Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1992 TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MAY 26, 1992 Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M. 2] Approval of Minutes of April 28, 1992 -KDcle-k:c. 3] Sioux Community Recreation Center 4] Marquette Bank Remodeling/Budget 5] Council Chamber Video System (New Building) 6] Special Assessment Policy - continue discussion from 4/28/92 7] Set Next Meeting Date 8] Other business 9] Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 28 , 1992 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 4 : 29 P.M. with Councilmembers Joan Lynch and Robert Sweeney present. Councilmembers Gloria Vierling and Michael Beard were absent. Also present were Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Gregg Voxland, Finance Officer. Dave Hutton, Public Works Director, arrived later for discussion on the Special Assessment Policy. Sweeney/Laurent moved to approve the minutes of March 31st, April 14th, and April 16th, 1992 . Motion carried with Cncl. Lynch abstaining. Janet Williams, Director of the Scott County Library System, addressed the City Council. Ms. Williams stated when she sent the library' s annual report to the City, it occurred to her that she hadn't met with Shakopee officials since 1980 . She also stated that all officials may not know how the library works and who is responsible for what. She then provided the Council with information about the Shakopee library. The current agreement between the County and the City was signed in 1977 . Under this agreement, the City provides the building, insurance and utilities; and, the County provides the staff, materials and furnishes the building. It is renewable annually unless one party notifies the other. The County has the same agreement with all seven cities. Ms. Williams explained that the first library in Shakopee was located on the northerly portion of the Marquette Bank building in 1969 . It was later moved to its current site in 1970 and was subsequently tripled in size in 1980. 95% of the County funding comes from county dollars and 5% comes from the regional system. Ms. Williams explained that approximately 9 ,780 Shakopee people have library cards, including township residents, and that in the county approximately 38 , 000 people have cards. In the last number of years they have been experiencing problems with the clientele and are training their people how to handle them. Ms. Williams said that the use of the library is up and that March is up 13% from the previous March. The county is growing and that during a recession the library is usually used more. The library serves as a meeting place. On April 1st, fines were implemented. There are two terminals for use by the public to access the catalogue to learn what is available in the county system. Ms.Williams stated that for the future she would like the City to budget for new carpeting which could then be coordinated for furnishings provided by the county. She stated that the current building is adequate for the services being provided. Official Proceedings of the April 28 , 1992 Committee of the Whole Page -2- Mayor Laurent thanked Ms. Williams for coming and providing the Council with the information. The City Administrator explained the County' s sentencing to service program whereby individuals can do work for cities rather than go to jail. He said that it is different than community service because there is a whole crew put together which has a supervisor and equipment. They are available Thursday through Sunday. He said that the program is currently costing the County $22 , 000 a year and that they would like cities to participate by pledging one-half of the cost. Savage has agreed to $2 , 200 in 1993 provided at least three other cities also pledge. Council directed the City Administrator to meet with Department Heads to identify any projects the city may have that could be done by a crew. Discussion ensued on the agenda for the joint meeting with the townships. The Mayor reported on the Council meeting with the fire department. He said that the Fire Department provided the Council with a lot of good information and that they will be providing a quarterly report in the future. No changes were made to the tentative agenda. The Council decided that it was not necessary to meet on Thursday at 7 : 30 A.M. They also set Committee of the Whole meetings for Monday, May 11th at 7 : 00 P.M. and Tuesday, May 26th at 7 : 00 P.M. . The meeting on the 26th is tentative and may have to be changed if the May 12th Board of Review needs to be continued to that date. Mr. Hutton, Public Works Director, explained that the Council has a special assessment policy and a number of other policies which he recommends be all incorporated into one document. He stated that he and the city attorney are working on incorporating all policies into one