commission meetings and are within the projected budget amount, staff
any other special programming directly from the expects construction to commence soon thereafter.
City Hall. The project is scheduled for completion this year.
Funding for the project is being provided by the
Shakopee Jaycees over a three year period.
City Clerk On September 29th Mr. Bill Morris from Decision
Resources made a presentation to City Council in
NOVEMBER 3RD ELECTION - Anyone planning regard to the results of the Municipal Facility
to vote in the November 3rd election who is not Survey. At the same meeting representatives
registered at their current residence is encouraged from the Mdewakanton Community were in
to register with the Scott County Auditor prior to attendance to present their proposal to construct
October 13th. After October 13th, voters can a community center. The exact details
register at their polling place but will have to surrounding these two projects were not available
produce a current drivers license or bring along a at press time.
neighbor who is registered in the same precinct to
vouch for their residency.
Park and Recreation
The Shakopee Park and Recreation Advisory
Board has created a Handicapped Facility At the September 3,1992,meeting of the Shakopee
Subcommittee. The Committee will be completing Planning Commission, the Commissioners
an inventory of all municipal owned facilities. approved an amendment to a Conditional Use
The objective of the Committee will be to develop Permit for N.B.Z. Enterprises, Inc. which allows
a work plan to address bringing the City into two propane tanks to be used for heating on
compliance with the American With Disabilities property located south of C.R. 16,west of C.R.83,
Act. Under the new ADA guidelines, cities must and north of Valley View Road. The Commission
take the necessary steps to accommodate persons also approved a renewal and an amendment to a
with disabilities. This includes access to all City Conditional Use Permit for Model Stone Company.
programs and facilities such as the swimming The amendment allows the concrete and ready
mix plant to operate with a structure in excess of
pool, playgrounds, government buildings and play
45 feet in height.
areas.
At this same meeting, the Shakopee Planning
Commission recommended denial of an
Planning application to rezone 16.9 acres of land from Light
Industrial (I-1) to Heavy Industrial (I-2). This
At the September 3,1992,meeting of the Shakopee property is currently occupied by Universal Forest
Board of Adjustments and Appeals, the board Products, Inc. and is located at 1570 East Highway
101.The applicants have proposed this rezoning in
approved a variance to the side yard setback for
4751 Eagle Creek Boulevard in order for the order to construct and operate a wood
applicants to construct an addition onto their
preservation facility at the site.
garage.
The Planning Com mission tabled their
recommendation to the Shakopee City Council for Public Works/Engineering
an application for approval of the proposed
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Milwaukee The Apgar St. Reconstruction Project has been
Manor. This proposed development would consist awarded to the low bidder, Hardrives, Inc. and
of 56 dwelling units within 17 structures, and construction started the week of September 14,
would be located near Dakota and Minnesota 1992. The project will not be completed until June,
Street, south of 4th Avenue, near the abandoned 1993, but the contractor should have the first layer
railroad line. The Planning Commission also of asphalt completed by Nov. 1, 1992, weather
tabled their recommendation regarding the permitting.
vacation of a portion of Minnesota Street, north of
the alley located north of 7th Avenue. This portion The Public Works Department is currently getting
of Minnesota Street is included within the area prepared for the upcoming winter season by
proposed for the PUD. checking all the equipment, hauling sand and salt,
reviewing and updating procedures, driving the
The Planning Commission recommended to the snow plow routes and having a I-day training
City Council the approval of the final plat of Maple session for all snow plow drivers. Public input
Trails Estates 1st Addition, to he located on the east into this process is welcome. Please call 445-2211if
side of C.R. 17 and across from Timber Trails you have any comments or suggestions.
Addition. The rural development consists of 11
single family lots.
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 25, 1992
Mayor Gary Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 P.M. with
Councilmembers Joan Lynch, Robert Sweeney, Gloria Vierling and Mike
Beard present. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator;
Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Karen Marty, City
Attorney; Dave Hutton, Public Works Director; Lindberg Ekola, City
Planner; Judith S. cox, City Clerk; Tom Steininger, Chief of
Police; Frank Ries, Fire Chief; and Mark Huge, Fireman.
Sweeney/Vierling moved to approve the Minutes of July 13 , 1992 and
August 11, 1992 . Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Sweeney initiated discussion on the 1993 revenues budgeted from
the racetrack admission tax, contributions from Shakopee Public
Utilities and increased revenues from the increase in fees by the
engineering department. Mr. Voxland stated that he has not
budgeted any revenue from the racetrack and Mr. Hutton stated that
he has not increased revenues because his recommendation to
increase engineering fees has not been approved.
Mr. Hutton stated that he feels the fees being collected for
engineering services are to low; that the city is not recovering
its costs. He is recommending charging developers a flat 7 1/2 %
fee instead of billing them by the hour. He said that the trend is
going in this direction. Mr. Sweeney asked if this would include
fees for water inspection. Mr. Hutton responded that he doesn't
know what fees are charged by SPUC for water inspections.
Mayor Laurent stated that at sometime during the budget process he
would like to know what the City 's proposed budget increase would
do to the taxes on a $80, 000 home. Mr. Sweeney stated that he
would like to know what the increase would do to the taxes for
commercial and industrial property also.
