HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 09, 2001 TENTATIVE AGENDA
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 9,
LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Jon Brekke presiding
1] Roll Call at 5:00 p.m.
2] Approval of Agenda
3] Riley, Dettmann & Kelsey Presentation of Proposed Compensation Study
4] Discussion Re: Valley View Road Improvement /Assessment Project
5] Other Business
6] Adjourn to Monday, August 13, 2001, at 5:00 p.m.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
T: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Draft Benefit Appraisals for Sarazin Street and
Valley View Road Improvement
DATE: August 9, 2001
Attached to this memo is a summary of the draft benefit appraisals of nine
by Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. associated with the Valley View and S
improvement project.
At the April 17, 2001 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized Patch
Appraisals, Inc. to prepare a limited benefit appraisal for properties affec
proposed road improvements. In meeting with staff, staff determined that nin:
were the most affected by the proposed improvement project and were s
benefit appraisal analysis. The limited appraisal summary report, whicl
attached, shows a before and after condition market value and indicates spe
for properties with the improvements of bituminous, street, curb & gutter, st
municipal water and sewer; and also before and after market value and indic,
benefit for those properties with only bituminous street surface, curb & gutter
sewer. Maps have been attached showing the subject zoning, the properties a
a concept plan done by Bolton & Menk, Inc. for the properties south of V
Road developing with sanitary sewer and watermain.
els done
in Street
in Messner
ted by the
properties
:lected for
has been
:ial benefit
rm sewer,
ed special
and storm
lected and
llev View
Staff also utilized an individual sewage treatment system evaluator to review the history
of the on -site systems. After the review was done of the building permits, very little
information was found on the existing wells or septic systems on developed sites in this
area. It is assumed that many of these existing systems at these sites are the age of the
buildings constructed.
Also included with this memo and the draft summary of the limited apprais,
received from property owners in regard to this proposed improvement p
would like to note that some of the property owners elected to wait with a le
of their desires until after the limited appraisal has been done. This limi
are letters
ect. Staff
or survey
appraisal
report has not been_ presented to the property owners and is being presented to City
Council for their direction on proceeding with this appraisal report.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Provide staff direction on this limited benefit appraisal report and with this
improvement project.
2. Table for additional information.
CO ATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to provide staff with direction on the limited benefit
appraisal report and direction on whether or not to proceed with the Valley View Road
and Sarazin Street project.
ACTION QUESTED:
Offer a motion providing staff on direction on a limited benefit appraisal report and on
whether or not to proceed with the Valley View Road and Sarazin Street improvement
project.
4 r a UC 4, eL L 'oney
Public Works hector
BL/pmp
APPRAISAL
9
P7
11
;/� /�,. it ; / � ; �, :�,
SURVEY OF PROPERTY OWNERS
ALONG PROPOSED VALLEY VIEW ROATF
IMPROVEMENT
The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27-9
DO WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility servi
available someday to our property.
The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27-91'
F DO NOT WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility
available to our property.
Property Owner Signatures
-31-/ --4-
Please return to City Engineering Department by April 24, 2001. Thank You.
0 t
es
I M S
- exfA \ --
The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27- 917018 -0
O W ANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility services
available someday to our property.
The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27- 917018 -0
® NOT WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermam utility services
available to our property.
Please return to City Engineering Department by April 24, 2001. Thank You.
h c (,� / ecLS 7o b- -- DGuC�- �vr' f �.1 t Cam' � y� j
J i ✓ Lv l E L.J . Q
not assesses 6Jeng � '�='`� '�3 l
1 /
em ber, i J h' a 1-S +7 U� Y
b CJ � � LLe Ct- L3-he CC e_ c�
Ga
JQ y- the. acg-�
L�:►'� �h cvt c;Q. / l ,,-� c,Jhc� x-1000 CfJ
P c
c� JL lot_ v S.i �rZ.si �i� m
SURVEY OF PROPERTY OWNERS
ALONG * OPOSED VALLEY VIEW ROAD
IMPROVEMENT
The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27 -91
F-1 DO WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility servic
available someday to our property.
The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27- 917006 -0
DO NOT WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility services
available to our property.
Property Owner Signatures
Please return to City Engineering Department by April 24, 2001. Thank You.
,. 1 1 , 1
The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27 -9
F-1 DO WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility servi
available someday to our property.
