HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 26, 1980 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 26, 1980
Mayor Harbeck presiding.
1] Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2] 1980 -3 Holmes Street Storm Sewer Assessments - Res. No. 1670, Adopting
Assessments for 80 -3 Storm Sewer Only.
3] 1979 -1 Park Ridge °Drive roadway, watermain, and sanitary sewer improve-
ments - Res. No. 1660, Adopting Assessments for 79 -1 Park Ridge Drive
•
4] Council receives City Administrator's recommended General Fund Budget
5] Accept resignation of City Administrator
6] Hwy 10141 .termain - Cretex Industrial Park 1st Easterly
7] Other Business:
Douglas S. Reeder -
City Administrator
MEMO
TO: .Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer
RE: Holmes Street Assessment Calculation
DATE: August 22, 1980
Pursuant to the request of Council at a meeting on
August 19, 1980, I have recalculated the Holmes Street
Trunk Storm Sewer Assessment.
I corrected the total assessable cost adding 1/2
thecost of the Railroad Crossing or $5,662.50 to
$282,573.28 for a total assessable cost of $288,235.78.
City property not in park area was assessed at a
double rate. This had the effect of adding 193,578.5
square feet to the non - residential total. There were
approximately 10 property owners that contacted the
City and advised us that they had been assessed as a
part of the west side storm sewer. The residential
square footage was then revised to 5,598,111.52 square
feet and the non - residential area was revised to
1,786,463.86 square feet. The adjusted assessment
rate then becomes $0.03142891143 per square foot.
The average assessment for a standard city lot is
then $267.77, an increase of $1.80 for a residential
lot or $3.61 for a non - residential lot.
Should there be any other questions please
contact me.
HRS /dac
n!•.r..r ».reanrn�. :tt��;ky�'^'y r `..� _ :.a: ,.. .. _.. _ c«nra ?3'�a;: • _ -±w.. s.£�:., _ _ ;c; a1-- _ _
. : .:4 _
...+a..... .. �`.'�5,. -. - . . irns _•.,s�. : �r�.. '.!•Y.= '-x '-:...: "+��..,..F..`x ��- 'f'^,'� nl�.'?''r�'�c'. 5�Xa ;,,'�"`a�- SSt'- £..F�fi•:;`,.s+.. _�
,
- t 19 8 o ASSESSfEf1TS FOR SPECIAL. If11PROVEfl1Ef1T DISTRICT- 79-1 7/29/80
8/5/80 Revised - 7:..,
PARK RIDGE DRIVE
8/12/80 Revised
RI 8/26/80 Revised ii
4 ,
OWNER DESCRIPTION AREA • FRONT -
- r - ii[iT� FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT TOTAL
Cecil Clay 27- 908 -5240- 007 -00 S.S. I $ 2,383.60 • .
2000 Eagle Creek Blvd.
g P/0 4 NW4 beg. inters. W line E NW4, & W.M. 2,108.26 r
7s CL of #16, s 589.7, SE 233.6, N 706.2, R. 3,390.36
NW 155 to beg. INT. 781.06
$ 8,663.28
Les
r
ii
1-K
Z
,.Rodney E Dragsten & Ann 27 -046- 0000 - 001 -00 _ __ — __ -- S.S. —$ 2383:60
2001 Park Ridge -- — Lot 1, 1, Hauer's 1st Addn. R.M. 2,108
3,390.36 1 •
INT. • 781.06
-ESC. - 835.87
y., $ 7,827.41 ,
?F?
:ii!
'
: A Gary E. Laird & Betty J. 27 -046- 0000 - 002 -00 1 S.S. $ 2,383.60 x
'
fizc
2009 Park Ridge Drive Lot 2, Block 1, Hauer's 1st Addn. W.M. 2,108.26 r
R. 3,390.36
. INT. 781.06
• —ESC. — 835.87
$ 7,827.41 La „
Richard Louis Dellwo & Bonnie Lou 27 -046- 0000 - 003 -00 1 S.S. $ 2,383.6
2017 Park Ridge Drive Lot 3, Block 1, Hauer's 1st Addn. W.M. 2,108.26 x%
R. 3,390.36
INT. 781
-ESC. - 835.87
ei
, $ 7,827.41
3Y .,
S.S. Sanitary Sewer. Lateral W.M. Watermain Lateral R. Roadway ESC. Escrow Credit
IT
:..1- t'errrir , c am 3 _c,•°s- 'fa'$ - < r - sr ssg F
�+ --,. .,.•. ... �_ -�, ... max :.. r S .,�:- :2 ?.$,�. e. 5�` a.�.�. f. �.� rs " ?� a3 •�sr �;�s>. �' k�' -S' � ^'•mss - o <;xiic. z + wr; - � v, - tY.. -.:r+- :n . �• - -
- - - *. ,....:.. ^,m •k.:.. #' -?x..�`�,s� x .._... -. T - .f � t �'u, _ •'�v%Ars �4�`3ai 7^„� ' °� yg .4 4
PAGE 1 of 3
.� . s- - - . .., - .. _ .. _ _. .,- n+.- «» �- -... _ . - w. -z ... _... _. . -,.... - s-� Y • h..
�:. ."'_ "'.��t•` -srn+x �r--c� - rr._�,. -t• - „' - ", ;. ,.. = `r`�. _ ors ......�^ - - o .. "�+r �$,'
'au ...s -. :Sy ._....•�3!a?.....,t'a•_.. 3-: h: F2R s�- ls°.a. wXr_...a ".. �.,- :+...isskts.s4:�C�' -�:s.. `-mot, ,. � 't.., �c .t -�R.f. .x.. �+n -F •s '.�." �' `"� �-s.r. - _�- •..,.ra..._ -vt..� -^, +.r- -.�.;- - -
. �.., � -. �. .' � „e � � �. �, 'C- r- >`i7s_�-.. ..� ��4:= 7v'"�.�'. ':r'�Y -A{ . "#...�jr.�.f -,. '` ., Y fi_�..�",.a rr� -v�; R. r.. : `ts::Ia r :
. a �'•.6 . :r,6,� 4.... 7/29/80
19 so ASSESSfr1Ef1TS FOR SPECIAL. IfY1PROYE(YlEf1T DISTRICT 79 - 8/5 /80 Revised
PARK RIDGE DRIVE 8/12/80 Revise
N 8/26/80 Revised
ql: OWNER DESCRIPTION AREA FRONT ASSESSMENT TOTAL
�Ii��i� FOOTAGE
:`,Eugene F. Malz & Judy 27 -046- 0000 - 004 -00 1 I $ 2,383.6
2025 Park Ridge Drive Lot 4, Block 1, Hauer's 1st Addn. W.M. 2,108.26
R. 3,390.36 -
w INT. 781.06 x=
( -ESC. - 835.87 . a
Pk
F -
$
r
-"� Henry M. Schrank & Diane 27-908-5242-023-00 S.S. $ 2,383.6 :- --
2033 Park Ridge Drive P/0 NW 1354.4 S of NE Cor SW 219.9', W.M. 2,108.2
A” SW 87.3, NW 271.16, SW 50, NW 200 to POB R. 3 39
NW 130, SW 130, SE 130, NE 130 to beg. INT. 781.06 ..
