Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/1996 TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jeff Henderson presiding WORKSESSION: 1] Roll Call at 4:00 P.M. 2] Approve minutes of August 13 and 27, 1996 3] ADC Communications request for tax increment financing 4] 1997 Budget continued from August 27, 1996 (bring budget materials from previous meetings) 5] Discussion -Metropolitan Council - growth options 6] Adjourn ADJOURNED REGULAR SESSION: 1] Roll Call following the worksession 2] Res. No. 4507, Cancelling Debt Service Levies for 1996/1997 3] Res. No. 4508, Setting Proposed Maximum 1996 Tax Levy, Collectible in 1997 4] Other Business 5] Adjourn to Tuesday, September 17, 1996 at 7:00 P.M. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Special Meeting -Monday, September 9th DATE: September 5, 1996 Please be advised that the regular adjourned meeting that was scheduled to be held at 7:00 PM, Monday, September 9th, is CANCELED. The reason for that meeting was to go in to Executive Session to hear a report from Don Baur of the Perkins Coie law firm of Washington D.C. Mr. Baur was to be returning through the Twin Cities on that date, and therefore, it was most cost effective for him to meet with us at that time. However, his business that would have taken him through the Twin Cities will not occur. He does urge us to have another meeting to hear this in September; he is concerned that the Supreme Court is set to rule on a South Dakota case which impacts our Indian Trust question on October 7th. He says that things will"start to happen very quickly" after that, and the City will need to make some choices. He has told me that he would be coming to the Twin Cities at the firm's cost, if this can be scheduled with more then 7 days notice (for airfare purposes). He suggested Monday, September 16th as the only other time that he is available in September. By the time that you receive this, Toni will have contacted you to determine your availability. (I apologize for yet another meeting, but I don't know of another way to do this.) At Mr. Baur's suggestion, I have also invited Mac LeFebre, of the City Attorneys law firm, to be present. Mr. LeFebre would be the one handling the case for us here in Minnesota;Don Bauer is not licensed to practice in Minnesota. THE BUDGET WORKSESSION SCHEDULED FOR 4:00 PM WILL PROCEED AS SCHEDULED. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 13, 1996 Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 6:43 P.M. following the City Council adjourned regular session. Present: Councilmembers DuBois, Zorn, Sweeney and Link. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Paul Bilotta, Community Development Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Mark Huge, Fire Chief; and Tom Steininger, Chief of Police. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the minutes of May 13 and May 14, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Huge gave an overview of the services provided by the Fire Department and identified the major changes proposed for 1997. He reviewed the budget being proposed for 1997 explaining the amounts for each line item and identifying the increases and the reasons for the increases. He explained that there are 44 positions, and only 39 positions are filled at this time. Chief Huge answered questions from Councilmembers. Chief Steininger summarized the increases being proposed for 1997 in the police department budget. He identified the line items being increased over the 1996 budget. He stated that the major changes were in personnel services. Additional personnel costs are due to the City's share in the cost for a COPS FAST Officer, upgrading the Deputy Chief position and salary increases. Chief Steininger answered questions from Councilmembers. Sweeney/Zorn moved to adjourn at 7:38 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. arb (41' •'th S. Cox y Clerk Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 27, 1996 Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 4:10 P.M. with Councilmembers DuBois (5:00 P.M.), Zorn and Sweeney present. Cncl.Link was absent. Present from Jackson Township were: Norbert Theis, Gerold Mareck and Rose Menke, Clerk. Present from Louisville Township were: Marion Schmidt, John Weckman, and James Theis, Clerk. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director;Mark McQuillan, Park and Recreation Director; Mark Huge, Fire Chief; and Michael Leek, Acting Community Development Director(4:48 P.M.). Chief Huge explained what the Fire Department does and that they are recruiting additional firefighters. They have 44 positions and 39 positions are currently filled. Discussion ensued on the purchasing of vehicles and what they are used for. Chief Huge explained the City's internal service fund and how it spreads out the cost for new vehicles over a number of years. Cncl.Sweeney stated that the cost to operate the Fire Department is based on the market value between the three government entities including vehicles. Mr. N. Theis asked for an explanation on the program for the new fire station. Cncl.Sweeney responded that the townships are not paying for the new fire station and the vehicles are included in the Fire Department fleet. General needs replacement and that the Mach truck is 25 Chief Huge stated that the old p years old. We will be looking at replacing these down the road. We put in for a new pumper. He said that they have all of the fire trucks at the station and that they need to be spread out between the two stations. He said that there are no additional purchases anticipated special for the new fire station. Chief Huge identified the purchases need for replacement: pumper in 1997 and 1998, telesquirt to replace the General in 1997, hover craft in 1999, and a utility vehicle in 2000. Mr. N. Theis complemented the Fire Department. Mr. McQuillan explained that there are two different agreements with the townships for Park and Recreation activities. August 15, 1995, Jackson Township implemented a three year agreement with the City for non-resident rates. Louisville Township, beginning in the early 90's, pays the first $10.00/user and the user pays the remaining $11.00. Mr. McQuillan stated that it would be nice if Louisville Township had the same policy as Jackson, for registration and administration. Official Proceedings of the August 27, 1996 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. N. Theis stated that Jackson Township felt that anyone over 16 could earn and pay for themselves. Jackson pays for those under 16 because it is a hardship for parents. Mr. McQuillan stated that he has had no complaints from the Jackson Township adults for paying the fees. Mr. Leek entered and took his seat at 4:48 P.M. Cncl.DuBois entered and took her seat at 5:00 P.M. Mr. Mareck initiated discussion on the City requiring an annual audit of the records of the various associations. Councilmembers felt that the City had no legal right to request an audit. Cncl.Sweeney suggested that Mr. McQuillan could require the associations to file an annual report because they use City facilities. Cncl.Zorn stated that he did not want the City to micro manage the associations and that he did not want a report. There being no other business to be discussed, Mayor Henderson thanked the townships for their input into the budgets for 1997. Councilmembers took a break from 5:19 P.M. until 5:35 P.M. Mr. McQuillan explained the changes in the proposed 1997 Park and Recreation budget over 1996. He stated that the costs for the ice arena are broken out separate from the rest of the civic center. He identified the amount of staff time spent within the different programs. There was discussion on the freezing equipment cost being spread out over a number of years versus levying for new all at one time at a later date. Councilmembers requested that cleaning services be put under maintenance rather than professional services. There was discussion on placing the two cardiovascular exercise machines and the two pieces of strength equipment proposed for 1997 in the hall. There was consensus to eliminate these purchases from the 1997 budget until a location can be identified for them. Mr. McNeill explained that the Legal Department includes an attorney and a one-half time secretary. One-half of the secretary's time is budgeted in the City Clerk's Department. He stated that there is $260,000 in the budget with $50,000 for the Indian Trust Law Suit and $210,000 for all other issues. Costs for Scott Joint Prosecution are unknown at this time. Councilmembers recalled that when they decided to go with Scott Joint Prosecution it was because they were advised that the fines received would cover the costs. Councilmembers asked for additional information on the cost and fines for Scott Joint Prosecution including the time up to December, as they have until December to reduce the levy. Official Proceedings of the August 27, 1996 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mr. McNeill recommended continuing to use outside attorneys for civil matters versus filling the vacant City Attorney position. He said that we are currently using four to five legal firms and that it would be beneficial to utilize one firm so as to have everything under one house. He recommended getting quotations to continue utilizing an outside firm on a permanent basis. He recommended continuing to budget for a one-half legal secretary so as not to dismantle the department. It would be beneficial to continue with the department should the Council decide to return to having its own in-house attorney down the road. Councilmembers concurred. Mayor Henderson recessed the meeting at 6:41 P.M. for an Adjourned Regular Session. Mayor Henderson re-convened the meeting at 7:04 P.M. Cncl.Zorn and Link were absent. Councilmembers agreed to meet again on the budget on September 9, at 4:00 P.M. and at 7:00 P.M. for an update by representatives from Perkins Coie on the Indian Trust Law Suit. Mr. McNeill reviewed the proposed changes within the Community Development budget for 1997. He explained that the Economic Development Director as well as the Building Department are under Community Development. He identified some concerns relating to equitable staffing and equipment in the Building Department. There are no real changes in services and the primary increase is for the additional Building Inspector for a full year. Cncl.Sweeney stated that the City Clerk's budget is okay, that it is the most tightly put together. There was no discussion. Mr. Loney explained that there are four divisions within the Public Works and Engineering Departments. He explained personnel changes being proposed. He is proposing a Project Coordinator position and upgrading the Tech IV to this position and upgrading a Tech III to a Tech IV. Councilmembers were not comfortable only raising points for one position. After discussion, Mr. McNeill was directed to put $20,000 into the budget to review other positions where it is felt that this should be done. It was noted that the points could go down as well as up. Mr. Loney stated that there are no personnel increases for inspections. If the City contracts with Shakopee Public Utilities to do watermain inspections, staff would bring back a budget amendment for additional personnel. He also stated that the compensation for interns needs to be increased. Other cities pay more than Shakopee and it is hard for Shakopee to get interns. Official Proceedings of the August 27, 1996 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Mr. Loney explained that Mr. Pass is retiring at the end of the year and that it is a good time to look at restructuring. He proposed upgrading the Maintenance Foreman position to Public Works Supervisor and creating a lead person position in Streets and Parks to assist him plus adding an additional maintenance position to the Street Division. He said that most personnel increases will be reflected in the enterprise funds. The additional cost in 1997 equates to approximately $62,000 in the general fund plus $30,000 in the enterprise fund. Mr. Loney identified other major items in the Public Works budget: landscaping for the outside storage area, new computer and software connecting Public Works with the City, radio system upgrade, drug testing for Public Works employees, signal lighting and installation of a make up air system for exhaust fume replacement. The three Councilmembers present agreed to accept the Public Works and Engineering budget with the provision that Council may wish to revisit it at a later time. Mr. Voxland identified the three increases for professional services in the Finance Department for 1997. He asked City Council for direction on how to spread the cost to the City because of the loss in LGA due to the Blocks 3 and 4 tax increment project. He stated that the cost of$200,000 could be absorbed in one year or spread out at $18,000/year. He was directed to go with $18,000 a year, but to put both options into the budget for now. Mr. McNeill identified the three major increases within the Administration budget: $17,000 for a new copier, professional services for cable access ($40,000), and personnel costs. He explained that $47,000 was charged to other line items, some of which have gone away, so over all, the whole budget has been reduced, but personnel costs have gone up. The major change is replacing the Assistant City Administrator position with an entry level administrative aide. Mr. McNeill explained the cost for making improvements to the Library increasing the Government Buildings budget from $18,800 to $30,000. This was tentatively approved by Councilmembers. Mr. Voxland stated that $105,000 is the estimated taxes due to new construction. He recommended cancelling the 1990A debt service for now in the amount of$134,000, the 1992A debt service completely ($41,018), 1995B revenue debt service, and pay out of the storm drainage fund ($156,219). He said that there is no levy built in for the 1996A debt service and if we wait to levy it will be more later. There are no dollars built in for the fire referendum. If it is going to be levied by September 15, it will be included in the proposed tax notices, and if levied after the referendum in November, it will not be identified in the proposed tax notices, but will show on the actual tax bill. Official Proceedings of the August 27, 1996 Shakopee City Council Page -5- There was a consensus of the three Councilmembers present to add debt service for the fire referendum and to put it in the notices. There was consensus not to levy for debt service for the 1990A, 1992A and 1995B projects. There was consensus to levy for bonds this year for 1996A and for the fire referendum to begin the impact in 1996. Mr. Voxland stated that the general fund budget for 1997 has a$85,000 deficit. He said that the $128,000 debt service replacement to replace the transfer actually results in a $214,000 deficit. If$162,000 is taken from the fund balance this will result in a$51,000 deficit. And, if we count on under spending the 1996 budget about $100,000 this will result in a net surplus overbudget for 1997 in the amount of$48,000. Mr. Voxiand then explained the affect of the 1997 budget on a $105,000 home. Mr. Voxiand explained that the 12/31/95 fund balance was $2,661,051 and if 15% is retained for cash flow, there would be a balance of$1,781,192 available. If$128,000 is used for debt service, there would be $1.6 million left. In response to a question, Mr. Voxiand stated that 25%-30% surplus is where you want to be. Cncl.Sweeney suggested reducing the surplus over five years versus one year. Mr. Voxland explained that the City did not assess enough to cover the 1991 improvement bonds and that an additional $430,000 will be needed. This will need to be addressed in later years. Discussion ensued on how the transit levy should be shown on the proposed property tax notices. There was a consensus that it be shown as proposed by the County at no extra cost to the City. Mr. Voxland stated that the City has accepted the levy for the transit operation and that there will be a deficit due to changes this year. He said that Council approved a change with the service contract early this year. Cncl.Sweeney stated that he would