HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/1997 TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL MAY 14, 1997
WEDNESDAY
LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Jeff Henderson presiding
ADJOURNED REGULAR SESSION
1] Roll Call at 4:30 P.M.
2] Approval of Agenda
3] Shakopee Public Utilities Land Sale
4] Other Business
5] Adjourn to Tuesday, May 20, 1997 at 7:00 P.M.
WORK SESSION
1] Roll Call following the adjourned regular session
2] Approval of Agenda
3] Approval of Minutes: February 25 and March 11, 1997
4] Police Department Staffing
5] Public Works Equipment Acquisitions for 1997
6] Policy Issues Regarding the Pay Plan
7] Other Business
8] Adjourn
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 25, 1997
Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 9:05 p.m. (after the council meeting) with Councilmembers
DuBois, Zorn (at 9:07), Sweeney and Link present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce
Loney, Public Works Directors; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk;Lou VanHout, Manager, Shakopee Public Utilities and
Joe Adams, Administrative Assistant, Shakopee Public Utilities.
Sweeney/Link moved to approve the minutes of November 18, 1996 and January 19, 1997. Motion carried
unanimously(Cncl. Zorn was absent.)
Sweeney/Link moved to approve the minutes of November 26, 1996. Motion carried with Cncl. DuBois abstaining
(Cncl.Zorn was absent.)
Cncl. Zorn entered and took his seat.
Mr. Loney explained that City Council has asked for a comprehensive study on street lighting. He said that in his
memo he has outlined the past policies and practices as well as the policies and practices that are in place today
and how they were formulated. This should be of some help to the Council in giving direction to staff on what to
prepare for a street light policy and what can be lived with. He explained that the Shakopee Public Utility
Commission (SPUC) is responsible for street light design, spacing length and maintenance while the City retains
ownership of the street lights.
With regards to street lighting,Mr. Loney stated that the Council needs to look at the type of fixtures, spacing and
location, existing subdivisions vs. new subdivisions, rural vs. urban subdivisions and county roads. Council also
needs to look at funding for the initial installation of fixtures, replacement of fixtures, operating costs and
maintenance costs.
A discussion followed regarding moving existing City poles and fixtures to a spacing of 300 feet rather than 600
feet. Mr. Loney was asked the cost of doing so and that cost was unknown. The cost of the power and
maintenance for new poles was thought to be approximately $40,000. Mr. McNeill stated he believed the cost of
installation of new poles and fixtures in the past was approximately $1,500. Ms. DuBois questioned who would be
the responsible entity to pay for new poles on collector streets as compared to residential streets to which Mr.
Loney replied that that cost would be a capital improvement because it benefited the community as a whole. Ms.
DuBois also questioned if developments such as Stonebrooke and Dominion Hills were considered rural or urban
developments to which Mr. Loney replied they were rural developments. Mr. Loney stated that the cost of doing a
feasibility study and holding a public hearing regarding installing a new street light in an existing area is probably
30-40%of the cost of a street light and recommended that if a new street light is going to be installed under the
current policy that the affected residents enter into an agreement with the City to pay for the light rather than going
with the feasibility study/public hearing procedure.
Regarding county roads, the City's current practice is to request the county to perform a warrant study.
Mr. Sweeney questioned if street lights installed in a development also have the cable installed at the same time.
He also noted that if retrofitting is being looked into that there could be substantial retrofitting wiring costs.
Mayor Henderson suggested that if residents want a street light on a long block,the residents could bring a petition
to City Council and then the Council could look at possibly partially subsidizing the cost. He noted that a street
light is an improvement to the resident's property. Mr. Zorn asked that staff be directed to prepare a proposal as to
the cost of a public hearing vs. an agreement between the residents and City Council to install a street light.
Official Proceedings of the February 25, 1997
Shakopee City Council(Work Session) Page -2-
Ms. DuBois noted a specific concern regarding the lighting on a collector street, i.e. Eagle Creek Boulevard and
the cost of upgrading the same. Mr. Loney replied that the least expensive approach would be to add lights to the
existing poles. Mr. Sweeney noted that installing new poles would involve rock removal.
Mr. Sweeney recommended that staff be directed to also review any proposals with the Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission.
Ms. DuBois questioned the reasoning as to why different spacing was recommended for urban residential as
compared to rural residential. Mr. Loney stated there were more homes and people in the urban areas than in the
rural areas. Mr. DuBois opined that rural residents are entitled to the same benefits as city residents. She also
noted that the street light installation is a developer decision, not a resident decision. Mayor Henderson opined
that one of the reasons people may want to live in a rural area is because it is more secluded. He also stated that if
a resident wanted a street light at a later date, it should be an assessment to the resident but also suggested that
when the land is platted, the street light installation should be taken into consideration. Mr. Sweeney noted that
street lights at a spacing of 300 feet on lots of 10 acres or more could be done, however, it would be reflected in the
lot cost.