*$ 8,663.28
'
a:T
r •
Stephen J. Heller & Vicki 27 -046- 0000 - 005 -00 1 S.S. $ 2,383.,60 .
K$ 2041 Park Ridge Drive Lot 5, Block 1, Hauer's 1st Addn. R. 3,'39.36
INT. 601.88
-ESC.- 835.'87 r
$ 5,539.97
N
Gene Hauer & Virginia 27- 9085242- 014 -00 S.S. $ 2,383.60
2088 Hauer Trail P/0 NW? Com. 1354.4 S of NW Cor. SW 219.9
R. 3,390.36
SW 87.3 to POB SW 50..9, SW 291.1, NW 108.2 601.$8
- NE 300, SE 271.16 to beg EX E 50' EX .02A
41 � Hauer's 1st ! $ 6,375.84
1 G1$
n
a
'4:- . • c ':::''- _,.a i q3; .. ""lv. • ' '.. r^ 5 - :t"' ,r ;''• K^R 4`r.'C..rt; illt - � �3*rv,1'� - .icns.^ - �,;S. r
...: . _. ..i.,__,.. rx �va...�".�.v......._i ti:ovw,r -._. ✓.,,b. �C���.ssz:.��'.f.'. _.i:.r. , ..- ...w `+ �+ �.' �,, y4'�w„��y„y��,?c�. a� yv '`��a ' " � ' `-G ' � L1?` .h. `
' ...'V I � 1 ._.a;.
-tr u �,., :.:�+._ ��.. _�� r.,~�i � TM?�' g., i as. �r.�,•r"� =�2�.• y °� ' �. . ... ... �.. u
•
PAGE 2 of 3 •
sl • - y 1 + b l� . n, "'"°"""t4 f. K. h . II. Y, -n
; . ... •.. a w .__� • , fix....:.$ <. ,.5.. ... i - � � �'.�, �. -tt4, - ti� 6 izr i
.- ..*i�S� +-�` ��� �?;.._ 4;.x��'�!�c ,, : � :vj., � •ea: „p"F ::e "i.. > J' • _ _ . .... . ,� • n.. _..- ,.n : _. - - •• At. < *•.. _ �ltY.• •�.� ' ' ' i -�_ a 3t� ,...k�i
1980 ASSESSfYlEf1TS FOR SPECIAL IMPROVEf11Ef1T DISTRICT 79 -1 729/80 Revised '
, PARK RIDGE DRIVE 8/12/80 Revised
8/26/80 Revised • .
M
OWNER DESCRIPTION �RyE� FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT TOTAL ti-4
4y
Charles A. Olson & Wife 27 -046- 0000 - 006 -00 1 S.S. $2,383.60 A
2002 Park Ridge Drive Lot 1, 2, Hauer's 1st Addn. W.M. 2,108.26
R. 3,390.36 r
- ' NT. . 781
- ESC. - 835.87
$ 7,827.41
tt
Ps
John T. Noterman 27 -O46- 0000 - 007 -00 1 S.S. $ 2,383.60
2010 Park Ridge Drive Lot 2, Block 2, Hauer's 1st Addn
it.
W.M. 2,108.26
f R. 3,390.36 ,
'' INT. 781.06
x z
-ESC. - 835.87 < ?;
ti
$ 7,827.41
a
VI ce3
P-,
195
City of Shako 27 - 016 - 0000 - 008 - 00 x+75.2 W.M. $ 5,>� +7
Park 1 R.. 12,2 '7.
INT. 3 ,85+.97 p.
j .
$19,584.21
f: ,
TOTAL S.S. $23,836.00 a
W.M. 22,347.55
R . x+6
*r, ,151.37
IINT. 9,307.21 r
-' -ESC. - 5,851.09 =�
{
Y' I .y
$95 , 791. o>+ n-
f
•
fi
il
t
.r
, x.r�. �c -.tom: . , �.t. cv , zr,
'.. �7! 1 ,u-1.'' 'k I r . -... . Rr�'' _ 3_ u� .:?. -- .,•. %,11:`� :a�?..,tt : k' 3•'� 0: -r• ..'F� - '�';+ , t.., _ -
.. _..,,. �+.,. ....e1.. >',k �- t, .,�- r. ti = 'y"�S3'G. �-r k,+ ° 1,
..s. •..: s,.. 3. n�+ F. �.. �aa ._�= ..:a'�5..: v'taas • � � i i�� a....,."'?:Pl�•X.�i�. L`�.•_st`.�'`i ':�P...�.o ._ -mss. • ... ... - �� ..�� .'�'' R?k..:��:.',. .�A ' _ ZSi= .�., ,� "-
..c,..,.._._...... i .,.�¢ ,._. .'.'sC � �� _ __>... �+'� ..... �...._u. sxxi �,�. w7��. �,.1i:.�x �'��u -...5 .H.�`.c.
•
• MEMO
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: 1981 Budget - Revenues
DATE: August 26, 1980
Following are ways to increase revenues to
the City of Shakopee:
1. Use more fund balance.
2. Increase Engineering Fees.
3. Increase. Planning Fees
(Platting, Conditional Use)
4. Increase Liquor License Fees
5. Change engineering time to water fund.
6. Change fees to Valleyfair for Police
services.
7. Use funds from Capital Equipment fund.
(this year only)
DSR /dac
MEMO
T •
• TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: 1981 Budget - Expenditures
DATE: August 26, 1980
The following is a list of items which are in the 1981
budget which could be cut to balance the budget. They are
not listed in priority order.