Consensus of the Councilmembers was to look at how other cities are
charging fees in their engineering department. Mr. Sweeney would
like information on how other cities are charging fees in their
planning department also.
Discussion ensued on the fines charged in Scott County versus other
counties. Consensus was for staff to discuss the problem with
other city staff in the county and to bring back a recommendation
for Council to consider on how to pursue the problem. Ms. Vierling
stated that she would like to see the larger cities in Scott County
(their mayors and a staff person) work on this matter.
Mr. Voxland stated that the base SPUC contribution is being put
into the general fund and that any extra is going into the capital
equipment fund. He said that Council may want to take a look at
this practice.
City Council then reviewed each department budget for 1993 where an
increase over the 1992 budget is being requested.
Official Proceedings of the August 25, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page - 2 -
Police Department: Consensus was to retain the 19th police officer
in the budget and delete a community services officer from the
budget.
Fire Department: Consensus was to reduce the request for five
additional fire fighters in 1993 to three; and, to increase the
budget for training by $5, 000 and reduce the budget for travel and
substance by $2, 000. Ms. Lynch asked staff to get information on
lease/purchase for the next vehicle purchase. Staff should also
look into a guaranteed buy back.
Planning Department: Consensus was to budget for the recording
secretary and intern as requested, to budget the $3 , 000 requested
for a computer out of the city hall capital improvement budget, and
to budget $50, 000 for consultants.
The city administrator was directed to look at all budgets and put
capital purchases in the city hall capital improvement budget.
The Council members took a break at 9 : 53 P.M.
Legal Department: Sweeney/Vierling moved to accept the city
attorney's budget as is. No one was in opposition.
Finance Department: Consensus was to budget for an additional
accountant with the understanding that some of this individual ' s
time would be spent in administration in 1993 .
Councilmembers agreed to meet again on September 8th to continue
discussion on the 1993 budget.
Mr. Beard asked staff to put the purchase of land by the high
school on the September 8th, 1992 agenda.
Engineering Department: Consensus was to budget for the secretary
at full time and hire a civil engineer; and, to budget for an
engineering technician if fees are revised enough.
Mr. Hutton was directed to look at the cost for a full engineering
department including staff, office, equipment, and vehicles so as
to reduce the cost for hiring consultants. Mr. Hutton responded
that he can not do it for the 1993 budget.
Public Works Department: Consensus was to budget for two new
people, as requested and to look into privatization of some facets
of the department.
The meeting adjourned at 10: 38 P.M.
ith S. Co
'ty Clerk
ecording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at approximately 7: 10
P.M. with Councilmembers Lynch, Sweeney, Vierling, and Beard
present. Also present were Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator;
Barry Stock, Ass 't. City Administrator; Gregg Voxland, Finance
Director; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk;
Tom Steininger, Chief of Police; Frank Ries, Fire Chief; Lindberg
Ekola, City Planner; Dave Hutton, and Public Works Director/City
Engineer.
Joan Lynch excused herself from the council table because she works
for Scott Carver Dakota CAP Agency.
Mr. Judson Kenyon, Program Manager for CAP Agency, addressed the
Council regarding a 1993 funding request for Senior Programming at
200 Levee Drive. He provided background information for the
Council on how the senior dining program evolved to its present
location at 200 Levee Drive. He explained that the program needs
local community support. He explained what the Older Americans Act
for Senior Dining Programs provides funding for the program and
that he is requesting $3 , 400 from the City for cleaning and
utilities for 1993 . Mr. Kraft explained that $1, 000 for utilities
has already been included in the 1993 budget. There was consensus
among council members to include $3 , 400 in the 1993 budget for
cleaning and utilities at 200 Levee Drive per Mr. Kenyon' s request.
Joan Lynch returned to her seat at the council table.
Discussion ensued on the proposed budget for 1993 .
Consensus of Council was to reduce the General Fund - Fund Balance
to 20-25 percent; and, that it not be used to offset the operating
budget. Instead it should be placed in the capital equipment fund
or capital improvement fund.
The staff was directed to check to see what other cities maintain
for a General Fund - Fund Balance.
Consensus of Council was to cancel the debt service tax levy and to
levy it as a general fund levy, to replace it. This would have no
effect on the amount collected in taxes in 1993 .
Consensus of Council was to put the $260, 000 proceeds from the sale
of land to the State for the mini bypass into the capital
improvement fund. (It would be easier to track its disposition
since it was from the sale of parking lots funded from special
assessments. )
Official Proceedings of the September 8, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -2-
Consensus of Council was to wait until December to decide whether
or not to make a one time switch relating to the race track fiscal
disparities. (Now the "City as a whole" is contributing the fiscal
disparities tax capacity to the pool instead of the track TIF
district. ) The City can make a one time change so that the fiscal
disparities contribution comes out of the racetrack TIF district.
Consensus of Council was to set December 7th for the 1993
budget/tax levy public hearing and to set December 9th for a second
hearing, if necessary.
Consensus of Council was not to fund the following out of the 1993
General Fund Budget: trail construction at $10, 000, land
acquisition behind the high school at $300, 000, salt storage
building at $10, 000 and public works parking lot overlay and
extension of paved area at $100, 000.
Staff was directed to check with the County to see if they would
sand some of the city streets in the future so as to possibly
eliminate the need for the city to store salt and to build a salt
storage building.