be okay looking at turning the transit operation over to the other two bodies (Southwest Metro and Minnesota Valley). Sweeney/DuBois moved to adjourn at 8:53 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Ju ith S. Cox ty Clerk Recording Secretary Ups # 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: ADC Communications Request for TIF DATE: September 5, 1996 I relayed to ADC the declination of the City Council to extend tax increment assistance to ADC for their proposal to relocate to Shakopee. Roger Gannet, the individual who is assisting ADC with their development proposal, expressed dismay that the City would have taken a final action on that. He had expected an opportunity to have the company state their case. I did, however, relay to him the concerns about precedent that this would be setting for companies who may be coming to Shakopee in the future, and also problems which are anticipated with the County and their policies on TIF. He disputed the potential problems with the County, saying that as the contract economic development person for the City of Prior Lake, that he did not feel that would be a problem. Mr. Gannet said that it is quite possible that the company will decide not to proceed with their Shakopee plans, based on the Council decision. He also said that he was surprised that a seemingly final decision had been made on this, without a counter offer being made, or the company having a chance to appear before the Council. Mr. Gannet has requested that, as part of the meeting scheduled for Monday, September 9th, that the ADC people be allowed to make their presentation to the City Council. City Council is free to discuss this at their worksession, if they chose. Councilor Sweeney has indicated his preference to discuss this within a worksession setting. According to Roberts Rules of Order, if after the discussion at the worksession, one of the Councilmembers voting against extending tax increment assistance(Mayor Henderson, Sweeney or DuBois) has changed their position, they may bring the September 3rd motion up for reconsideration at the adjourned regular session following the worksession. If the motion to reconsider is approved, City Council may take any action on the matter. fikka- Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw D ADC Telecommunications,Inc. Robert E.Switz 4900 West 78th Street,Minneapolis,MN 55435 Vice President and (612)938-8080 Chief Financial Officer FAX(612)946-3083 September 3, 1996 Mayor Jeff Henderson City of Shakopee 129 Holmes St. S. Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Dear Mayor Henderson: On behalf of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. (the Company), I am writing to inform you of the desire of the Company to relocate and expand some of its facilities to Shakopee, Minnesota. The proposed project involves the relocation of a majority of ADC's Broadband Connectivity Group from the current facilities in Bloomington, Minnesota,to the Valley Green Industrial Park in Shakopee. ADC has operated in Bloomington since the 1960's, but the Company has exhausted growth opportunities at the current site. The inability to undertake significant expansion at the existing site combined with technological changes in production processes, necessitate this move to a larger, state of the art facility. ADC may utilize the Bloomington facilities for a different aspect of the Company's operations following an analysis of reuse options. In order to proceed with the development of a proposed 280,000 SF office/manufacturing facility in Shakopee, ADC respectfully requests that the City of Shakopee approve tax increment financing assistance. The rationale for this request has to do with business climate factors (i.e. worker compensation, corporate income tax, real estate tax)which are higher in Minnesota than in other states in which ADC is currently operating. If tax increment assistance were to be made available,proceeds would be used to reduce costs of land acquisition and site improvements. The impact of the incentives would be to make the Shakopee site more competitive with unsolicited offers that ADC has received from communities in other states. ADC is not attempting to coerce Shakopee or any other Minnesota community to "match"the business climate and incentives available in other locales. The Company is simply seeking to somewhat offset the economic factors that benefit its competitors which have operations located in other states and countries. If the City of Shakopee is unable to assist ADC in this regard, ADC's management and Board of Directors may need to reevaluate the proposed project. Mayor Jeff Henderson September 3, 1996 Page 2 ADC believes that the project and the related request for tax increment assistance represents a "win-win" situation for Shakopee, Bloomington and the Company. By relocating the expansion project to Shakopee,the Company would be able to maintain the current labor pool without causing employees to relocate. The beneficial economic impact to the City of Shakopee of the proposed project is estimated at$246.5 million over the term of the tax increment district(6 years). ADC looks forward to the City's response regarding the proposed development and anticipates a long and mutually beneficial relationship. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ADC TELECOMM I IC• TIONS, INC. 1 „0 Robert E. Switz Vice President and Chief Financial Officer STC\corm\Shakopee Mayor Itr 030996 nob Tax Increment Proposal Illustration Tax Before Tax ISO 720 Outside Dist Net to loss TIF Created Increment Referendum Costs Developer to City 1996 Certificatio 20,000 1997 20,000 1998 20,000 1999 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (454,613) (56,125) 2000 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (454,613) (56,125) 2001 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (454,613) (56,125) 2002 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (336,750) - (56,125) Totals 2,245,000 (1,363,838) (224,500) loss 336,750 gain 112,250 net Tax Increment Proposal Illustration Tax Before Tax ISO 720 Outside Dist Net to TIF Created Increment Referendum Costs Developer to City 1996 Certificatio 20,000 1997 20,000 1998 20,000 1999 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (454,613) (56,125) 2000 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (454,613) (56,125) 2001 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (454,613) (56,125) 2002 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (454,613) (56,125) 2003 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (454,613) (56,125) 2004 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (331,137) (123,476) (56,125) 2005 20,000 561,250 (106,638) (454,613) (56,125) 3,928,750 (746,463) (785,750) (392,875) loss 785,750 gain 392,875 net CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Director of Parks and Recreation Subject: Fitness Equipment Date: September 9, 1996 INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND At its August 27, 1996 Budget Work Session,the City Council reviewed the Parks and Recreation Department's proposed budget for 1997. For the most part, Council was pleased with budget as presented. However, several Council members were unsured about the request for additional fitness equipment. Questions were raised about the locatipn of the new equipment, will it be properly monitored(keeping children off the equipment) and will the additional equipment will have a positive impact on the membership base at the Community Center. Council decided to delete the $10,000 for new fitness equipment from the budget until further information was provided. Councilman Sweeney also noted a budget admendment could be done at a later time to purchase the equipment. Attached is a memorandum from the Facility Manager Ron Stellmaker who would like address the concerns expressed by the City Council. Mark J. cQuillan Director of Parks and Recreation CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum To: Mark McQuillan, Director of Parks and Recreation From: Ron Stellmaker, Facility Manager/Asst. Director Subject: Fitness Equipment Date: September 3, 1996 INTRODUCTION At the August 27, 1996 Budget Work Session, Council tentatively eliminated $10,000.00 from the Community Center's budget that was allocated for the purchase of fitness equipment. Council stated that there were concerns surrounding the location of the new equipment and safety issues. It was also questioned if the addition of this new equipment would increase membership and membership use of the Community Center. BACKGROUND The $10,000.00 that was budgeted was intended for the purchase of equipment to expand the current Cybex strength area and Cardio areas that currently exist in the Community Center. These two areas are big membership selling points, especially for our adult memberships. Many adult daily admission users have stated to staff that if they knew the Community Center would be making additions to it's current equipment,they would purchase a yearly membership and drop the membership they currently have at more equipped facilities. This is also taking in consideration the cost differential between the two facilities. The equipment that we currently have is state of the art and very functional, but for our membership to grow we need to ad a few more pieces of this type of equipment. Currently in our cardiovascular area we have five pieces of state of the art equipment. Included are (2) Recumbent Bikes, (2) Stairmasters and(1) Stairmaster Free Climber. These machines are used by members every day for numerous reasons such as conditioning, cardio rehabilitation, weight loss and basic health. Last winter and spring the demand in this area at times exceeded the amount of machines we currently have. I expect this problem to get worse this fall due to the fact that membership sales are known to increase dramatically during the months of October,November and January. The Cardio area currently has space for three more machines. Attachment A shows the current location of this equipment. Ultimately over a period of time staff would recommend purchasing (1) Stairmaster, (1)Recumbent Bike and (2) Free Climbers. This would give us three of each type of machine and would offer our members more opportunity in the Cardio area. The current Cardio area is laid out with plenty of space and accommodates this type of activity very well. The area is well posted and is supervised by a building supervisor during all operational hours. Members must be fourteen years of age to use this area. Experienced training and instruction is also available to the members at no charge. To this date staff has not experienced any supervision or safety problems in this area. Another area that was considered when allocating money for fitness equipment, was the Cybex strength area. Attachment A shows the location of this area. This area is used by most or all our members over the age of fourteen. For example,many seniors use this area for low impact strength training and flexibility control. Again, the equipment we have is top of the line and very user friendly, but in the future we need to add a piece or two to accommodate our membership. This area is small and the concerns over safety are somewhat justified if we put equipment outside the existing room, but the equipment that staff is looking at purchasing would be added in the existing room. When the existing equipment was purchased, staff researched and found a type of equipment that is modular in structure. Meaning you can add pieces to the existing pieces. Pieces staff is recommending purchasing would include leg exercise and shoulder exercise modules. The room would maintain the same safety standards as it has now. This area is also very well posted and supervised by a building supervisor during all operational hours. Experienced training and instruction is available to the members at no charge. Additions in this area would greatly improve the Community Center's membership selling point. Staff would still recommend adding additional space to this area,to add more equipment in the"future. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend that the City Council reinstate the $10,000.00 to the Community Center budget that was budgeted for fitness equipment. Staff will restrict fitness equipment purchases to the format and equipment listed above. Ron T. Stellmaker Facility Manager/Asst. Director jA 1 jI ![.. C .191! i 60 Et. 111111 II 0. k.J ,i,---. +s3a — a ) ; 2,_ z }I 91a ry�. 3�' LTY .z. T O °;W II 3 14 C�l "'_ i 1100 C..' ' -111714 v 3 O __, 7 T .. .... _ _ boss �0' i rt S� +x ,tel m �� ', LI IT r? 2u ff 11)4! V et .�+r� J J - ,0 .1 I -I I )..-I wg ) � ,912 4� . ki, ii , —17 , J I W W 1 0 C_, i u NI 3 Ts W y� .1 i.1 i�r .f) iu +� f�Z;fre., ��yao QiXx tib 1 of �,---, 9 1 X' �� / 1,„.,: :< ,c). 1 lz---rTiAl /1 ,,,,, , ,___,....._._, _ _ . -,.... . 'i§ I I t hi ff II 1 I ' Q 1 - • 1 I t J � I --1 - - _ NI Ili -, 0 31 ck' tt 'it- ......_,,,_) 1 Ni ,� I • I - 1 )(' )". I ( \--I- - . 1�' I ' I r - (Milli I lii(?'fIL • - -/- . ..-1--. -•I-. ...._J. i , , ,,. . -, 4 tY s Ll CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Comparable Worth Job Points DATE: August 30, 1996 At the budget worksession of August 27th, the City Council directed that further information be obtained regarding a potential system-wide updating of comparable worth points. This was in response to a request from a department for an upgrading of two positions. I did speak with someone who is knowledgeable about what the Metropolitan Area City personnel group (TUG) coordinating this has done. There is going to be a update in September, which maybe beneficial to attend; however, that is for cities who want to update their own, based on surveying what other cities have done. There has been no discussion on doing this on a multi- jurisdictional basis. I also contacted the City of Savage;there, they did have DCA Stanton come in and do work on their existing system. They were able to do that for a price not to exceed $7500. That is something that we would probably need to consider, and should put that amount of money in the budget. If there are people whose responsibilities have changed significantly, they will still take an individual position profile to determine points, or be matched with other jurisdictions based on job description/responsibilities. This will be part of the discussion on the September 9th budget worksession. v‘taittit;iti. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: Gregg Voxland t CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: 1997 Budget Tax Levy Options DATE: September 5, 1996 Introduction Council has some open items to decide on the 1997 budget before the September 15 deadline for certifying the proposed budget and tax levy to the county. Background 1) Attached is memo (item #3 dated 8/22/96) from the last budget session. Council did not take action on the hearing date for the budget public hearing. See attached memo for discussion. 2) Attached are schedules A, B, and C showing proposed changes in the 1997 General Fund budget in order to balance the budget and to keep the average value house at a no tax increase position except for the fire referendum. 3) Council acted on the local option transit levy in June. No further action is needed. The levy is included in the proposed levy and is in addition to the calculations on the tax impact on the average value house for the general fund budget . 4) Council had concurrence to change the target General Fund fund balance from 15% to 25 - 30% . A motion at a regular session would be in order to actually adopt the new target. General Fund fund balance over the target. Attached is schedule D. If council concurs with the shown use of fund balance for debt service in future years and transfer to blocks 3&4, the remainder is in the range of 25 to 30 percent . If council does not wish to fund blocks 3 & 4 in this manner, the annual funding needed is estimated to be about $18, 400 annually for the life of the TIF district starting in 2000 . As a comparison, an $18,400 increase in the tax levy would be a 0 . 7% or about $2 . 13 on the average value house for pay 1997 . 