$15,000 Reduce Seal Coating Program to $20,000
3,000 Reduce building repair to Park and
Recreation Builing. ($2,000 remaining)
5,000 Reduce legal department.
5,000 Eliminate Architect.plans for new City Hall.
1,000 Cut police training budget to $3,000 •
2,000 Eliminate pump for swimming pool.
10,000 Cut contingency to $30,000.
? New Finance clerk cut to 1/2 year
full time 1/2 year part time.
The following could also be cut but would impose more
. restriction on the operation of the City.
Police overtime (use all compensatory time off)
1 Police Officer'
1 Public Works employee
1 Finance Clerk
$5,900 Industrial Commission Budget
$20,000 Eliminate Seal Coating Program
$1,500 Cable T.V. Commission budget for 1980
$3,000 Cut Park and Recreation Budget to 1980 levy.
$3,000 Eliminate part time assessor
Eliminate tree planting to replace Dutch Elm
DSR /dac
MEMO TO: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: General Fund - Fund Balance
DATE: August 26, 1980
Council has requested that staff recommend a satisfactory level
of fund balance for the General Fund. As of this date I have not had
time to do a detailed analysis but felt that Council should have
some guideline going into the budget process.
At December 31, 1979 the fund balance was $549,000.00. dollars.
This provides working capital and a cushion for changes in revenue
and expenditures and •cash flow on a monthly basis. Cash flows for
1980 resulted in the General Fund having a cash balance of $7,000.00
at June 30, 1980. This adverse position is mitigated somewhat by the
fact that transfers for some equipment purchases have not been made
yet. Also, fund balance is the cushion in case some source:of.revenue
is significantly lower than forcast due to such things as decreased
building activity, non receipt of government aid, etc,. On the other
side of the coin, much of our expenditures are for personal services
and there is not a lot of cuts in spending that can be made during
the year to offset decreased revenues unless people are laid off.
Our auditor has reported that based on some �f the seminars he
has attended a recommended fund balance for a city would be between
50 and 100% of forcasted revenues Our forcast is for approximately
2 million, therefore should be in the 1 to 2 million range. I feel
that 2 million would be too high and is not even a feasible number
to consider at this point. The one million number is much more realistic
but I don't see us approaching it this year or next year or probably the
year after without subs tan tual i n terfund transfers. The almost six
hundred thousand dollars of fund balance we started the year with is
cutting cash flow too fine, that is to say, the $600,000.00 is the
very minimum fund balance we should have at this point in time. I
would like to see the General Fund have a fund balance of $1,000,000.00
at this time to provide adequate reserves.
GV /dn
•
•
v
1
1
MEMO
T0: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: 1981 Budget - Revenues
DATE: August 26, 1980
Following are ways to increase revenues to
the City of Shakopee:
1. Use more fund balance.
2. Increase Engineering Fees.
3. Increase Planning Fees
(Platting, Conditional Use)
4. Increase Liquor License Fees
5. Change engineering time to water fund.
6. Change fees to Valleyfair for Police
services.
7. Use funds from Capital Equipment fund.
(this year only)
DSR /dac
9/1 16A4P)t
>jra /( /7ff eL.. Q� -
• (C)..„) ,,,,f . 0- -- rj . ,,„„,,
1 k - /L
CITY 4 P SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1 ®70 , 0 ; ' ZVN
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445 -3650 K . t`
p '! {
y, •
r Y
August 22, 1980
Mayor W. C. Harbeck
Shakopee City ,Councilpersons
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Please accept this letter as my resignation from the position
of City Administrator effective October 20th, 1980. I am leaving Shakopee
to accept the position of City Administrator for the City of Maple Grove.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Mayor and Members of
the City Council, the City Staff and the citizens of Shakopee for making
my four years in Shakopee a delightful experience for me. I am definately
leaving with mixed emotions. There are many exciting things which will
be happening in Shakopee in the coming years which I would enjoy being
part of and which will continue to improve the quality of life in
Shakopee. .
I have enjoyed the working relationship which the City Council has
maintained with the City Staff. Whatever may have been accomplished
during my stay in Shakopee is due to the hard work and exceptional
abilities of the City Council to determine the needs of Shakopee. It is
your many hours of effort which have resulted in a financially strong
progressive community.
Thank you for the opportunity to work in Shakopee.
Sinc- - ,
I.uglas S. Reeder
City Administrator
DSR/ jsc
The Heart of Pro Va11e
An Equal Opportunity Employer
y
411.
MEMO
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: City Administrators Ad
DATE: August 25, 1980
It is recommended that the City Council
authorize the following ad to appear in the
International City Managers Association
Newsletter. The next issue is September 8th
and in order to get the ad in we will have to
phone it in on Wednesday, August 27, 1980.
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA (11,000) Salary open; pres.
$30,000. City Administrator; 3 persons holding
position since 1972. Appointed by Mayor and 5
member council elected at large on a nonpartisn
basis for 4 year overlapping terms (Mayor 2
year term). $2 million budget; 40 empolyees.
Rapidly growing Minneapolis suburb, BA desired;
MD in public Administration preferred. Exper-
ience as manager or assistant required. Send
resume to Mayor Walt Harbeck, 129 East First
Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379. Application
deadline September 22, 1980.
DSR /dac
•
r , 5
nonpartisan basis for 4 -year overlapping terms. 7- member board elected by wards on a
$6.5 mil. budget; 400 employees. MPA pref., partisan basis for 4 -year overlapping terms.
prev. mgr. or asst. mgr. exp. req. Send $1 mil. budget; 35 employees. Send resume
resume to Mayor & City Comm., 308 S. Dixie to Secy., Aston Tp., P.O. Box 1, 19014 in
Hwy., 33009, by 3/1/76. Appli. cannot be env. marked "Tp. Mgr. Appli."
kept confid. * *McClean Co., I11. (104,000) -- Salary
Hillsdale, Mich. (8,000) -- Salary nego.; $15,000 - $26,350. Co. Adm.; new position
pres. $18,300. City Mgr.; 2 persons holding created 12/9/75. Appointed by 27- member
position since 1958. Appointed by mayor and council elected from wards on a partisan
8- member council elected on a nonpartisan basis for 4 -year overlapping terms. $8.8
basis.' $2.1 mil. budget; 150+ employees. mil. budget; 300 employees. Deg. & adm.,
Prev. mgr. exp. des. Send resume to Mayor, govt. & budg. exp. pref. Send resume to
City Hall, 49242. Mark env. Mgr. Appl.