book. He explained that he has kept his memo on the special assessment policy general and has listed several issues the Council may wish to discuss tonight. The Council discussed benefit appraisals and where and when they may wish to obtain appraisals on properties benefitted by construction of public improvements. Cncl. Sweeney stated that if a policy were written keeping the 2nd Avenue Improvements in mind, it would be applicable to other parts of the community. Mayor Laurent stated that he is not advocating doing benefit appraisals, but if we are going to do them, we need a policy. He stated that if there is an appeal, an appraisal could be obtained so that the matter could be settled rather than going to court. He stated that he wants the city to have a fair assessment policy, one that can be held up in court, and that he believes that the current policy is fair. Cncl. Sweeney stated that he believes that some parcels next to the railroad on 2nd Avenue are not assessable at all. He stated that Official Proceedings of the April 28, 1992 Committee of the Whole Page -3- where parcels can not be assessed enough to pay for the improvements along the gravel streets, the cost may have to be funded some other way. This will result in it taking longer to improve the gravel streets because the city will have to utilize some of its funds. Consensus of the Council was to allow Mr. Hutton to take a stab at drafting a policy on where and when to obtain benefit appraisals on properties benefitted by construction of public improvements . Discussion ensued on improvements to gravel streets. Mr. Hutton explained that the City policy is to assess streets receiving new construction 100% and to assess streets receiving reconstruction 25%. He asked if Council wished to differentiate between urban and rural streets. Some rural streets which have not been constructed include Valley View, Muhlenhardt, Pike Lake, and Maras Street. Urban streets needing construction include Jasper, Viking Steel, the road between 10th and Shakopee Avenue just West of the church, on Bluff North of 1st, Brook Lane East of the Dairy Queen, and Webster East of the correctional facility. He explained that assessments for rural roads may be high because the parcels in the rural area are larger than those in the urban area. Consensus of Council was to continue with the current assessment policy and direct Mr. Hutton to identify the exceptions that fall outside the policy and how those improvements might be paid for. Mr. Hutton advised Council that the petition received for improvements to Muhlenhardt Road is a legal petition. It is signed by the required number of abutting property owners. He stated that the petition did contain a clause stating that the petitioners only agree to pay 25% . He said that if Council stays with the 100% assessment policy, the petition should probably be recirculated so that the people who signed it know that it is going to be assessed 100%. Consensus of the Council was to delay accepting the petition until Council has the opportunity to make changes to the special assessment policy after Mr. Hutton identifies exceptions that fall outside the assessment policy and how they might be paid for. Mayor Laurent recessed the meeting at approximately 7 : 05 P.M. Mayor Laurent re-convened the meeting at the Jackson Township Hall, at approximately 7 : 20 P.M. Present from the City of Shakopee were: Councilmembers Robert Sweeney, Joan Lynch, and Mayor Laurent; Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Mark McQuillan, Program Supervisor; and Pete Ries, Fire Chief. Present from Jackson Township were: Supervisors James Ramaker, Mark Luce and Norbert Theis; Earl Weckman, Treasurer; and Rose Menke, Clerk. Present N Official Proceedings of the April 28, 1992 Committee of the Whole Page -4- from Louisville Township were: Supervisors Bill Dellwo and Marion Schmidt; and James Theis, Clerk. Mark McQuillan stated that it was about one year ago when the three governing bodies met to look at a variety of different ways to fund recreation for the Townships participants. It was agreed to go with what was originally discussed in 1990, to use the participation per activity as applied to the City' s current year ' s ad valorum net tax contribution towards recreation. He explained that the figures used for the formula for the percentage of the dollar share were incorrect. The figures used for the City of Shakopee were 8 , 000 to 9 , 000 higher than they should have been because the figures included both fee and non-fee activity users from the City of Shakopee. He explained the process used this year to come up with the number of participants in fee activities from the three jurisdictions. These figures affect the percentage of participation from the communities. Mr. McQuillan stated that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board also discussed not using the current budget year. Since we are using the participation figures from the preceding year, it would make sense to use the actual recreation expenditures from the previous year also. He said that the Advisory Board is recommending using 1991 participation figures and the 1991 budget expenditures, which last year was $89, 858 . 