HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/1992 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 28 , 1992
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 4: 00 P.M.
2] Hiring A Construction Manager` - tabled 4/21
3 ] Other business c* ) /% " J 131;e mvnn ,
4] Adjourn
)0� Pte.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL, 28, 1992
1] Roll Call at 4 : 10 P.M.+
2] Approval of Minutes of March 31st, April 14th and 16th, 1992
3] Library Presentation by Janet Williams
4] Sentencing to Service Program - Discussion
5] Special Assessment Policy
6] Township Meeting Agenda - discussion
7] Need for Thursday Meeting - discussion
8] Selection of May Committee of the Whole Tentative Meeting
Dates
9] Recess and Move to the Jackson Town Hall to Meet With
Jackson and Louisville Township Supervisors
10] Re-convene at 7 : 00 P.M.
1] Recreation User Fee
2] Fire Department Contract - verbal
3] Update on Community Center Survey - verbal
4] Orderly Annexation Plan - verbal
11] Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
a
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Hiring of Construction Manager for the New City Hall
DATE: April 24, 1992
INTRODUCTION:
Last month the City Council authorized the City Administrator to
prepare RFP' s for the hiring of a construction manager for the
remodeling of the Marquette Bank building into a new City Hall.
BACKGROUND:
Last summer the City Council purchased the Marquette Bank building
at 129 South Holmes with the intent of converting into a new City
Hall. As part of the purchase agreement Marquette Bank would
continue to occupy the structure until approximately the end of
June 1992 , at which time they would move in to their new bank
building which is located at the corner of Fourth Avenue and
Marschall Road. The project is on schedule and it is anticipated
that Marquette Bank will move during the weekend of June 21st.
The City Council has the option of either hiring a construction
manager to manage the City Hall project or to bid the project out
to a general contractor. The use of construction managers has been
fairly wide spread in the private sector but has only recently
grown in acceptance in the public sector. The construction and
remodeling of several city halls and schools in and around the
metro area have used the construction management process during the
past few years. The construction management process is essentially
a project delivery system which applies modern management
techniques to project planning, design and construction with the
primary intent of controlling cost and time while achieving a
desired degree of quality control. The construction manager will
function as the agent of the City at a pre-agreed fixed contract
rate whereas the general contractor functions as an independent
bidder whose profit is dependent upon the ultimate cost of the
project.
The construction manager, as a member of the owners project team
will be responsible for working with the architect and the City in
preparing a project budget and will insure that the architect
produces a design that will fall within the budget parameters. The
construction manager will also prepare project specifications and
bidding documents, prequalify subcontractors, schedule and
coordinate the work of subcontractors, prebid materials with long
delivery times such as an elevator, and provide daily on-site
inspection during the project construction phase. Essentially a
construction manager replaces the typical general contractor at a
comparable or perhaps slightly lower cost to the project owner, and
with a greater degree of assurance of cost containment. The City
does not have any existing staff with available time during the
summer to function in this role.
FIRMS CONSIDERED:
Three firms responded to the RFP. They were the Bossardt
Corporation, Bill Henning and RLK Associates. The City' s interview
team consisted of the City Engineer\Public Works Director, the
Assistant City Administrator and the City Administrator.
The three firms presented different approaches and had different
backgrounds. RLK Associates was a firm established in 1990,
although the principal of the firm had in excess of 20 years
experience and other firm members also had experience with other
organizations. This firm is a civil engineering, landscape
architecture, transportation, infra-structure development and
construction management firm. The President of RLK, Richard Koppy
was a principal with Westwood Engineering, a firm which did the
design work for the City on the downtown project. The firm
currently has 16 full time staff members.
Bill Henning is primarily a general contractor who constructs
commercial and industrial buildings. Bill Henning has 25 years of
construction experience. The other staff member who would be
involved would be Greg Henning who has appreciably less experience.
Bill Henning continues to function as a general contractor for
commercial and industrial projects and was the general contractor
for the Mebco building in Shakopee.
Bossardt Corporation is a 8 year old firm that does nothing but
building construction management. They do not do other forms of
civil engineering nor are they a general contractor. They have had
both public and private sector clients and have completed numerous
projects in and around the metro area. The principal of this firm
has had 25 years experience. The firm currently has 19 employees.
COST
The fees to be charged ranged from 4% of construction cost plus
field management costs to 10% plus field management costs. The
breakdown of the firms costs include Bill Henning - 10%; Bossardt
Corporation - 8% and RLK Associates - 4%. One of the firms, Bill
Henning, indicated that if costs would go up their fee would also
increase. The other two firms indicated they would agree to set
amounts, and if costs were to go up their fees would remain fixed.
In other words, they would not benefit from project add ons.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the unanimous recommendation of the interview team that the
Bossardt Corporation be hired for this project. The major reasons
for this recommendation include the experience of the firm
specifically in construction management and in working with both
public and private sector clients. The experience this firm has
had specifically in working for cities and working on city hall and
other public building projects was also an important factor. The
qualifications of the individuals who would be involved in the
project the endorsement of the project architect, and the overall
superior presentation made by this firm were further reasons
substantiating this recommendation.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to direct the appropriate City officials to negotiate with and
prepare a contract with Bossardt Associates for construction
management services for a new City Hall.
(If the City Council endorses this recommendation, a formal
contract will be presented to the City Council for adoption. )
a
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
RE: T.H. 169 Bridge and Minibypass
DATE: April 27 , 1992
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to amend the motion of April 21, 1992 by deleting the cap
placed on the City' s street lighting cost for the T.H. 169 Bridge
Project, and ratifying the signing of the street lighting cost
contract.
3I
Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
From: John H. DeLacey, Eng. Tech. III
Date: April 28 , 1992
Subject: Partial vacation of an existing drainage easement.
Introduction:
Earlier today staff was contacted by a real estate agent for
Realty/World-Kubes regarding a problem that they were having in
preparing all the necessary documents for a closing on a sale of
property located at 420 W. 2nd Ave. The legal description for this
property is The easterly 55' of Lot 8 Block 34, Shakopee Plat. The
closing date for the sale of this property is April 30 (Thursday) .
Background:
In May of 1986, the City had acquired a 20 ' wide drainage easement
for the purpose of installing storm drainage from the owner of the
property referred to above. While performing a check on the title
to the property, the abstract company discovered that the easement
described in the document actually includes approximately four feet
of the property owners house. (See Attached) . Staff has looked at
this property and verified that the drawing does appear to be
correct. The mortgage company has stated that they will not close
on this property unless the City of Shakopee is willing to vacate
a portion of the drainage easement so that the house will not
interfere with it.
Staff has reviewed this drainage easement and we feel that there
would be no adverse effect if the City were to vacate a portion of
this easement. Staff is recommending that the City vacate the
easterly five feet of the drainage easement, thereby maintaining a
fifteen foot drainage easement for any necessary work to be done on
the storm drainage system in place.
Alternatives:
1. Vacate the easterly five feet of the existing storm drainage
easement which would leave the City with a fifteen foot wide
drainage easement.
2 . Do nothing
Recommendation:
Staff recommends alternative number one.
Requested Action:
Offer Resolution No. 3584 , A Resolution Authorizing Delivery of a
Deed to Extinguish a Portion of an Easement and move its adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 3584
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DELIVERY OF A DEED
TO EXTINGUISH A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT
WHEREAS, under date of May 30, 1986, an easement was executed
by Wayne Leroy Olson and wife LaDean M. Olson running in favor of
the City of shakopee for drainage purposes over, under and across
the West 20 feet of the East 55 feet of Lot 8, Block 34, City of
Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, the City no longer requires the easterly five feet of
the above described easement and the same serves no useful purpose
and should be released and discharged of record.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE Shakopee City Council that
part of the easement above described be and the same hereby is
released and discharged as follows: the easterly five feet of the
westerly 20 feet of the easterly 55 feet of Lot 8 , Block 34 , City
of Shakopee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a quit claim deed to discharge
the same of record be made and signed by the proper City officials
and delivered to the present owner of the above described property.
Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council
held this day of , 1992 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form.
City Attorney
04/28/92 11 :01 a 612 445 0319 KOHLRUSCH RBST P.03
File No,_ ST-1909 — Exhibit
PLAT DRAWING
(THIS IS NOT A SURVEY)
Av4- .
55/
7-0.
ic
(
fL.
—\ ‘,
i`4
•-•C C.) \
ts.4
X.