Mr. Zorn suggested that staff draft a policy at a spacing of 300 feet for urban and 600 feet for rural and also
prepare a separate policy for the county roads. Ms. DuBois stated her concern about rural residents who are on
smaller lots of one to two acres as compared to the 10-acre lots and the need for more lighting in the areas with one
to two acre lots. Mayor Henderson noted that any street light issue on those lots could also be accomplished
through a variance. Mr. Link also felt that some of the developments do not have adequate lighting. Mr. VanHout
stated that set policies do not apply in every instance and suggested that street lighting districts should be
investigated.
Mr. Sweeney requested that staff prepare a street light policy based on the discussions and present it to the City
Council and SPUC. Mayor Henderson stated that as to the retrofitting, he would like to see a proposal outlining
the procedure for an individual to follow regarding requesting a street light. He would also like to see a cost for
additional lighting on County Road 16. Ms. DuBois also noted two other areas that specifically concerned her,
those being the intersections of County Roads 42 and 17 and County Roads 82 and 17. Mr. Loney was thanked for
the effort and time he spent preparing his memo.
A discussion was then held regarding the street overlay assessment policy. Mr. Zorn recommended that the
existing policy not be changed. Mr. Sweeney noted that a street overlay returns the pavement to the original
condition and extends its life for 20 years. He also stated that as to rebuilding a street that the City is at the low
end of the scale for reconstruction assessments. Mr. Link noted that residents living on collector streets would
have to pay an overlay assessment more often to which Mr. Sweeney replied that collector streets are supposed to
be built to a higher standard. Mr. Sweeney also noted that if an assessment is charged, the matter can go to
bonding to which Mr. Loney replied that this project could be bonded but not all projects can be. Mayor
Henderson thought the bonding matter which would involve public hearings may be confusing to the affected
residents. Mr. Sweeney stated that the City's debt service levy needs to be as low as possible. Mayor Henderson
stated that he would reluctantly support a 25% assessment rate to the benefiting homeowners. Mr. Zorn stated he
would be opposed. (Staff will prepare an amendment to the assessment policy to include a 25% assessment for
street overlay projects.)
Sweeney/Zorn moved to djourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M.
4
uo K.
th S. Cox, City Cler
et Vogel Freeman
'ecording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 11, 1997
Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 5:13 P.M. with Councilmembers Jane
DuBois, Burl Zorn, Bob Sweeney, and Clete Link present. Also present: Mark McNeill,
City Administrator; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk.
Mr. McNeill advised the Council that with the tax levy 1999 the City will have to make up
$28,500 for the ADC project. He explained that the contract development agreement did
not factor in the fiscal disparities; short of trying to negotiate something less than $1.5
million with ADC, we probably would have ended up in the same location. He suggested
treating this as a loan unless the Council wants to increase the levy by that amount. The
loan would then be paid back from proceeds by extending the"life of the district"
(increased levy) by approximately two years. Council expressed no opposition to this
approach.
Mr. McNeill stated that Council had authorized utilizing the services of Fox Lawson to
look at the City's pay plan. He stated that to keep the bias out it made sense to hire
someone like Fox Lawson to take a look at our pay plan. He said that he would like to
walk the Council through the proposal tonight and then to bring it back to them for
potential action on March 18th.
Jim Fox, Fox Lawson, approached the podium and reviewed the four packages of
information that he provided to the Council. He said that what was happening was that,
based on the number of points, the City was paying a dollar amount per point. What that
says in his business is that you know exactly what a job is worth and that you can peg a
point to it and therefore peg a dollar to it, which he thinks is impossible to do. He
explained that what they did was to take the points, and the information that the City got
from MAMA years ago, and rationalized it. If one had 80 points, for example, one could
just as easily be at that job and have the right value if one had 85 points or 75 points. So
there is a range around the points representing a margin of error. So they used the margin
of error and made groupings or grades out of the points and then based a salary structure
on those grades rather than based on points.
Mr. Fox explained a proposed pay structure, as it would look for 1996, using the grade
system, spread out over eight steps. He said that he believes that the City would be in
compliance with state law if it implemented this pay structure and that it would be in
compliance forever.
Mr. Fox explained that after the pay structure was developed for 1996, they used this
structure, took individual's current hourly rate and took them to their next highest step.
This was done for all steps coming up with a pay structure for 1997. Discussion followed
on the cost to the City to implement the pay structure presented.
Official Proceedings of the March 11, 1997
Shakopee City Council Page -2-
There was a consensus that everyone liked the standard pay structure presented, but that
Council would like to see options and the budget impact to implement it over a three year
period.
Zorn/Sweeney moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
6:01 P.M.
J. aic
ty.efith S. Cox
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
TO: Mark McNeill, Shakopee City Administrator
FROM: Lou Van Bout, Utilities Manager C�Teti.
RE: Land Sale, Former site for Substation, C.R. 78
DATE: 5/6/97
Introduction:
The Utilities Commission has considered the offers received on a
parcel of land, and is referring the two highest bids to City
Council for final action on the disposition of this property.
Background:
A parcel of land on County Road 78, between C.R. 79 and C.R. 17 ,
had been acquired in 1993 by the Utilities Commission, as a
potential site for an electrical substation.
With the South Substation now under construction on the County
Road 79 site, the Utilities Commission had no further need for
the parcel of land.