Consensus of Council was to fund office equipment in the 1993
budget out of the CIF Fund - City Hall remodel project.
Consensus of Council was to maintain the status quo and put the
SPUC contribution over the minimum in the Capital Equipment Fund.
Consensus of Council was to increase engineering fees to 7-7 1/2%.
Mayor Laurent asked when the fees would be due. Mr. Hutton
responded that that has not been discussed. The fee increase will
be effective January 1, 1993 . Staff was directed to check with
SPUC to find out what their fees are for water inspections. The 7-
7 1/2% fees collected by the City will include water inspections as
well as sewer and street inspections. The City then must budget to
provide for a reimbursement to SPUC for their water inspections.
Discussion ensued on the acquisition of land South of the senior
high. The city administrator was directed to get an appraisal of
the property. The city attorney was directed to develop a draft
contractual agreement between the city and the school district to
provide for the school district's reimbursement to the city for
land purchased by the city for their use. Reimbursement to be made
after a successful bond election or some other trigger. The agree-
ment should also include an interest factor to make the City whole.
The CIo.�mm'tt of the Whole concluded at 9 : 54 P.M.
J ith S. Co , City Clerk
R ording Secretary
1
••
4
• •
• • 1
. 1
1'
� 't 2Y
;.!;- *.••,••• . - :i ,•
�j `: • f- ]
�. ig I�
�.,$�( •.. r— -- -1. (-fit.
- e ¢ is s
i . _�I • or I9fill i d
-_,- 1 i lk.,,, . __.
�1 1
l- — — — \
i
1 4. 1uu
ti (
(--) . ...• -....,,,:.,70....5.1:1:.!,:t!„••• • ., . •..• . •
Is
y"!.'•S.
;1��X\.•\:SIC^ �?M.�� `
.:—.:PC.:-..:-'!:*.:::. : ::.;Z.Z..•li. .I tl
•_LI: 4
. ' - ----------i-- ..‘.1Vis:.. /
: 171-—.. CD
I
M to
11
-o m x rn '—
t 0 n m O
) •. . ..• -: :----\ . TJ
— O K m
° CD
�z : 0
z —a
rv:,.t: a .- m -< z
,,-;,..4.t?-,..y::::%......,:--_-iii,, . ...„ 1,..;,.)...,....v.t��em. .. . . m, —I
Z
0
•
•
•
pAc
•
...,.
, ...e...:.,.:.;.„.. i .... ..1=. c_i , . .
•
. •T':-..j
.....,.-.....=_....:00_ ._..-_..._-...,-.-.-i.
-
(ri:tip:►'.'4Kf `2ri.•
••t ; ;+ -i .:: ,.);.i v+714L: ce .:-.
1 i
i;.?.:.f:::'... ,`,,•:,-1- •„. [j. ./. ..1 L.7.7:
•
•
' :� - -- •
jy .1 �
....-----
rr '1 . .....____ ,
t _H .
.•
•
ni"lif: `` •.;i .'.,t % .y`',� .., - .
ll,�`-y .U. ^V.
.._,I * '•••• :-Iykliiii.1.4!-1:11.•!,cr:In:,7. •,,.•!;• ' 1:.• 1:"... .•`.i':••••• . . '.4 ' ". '
� ` \Tt �
' # _ i: :. ..,".•-'4!"V.:/•••!.
• rr+
" Al' I i. ,...:.11.1I-1,(„,. r J r'7
A 1 1 1.1:'::k h4- �'
;i'f ..,,D•.l_'UI 1. a # f i5d:4' it �� �-.y �G �.
,.- a �
o -
lr
;
1
yj S.
--dl-I— .i:�—L
- Vii.
•
.:,.. .. , 1 I li . '; , _. . • _ t •
:4 ..0..
Jr •
-- - ._tr -
�
tea,
, q .
•
•
•
. = _ _ .-. .. r. .
I
r •
• 0
.m
v rxi -
n c
- rn•
z . r-
0
z
o .
N
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. Shakopee Residential
3128 Dean Court Needs Analysis
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 August, 1992
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 . . . . 8%
you lived in Shakopee? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 14%
SIX TO TEN YEARS 12%
ELEVEN TO TWENTY YRS26%
OVER TWENTY YEARS 40%
2 . As things now stand, how long in LESS THAN TWO YEARS . . . . 4%
the future do you expect to live TWO TO FIVE YEARS 11%
in Shakopee? SIX TO TEN YEARS 6%
OVER TEN YEARS 17%
REST OF LIFE (VOL) 52%
DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED11%
3 . How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT 20%
life in Shakopee -- excellent, GOOD 67%
good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR 11%
POOR 2%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1%
4 . What do you like MOST about living in Shakopee?
NO ANSWER, 6% ; LOCATION, 27% ; PEOPLE, 14%; PEACEFUL-QUIET,
4% ; EVERYTHING, 6% ; SMALL TOWN, 35% ; SCHOOLS, 2% ; SAFE, 2% ;
LOTS TO DO, 3% .
5 . What do you like LEAST about it?
NO ANSWER, 11% ; NOTHING, 7% ; TRAFFIC, 34%; TAXES, 12% ;
CROWDED, 4% ; GOVERNMENT, 10% ; PEOPLE, 6% ; LOCATION, 2% ;
CITY SERVICES, 2%; SCHOOLS, 2% ; NOTHING FOR KIDS, 3% ;
NO SHOPS, 4% ; CANTERBURY DOWNS, 2% ; SCATTERED, 2% .