-. > ..--------- \
I
1k R%1,4
t V. \......1\ .-----
n%
45.
14
PropertyAddhess: 420 2nd Ave. Wcst, Shakopee, MN 5 379
"'(he location of the improvements shown on this drawing are approximate and arc based on a visual inspection of
the premises. The lot dimensions arc taken from the recorded plat or county records. This drawing is for informational
1 purposes and should not be used as a survey. it does not constitute a liability of the company and is intended for
mortoace purposes only."
r ., S. •
• r •
•
• • 1 - ; - 1 2
r op..,t•.. U Yw.M.•M
( tom am.as it-curt et*tM DEED Yw••INs Vrt,.,.e•..11%.t-.1.1111 a1.M,ttataf
a ProlOWSPO
No delinquent tuxes and transfel entered:Certificate I
of Real Estate Value ( )filed 1 .-")not required 1, n• r .
Certificate of Rea:Estate Value No. i ,dr,
` _...-. _ %1r7JG2sL.� • (.0101yp1,CSltl�r ' i�. :. ••,
/' '
by.___AL.. ,./.6.a.z...x.
Xf
MP
STATE 11EF.f)TAX DUE 11E111F.ON: S _ E .... 1 ... �.. ` •
Date __ „((1(i0
� _ _ .1St tt( I' f Creserved for recording data) —_.".—
FOR VALUABLE CONS11)EkAT1t1N. _t,.;YN1. t-f 1tOY Ut SON and t bMAN_M. OLCON. - t;r►nwr(s1,
fivsTiSnQ lied v7ice
-.._ --. ..---- C11Y Of 5gAKOPEf — _. .._._ _-•
herrhy convey 13)al,d quitclaim Csl to . .. ___.•-- •.,•-• iee,
—riuniTal CJ" oreEion_.•_ • • -unclerthelawsof thc.Sf.ale oZ•1)Sinl1cso"fa •,---_
+ '_ -� � 'St Ott county,SSrnnEiota,drscr!Ircc;as follows. _
real property In .- -- -..—... . . .. . ... _._ .
An easement for drainage purposes, over. underandactoss the following dcscrthP1
1 pfopert) .
Inc )test 20 feet of the fest 55 fret of Lot ti. Rloci• 34. ?z
CITY OF SIS4Y.OP E
•t
cvl
` 1d e.a.epee.,I N ra•co•,•A..s al Vs:14
together with all hereditaments and a.>purtenanccf belonging thereto. }
'•••c<�.•� ,1 : . ....C.2—<;44,.t2.--_... •.._.
INaynexekwY ..,..s.‘...
11son
.0....‘"!./1,' /.! fr�s+:.t.•+-ate-_ ---- -• --
STATE OF MINNESOTA - a _-. . . .- --- .—.. - -
•
r1 c� 4 May 1p F6
The foregoing inuvu�ntar was alaDean Med b'tOT me th�� C .-/La.y of ._ Gta,ttoi a).
„' _Floe teRoLO-soli a d -- •- •—
NOTAa o a VM SIM-(Olt OTHER TALI OP 8A!nC1 .J,, /,�mac,__-!
N _.
COAL FE A IINJERWOt� ' I:A t PR c.s KR3�r
i .term 1.AL tMn1,Fb•t
j) WV A.,1 i.Lic nwNEB014 7rr $."."...".rot tree rA~a•rs t0
SCO 1 T COUNTY k b.gent a•nnat.�>aou Mc
Vt_ IA/C. • 1.:....Oct II OW .-(K' ha-.- ) 1•\
•
1•41I1!4iTRONt•Ni tt Ab I3k I'SP hi W Atrr AAI.Atli/NI•Si
1 KR.ASS 5 r)MROt Cif Ac,rE ia.O
3?7 Soutn Marschat 1 Rued, S'r1 tc 3O:)
Post Office Box 216 I
Shaknree, Minnesota :,53/9
(612) 4466-503t)
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 31, 1992
Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p.m. , with Cncl.
Vierling, Lynch, Beard, and Sweeney present. Also present: Dennis
Kraft, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Barry Stock,
Assistant City Administrator; and Gregg Voxland, Finance Director.
Lynch/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of January 28 , 1992 and
February 11, 1992 . Motion carried unanimously.
Richard A. Reichow, Chief Financial Officer for Canterbury Downs,
was present to discuss the assessed valuation of the racetrack
property for the purposes of levying taxes. He stated that when
the racetrack was constructed the City made certain improvements,
which were financed by the City through tax increment bond issues .
He added that due to various reasons, the racetrack has suffered
substantial losses.
Mr. Reichow stated there is an assessment agreement between the
racetrack and the City that prohibits the assessed valuation to be
determined in the same manner as other businesses . He stated that
their property tax is the third largest expense for the racetrack,
and that the racetrack pays over twice the level of taxes as other
businesses within Shakopee. Mr. Reichow stated the racetrack is
proposing to the City that the assessment agreement be reviewed and
consideration be given to allow Canterbury Downs ' property to be
valued at some lower amount for 1992 and beyond. He added he is
appealing to the City as a "good neighbor" and on the basis of
"fairness" . He requested the racetrack pay taxes on what the
business is worth.
The City Administrator explained tax increment financing stating
that there are specific uses that the tax increment trust fund can
service. He presented four different scenarios for Council
consideration in response to the racetrack' s request. Discussion
was held on the alternatives as presented and other options
available.
Discussion was also held on how any consideration of the
racetrack' s taxes would impact the county and the school ' s budget.
Sweeney/Beard moved to refer to the City Council action on a
proposal to reduce the assessment value of Canterbury Downs to some
agreed level.
Specific discussion was held on: 1) The fiscal disparities issue
as it relates to the tax payers; 2) Would the racetrack remain
viable without some financial assistance; 3) In the event the
racetrack closed, what protection did the City have in recovering
taxes if the valuation was lowered; and 4) Any costs the City
incurred be charged back to Canterbury Downs, should the existing
agreement be amended.
Official Proceedings of the March 31, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -2-
Cncl. Beard stated that the public needs to be aware that any tax
reduction would not come from the City' s general operating budget.
Terry McWilliams, General Manager for Canterbury Downs, was present
for discussion with the Committee of the Whole.
Motion carried with Cncl. Sweeney voting "no" .
Discussion continued on: 1) Cash flow relief extension to recover
the taxes; 2) There should be no negative impact to the school
district or the county; 3) City projects that would be affected by
the lowering of the racetrack assessments; 4) The need to pay off
the bonds before any assessment change; 5) Suggestion that
Canterbury Downs pay off the bonds thus terminating the agreement;
6) Extension time of TIF District #1 and the impact of fiscal
disparities analysis; 7) Suggestion of reducing Canterbury Downs '
taxes by 25 percent; and 8) Combination of fronting the bonds and
not extending any other tax increment districts.
Cncl. Lynch requested this item come before the City Council when
she could be in attendance; the May 5th meeting was suggested.
The Committee of the Whole recessed at 8 : 30 p.m. and reconvened at
8 : 35 p.m.
Donald Kaufenberg came before the Committee of the Whole
representing the Shakopee/Prior Lake Hockey Association and gave a
presentation of the needs of the hockey association.
Mr. Kaufenberg stated that the hockey bubble is on its "last leg" ,
the members of the association are burning out due to the constant
repair needs being performed on the bubble, and that if some
financial commitment cannot be given, there will be no skating at
the bubble for the 1992/1993 hockey season.
Mr. Kaufenberg stated that the association is asking the City for
both moral and financial help in trying to build a basic structure
for the community. He added that if such a structure were
constructed, he believes the youth and the hockey organization
could operate it expense-free. Mr. Kaufenberg stated that a basic
structure, known as "Phase One" , would cost $424, 000 . This
proposed Phase One structure would be similar to the ice arena
located in Farmington. The basic structure could be erected on
the existing site, which would be the most economical, and it could
be built in time for the opening of the 1992 hockey season.
Mr. Kaufenberg distributed a letter of support for the
Shakopee/Prior Lake Hockey Association from the businesses within
Shakopee. He explained how the two cities had merged. He added
that the Prior Lakes businesses have not been contacted for
financial support because it was Mr. Kaufenberg' s contention that
Official Proceedings of the March 31, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -3-
Prior Lake businesses should not be solicited for financial
assistance for a facility to be placed in a different community.
Mr. Kaufenberg stated that the needs of the hockey association are
immediate, and they are willing to take any help the City can
offer.