To dispose of this surplus property, the Commission secured the
services of Mr. Connie Schmid as its representative
(facilitator) , with the intent to refer the matter to City
Council for final action after advertising the land for sale and
reviewing the offers on the property.
Prominent advertisements were placed in the Shakopee fValley News
and other newspapers in nearby communities (a copy
the
advertisement is enclosed for reference) , and at their 5/5/97
Regular Meeting, the Commission considered the offers received on
this parcel of land.
Action Requested:
The Commission voted to refer the two highest bids to City
Council for final action on the disposition of this property.
The two highest purchase offers are enclosed, along with the
review comments by Mr. Schmid on those offers.
The following is a summary of the pertinent information of
the five bids submitted to the Shakopee Public Utility
Commission, in connection with the sale of a ten acre parcel
owned by the City of Shakopee . These bids were submitted by
the 4: 00 P . M. deadline on April 28 , 1997 .
Bidder # 4 Laurent Builders , Inc .
Amount Bid : $ 91 ,202 .00 , OR five
percent (5%) more than the
next highest acceptable bid ,
whichever is less . ( $ 90 ,510 . 00
Letter of Credit : Yes
Contingencies : None
Date of Closing : 8/29/97
The following is a summary of the pertinent information of
a bid submitted to the Shakopee Public Utility Commission
in connection with the sale of a ten acre parcel owned by
997 .
the City of Shakopee. This bid was submitted on May
Bidder Bert Notermann
Amount Bid : $ 100,000.00
Letter of Credit : Yes
Contingencies : None
Date of Closing : 5/30/97
llI7I''II'I1'II1.I..Il.l.l....________i. 111-_____ -l----l--........••.i••I•.-----__ - - , '
NOTICE
OF SOF
PUBLIC LAND
Property A land owned
p Y -Shakopeetenacre describedparcelof as - The East tenby acres
theCity of theof
North one-half of the Northwest Quarter, Section 19,
Township 115N, Range 22W, Scott County, MN.
Location - Parcel is located on the south side of County Road
#78 between County Road #17 ( Marschall Road )
and County Road #79 ( Townline Road )
Who may make an offer - Any individual, Real Estate Agent, or
Color
Real Estate Broker, regardless of Race,
Religion, Sex or National Origin. Offers mursetbe
presented on a standard purchase agree
nt.
Minimum earnest money is $ 1 ,000.00. All parties
presenting offers must have proof of their abilif a Letter to
perform on the purchase in the form iss or Brokers
of
Credit from a Bank. Real Estate ci eats must include
presenting offers on behalf o
the real estate commission in the price offered.
Minimum price - The listing price of $64,000.00 is an estimate
of the fair market value of the property and will be
. the minimum offer that will be accepted. The highest
net price to the City of Shakopee will be the offer
considered.
When must the offer be submitted - All offers must be made in
a sealed envelope by 4:00 PM on Monday, April 8 ,
1997 at the office of the Shakopee Public Utility
Commission at 1030 4th Avenue East, Shakopee,
MN.
Questions - Anyquestions of the offering may be addressed to
• the Shakopee Public Utility Commission
representative C. L. Schmidt- 445-6400 (work), 445-
- 2379 ( home )
.. ... Y/9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Thomson
DATE: May 13, 1997
RE: SPUC Land Sale
BACKGROUND
I have reviewed the background facts pertaining to the proposed sale of a ten-acre parcel of land
owned by the City. The property was advertised for sale by SPUC in a document entitled"Notice
of Sale of Public Land." The advertisement contained the following requirements:
l_ Offers must be presented on a standard purchase agreement with a minimum earnest
money amount of$1,000.
2. All parties presenting offers must have proofooof their ability to perform on the purchase
the form of a letter of credit from
3. Real estate agents or brokers presenting offers on behalf of clients must include the real
estate commission in the price offered.
4. The minimum offer that would be accepted is $64,000.
5. The highest net price to the City will be the offer considered.
The advertisement stated that all offers must �0made m on April 28,E I�g7 S LTC had velope by 4:00 received
m. on
Monday,April 28, 1997,at SPUC s office. By P five sealed offers. The offers were opened atthat
4 00 .mw _another offer o purcsubmitting
hase the lana
offers
were present. On May 2, 1997, at approximately p
was submitted to SPUC.
1
The two questions raised by the QUESTIONS PRESENTED above set of facts are:
1. May the City consider the bid that was submitted on May 2, 1997?
2. Is the City required to accept the highest offer that was submitted on April 28,
1997?
CONCLUSION
The answers to the above questions are=
I. The City may not consider the bid that was submitted on May 2, 1997.
2. The City may, but is not required to, accept the highest offer that was submitted
on April 28, 1997.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Issue #1.
A city is not required to use a competitive process when it offers real estate for sale. A city may
sell real estate through a request for proposal process or by a direct negotiation process. Once
a city decides to use a competitive process,however, it must follow that process in a manner that
is reasonably designed to accomplish the normal purpose of giving all persons an equal
opportunity to submit competitive offers and to ensure taxpayers the best bargain. Griswold v.