Sub -Comm. on Co. Adm., Rm. 303, Cthouse,
Confid." Bloomington, 61701, by 1/15/76.
Muskegon Heights, Mich. (17,000) -- * *Newberry Co., S.C. (29,108) -- Salary
Salary rge. $22- $27,000; prev. sal. unavail- open; pres. $16,320. Co. Adm.; 2 persons
able. City Superintendent; 6 persons holding holding position since 1971. Appointed by
position since 1922. $2 mil. budget; 150 5- member board. $1.3 mil. budget; 100
employees. Send resume'& expected salary employees. AB deg. w /prior exp. req.
to Mayor, City Hall, 2724 Peck St., 49444. Send resume to Chrm., Newberry Co. Cncl.,
Olney, I11. (10,000) -- Salary pres. P.O. Box 156, 29108.
$18,500. City Mgr.; 2 persons holding * *Upper Darby Tp., Pa. (100,000) --
position since 1973. Appointed by mayor Salary approx. $25,000. Chf. Adm. Offr..,
w /approval of 4- member council elected at- new home rule charter position. Appointed
large on a nonpartisan basis. $2.5 mil. by mayor w /approval of 11- member council
budget w /city owned water facil.; 70 elected (4) at -large and (7) from wards on
employees. Deg. in pub. or bus. adm. and a partisan basis for 4 -year staggered terms.
exp. pref. Excel. fringe ben. Send resume $11 mil. budget; 455 employees. Send resume
and letter of appl. incl. sal. req. to John to Mayor Eugene Kane, 472 Shade Land Ave.,
Hursta, 315 N. Indiana St., 62450. Drexel Hill, 19026, by 1/15/76.
Sandy, Ore. (2,100) -- Salary open; * *Winchester, Ky. (15,000) -- Salary
pres. $17,568. City Mgr.; 1 person holding rge. $12- $13,000; pres. $14,859. City Mgr.;
position since 1973. Appointed by mayor 3 persons holding position since 1970. Ap-
and 6- member council elected at -large on a pointed by mayor and 4- member commission
nonpartisan basis. $870,000 budget; 18 elected at -large on a nonpartisan basis for
full -time employees. Deg. & mun. exp. req. (comm.) 2 -yr. and (mayor) 4 -yr. terms over -
Send resume to Carl Hatfield, City Mgr., lapping terms. $1.6 mil. budget; 103
P.O. Box 116, 97055, by 1/10/76. employees. Req. col. grad. in bus. mgmt. or
Strasburg, Va. (2,431) -- Salary open; pub. adm. & 3 yrs. exp. in mun. mgmt. pos.
pres. $Z 4,250. Town Mgr.; 3 or MA deg. in bus. mgmt. or pub. adm. & 1
P g persons holding yr, exp. in mun. adm. Send resume to
position since 1964. Appointed by mayor
and 9- member council elected at -arge on a Bluegrass Area Dev. Dist., 120 E. Reynolds
nonpartisan basis for 4-year staggered Rd., Lexington, 40503, by 1/14/76.
P y ggered terms.
$382,000 budget; 16 employees. Prev. exp. in PREVIOUSLY LISTED VACANCIES
adm., pub. wks. & fin. budg. backgrd. des. CONNECTICUT: Hartford (156,600) 12/1/75;
Send resume & sal. req. to Richard B. Kleese, * *New Haven (132,000) 12/1/75; Stratford
Chrm., Town Mgr., Set. Comm., P.O. Box 351,
22657. (50,000) 12/15/75.
Winthrop, Me. (4,335) -- Salary open; FLORIDA: *Palm Beach Shores (1,700)
pres. $13,500. Town Mgr.; 4 12/15/75.
P g persons holding GEORGIA: * *Macon (125,000) 1/1/75.
position since 1958. Appointed by 7- member
council elected at -large on a nonpartisan ILLINOIS: * *Southwestern III. Metro &
basis for 3 -year overlapping terms. $1.5 Regl. P1ng. Comm., Collinsville, 111. (7 co.
n+
mil. budget; 22 employees. Prev. mgr. or etro. /zeg1. p1ng. comet.) 12/1/75; Wheeling
asst. mgr. exp. des. Pos. open 6/1/76. (19,000) 12/1/75 Correction: AB + mun. exp.
Send resume to Chrm., Town Cncl., Town req.; mgr. exp. pref.
Office, 04364. KANSAS: Liberal (15,500) 12/1/75;
Oberlin (2,500) 11/15/75.
OTHER MUNICIPALITIES MAINE: Portland (65,000) 12/15/75.
MICHIGAN: Battle Creek (39,000) 11/15/ -
i'` *Aston Tp., Pa. (15,000) -- Starting 75; Sault Ste. Marie (17,000) 12/15/75.
salary $15- $20,000. Tp. Mgr.; 4 previous MINNESOTA: * *Chanhassen (8,000) 12/15/ -
mgrs., no mgr. since 1969. Appointed by 75; * *Hibbing (18,500) 1.2/15/75.
RESOLUTION NO. 1679
(%
•
A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A
Report On An Improvement
S. T. H. 101 - Trunk Watermain
2 k
WHEREAS, it is
proposed to improve S.T.H. 101 between the East
line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Add'n. and the East line of
Hall's 1st Addition, by Trunk Watermain, and to assess the benefited=
property for all or a portion of.the cost of the improvement,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred
to William Price, Suburban Engineering, for study and that he is
instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed
advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed
improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made
as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the
estimated.cost of the improvement as recommended.
Adopted in session of the City Council
of the City'of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
- , 1980.
•
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
•
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1980:
City Attorney •
I
•
CITY 0 ' SHAKOPEE
7
•
INCORPORATCCD 1070
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445 -3650
August 26, 1980 e i
Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman -
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro SquareBuilding
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Chairman Weaver:
As indicated on your correspondence to Mayor Walt
.Harbeck of June 5, 1980, the Metropolitan Council staff
temporarily suspended review of the Shakopee Comprehensive
Plan pending submission of additional information. After
discussing the matter with Jim Schoettler, the City at
this time, forwarding the requisite information of Item: ;11
(On -Site Sewage Disposal) and Item 7 (Implementation) with
the attached City Council resolution.