Turning to park and recreational opportunities. . . .
6. In general , how well informed are VERY WELL INFORMED. . . . 29%
you about the park and recreation- SOMEWHAT WELL INFORM. . 47%
al facilities in Shakopee -- would NOT TOO INFORMED 19%
you say very well informed, some- NOT AT ALL INFORMED. . . . 3%
what informed, not too well in- DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED 2%
formed, or not at all informed?
1
7. How often have you gone to another AT LEAST WEEKLY 7%
community to use their recreation- SEVERAL TIMES/MONTH. . . 15%
al facilities -- at least once ONCE/MONTH 12%
each week, several times each SEVERAL/YEAR 16%
month, once a month, several times ONCE/YEAR 12%
a year, once a year, or never? NEVER 36%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2%
IF ANSWERS 1-5, ASK:
8. What facilities and in which communities?
NO ANSWER, 5%; CHASKA COMMUNITY CENTER, 50%; EDEN
PRAIRIE PARKS, 6%; PLYMOUTH PARKS, 3%; BLOOMINGTON
PARKS, 11%; BURNSVILLE-APPLE VALLEY GENERAL, 4%;
MINNEAPOLIS LAKES, 3%; HENNEPIN COUNTY PARKS, 3%;
BALL GAMES ALL OVER, 3%; ALL OVER GENERAL, 7%;
CHANHASSEN PARKS, 5%.
I would like to read you a list of facilities that are part of
the park and recreation offerings in Shakopee. Of these facili-
ties, which have you or members of your household used during the
past year, which have you or household members used, but not
during the past year, and which have never been used?
YEAR PAST NVER DK-R
9. Neighborhood playgrounds? 56% 14% 30% 0%
10. The municipal swimming pool? 40% 21% 38% 0%
11. Large community playfields, such
as Tahpah Park and Riverview? 52% 19% 29% 0%
12. Large community parks with picnic
areas, such as Lions and Memorial
Parks? 64% 20% 16% 0%
13 . Adult softball/baseball fields? 30% 17% 53% 0%
14 . Youth softball/baseball fields? 31% 16% 53% 0%
15. Pedestrian trails? 58% 12% 30% 0%
16. Tennis courts? 23% 12% 64% 2%
17. Neighborhood ice rinks? 28% 14% 57% 1%
18. The Indoor Ice Arena, also known
as "The Bubble?" 17% 11% 70% 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
excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
EXC GOO ONF POR DKR
19. Neighborhood playgrounds? 19% 52% 12% 1% 17%
20 The municipal swimming pool? 20% 41% 10% 2% 27%
21. Large community playfields, such
as Tahpah Park and Riverview? 31% 44% 7% 1% 17%
22 . Large community parks with picnic
areas, such as Lions and Memorial
Parks? 35% 43% 10% 1% 11%
23 . Adult softball/baseball fields? 20% 37% 6% 1% 36%
2
EXC GOO ONF POR DKR
24 . Youth softball/baseball fields? 17% 40% 7% 1% 35%
25. Pedestrian trails? 24% 39% 10% 2% 25%
26. Tennis courts? 9% 35% 9% 4% 44%
27. Neighborhood ice rinks? 7% 30% 13% 8% 43%
28. The Indoor Ice Arena, also known
as "The Bubble?" 3% 19% 10% 15% 54%
I would like to read you a brief list of city-sponsored recrea-
tional programs. For each one, please tell me if you or members
of this households have participated in that program. For those
in which you have participated, please tell me whether you were
generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the program. Again,
please only consider city-sponsored recreational programs.
PART PART PART NOTP DK-R
-SAT -DIS -UNS
29. Summer aquatics? 19% 2% 1% 72% 7%
30. Fitness programs? 13% 2% 1% 78% 7%
31. Adult athletics? 28% 1% 1% 64% 5%
32 . Youth athletics? 33% 3% 0% 58% 6%
33 . Senior programs? 9% 1% 1% 84% 6%
34 . Field trips? 18% 1% 1% 75% 7%
35. Other adult programs? 13% 2% 1% 79% 6%
36. Other youth programs? 19% 2% 1% 73% 7%
37. Are there any additional recreational programs you would
like to see the City of Shakopee offer its residents? (IF
"YES, " ASK: ) What are they?
NO ANSWER, 19%; NONE, 49%; CENTER, 9%; POOL, 3%; ICE RINK,
4%; BOWLING, 1%; TEEN CENTER, 2%; SENIOR CENTER, 3%; TRAILS,
2%; YOUTH FACILITIES, 3%; SWIMMING-FITNESS, 2% ; SCATTERED,
2%.
Moving on. . . .
38. Do you think the City should up- YES 38%
grade and modernize the Shakopee NO 42%
Municipal Swimming Pool? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED20%
39. Would you support or oppose the SUPPORT 51%
City licensing private vendors OPPOSE 37%
to sell services and products in DON'T KNOW/REFUSED12%
the parks, such as snacks and re-
freshments?
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.