Ramsey County, 65 N.W.2d 647 (Minn. 1954). In this case, there is no question that SPUC
elected to use a competitive process for the sale of the property. That process required all offers
to be submitted in sealed envelopes by a specified date and time. The process also required that
a letter of credit be submitted. Allowing a person to submit a bid four days after the opening
of the other offers provides that person with an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, it
cannot be considered.
There is another reason why the offer that was submitted on May 2, 1997 cannot be considered.
The late offer did not comply with one of the provisions in the advertisement, because a letter
of credit was not submitted with the offer. The offer was only accompanied by a letter from
is
bank stating that financial accommodations were in place for the acquisition of the property
Th
letter does not, however, meet the requirements of a letter of credit.
Issue #2.
The highest offer that was submitted on April 28th was "$91,202 or five percent(5%) more than
the next highest acceptable/qualified bid, whichever is less." This offer was accompanied by
a letter of credit and was submitted on the standard purchase agreement form. The question that
7
this offer raises is whether the phrase "or 5%more than the next highest acceptable/qualified bid,
whichever is less" renders the offer non-responsive. (The next highest offer was $86,200.)
In a typical competitive bidding situation,i.e. one where competitive bidding is required by law,
a bid containing the quoted language would be non-responsive and could not be accepted. In this
case, although SPUC used a competitive process to sell the property, it did not adopt all the
requirements of competitive bidding in the advertisement. The advertisement states that the
"highest net price to the City will be the offer considered." The offer quoted above provides the
"highest net price" because it results in a purchase price of$90,510 (5% more than the $86,200
offer).
The advertisement does not obligate the City to accept the highest net price. Although SPUC
elected to use a competitive process, it reserved the right to merely "consider," not necessarily
"accept" the highest offer. Because the advertisement uses the word "consider," the City has the
option of either accepting or rejecting the $90,510 offer. If the City chooses to reject that offer,
the City does not have the option of accepting any of the other offers that were submitted on
April 28th because none of them offer the "highest net price_" The City's option would be to go
through the process of re-advertising the sale of the property.
3
45
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor& City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Public Works Equipment Acquisition for 1997 -
Council Work Session
DATE: May 12, 1997
Attached to this memo is a previous memorandum on Public Works equipment acquisition
for 1997 as included in the May 6, 1997 City Council agenda packet. Staff will review
this memorandum with Council at the May 14, 1997 work session and make a brief
presentation on equipment purchasing and operational needs for Public Works
Department.
In the presentation, staff will review the proposed 1997 equipment purchases as contained
in the 1997 Budget. In addition, staff will review the proposed changes with City Council
and review the operational needs in the department in snow plowing, snow removal of
sidewalks, mowing of City parks and other work activity. At this meeting, staff will also
be discussing the level of service that Council wishes to maintain or achieve in providing
these services. The level of service that Council wishes to see does affect the equipment
purchasing this year and in future years as well as employee staffing.
The purpose of discussing equipment acquisition with Council is to obtain direction as to
the purchasing the various equipment items so that equipment can be purchased for this
year.
n/ruce Loney
Public Works Director
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor&City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney,Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Public Works Equipment Acquisitions for 1997
DATE: May 6, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The Public Works Department has reviewed its proposed equipment acquisition as listed
in the Capital Equipment List in the 1997 Budget. Staff is proposing changes in this list
and is seeking Council direction on equipment acquisitions.
BACKGROUND:
In the Capital Equipment List for 1997, the following equipment was proposed:
Street Division
Single Axle Dump Truck/Equipment $ 75,000
Front End Loader $ 120,000
Park Division
Large Tractor Mower(i.e. Jake) $ 70.000
Total $ 265,000
A copy of the Capital 1997 Capital Equipment list is attached as Attachment No. 1.
Staff has reviewed these proposed equipment purchases with the needed operations of the
Public Works Department and has the following recommendations:
• A new single axle dump truck with equipment is needed to replace Truck#107, as
per the Vehicle Replacement Policy and the City mechanic's recommendation.
• The larger mower (i.e. Jake) with a 16 foot cutting width is scheduled for
replacement, per the Vehicle Replacement Policy and the City mechanic's
recommendation.
• A new front end loader to replace the 1976 Fiat-Allis is not recommended at this
time. Staff recommends purchasing new single axle dump truck with equipment to
replace the existing Fiat-Allis loader on a plow route, and utilize the existing loader
for loading trucks due to its age. T`has Fiat-Allis
due to its low salvage valueloader was replaced in 1993. This
th a
Case loader, however, this loader
piece of equipment has been utilized since in a snow plow route, for loading sand
and miscellaneous other operations.
• A new single axle dump truck would have a plow and wing and would be able to
plow areas faster than the loader. Additional plowing capacity is needed to meet
the City's increased number of streets ldthe still be used aunty s necessary for snow
cks such as
County Road 18. The existing loadercou
plowing.
• A skid steer loader (i.e. bobcat) with high Output hydraulics and snow blower is
recommended for snow removal purposes on sidewalks and trails and to
supplement our existing skid steer loader. The work load in the spring, summer
and fall is such that two skid steer loaders could be utilized by the Street and Park
Divisions.