We request a letter indicating that the.Shakopee
• Comprehensive Plan review is continuing at your earliest
• convenience.
• Sincerely,
)t-
ouglas S. Reeder
City Administrator
DSR /jiw
Enclosures
The Heart of Pro Valle
An Equal Opportunity Employer
•
■
•
ON -SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL
The City of Shakopee plans to manage on -site sewage
disposal systems by utilizing the guidelines contained in
Procedure No. 10 (of the Water Quality Section of the Metro-
. politan Guide Plan) in the following manner:
Guideline 1 & 2 - Installation Requirements:
The City currently follows the design
standards set for in WPC 40 and will continue
to .do so.
Guideline 3 - Inspection Requirements:
The City presently inspects installation
and will continue to do so. The City will also
conduct an education program to inform septic
system owners of proper maintenance. The City
will not have an ongoing program of inspections
of existing systems.
Guideline 4 - Permit Recordkeeping:
The City currently keeps records of new
installation of systems but'does not anticipate
new recordkeeping functions.
Guideline 4.1 - Data Collection:
The City does not anticipate additional
recordkeeping of pumping or maintenance.
Guideline 5 - Correcting Existing Problems:
The City presently corrects existing
problems through the Building Inspections
Department.
Guideline 6 - Licensing:
The City plans to continue to rely on
• Scott County to license installers and under
a new County plan to license pumpers, haulers
and maintainers.
Guideline 6.1 - Ordinance Compliance:
The City does now and will continue to
enforce all local ordinances.
Guideline 6.2 - Work Records:
The City plans to rely on Scott County for
obtaining and maintaining work records.
On -Site Sewage Dispo$al Page -2- .7
Guideline 7 - Personnel:
The City will continue to have the
Building Inspections Department enforce on-
site system requirements and anticipates adding
no new personnel for this purpose.
FROM: Implementation Strategies Chapter
of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan
IMPLEMENTATION STAGING
•
COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING 1981 -83
STAGED GROWTH
CIP 1. X
2. X
3. X
Zoning - 4. X X
. 5. X
Subd.
Code A 6. X X
On -Site
Sewer
Regulation 7. . X X
METROPOLITAN FACILITY
IMPACTS
' Intergovernmental
Programs a) 1. X
2. X
3. X X
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PRESSURES
CIP a) 1. X
2, X
3. X
Zoning b) 4. X
5. X
6. X
Environmental
Regulations 7. X
Houing
Plan a) 8. X X
ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE LANDS
Parks Plan
a) 1. X X
Subdivision
Code 2. X
Zoning b) 3. X
4. X
5. X
6. X
On -Site
Sewer
Code 7. X X
Page -2- Z
'COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING 1981 -83
ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE LANDS (continued)
Misc. Land
Regulations
8. X
9. X
HOUSING
Zoning a) 1. X
2. X
3. X
4. X
5. X
Intergovernment
Program b) 6. X
7. X X
8. X X
9. X X
Local HRA 10. X
11. X X
CIP 12. X
13. X X
REDEVELOPMENT
b) 1. X X
2. X
a) 3. X
4. X
5. X
b) 6. X
a)_7. X X
8. X X
9. X X
10. X X .
INDUSTRIAL
BASE
Zoning a) 1. X X
2. X X
Transportation
Plan 3. X X X
Housing
Plan 4. X X
CIP 5. X X
Public
Financing 6. X X X
• Page -3- �' Z
COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING 1981 -83
AGRICULTURE
PRESERVATION
CIP a) 1. X X
Zoning 2. X
CIP 3. X X
LAND USE
COMPATIBILITIES
Land Use Plan /
Zoning a) 1. X
2. X
3. X
4. :: X X
5. X X
CIP /Subdiviaion
Code 4 6. X
7. X X
•
i
5 '
RESOLUTION NO. 1680
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDITIONAL COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN INFORMATION BE FORWARDED TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
WHEREAS, The City of Shakopee has forwarded its Comprehensive
Plan to the Metropolitan Council for formal review on May 12, 1980; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council suspended review of the Shakopee
• Comprehensive Plan pending submission of additional information.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, That the City Staff is hereby authorized to
submit,. to the Metropolitan Council the appropriate information as
presented in the City Planners memo of August 26, 1980, attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 26th day of August, 1980.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of August, 1980.
City Attorney
•
1
MEMO 7
•
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: 1981 Budget - Expenditures
DATE: August 26, 1980
The following is a list of items which are in the 1981
budget which could be cut to balance the budget. They are
not listed in priority order.
$15,000 Reduce Seal Coating Program to $20,000
3,000 Reduce building repair to Park and
Recreation Builing. ($2,000 remaining)
5,000 Reduce legal department.
5,000 Eliminate Architect plans for new City Hall.
1,000 Cut police training budget to $3,000 •
2,000 Eliminate pump for swimming pool.
10,000 Cut contingency to $30,000.
? New Finance clerk cut to 1/2 year
full time 1/2 year part time.
The following could also be cut but would impose more
restriction on the operation of the City.
Police overtime (use all compensatory time off)
1 Police Officer'
1 Public Works employee
1 Finance Clerk
$5,900 Industrial Commission Budget
$20,000 Eliminate Seal Coating Program
$1,500 Cable T.V. Commission budget for 1980
$3,000 Cut Park and Recreation Budget to 1980 levy.
$3,000 Eliminate part time assessor
Eliminate tree planting to replace Dutch Elm
DSR /dac
MEMO TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
RE: 1981 Budget
DATE: August 22, 1980
The attached study was prepared by the City Assessor to determine
the change in taxes on various homes and businesses in Shakopee as a!
result of levying the maximum amount we can levy for 1981. Since this
study was begun, two factors which will change the numbers somewhat have
become apparent.
First, we got our official mill levy limit from the State of
Minnesota and it appears to be about $28,000 higher than we have estimated.
This would increase the tax cost to each type of property slightly if
we levied the maximum.
Secondly, it appears that the State of Minnesota will reduce the
state aid we get at least in 1981 if not -also in 1980. The 8.3% decrease
(if this is what finally happens) would mean a reduction of about $32,000.