Discussion was held on the possibility of a Shakopee
Community/Civic Center and how this could affect the hockey
association and their needs.
Mr. Kaufenberg stated that since the idea of a community/civic
center is still pending, it wouldn't be soon enough to help the
hockey association for the 1992 season. He added that he didn't
believe that an ice arena combined with a community/civic center is
a good idea. He suggested a hardshell be build by the City, or the
City help to finance a hardshell, to be placed on the existing
site.
Discussion was held on whether or not a less permanent structure
could be built that would sustain the hockey association for at
least three years. Mr. Kaufenberg responded that the existing
bubble would not make it another year and is beyond refurbishing.
Discussion was held on an operating budget for an ice arena. Mr.
Kaufenberg stated that an ice arena is not a money-making business
and all they have as an operating budget is the report of their
operating expenses from previous years.
Discussion was then held on the generations to follow and if they
would be as willing to assist in the operations of an ice arena as
the past and current generations have been. Discussion was also
held on the protection to the City for operating the ice arena if
an ice arena were funded with City funds.
Mr. Kaufenberg stated that many cities have an ice arena subsidized
by City funds.
Discussion was held on Shakopee/Prior Lake finding ice time at
various other places. Mr. Kaufenberg stated this had been tried
for the beginning of the 1991 season when the existing bubble was
down, but found to be almost impossible.
Questions were raised on the report prepared by the Chamber of
Commerce and how it currently relates to the Hockey Association and
their needs. The Chamber director stated that the report prepared
by the Chamber was in support of a community/civic center as a
benefit the entire community, and was not based solely on the needs
of the Hockey Association.
Cncl. Sweeney questioned what the Shakopee/Prior Lake Hockey
Association wanted from the Council. He asked if they were before
Official Proceedings of the March 31, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -4-
the Council in hopes of receiving $424, 000 for an ice arena. Mr.
Kaufenberg responded this is what the association was hoping to
achieve.
Cncl. Sweeney then asked if the association wanted this placed upon
a referendum for the voters in November. Mr. Kaufenberg stated
this was not their intent.
Discussion continued as to where the City would get the extra
$424 , 000 for an ice arena when this was not a part of the current
budget. Discussion was also held on the pending budget cuts for
the cities by the state.
Cncl. Sweeney suggested bond funding, which would be a means of
financing this facility, but added it would have to be done via the
referendum procedure.
Cncl. Vierling suggested seeing some financial commitment from
Prior Lake and from the townships. She also suggested a revenue
bond using some of the tourist tax dollars. These issues were
further discussed, and it was determined that tourist tax dollars
would not be a viable financing method due to state guidelines on
the use of tourist tax dollars.
Other funding alternatives such as the use of capital improvement
funds were discussed and how to prioritize the needs of the
community. Discussion was also held on the timing of this request
in regard to the proposed survey to be conducted relative to a
community/civic center.
Mr. Kaufenberg questioned if a survey had been done before a new
City Hall facility was purchased.
Mayor Laurent responded that there are some services necessary to
keep the City running properly, and a new City Hall facility is.
determined to be essential in order to keep the City of this size
functioning.
Mr. Kaufenberg stated that anything that promotes growth and
encourages the youth to remain within the community is essential in
keeping the City running.
The Council thanked Mr. Kaufenberg for his informative presentation
and complimented the association and their volunteers for their
dedication and ability in keeping the existing bubble debt-free and
operating over the past years.
Mr. Kaufenberg stated he believes there are funds available within
the City and wants their organization to be considered when these
funds are expended. He added that he is all for a community/civic
center, but he added that the facts present themselves that money
Official Proceedings of the March 31, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -5-
would be saved by constructing an ice arena at the existing site.
He stated that if they were helped out with the financing and/or
building of the structure, he would guarantee that the volunteers
would keep the facility functioning. He added that a facility of
this nature would be a very good return on the investment. He then
asked how to further proceed.
City Administrator stated that one of the first questions that
needed to be answered is what the legislature will be doing to the
cities relative to budget cuts. He added the second question is the
response from the citizens on the upcoming survey for a
community/civic center. He added that the legislature is proposing
a cut, but the City' s financial situation changes each year due to
the amount of dollars that can be levied so the City should be able
to adapt to these cuts.
The Committee of the Whole recessed at 10: 15 p.m. The Committee of
the Whole reconvened at 10: 30 p.m.
Staff asked for direction on how to proceed with a conceptual image
study for the downtown area north of 1st Avenue. Staff also
requested a recommendation from the Committee relative to the
parking lot in back of City Hall whose lease will expire in April
1992 .
The Assistant City Administrator suggested speaking with MnDOT to
amend the lease agreement for continued use of the parking lot
behind City Hall.
Duane Wermerskirchen questioned what had happened to the $175, 000
the City had received for the purchase of the parking spaces behind
City Hall.
Cncl. Sweeney stated that since the City already owns land
available for parking, he saw no need in spending funds to purchase
additional parking space. He added he believes the $175, 000 could
be put to better use for the City. He added that at this time,
it ' s undetermined where the parking needs will be for the City.
The Assistant City Administrator stated that what the Downtown
Committee had recommended was to purchase the Pelham Hotel property
for parking.
Cncl. Sweeney stated that according to the Downtown Committee, they
would like the Downtown alleys improved with underground utility
installation. He requested a priority level from the Downtown
Committee.
Bill Wermerskirchen stated that the parking that is available on
the north side of 1st Avenue is not being used by the residents due
to the inconvenient location. The people want to park close to
•
Official Proceedings of the March 31, 1992
Committee of the Whole Page -6-
where they shop. He added the real issue is how useful are the
parking lots.
Discussion was held on what should be done with the north side of
1st Avenue. Some suggestions were: 1) Rehabilitation to the
buildings; 2) Park area; 3) Retail use in combination with multi-
family use; 4) Senior citizen housing.
It was the consensus of the Committee that any redeveloped
structure should have two fronts.
Bill Wermerskirchen stated that something just has to be done with
this block and the timing is now because over 18 years of study
have not produced any results to this area. He stated this is a
City problem, not just a downtown problem.
The Committee requested a study from staff noting pros and cons for
the alternatives and funding options available. They requested
staff review the options given and research other alternatives.
They also requested that information be presented noting the kind
of tax revenue end result. This information to be presented to the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
The Committee of the Whole adjourned at 11: 05 p.m.
(lac)
J d th S. Cox
it Clerk
Jane VanMaldeghem
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 14 , 1992
Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7: 05 p.m. at the Fire
Station. Councilmembers Michael Beard, and Gloria Vierling were
present and Councilmembers Joan Lynch and Bob Sweeney were absent.
Also present were Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; and Gregg
Voxland, Finance Director.
Fire Department personnel in attendance were Frank Ries, Chief;
Mark Huge, First Assistant Chief; Terry Link, Second Assistant
Chief; Dave Judd, First Captain and Training Officer; Joe Ries,
Former Chief; Mary Altmann, Second Captain; Rick Coleman, Fourth
Captain; and Todd Schwartz .
Introductory comments were made by Chief Ries and following that
Training Officer David Judd presented a history of the Fire
Department and it ' s activities from 1883 to the present. The
presentation included detailed information on how the Fire
Department operates along with the planning and decision making_
processes that are utilized by the Fire Department.
There was also discussion of the operational plan for 1992 followed
by dialogue between Councilmembers and the Fire Department. It was
reported that along with the 5 year plan the Fire Department also
intends to develop a longer range 20 - 25 year plan. The Fire
Department will be providing a quarterly report to the City Council
which will highlight the department ' s activities for the previous
quarter. This will be done in conjunction with the continued
preparation of an annual report.
A tour of the Fire Department was conducted including an
explanation of how the various pieces of equipment operate and the
purpose of each.
In conclusion, the Committee of the Whole agreed that there did not
appear to be need for further meetings at this time and that the
Fire Department had responded in a comprehensive and positive
manner in addressing Councilmember concerns relative to Fire
Department operations. The need for the purchase of land for a
second station was also discussed and the subject will be addressed
in the near future.
Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 10 : 22 p.m.
Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 16, 1992
Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 8 : 35 A.M. in the
downstairs meeting room at the Marquette Bank, 129 So. Holmes.
Present were Councilmembers Robert Sweeney, Gloria Vierling, and
Michael Beard. Councilmember Joan Lynch was absent. Also present
were Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Assistant
City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City
Clerk; Dave Hutton, Public Works Director; Lindberg Ekola, City
Planner; Gregg Voxland, Finance Officer; and Jack Boarman, Boarman
Kroos Pfister & Associates, Inc.