00 . Mr. McQuillan explained that, because of the amount of time it takes to come up with accurate figures showing the amount of participants in fee activities from the three jurisdictions, staff is recommending using a fixed rate. The fixed rate could be used over a three year period with a percentage increase. Marion Schmidt and Norbert Theis stated that they thought what was discussed and decided on was that each township participant was to pay an additional $3 . 00 per activity. They did not remember anything about the participation formula explained by Mr. McQuillan. Discussion followed. Norbert Theis explained that Jackson has budgeted $2 , 880 for 1992 and $3 , 000 for 1993 for their participation in the recreation costs. He said that they do not have the money budgeted for Jackson Township as identified in Mr. McQuillan' s report. Mr. Theis asked Shakopee to provide the Townships with copies of the budget for recreation including where the costs are and the fee schedule for participation in order that they can discuss this matter further. Consensus was that the Townships would be provided with this information and that they would get back to the City Council. A brief discussion ensued on what vehicles and man power are dispatched to a fire. Mr. Norbert Theis asked what was being Official Proceedings of the April 28, 1992 Committee of the Whole Page -5- planned for a second fire station. He asked if the townships could be appraised well in advance when the City plans major purchases for the Fire Department. They need to know this information well ahead so that they can budget accordingly. The Fire Chief was asked to provide the townships with a copy of the booklet which the Fire Department distributed to Councilmembers at the Committee of the Whole meeting on April 14th. Mr. Kraft, City Administrator, advised the Township Boards that Shakopee will be surveying about 400 people in the community to determine the needs for a community center. Mayor Laurent stated that some time ago there was a meeting with the Jackson Township Chair, the Shakopee City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator, and himself about orderly annexation. Mr. Norbert Theis stated that there was an agreement between the City and Jackson signed sometime ago. He agreed to send the City copies of the agreement and the map of the boundaries within the agreement. Mr. Theis stated that he thought annexation should be put on the back burner and that he would like to see a sewer plan. He said that they aren't going to give up any property and have it lie in the city limits and not do anything with it like the Vierling property. He said the City of Northfield had a good annexation plan that Shakopee may wish to take a look at. Mayor Laurent asked if there was anything the Townships wished to talk about. Mr. Norbert Theis stated that he would like to sit down sometime and talk with the engineer and see what is planned for the valley interceptor. He said that he attended a recent meeting of the Shakopee Planning Commission when there was discussion on a pump for the Link property. He said that he thought it would be foolish to put in a pump just for the few houses Mr. Link is putting in when there are other properties where the highway is cutting off which will lay dormant if something isn't done. Councilman Sweeney asked if Louisville Township wanted to be involved in the discussions with the Engineer at the same time as Jackson Township. Mr. Dellwo responded yes. Mayor Laurent asked if there was anything else that anyone wished to talk about. There being no response, Mayor Laurent thanked everyone for attending the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:48 P.M. Q/\/C � . �. ud'th S. Cox i Clerk Recording Secretary y MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Schematic Cost Estimate for the New City Hall Renovation Project DATE: May 22 , 1992 A preliminary schematic cost estimate has been prepared for the renovation of the Marquette Bank building into a new City Hall. This first draft document is under going some minor changes and will be presented to the City Council at the Committee of the Whole meeting on May 26th. This document will include extremely detailed information on all of the various elements associated with the remodeling project. The preliminary costs include slightly less then $400, 000 in hard construction costs, approximately $170, 000 in furnishings, and $230, 000 in soft costs associated with construction, a communication system for the City