3
SUFF ADDL DK-R
40. Neighborhood playgrounds? 76% 19% 5%
41. Community parks? 82% 13% 5%
42. Youth ballfields? 71% 16% 14%
43. Adult ballfields? 75% 10% 16%
44 . Football/Soccer fields? 50% 20% 30%
45. Outdoor swimming pool? 70% 18% 12%
46. A Senior Center? 32% 30% 38%
47. Tennis courts? 66% 17% 17%
48. Neighborhood hockey rinks? 53% 24% 24%
49. Neighborhood skating rinks? 61% 20% 20%
50. Picnic areas? 74% 20% 6%
51. Picnic shelters? 64% 30% 6%
52 . Trails? 65% 25% 10%
53 . Playground equipment? 60% 28% 12%
54. Indoor ice arenas? 42% 31% 26%
I would like to read you a short list of future park and recrea-
tional developments 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 Sm0 StO DKR
55. The construction of additional
ballfields? 4% 24% 41% 27% 3%
56. Improvement and upgrading of
all small neighborhood play-
grounds? 13% 46% 26% 11% 4%
57 . Improvement and upgrading of
all community parks? 8% 45% 31% 14% 3%
58. Completion of all undeveloped
park areas? 11% 36% 31% 12% 10%
59. Construction of a park shelter
and enclosed picnic area? 16% 37% 27% 17% 4%
60. Expansion of the off-street
trail system? 17% 36% 25% 16% 6%
61. Connection of all walkways and
sidewalks into a loop system? 15% 28% 32% 19% 6%
62 . Build an indoor pool complex? 15% 33% 28% 20% 3%
63 . Purchase new playground equipment? 13% 40% 27% 13% 7%
64 . Construction of a senior citizens
center? 13% 45% 22% 10% 10%
65. Construction of a youth center? 20% 44% 19% 12% 5%
66. Construction of an indoor walking/
running track? 13% 31% 33% 19% 4%
67. Construction of an indoor ice
arena? 14% 30% 28% 22% 6%
68. Construction of a nature center? 10% 35% 29% 19% 8%
69. Development of a nature trail,
with instructional exhibits? 8% 39% 26% 21% 7%
70. Development of a riverfront park? 11% 36% 21% 18% 14%
4
Changing topics. . . .
There are two general approaches to building ballfields. 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.
71. How do you feel -- should youth NEIGHBORHOOD 31%
ballfields be built in neighbor- COMPLEX 47%
hood parks or should a centrally NEITHER (VOL) 8%
located complex be built? BOTH (VOL) 7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8%
The City currently subsidizes both adult and youth recreational
programs.
72 . If it is necessary to prioritize YOUTH PROGRAMS 61%
those funds, should the emphasis ADULT PROGRAMS 3%
be on youth programs, adult pro- BOTH EQUALLY 36%
grams, or both equally? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0%
73 . Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR 20%
acquisition of land by the City FAVOR 42%
for future recreational facil- OPPOSE 18%
ities? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do STRONGLY OPPOSE 11%
you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9%
To fund new park facilities and new programs, a bond referendum
might be necessary. Residents could be asked to increase their
property taxes for twenty years to cover the bonds.
74 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 29%
see your yearly property taxes $10. 00 9%
increase to fund the acquisition $20. 00 13%
of land and park facilities? $30. 00 11%
Let' s say, would you be wiling to $40. 00 5%
see your yearly taxes increased by $50. 00 15%
$ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING $60. 00 2%
POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING $70. 00 3%
ON ANSWER) How about $ per $80. 00 1%
year? $90. 00 0%
$100. 00 7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6%
Many communities across the Metropolitan Area have either built
or are considering building a Community Center for recreational,
health, and meeting space opportunities.
75. Are you currently a member of a YES 12%
community center in another city? NO 88%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0%
76. Are you currently a member of a YES 12%
privately-owned health club? NO 88%
5
77. 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?
NO ANSWER, 22%; NONE, 4%; SENIORS, 1%; POOL, 29%; MEETING
ROOMS, 3%; EXERCISE AREA, 14% ; ICE RINK, 9%; TEEN CENTER,
5%; RACQUETBALL, 2% ; LIKE CHASKA, 7% ; SPORTS, 2% ; CLASSES,
2%.
78. 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?
NO ANSWER, 33%; NONE, 27%; POOL, 9% ; DAYCARE, 3%; TEENS, 5%;
EXERCISE, 8%; ICE SKATING, 2% ; CLASSES, 6%; SENIORS, 2%;
SCATTERED, 5%.
79. Do you favor or oppose the con- STRONGLY FAVOR 36%
struction of a Shakopee Community SOMEWHAT FAVOR 32%
Center? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 14%
do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE 12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7%
80. Why do you feel that way?
NO ANSWER, 8%; NOT NEEDED, 18% ; NEEDED, 39% ; GOOD FOR CITY,
11%; NEED MORE INFORMATION, 7% ; COST TOO HIGH, 10%; GOOD FOR
CHILDREN, 9%.
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.