• The existing skid steer loader does not have the hydraulics necessary to effectively
blow snow from sidewalks and trails. he roadspastfew years. Inorder City
thegreatly
its sidewalks
tol
and trails on Collector streets andCounty
remove snow from sidewalks in the time period, per City Ordinance, additional
equipment is necessary. A new skid steer loader with snow blower is 1/3 the cost
of a large sidewalk snow removal machine.
Attachment No. 2 contains further analysis from the Public Works Supervisor on these
equipment purchases. These equipment purchases as proposed in the memo will cost
approximately the same amount as proposed in the 1997 Capital Equipment List.
Staff believes these purchases will upgradeoa levelr o
fservice on snow plowing plowing equipment for snow tr and
s
grass cutting operations as well as maintain
in our growing Community, and improve the service of snow removal on sidewalks and
trails. Staff would like to discuss this equipment with Council and seek direction on
whether to proceed with these acquisitions.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to proceed with equipment acquisition as outlined in Attachment No. 2.
2. Direct staff to proceed with equipment acquisitions as outline in Attachment No. 2 and
as modified by Council.
3. Table for additional information.
4. Schedule this item for further disucssion on a future Work Session.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council discuss the proposed equipment acquisitions and provide
direction to staff. Staff believes the equipment acquisitions to meetthe operation needs in the
t
needed as per the Vehicle Replacement Policy and
Street and Park Divisions.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to direct staff to proceed with equipment acquisitions as outlined in Attachment
No. 2.
nice Loney
Public Works Director
BL/pmp
PURCHASES
N ATTACHMENT NO . 1
1997 1998 1999 2000 .. 2001
Police 25,660 25,770 53,280 55,100 28,500
Marked Patrol Cars 14,400 16,200
Automobiles(unmarked) 13,900
I Fire
Truck-Pumper 300,000 300,000
000
Truck-Telesquirt 350, 22,000
I Hover Craft 40,000
Utility/Personnel Vehicle
Engineering 14,000 15,000 16,000
Pickup Truck
Street 75,000 80,000
Single Axle Dump Truck/equip 20,000
1 Ton Pickup with Plow 40,000
Steamer 120,000
Front End Loader 65,000
Diesel-powered sidewalk plow 55,000
Snow Blower (for loader)
Park
Large Tractor Mower(ieJake) 70,000
50,000
I Garbage Truck 1 1/2 Ton 40,000
Bucket Truck 30,000
Small Mower w/cab and attachments
1 Sewer Fund 0,000
1 Ton Pickup with plow 3 30,000
Eductor
lStorm Drainage Fund 60,000
Tractor Loader/Backhoe954,560 454,170 285,280 305,100 145,700
i
I _
1
•I
1 5-20
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT ACQUISITIONS
1997
STREET
Single Axle Dump Truck with Equipment
This truck will replace Truck #107 using the Guideline Replacement Standard. The
mechanic has filled out the Vehicle Evaluation Form. Estimated cost for truck, plow,
wing and sander is $90,000.00
Single Axle Dump Truck with Equipment
This will be an additional truck. With the growth of the City in the past and its continued
growth in the future, we would request Thaddis liui k v�in'll keep outruck in rsnower to plow, sand removal operations
d haul
materials (sand, snow, rock, ag-lime).
from exceeding 8 to 10 hours per storm. Estimated cost for truck, plow, wing and sander
is $90,000.00.
Skid Steer Loader with High Output Hydraulics and Snow Blower
This would be an additional skid steer loader (i.e. bobcat). Our present bobcat does not
have high output hydraulics, which is needed to run hydraulic snow blowers, asphalt mills,
stump grinders, etc. with the demands on our present bobcat which is used heavily in our
park system. An additional bobcat would be utilized by street personnel in order to be
more productive in street maintenance (street patching, pothole repair, etc.); storm sewer
maintenance (catch basin repair, ditch and pond maintenance); sign maintenance (repair
and installations); sanitary sewer maintenance (manhole repairs). With the increase in
sidewalks and trails, our productivity in snow removal would be highly increased by using
a skid steer loader with a hydraulic blower. A large amount of Communities use
equipment that is specifically made for sidewalk snow removal (i.e trackless, holders).
After consulting with other Communities, we believe a skid steer loader with a hydraulic
snow blower is the best equipment to meet our needs. This equipment is more versatile
with more attachments and it can be used year round. This equipment is also 1/3 less in
cost than other sidewalk snow removal machines. This equipment item was not budged
for in 1997. Estimated cost for skid steer loader with high output hydraulics and snow
blower is $25,000.00.
PARK
Large Mower(i.e. Jake)
This mower is the backbone of the City's turf maintenance fleet. This mower has a 16
foot cutting width, which is a necessity in keeping up with our ever growing park system,
and maintaining the service level the public is demanding from its ballfields and open park
space. Estimated cost for large mower is$60,000.00 including trade-in.