5) Attached are revised summary statements for the General Fund 1997 budget . Attachment is Item E. 6) Attached are revised debt service levy projections for your information. Attachment is item F. Fl is current situation and F4 is what is projected to happen if the remaining levies for the 1990A and 1992A Improvement issues are canceled and the transfer from General Fund fund balance is made for the last levy year as shown in item D. 7) Vehicle policy. Council has not discussed the proposed vehicle acquisition and use policy. See attached. 8) Enterprise fund budgets . Council reviewed the Recreation Fund budget but did not go over the storm, sanitary or refuse budgets other than the CIP projects. The deadline of September 15 does not apply to these budget and council has time between now and December to review them. Staff has not spent time to review the fee levels yet, partially waiting for the storm trunk fee issue to be settled. 9) Council needs to review the Transit budget . Staff is working on alternatives to reduce costs and increase charges for services. This will be brought back to council later. Action Recommended Discuss and give staff direction on the proposed vehicle policy. The following actions are needed at the adjourned regular meeting if council agrees with the items above : Move to set the target General Fund fund balance at the 25 to 30 percent range. Adopt resolution canceling debt service levies. Adopt resolution setting proposed maximum tax levy for 1996/97, setting proposed budget and public hearing dates. jt) Gregg Voxland Finance Director n:\budget\memo95 # 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Tax Levy Public Hearing DATE: August 22, 1996 Introduction Council needs to set dates for the public hearing and potential continuation date for the public hearing on the 1996/97 tax levy and budget . Assuming that Council; • does not want to meet on Friday, Saturday or Sunday • wants to meet at the usual time • does not want to have a special meeting to adopt the tax levy • does not displace the EDA meeting of 12/11, the only practical times left are to hold the hearing on 12/4, the continuation hearing on 12/16 if needed and adopt the levy and budget at the regular meeting of 12/17 . The City can not hold its hearing when other bodies are holding their hearings (the cities are last on the list) . See attached calendar. Action Move to direct staff to prepare necessary documents to set the 1996/97 tax levy hearing on December 4th, 1996, the continuation hearing if needed on December 16th, 1996 and the levy adoption on December 17th, 1996 . Gregg Voxland Finance Director �_ Is.,_ C _ ‘,0 tv Cis N c 6 rnrl7170 tont w J 0 3 n rri a. 0 0 ng nO . d w nv O nm Ei Y gn � ti 0 ~ q0 4 ,.. n : \' '' Cr n a d E C �"ow CI) a+ �� ',Mr/. SE=S_, HNC kO %O b cos -4 4,. .a.-% 0 0 0 ... O4N.P. DNH 44 0 a CJ V O W T aroCom.0 V1 n N d J O W. s V U H 5 u IJ N a-C ovo`..o,oHv =.„ou4! U`m=.fA v cn d G a. d a 10 rm U 00 N-7=n , N N w^s; M A aF -M04 7 7F ^SHP T .� v:Rn Z.LL MO N. O p....., N N ra 7V 0 0in y M n 0. s 00 ,:0 ....«M en 0 c\1 QQ ch ‘c:. 3 °_g� Q1 t � a cAc N 11-, •^:;r OCN a. ^� Z 15, 7 �J V T 0 • 0 cn U c N dpi a �b Q.) c q d y, Z d IIICU W N O a 0 O 0 O 0 8 500 49�s,� fit' ^, CN esr) 0 0 mi c .-1 0 >-. U Na ON c/.113" en ‘,Ort N OU r 9 N .„-, N O\ 00 ' '....,4 N N 4 A B I C I D I S IFI III J 35 SUMMARY GENERAL FUND 36 1996 1997 37 GF Total Revenue(draft pus above) 5,736,154 6,175,904 439,750 38 Liquor Licenses revenue increase 12,000 39 Land division Administration revenue increase 5,000 40 PW Services revenue increase 5,000 41 Engineering fees revenue increase 50,000 42 Engineering grade fee revenue increase 20,000 43 Fine revenue increase 8,000 44 Other Expenditure adjustments 4,950 4 5 Block 3&4 transfer cut 18,500 46 Rec transfer cut for equipment deleted (2,100) 47 Admin position study expenditure increase (20,000) 48 Rec transfer for Depreciation increased (120,000) 49 GF Expend(draft) (5,865,730) (6,230,220) (364,490) 5o Net surplus(deficit)shown (129,576) (72,966) 51 52 DS Levy to replace transfer (96,971) (193,371) 53 Net surplus(deficit) (226,547) (266,337) 54 Equip Fund Designated Fund Balance draw down 162,500 162,500 55 1996 to 1998 56 Net surplus(deficit) (64,047) (103,837) 57 Underspend/overbudget factor 100,000 100,000 58 Net surplus(deficit) 35,953 (3,837) 59 60 Subsidy for Recreation Fund 251,340 301,140 49,800 61 62 Under spent factor has been about 5%for 1994 and 8%for 1995. 63 Underspend factor for 1997 shown at$100,000 is 1.6%. 13 City of Shakopee 9/4/96 Pay 1996 Pay 1997 Change City Tax Levy - Gross 2,785,342 2,951,742 6.0% Less Fiscal Disp. Dist. (291,693) (292,680) Net levy spread 2,493,649 2,659,062 6.6% Total City Taxable Tax Capacity 11,281,442 12,047,642 6.8% City Tax Rate 0.22458 0.22071 -1.7% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $81,600 $83,200 2.0% Tax Capacity First $72,000 at 1% 720 720 Balance at 2% 192 224 912 944 3.5% City Tax Rate 22.458% 22.071% City Tax $204.82 $208.35 1.7% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $94,400 $96,200 1.9% Tax Capacity First $72,000 at 1% 720 720 Balance at 2% 448 484 1,168 1,204 3.1% City Tax Rate 22.458% 22.071% City Tax $262.31 $265.74 1.3% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $104, 600 $105,800 1.1% Tax Capacity First $72,000 at 1% 720 720 Balance at 2% 652 676 1,372 1,396 1.7% City Tax Rate 22.458% 22.071% City Tax $308.12 $308.11 0.0% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $174,500 $174,000 -0.3% Tax Capacity First $72,000 at 1% 720 720 Balance at 2% 2,050 2,040 2,770 2,760 -0.4% City Tax Rate 22.458% 22.071% City Tax $622.09 $609.17 -2.1% Assessor's Estimated Market Value $902,200 $902,200 0.0% Tax Capacity Commercial First $100,000 at 3% 3,000 3,000 Balance at 4.6% 36, 901 36,901 39,901 39, 901 0.0% City Tax Rate 22.458% 22.071% City Tax $8,961.01 $8,806.68 -1.7% C— ALB — AB I C I D I 8 IFI GI H III J I K 1 City of Shakopee 9/4/96 3 Pay 96 tax levy 3 4 95/96 96/97 Change 5 General Fund Tax Levy 2,688,371 2,688,371 4 Est.Value growth 0 105,000 7 Total General Fund 2,688,371 2,793,371 105,000 3.9% a Debt Service 9 1986B Imp ""35511 0 10 1990A Imp '"'133409 CNX 134340 11 1991A Imp 40,234 41,018 12 1992A Imp ''25024 CNX 26723 13 1993B Imp 14,220 21,410 34 1995A Imp 42,517 65,943 35 1995B Revenue ""57000 CNX 156219 16 1996A Imp 65,000 17 Fire Referendum 295,115 i8 Total Debt Service 96,971 193,371 96,400 19 Changes 20 31 Levy cut (To keep average house at no change without referendum) (35,000) 22 Cuts 0 0 33 Total Levy 2,785,342 2,951,742 166,400 6.0% 24 25 Fiscal Disp Dist (291,693) (292,680) (987) 26 Net Levy to spread 2,493,649 2,659,062 165,413 6.6% 27 38 Allowance for Uncoil. (55,707) (29,517) 26,189 39 Budget Amount 2,437,942 2,629,545 191,602 7.9% 30 31 General Fund 2,340,971 2,436,174 95,202 4.1% 32 Debt Service Replacement 96,971 193,371 96,400 99% N A I B I C I D ' s IFI C3 I H 98 City of Shakopee 99 General Fund Fund Balance loo 12/31/95 Fund Balance unreserved undesignated $ 2,661,051 in Cash Flow Target©25%of Expenditures(1996) 1,466,433 Ti Net available 1,194,619 103 1996 changes 104 Designated for 1991 A Imp for 1999 (430,000) i15 Designated for 1990 A Imp for 1999 (134,340) 106 Contribution to TIF#10 up front or start yrly in 2000 (218,885) 107 Debt Service Transfer for 96/97 levy (193,371) 108 109 218,022 110 111 112 1 E CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1997 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue Taxes $2,063,997 $2,215,861 $2,690,777 $2,951,832 $2,950,583 Special Assessments 0 0 0 0 0 Licenses and Permits 291,096 336,794 481,992 410,992 $589,104 Intergovernmental 569,039 634,990 781,224 831,072 - $779,276 Charges for Service 965,418 966,139 1,277,803 781,002 $935,196 Fines and Forfeits 51,449 63,644 63,773 64,914 $80,083 Miscellaneous 224,181 277,719 238,984 199,290 $323,187 Total Revenue 4,165,180 4,495,147 5,534,553 5,239,102 5,657,429 Expenditures General Government 974,375 1,169,460 1,199,244 1,291,772 1,451,119 Public Safety 1,413,191 1,695,577 1,599,182 2,389,753 2,050,871 Public Works 1,430,539 1,533,166 1,694,055 1,017,678 1,123,556 Recreation 488,797 531,528 635,077 641,707 610,584 Miscellaneous 45,586 43,178 40,040 29,150 33,780 Total Expenditures 4,352,488 4,972,909 5,167,598 5,370,060 5,269,910 Excess (deficiency) Revenues over Expenditures (187,308) (477,762) 366,955 (130,958) 387,519 Other Sources 716,424 742,646 572,905 1,035,558 759,832 Other Uses (552,000) (1,102,265) (242,654) (96,971) Excess (deficiency) Revenues & Other Sources Over Expenditures&Other Uses $529,116 ($287,116) ($162,405) $661,946 $1,050,380 Residual Equity Transfer 87,752 Fund Balance December31 $1,866,619 $1,667,255 $1,565,800 $2,227,746 $3,278,126 Expenditure projections for 1997 through 2000 assumes a 4%increase each year. Revenues and Expenditures for the Pool and Park&Rec.divisions are budgeted in the Recreation(Enterprise)Fund starting in 1996. i 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate $2,832,940 $3,029,220 $2,832,940 $2,832,940 $2,832,940 $2,832,940 0 0 0 0 0 0 $454,100 $556,100 $561,100 $566,100 $571,100 $576,100 $860,074 $928,269 $915,962 $905,269 $881,269 $881,269. $574,040 $692,910 $700,070 $713,040 $721,230 $729,670 $65,000 $80,000 $82,000 $84,000 $86,000 $88,000 $150,000 $165,400 $165,400 $165,400 $165,400 $165,400 4,936,154 5,451,899 5,257,472 5,266,749 5,257,939 5,273,379 1,588,500 1,661,440 1,727,898 1,797,014 1,868,894 1,943,650- 2,236,100 2,397,200 2,493,088 2,592,812 2,696,524 2,804,385 1,300,130 1,317,180 1,369,867 1,424,662 1,481,648 1,540,914 304,660 350,420 364,437 379,014 394,175 409,942 185,000 218,490 227,230 236,319 245,772 255,602 5,614,390 5,944,730 6,182,519 6,429,820 6,687,013 6,954,493 (678,236) (492,831) (925,047) (1,163,071) (1,429,074) (1,681,114) 800,000 824,000 824,000 848,720 874,182 900,407 (251,340) (404,140) (420,306) (437,118) (454,603) (472,787) ($129,576) ($72,971) ($521,353) ($751,469) ($1,009,494) ($1,253,494) $3,148,550 $3,075,579 $2,554,226 $1,802,757 $793,263 ($460,231) v 1997 GENERAL FUND BUDGET- REVENUES 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL YTD 6/30 Taxes Current Ad Valorem $1,745,270 $ 1,843,792 $ 2,298,852 $ 2,532,961 $ 2,559,150 $ 1,252,892 Fiscal Disparities 239,916 286,325 301,900 319,487 276,001 151,224 Lodging Tax 78,811 85,744 90,025 99,384 115,432 36,574 Total Taxes 2,063,997 2,215,861 2,690,777 2,951,832 2,950,583 -1,440,690 Special Assessment Licenses& Permits Cable Franchise 25,800 34,732 48,789 40,680 51,568 13,582 Track Franchise 31,108 13,610 - 13,888 Liquor Licenses 69,430 64,187 57,574 60,545 66,847 78,674 Beer Licenses 4,150 5,156 4,697 9,077 3,806 462 Cigarette licenses 799 555 535 645 2,590 500 Misc. Business Permits 1,686 1,210 2,455 5,108 3,326 1,978 Building Permits 111,528 157,440 256,132 201,983 323,876 183,588 Plumbing Permits 13,918 19,040 41,536 31,123 41,789 17,584 Mechanical Permits 5,388 9,648 23,975 26,372 36,159 12,495 Electric Permits 17,187 21,827 31,722 24,374 33,510 18,353 Septic Permits 600 938 1,200 1,500 1,802 750 Sewer Permits 2,861 3,672 6,134 5,253 5,981 3,364 Street Opening Permits 6,340 4,523 6,900 3,725 3,500 2,975 Dog Licenses 300 256 258 286 458 251 Misc. Non-Bus. Lic. 2 85 321 4 Total Lic. & Permits 291,096 336,794 481,992 410,992 589,104 334,556 Intergovernmental Grants 1,590 - 13,306 12,579 Local Government Aid 154,328 155,092 147,216 158,842 150,866 HACA 303,408 347,980 417,747 450,363 456,586 Mobile Home 928 - 634 593 1,070 49 Local Performance Aid Police Training 6,443 5,933 6,379 5,911 6,168 State Hwy Maint Aid 18,165 18,165 103,164 101,085 33,303 91,616 Police State Aid 76,124 89,385 89,686 98,471 96,680 Aggregate Tax 8,052 13,362 11,010 15,807 12,497 5,685 Grants- Other Govts - 5,073 5,388 8,800 Total Intergovernmental 569,039 634,990 781,224 831,072 779,276 109,929 Charges for Service Administrative Fee 55,896 89 63,846 29,582 61,048 8,490 Plan Check 61,073 87,367 134,895 108,917 177,691 105,802 Sale of Documents 4,008 3,644 7,256 9,354 10,601 5,322 Assessment Search 2,194 5,210 5,850 4,010 4,453 1,924 Release of Dev. Agreem 38 515 470 490 583 264 Comprehensive Plan Fee 14,117 12,394 100 2,470 194 62 Land Division Administration 22,378 18,754 5,877 4,793 Land Use Administration 7,036 26,963 10,012 Misc. Police Services 29,399 46,677 14,256 4,734 11,241 - 3,466 Fire Calls &Contracts 16,476 20,036 27,115 29,748 32,973 13,586 Pound Fines & Fees 1,291 1,807 1,417 2,998 2,190 1,200 Valleyfair 10,195 11,215 12,336 13,570 14,927 16,420 Snow Removal 12,596 5,039 5,878 6,228 3,943 -3 1997 GENERAL FUND BUDGET- REVENUES 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 EST. EST. EST. EST. EST. EST. Taxes Current Ad Valorem $ 2,437,940 $ 2,629,540 $ 2,787,312 $2,954,551 $ 3,131,824 $ 3,319,734 an , Fiscal Disparities 290,000 292,680 307,314 322,700 338,800 355,700 Lodging Tax 105,000 107,000 109,000 111,000 113,000 115,000 Total Taxes 2,832,940 3,029,220 3,203,626 3,388,251 3,583,624 3,790,434 Special Assessment Licenses& Permits Cable Franchise 42,000 43,000 44,000 45,000 46,000 47,000 Track Franchise 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Liquor Licenses 66,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 Beer Licenses 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Cigarette licenses 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Misc. Business Permits 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Building Permits 232,000 300,000 302,000 304,000 306,000 308,000 Plumbing Permits 36,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 41,000 42,000 Mechanical Permits 21,000 34,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 Electric Permits 27,500 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 Septic Permits 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Sewer Permits 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Street Opening Permits 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Dog Licenses 300 300 300 300 300 300 Misc. Non-Bus. Lic. - - - - - Total Lic. & Permits 454,100 556,100 561,100 566,100 571,100 576,100 Intergovernmental Grants 24,999 50,000 36,693 25,000 Local Government Aid 177,610 194,793 194,793 194,793 194,793 194,793 HACA 433,665 443,170 443,170 443,170 443,170 443,170 Mobile Home 800 800 800 800 800 800 Local Performance Aid 15,506 15,506 15,506 15,506 15,506 Police Training 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 State Hwy Maint Aid 102,000 103,000 104,000 105,000 106,000 106,000 Police State Aid 98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000 Aggregate Tax 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Grants- Other Govts Total Intergovernmental 860,074 928,269 915,962 905,269 881,269 881,269 Charges for Service Administrative Fee 35,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 Plan Check 120,000 130,000 130,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 Sale of Documents 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 Assessment Search 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Release of Dev. Agreem 400 500 500 500 500 500 Comprehensive Plan Fee 250 250 250 250 250 250 Land Division Administrati 5,000 13,500 13,910 14,330 14,760 15,200 Land Use Administration 7,000 18,000 18,540 19,100 19,670 20,260 Misc. Police Services Fire Calls&Contracts 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Pound Fines& Fees 1,400 2,000 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 Valleyfair 16,390 18,060 19,870 21,860 24,050 26,460 Snow Removal 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 I 1997 GENERAL FUND BUDGET- REVENUES 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL YTD 6/30 Street Repair - 875 - Public Works Rentals 736 440 751 803 Misc. Public Works 3,117 6,864 7,538 8,194 10,401 11,978 Engineering Services 150,175 126,788 308,966 375,527 394,976 220,254 Engineering Grade Fee 2,118 3,370 3,399 2,850 2,401 20,120 Weed Removal 570 Refuse Disposal 421,065 474,705 497,963 Refuse Coupons 32,240 140 13,298 - Memberships 17,743 18,717 16,207 21,260 23,069 General Admissions 20,347 18,655 22,027 24,902 33,533 Lessons 10,807 9,914 7,649 9,349 9,204 Water Slide 11,105 9,468 9,227 - - Youth Activities 38,626 45,527 41,167 42,718 43,565 51 Adult Activities 39,261 41,645 35,127 34,988 38,255 Concessions 9,725 9,139 10,796 11,268 7,759 Concessions Commissions 1,897 