StF SmF Sm0 StO DKR
81. An indoor leisure fun swimming
pool, with water slide and whirl-
pool? 33% 42% 12% 10% 4%
82. A rectangular lap and competition
pool? 20% 38% 25% 12% 5%
83 . A historical room featuring ex-
hibits about the city' s history? 15% 36% 26% 17% 5%
84 . A gymnastics area? 25% 46% 17% 8% 4%
85. A batting cage for practice? 17% 35% 28% 17% 4%
86. Racquetball courts? 25% 46% 15% 10% 4%
87. An indoor running/walking track? 37% 38% 13% 10% 3%
88. Fullsize gymnasiums? 31% 38% 17% 11% 3%
89. A public access cable television
studio? 8% 18% 33% 30% 11%
90. A senior citizens activities cen-
ter, with kitchen facilities? 29% 49% 11% 8% 4%
91. A youth center? 38% 44% 10% 6% 3%
6
StF SmF Sm0 StO DKR
92 . A daycare center for the young
children of facility users? 36% 41% 12% 7% 4%
93 . Arts and crafts room? 22% 41% 20% 12% 5%
94. An ice arena? 23% 31% 25% 16% 6%
95. An indoor bicycle track? 7% 19% 37% 33% 5%
96. An indoor rollerblade rink? 9% 23% 33% 29% 5%
97. Meeting rooms? 23% 48% 13% 12% 4%
98. A library? 22% 25% 28% 21% 4%
I would like to re-read that list of potential facilities for a
community center. (READ THE LIST)
99. Please tell me which ONE you most strongly favor for inclu-
sion.
100. Which facility do you consider second in importance?
101. 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? 24% 11% 2%
A rectangular lap and competition
pool? 7% 6% 1%
A historical room featuring exhibits
about the city's history? 4% 5% 3%
A gymnastics area? 1% 4% 2%
A batting cage for practice? 1% 3% 3%
Racquetball courts? 2% 3% 1%
An indoor running/walking track? 8% 15% 0%
Fullsize gymnasiums?� 70 9% 1%
A public access cable television
studio? 0% 1% 14%
A senior citizens activities center,
with kitchen facilities? 8% 7% 2%
A youth center? 10% 5% 1%
A daycare center for the young
children of facility users?� 30 6% 1%
Arts and crafts room? 1% 1% 1%
An ice arena? 11% 3% 6%
An indoor bicycle track? 1% 1% 15%
An indoor rollerblade rink? 1% 2% 11%
Meeting rooms?
20° 3%
2%
A library? 4% 7% 7%
ALL EQUALLY 2% 2% 5%
NONE 7% 9% 18%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2% 7%
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.
7
102. How much would you be willing to NOTHING 25%
see your yearly property taxes $25. 00 24%
increase to fund this construc- $50. 00 22%
tion? Let's say, would you be $75. 00 8%
willing to see your yearly taxes $100. 00 12%
increase by $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM $125. 00 1%
STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN $150. 00 1%
DEPENDING ON ANSWER) How about $175. 00 0%
$ per year? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7%
Let's talk about re-development issues facing the community
The City is currently involved in discussions about Downtown re-
development.
103. What do you like most about Downtown Shakopee?
NO ANSWER, 56% ; CONVENIENCE, 10%; STORES, 10%; PEOPLE, 7%;
RENOVATION, 5%; AMBIENCE, 12%.
104 . What do you like least about it?
NO ANSWER, 10% ; NOTHING THERE, 8%; TRAFFIC, 59%; PARKING,
13%; RUN DOWN, 9%.
105. Do you presently shop in Downtown YES 56%
Shakopee? NO 44%
IF "YES, " ASK:
106. What businesses do you patronize Downtown?
BARRONS GROCERY, 34%; DRUG STORE, 4%; JEWELRY, 3%; HARDWARE,
3%; BAKERY, 7%; PET STORE, 3%; SPORTING GOODS, 10%; BAR, 3%;
FAST FOODS, 3%; BETTY LOU'S, 4%; RED OWL, 7%; ALL, 14%;
SCATTERED, 1%.
107 . Are there changes or improvements to the Downtown Area which
would induce you to shop more there? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What
would they be?
NO ANSWER, 35%; MORE STORES, 15%; PARKING, 14%; ACCESS, 29%;
BYPASS, 4%; CLEAN UP, 3% ; SCATTERED, 1%.
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. . . .
8
MML SML NOI DKR
108. Re-routing truck traffic around
Downtown and off Main Street? 49% 29% 20% 2%
109 . More and closer parking in the
Downtown area? 42% 26% 31% 2%
110. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR 20%
providing development incentives FAVOR 45%
to attract particular types of OPPOSE 15%
businesses to the Downtown Area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 9%
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 12%
strongly that way?
111. What types of business, if any, should the City attempt to
attract Downtown? (PROBE)
NO ANSWER, 44%; RETAIL, 27%; RESTAURANT, 7%; CLOTHING, 10%;
ALL KINDS, 5%; HARDWARE, 3%; FAST FOOD, 2%; SCATTERED, 1%.
112 . Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR 13%
providing development incentives FAVOR 38%
to particular type of facilities OPPOSE 23%
and business to attract them to STRONGLY OPPOSE 11%
the Riverfront Area? (WAIT FOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSED15%
RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly
that way?
There are a number of older buildings on the City Hall block in
the Downtown Area which have historical significance. Some
people think they should be preserved and retrofitted for busi-
ness use. Others feel that if it would attract business to the
area, they should be demolished and replaced with newer facili-
ties.