The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27- 920006 -0
O NOT WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility services
available to our property.
Property Owner Signatures
z C7 Go
Please return to City Engineering Department by April 24, 2001. Thank You.
I
RIMIN 1 1 ,1 141''1 ISM,
The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27-917007-0
DO WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility services
available someday to our property.
F -1 The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27-917007-0
DO NOT WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility service
available to our property.
Property Owner Signatures
zat
Please return to City Engineering Department by April 24, 2001. Thank You.
M essner Appraisals, In
Valuation Consultants
(952) 895 -1205
FAX (952) 895 -1521
June 29, 2001
City of Shakopee
Engineering Department
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, MN 55379
ATTN: Mr. Bruce Loney
ted Appraisal, Summary Re
Special Benefit to Nine Properti
Located Along Valley View Roz
Shakopee, Minnesota
0
Dear Mr. Loney:
At your request we have niae�fimited appraisal ®f the above captioned properties for the
purpose of estimating their current market value. The function of this appraisal is to
determine the market value of special benefit to subject properties, resulting from a proposed
street improvement project.
This Limited Appraisal is intended to comply with the Uniform Standa
Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice, (USPAP), of the Appraisal Foundation and t
Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The analysis of this report is limited in both the scope of
data researched and the depth of analysis. An appraisal of greater depth would have to be
performed before a complete appraisal could be rendered on this property. In preparing this
Limited Appraisal, we have invoked the Departure Rule of USPAP. In broad terms, we have
departed as follows:
® The scope of research and depth of analysis are not sufficient to be
considered a complete appraisal.
This appraisal is presented in a Summary r sents i onl o summary d scussons h data and
Rule 2 - 2(b). As such, this report pre Y
analyses used in the appraisal pro a pprais al s Ad ditional have information ti n oudfi edocumentation
concerning the data and analyses o f
TWIN CITIES OFFICE: ROCHESTER OFFICE:
Skyline Square Building, Suite 220 (507) 252 -1615
12940 Harriet Avenue South P.O. Box 7343
Burnsville, MN 55337 Rochester, MN 55903
in order to estimate the value of special benefit, we have estimated the market value of the
subject properties in both their before and after conditions. The difference between the
before and after values indicate the value of the special benefit resulting from a proposed
street improvement project.
The subjects consists of nine properties which are predominantly single family building sites
of one to six acres in size. In the before condition, the properties front a gravel road and are
served by private well and septic systems. In the after condition, Valley View Road will be a
bituminous surfaced roadway with concrete curbing and inground storm sewer. Municipal
services of sanitary sewer and water may also be installed. We have also valued the subject
properties in the after condition without municipal services being extended. It is generally
considered that the benefit of street improvements run. to the land. As such, only the land
value has been estimated in both the before and after.:conditions. We were unable to obtain
the condition of the private well and the sanitary sewer. of each parcel. For this analysis we
have assumed that these existing systems on, p�ap.�rties are currently functional and
generally of an age similar to the age of the buil.&I on site.
This appraisal report includes multiple parcels one cover. The report format presents
the general data involving all parcels, therriarkef aid the proposed project information in the
front of the report. Application of the anlyss :tc each individual parcel is then illustrated
later in the report.
Based upon the inspection of jeet properties, and consideration of the many factors
influencing market value, _it:1i} �u r3 ' nion that the subject's most probable market values, as
of June 1, 2001 are as fol:lbws:
Indicated for Benefit of g'itt]minous Street Surface, Curb & Gutter, Storm Sewer
and Municipal Water/ Sanitary Sewer —
Parcel
No.
Owner
- Market Value -
After Condition Before Condition
Indicated
Special Benefi
1
O'Loughlin
$
65,000
$ 50,000
$ 15,000
2
Smith
$
119,000
$ 57,000
$ 62,000
3
Hennes
$
129,000
$ 65,000
$ 64,000
4
Huth
$
139,000
$ 65,000
$ 74,000
5
B erg
$
80,000
$ 65,000
$ 15,000
6
Fonder
$
80,000
$ 65,000
$ 15,000
7
Schultz
$1,367,000
$716,000
$ 651,000
8
Kahnke
$
233,000
$137,000
$ 96,000
9
Larsen
$
424,000
$182,000
$ 242,000
Total
Estimated Special
Benefit
$1,234,000
Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc.