The City Administrator stated that the location and size of the
council chambers in the new city hall needs to be identified. The
joint prosecution operation currently on the main floor will be
relocated to the basement in conjunction with our move. He also
stated that the current plan is to continue to rent to Capesius at
their present location.
Mr. Boarman reviewed the tentative layout for offices and meeting
areas on the main floor of the new city hall site at the Marquette
Bank. He explained that the plan was to maximize what the building
has to offer with a minimum of expense.
Discussion ensued on where to locate the council chambers. One
possible location is in the basement in the current meeting room.
It would be expanded to the west and a hall would be added along
the south. The posts would be moved. If there is a desire to have
a higher ceiling, the floor would have to be lowered, which may or
may not be possible depending upon whether or not there is
limestone under the building. Another location would be on the
main floor. Cncl.Beard prefers to have the council chambers on the
main floor, but if it is located in the basement he would like it
to be theater seating.
Discussion ensued on the pros and cons of locating the council
chambers on the main floor versus in the basement. General
consensus was to continue working on the plans to accommodate the
council chambers in the basement.
Discussion also took place on remodeling the offices to make them
and personnel more accessible to the public, unlike the layout of
the county offices.
Mr. Boarman was directed to come up with some cost estimates for
the building changes discussed.
Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 9 : 50 A.M.
ita, J ex.,
J dith S. Cox
C 'ty Clerk
Recording Secretary
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Special Assessment Policy
DATE: April 23, 1992
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND:
It is my understanding that the City Council desires to discuss the
Special Assessment Policy at the April 28th Committee of the Whole
meeting. Several issues pertaining to the Special Assessment
Policy were brought up at the Muhlenhardt Road public hearing, but
staff is of the understanding that the City Council desires to
discuss the Special Assessment Policies in a general sense, rather
than project specific.
DISCUSSION:
Enclosed for City Council benefit is the current Special Assessment
Policy. It should be pointed out that in addition to the policy
itself, there are other numerous administrative policies and
resolutions amending or clarifying specific criteria in the policy.
Staff has researched all of the various other policies and
resolutions and recommends consolidating all of them into one
comprehensive document.
The first portion of the Special Assessment Policy (Pages 1-11)
discuss general assessment policies. This section covers such
items as eligible improvements, initiation, public improvement
procedures, financing, policies, methods and standards.
The second portion of the policy (Pages 12-18) discusses the
specific formulas that should be used in apportioning the
assessments.
In regards to the various other administrative policies and
resolutions, Attachment No. 1 lists those items and the subject
contained in each. Staff has not provided copies of these to
Council at this time. These can be provided if requested.
ISSUES:
Staff is uncertain as to the extent City Council wishes to discuss
the Special Assessment Policies at the April 28, 1992 meeting.
Therefore, staff has elected to list several of the issues that
periodically come up at public meetings. The City Council can then
elect only to discuss and review those policies desired for
revision, clarification, deletion or amendment.
1. Benefit Appraisals
Should the City consider utilizing benefit appraisals for
assessments that appear questionable in regards to the State
law?
Staff feels this is a good tool to use to provide
documentation to defend any high assessments. If this policy
is discussed by the City Council, the following options would
be available.
a. Perform benefit appraisals on select properties
that staff determines has a proposed assessment
that is questionable for the purposes of avoiding
appeals, costly litigation and possibly
establishing the maximum assessment amount.
b. Perform benefit appraisals on all properties
proposed to be assessed. Staff feels that this
would only result in needlessly raising the total
project costs, when it is apparent that the
majority of proposed assessments are reasonable and
defendable.
c. Perform no benefit appraisals prior to assessing a
project and simply wait for any appeals before
obtaining this data. This option would undoubtedly
increase the costs due to legal fees, court costs,
etc. above and beyond the costs of obtaining a
benefit appraisal.
Staff believes that Option A provides the City the most
flexibility in complying with the State law at the lowest cost
and would be a reasonable policy to adopt and administer. In
fact, benefit appraisals have been done on selected properties
on two recent projects (2nd Avenue, 5th Avenue) due to the
proposed high assessments.
2. Updating and Improving Gravel Streets
The current practice is to assess these upgrades 100%. The
actual assessment policy does not specify this, but instead
indicates that new street construction is 100% assessed and
street reconstructions will be 25% assessed. Several years
ago when the City Council first started reconstructing gravel
roads in urban Shakopee, the Council discussed this and
determined that upgrading gravel streets would be defined as
new street construction. Several projects since then have
been subject to this policy (Adams Street, 2nd Avenue)
establishing a precedence of some sort.
Staff feels that the City Council may want to review and
expand this policy to discuss urban roads versus rural roads.
It's important to differentiate between the two because an
urban gravel street has a much higher density (i.e. 10
assessable lots per 300 feet of road) as opposed to rural
gravel roads that have extremely large parcels abutting them
having anywhere from 1000 ' to 2500 ' of frontage on the road
and often times little or no access (such as Pike Lake Road,
Valley View Road and Muhlenhardt Road for example) .
It would be impossible to assess upgrading rural gravel roads
100% and defend the assessments in court. The assessments
would be astronomically high in most cases. This is the
reason the County is unable to assess any of their projects.
Therefore, staff feels that the policy should differentiate
between the rural and the urban situation. Since the amount
of gravel roads in urban Shakopee is decreasing and possibly
could all be paved within the next several years based on the
current Capital Improvement Plan, the rural gravel road policy
will soon be the only issue.
If the Council desires to formulate a rural, gravel road
policy the following options may be available.
A. Assess 100%
B. Assess 25% (define these roads as existing and
therefore are street reconstructions)
C. Assess 0%
D. Assess only those costs associated with the new
improvements added (i.e. pavement, curb, etc. ) but
not the existing roadbed (gravel) which typically
needs reconstructing.
Staff feels that for rural upgrades of gravel roads, Option D
would be a reasonable approach. Even using this option, the
defendability of any rural assessments may be questionable due
to the large properties fronting these roads.
3. Collector Street Assessments
Collector streets are sometimes difficult to assess because
quite often there are no direct accesses (driveways) to
collector streets. Typically, local streets would serve all
lots off the collector and the properties in the area would
normally pay for the local streets anyway (either by their lot
costs or assessed)
Should the City Council continue to assess collector streets
or not?
4. Zonal Assessments/Corner Lot Adjustment
In urban Shakopee, the Council has elected to utilize the
zonal assessment method of spreading out the side street
reconstruction costs. This is one of the corner lot
adjustment methods outlined on Page 14 of the Special
Assessment Policy (Item 3b) .
This policy is often quite difficult for residents to
understand, especially when they do not even abut the street
in question.
Does the City Council wish to reconsider this policy or
maintain it?
5. Alley Reconstructions
Some of the paved alleys in Shakopee are in need of
reconstruction. The current policy does not address the
assessments on alley reconstructions. Staff feels that the
25% street reconstruction policy should be applied to alleys.
6. Storm Sewer Oversizing Costs
This issue came up during the culvert issue on the Meadows 7th
Subdivision.
Should the City adopt a policy to pay for all storm sewer
oversizing costs, above and beyond what is required for the
actual development? Currently, there are existing policies
dealing with oversized sanitary sewer and watermain and staff
could support a storm sewer oversizing policy.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discuss and provide staff with direction on the above issues and
any other special assessment issues.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ADDITIONAL RESOLUTIONS/ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
Resolution No. Date Adopted Title/Description
2278 7/3/84 Street Reconstruction
Policy (Establishes 25%
as the assessment for
street reconstructions)
1791 2/3/81 Adopting a trunk water
assessment policy pursuant
to the SPDC policy. This
is adjusted annually
based on the new SPDC
trunk water rates.
1298 8/15/78 Established a double
assessment rate for non-
residential property.
3377 4/2/91 Repealed the above
Resolution No. 1298.
Admin. Policy No. Date Adopted Title/Description
200 8/20/91 Established assessment
agreement to offset
assessments with
condemnation awards.
80 9/10/82 Assessment presentation
by SPUC manager
illustrating a typical
watermain calculation.
75 8/3/82 Establishing values of
vacant lots (Resolution
No. 2032)
74 8/3/82 Establishing 1982
assessment policy
(Resolution 2033)
37 6/10/81 Policy for assessment
splits due to property
subdividing.