113 . How about you? Do you feel that PRESERVATION 51%
the priority should be on histor- ATTRACT BUSINESS 30%
ical preservation or on the at- EQUALLY (VOL) 12%
traction of new business to this NEITHER (VOL) 3%
area? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5%
I 'd like to discuss two particular places in the community. . . .
114 . If you could choose, what would you most favor doing with
the Huber Park land on the riverfront?
NO ANSWER, 49% ; NOTHING-FLOODS, 16%; PARK, 29%; RETAIL, 2%;
COMMUNITY CENTER, 2%; RENOVATE, 1%; SCATTERED, 2%.
The Soo Line and Chicago Northwestern Railroads are asking in
excess of $125, 000 for the old railroad building property at
Scott Street and Second Avenue.
9
115. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR 8%
purchasing the old railroad build- FAVOR 22%
ing? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you OPPOSE 24%
feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE 24%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED21%
116. If the City were to purchase this property, what would you
most favor doing with the old Railroad Building at Scott
Street and Second Avenue?
NO ANSWER, 38%; HISTORICAL SITE, 18%; NOTHING, 9%; AS IS,
1%; COMMUNITY CENTER, 5%; RETAIL, 6%; COMMERCIAL, 3%; RES-
TAURANT, 7%; PRESERVE, 5%; PUT AT MURPHY'S, 2%; MOVE, 7%;
SCATTERED, 2%.
117. If the City were to were to use CHOICE A 17%
any projected and actual surplus CHOICE B 12%
funds, which ONE of the following CHOICE C 43%
areas would you prioritize as the CHOICE D 8%
most important use: (ROTATE LIST) CHOICE E 10%
A. Expansion and improvement of ALL EQUALLY (VOL) 4%
recreational facilities; NONE OF ABOVE (VOL) 3%
B. Final phase of the Downtown DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3%
streetscape development;
C. Lower residential property taxes;
D. Construction of new streets,
bridges, and sewers;
E. Capital improvements, such as
fire stations and equipment, and
sewers.
Changing topics again. . . .
118. Thinking back to when you moved to Shakopee, what factors
were most important to you in selecting the city?
NO ANSWER, 9%; LOCATION, 14%; SMALL TOWN, 13%; SCHOOLS, 5%;
FAMILY THERE, 14%; HOUSING, 8% ; GREW UP THERE, 13%; JOB,
25%.
119. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR 60%
crease in YOUR city property tax OPPOSE 32%
if it were needed to maintain city DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8%
services at their current level?
IF "OPPOSE, " ASK:
120. Aside from administration, what services would you be
willing to see cut to keep property taxes at their cur-
rent level?
NO ANSWER, 57%; ACROSS-THE-BOARD, 12%; PARKS, 4%;
ROADS, 6%; NO NEED, 13%; ADMINISTRATION, 5%; SCATTERED,
1%.
10
121. In comparison with nearby suburban VERY HIGH 24%
areas, do you consider property SOMEWHAT HIGH 40%
taxes in Shakopee to be very ABOUT AVERAGE 27%
high, somewhat high, about aver- SOMEWHAT LOW 2%
age, somewhat low, or very low? VERY LOW 0%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8%
As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of
Shakopee, Scott County, and local school districts. The City
share of the property tax is about seventeen percent.
122 . When you consider the property EXCELLENT 9%
taxes you pay and the quality GOOD 60%
of city services you receive, ONLY FAIR 21%
would you rate the general value POOR 7%
of city services as excellent, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4%
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.
123 . Police protection? 20% 62% 14% 3% 2%
124 . Fire protection? 32% 57% 7% 2% 3%
125. City street repair and
maintenance? 8% 41% 35% 15% 1%
126. Water and sewers? 11% 61% 17% 5% 6%
127 . Snow plowing? 26% 45% 19% 9% 1%
128. 911 Emergency Service? 36% 37% 6% 1% 20%
129. Animal control? 5% 45% 26% 11% 14%
130. Park maintenance? 15% 64% 14% 3% 4%
131. Trail maintenance? 12% 58% 13% 2% 15%
132 . Recreational programs? 10% 59% 16% 3% 13%
133 . Street lighting? 11% 61% 21% 5% 2%
134. Building inspection? 4% 40% 16% 5% 36%
135. Nuisance code enforce-
ment? 4% 41% 20% 12% 23%
Moving on. . . .
11
136. Other than voting, do you feel YES 57%
that if you wanted to, you could NO 37%
have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6%
of Shakopee runs things?
137. How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL 7%
about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT 45%
City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE 45%
fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3%
138. From what you know, how would you EXCELLENT 2%
rate the job performance of the GOOD 37%
Mayor and City Council? (WAIT ONLY FAIR 27%
FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel POOR 8%
strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .26%
IF OPINION STATED IN QUESTION #138, ASK:
139. Why do you feel that way?
NO ANSWER, 11%: HEARSAY, 10%; GOOD JOB, 27% ; CARES, 4%;
ISSUES, 15%; COULD IMPROVE, 11%; NO PROBLEMS, 7%; CON-
FLICT OF INTERESTS, 6%; DO NOT LISTEN, 5%; POOR JOB,
2%.