Indicated Benefit of Bituminous Street Surface, Curb & Gutter and Storm
Market Value
Fronting A
Market Value
Indi
Parcel Bituminous
Fronting A
Sp(
No. Owner Road
Gravel Road
Bei
1 O'Loughlin $ 60,000
$ 50,000
$ 1
2 Smith $ 67,000
$ 57,000
$ 1
3 Hennes $ 75,000
$ 65,000
$ 1
4 Huth $ 75,000
$ 65,000
$ 1
5 Berg $ 75,000
:: $ 65,000
$ 1
6 Fonder $ 75,000
` 1:
$ 1
7 Schultz $746,000.
:: $71b,000
$ 3
...............
8 Kahnke $147,000
$137,000
$ 1
9 Larsen $192 --G0 ;_,:.`
$182,000
1
Total EA- irNitiM Special
Benefit
11
............ ....
it should be noted that this= eftl{oi�sl_not qualify as an appraisal, and the
reap
to the following report fa ::_the suj o ing data,
ir:bf this report
and Limiting Conditions" setio
analyses and conclusions.
should be thoroughly read
Th
ar
before relying on any inform "d€> *: or analyses presented
herein.
ited
►al
I
er is directed
"Contingent
d understood
The undersigned appraisers hereby certify that we have investigated all information believed
to indicate the market value of the subject property. To the best of our knowledge and
beliefs, the statements contained in this report are correct, subject to the limiting conditions
set forth herein. If you have any questions or comments after reading this appraisal report,
please feel free to contact us at your convenience.
Certified to this 29th day of
June, 2001
PATCHIN MESSNER APPRAISALS, INC.
Jeffrey L. Warfield, MAI
Minnesota Certified General Licen
Jason L. Messner, MAI
Minnesota Certified General Li
#4001304
#4000836
Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc.
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2002 NON -UNION BASE PAY
[ August 9 2001 at 5pm ]
Completed to Date
➢ Meeting with Department Heads to introduce the pay study and establish them in their role as an
advisory team.
➢ Meeting with a group of eleven employees to introduce the pay study and establish them in their
role as an advisory team.
➢ Ensuring all job descriptions are current and distributing approximately 53 job description
questionnaires to capture additional job content information.
➢ Interviewing Department Heads to ensure a current and complete understanding of the
professional services being planned, designed, delivered and evaluated by each functional area.
➢ Completing job evaluation on 54 City classifications included in the study.
➢ Presenting job evaluation results to the Department Head Advisory Team and the Employee
Advisory Team for review and comment. There are 13 proposed classification grades rather than
the current 18 grades.
➢ Compiling market survey data from a selected benchmark peer group of cities including:
Andover, Champlin, Chanhassen, Chaska, Lakeville, Lino Lakes, Oakdale, Prior Lake, Savage
and Woodbury.
➢ Developing a proposed non -union base pay structure for calendar year 2002.
➢ Presenting the finalized job evaluation classification roster and proposed 2002 base pay structure
to the Department Head Advisory Team and Employee Advisory Team for review and comment.
➢ Presenting the proposed 2002 pay plan to the Council for review and comment, including a
model for implementation during 2002. (Classification Roster and Proposed Pay Structure)
✓ Secure approval on the proposed 2002 pay plan covering non -union classificatio
✓ Finalize discussions on two proposed positions and two reclassified / restructured positions that
will require future action.
✓ Perform Pay Equity testing to ensure ongoing compliance with the State's Local Government Pay
Equity Act (LGPEA).
✓ Prepare administrative guidelines for the pay plan.
✓ Prepare the final report when appropriate and present that report as directed by
✓ Be available for follow up to help ensure timely and successful implementation.
IZ l
& KELSEY LLc
1
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
GRADE LEVELS AND PAY MAXIMUMS IN THE PROPOSED 2002 NON UNION
Classification Title Proposed Grade Level Pro
City Administrator
13
$96,300
Chief of Police
11
$80,900
PW Director / Engineer
11
$80,900
Community Development Dir.
11
$80,900
Finance Director
11
$80,900
r
r ��....
.,,_.......,...,, -- / - r w, ,.��.,.�.,.,.s.'mi
„% ..k...,� ....z.,.