This would mean that we would either have to cut expenditures by $32,000
or increase taxes by $32,000.
I will make a formal presentation about the 1981 budget at the City
Council meeting on Tuesday, At this time I will simply say that the
budget is very tight and that we will have to levy to maximum we can
to balance it and therefore the attached statistics are accurate.
In addition to the City mill levy, I would remind you that the
school district levy will again decrease in mills and I do not know
what the County will do. These are much more important to the total,
tax bill for the property owner than is the City's levy.
The challenge which the City Council will have for the 1981 budget
is not so. .much the determination of the mill levy because the maximum
is set by law. Your problem will be what expenditures to cut out to
balance the budget or whether to use fund balance or money from the
capital equipment fund to balance the budget.
DSR /jsc
•
•
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
' 1980 TAX PROJECTION -
FOR
PROPERTY TAXES RECEIVABLE
1981
1
1
•
1
' Prepared By
Larry D. Martin
City Assessor
1
1
1
1
1
1
' CITY • F SHAKOPEE
4.�5� of ..ee�•�,�
f' ;�;_ y 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
:; l am � •Yr r r
•
MEMO
TO: Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
FROM: Larry Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: Taxes payable 1981
11 DATE: August 21, 1980
1
•
As requested, I have conducted a study to forecast
what we may expect in the way of real estate taxes on
1 residential homestead properties and commercial- industrial
properties for taxes payable in 1981.
' Part I of this booklet discusses residential homestead
properties. Part II discusses commercial - industrial properties.
The result of both studies indicate favorable outlook for 1981
' with the exception of those properties other than residential
homestead who benefited greatly from the linited market value
in the past.
•
1
LDM:plk
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PART I
1
RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
PURPOSE
' The purpose of this study is to determine the impact
that the 1980 re- assessment and the increase in monies needed
by the City of Shakopee will have for residential homestead
' owners with the City for taxes payable in 1981.
As you will recall in 1979, a similar study was conducted
' to determine the impact of value and budget changes for taxes
payable in 1980. The properties used in the 1979 report have
been carried over for use in this study.
1
' STUDY OUTLINE
Section 1 Mill Rate Estimate
Section 2 Data Arrangement
1
Section 3 Draw Comparisons
Section 4 Conclusion & Final Opinion
1
The above four sections are the main content of this study.
' The five properties used in this study have market values
ranging from $47,615 to $99,610. I believe this reasonably wide
range will give us a solid basis for determining the tax climate
for taxes payable in 1981 on residential homestead property.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SECTION 1
MILL RATE ESTIMATE
A mill rate or mill levy as used for ad valorem tax
purpose is a direct relationship between a taxing jurisdictions
1 budget and assessed value, the formula of which is as follows:
' Budget
Mill Rate = Assessed Value X 1,000
=(The purpose of multiplying the ratio of budget to assessed
value by 1,000, is to express our answer in mills. 1 mill =
1 /10 of a cent)
To calculate an estimate of the mill rate for payable 1981,
' I have estimated the 1980 assessed value for the City of Shakopee
to be 76,000,000. From this fiscal disparities has to be deducted
which has been estimated at 9,990,OCO. Therefore the mill rate
estimate has been calculated as follows:
1,000,752 Proposed Budget X 1,000 -
_76,000,000 Assessed Value - 9,990,000 Fiscal Disp.
15.16 mills
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SECTION 2
1
DATA ARRANGEMENT
1
' Within this section you will find five illustrations.
Each illustration contains the parcel identification number
' of the property being observed, the limited and assessed
market value of the property since 1976, the properties
tax liability to the City of Shakopee for. 1977, 1978, 1979
and 1980, the taxes that were projected for 1980. in the 1979
' report and the taxes that are projected for 1981.
Please keep in mind that for the 1980 assessment the
' limited market value has been abolished and the formula for
calculating the assessed value for homestead property has
been changed for payable 1980. Below for reference I have
listed the assessment percentages for 1976 thru 1980.
T976 1st $13,000 @ 25% Excess @ 40%
1977 1st $15,000.@ 22% Excess @ 36%
1978 1st $17,000 @ 20% Excess @ 33 1/3%
1979 1st $21,000 @ 18% Excess @ 30%
1980 1st $25,000 @ 16% 2nd. $25,000 @ 22% Excess @ 28%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 'ILLUSTRATION #1
Parcel No. 27- 004 -0000- 147 -00
1'976 LMV $22,790 = $7,166 Assessed Value
7,166 x 20.18 mills = $144.61 payable in 1977
. 1977 LMV $25,070 = $6,925 Assessed Value
6,925 x 20.47 mills = $141.76 payable in 1978
1978 LMV $28,885 = $7,362 Assessed Value
7,362 x 17.076 mills = $125.71 payable in 1979
' 1979 LMV $34,610 = $7,863 Assessed Value
7,863 x 18.02 mills = $141.69 PROJECTED payable 1980
7,863 x 18.323 mills = $144.07 ACTUAL payable 1980
1
1980 EMV $47,615 = $8,975 Assessed Value
I 8,975 x 15.16 mills = $136.06 PROJECTED payable 1981
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ILLUSTRATION #2
Parcel No. 27- 037 - 0000 - 013 -00
1
1976 LMV $31,605 = $10,692 Assessed Value
1 10,692 x 20.18 mills = $215.76 payable in 1977
1 1977 LMV $34,765 = $10,415 Assessed Value
10,415 x 20.47 mills = $213.20 payable in 1978
1 ,
1978 LMV $39,335 = $10,845 Assessed Value
1 10,845 x 17.076 mills = $185.19 payable in 1979
1 . 1979 LMV $46,190 = $11,337 Assessed Value
• - 11,337 x 18.02 mills = $204.29 PROJECTED payable 1980
11,337 x 18.323 mills = $207.73 ACTUAL payable 1980
1980 EMV $62,320 = $12,949 Assessed Value
' 12949 x 15.16 mills = $196.31 PROJECTED payable 1981
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r'
1
ILLUSTRATION #3
Parcel No. 27- 033 - 0000 - 005 -00