Non Resident Fee 1,071 2,595 70 2,365 2,609 Township Contributions - 4,179 4,179 4,179 8,279 Other Recreation Fees 3,642 4,636 5,191 25 Total Charges for Svs. 965,418 966,139 1,277,803 781,002 935,196 423,769 Fines and Forfeits Court Fines 51,449 63,644 63,773 64,914 80,083 38,257 Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 42,905 38,307 50,177 52,267 70,906 3,339 Interest 114,560 152,364 168,411 129,718 219,412 20,000 Rent 51,704 80,543 13,629 15,670 29,673 14,925 Contributions 15,011 6,505 6,768 1,635 3,196 Total Miscellaneous 224,180 277,719 238,985 199,290 323,187 38,264 Total Revenues 4,165,180 4,495,147 5,534,554 5,239,102 5,657,429 2,385,465 Other Sources Sale Of Assets 307,082 3,106 2,059 342 - 1,462 Capital Equipment 124,149 464,617 290,318 747,302 - SPUC Contribution 285,193 278,029 279,481 286,197 759,489 306,000 Total Other Sources 716,424 742,646 572,905 1,035,558 759,831 307,462 Grand Total $4,881,604 $5,237,793 $6,107,459 $6,274,660 $6,417,260 $2,692,927 --- ‘b 1997 GENERAL FUND BUDGET- REVENUES 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 EST. EST. EST. EST. EST. EST. Street Repair Public Works Rentals 500 500 500 500 500 500 Misc. Public Works 5,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 Engineering Services 324,400 379,400 384,400 389,400 394,400 _ 399,400 Engineering Grade Fee 3,200 23,200 23,200 23,200 23,200 23,200 Weed Removal Refuse Disposal Refuse Coupons Memberships - - - - - General Admissions Lessons - - - - - Water Slide Youth Activities - - - - - Adult Activities - - - - - Concessions - - - - - Concessions Commission Non Resident Fee - - - - - Township Contributions Other Recreation Fees - - - - - Total Charges for Svs. 574,040 692,910 700,070 713,040 721,230 729,670 Fines and Forfeits Court Fines 65,000 80,000 82,000 84,000 86,000 88,000 Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 35,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 Interest 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Rent 15,000 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 Contributions - - - - - Total Miscellaneous 150,000 165,400 165,400 165,400 165,400 165,400 Total Revenues 4,936,154 5,451,899 5,628,158 5,822,060 6,008,623 6,230,873 Other Sources Sale Of Assets Capital Equipment SPUC Contribution 800,000 824,000 848,720 874,182 900,407 927,419 Total Other Sources 800,000 824,000 848,720 874,182 900,407 927,419 Grand Total $5,736,154 $6,275,899 $6,476,878 $6,696,242 $6,909,030 $7,158,292 (P General Fund Budget Summary by Division 1994 1995 1996 Y-T-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Division ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 06/30/96 REQUEST BUDGET =====r=======_=sea=ms====m =====m==sas=s =__=====m=== Ma===ma=s==s ====s==ass== ass=n=====s= m=====_=====a= ==n====em===== 001 -GENERAL FUND DIVISION 11 - MAYOR & COUNCIL 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 31,694 30,781 33,190 12,738 33,190 32,120 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 20,239 33,816 49,900 9,035 57,290 57,290 TOTAL MAYOR & COUNCIL DIVISION 51,933 64,598 83,090 21,773 90,480 89,410 DIVISION 12 - CITY ADMINISTRATOR 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 145,130 155,033 151,690 66,016 158,170 158,170 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 51,731 46,582 63,800 9,155 71,810 91,810 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 2,259 1,565 0 0 17,000 17,000 TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATOR DIVISION 199,120 203,179 215,490 75,172 246,980 266,980 DIVISION 13 - CITY CLERK 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 87,319 91,277 97,400 35,256 109,070 109,070 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 27,580 32,173 37,640 10,194 36,740 36,740 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 0 2,091 0 0 0 0 480 EXPENSE CHARGED TO OTHER ACT -2,000 -2,000 -3,000 0 -3,000 -3,000 TOTAL CITY CLERK DIVISION 112,899 123,541 132,040 45,450 142,810 142,810 DIVISION 15 - FINANCE 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 174,261 192,455 203,790 79,601 209,910 209,910 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 88,064 97,205 111,620 23,178 120,870 120,870 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 9,059 6,594 0 57 0 0 480 EXPENSE CHARGED TO OTHER ACT -6,000 -6,000 -8,000 0 -8,000 -8,000 TOTAL FINANCE DIVISION 265,384 290,254 307,410 102,836 322,780 322,780 DIVISION 16 - LEGAL COUNSEL 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 148,445 183,738 194,000 57,202 100,480 100,480 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 14,386 67,871 69,030 6,936 143,750 143,750 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 0 3,562 0 0 0 0 480 EXPENSE CHARGED TO OTHER ACT -2,000 -2,000 -3,000 0 -3,000 -3,000 TOTAL LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION 160,831 253,171 260,030 64,137 241,230 241,230 DIVISION 17 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 239,112 208,011 231,510 65,001 250,790 250,790 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 139,088 163,326 225,420 37,934 206,500 206,500 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 7,193 6,676 7,000 0 0 0 480 EXPENSE CHARGED TO OTHER ACT -4,000 -4,000 -6,000 0 -6,000 -6,000 TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 381,393 374,012 457,930 102,935 451,290 451,290 DIVISION 18 - GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 43,380 46,410 38,560 19,076 26,870 26,870 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 76,832 90,924 93,950 29,695 120,070 120,070 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 0 5,031 0 0 0 0 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS DIVISION 120,212 142,364 132,510 48,771 146,940 146,940 DIVISION 31 - POLICE 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 1,183,332 1,289,654 1,357,110 552,921 1,470,250 1,466,370 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 145,291 194,713 216,740 75,106 236,770 236,770 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 38,431 21,874 14,650 2,822 0 0 7 General Fund Budget Summary by Division 1994 1995 1996 Y-I-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Division ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 06/30/96 REQUEST BUDGET == ===================SSL======Ls=====5 ===s=s====ss =se=as==ss== s=E==sss===a ss=isXI=ssss= ==ssss=sisiss= =5====ss==Sias TOTAL POLICE DIVISION 1,367,053 1,506,242 1,588,500 630,849 1,707,020 1,703,140 DIVISION 32 - FIRE 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 148,701 141,965 164,970 31,702 178,630 178,630 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 101,386 204,043 253,700 100,854 270,360 270,360 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 597,270 11,740 0 2,765 0 0 TOTAL FIRE DIVISION 847,357 357,748 418,670 135,321 448,990 448,990 DIVISION 33 - INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 138,838 146,508 178,820 60,242 194,910 194,910 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 36,505 40,374 46,610 16,992 50,160 50,160 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 0 0 3,500 0 0 0 TOTAL INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG DIVISION 175,343 186,881 228,930 77,234 245,070 245,070 DIVISION 41 - ENGINEERING 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 255,464 294,251 343,510 123,391 367,260 367,260 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 31,952 41,979 67,050 10,513 49,520 49;520 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 20,856 6,181 5,200 0 0 0 480 EXPENSE CHARGED TO OTHER ACT -6,000 -6,000 -8,000 0 -8,000 -8,000 TOTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION 302,273 336,411 407,760 133,905 408,780 408,780 DIVISION 42 - STREET MAINTENANCE 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 268,169 269,254 328,060 114,917 310,980 310,980 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 255,002 415,491 447,660 103,226 470,880 470,880 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 3,111 1,022 0 0 0 0 TOTAL STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION 526,282 685,767 775,720 218,143 781,860 781,860 DIVISION 44 - SHOP 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 81,245 79,278 85,950 32,834 90,840 90,840 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 20,099 19,204 24,700 2,482 35,700 35,700 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 87,779 2,896 6,000 0 0 0 TOTAL SHOP DIVISION 189,123 101,378 116,650 35,316 126,540 126,540 DIVISION 46 - PARK MAINTENANCE 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 177,485 166,495 169,860 60,936 191,920 191,920 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 92,324 120,429 132,800 39,419 158,500 158,500 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 30,015 0 2,000 0 0 0 TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE DIVISION 299,824 286,924 304,660 100,355 350,420 350,420 DIVISION 91 - UNALLOCATED 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 0 0 0 -1 0 0 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 29,150 33,780 185,000 7,124 218,490 218,490 470 TRANSFERS OUT 242,654 96,971 251,340 251,340 300,540 404,140 TOTAL UNALLOCATED DIVISION 271,804 130,751 436,340 258,463 519,030 622,630 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,270,830 5,043,221 5,865,730 2,050,661 6,230,220 6,348,870 g 0 U, N .5 o J J V 2 N LL N Q. O O^ O .� 0 a < tiTtscQ 0) 0 0 I— I--' El 112 El seenissosisossmessmseasm 51. 1.1' 0 L 6 LLI F— : :::::::.: ::.}:.; :::::.;:,::.:::<:::}:::::.::„:::.:.:<•:S::•••••:.333:•••-•3:.3>;«;::«::.;;. . U ....................................... W :v... , i.iili.;:..?::::-.i.iiiiiiii•iii:i:i::....ii....i.i::iiii-:i:iii]...:ii,..:,..:::::::ig=....elowessminsilmemmos"'':':':.............-..... :-...........................:.:.:.:.:....:....:::::::::::::::::::*i*if,.:*.f.i:.i....-.....,,...i:.iiii:::ii.gii:.ii.iii.c...?:::::0:::::::iiii:iiii:1;*: z 0 i?>i:viii: ; ^in::i:•::•:]•,...:::::::.::.::::::i:•::•:]•,...:::::::.::.::::::1:::::::'•:';';'::'': :::::i':i:::i.::i::i?.:.`::�::i:i:i:::v :: ±p�+,5•! f'F �����•, W 0 8 6 L6 96 56 tib £6 :;': z6 ,„ L6 r.kry�p:.ti�y G :.t'i-0id6hiL+. :•S} :•i}SS: 06 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O O0OO O O O OOOO O OO O N OO O MO) a0 ' 4) ry 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q G) C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0000000000 03 vvvvvvvvvv o o_.. E m E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O > 0 0000000000 co om toNt- r= NNNNr= N 0) O.+, cD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO cn ch c0 V• N cn O v CO 0) Q O C V' e- N CO CO CO N U) (0 < > 0 0) 00 CO CO N CO N u) in 00) 0 C CO CO (O CO CO CO CO CD CO CO E O E N 0) C O� 0) CA 0) N- _() 0) U) CCH,,,, > �0 0) N N 0 (0 ts- M , N V' u (O co- .- to 0) 0. C N N N N N Cl N N T- E O E N M � Oo V' cn00 � Q a) C N N 00 w- 0 N '- N > O CO 0 0 CO r^ O 00) p.m N NNNNN N `- E 0 C E U 0 C 0 CO 00)) 0) CO 2. > O e- e- r r (lip OL m V' V `7 V' CO 0) 0.C T- E N E U) OOo) V' a� C cornNVwT Q O co V' Un O CV 0) s m M co co V' 0) o.+-' V N e- r N. E N X C U = co N 00 CO N V' s- 0 0 0 N N 0 0 N- o a) co Vw (0 co (Q 0) > rnr- MNON (O a) N ►n0) 0N �t0) J ' r- r N N N NLn in co N CO M Obi vl:� 0 N 000 N N- 0))N U C .t- r 0 >, 0) O ..- N M V' LC) CO N CO 0) 0 '- N CO 0 (0 N CO 0) 0 N CO V' 0 v- > 00 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) >- O J r3 to CA M O CO N CO M N M r et CO M O CO N CO N C) r 03 N CO r N to N N a7 0) LO r a) U) et 0) r CA O V) r Is-- O d7 et Cfl M Is- CA N M r- to co_ r N O? VI CO TI) > O N a)M CO N et N O ao C) et u) C) r O 00 to N C) O > CO CO O M a) M O N co N r r N co CO co N O co a) I— O J M M et et d to to N N N N N (O CO Co to et N N N 0. 00 N CO CO N r r et O O Cr) CA et N CO a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N N 00 In N N 0) Cf) 0) 'Cr r CO N CC) CO O V) CO 'el' 0) CO CO CO 0) C) r r r CO CO et 0 C() Co cv "- 0) O r M N O NCO O et CO N 00 CO N O ,- e- N too) O N eF a) N co Co C) a) et O CO CO CO J r r r r N N N N N N Nr r '0 , 0000000000 Q N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 m to to 6 to to CA tri 03 4) N N C)0_C C 00 000000 0000 O 00 O N E 0000000000 Q C 0000000000 > O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m 00 Cb 00 CO CO O 00 00 00 O O 0--5 to to to to to to to to in La N E - E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • > O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O� m N CV N CV N N CV CV C% N NC2 C d et et of et st et ef' et E - E 0000000000 a) C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • > O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •-•• O m N N N N N N N N N N a) 0-C t() to N to to t1) to to to K) • E - E �C3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 CD s- N N N N N N N N N N a7 Q-5 C7 M OO M M Ch O C+) C+) C+) • E N E to a) (r) 0) (O NCO Ce) N C°) r CO V) 0 CO N03 N 0') V) r 03 N d' CO r N to N N a) a) ►o r 0) to d' a) r a) r N 0 CA et CO M r (A N M Is- to 'et CO r N CA Co CO CA LL C (6 (6 (O to tC) et M r N d to CO r TT. If; Cr.; to N CO... O O CA O O CA Cr) 0) a) 0) a) 0) a) 0) 0) 0) O 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) () CO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T a) 0 r N M to (O N 00 0) 0 r N M V to CO 1s- 00 a) O r N M et to CZ > 03 0) 0) a) a) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) a) >- J U) rn . 0 0 c N> o J J 2 O o V . '- H F- - j 0 (I) J 5L ••»i ::>::>::<:::::>:>:>:: »> ::> .: ;:?;:;i iii:`;:<»#::: a� 1 yii iM ;:•' Z L a nk O :•ii}i:;�}}};i�iii:•i::•: ii:ii:iiw:::LJi}::v }}:::•:;•:}i}ii•i::::.�••v.�.: .::•:•'•••••••• :.:�.�::: : ::•........ vv:::::i`::ii::i:::ti :: ::: i:::: i:::iii::{:jj }i:.ii: - • 6 ...... ..........Wliirir:JI:illililiFli:::::::::::::, .. • : t+.. .z.<>:...ii..::::::: `� >:> : :< > iuQ ::ii:: :<:: < g!.! Z��uU iiiiiriii!!!!"::::::::: W 0 M :::::isY::::::::i istt:::::i::::i:::::::;22::::::;�::::i:: ::: ::i:`:i::::::::i::i::i:: i::ii:;i :�: 2:;'+.%;:;::i ' :;:�:;:�::>;:::i�:::: :::::::: :: :: :: W >:� 96 L6 96 5 Vii:Mi:ei::::::::1::':i:i*......::::.g.i.,.Bii::!:,]:•]:1:::.:::i.l.::::::::i::;ill.':..;:i.:::::..$:ii ifi.'ini i i i ii.,..::'..i i::i::i iiMi:.:1::',.::::iii.ii.iiiii:Oii::ifltiiii::::i.i.ii.iii.ii i.ii::::::ii..i',....:.1.:::::N..?:::.:...:.:. i;::.::::i:iiimiiii::::K::::,...M11:-„ii.ii...z'-3,!:.!.F.-:.' i,6 6 £6 46 1.6 06 69 0oO OO O 0 O Oo O O OOp p O oO O N o O O OO O O p OO cO O 0 I-O a0 ( l5, -0 , 0000000000 Q CD c 0000000000 > 0 0000000000 0) o m 6666666666 a) C1.- v et v v v v v Nr NI- d •- E5 _ E , -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0) c 0000000000 > 0 0000000000 0) o m cr ti r r; r r`N r-r- r= a) ac (0 (00000COCDCDCO (000 T- Es — E , -o M co ' r• co co o Nr co a) Q 0) c N CO CO w- CO CD CO < > O 0) CO CC)Nt r• CO N ID in O o m CC).- 6 •t CO. N N N '- a) n.»- CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO v- Ecl - E N N c O, _ 0) 0) a) NMa) cS) m > O o N N 0 CO r_ti C") OmN � CI) COCD � CD 0) a — "'N N N N N N N N E 0) E N A CO Nt N CO00 • Cl) C M CN N CO V" 0 r` '- I's CO 0 O CO r` O L N4 0 m Cfl N ''t cri CDC M N N N N N N N N C C C C C C C E 0 00000 C) U Cl) CO co r` NN CA 0 C 0 CO 00)) a0) 000 < > 0 r- .- '- e- CO a) a Eau E h 00 CD141v Qr O '- M 0) N st O m COM st r' tr ) O N a) a C M M co d- -t E O x x x x x E 0 0 0 0 0 CO N CO CO N 170 O r` ti CO C.0 r- O M .cr. a) coC0caa) > 0) - ) C'J0C' CO 0) N InCA O r` a) J .- N N N N CO M 0) ..t..S N U 0) N r- M , Cr) — O O — a) N - ' CO e- w- 0 L >, 0) 0 — N Cr) Nt ID CO N- Co 0) 0 '- N M v ID CC) N Co 0) 0 A- N Cr) Nt LO CO „- > CO 0) a) 0) 0) a) 0) 0) a) 0) a) >- O J fCO ►n co M CA (O N 00 M N M r- et (O M O 00 N 00 N M 'O T- O N Nr Ofl T- N (n N N O co U, T- CA in et Co 1- CA 0) Ts N O co of (O M N Co N M N (n of c) T— N CA (l) CO 76 15 N ONMCA (Or` NI r- O00MetuiM ,- Oo00U C C) O > co () O M co Mr-N CO N r' T- N MV)M N co 0) co I- O J M M et et et u') (A N N N N N (O 0 (A (n et N N N CL 00 N O (O N et T- T.. CD M T- d' r M N 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .O O O N N O N N N N (A (O O et (n N ►n (O N N M of CA (O OO (O Co el et 00 1` (O 00 et O (c) (O 2 d 92 CA w c') N O N CO CO (O CO ' O(n et CO — T- O o ?' - Oo > N N co O N Nr CA N N N M M N o0 CO CO CO 0) r- ..