•
•
O 0r--
0
U 000u) N—
a O
w
Lu
0
J
m
(..) O _ Co
O 0 E N-
(0 co
W
Jto
_
O
co
W •c g 0 C) N 0 O j U c
°- N C U
E 3 C9 c o
o -i• 0 0 o aa) o 0 a v 0 3
C7 a - �U T. El_ zc > 1- L
N
8 a) co °O o 3 civ
a) Y O O o
J Q N w �- O N co 3 `LQ O Y
QE
• a�0i m L ' M o o 3 a oo o O ° ° co
W a� E a) c o ° o 0 3 o c ° a ° o o 3
I— 00 a• o m in 0 3 I- I— x �
cn O 2 O ° Co U - m m CNI 1- Z U) > -) U N e- �t d in
N � m m
@
°) CO 0 r- L I Cn 0 LL, 3
cn N
m U 0 Lc) Lo
s- M OI ° r-- co 2
N r m `_
r T' Q CO N N �-
T O 0O 0 O O
L a) a) C_ o a) - O 0 to ,_ «3 O m v) p d
LU C O 3 c O CO 0 a) L 3p 0 -Oa o) ` -Oa "O ..
O n 3Y 3 � Y pa -'0 c E co c0 co c) ' °
O c"o o m ° o a c o to m o J a m in 0 0 3
UaJm FL r- rz T. N' '' 0.1
J Nam C.4 e-- - - e-- .r.
co c o
c .
3 3 0_
o a) dS 0 0)
c cn 3
Y o 3 E 3 >, 3 0 ° a) c
U 0- o °� 3 0 c w a) v) a c 3
M c`n a-o o c o 3 ° m rn 3 3
• a .- Q 3 •c cn o rn 3 3 c 3 a 3 0
F- as E co o 0 — a) 3 0. a) a� (D g a Y
a 13 c -o c'a)CLc' 6)33 E m c 3
c c cca (n •c Y ` c o a ti 'cn 3 a c o d
co- 0) as �' 0 3 c. - d i �- - u) cn (0
r O d +n d d O
O
z O 00 0 0co
O
0
O O O Un a 0
H U) Ili �
a
-J
M
a
0
a
Lo If
C) N
Lo
;I:
co oo
M (0
OD
} d V NN.NI-
N i • 'c0) 1
•5 i L c J , C ' N t1'
__I CO N O .y (n Q
u)
° U = aii W U
m q
co I I 1
-
0
«
o
o £ \ k
CV
-a
§
0 o
0) E
ra
$
.
d
0 /
0 k o 0 .2
q 2 1- ®
0 & Eo E & E (Na) 2
/ k' 0 o / o E 2 0 / -cr 12 ) k
0 0 ' m -0 » / R ® -0 / / 0 / 4" c \ u,
m 2 £ 0 0 0 - K E 2 ® w e & = 3 ¥ # 2@ §
a.
® 2 ' > / -04 m a k q R co 4 (N i-
0 5 ® -
e > I as
2 Z' = % M -0 '
° ° U) \ e ■ 7 0 (0
$ > f o o 0) £ 13 E
q % § o n n = ? $ t k \ k 2 $ c 2 k 2
o @ ® c0 c0' ' v- o 032 2 $ o c = m
CO CO o ) _ / > n q = In .4.-
e-- —
q Q 2 - - ® m q
CD » o 0 Cr) R ' CO \
4- k CO 0 a) \ k % CU
/ k E $ $ $ / 0 -0 \ » c 0 °
0 t 7 \ k k q \ k 03 Co ° co I-
aaeE �
E CO Q ° m £ o = __I
.® -
q _ q — -
c 2
o >
5 o $ 0 ¢ 2 # / 0) -
k % m = 2 0 CO
_ # ® k k t ® t o
§ § / 2 E 7 2 c
�\ � k �6J \ \ � 20 \ • k
LL C - c
E E # c � E E m k 0- / 3 2
2 k / / 20k 0) .0 0) 0
b. / � 2 I- in o / / E 7 3 L 6 0 /
CD q o - - - 0
o - - 1.0
¥ co co t
CD 0
E 0 0 0
o � s- ' 2
R / (N CV(N
co
cO o � � � (U / c �
0CD $ c .0 10
k \ % 2 c.
3 k us o k J e . 0 2 —
C)
Cl)
W o
co
J
U
Cl)
w
O)
0)
C
w
o
U o 3
C9
o
a ocn 13Z
w o
EU M
N co N F- ti
M
ti
.5
C-)
N -Q
0
m
co0)
W Q
Qra 0 0
O 0 ti a a
N N r
Cl) 0
Y a
D
a
co
z
0
H 0
0
J O
0
a
a)
a)
0
C) co
t
VEHICLE EVALUATION FORM
Public Works Department - Equipment Maintenance Section
Unit# 133 Serial # 70520-1793 Dept. Park
Year 1987 Make Jacobsen Model HR15
Vehicle Description 1987 Jacobsen 15' Rotory Mower
Special Eqpt/Attachments Mower Only
Primary Use Mowing Parks
Current Mileage Hours: 2917.0
Last year Miles Hours: 280.0
Avg. Annual Miles Hours: 292.0
Purchase Price $25,000 (includes special equip.)
Est. Replacement $60,000 (includes special equip.)