12 10/7/80 Senior Citizen Hardship
and Deferral (Resolution
No. 1713)
Admin. Policy No. Date Adopted Title/Description
141 6/30/86 Regarding City Council
discussion on utility
relocations.
52 9/16/81 Procedures for assessment
appeals.
20 2/13/81 Assessing improvements
prior to letting a
contract.
4 4/1/80 Reconstruction Policy
(Resolution No. 1591) .
•
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
AND
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
POLICIES
FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Proposed Draft
April 28, 1978
May 11 , 1978 (2nd Revision)
Hay 26, 1978 (3rd Revision)
August 1 , 1978 Adopted
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES REGARDING THE MAKING OF PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES FOR THE LEVYING OF
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS THEREFORE.
WHEREAS, the State Law assigns to the City Council the
responsibility for making public improvements and;
WHEREAS, it has been and continues to be the policy of the Cit
Council that when such improvements are made which are of special
benefit to certain areas, special assessments are levied for
benefits received; and
WHEREAS, the procedures used by the City are those specified
by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 42.9, which statutes provide that all,
or a part, of the cost of improvements may be assessed against
benefitting properties in accordance with the benefits received,
but establishes no statutory guide as to how these benefits are
measured or how the costs are to be apportioned; and
WHEREAS, actual apportionments are made in accordance with
policies adopted by the Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the following shall constitute a
statement of general policies of this Council regarding improvements
and assessments, and shall continue until amended by appropriate
Council action.
It is intended that this policy shall be applicable to all
lands within the City, platted or unplatted, and shall be com-
plementary to the City' s subdivision regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the literal applicat
of the provisions outlined herein would result in a inequitable
distribution of special assessments, the City Council reserves the
right to adjust the policy so as to achieve a more equitable distri-
bution without formal amendment of this resolution.
i
GENERAL
ASSESSMENT
POLICIES
ii
`.. I . DEFINITION OF IMPROVEMENTS ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
A. The fcllowing public improvements, being authorized by
Minnesota Statutes 429.021 , are hereby defined as being
eligible for special assessment within the City of Shakopee.
1 . Acquiring, opening and widening streets and alleys ;
constructing, reconstructing and maintaining side-
walks, streets , gutters, curbs , and vehicle parking
strips . Included in such projects may be charges for
beautification, storm sewers or other street drainage
inlet systems , and installation of connections from
utilities to property lines .
2 . Construction, reconstruction & extension of waterworks
systems . This includes all appurtenances of a water-
works system, including treatment plants .
3 . Construction and reconstruction of sanitary sewer sys-
tems. Also included may be outlets, treatment plants,
pumps, lift stations, and other appurtenances .
4. Planting, trimming, care and removal of street trees .
5 . Construction and reconstruction of storm sewer systems.
Also included may be outlets, treatment plants, pumps,
lift stations and other appurtenances .
6 . Installation, replacement and extension of street
lighting .
7 . Acquisition and improvement of land and purchase of
equipment for parks, playgrounds , and recreational
facilities .
8. Acquisition and construction of parking lots.
9 . Construction, reconstruction and extension of dikes
and other flood control works .
1C . Construction, reconstruction, extension and maintenance
of retaining and area walls .
11 . Abating nuisances; including, but not limited to, drain-
ing and filling swamps, marshces and ponds on public or
private property.
12 . Installation, replacement and extension of street signs.
(1)
I . Continued
B . The City of Shakopee also retains authority to recover,
through special assessment, the following maintenance costs :
1 . Snow, ice and rubbish removal from sidewalks .
2. Weed elimination from street and private property.
3 . Street lighting, sprinkling, dust treatment, surfac-
ing and patching.
4. Repair of sidewalks.
5 . Care of trees and removal of diseased and/or unsound
trees.
II . INITIATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Public improvement projects may be initiated by petition
of at least 35% of the affected property owners . Such
petitions will be received by the City Council until the
first day of February of each year for inclusion in that
year' s capital improvement program. Petitions for public
improvements submitted after that date will be received
and acted upon during the year only by special consent of
the City Council , or will be received and considered for
the capital improvement program of a subsequent year.
Public improvements may also be initiated by the City
Council when, in its judgement, such action is required .
(2)
■
•
III . PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROCEDURES
The following is the general procedure which will be
followed by the City Council for all public improbement
projects 'from initiation of such a project through certi-
fication of the assessment role to the County Auditor. For-
mats for the various reports and resolutions referenced in
this section are , hereby, made a part of these policies and
procedures of the City of Shakopee .
STAFF FUNCTIONS COUNCIL FUNCTIONS
1 . Review petition for submission 2 . Accept petition Initiate
to Council and submit to the and order prep- project on
Public Utility Commission for aration of feas- basis of
written comment . ibility report OR Council de-
sire , citi-
zen request .
or other
agency re-
3 . Prepare feasibility report , or quest .
review report submitted by 4. Accept feasibilityreport and
other agency . Send report to the P
Public Utilities Comm. order public hearing.
5 . Publish hearing notice, mail 6 . Conduct public hearing, adopt
notice to property owners . resolution ordering improvement
to be constructed and advertise-
ment of bids . A sale of bonds
to finance project costs may be
initiated at any time after the
public hearing is conducted .
7 . Prepare final plans , advertise
for and open bids, prepare bid 8. Award contract based on bids
tabulation, and make recommenda- received.
tion for award .
9 . Supervise construction, prepare 10. Review assessment schedule( s)
payments , and prepare assess- and order assessment hearing( s) .
ment rolls .
11 . Publish hearing notice, mail no- 12 . Conduct assessment hearing,adopt
tice of hearing date( s) and resolution adopting assessment
assessments to property owners . roll and authorize certification
to County Auditor.
13 . Certify assessments to County
Auditor.
(3)
•
IV. FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
A. Goals and Justification of Policy
It is the intent of the City of Shakopee to encourage
public improvement projects as the area(s) benefiting
and needing such improvements develop. Examples of this
policy can be seen through the subdivision regulations ,
zoning ordinance , and building codes. New areas are re-
quired to provide needed improvements and services before
development , thereby not creating unexpected hardships on
the property owners purchasing such property nor on the
general public . However, it is recognized that certain
areas of the City have developed without all needed public
improvements (e .g. - parks , water, sewer, and street im-
provements) and that methods must be found to provide these
improvements without causing undue hardships on the general
public or the individual property owner.
Special assessments are generally accepted as a means by
which areas can obtain improvements or services , however,
the method of financing these is a critical factor to both
the City and the property owner. Full project costs spread
over a very short term can cause an undue hardship on the
property owner and, likewise, City costs and systems costs
spread over a long period of time can produce an undue
hardship on the general public of the City.
It is the policy of the City to not defer assessments except
in cases where senior citizens are involved.
(4)
V. ASSESSMENT POLICIES APPLICABLE TO ALL TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS
Where an improvement is constructed which is of special
benefit to properties within a definable area , it is the intent of
the City Council that special assessments be levied against the
benefited properties within that area to the extent that the
costs of such project can be deemed to benefit the properties .
The following general principles shall be used as a basis of
the City' s assessment policy:
1 . The "project cost" of an improvement shall be deemed to
include the costs of all necessary construction work re-
quired to accomplish the improvement , plus engineering,
legal , administrative, financing and other contingent
costs , including acquisition of right of way and property.
The financing charges shall include all applicable costs
of financing the project . These costs include but are not
limited to - financial consultant ' s fees, Moody' s fee, bond
attorney' s fees and capitalized interest . When the project
is started and funds are expended prior to receiving the
proceeds from a bond sale , the project will be charged in-
terest on the funds expended from the date of expenditure to
the date the bond proceeds are received . The interest rate
charged will be the average interest rate earned by the
City ' s investments during the six months preceeding the
receipt of the bond proceeds. The interest charged to
the project shall be included as financing charges .
2 . Interest Rate - The City of Shakopee will charge interest
on special assessments at a rate specified in the resolu-
tion. The interest rate shall be two percent (2%) more
than the average interest rate of the bonds sold to finance
the improvement project . The interest rate shall be round-
ed to the nearest quarter of a percent . The interest rate
shall not exceed the maximum rate allowed by state law.
3 . Property owners may pay their assessments in full (interest
free) for a period of 30 days after the assessment hearing.