> ,, , :;�, ., i._u_�w..:�......�.. r,.'. . a.".: r. .' ��a; w.. �.&_...,..,;. -.uu.,.,,-.,..,•.,,,.wa,:.,>
Deputy Chief of Police
10
$72,300
Facility / Recreation Director
10
$72,300
Natural Resources Director
9
$65,700
Assistant City Engineer
9
$65,700
Project Engineer
8
$59,700
City Clerk
8
$59,700
Planner 2
8
$59,700
Building Official
8
$59,700
Assistant Finance Director
8
$59,700
EDA Coordinator
8
$59,700
Public Works Supervisor
8
$59,700
Project Coordinator 7 $54,300
Recreation Supervisor 7 $54,300
Payroll / Benefits Coordinator 7 $54,300
Building Inspector 7 $54,300
Fire Inspector 7 $54,300
Technician 4 7 $54,300
RILEY, D=MANN & KELSEY LLc
2
classification Title Propo Grade Level Proposed Pay Maximum
August 2001
RILEY, DETTMANN & KELSEY LLC
3
6
$49,400
Planner 1
Planner 1 - GIS /CADD
6
$49,400
Management Assistant
6
$49,400
6
$49,400
Technician 3
�������T � �7. �
S:v
u e ..,�'.•,i .,� ��
zv...?...u..a.+' SAYY�.��'��..+n``'
5
$44,900
Executive Secretary
$40,800
Police Secretary
4
4
$40,800
Ice Arena Maint. Operator
4
$40,800
City Clerk Secretary
4
$40,800
Engineering Secretary
4
$40,800
Planning Secretary
Secretary - Bldg- Inspection
4
$40,800
4
$40,800
Technician 2
$37,100
Records Technician
3
3
$37,100
Accounting Clerk
Office Service Worker (Bldg.)
3
$37,100
Office Service Worker (P +R)
3
$37,100
-d
MIN fi'
2
$33,700
Facilities Maintenance Worker
Bldg. Maint. Worker - City Hall
2
$33,700
2
$33,700
CSO
Customer Svc. Representative
2
$33,700
1
$30,600
Ice Arena Supervisor
1
$30,600
Building Supervisor
1
$30,600
Receptionist
August 2001
RILEY, DETTMANN & KELSEY LLC
3
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
PROPOSED 2002 PAY STRUCTURE COVERING NON -UNION CLASSIFICATIONS
13
$77,100
$80,300
$83,500
$86,700
$89,900
$93,100
$96,300
12
$70,000
$73,000
$75,900
$78,800
$81,700
$84,600
$87,500
11
$64,700
$67,400
$70,100
$72,800
$75,500
$78,200
$80,900
10
$57,900
$60,300
$62,700
$65,100
$67,500
$69,900
$72,300
9
$52,600
$55,300
$57,900
$60,500
$63,100
$65,700
8
$47,800
$50,100
$52,500
$54,900
$57,300
$59,700
7
$43,400
$45,500
$47,700
$49,900
$52,100
$54,300
6
$39,500
$41,400
$43,400
$45,400
$47,400
$49,400
5
$35,900
$37,700
$39,500
$41,300
$43,100
$44,900
4
$32,700
$34,800
$36,800
$38,800
$40,800
3
$29,700
$31,600
$33,400
$35,200
$37,100
2
$27,000
$28,600
$30,300
$32,000
$33,700
1
$24,500
$26,100
$27,600
$29,100
$30,600
CONFIDENTIAL
UNTIL FINALIZED
AND APPROVED
# The lowest pay step in each grade level is approximately
80% of the
highest pay step in each grade
level. Step increments are rounded
and evenly distributed in
the progression.
Riley, Dettmann and Kelsey LLc
4 July 2001
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
PROJECTED INVESTMENTS TO FUND THE PROPOSED 2002 NON UNION PAY PLAN
[ Presented 8 -9 -01 to the Council ]
Reference Point for the Investment Comparisons and Calculations
➢ A projected total City base pay calculation covering non union and union personnel of $3,900,000 as of
12/31/01.
Investment Actions to Fund the Proposed 2002 Non Union Pay Plan
1. Approving an adjustment of 3.5% to base pay effective 111/02 for those non -union personnel holding
classifications included in this pay plan This action would require an investment of approximately $77,000 or
about 2% of the City's total base payroll as of 12/31/01.