Council Chambers, a new telephone system and project contingency amount. Included in the above costs are approximately $80, 000 - $100, 000 in expenditures in order to bring about compliance with the provisions of the American Disabilities Act. Representatives from the architectural construction management and interior design firms will be in attendance at the meeting to answer questions. In that this is a Committee of the Whole meeting the Council can take no formal action, however we will be attempting to have the Council provide general direction for the project and to specifically respond to the various things being proposed. i aCp G7 to -3 70 z SCHEMATIC COST ESTIMATE FOR SHAKOPEE CITY HALL RENOVATION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 20, 1992 (Revised May 26, 1992) r C I C' • CC C - I 3 a to Original in file . p1I 1 BOSSARDT CORPORATION -� Professional Construction Managers May 26 , 1992 7 Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 ATTENTION: Mr. Dennis Kraft City Administrator c RE: SHAKOPEE CITY HALL RENOVATION I" SCHEMATIC BUDGET ESTIMATE Dear Mr. Kraft: Enclosed is our Schematic Budget Estimate for the above referenced project. This estimate is based on preliminary design drawings as noted in the Scope of Work section of this booklet, and Project Coordination meetings #1 and #2 . Together with the Architect and Interior Designer we have been able to reduce the costs of the renovation by over $200 , 000 from our initial estimates, and hope the enclosed will fit within your budget requirements. We will work closely with you and your design team to manage this Project to the approved City budget. We trust that this information responds to your needs, and we look forward to continuing work with you on this project. C • m Yours very truly, -3 pe,\A„0.4_, Jim Perras j tin Senior Project Manager JP:dg Enclosure CC: City Council Jack Boarman Tammy Eaglebull Sherrie Consoer Dave Hutton Barry Stock John Bossardt Project File 7400 Metro Boulevard - Suite#400 • Edina.MN 55439 • (612)831-5408 • Fax(612)831-1268 1 # cc May 14, 1992 MEMO TO: Shakopee Mayor Laurent, City Council FROM: Cable Communications and Public Access Commissions SUBJ: Recommendations for videotaping system in new City Hall As members of the above citizen advisory commissions charged with the responsibility of overseeing the Cable television franchise, and encouraging the citizens of Shakopee to utilize the channels set aside for public, education and government access, we present our ideas for how Shakopee city government can take advantage of new video technology to improve the public's access to city government information via cable television. We have two recommendations: 1. Install permanent, easy to run multi-camera videotaping system in new council chambers. 2. Activate the government access channel and eliminate sharing with public access. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION #1 QUALITY ISSUES Television is a close-up medium. Watch a program and notice how many times a scene changes and how close you can see faces. This is done with multiple cameras. Our current arrangement has one camera placed way in back. With only one camera the audience will get dizzy if you zoom in, and move sideways between speakers often. Consquently, a wide shot is most often used, making it hard to see detail or who is speaking. With multiple cameras, while you have a close shot of the person who is speaking, you pre-set another portion of the table and switch to that when another person speaks. Typewritten (character generator) information about the agenda or who is speaking can also be superimposed if programmed ahead in a quality system. GROW WITH CITY HALL We assume that city hall is planned out for 15-20 years of use. Our recommendations for video will be good for at least 10 years. By then many changes in technology may affect it. The recommended system will be easy for one person to operate, and will require very little maintenance. TIMING The most cost-efficient time to improve the broadcast quality of council and planning commission meetings, while taking advantage of new, low cost video equipment is now, while city hall is being built. While construction is being done, wiring and equipment installation is the most logical time. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION #2 CITIZEN ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT Televised council and planning commission meetings on cable are very popular, especially when there are controversial issues. We know because when cable has reception problems, many calls come in to complain. Currently these meetings run on our Public Access channel, Channel 3 . When this happens other programs produced by citizens can't run. The Cable TV franchise allows for a separate government access channel, which up to now has never been activated. We feel this is the perfect time to activate the government access channel . WHY? - Imagine, any time, day or night, any citizen with cable TV could turn on their government access channel and read current meeting schedules, changes in garbage collection, snow plowing, etc. , as well as high quality live council and planning commission meetings, or possibly daytime reruns of same. Included in our equipment recommendations is a character generator which would allow a city staff person to put messages on the dedicated government channel . Also, the control room for equipment would be located in the back of the council chambers allowing easy access for staff operation. AUDIO SYSTEM The attached recommendation for the video system does not include an audio system which is required for the audience. The video system would just take a feed off the audio system. We are willing to consult with the architect on a compatible audio system for audience and cable TV feed. COMMISSION MEMBER CONSULTING We feel we can eliminate almost all outside video consulting charges, which typically run $100/hr or more. We are ready to work with the architect and general contractor on integrating this system into the overall design of the council chambers. No commission member stands to gain financially from these recommendations. The real gain will be in access to government for the citizens of Shakopee. HIGHLIGHTS OF SYSTEM o Four camera system - two for council table/audience; one behind council table shooting podium/audience; one overhead for maps/printed documents on podium or wall. o Color character generator for names, agendas during meeting. for 24 hour message broadcast when no meeting in session. o 35" color monitor in audience podium for council members. o Seven 27" monitors - four for audience; one for lower level reception area for overflow council meetings; one for lounge to watch while waiting to appear in meeting; one on main • floor reception area for citizens to view televised messages. o Control room with easy to learn video control equipment in storage area by coat room. See below for recommendation. Prices listed are at full retail as we know them now. Bid prices would lower these costs by at least 10%, and probably more. SHAKOPEE CABLE AND PUBLIC ACCESS COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION FOR VIDEO SYSTEM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PROPOSAL Shakopee City Council Chambers Video Date 4/22/92 Designer Page Item Quanity Description Price Total 1 4 Pan/Tilt color camers $2,800.0 $11 ,200.0 2 1 Controller $978.00 $978.00 3 2 triple black/white monitors $1 ,090.0 $2,180.00 4 2 Color 13" control monitor (1 air sig 1 color cg) $350.00 $700.00 5 1 Camera switcher $5,000.0 $5,000.00 6 1 VHS recorder $350.00 $350.00 7 1 VHS player $350.00 $350.00 8 1 6X Distribution amp (video) $300.00 $300.00 9 1 .00 4X1 video switcher (for monitor source) $315.00 $315.00 10 1 Color C.G. / bulletin board $3,200.0 $3,200.00 111 1 Radio receiver $200.00 $200.00 121 1 35 " podium monitor $2,200.0 $2,200.00 13' 7 27" monitors with mounts $1 ,200.0 $8,400.00 14 1 Cable/installation $5,900.0 $5,900.00 15 1 control console $3.,200.0 $3,200.00 16 1 misc. chairs,tapes , ect. _$1 ,500.0 $1 ,500.00 17 1 audio system for cable modulator $3,200.0 $3,200.00 Page Total $49,173.00 i* 9 CITY OF SHAKOPEE ✓\.\ ,i , INCORPORATED 1870 4 �`4*� KO 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445-3650 A < a!i `'Nr April 29, 1992 t `. X Dear Mayor Laurent and City Councilmembers: On behalf of the Shakopee Cable Commission and Public Access Corporation we would like to request a meeting with City Council at an upcoming Committee of the Whole to discuss the cable television and sound equipment needs in our new City Council Chambers. Several months ago the Cable Commission informed City Council of our interest in providing technical assistance to City Council in acquiring the necessary equipment to provide a quality broadcast. We are fortunate to have several members on the Commissions who have professional background in video equipment and broadcasting. We believe that can provide information to City Council that might otherwise be obtained from a consultant at a cost to the City. The Cable Commission believes that the move to the new City Hall facility provides us with an excellent opportunity to improve our Council/Planning Commission broadcasts. I am sure that Council is aware of the number of calls that we and staff have recieived in regard to the poor quality of our current system. The Cable Commission also believes that this would be an excellent time for City Council to exercise their right within the Cable Franchise Ordinance to activate a government access channel. This would provide Shakopee residents with a cable channel dedicated solely to government use. We are putting together a suggested equipment package that would allow Shakopee residents to receive information on round-the-clock basis over a dedicated government channel via a character generator and/or live programming. We are prepared to present our recommendations to equip the new City Council Chambers with a system that will certainly improve access to local government for our residents. We look forward to your response in regard to your interest in hearing a presentation from the Cable Commission regarding the video/sound system possibilities for the new City Council Chambers. Sincerely, . --;,18 ; ./.4.