140. How much first-hand contact have QUITE A LOT 8%
you had with the Shakopee SOME 28%
City Staff -- quite a lot, some, VERY LITTLE 42%
very little, or none at all? NONE AT ALL 20%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3%
141. From what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT 3%
how would you rate the job per- GOOD 44%
formance of the Shakopee City ONLY FAIR 19%
Staff -- excellent, good, only POOR 6%
fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 29%
Turning to another issue. . . .
142 . In general, do you feel that the RIGHT LEVEL 73%
City is enforcing city codes and TOO EXACTING 6%
ordinances at about the right NOT RIGOROUS 10%
level, is too exacting, or is not VARIES (VOL) 2%
rigorous enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9%
IF "TOO EXACTING, " "NOT RIGOROUS ENOUGH, " OR "VARIES, " ASK:
143 . What codes or ordinances do you feel are not being en-
forced at about the right level?
NO ANSWER, 18%; DEPENDS ON ORDINANCE, 14%; JUNK YARDS,
8%; CURFEW, 8%; ANIMALS, 14%; ZONING, 25%; SPEED LIM-
ITS, 6%.
12
144 . Does the development across the WELL-PLANNED 55%
city seem to have been well- NOT WELL PLANNED 34%
planned for the future of Shak- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED11%
opee?
145. Do you feel that Shakopee resi- ADEQUATE 51%
dents have an adequate opportunity INADEQUATE 30%
for participation in the zoning DON'T KNOW/REFUSED18%
and land use decision-making
process?
146. Over the past five years, do you ABOUT RIGHT 54%
think that the pace of development TOO RAPID 17%
in the city has been about right, NOT FAST ENOUGH 22%
too rapid, or not fast enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7%
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.
147 . Do you support the City continuing YES 80%
these types of requirements? NO 14%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6%
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)
13
SERVICE 1991 NEW
SPENDING SPENDING
148. Police, the DARE Anti-Drug Program, Animal
Control, and Code Enforcement. $297 $273
149. Fire Protection. $102 $96
150. Public Works, including Street Maintenance,
Snow Plowing, and Maintenance Garage
Operations. $171 $155
151. Engineering, Planning, Community Develop-
ment, and Inspection Services. $139 $120
152 . Recreation, including Coordination of Com-
munity Group Activities and Athletic Facil-
ity Scheduling, and Organization of Adult
and Youth Programs and Operation of Muni-
cipal Swimming Pool. $70 $62
153 . Park Maintenance including General
Park Upkeep and Forestry Programs. $54 $49
154. Administration, including Legal, Prosecu-
tions, Business Licensing, Government
Building Maintenance and Upkeep, Council/
Community Relations, Legislative Liaison
and General City Management Operations. $68 $59
155. City Hall Operations, including Equipment
Maintenance and Utilities for City Hall and
Janitorial Service for all Government Build-
ings. $32 $28
156. Mayor, City Council, and Advisory Commission
Expenses. $15 $13
157. Finance, Maintaining Tax and Revenue Records
and Monitoring Expenditures. $52 $45
$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)
14
158. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR 29%
publishing a regular newsletter on FAVOR 44%
local government and community OPPOSE 13%
activities? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do STRONGLY OPPOSE 11%
you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3%
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.
159. First, persons 65 or over? 0, 84%; 1, 11%; 2, 5%.
160. Adults under 65? 0, 9%; 1, 14%; 2 , 62%;
3+, 15%.
161. School-aged or pre-school 0, 51%; 1, 15%; 2, 23%;
children? 3 , 8%; 4+, 3%.
162 . Do you own or rent your present OWN 82%
residence? RENT 18%
163 . What is your age, please? 18-24 2%
25-34 29%
35-44 28%
45-54 19%
55-64 9%
65 AND OVER 13%
164 . What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation
of your spouse or partner?
PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 14%; OWNER-MANAGER, 20%; CLERICAL-
SALES, 12%; BLUE COLLAR, 34%; RETIRED, 15%; SCATTERED, 5%.
165. What is the last grade of school LESS THAN HIGH SCHL. . . .8%
you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE32%
TECH COL/VO-TECH 15%
SOME COLLEGE 21%
COLLEGE GRADUATE 17%
POST-GRADUATE 7%
166. Could you tell me your approximate UNDER $12 , 500 3%
pre-tax yearly household income. $12 , 500-$24 , 999 13%
Does the income lie. . . . $25, 000-$37, 499 19%
$37, 500-$49, 999 25%
$50, 000-$62 ,499 11%
$62 , 500-$74, 999 3%
$75, 000 AND OVER 5%
DON'T KNOW 4%
REFUSED 17%
15
167. Is there anything else you would like to tell us that we can
report back to the City Council members, preserving your
anonymity?
NO ANSWER, 63%; GOOD JOB, 3%; LISTEN MORE, 6%; NEED COMMUNI-
TY CENTER, 5%; NO MORE TAXES, 5%; NEED ICE ARENA, 3%; REPAIR
ROADS, 2%; DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC, 4%; HELP EDUCATION, 2%; COMMU-
NICATE, 1%; ATTRACT MORE BUSINESS, 3%; SCATTERED, 1%.
168. Gender (DO NOT ASK) MALE 47%
FEMALE 53%
Thank you very much for your time. Good-bye.
169. REGION OF THE CITY: PRECINCT ONE 18%
PRECINCT TWO 16%
PRECINCT THREE 23%
PRECINCT FOUR 25%
PRECINCT FIVE 18%
16