Cost
Estimated Avg. Life 10 Years
ANALYSIS OF UNIT
YEAR
Annual Operating Costs 950.00
Cumulative Operating Costs 9500.00
Annual CPM or CPH 7.26
Life to Date CPM or CPH 3.26
Avg. CPM/CPH for Vehicle Class
% Downtime -Annually
%Downtime - Cumulative
%Downtime by Class
Body, mechanics and/or chassis condition comments:
Frame/Body - Fair to good condition, Engine/Trans/Drive Line - Good condition
Decks/Lift Arms - Fair condition, somewhat bent and loose.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
evalform
•
EQUIPMENT # 133
DESCRIPTION: 1987 HR-15 Jacobsen
DATE PURCHASED: 9/87
COST: $25,000.00
DIESEL POWERED
MAINTENANCE COSTS: Does not include Fuel
1987: $67.50
1988: $80.00
1989: $86.87
1990: $176.08
1991: $839.18
1992: $110.68
1993: $1,567.98
1994: $2,063.66
1995: $3,379.48
1996: $802.26
1997: $300.00
TOTAL: $9,500.00
COST PER YEAR: 950.00
COST PER HOUR: $3.26
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£
a CITY OF SHAKOPEE a
a Vehicle Fite 5/10/97 a
a VEHICLE NUMBER 133 a
a 1 Department 62 a
a 2 License 2015 a
a 3 Description 87 JACOBSEN MOWER a
a 4 Type 5 a
a 5 Odometer-Start of Year 1,910 Hes. a
a Odometer-Last Posted 2,914 Hes, a
a 6 In Site Vehicle File? Y a
a 7 Key Number 133 a
a 8 Status 1 ACTIVE a
a a
a a
a Average MPG 0.7 a
a Fuel Used (YTD) 1,443.600 a
a Fuel Cost (YTD) $1,041.85 a
a Fluids Used (YTD) 0.000 a
a Fluids Cost (YTD) $0.00 a
a Total Cost (YTD) $1,041.85 a
ua53ai46666aa6666aaa6ea66666666666666664aaaaa666a6eaaeaa664666Aaaaa66466666601
a Enter: 1-8 update tine F find record a
a D delete Esc exit Option: a
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedV
VEHICLE EVALUATION FORM
Public Works Department - Equipment Maintenance Section
Unit# 107 Serial # 1 FDPF82KSHVA1924 Dept. Street
Year 1987 Make Ford Model F800
Vehicle Description 1987 Ford 2 1/2 Ton Dump Truck
Special Eqpt/Attachments FRT Plow & Sander
Primary Use Plow Snow & Hauling
Current Mileage 62636.2 Hours: 4201.2
Last year Miles 60995.0 Hours: 4088.0
Avg. Annual Miles 6000 + Hours: 400 + or-
Purchase Price $40,000 (includes special equip.)
Est. Replacement $85,000 (includes special equip.)
Cost
Estimated Avg. Life 10 Yrs. or 80,000 miles
ANALYSIS OF UNIT
YEAR
Annual Operating Costs
Cumulative Operating Costs 8987.47
Annual CPM or CPH
Life to Date CPM or CPH 2.14
Avg. CPM/CPH for Vehicle Class
% Downtime -Annually
%Downtime - Cumulative
%Downtime by Class
Body, mechanics and/or chassis condition comments:
Body - Fair Condition Box- Good Condition
Brakes have been a problem (alot of cost & down time), Engine - in good condition.
Propane powered engine has reduced power and overheats on a regular basis.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
evalform
TRUCK 1 107
DESCRIPTION: 1987 FORD F800
DUMP TRUCK
ACCESSORIES: Underbody Blade, Roll Sander, Prink Rev. Plow,
LPG Powered
DATE PURCHASED: 6/1/87
COST: $26,000.00
MAINTENANCE COSTS: Does not include Fuel
1987: $1,788.86
1988: $489.53
1989: $85.40
1990: $398.51
1991: $936.97
1992: $379.59
1993: $863.06
1994: $1,469.19
1995: $735.65
1996: $1,639.81
1997: $200.00
TOTAL: $8,987.47
COST PER YEAR: $898.74
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£
a CITY OF SHAKOPEE a
a Vehicle File 5/10/97 a
a VEHICLE NUMBER 107 a
a 1 Department 42 a
a 2 License 2030 a
a 3 Description 87 FORD DUMP a
n 4 Type 2 n
a 5 Odometer-Start of Year 3,140 OtS. a
a Odometer-Last Posted 4,199 HA. a
a 6 In Site Vehicle File? Y a
a 7 Key Number 107 a
a 8 Status 1 ACTIVE a
a n
n a
a Average MPG 0.2 a
a Fuel Used (YTD) 6,393.500 a
a Fuel Cost (YTD) $3,225.03 a
a Fluids Used (YTD) 0.000 a
a Fluids Cost (YTD) $0.00 a
a Total Cost (YTD) $3,225.03 a
uaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag
a Enter: 1-8 update line F find record a
a D delete Esc exit Option: a
aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee$
•
11-1
A 1996 METRO SURVEY
'4, UNITS OF GOVERNMENT-GROUPINGS AND POPULATION'