- NNN Q J N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q A C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > O O O O O O O O O O O O mU) (C) u") L (l) (C) (A (l) U) L O a o3ao000303Oo0303Oo00 N E N E 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) C Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O > o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C1+-' i0 f0 0 f' U) (l) (C) (l) (i 06 06 05 O 0 A U () N E N - E 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O , m (Ni N N N N N N N N N O CL T-, eteretetetNtetd' etNt N E O E co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q OV C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s m N N N N N N N N N N CA Cl +-' (l) M) (A U) (C) (t) U) U) ul U) - E 1 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0) C O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O m O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N p0) a v M M M M M M M M M M w- E N E U) CA M CA W N 00 M N M 1 et OO M O 00 N 00 N M 2 N e- CO N et CO — N (l) N N CA 0) (n r' CO (A et CA r- CA N O CA st (O M r- CA N M N (1') et MT- N CA (n (O Or u- C (n (nOtri Lei NI: M1- et: NNIO (Ci r' (O (l) cis (nNM O O O CO co Co CA CA Co CO CD CA 0) CA CA CA CA CD CA CA CA CA co C9 m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L >, CA O — N M e< ul CO N CO CA O — N M et (C) CO N CO Cf) O r N M et (l) OC v- > 00 CA C)) O) O) C)) CA CA CA CA co >- 0 J City of Shakopee VEHICLE ACQUISITION. USE & REPLACEMENT POLICY I. PURPOSE& NEED FOR POLICY This policy will provide uniform criteria for all City departments and operations in the acquisition, use and replacement of vehicles. The City of Shakopee is dedicated to managing its resources in a fiscally responsible manner. Therefore, a specific need should be demonstrated before a new vehicle is added to the City's fleet, and every existing vehicle should be utilized to its greatest economic extent prior to replacement. The personal use of City vehicles will be delineated defined to ensure proper accounting and maximum efficiency of public purpose. The acquisition of additional vehicles to the City's overall fleet and their replacement should be only as necessary to allow the City to provide the services and perform the duties and responsibilities that are expected by the public within budgetary constraints. II. VEHICLE ACQUISITION POLICY The many varied aspects of public service provided by the City of Shakopee requires the use of different types of vehicles. These include: Type A) vehicles used primarily to transport employees to/from locations of work activity (i.e. administrative and inspection vehicles); Type B) vehicles necessary to assist City employees in performing their duties (i.e. squad car, survey van, utility repair truck etc.); Type C) vehicles used to actually perform a physical function (fire truck, road grader, dump truck, etc.). The type of vehicle purchased shall be that which is determined to be most appropriate and cost effective for that vehicle's function. However, all administrative/personnel transportation type vehicles shall be of the compact (i.e. Ford Contour. Chevrolet Corsica) or intermediate (i.e. Ford Taurus. Buick Century) class. If a multi-passenger vehicle (MPV) is deemed necessary to maximize personnel transportation capabilities, it shall be of the minivan class for 5-7 seat belts and extended cargo van category for 8-10 seat belts. A.Staff Transportation Vehicles A vehicle shall be acquired by the City of Shakopee and assigned for staff transportation only if one or more of the following occur. 1. If the City has deemed it appropriate to identify the driver and/or passengers as City employees on the way to/from remote work locations or while performing their official duties. 2. a. If a specific job description results in an employee accumulating a minimum of 10,000 reimbursable miles per year on their personal vehicle traveling to/from alternate work locations, or b. If an operational division has a cumulative staff mileage reimbursement of 12,000 miles per year or more. 1 3. If the City Administrator has determined that a vehicle should be provided as part of a position's responsibility and meets the requirements of State Law. 4. A pooled vehicle shall be available at City Hall for multi-departmental use. B. Job Assistance Vehicles 1. In certain circumstances, City provided and equipped vehicles are necessary to allow employees to perform their job functions. In those circumstances, the City shall provide the specific required type of vehicle and equip it with the necessary tools, equipment and devices necessary to allow a City employee to perform their duties in the-most-ma efficient and safe manner possible. These vehicles may be assigned to specific employees or be made available through a pool concept within a division r department on an operational basis determined to be most efficient by the department head(s). C. Job Performance Vehicles 1. If a certain specialty type of vehicle is deemed necessary by the department to perform a specific work task, it shall be justified in writing by the department head and approved by the City Administrator subject to budgetary constraints. The method of acquisition (purchase, lease, rental) shall be determined by the Finance Director. 2. Specialty pieces of equipment shall be shared interdepartmentally to the greatest extent possible subject to seasonal/usage availability in order to avoid redundant acquisitions. III. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY A. Minimum Replacement Standards City acquired vehicles should not be programmed or budgeted for replacement until they have met the guideline minimum replacement standards for the particular vehicle category (see attached). Similarly, vehicles should not be replaced just because they have met the guideline minimum replacement standards. Any deviations for early replacement must be justified in writing by the Department Head and approved by the City Administrator. B. Replacement Evaluation Process Any City ( including Fire Department but excluding SPUC) vehicle which has been proposed for replacement shall have a standard Vehicle Evaluation Form completed with a written recommendation by the City Mechanic, Shop Supervisor and Department Head delineating the justification for its replacement. A sample Vehicle Evaluation Form is attached hereto. C. Disposition of Used Vehicles Before a vehicle is removed from the City's Fleet, the City Mechanic shall review all City current vehicles of similar type and determine if it would be economically beneficial to switch with another existing vehicle before disposal. All vehicles to be disposed of will be coordinated by the City Mechanic and Finance Director to determine the most economical method and time. Vehicles may be retained for continued use by the City for a period not to exceed 9 months from the date the new vehicle is placed into service. Vehicles removed from service in - ••- = = = - =- - -- - -- =••= -= - :••_ =- - --- •- the Police and Fire Departments and those vehicles that regularly operate out of the city limits. shall be evaluated for reliability to see if they should be retained for local use and thereby minimize the acquisition of new vehicles. An example 2 of this is a car removed from squad duty that is serviceable for non-emergency duty and assigned to a building inspector. IV. PERSONAL USE OF CITY VEHICLES City vehicles are not available for take home use by City employees except for the following situations: A. Assigned Take-Home Vehicles City employees, whose position responsibilities require them to respond directly to a work related situation from their residence outside of normal work hours, will be allowed to use a City vehicle (Type A or B) to commute to/from their place of residence under the following conditions: • . . _ee 31. The employee must live in the City of Shakopee 32. The vehicle is not available for other than flif141:1414s minimal personal use while performing their job duties and/or commuting to/from their place of residence. 3. The Chief of Police may use an unmarked car. 4. Two officers of the Fire Department may use a light duty vehicle for commuting use including their regular place of employment if it is within 15 miles of the City of Shakopee. psag 65. Job performance specialty type vehicles (Type C) shall not be made available for personal use or commuting. 66. For scheduled leaves of absence by the designated employee exceeding 1 workday, the City vehicle shall be made available for pool use and remain at the employee's normal place of work. B. Occasional Take-Home Vehicles A City employees may occasionally use a City vehicle (Type A or B)to travel to/from the employee's residence under the following conditions. Police officers on duty may take cars home in the city at the discretion of the Police Chief. 21.. If the City employee has scheduled City business away from their normal work station and the number of miles traveled, or time needed to conduct the business, will be minimized if the employee uses a City vehicle to commute to/from the employee's residence before/after traveling to the place of business. 32. The vehicle is not available for other than €1411-14F1461s minimal personal use beyond commuting to/from the place of residence. 3 C. Exceptions usage. V. CITY USE OF PERSONAL VEHICLES A. Mileage Reimbursement 1. All employees of the City will be paid mileage for use of their personal vehicles and reimbursed for all related legal parking costs while conducting official City business. The mileage rate will be as-set by the City Council the maximum reimbursement rate allowed by the IRS for non-taxable income. However, employees are encouraged to use available City vehicles whenever possible while conducting official City business. 2. Normal personal commuting mileage from home to work or work to home is not reimbursable. If an employee uses a personal vehicle to travel to a work responsibility on the way to or from work, normal personal commuting mileage shall be deducted from the total trip mileage used to calculate the reimbursement. 3. Prior to using a personal vehicle and claiming mileage, the employee should first use a City vehicle assigned to their department. If one is not available, the employee should check with other departments regarding the availability of a similar appropriate City vehicle. B. Monthly Allowance Department Heads, with the exception of Public Safety Department Heads, by virtue of their job _ •_• - __• _ __ _ - e •_ _•' • e"•••- - e . The City Administrator and the Public Works Director shall receive a monthly allowance as set by the City Council. A monthly car allowance incurs is subject the following conditions: 1. The monthly allowance covers all business miles driven and all parking costs incurred within the seven-county metropolitan area. Any travel outside this region in a personal vehicle will be reimbursed according to Section V.A. 2. City vehicles may be used: a. In emergencies an emergency work situation when the personal vehicle is not available, 4 b. For work related off road driving when the personal vehicle would be subjected to conditions above normal wear and tear on a vehicle, c. In severe adverse weather conditions, d. Where the department head must travel by vehicle outside the seven-county metropolitan area 3. The employee has the option to decline the mileage allowance and claim reimbursement under V.A. above. C. Other Costs Employees are responsible for all costs related to personal vehicle ownership and operation. The City is responsible for all costs related to installation and maintenance of City equipment in the vehicles which is necessary in order that kr the employee may to perform the position's functions. The City is also responsible for all costs related to the removal of such equipment and to the restoration of the vehicle caused by such removal. VI. VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION A. Color/City Logo All City vehicles shall be licensed and marked as appropriate for their specific use as follows: 1. All Administrative transportation vehicles (Type A)shall be white of compact or intermediate size, and have the City's name prominently displayed on the side door panels. The City's official logo will be applied when it is beneficial to have it displayed to the public as determined by the Department Head. 2. All •- e •- • - - -•e - - ••-•• _ ---= specialty type vehicles (Type B or C) shall be-yellow-with have the City nam , prominently displayed on the door panel or other highly visible location. 3. Marked police squad/patrol ears vehicles shall be white and shall display the City name, lege; and vehicle number, it shall contain lettering identifying it as a police/law enforcement/emergency vehicle. The color of unmarked squad cart police vehicles will be at the discretion of the Police Chief as necessary to minimize their detection as a law enforcement vehicle. 4. Fire Department vehicles shall be red with the City's name, logo, and, vehicle number and shall contain lettering identifying it as a fire response emergency vehicle prominently displayed on the side door panels. 5. Other specialty type vehicles (Type B or C) shall match the color of other similar =-- _ -_-- - •- - -- - =e - _ -•• • - ••.•- - e . All other vehicles purchased new shall be manufacturers standard medium blue in color or if blue is not available as a standard color. white shall be used unless there is no color choice available. Vehicles shall not be repainted solely to change the color. VII. RESPONSIBILITY 5 Departments with assigned vehicles are responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of such vehicles. Vehicles may be professionally cleaned once per year. The cost of cleaning a vehicle before it is disposed of or turned over to another department is the responsibility of the department that had prior use of the vehicle The City Administrator is responsible for the enforcement of this policy. City employees may not deviate from the policy unless they have written approval from the City Administrator. Revised 8/2/96 n:\budget\departm\vehicle2 6 Vehicle Categories Guideline Replacement Standards Age or Miles/Hours Administrative 10 100,000 Sedan 10 100,000 Station Wagon 10 100,000 Compact Pickup 10 100,000 Vans 10 100,000 Squad car-squad duty 4 80,000 Specialty Light Duty Suburban 10 100,000 Pickup 1/2-3/4 ton 10 100,000 Utility 10 100,000 Medium Duty Utility Truck 10 100,000 4x4 pickup 10 100,000 truck- 1 to 1.5 ton 10 100,000 Skid steer loader 10 4,000 Fire grass rig 15 N/A Mowers -riding 10 Tractor 15 Heavy duty Dump trucks 12 80,000 Front end loader 15 6,000 Road grader 15 6,000 Alley grader 15 6,000 Backhoe 20 6,000 Sweeper 10 5,000 Jetter 20 8,000 Tanker/flusher 20 8,000 Sewer Vac 20 N/A Pumper 20 N/A Aerial truck 20 N/A 7 VEHICLE EVALUATION FORM Public Works Department-Equipment Maintenance Section Unit# Serial# Department Year Make Model Vehicle Description Special Eqpt/Attachments Primary Use Current Mileage Hour s Last Year Miles Hour s Avg.Annual Miles Hour s Purchase Price (includes special equipment) Estimated Replacement Cost (includes special equipment) Estimated Average Life years/hours/miles ANALYSIS OF UNIT YEAR Annual Operating Costs Cumulative Operating Costs Annual CPM or CPH Life-To-Date CPM or CPH Average CPM or CPH for vehicle class % Downtime-Annually % Downtime-Cumulative %Downtime by Class Body, mechanics and/or chassis condition comments: Prepared by Reviewed by 8 Vehicle Categories Guideline Replacement Standards Eagan St Louis Pk Shakopee Age or Miles/Hours Administrative Sedan 10/100,000 5-7 10 100,000 Station Wagon 10/100,000 5-7 10 100,000 Compact Pickup 10/100,000 7-8 10 100,000 Vans 10/100,000 7-8 10 100,000 Squad car-squad duty 10/100,000 2-6 4 80,000 Specialty Light Duty Suburban 10/100,000 7-8 10 100,000 Pickup 1/2-3/4 ton 10/100,000 7-8 10 100,000 Utility 10/100,000 7-8 10 100,000 Medium Duty Utility Truck 10/100,000 10 100,000 4x4 pickup 10/100,000 10 100,000 truck- 1 to 1.5 ton 10/100,000 10 100,000 Skid steer loader 10/4,000 10 4,000 Fire grass rig 15 15-20 15 N/A Mowers -riding 6-12 10 Tractor 15 Heavy duty Dump trucks 12/80,000 10-15 12 80,000 Front end loader 14/6,000 10-20 15 6,000 Road grader 14/6,000 10-20 15 6,000 Alley grader 10-20 15 6,000 Backhoe 20/6,000 20 6,000 Sweeper 8/5,000 10-20 10 5,000 Jetter 20/8,000 8 20 8,000 Tanker/flusher 20/8,000 8 20 8,000 Sewer Vac 20 8 20 N/A Fire truck 20 15-20 20 N/A X UJ . s L) CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consultant Fees DATE: September 5, 1996 One of the items that we will need to consider with the final budget is how to handle consulting fees for development projects. The case in point are bills that are now coming in for Excelsior-Henderson. We have received an attorney bill for $5700, and this week there was a bill from Springsted in excess of$11,744 for consulting fees. There is a verbal agreement for Excelsior-Henderson to reimburse the City(EDA)up to $5,000 for consulting fees if the decision was made not to proceed to acceptance of an offer. There is a written document in the hands of Excelsior-Henderson that was sent by the City affirming that $5,000 agreement, but that was not returned prior to the decision being made to go to Belle Plaine. A bill was sent to Excelsior-Henderson approximately two weeks ago for the $5,000; there has been no response. We will follow-up on that. Typically, development fees are rolled in to bond sales for projects which receive financial assistance from the City(EDA). However, in future cases such as Excelsior-Henderson, we will need to do two things: 1. Decide up front how much"negotiation" will be done on the part of the City(EDA) before financial responsibilities are established. A certain amount of"testing the water" is needed, and it may not be seen as a positive to bring the issue up too early in the process. However, some understanding needs to be made as far as what the City(EDA) is willing to do long term. 2. Development is the function of the EDA and its budget should accommodate non- completed projects such as Excelsior-Henderson as has normally been the case in the past. In this case there may be uncertainty about who authorized the consultant work. If the EDA is unwilling to pay the bills, the other option is to charge it to Mayor& Council professional services or contingency in the City General Fund. This is an item which we should discuss as part of the September 9th budget worksession. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: EDA Gregg Voxland CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Growth Options DATE: September 6, 1996 INTRODUCTION: At the worksession on September 9th, we will have a short presentation regarding Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan area, and asking for your reaction to Scott County's response. BACKGROUND: The attached information includes portions of the Met Council's"Growth Options" report currently being considered. The Council wants to use the report to establish a preferred development plan for the Twin Cities region. The three options are as follows: 1. "Current Trend" option accommodates housing market demand, with public investments responding to the demand. 2. The"Concentrated Development" option would increase the density of jobs and housing in the core of the region, by holding the MUSA line at its current location. 3. "Growth Centers" option would encourage the development of jobs and housing in "mixed use" centers. The"Current Trend" option does provide the opportunity to amend MUSAs, but in my view would continue the politicizing of the expansion process. The"Concentrated Development" option would be most damaging to Shakopee and others in the developing fringe. By its nature, it is intended to increase the cost of development of outlying areas so that it becomes more fiscally prudent to develop, and redevelop, the core cities. This option would accelerate the pace of"leap frog" development beyond the existing MUSA, to areas such as townships which are not currently set up to handle a large influx of new residents and counties adjacent to the 7 - county region. The"Growth Centers" option is an interesting concept, but would also change development patterns in Shakopee as we would expect them, since this option does not identify Shakopee as a growth center. The County is coordinating a response from the cities of Scott County, and they are asking that Shakopee respond as soon as possible. For that reason, we are scheduling this as part of the September 9th meeting. ACTION REQUIRED: The County is asking that the City of Shakopee endorse the comments that are outlined in its letter of July 25th. Any additions or modifications to that should be noted. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw Association of Metropolitan Municipalities position with regard to Metropolitan Council Growth Options General The Metropolitan Council Growth Options Reports estimates that by the year 2020, the Twin Cities metropolitan will add another 330,000 households, and over 650,000 people, about a 25% increase. It seems obvious that accommodating growth of this magnitude will continue to stretch the boundaries of what has traditionally been thought of as "the metropolitan area." Specifically, the seven-county definition, ensconced in State statute, is becoming increasingly outdated, and in a few years, will become functionally irrelevant. Our first comment is that it is unfortunate that the growth options scenarios must largely be contained within this artificial boundary, but given the Council's statutory limits is understandable. Leapfrog development The AMM feels strongly that unless appropriate mechanisms are found to address the reality of leapfrog development outside the seven counties, efforts to limit, control, or otherwise manage growth within the seven counties could end up having unintended and deleterious consequences. This overarching concern lies at the heart of a number of the specific recommendations and positions set forth below. Guiding principles Our positions reflect an attempt to offer specific policy proposals that reflect the following set of land development principles: 1. We should continue to strive for maximum freedom, both for individuals and for communities. In making choices, deciding their fate, and selecting a preferred lifestyle heavy-handed government regulations that fly in the face of deeply held citizen values and preferences are not likely to withstand the test of time. Rather, regional policy should seek to gently encourage and guide choices consistent with a broader public interest. 2. At the same time, individuals and communities should be cognizant of, and held accountable for the consequences of their decisions. Government policy may be used to shape markets in a way that reflects and internalizes the full cost of development decisions, and that also encourages choices consistent with a widely agreed upon regional agenda. 3. Such freedom of choice should be broadly spread throughout all segments of the Twin Cities population. "Market failures," as well as misguided government policy, can constrain individual choices that lead to a successful and satisfactory life. 4. Government faces severe funding shortages in providing the services and infrastructure necessary to support urban development. Competition for transportation dollars has become especially critical. Regional policy should encourage development choices that minimize both public and private costs. Specific Positions 1. The Growth Options Report and the BATC High Cost of Sprawl Report concur with regard to assumed level of population and household growth for the next 25 years. The key difference is in assumptions about where these people can and will want to live. The Growth Options Report "Concentrated Development" alternative assumes that all growth can be accommodated within the boundaries of the existing MUSA. At the other extreme, the BATC report assumes that only 20%of this growth can occur within the existing MUSA, leaving over 250,000 new households to be located in MUSA expansion areas. Further, BATC calls for regional policies (some of which would have the potential to preempt local control) in order to preserve those future development areas. Yet the BATC assumptions are also based on an overall density of only two units per acre, a particularly "conservative" approach that would seem to continue the Twin Cities development pattern as one of the least dense in the nation. The AMM believes that this huge discrepancy must be addressed, in part by considering where people will most likely choose to live in the future. As Council staff has pointed out, huge demographic changes are on the horizon. As baby boomers become empty-nesters, the baby-busters, Generation Xer's, and echo boom will replace them as first time homebuyers. What lifestyles will these various groups prefer? What will they be able to afford? More careful research, including random polling, might be helpful. 2. The AiMM rejects the "Concentrated Development" option as overly simplistic. This alternative would seem to be based on the naive assumption that the existing seven-county regional framework is a realistic paradigm for addressing the issues of the metropolitan area, and ignores the realities of leapfrog into the surrounding 16 counties, including four in western Wisconsin. 3. The AMM agrees with the BATC report that the ultimate MUSA boundary for the year 2020 should be defined and protected. The AMM does not, however, necessarily accept the parameters of that boundary as prescribed by BATC. As indicated above, we believe that the population growth and lifestyle choice assumptions need to be further discussed and agreed upon. 4. Redevelopment of the existing urban core is critical to the viability and quality of life of the entire metropolitan area, and should therefore be encouraged. Specific policies to further this goal would include: - Priority in regional investment for maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure serving existing developed areas - Additional funding for polluted site(brownfield) clean up - Efforts to de-concentrate low-income housing, and to redevelop such areas with mixed-use, mixed-income uses should be encouraged and supported. - The "neo-traditional" amenities of the urban core might be strengthened, promoted, and "exploited" as a way to encourage private reinvestment - Development of tools to assist land assembly which is a major barrier to redevelopment in the urban core 5. New development should largely pay its own way, but neither should people be penalized for choosing new housing at the MUSA edge. 6. The AMM continues its strong support for the goals of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, including additional regional and state financial support to encourage local communities to promote construction of affordable housing throughout the metropolitan area. The AMM also continues its support of giving preference in regional investment to areas and projects that promote all of the goals of that legislation. 7. Once the ultimate MUSA is defined, it, rather than system plans and capacities, should be the criteria against which local applications for MUSA expansion are evaluated. Cities would then be responsible and held accountable for staging growth with the ultimate MUSA while the Metropolitan Council would be responsible for provided regional services. This addresses the frustration several local governments have recently experienced of having their MUSA expansions rejected or constrained because of area highway capacity, with no consideration being given to the highway loading being caused by leapfrog development occurring in communities outside the purview of the Metropolitan Council. 8. Initiation of MUSA expansions, and other specific land use decisions should remain the prerogative of cities. The AMM emphatically rejects any proposal to make land use the fifth regional system, which would lead to Council preemption of local authority in this important area. For example, local communities should have the ability to preserve open space to enhance the quality of life for their residents. 9. Given the current political climate, the AMM is skeptical that State lawmakers would expand the Metropolitan Council's sphere of authority beyond the seven counties. Also, the AMM does not believe that development in the surrounding counties, in and of itself, is necessarily a deleterious thing nor can it be prevented. Orderly and economic development which compliments development within the 7-county metropolitan area is the key. The AMM would encourage the Council and the State of Minnesota to consider other creative alternatives. For example,regional and state investment to serve areas beyond the seven counties (i.e. highways) might be conditioned upon those area's compliance with goals complimentary to and supportive of regional policy (i.e. affordable housing tied to job creation). 10. The AMM would strongly encourage the Council to collaborate with state leaders in development a compact with Wisconsin to address the leapfrog development in western Wisconsin which is a concern for the eastern part of the 7-county metropolitan area. s ' Summary The AMM and its member municipalities fully recognize the complexity and difficulty of the issues surrounding regional growth management. We also recognize that those issues will become only more complex and problematic as the metropolitan area grows in the future. We support the leadership of the Metropolitan Council in its responsibility to articulate a regional vision, and to encourage us all to think beyond our own boundaries as we strive to maintain and enhance an urban area that already enjoys one of the highest qualities of life in the nation. We believe that such regional leadership will require new ways of thinking about how we manage the metropolitan area. The AMM stands ready to work in partnership with the Council, both in deciding and implementing policy that will lead us toward our mutual goals. NOTE: This should be considered a working draft or starting point and is not cast in concrete. You may have strong disagreement with points of this epistle and your input is coveted. We hope you can attend this meeting but if not,please call or fax in your thoughts. AMM fax#is 281-1299. 06/18/96 07:10 $612 370 1378 BRW INC 21002 1-DRRFT Recommendations of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association Regarding the Metro Development Options 17 June 1996 Draft for Review by the APA Board of Directors The Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association has prepared these recommendations on the Metro Growth Options based upon discussions among our members conducted during April, May and June. We are not endorsing any particular Option,but proposing several guidelines or principles with which the Council may forge a hybrid physical plan. A New Model Is Needed The current model of Twin Cities metropolitan growth is not sustainable for the long term because it places unrealistic demands on our public and private monetary resources, our natural environment and our quality of life. A new pattern of growth is needed: one that reduces our land consumption per household, reduces our rate of driving and provides more livable, cohesive and attractive communities. The growth pattern should be oriented more strongly toward the existing and planned transportation network, overlaid by major natural features (rivers,Iakes and wetlands). This should be achieved through increased local diversity and density that focuses on major modes along the transportation corridors, creating numerous primary and secondary Activity Centers, and by new models for designing neighborhoods,districts and corridors. Public investments Must Be Made More Wisely to Produce Sustainable Growth We believe that our regional economic success is dependent on more efficient use of all resources, monetary, natural, human and aesthetic. Our way of life is being sustained by past public investments, while our current rate of investment is not keeping pace with demands. For too long, fringe growth has been subsidized in many ways by all levels of 17 June 1996 l 08/18/96 07:11 $812 370 1378 BRW INC tJ003 • 2AFT government to the detriment of central locations, leading to ever-increasing demands for public investments on the perimeter of the metropolis. Consequently, our future regional quality of lite will require a combination of wiser growth decisions and/or greater public spending. Current funding practices over-emphasize immediate and easily quantifiable monetary outlays. In response, more weight should be given to the sum of the direct and indirect life-cycle costs of development decisions.A mindset of"full- cost pricing" should be formulated for all regional growth decisions,particularly transportation infrastructure. To accommodate this shift, the Metropolitan Council should prepare and implement a regional physical plan that combines aspects of the Concentrated Growth option and the Activity Centers option. Intensify the Mix of Jobs, Housing and Transportation Public policies and regulations should be used to intensify the mix of jobs, housing and transportation throughout the developed area and especially in designated Activity Centers. Perimeter growth regulations and targeted investments should be used to promote more efficient use of land and infrastructure,to encourage re-investment in older, passed-over or blighted locations and to minimize economic and racial segregation. Overall, fringe growth should be more compact than it has been in the past Improving the variety and choice in living and working environments throughout the Region will aid our quality of life. Reinforce and Reinvest in Established Areas There should be continued and increased efforts to promote re-use and re- investment in older areas. Regional investment policy must consider the monetary and human capital already invested in these locations when allocating resources. We cannot afford to continually abandon previously-developed areas and flee to new greenfield sites. Improve Physical Access to Opportunities The development pattern should promote east of access to well-paying jobs, good schools and decent, affordable housing in every sector of the region. Every sector of the Region should be designed to provide diversity in housing and jobs. Achieving improved regional economic and racial integration will pay many future dividends. 