After such period interest shall be computed from the date
specified in the assessment resolution. The City will cert-
ify each year' s collection (principal and interest) to the
County Auditor by October 10. Prior to the first certifi-
cation of principal and interest to the County Auditor, a
property owner may make a partial pre-payment of the prin-
cipal to the City of Shakopee . Such partial pre-payment
shall be a minimum amount of $100 .00. If the partial pre-
payment is made after the 30 day "interest free" period
allowed by state law, interest will be charged on the amount
of the partial pre-payment from the date specified in the
resolution and paid along with the partial pre-payment .
After the City of Shakopee has made the first certification
of principal and interest to the County Auditor, pre-payment
will be accepted only for the remaining principal balance
plus any interest . If a parcel has two or more separate
special assessments , pre-payment of the remaining principal
(5)
V. Continued
3 . balance may be made on one or more . Provided, however, tax
exempt parcels such as churches , school districts, and other
public tax exempt buildings will be allowed to make a partial
pre-payment at any time during the term of the special assess-
ment . The minimum partial pre-payment shall be one half of
the principal balance at the time of pre-payment . The tax
exempt parcel will be allowed to make only one partial pre-
payment during the term of the special assessment . The re-
maining principal after the partial pre-payment will be paid
in equal installments over the remaining term of the special
assessments . A tax exempt parcel will also be allowed to
make a partial pre-payment prior to the first certification
to the County Auditor.
4. Where the current improvement is installed as an extention
of an existing improvement in which the City, through the
use of courses other than special assessments, has partici-
pated in the costs of such existing system, and where the
area served by such current improvement can be shown to
benefit directly from the City' s prior expenditures, the
special assessments levied against the properties served by
the newly extended improvement may include a "system charge"
equal to that portion of the City' s prior expenditures which,
in the opinion of the City Council , are chargeable to the
area served by the current extension.
Whenever the City intends to include a "system charge" as
a part of the assessable cost for an improvement , the
notices of public hearing sent to the property owners
prior to the making of the improvement shall specify the
total amount of such "system charge" to be made against
the proposed improvement .
5 . Where an improvement is designed for service of an area
beyond that of direct benefit, increased project costs due
to such provisions for future service extensions may be
funded by the City as a "system cost ." This "system cost"
may be funded by the City to be assessed as a "system charge"
together with direct benefits for lateral utility lines as
stated in paragraph 4, above, or may be assessed to the area
of future benefit immediately.
6 . Where the project cost of an improvement is not entirely
attributable to the need for service to the area served by
said improvement , or where unusual conditions beyond the
control of the owners of the property in the area served by
the improvement would result in an inequitable distribution
of special assessments , the City, through the use of other
funds, may pay such "City cost" which, in the opinion of the
City Council , represents the excess cost not directly attri-
- butable to the area served.
(6)
V. Continued
7 . Because frontage roads along highways or other arterial
streets are deemed to be of benefit to commercial or in-
dustrial properties, the entire costs of any improvement
on such frontage roads shall be assessable to the benefited
properties, even if only those properties on one side of
such frontage roads are benefited . Single-family resi-
dences may be excluded from this requirement.
8. If financial assistance is received by the City from the
Federal Government , from the State of Minnesota, or from
any other source to defray a portion of the costs of a
given improvement , such aid will be used first to reduce
the "City cost" of the improvement . If the financial
assistance received is greater than the normal "City cost" ,
the remainder of the aid will be used to reduce the special
assessments against the benefiting properties , such reduc-
tions to be applied on a pro rata basis .
9 . The "assessable cost" of an improvement shall be defined
as being those costs which, in the opinion of the City
Council are attributable to the need for service in the
area served by the improvement . Said "assessable cost"
shall be equal to the "project cost" of the current pro-
ject minus the "City cost" as defined above, minus other
financial assistance credited as described above .
10. City-owned properties , including municipal building sites, •
parks and playgrounds, but not including public streets
and alleys , shall be regarded as being assessable on the
same basis as if such property was privately owned.
11 . Improvements specifically designed for or shown to be of
direct benefit to one or more properties may be constructed
by the City, and the costs for such assessed directly to
such properties , and not included in the assessment rates
for the remainder of the project.
(7)
VI . METHODS OF ASSESSMENT
A. Goals and Justification of Policy
The City of Shakopee realizing that there are
different methods of assessment - i.e. per lot, adjusted
front foot, and area - and also realizing that for any
particular project any one of these methods could more
adequately reflect the true benefits received in the ass-
essment area, hereby establishes all of these methods - per
lot, adjusted front footage, and area - as possible methods
by which any benefited area may be assessed. The deter-
mination of which method should be used for any particular
assessment shall be reviewed by the engineer in his feasi-
bility study to the Council and, based upon this study, shall
make a recommendation to the Council for which method would
best reflect the benefit received principle for the area to be
assessed. The specific application of these methods to ass-
essing any type of improvement is defined in the specific
section governing "methods of assessment for public improvements
projects" in Section II of this document. The purpose of
stating these methods of assessment as general policies for the
City of Shakopee is to insure that the City Council will have
the opportunity to review and decide which of these methods
would most adequately and reasonably reflect the true benefits
received by each parcel within the benefited area, and use a
method of assessment which would be reflective of this.
B. Policy Statement
The following methods of assessment, as described
and defined below, are hereby established as the official
methods of assessment in the City of Shakopee:
1. "Adjusted" Front Footage" method of assessment
The "cost per adjusted front foot" shall be defined as -
the quotient of the "assessable cost" (::s defined in
Section V Assessment Policies Applicable to all Types
of Improvements) divided by the total assessable frontage
benefiting from the improvement shall be as defined or
described in the "Specific Assessment Practices Section(s) "
for such improvement(s) . For the purpose of determining
the "assessable frontage", all properties, including
governmental agencies, shall have their frontages included
in such calculation. Not to be included in such calculations
are public rights- of - way for pedestrian or vehicular
traffic.
(8)
•
VI . Continued
2 . "Area" Method of Assessment :
The "cost per square foot" shall be defined as - the quotient
quotient of "assessable cost" (as defined in Section V) di-
vided by the total assessable area benefiting from the im-
provement .
The determination of the "total assessable area" benefiting
from any type of improvement shall be as defined or described
in the "Specific Assessment Practices Sections" for such
improvement( s) . For the purpose of determining the "assess-
able area" , all properties including governmental agencies
shall have their area included in such calculation. Not to
be included in such calculations are public right-of-way,
pedestrian or vehicular traffic .
The "cost per square foot" , as calculated in the manner de-
scribed above , multiplied times each parcel "assessable area"
shall produce the total cost per parcel ; the total of all
parcels assessed being the "total assessable cost" for the
improvement .
3 . "Per Lot" Method of Assessment:
The "cost per lot" shall be defined as - the quotient of the
"assessable cost" (as defined in Section V) divided by the
total assessable lots or parcels benefiting from the improve-
ment . The determination of the "lots or parcels" benefiting
from any type of improvement shall be as defined or described
in the "Specific Assessment Practices Sections" for such im-
provement( s) . For the purpose of determining the "lots" or
"parcels" all parcels, including governmental agencies shall
shall be included in such calculations . Not to be included
in such calculations are public right-of-way, pedestrian or
vehicular traffic .
The "cost per lot" as calculated in the manner described
above, multiplied times each "lot" or "parcel" shall produce
the total cost per parcel ; the total of all parcels assessed
being the "total assessment cost" for the improvement .
(9)
VII. STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS
The following standards are hereby established by the City of
Shakopee to provide a uniform guide for improvements within
the City and also to be used by the City Engineer in establish-
ing "systems costs" as differentiated from "assessable costs"
and "City costs . "
Surface Improvements:
Surface improvements shall normally be interpreted to include all
improvements within the right-of-way, such as trees, lighting,
sidewalks , signing ; street 4nd accessary improvements
such as surfacing, curb and gutter, drainage facilities , grading,
signalization; and other public improvements such as drainage
ponds and facilities, parking lots , parks and playgrounds . The
above examples shall not be interpreted to be all inclusive of
surface improvements .
A. Goals and Justification of Policy
All surface improvements should be constructed so as to se-
cure the maximum protection of health and safety for the
general public while attempting to achieve the equally impor-
tant goals of creating a desirable aesthetic community in
such a manner as to meet social , economic and environmental
objectives .
The City sets a functional street system and states approx-
imate guidelines for construction. These guidelines shall
be used for future street construction.
B . Policy Statement
In all streets , prior to street construction and surfacing,
or prior to resurfacing, all utilities and utility service
lines, (including sanitarysewers , storm sewers, water lines ,
gas and electric service) shall be installed to serve each
known or assumed building location when practicable .