2. Approving step placements effective 1/1/02 for these same personnel to the closest step in the proposed
2002 pay structure following the 3.5% adjustment to base pay. This action would require an additional
investment of approximately $59,000.
3. Approving an additional step movement effective 7/1/02 for individual employees in this plan whose
employment with the City as of 1102 is at least:
➢ 6 years for those holding classifications in Grade Levels 10 -13.
➢ 5 years for those holding classifications in Grade Levels 5 - 9.
➢ 4 years for those holding classifications in Grade Levels 1 - 4.
This action would require an additional investment of approximately $12,000 (covering the last half of 2002).
The total investment of these three actions is $148,000 [approximately 3.8% of the 12/31101 total City base payroll].
Looking Back and Ahead
➢ As reported in the 2001 Twin Cities Metropolitan Salary Survey:
❖ Jurisdictions adjusted their pay structures on average about 3.3%
Actual pay (typically the combined effect of adjustments to pay structures and step increases for
those eligible for step increases) increased on average about 4.5 %.
The previous pattern of overall actual pay increases for the past few years as reported in the Metro
Survey was:
1999 -2000 3.0% 1997 -1998 2.95 %'
1998 -1999 3.5% 1996 -1997 2.9%
Looking ahead it is recommended that the City favorably consider:
Adjusting the 2003 non -union pay structure in an amount that will keep Shakopee favorably
positioned in reference to the benchmark group of cities used to develop the 2002 pay structure.
(The historical pattern would suggest this amount would be in a general range from 2.9% to 3.5 %).
❖ Making all step adjustments that would ordinarily occur throughout calendar year 2003 effective
1/1/03 rather than on anniversary dates.
Granting an additional step effective 7/1/03 on same criteria as #3 above covering 2002. (This
practice would stop in 2003)
RILEY, DETTMANN & KELSEY LLc
R
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
DEVELOPING A REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION (RRR) PRO
During the late 1980's and early 1990's Minnesota public sector entities implemented the State's 1984 Local
Government Pay Equity Act (LGPEA). Quite often cities, counties and school districts included some type of
classification placement appeal process in the implementation process. These appeal protocols allowed individual
employees to request a review and reconsideration of the proposed placement of a particular classification by the
employer. In some cases immediate supervisors and /or department heads needed to sign off on an appeal before it
moved forward.
It seems appropriate for the City to consider some type of classification placement appeal process provided that: 1)
The process will contribute to program integrity and consistency and 2) It is clearly understood that final decisions
on the classification and placement of positions are employer obligations within established polices and procedures
of the Council.
ocess Outline for a Request for Review and Reconsideration
➢ An RRR is a written disagreement with the proposed or current classification placement of any particular
position in the City's internal classification hierarchy. An RRR may be initiated by one individual for his /her
position or a group of individuals holding the same position.
➢ An RRR must be agreed to and signed off on by both the immediate supervisor (if there is one) and the
appropriate department head.
➢ An RRR should precisely and concisely identify what job content may not have been given full consideration
during the job evaluation process, Examples of seemingly incomplete or incorrect job content information
should be linked to one or more of the five job evaluation factors i.e.: Formal Preparation and Experience;
Decision Making (Impact); Thinking Challenges and Problem Solving; Interactions and
Communications; and Work Environment.
➢ An RRR should also identify in which level or grade of the internal classification hierarchy the position under
review should be placed in the opinion of those initiating the RRR.
➢ Only one RRR document should be submitted for any particular position. If several individuals hold the
same position they should consolidate their thoughts into one RRR.
➢ No RRR should be submitted for new positions until the position has been in place for at least six months
and preferably one year.
➢ RRR's for current positions (or new positions that have been in place for at least six months to a year)
should be submitted during the month of August so that sufficient time is allowed to determine the economic
impact of any approved classification level / grade change.
➢ The review and decisions on each submitted RRR is to be made by a panel of department heads selected
by the City Administrator. Documented decisions on each RRR should be delivered within approximately
two weeks after an RRR is received by the review panel. Each appropriate department head is to assume
the responsibility to communicate the panel's decisions accordingly.
➢ Decisions on each RRR should be final and once a decision has been made no further or additional RRR
should be submitted for the same position unless or until the City reorganizes, restructures or redefines that
position.
July 2001
RILEY, DETTMAND & KELSEY LLc
D