17 lune 1996 2 06/18/98 07:11 $812 370 1378 BRW INC fit 004 D( FT Encourage Several Compact Activity Centers Activity Centers should be promoted in developed and developing areas as a means of promoting a more compact regional form, using infrastructure more efficiently and creating lively urban nodes. There should be numerous primary and secondary Activity Centers(more than the few illustrated by the Council), with the two downtowns preeminent. Mixed- and multi-use design should highlight attractive public spaces, increased pedestrian orientation,high-quality site planning and architecture, convenient transit service and links to bicycle and pedestrian networks. The Activity Centers should grow to become community focal points, centers of public investment and diversified districts. Urban Design We assert that the post-War pattern of low-density, auto-oriented design, while providing certain benefits,has in the main produced a dispersed, fragmented and unsustainable urban pattern. Another benefit of more efficient land use may be cities and neighborhoods that are designed at a human scale,with an active public realm and a diversity of housing and employment opportunities. thereby encouraging more meaningful social interaction. To achieve this benefit there needs to be greater emphasis on urban design at the City level, spurred by local and regional education, leadership, experimentation and incentives. In fact, it is this more humane and enlightened approach to community design that may make higher regional densities acceptable and desirable. To be effective,the Growth Option needs to be realized at the level of the neighborhood, the street and the lot. By presenting visual examples of"how it will look" at these scales, focusing on the integration of diverse housing types, retail, office and civic uses, parks, greenbelts and an interconnected network of pedestrian-oriented streets, the Council has the ability to make the selected Growth Option both meaningful and attractive. Move toward Attractive Alternatives to the Automobile A regional development pattern should begin to be devised that reduces dependence on the single-occupant automobile and works hand in glove with a system of transportation alternatives featuring either bus and/or light rail transit plus a bicycle network and a system of sidewalks,paths and trails for the pedestrian. Overreliance on the automobile has extraordinary private and public costs, greatly reducing the liklihood of being able to sustain our quality of life. We do not expect quick changes in the transportation system,but we strongly endorse corridors and nodes of higher land use intensity that support alternative transportation systems. 17 June 1996 3 06/18/96 07:12 $812 370 1378 BRW INC loos GRAFT Protect the Urban Reserve A long-term Urban Reserve should be identified and protected through effective public controls in order to minimize future public and private costs. Interim development of the Urban Reserve should occur in a fashion that promotes evolution to full urban conditions. Much of the present Urban Reserve has been nibbled away through uncontrolled medium-density residential development The loss of an effective Urban Reserve is seen as a fundamental threat to sustainable growth for our region. Adopt a Much Stronger Rural Management Strategy The success of the Regional plan as envisioned by the Minnesota Chpater of the APA will depend in large part on the ability to keep perimeter growth compact so as to protect the Urban Reserve,preserve commercial farming areas and promote rei;nvestment in established areas. Commercial Agricultrual Areas • Beyond the Urban Reserve, long-term commercial agricultural areas should be identified and protected for that function. Prime farmland is an irreplacable resource That will only become more crucial to the world's survival and our long- term economic stability. Other lands may be used for non-farm purposes as long as environmental values arc safeguarded and average densities remain very low so that the public does not have to subsidize those activities through unwarranted infrastructure costs. Rural Residential Areas The rural landscape need not be destroyed by the development process. Continuing agricultural uses and open space preservation can coexist with sensitively-designed low-density residential development.,provided that this development takes the form of relatively compact rural clusters or hamlets, surrounded by protected open space, which may include farmland,scenic views, and important natural areas. Freestanding Growth Centers and Rural Centers The planning concepts of Freestanding Growth Centers and Rural Centers should be continued. Small towns on the perimeter of the expanded Metro Area should be encouraged to add jobs and housing within well-defined boundaries, using design principles that preserve and extend their historic character, walkable neighborhoods, Main Street commercial areas and environmental settings. 17 June;1996 4 08/18/98 07:12 $812 370 1378 BRW INC [ 008 Tools and Techniques Coordinated regional and/or state planning and growth controls should extend beyond the seven-county area because the practical boundaries of ow region have outgrown the seven counties. Regional and state government should play more important, not less important, roles in the future,because it is at the regional level that we compete economically, that land economics operate and that many of the critical environmental impacts of our growth are registered. One approach could involve wider geogaphic powers for the Metropolitan Council in coordination with a system of Statewide land use planning, perhpas as envisioned by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Residential densities in rural areas should be held to lower levels than we have witnessed in recent decades. Within the Urban Reserve, average densities not exceeding one or two housing units per 40 acres are appropriate. Regional investigation of and State enabling legislation for transfer of development rights should be pursued. Clustered housing,new hamlets and new rural centers are other techniques that should be adopted to allow diversity of choice while protecting long-term public interests. Provide Access to Open Space The regional plan should identify and protect significant environmental areas and corridors, which should be utilized for their natural, recreational and aesthetic benefits. Greenways—corridors of natural habitat and open space—should be easily accessible to all regional urban dwellers, and views of open countryside in the seven-county arca should remain part of our heritage. Expand the MUSA Gradually The MUSA should continue to be expanded in a gradual, staged manner,as is currently the case, so that an oversupply of serviced land does not occur,reducing any incentive to use land more efficiently than at present. MUSA expansions should also include designation of regional greenways, or open space corridors, extending from within the urban services area to the rural countryside. Consider this the Beginning of a Long-Term Process The fundamental changes that ought to be initiated by the selected Development Option should be the first steps in a long, sustained process of evolution. The built environment changes slowly, and there is massive momentum carrying us along our present course. Nevertheless,if future generations are to benefit from these recommendations, now is the time to begin to shift direction. 17 June 1996 5 06/18/96 07:13 1S612 370 1378 BRW INC (x007 FT We thank the Council for the opportunity to comment on this important Regional decision and we commend you for your public participation and outreach program_ We would eagerly accept an invitation to work with Council staff and offer a constructive critique on revised drafts of the preferred Growth Option_ Sincerely, MINNESOTA CHAPTER AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Michael Wozniak,AICP President • • • 17 June 1996 6 1 4 ill II 4 or Je TwinCifiec 1ero oitnAre a 4 4 :i I E a . : I o'", . 4.4 . Il 7 ., r II' ! e: • = a y m. �' a h • q ,4 1 s _ 111 MN I 1N1r_. y J"�ti f L. i G rZ F G r a I a II A R%epor o -Eke 11 v innesota LegicLure I 5 tMetropolitan Council January Iqq6 I Chair's Message The Twin Cities region has reached a crossroads. The powerful forces that converged to make this region economically sting shaped its urban development and provided a high quality of life over the last quarter century are beginning to change. The pace of that change is likely to quicken in the future. Thebaby-boom so influentialinthe needfor s and is generation, driving drools, hewing services, aging and will make different demands of the economy and government. The expansion of the urban part of the region occurred because the young baby-boom generation needed housing and there was sufficient federal money to pay for the new freeways and sewers necessary for the growth to occur. Clearly,federal funds will not be available to support future growth, and the existing system is aging meaning more dollars will need to be spent on maintenance. Public support for quality services, which has been so strongly ingrained in our culture, is still there, but so is the call for less government and fewer public service& Clearly, the public sector, and local governments in particular, will not see revenues grow at the rates of the past era. Global economics also portend change. Where once the region's economic competitors were other U.S. regions, tomorrow's competitors will increasingly be regions located on other continents. These forces mean change is coming in the region. We need to chart a course through these changes and confront even those we can't predict ahead of time The journey, however, will be an even more complex one, because the region will grow by 650,000 people, 330,000 households and 380,000 jobs by the year 2020. The forecasts mean the region will have about the same amount of growth in the next 25 years as it had in the previous quarter century. If the people making up the increased population all located in a new, imaginary county, it would be the second largest in population in the state. The household growth expected is more than Minneapolis and St. Paul combined The growth is welcome, and represents a "problem"many other urban areas would like to have. The dilemma is how to absorb the growth, locate it properly in the region, and pay for it in ways that keep our economy robust and our region livable. How wisely we choose will, in parr, determine how well the region thrives in the future. The question has statewide implications, because the seven county region and its adjacent counties are the state's primary economic engine. The Metropolitan Council intends to play a leadership role in framing the dilemmas and making the choices that lie ahead. We know we can't deal with change the same way we have in the past. The 1996 legislature directed the Council to project the likely growth pattern of the region in the future. This report does so. In preparing the report, however, we have gone well beyond the mandate by identifying three fundamentally different options for the region's future. The report explains the 1 choices, and provides some basic information so the options can be compared and the implications The.amount of land needed varies by 100 square miles among dif j`errence is about the size of three B the development options. The sewer and�nsportatum infrastructure will Between 75 and 80 percent°f f�for regional acidities need to be spent on maintenance and existing facilities. This leaves only 20 to 25 percent available fes ,facilities. inents to 1 Thbe number,eab ty3t pa local costs will be affected by the number of new jobs�cted to > , is well below the 640,000 aid over the previousprevious25 created. The This report is the first step in our erercise of leadership to determine the pattern the Twin CitiArea, During the next sir months, the Council willbring preferred future development partners and citizens of the region for discussion and evaluation We will continue the options to our needed to make an informed selection, and describe the kinins o ° to develop data each option fP tools needed to carry out We will then be in a position to take the neat and select a pref Co 'e "vision"of the future urban development pattern in g�option, which will be our region That selection watt be �� local units arbitrary, because we want topartnership w 1 j of government and the private sector, so choices inthe collective wisdom, made are based on our Part of our law and to�p Q�is to assess the necessary tools and other changes needed in state legislature in 199Z The task is a formidable one, and the schedule ambitious Jr is notfor the seek to avoid making decisions. There timid or for those who we have to act will be disagreements as we go fonv� What will knowing assure our children will live in an economics uniteta us is also a good place to live. economically region that is Curt Johnson Metropolitan Council Chair ii 2 • Summary The report describes and identifies the implications of three fundamentally different future urban development patterns for the Twin Cities Area. The Metropolitan Council is presenting them . to legislators, local officials and citizens in an effort to establish a vision for the future. Following extensive public review and discussion, the Council plans to craft an option that best meets the needs of the region by July 1996. The options are the Council's response to its recent population, household and job forecasts for the next quarter century. The forecasts indicate the region will grow by 650,000 people, 330,000 households, and 380,000 jobs. • At the same time, public bodies will find themselves hard pressed to pay for the public infrastructure and services needed to support the growth. Funds will increasingly need to be raised locally. Other key factors influencing the growth pattern are also described. The three options represent different answers to the basic question, "Where should the growth locate in the region?" Each calls for public management of growth in varying degrees to achieve the development pattern. • The "Current Trend" option accommodates housing market demand. Public investments would be managed to respond • to the demand. Continuing current trends is estimated to require 260 to 270 square miles of land, outward expansion of the MUSA boundary, $162 million in regional interceptor sewers, and $3.1 billion in local public sewer, water and stormwater systems. Some 54 percent of the housing would be single-family; 46 percent would be multi-family (apartment buildings with five or more units) or other forms of attached housing such as townhouses. • The "Concentrated Development" option would increase the density of jobs and housing in the core of the region. It holds the MUSA line in its current location, thereby bringing some economies in the provision of sewers and transportation. The pattern would require 175 to 185 square miles of land, $116 million in new regional interceptor sewers, $1.3 billion in local public sewer, water and stormwater. Some 42 percent of the housing would be single-family; 58 percent multi-family or other forms of attached housing. 