When practicable, no surface improvements to less than both
sides of a full block of street shall be approved except as
necessary to complete the improvement of a block which has
previously been partially completed. Concrete curbing or
curb and gutter shall be installed at the same time as street
surfacing, except that where a permanent "rural" street design
is approved by the City Council , curbs will not be required .
(10)
•
VII . Continued
Subsurface Improvements
Subsurface improvements shall normally include such items as
water distribution, sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines and
electric and gas utilities.
A. Goals and Justification of Policy
The goal of subsurface improvements is to provide specific
public utility service systems which least alter the natural
environment of the community while at the same time secure
maximum protection of health and safety with adequate and
efficient service at a fair and equitable distribution of
benefits and costs.
B . Policy Statement
Subsurface improvements shall be made to serve current and
projected land use. All installations shall conform to
standards as established by those state and/or federal agen-
cies having jurisdiction over the proposed installations .
All installations shall also comply, to the maximum extent
feasible , to such quasi-official , nationally recognized,
standards as those of the American Insurance Association
(formerly National Board of Fire Underwriters) .
Service lines from the lateral or trunk to the the property
ine for each known or assumed building location shall be in-
stalled in conjunction with the construction of the mains.
(11)
SPECIFIC
ASSESSMENT
POLICIES
(12)
VIII . POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
Cost of construction of streets shall be assessed based on the
minimum design strength of 7-ton axle load in residential areas
and 9-ton in commercial and industrial areas . All design con-
sideration shall be as determined by the City Engineer. Costs
which are incurred in excess of the above may be paid by: (1)
State Aid Funds, (2) Larger assessment rates to other benefited
properties, (3) General Obligation Funds, or (4) any cther methcd
or combination of methods authorized by the City Council .
Street widths or design strength for streets fronting on bene-
fiting properties other than single family cannot be establish-
ed as a general policy, as such factors are directly related
to the proposed land use and traffic generation. Assessable
costs for street improvements benefiting properties other than
single family shall normally be 100% of the assessable costs ,
however, the City Council may determine a portion of the costa
are to be paid by: (1) State Aid or other grant monies , (2) Gen-
eral Obligation Funds, (3) special districts, or (4) any other
method or combination of methods established .
Street , curb and gutter, and sidewalk improvements will normally
be assessed by the adjusted front foot method; however, the "per
lot" method and "area" method may be utilized if conditions warrant
A. Adjusted Front Footage Method
1 . Rectangular Interior Lots
The rectangula-r lot is defined as having no more than
2 .0 feet difference between the front and back lot line .
The adjusted front footage is the actual front footage of
the lot . For rectangular lots whose frontage is greater
than its depth, the "odd shaped lot" method as explained
next shall be used.
2 . Odd Shaped Lot
For odd shaped lots such as exist on cul-de-sacs,
curved streets , etc . , and where there is more than 2 .0
feet of difference between the front and back lot lines
the "odd shaped lot" method of determining the adjusted
front footage shall be used . The adjusted front footage
shall be computed by dividing the area of the lot by 9 ,000
to determine the equivalent number of front footage units
in the parcel . The number of units multiplied by 60 feet
will give the adjusted front footage. The area shall be
computed to a maximum depth of 150 feet only .
(13)
VIII . Continued
�., 3 . Corner Lot (Odd Lot)
a . Corner lots will only be assessed at a rate of
50% of the unit rate for the short side of the
lot in question for each street improved. If both
streets are improved simultaneously, 100% of the
short side footage will be used.
b. Alternate method #1
All lots within the block in question will be
assessed equally for long side street improve-
ments . Short side street improvements will be
assessed for the full frontage .
c . Alternate method #2
100% of the adjusted footage cost for all utili-
ties on the short side of the lot .
25`/0 of the adjusted footage cost on the long side
of the lot . This will not exceed 1C0 feet of
credit for the lot in question.
B . Per Lct Method
When it is determined to assess by the "per lot" method,
the following procedures shall be used:
1 . All lots shall be assessed equally.
C. Area Method
When it is determined to assess by the "area" method, ::he
following procedure shall be used:
1 . Each parcel shall be assessed based on the number of
square feet of area within its boundary.
(14)
IX. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING SUBSURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
Storm sewer assessments shall normally be by the "area" method .
Storm sewers shall be assessed at a rate of a 50% policy as
herein described .
A. Storm sewer benefits will be assessed separately for trunk
benefits and lateral benefits .
B. Platted and/or Developed Land as of 8-10-76
Cost of trunk and lateral :
1 . 50% of the cost will be raised from General Obligation
Taxes .
2 . 50% of the cost will be raised from Special Assessments
C . Unplatted and/or Undeveloped Land
Cost of laterals : 100% of the cost will be assessed to
private or public property (but not public right-of-way) .
Cost of trunk
1 . 50% of the cost will be raised from General Obligation
Taxes .
2 . 50% of the cost will be raised from Special Assessments.
Specific Provisions
A. Any publicly owned off street , non right-of-way property
will be assessed as private property and included as part
of the 50% assessed portion.
B. Any revenue received from other governmental units for
public right-of-way will be used as general obligation
revenue .
C . Property zoned or used as other than single and double
family residential land and park land will be assessed at
twice the rate of single and double family residential land
and park land .
D. Credit will be given for any previous storm sewer assessments
less than 25 years old at the date of assessments in both
the platted and newly developed areas.
(15)
•
IX. Continued
Assessments for watermain and sanitary sewer shall be based
upon the cost of construction of 6-inch and 8-inch mains
respectively, which is the smallest now normally installed in
a residential area of the City. Assessments for water and
sewer in commercial and industrial areas will be based upon
8-inch mains .
When watermain looping benefits have been approved by the
City' s Public Utility Commission, a portion of the cost of
completing said work will be paid by said utility .
Costs due to larger mains and appurtenances may be paid for
by a combination of availability charges , user charges and
general obligation funds . Services installed to individual
properties shall be fully assessed to the benefiting property.
The various methods of assessments are as follows :
A. Adjusted Front Footage Method (Water and Sanitary Sewer)
When assessment is to be determined by the adjusted front
footage method, each parcel shall be assessed for improve-
ments as hereinafter stated .
1 . Rectangular Interior Lots
The rectangular lot is defined as having no more than
2 .0 feet difference between the front and back lot lines .
The adjusted front footage is the actual front footage
of the lot . For rectangular lots whose frontage is
greater than its depth, the "odd shaped lot" method as
explained below shall be used .
2 . Odd Shaped Lots (Unit Bases)
For odd shaped lots , such as exist on cul-de-sacs, curved
streets, etc . ; and where there is more than 2 .0 feet of
difference between the front and back lot lines , the "odd
shaped lot" method of determining the adjusted front foot-
age shall be used . The adjusted front footage shall be
computed by dividing the area of the lot by 9,000 to
determine the equivalent number of front footage units
in the parcel . The number of units multiplied by 60 feet
will give the adjusted front footage . The area shall be
computed to a maximum depth of 150 feet only.
(16)
IX. Continued
3 . Corner Lot (Odd lot)
a . Corner lots will only be assessed at a rate of
50% of the unit rate for the lot in question for
the short side for each street improved . If both
streets are improved simultaneously, 100% assess—
ment rate per unit will be used .
b. Alternate method #1
All lots within the block in question will be assessed
equally for long side street improvements . Short
side street improvement will be as shown in (a)
above.
c . Alternate method #2
100% of the adjusted footage cost for all utilities
on the short side of the lot .
25% of the adjusted footage cost on the long side
of the lot . This will not exceed 100 feet of
credit for the lot in question.
B. Per Lot Method
When it is determined to assess by the "per lot" method, the
following procedures shall be used:
•
1 . All lots shall be assessed equally.
C. Area Method
When it is determined to assess by the "area" method, the
following procedure shall be used :
1 . Each parcel shall be assessed based on the number of
square feet of area within its boundary.
CJH/klk
(17)
X. POLICIES OF RE-ASSESSMENT
A. Goals and Justification of Policy:
The design and construction of public improvement projects must be
a weighing process cf the desired service life of any improvement
to the expected cost of construction to attain that service life .
The goal of the City of Shakopee in designing public improvements
shall therefore be to design such improvement to last a reasonable
service life . As such, it is recognized that reconstruction and
re-assessment must occur at the end of this service life . This
policy shall further imply that it shall be the City' s responsibility
to insure that the actual life of the improvement is at a minimum
equal to the designed service life, reasonable and equitable methods
cf re-assessment must be established to insure that the public obtains
the benefit for which they have paid .