1976 LMV $35,215 = $12,136 Assessed Value
' 12,136 x 20.18 mills = $244.90 payable in 1977
' 1977 LMV $39,545 = $12,136 Assessed Value
12,136 x 20.47 mills = $248.43 payable in 1978
1978 LMV $44,825 = $12,675 Assessed Value
1 12,675 x 17.076 mills = $216.44 payable in 1979
1 1979 LMV $52,748 = $13,304 Assessed Value
13,304 x 18.02 mills = $239.74 PROJECTED payable 1980
13,304 x 18.323 mills = $243.77 ACTUAL payable 1980
1980 EMV $71,560 = $15,537 Assessed Value
' 15,537 x 15.16 mills = $235.54 PROJECTED Y a able 1981
1 P
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
w
1
1
ILLUSTRATION #4
Parcel No. 27 -015- 0000 - 004 -00
x.976 LMV $44,095 = 15,688 Assessed Value
15,688 x 20.18 mills * $316.58 payable in 1977
1 1977 LMV $48,505 = $15,362 Assessed Value
15,362 x 20.47 mills = $314.46 payable in 1978
1978 LMV 4 9 =
$5 , 70 $16,056 Assessed Value
' t 16,056 x 17.076 mills = $274.18 payable in 1979
1979 LMV $64,133 = $16,719 Assessed Value
16,719 x 18.02 mills = $301.28 PROJECTED payable 1980
16,719 x 18.323 mills = $306.34 ACTUAL payable 1980
1980 EMV $85,805 = $19,525 Assessed Value
' 19:;525 x 15.16 mills = $295.99 PROJECTED payable 1981
1
1
1
1
1
1
ILLUSTRATION #5
' .Parcel No. 27-015-0000-006-00
0 00
1
1'976 LMV $49,305 = $17,772 Assessed Value
1 17,772 x 20.18 mills = $358.64 payable in 1977
1 1977 LMV $54,235 = $17,424 Assessed Value
17,424 x 20.47 mills = $356.67 payable in 1978
1978 LMV $62,715 = $18,638 Assessed Value
18,638 x 17.076 mills = $318.27 'payable in 1979
1979 LMV $75,435 = $20,110 Assessed Value
r 20,110 x 18.02 mills = $362.39 PROJECTED payable 1980
20,110 x 18.323 mills = $368.48 ACTUAL payable 1980
' 1980 EMV $99,610 = 23,391 Assessed Value
23,391 x 15.16 mills = $354.60 PROJECTED payable 1981
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SECTION 3
1
COMPARISONS
1
Below I have prepared a grid and graph which lists
each property along with it's gross tax liabilty to the
' City of Shakopee for the 1976 pay 1977 through 1980
projected pay 1981. This will enable us to draw comparisons,
establish a short term trend and make a determination as tc
1 taxes pay 1981.
Ill. #1 Ill. #2 I11. #3 I11. #4 I11. #5
144.61 215.76 244.90 316.58 358.64
'77 -'78 141.76 213.20 248.43 314.46 356.67
1 '78 -'79 125.71 185.19 216.44 274.18 318.27
'79-'80 144.07 207.73 243.77 306.34 368.48
1 '80 -'81 136.06 196.31 235.54 295.99 354.60
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
1
1 380
1 370
360
Illustration #5
350
II 340
•
330
1 320
310
1 300
290 Illustration #4
28U
1
270
260
II 250
240 -
1 Illustration #3
230
220
1 210 ''''---------"- "" -- N% \N\N,o > ......................
200
Illustration #2
190
1
180
170
1 160
150
1 140
Illustration #1
130
1 120
76 -77 77 -78 78 -79 79 -80 80 -81
1
1
1
1
1 `
1
1
As you can see from the preceding graph, the gross
tax for each property follows the same pattern fairly closely.
For taxes payable '77 & '78, the level of taxes remained
fairly constant with a sharp drop in 1979 (typical appears to
' be approximately 13%) Then in 1980 the level rises again to
that which is quite similar to that of payable '77 & '78 and
it appears from our projection that for pay 1981 the gross tax
should remain at about the same level as pay 1980.
Overall we can observe that through this 5 year period,
the gross tax liability has remained stable with the exception
of the downward fluctuation in payable 1979.
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ti
1
SECTION 4
1
CONCLUSION AND FINAL OPINION
1
' After viewing the foregoing analysis, I believe we
can safely conclude that the gross tax on residential home-
stead property will remain relatively stable for taxes
' payable in 1981.
Although I am quite confident that this projection is
reasonably accurate, I think it is best to state that its
' reliability depends for the most part on the accuracy of
the total assessed value estimate for Shakopee which with the
loss of the limited market value this year became a more
' difficult task.
At this point, I will briefly address the topic of
net tax on homestead property for payable 1981 and the tax
1 liability of homestead owners to other taxing districts. -
Within the 1980 assessment year Shakopee was part of
' a countywide re- evaluation. As a result ofi,that re- evaluation,
dramatic increases in valuation were experienced through out
Scott County. As this re- evaluation progressed, our office
' monitored fairly closely the effect it was having on other
jurisdictions. In doing so, we observed that the typical
percentage increases felt by these jurisdictions far exceeded
what was typically being experienced by Shakopee. This
' expansion of assessed value in other jurisdictions would tend
to indicate that Shakopees liability to other districts,
County, School, Special, etc., will lessen.
In respect to net tax, the Legislature has increased
the homestead credit for next years taxes from 50% to 58%
' with the maximum increasing from $550 to $650.
Taking into consideration the projected stability of
tax liability generated by the City's levy and the expansion
' of assessed value of other jurisdictions along with the
increase of homestead credit provided by Legislature. It is
my opinion that property tax on homestead residential property
will be very favorable for payable in 1981.
1 •
1
1
111
•
1
1 •
1
1
I •
1
1 `
PART II
COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL
1 ^
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
1
STUDY OUTLINE
1
1 Section 1 - Introduction
Section 2 - Data Arrangement
Section 3 -, Comparisons
1 Section 4 Conclusions & Final Opinion
1 •
1
SECTION 1
1
INTRODUCTION
In addition to our homestead residential study this year,
' I have reviewed four commercial - industrial properties that have
values ranging from $26,920 to $6,478,600 to determine what
effect budget and valuation changes will have on this class of
' property for taxes payable in 1981.
On the following pages the properties have been listed
by parcel No. along with their limited market value. for 1976
through 1979 and the estimated market value for 1980 and the
calculation of taxes for each year including the 1981 projection
based upon 15.16 mills (estimated in Part I).