-:- - - 11 Ill; Bill Anderson, Chair Shakopee Cable Commission .-/ee, _.?': //,: i :-/ 1/4___ /sfames Bastyr---;Chair hakopee Public Access Corporation TAMI\CABLE.LTR The Heart Of Progress Valley AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4W45.6 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 SPUC policy. This is adjusted annually based on the new SPUC 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) . I N T R A .7 IE S I G N DATE: 5/20/92 TO: James Perras Senior Project Manager Bossardt Corp. FAX #831-1268 FROM: Intra-Design, Inc. CLIENT: CITY OF SHAKOPEE CITY HALL PRELIMINARY BUDGET - Furnishings and Finishes Based on floor plan dated 5/6/92 NOTES: This budget does not include the following: • File Cabinets (new) • Phone system • Office machines and equipment (i.e., computers, fax, copiers, coffee machines, etc.) • Audio-video equipment • Miscellaneous (i.e., waste baskets, personal desk top items) dEPP!F!EL`J COURT SHAKOPEE MINNESOTA 5537° 6121445-8884 Preliminary Budget, Based on floor plan dated 5/6/92 — Page 2 From: Intra-Design, Inc. 5/20/92 PRIVATE OFFICES & WORKSTATIONS: ROOM QTY ITEM EST. COST ACTUAL COST 21 Guest Chairs Reupholstered 2 yds fabric @ 60.00/yd 2,520 labor @ 100.00/ea 2,100 Refinish or touch-up 3 conference tables and 21 guest chairs 1,500 Miscellaneous furniture, safe door, microwave, refrigerator purchased from Marquette Bank 9,500 114 1 Wood desk w/return & drawer, 72" x 36" 1,600 114 1 72" credenza w/lateral file and stack-on storage above 1,920 112, 3 credenzas w/laminate finish @ 786.00/ea 2,358 025, 026 13 66" x 30"pedestal desks, laminate finish & returns & drawer @ 1,000/ea 13,000 31 Side guest chairs @ 460.00/ea 14,260 114, 3 42"/48" Round tables w/laminate tops @ 350.00/ea 1,050 112, 104 30 Task Chairs @ 300/ea 9,000 114 1 Executive Hi-back swivel tilt chair 550 17 Panel Systems-work stations @ 3,600.00/ea 61,200 Govt. contract. Includes union labor for installation 106, 5 66" x 24" Plan Check Tables w/laminate tops @ 475.00/ea 2,375 110, 111, 115, 133 135, 3 End Tables @ 325.00/ea 975 136, 026 Preliminary Budget, Based on floor plan dated 5/6/92 — Page 3 From: Intra-Design, Inc. 5/20/92 PRIVATE OFFICES & WORKSTATIONS: ROOM QTY ITEM EST. COST ACTUAL COST 114, 12 36" x 13-1/8" D Bookcases, (3 shelves) @ 335.00/ea 4,020 112, 121, 133 115 137 106 117 111 025 026 134 6 Bookcases (library) @ 450.00/ea 2,700 122, 20 Metal Shelving for permanent record storage @ 340.00/ea 6,800 123 COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROOM QTY ITEM EST. COST ACTUAL COST 005 80 Stacker Audience Chairs @ 250.00/ea 20,000 005 4 Stacker Chair Dollies @ 211.00/ea 844 005 8 Hi-back Executive swivel tilt chairs @ 625.00/ea 5,000 005 6 Low-back Executive swivel tilt chairs @ 400.00/ea 2,400 RECEPTION SEATING ROOM QTY ITEM EST. COST ACTUAL COST 101 1 Loveseat 1,100 101 2 3-seat settees @ 1370.00/ea 2,740 101 1 Corner end table 345 LUNCH ROOM ROOM QTY ITEM EST. COST ACTUAL COST 022 10 Stacker Chairs @ 150.00/ea 1,500 022 2 48" Round Tables w/laminate tops @ 350.00/ea 700 Preliminary Budget, Based on floor plan dated 5/6/92 — Page 4 From: Intra-Design, Inc. 5/20/92 MISCELLANEOUS ROOM QTY ITEM EST. COST ACTUAL COST Window Treatments 8600 Installation of window treatments 900 60 Interior Signage @ 100.00/ea 6,000 5 Hr. Installation of signage 250 Art 4800 30 Chair Mats @ 35.00/ea 1,050 103 pcs. Electrostatic painting of files - exterior & edges only 6,000 Accessories: i.e. Entry rugs, desk lamps, coat hooks 5,000 Approximate freight & delivery (approx. 12% of materials) 23,730 Approximate sales tax (6.5% of materials) 12,855 Preliminary Budget, Based on floor plan dated 5/6/92 — Page 5 From: Intra-Design, Inc. 5/20/92 FINISHING MATERIALS ROOM ITEM EST. COST ACTUAL COST 101 & 102 Ceramic Floor Tile 4.30/sq ft 8" x 8" unglazed textured stone finish + installation 131,108 016 & 020 Ceramic Floor Tile 4.30/sq ft 8" x 8" unglazed textured stone finish + installation 131, 108 016 & 020 Ceramic Wall Tile with finished top edge 6" x 8" no bull nose required 2.52/sq ft + installation All areas Carpet 23.00/lin yd except installed restrooms, Direct glue down installation &corridor Vinyl base 102 005, 006 Vinyl Wall Covering, Type II, 54" Wide 10.35/yd 001,019, 017,015 016, 020, 139, 101, 102, 116, 114, 113, 112, 111, 120, 127, 107, 138