To implement these goals , the City of Shakopee in constructing or
reconstructing any public improvement shall design such improvement
to last for a definate period . The life expectancy or service life
shall be as stated in part "B" of this section, or if different , shall
be as stated in the Resolution ordering improvement and preparation
of plans . When such project needs renewing or replacement, the amount
to be re-assessed against the property owner for such renewing or
replacing shall be credited for that portion of the original assessed
`.. amount based on a ratio of actual life of the original improvement to
the expected service life of the original improvement .
B. Policy Statement :
For the purpose of re-assessment, the following are hereby established
as the "life expectancies" of "service lives" of public improvements
- unless otherwise stated in the resolution ordering improvement and
preparation of plans, in which case, the life set forth in the resolution
shall govern.
1 . Sidewalks - 20 years
2 . Street improvements, including surfacing and curb and gutter - 20 year
3 . Ornamental street lighting - 20 years
4 . Water Mains - 30 years
5 . Sanitary Sewers - 30 years
6 . Storm Sewers - 30 years
All of the forementioned "service lives" are related to and based upon
the standards for these projects as stated in section VII , Standards
for Public Improvements Projects. Standards differing from these shall ,
therefore, require a different service life .
(18)
RESOLUTION NO. 1298
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RES. NO. 1282 , ADOPTING A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
ASSESSMENT POLICY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA THAT RESOLUTION NO. 1298 be and the same is hereby amended
as follows : Section IX. Policies and Procedures for Assessing
Subsurface Improvements ; Specific Provisions :
"C" "Property zoned or used as other than single and double
family residential land and park land will be assessed at
twice the rate of single and double family residential land
and park land; Except that all that property zoned as
other than single and double family residential land, but
used for single or double family residential , and adjoining
homesteaded property not in excess of two acres , will be
assessed the normal rate ."
Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this 15th day of August , 1978.
Mayor of the 'City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
/ )//e2-7.4—
Citi C er
l
Approved as to form this 1$'
day of August , 1978.
City ttorne
RESOLUTION NO. 3377
A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 1298 WHICH
AMENDED THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a special assessment
policy for assessing the cost for public improvements; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1298 amended the Public Improvement
Assessment Policy to charge a double assessment for subsurface
improvements; and
WHEREAS, no reason remains for the double assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, That Resolution No. 1298, A Resolution
Amending Resolution No. 1282, Adopting A Public Improvement
Assessment Policy, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 2nd day of April, 1991.
Mayorof'tri' C't ' of Shakopee
Y P
ATTEST:
flL(M
Cit Clerk
ApprLved as to form:
City Attorney /
C
a� `� I
To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator, and Members of the
Shakopee City Council, Jackson Township Board and Louisville
Township Board
From: Mark McQuillan, Recreation Supervisor
Re: 1991 Township Participant Report
Date: 4/15/92
INTRODUCTION
On April 9, 1991, the Shakopee City Council and the Louisville and
Jackson Township Boards conducted a joint meeting to discuss ways
in which the two townships could participate in funding
recreational services. The consensus at the meeting was that the
townships would participate in the funding of recreation, starting
in 1992.
BACKGROUND
In 1991, the consensus of the Council and the Township Boards was
that funding from the Townships would be based on the previous
year's percentage of participation\per activity as applied to the
City's current year's ad valorem net tax contribution for
recreation. This excludes costs for park maintenance and the
operation of the outdoor swimming pool.
1991 APPLICATION
At last year's joint meeting, the City Council and Township Boards
were presented figures showing program participation by
jurisdiction. It was intended to present participation figures
that represented all activities involving fees and activities with
no fees. Shown below are the participation figures from the 1989-
90 school year ( July 1-June 30) that were presented at the 1991
joint meeting.
1989-90 Y. Dollar Share
Shakopee 14, 108 89. 6% $ 69, 749.
Louisville 295 1. 9% 1, 479
Jackson 580 3. 7% 2, 880
Other 748 4. 8% 3, 737
Total 15, 731 100% $ 77, 845
The data provided at the Joint Meeting was somewhat flawed. The
flaw appears in the Shakopee number of participation which shows a
figure of 14, 108. In Shakopee's case, the 14, 108 figure includes
both fee & non-fee activities. The figures for the townships were
hand counted from a registration master list containing only
activities that have fees associated with them. Therefore, the
participation figures for Shakopee were inadvertly inflated
because they were taken from a computer report that did not
separate the activities with fees and activities with no fees.
Examples of non-fee activities include: summer playground
events, outdoor skating rinks, concerts, skate races and pool
special events.
This year, when adjustments were made to use only activities that
involve fees, the results (shown below) show Shakopee's
participation figures about 8, 927 less than 1991 's figures.
Therfore, the percentage of dollar share for Shakopee will be less
and the townships percentage of dollar share will be higher.
PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Use the actual 1991 revenues and expenses for recreation and apply
the 1991 participation figures to the 1991 tax supported amount to
determine 1992's township contributions. Below is an illustration
of this proposal.
The 1991 Expenditures for Recreation was $171, 091. Subtract
$81, 233. representing fees for program participation will leave a
tax supported amount of $89, 685. for recreation.
1991 Y. Dollar Share
Shakopee 5, 181 77. 7% $ 69, 801
Louisville 288 4. 3% 3, 883
Jackson 441 6. 6% 5. 946
Other 709 10. 6% 9, 560
Sand Creek Township 45 . 6% 608
Total 6, 664 100% $ 89, 858
ALTERNATIVE NEEDED TO REDUCE STAFF COST
Staff wishes to point out one other concern it has regarding staff
time to compile this report. In 1991, it took a month and a half
to redo the computers participant address file to show actual
residency of each participant. Prior to the change, every
participant 's community address was listed as Shakopee because of
the zip code. Therefore, 8, 000 plus names had to be individually
checked and changed to show if they were living in the City of
Shakopee, Louisville Township, Jackson Township, Sand Creek
Township etc.
Preparing this year's participation figures required 21 hours of
secretarial and 6 hours of administrative time. Estimated cost :
$425. ( including benefits) .
Why so much time? Even with the changes made to the computer's
filing system one year ago, staff must still go through a minimum
of 427 pages of computer print-out with 4, 700 names while
identifying activities each person participated in. Keep in mind,
these are only participants who participated in activities where a
fee was charged. There are another 3, 000 names in the registration
file who either didn't participate in a program in 1991 or
participated in an activity that required no fee.
In light of this very time consuming process of extrapolating
figures that probably will not vary more than 1 or 2 % yearly
(plus or minus), staff would like the City Council and the two
Township Boards to consider adopting a township contribution
format that would set a fixed rate for a three year period.
ALTERNATIVES
1 Set a fixed rate for the years 1992-95 at ($1479. or $3883. )
for Louisville Township and ($2880. or $5946. ) for Jackson
Township.
2 Set a fixed rate for 1992 at ($1479. or $3883. ) for Louisville
Township and a fixed rate for Jackson Township at <$2880 or
$5936. ) to include a 2% annual increase for 1993 and 1994.
4 Continue with the current formula.
5. Establish a completely different formula that would be less
time comsuming.
6. Use the 1991 figures as a base amount to include a 2% increase
for 1993 and 1994.
RECOMENDATION
At its March 23, 1992 Perk and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting,
the Advisory Board recommended to the City Council to colaborate
with the Township Boards in using the 1991 participation figures
as they apply to the actual 1991 's tax subsidy for recreation and
setting a fixed rate for 1992 at $3883. for Louisville Township
and a fixed rate of $5946. for Jackson Township and to include an
annual 2% increase for 1992 and 1993.
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Tami Vidmar, Receptionist
RE: Recent Telephone Problems
DATE: April 24 , 1992
Recently I have been experiencing problems with our phone systems.
Some of the problems include: No open lines for incoming calls for
long periods of time; Incoming calls mistakenly are hung up on
because staff is trying to get an outside line at exact time
incoming call is coming in; Incoming calls ring excessively to
caller but only ring once or twice on switchboard.
I anticipate these problems will continue occurring since we are
just beginning to get into our heavy season and telephone load will
only continue to grow at this point. I also realize with the uie‘
City Hall phone system these problems will be eliminated, however ,
wanted to bring the current problems to your attention.