' Also listed is the assessed value for each year which brings
up a point of interest. The assessment ratio for this type of
' property has not been changed throughout this period (43 %).
Conversely, as seen in Part I, the homestead assessment ratios
have been becoming increasingly beneficial annually throughout
this study period.
1
1
1
SECTION 2
DATA ARRANGEMENT
1
ILLUSTRATION #1
1 Parcel No. 27 -001- 0000 - 162 -00
1976 LMV $18,800 = $8,084 Assessed Value
8,084 x 20.18 mills = $163.14 payable in 1977
' 1977 LMV $20,700 = $8,901 Assessed Value
8,901 x 20.47 mills = $182.20 payable in 1978
1978 LMV $22,800 = $9,804 Assessed Value
1 9,804 x 17.076 mills = $167.41 payable in 1979
' 1979 LMV $23,200 = $9,976 Assessed Value
9,976 x 18.323 mills = $182.79 payable in 1980
1980 EMV $26,920 = $11,576 Assessed Value
11,576 x 15.16 mills = $175.49 PROJECTED payable 1981
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
ILLUSTRATION #2
Parcel No. 27- 001 - 0000 - 144 -00
1
1976 LMV, $108,300 = $46,569 Assessed Value
'
46,569 x.20.18 mills = $939.76
payable in 1977
1977 LMV $119,100 = $51,213 Assessed Value
51,213 x 20.47 mills = $1,048.33 payable in 1978
1978 LMV $130,900 = $56,287 Assessed Value
56,287 x 17.076 mills = $961.16 payable in 1979
1979 LMV $144,050 = $61,942 Assessed Value
61,942 x 18.323 mills = $1,134.96 payable in 1980
1980 EMV $173,230 = $74,489 Assessed Value
' 74,489 x 15.16 mills = $1,129.25 PROJECTED payable 1981
1 •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ILLUSTRATION #3
'Parcel No. 27- 906 - 5210- 003 -00
1 1976 LMV $196,100 = $84,323 Assessed Value
84,323 x 20.18 mills = $1,701.64 payable in 1977
1977 LMV $196,100 = $84,323 Assessed Value
84,323 x 20.47 mills = $1,726.09 payable in 1978
1 1978 LMV $227,400 = $97,782 Assessed Value
97,782 x 17.076 mills = $1,669.73 payable in 1979
1979 LMV $274,300 = $117,949 Assessed Value
1 117,949 x 18.323 mills = $2,161.18 payable in 1980
1980 EMV $358,150 = $154,005 Assessed Value
154,005 x 15.16 mills = $2,334.72 PROJECTED payable 1981
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' ILLUSTRATION }`4
Parcel No. 27- 904 -5240- 006 -00
1
' 1976 LMV $4,968,700 = $2,136,541 Assessed Value
2,136,541 x 20.18 = $43,115.40 payable in 1977
1977 LMV $5,465,600 = $2,350,208 Assessed Value
1 2,350,208 x 20.47 mills = $48,108.76 payable in 1978
1978 LMV $5,912,700 = $2,542,461 Assessed Value
2,542,461 x 17.076 mills = $43,415.06 payable in 1979
1979 LMV $5,912,700 = $2,542,461 Assessed Value
1 2,542,461 x 18.323 mills = $46,585.51 payable in 1980
1 1980 EMV $6,478,600 = $2,785,798 Assessed Value
2,785,798 x 15.16 mills = $42,232.70 PROJECTED payable 1981
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 The foregoing data has been listed in the grid below
and also charted on a graph on the following page as was
done in Part I. However because of the wide range in taxes
payable, the year to year fluctuations have been expressed
1 as percentages using 1976 payable 1977 as a base at 100 %.
1
1 Il l.` 1J 7:'2] Ill. 3 Ill. 44
76 -77 163.14 939.76 1,701.64 43,115.40
1 •
77 -78 182.20 1,048.33 1,726.09 48,108.76
1
78 -79- 167.41 961.16 1,669.73 43,415.06
•
_ 2,161.18 46 585 51
79 80 182.79 1,134.96 2,161. ,
80 -81 175.49 1,129.25 2,334.72 42,232.70
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 40%
1 35%
•
1 30%
.7
1 25%
20% zon.aftassanuma..-
1 / - ,.....r*.c
15%
1
10%
1 �
. ice
l00% ''l
1 5%
1 10% •
1 15%
1 20%
25%
1
30%
1
35%
1
40%
1 76 -77 77 -78 78 -79 79 -80 80 -81
1
1
1
SECTION #3
COMPARISONS
1
1 As you can see from the preceding graph, the properties
have follcwed a fairly close pattern from pay 1977 to pay 1979
with the exception of Illustration #3. In taxes pay 1980 we
see that the properties have all taken increases in varying
degrees and finally for 1981 our projection indicates that the
valuation and budget change will have a varying effect, ranging
from a 2% drop to 37% increase from the 1976 base.
1 You will recall that in Part I the residential properties
all followed a close pattern on the graph. The reason for this
1 close pattern is the similarities that existed in the level of
their limited market values.
•
The inconsistencies within the commercial graph stems from
' the limited market value also. Please refer again to the pay
1977 through pay 1979 period where the illustrations are
reasonably consistant with the exception of #3. This occured
' because #3's limited market value had met its estimated in 1977
pay 1978. When the re- evaluation took place in 1978 pay 1979
a considerable spread was initiated in #3's EMV & LMV which
1 caused it to remain at about the.same level for pay 1979, as
the other properties were droping.
Illustrations #'s 1 & 4 for pay 80 have no limited market
1 value and are indicated to take a drop in tax liability for
pay 81. No. 2 has a limited market value of about 92% for
1979 pay 80 and is expected to stay at about the same level.
1 Illustration #3 is expected to take a sharp increase as a result
of a 85% limited market value in 1979.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SECTION #4
•
CONCLUSION & FINAL OPINION •
1
As is noted in the preceding comparisons, next years tax
' liability on any given commercial or industrial property will
rely greatly upon how they benefited from the limited market
value for taxes payable this year.
I am of the opinion that those commercial or industrial
properties that had no limited market value in 1979 will
experience a favorable tax position next year, while those
' :properties which had a limited market value of less than
approximately 90% will probably be experiencing an increase
in their liability.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1