•
Listed below,In logical groupings for survey reporting purposes,are the units of stale,metropolitan-wide,county and municipal governments in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan area. Of these,108 reported data n the 1996 survey. j:
i
State of Minnesota University of Mnnesota
.. ....... ........ ........... ................... __.... Group-----Group Two-Metropolitan-wide Agencies-(Seven County)Arna)._.__.__.____._.--_.--- ---------_---•- u
' Metropolitan Airports Commission Metropolitan Coundl Environmental Svcs. i=
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council-Transit Operations
__--.___-------_-_•- ` -.-_____._-.-Group Three-Hennepin County,Ramsey County,Twin CHIris.-._._..._._.-...__._._..._..---.-•-----_------•--------•-
. epin County 1,056,673 Minneapolis 366,480
•a y County 492,909 St.Paul 271,660 I
-----------------------------14----------------Group Four-Duluth and Select Counties-__--
Dakota County 308,002 Washington County 169,300 Carver County 55,025
Anoka County 268,713 Olmsted County 114,386 Duluth 85,493
St.Louis County 198,213 Scott County 66,585
11
.^.-_------{-_--.._.---_._-_- Group Five-Suburbs Over 26,000
Bloomington 86,683 Eden Prairie 44,189 Maplewood 32,903
Coon Rapids 58,991 St.Louis Park 43,641 Woodbury 28,627
Brooklyn Park 58,471 Maple Grove 43,542 Brooklyn Center 28,484 `
Plymouth 57,391 . Blaine 41,658 Fridley 28,104
'`1 Eagan i 54,957 Apple Valley 39,188 Cottage Grove 26,675
" r Burnsville 54,525 Richfield 35,261 Shoreview 25,957k•:ry
' Minnetonka 50,569 Roseville 33,674 White Bear Lake 25,804
r•"- Edina i' 46,841 Lakeville 32,978 Inver Grove Heights 25,243
H --_ -_---.------------------------------ --- Suburbs Under 25,000 and Over 10,000------------------------------------------- i
Crystal 23,703 Columbia Heights 18,882 ,.•e 13,703 (
- i Oakdale 22,933 Anoka 17,509 13,041
f 1` New Brighton 22,328 Hopkins 16,536 . I 12,809 I
. New Hope 21,651 Hastings 18,200 .-Prior Lake 12,559 i
> f Golden Valley 20,947 Stillwater 15,350 Mounds View 12,552
South St.Paul 20,396 Ramsey 14,907 Lino Lakes 12,266 '
V Andover 19,465 -~Chanhassen 14,316 Vadnais Heights 11,968 I.
West St.Paul 19,332 Robbinsdale 14,255 ..Rosemount 11,086 ,
Champlin 19,030 --Chaska 13,721 Mendota Heights 10,636 !'
Group Seven-Suburbs Under 10,000-
. Ham Lake 9,825 Bayport 3,225 Greenwood 664 I
.,, Mound 9,592 Jordan 2,982 Landfall 622 •
Arden Hills 9,426 Independence 2,952 Marine on St.Croix 609 a
. Little Canada 9,225 Victoria 2,926 Cologne 583
East Bethel 8,702 Afton 2,816 Minnetonka Beach 578
'x ' St.Anthony 7,939 St.Francis 2,796 Wlllemie 5701� '
Orono 7,444 Lauderdale 2,718 Mayer 510
^_, Farmington 6,870 Osseo 2,594 Hamburg 502 {}�
.-�, Spring Lake Park 6,628 New Prague 2,568 Vermillion 501 i t
--, Shorewood 6,613 Watertown 2,517 lilydale 499 i1•:
Forest Lake 6,397 Excelsior 2,367 Loretto 494 i1
Mahtomedl 6,353 Lexington 2,234 Woodland 482
Lake Elmo 6,072 Centerville 2,101 Gem Lake 449 f
Corcoran 5,508 Maple Plain 2,094 Rockford 449
Falcon Heights 5,297 Lakeland 1,994 Pine Springs 434 ,'
Hugo 5,208 Long Lake 1,951 Bethel 429
St.Paul Park 5,032 Spring Park 1,755 Hampton 388 11
Dayton 4,883 Greenfield 1,572 Medicine Lake 373 '
` Cirde Pines 4,695 Young America 1,535 St.Mary's Point 372 i
Waconia 4,147 Tonka Bay 1,460 New Germany 368
Wayzata 3,860 Norwood 1,387 Randolph 343
Oak Park Heights 3,721 St.Bonifacius 1,192 Hanover ' 340
Newport 3.720 Lake St.Croix Beach 1,120 Lakeland Shores 330
North Oaks 3,844 Birchwood 1,031 Elko 256
Medina 3,628 Rogers 978 New Market 225 .j
Dssphaven 3,621 Millwood 880 Coates 182
Minnetrlsta 3,578 Hilltop 774 Miesvilte 134 '
Bells Plaine 3,240 Carver 760
• Population figures are based on 4/1/94 population estimates provided by the Metropolitan Council. 1996 estimates were not available at the time of
publication. '''
•
7
t
IDCR.Stanton Group I
6 1
M,