3 • The "Growth Centers" option would encourage the development of jobs and housing in "mixed-use" centers designed to be pedestrian and "transit friendly," with less dependence on the automobile. The centers pattern would require 210 to 225 square miles of lana, $133 million in regional interceptor sewers, $2 billion for local public sewer, water and stormwater. Half of the housing would be single- family and half would be multi-family or other forms of attached housing. The report fulfills a legislative mandate (Chapter 225, Laws of II 1995) by describing the probable development patterns in and affecting the metropolitan area by the year 2020 under various scenarios, including the present course of growth verses directed, compact and efficient development. In addition, the report identifies the implications of the Twin Cities region's growth 11 pattern on the adjacent, non-metropolitan counties. • . • I • I k I • hi • • • 11114 I • Introduction The 1995 Legislature (Chapter 225, Laws of 1995) directed the Metropolitan Council to prepare a report on the region's development pattern. The law requires a report to the legislature by Jan. 15, 1996 on: "the probable development patterns in and affecting the metro area by the year 2020 under various scenarios, including the present course of growth versus directed, compact and efficient development. The report should consider impacts on the greater metropolitan region, including within it counties in which five percent or more of residents commute to employment in the present metropolitan legion or which are part of the metropolitan area as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area." This report fulfills the legislative mandate. It goes beyond the requirement, however, by identifying three growth options: 1) "CURRENT TREND," 2) "CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT" and 3) "GROWTH CENTERS." It describes and compares the options, and has information for evaluating them, such as their impact on metropolitan systems (sewers and transportation) and geographic portions of the region (such as the rural area or region's core). The Council intends to go Both the Concentrated Development and Growth Centers options beyond the legislative have the characteristics of a more "directed, compact and efficient mandate. In mid-1996, it development" option identified in the legislation. The Current will use this report to Trend option follows the present course of growth, which establish a preferred accommodates demand via a managed system. development plan for the Moreover, the Council intends to go beyond the legislative Twin Cities region. mandate. In mid-1996, it will use this report, and other information to be developed, to establish a preferred development plan for the Twin Cities region. The adopted plan will then The three options are become part of the Council's Regional Blueprint'. The Council conceptual in nature, but will put the new plan into effect through regional capital improvement programs, regional service delivery,•and through the reality based. They have local/regional comprehensive planning process. been prepared so the Council and others can test The three options are conceptual in nature, but reality based. and evaluate them. With more definition, they each could be implemented. Fundamentally, however, they have been prepared so that the Council and others may test and evaluate them. During the first half of 1996, the Council will bring the options to communities and the public for discussion and evaluation. Council staff are 5 r currently preparing: 1) the population, household and employment forecasts for cities and townships under each option; 111 2) more detailed analysis of the metro system (sewers, highways, etc.) needed to carry out each option and the costs of doing so; 3) recommendations for transit system redesign; 4) an analysis of the financial implications of growth; 5) a description of public tools necessary to carry out the options. Information in this report results from Council staff research and information gathered from 10 Metropolitan Council development tours and public meetings in all parts of the region as well as in the adjacent counties. I The Twin Cities Region: Forecasts for the Next Quarter Century More People 111 The Twin Cities area is forecast to grow by 650,000 people by The Twin Cities area is the year 2020, up from today's estimated population of 2.4 forecast to grow by 650,000 million. The anticipated 28 percent increase exceeds the region's II people by the year 2020. growth during the previous 25 years, when it grew by 575,000 people.' (See Figure 1) If the people making up the increased population all located in a new, imaginary county, it would be the second largest in population in the state and more than twice the population of Dakota County. As Twin Citians grow in number, ill the •walso Y getolder (due to the aging of the sizable number of"baby-boomers"--the large number of children born in the 20-year period after World War II), and more racially diverse. On the other hand, average household size (about 2.5) and average number of children in a family (2), both of which have been decreasing for decades, may be stabilising and probably won't change much in the years ahead.' 6 • 4 It Figure 1. Population, Household and Job Growth Based on Preliminary New Forecasts • III Thousands 700 640,000 650,000 II , 575000 >>>r < 600 : IN :.:...:.„:„:„.:,...„.:......, 500 mi:i:i}j: 11 380,000 400 :::::::.:::::::::::::::.:.::::::::.:$::,::::.: 367,000 lasmitit { .111 330,000 '<}:h., ><::: F } ps-%V'li -........._____-- ,_ ___,_ 2., C••4 }:' Aja O f E } ;>. . } f f A '---'!"1 } {• f { _ P! f am 0. <{:,, .::{: - - x t? :#><:: - K f f { -Y4• ,, f '.1:r...v:v4;*: 1111 _ ._ +f rig}:{F:::i•}' `G:iF ti};ry};:,�i.:•'.•::: 1970-1995 1995-2020 N U II U I ill . U 7 I Foundation For Future Development Current Land-Use Pattern A number of factors influence the region's growth pattern. Chief among them is the pattern of current development, occupying about 750 of the region's 3,000 square miles radiating out from two historic downtowns and home to about 2.4 million people. This existing pattern is served by an extensive infrastructure of highways, sewers, and other public and private utilities. As a result, it would take a long period of time to markedly change the current urban settlement pattern, should a decision be made to do so. • The land-use pattern of newer development has tended toward separated land uses. The pattern is very automobile oriented and expensive to serve with transportation. • Jobs tend to cluster. New clusters are locating farther out, expanding the area for attracting commuters from non-metro counties. • The urbanizing area (second and third ring suburbs, hie Eagan, Eden Prairie, Lakeville, Maple Grove and Woodbury) will continue to attract most of the new households. • Growth will increase in the rural area and contiguous counties.. Continued growth in the contiguous counties will effectively expand the "real" Twin Cities region. Other Key Factors 1111 In addition, a number of other key factors are shaping the form 110- of regional growth, including; • The natural environment(rivers, lakes, wetlands, forests) and Twin Citians' strong desire to protect and enjoy it. • Economic orientation is no longer only focused on the two P central cities. Emerging suburban concentrations, notably the I-494 strip, have grown in importance.,For future development planning the region can be looked at in three IP equal parts: Minneapolis/northwest, Minneapolis/southwest, and St. Paul and its environs. U • 11 p • The highway system and job location will continue to have major influence on the development pattern. For example, jobs in more outlying suburban locations make previously remote locations, or locations outside of the region, more accessible sites for housing. Those residents need other 11 infrastructure and its maintenance, police and fire protection— the elements of urbanization. • Fir2l reality, including the increasing costs to maintain infrastructure, less federal and state support, and tax policy that affects the location of development. • • Social issues, such as safety and school quality, which affect II the choices people make about where to live. p Three Development Options This report proposes how the region could accommodate Development Options: expected growth in three fundamentally different ways. They are envisioned as strikingly different with different underlying • Current Trend assumptions so that choices and policy options are clear'. In addition, it is hoped that this will aid in the analysis and • Concentrated development of other combinations or related options. (See Appendix Tables A and B.) Development The Blueprint calls for the orderly and economic development of • Growth Centers the region through the provision of regional services and the creation of a Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and a Rural Service Area. In addition, the Blueprint directs the region II and communities to explore the designation of long-term urban reserve land for potential urbanization over the next 50 years and in to preserve agricultural land. The three'development options address these requirements in different ways (See Figure 2). I • U 12 IV IIFigure 2. Growth Options itCurrent Trend jlrbnn ArPsa Rural Area �L Existing MUSH SA General Rural Use � 1111 (mix of farm. rural1111 MUSA Expansion estate and mral residential) ° a Pre-2020 Urban Expansion • �� •i >: , ---' : C (exact area to be determined Farm/Long-Term Agriculture / '� is local plans) -- ,ti • Rural Center AV-47V- �_ �', 47. Past-2020 Urban Reserve for y ' Future Urbanization '•-•`] .: ` ' I� �i4�y{.. � if .r�:. IF R f}V ( 8 �_. .Y - L-itastitia--::: "'w rt3sviitLiiiii.s,„?i%Htlgillisr_____111 1 Concentrated Development • • , .- : „2_,„...4„ ,,,-, ' ,::,„,„,,*„.:: :{:: .,...• __ Al a_ , 111 m Ai Fa L .,fie 'PTA iiail....*.. ., , d'AM1111211114M II -- t3 :'•a C ONEll A114 Mr aQ i .. , ,N 111 dFil 1! � : z�isql �r Growth Centers !!t ■ - . _ Iir...01 wig .... : ;:i•miggirzw- '90 :Flzi ,M:- - ......-:;:2i::::i;i::i;:::•W M ” a ,.M1- ._r• L :4 �...E ,,i:163,,.............,El &,.221ing I ... :.:„,„,:;:i4, :,,, _..„.._...:__.:,,,i1,,,i:.., sic— i� 111 NW.AN-0.- ag a,, :_, i!!!iI A ° . -� e ZZIrli.72 ILA Sui;:: ',7r.-11§1Ce-fit virr,:s-t tr. 4 e v 86 IP dammtimo testi_c EN IG•iii_aft.r,,,-..;.:..-,....,,,:::::-::::i k E . �� ♦ :' <` �` • , ------:, E � 0 ,., ii mccir II Metro Centers ff,„i-,,,,,,,:_,,,,,,,09 0 °it. 0 :. Intensified Mixed Use Centers = Aug ...„, �p,�^'^t Aga az IP ff New Mixed Use Centers d#7--milmr111MIE filimmii Corridors with Infill Nodes Elrigo IP NGrowth Centers on iillote:ustrative; actual designatiodesignatin will be mades in consultation with local governments. p p 13 p CURRENT TREND M This option assumes that accommodating housing market demand and.making public investments accordingly best assures the economic and social health of the region. Under it, housing, P Under this option: particularly single-family housing, is the major preferred land-use type and shaper of development (See Figure 3). p Single-family housing is the major preferred land-use It assumes demand for housing and jobs will be met through a and shaper of development. public strategy supporting the expansion of the urban area, and p that most new growth occurs in developing suburbs. The rural area would see increased demand for rural subdivisions and estate development—if this demand is accommodated it would limit 1/11 future urban expansion; the adjacent counties would have similar development pressure. New residential development density—the number of homes per acre—would be lower in the newly developed areas, based on current patterns and wetland protection practices, than what111 occurred in the urban growth areas of the 1970s and 1980s. During the next 25 years, new housing and businesses would locate at the contiguous edge of today's urban area, extending the concentric ring of suburban growth out from the region's center, . p much as in the past. The location of housing and jobs would occur in all sectors of Location of housing and the region following historic patterns and market demand (See P jobs follows historic Appendix Figures A, B, C and D). Growth would not be random patterns and market and haphazard. Instead, the development would be based on p demand. regional and local policies and planning that provide necessary regional and local ink. However, the infrastructure is provided in reaction to the housing market and, to a lesser degree, to the job market The MUSA would be expanded in stages based on local N comprehensive plans. Current economic incentives, such as tax policies and infrastructure financing, would not change much. Adjacent, rural land would be seen as land "on hold" in Rural land seen as land anticipation of the next phase of urban expansion, not as land "on hold" in anticipation envisioned for long-term rural use. The rural area's household of the next phase of urban growth rate would increase, and the area would see rural expansion. subdivisions and "rural estate" development, which competes with future suburbanization. Agricultural preservation would be limited to areas where agricultural uses are economically competitive with urban development Growth in the contiguous 12 counties to the region would largely follow current trends. • 14 IIII Figure 3. II Growth Option: Current Trend Development I =MOOD OAK 14:111. • 11:11113 ZACK 1 ANtoxit. ::-:.:::,F-117.17. =-:-..•:•.••1'.=:--2-2-7--.1.2 7221 77-77'4','7'-'7'77T COL111131311 tr..7....f;:6ar.''' I.2.'..75 - .4, ICAINTIZA ta.....;::1-, ,r`-...-:'''' L-17.7.77.a7-j, .4;.,:.]1••zz -_m• ..-74, 111 6..w :, ...,__:..1e....=_„, ,,_ .-•,.,,,,,,,....4.,1 ,,,• ••,_,,,,,-,.-=_‘ towri•-1,__:-„,,,,7 .._..._ fry• • ::::,::*. vt1,...-...„:..,:- NI , ••••,,,E.,......„ ,„_.....„.__:_.li t,,...•:.,..::...., wil .: 1. ---- -3-::: Att ... pns 1 _....,R,r-faii" .' - P.10, Tt#!e:fi it-iz,-;,,:.i , ,,rios:,,i,:,*„m,,ly,,,,Th., 44141'. ,..:01a.:ifts.,47, ,.,, .,::... .. ............ '-411....." nm ..- • - .. . ... - Aikt ,..::::.::igii:iiii:: II .... . _._ L... _."TT .:.• . .,...-._... l'#°......704tit„:::::.::-.. - ...„:„.. „,„,„,::: -------.....„---.„ , , .......‘101 . . ..„,,,,,-..r•• i„....,w k ::''II" - • -,..., . I WAVZ .. A ...w.:.:.:.:.:.:.:•:.:4.:.:•::::::::::::::•:.laws. ie •......:.:....:::.,:•:,?..§ ...........„.. . ::::.:•: .;.,„:.:,.„ 'Y'+''''''",' ............. „...7 ............. ............. ''''''' ''4.......::••••. •:••.......ZR MiiiEi : :•:•:: ::::•:t::.::::•:::•:•%•:,,Amr,...,,,.,,,.... ..., ,•,,,. .,:.,___714 ,%,,,,,.7:, „.:....i ....•.. :. wy., .s..1,..,.,:e::.. . L., •,i'., .A..:li. ' . :,:1:11117-7--'''--•=5:3'.'-', .:::;"-Lt-'-:.'.;-':7"--i .:RW:i§ii:iie::.if:**????:::.a *:*' :i:::::i:K:i*:: mi::..-.. :.........„..4.,.,........:::::. d - ,- .,..„_,,..,--_,:,,...440biiit6iiialii::•v•i:- .......,-mor..,:w. 1-.;;;.:,_::,:z:;,T.:,.,:i::.:::::K:immi.:,:iilii::: ----;.7.... , ........ -,-..-: ,--:_-_, - . ..1,„;_. :sziiiiiiima ?,cos‘:::miimini: . iin 0 _,•-•_-_. ::,.. :-.0 •_. Ns OI RCM 114,10t R.MOMS 11 POW? :::211X2X110/22::::::34.7;;C;1111111::: ..'=:''.'7:',•,, ,. --T-L;4...':.---:71).7. a•OP !rfre.f.•::,!!:•!:•!::::.SPIMil tililir:::-•••••••••131:if _ r.-i::. • 4• 4C.:-:TY-.- •:iiiii.:":::.::.&-.'4 ::•:.:::...:Cs..........,, :Z.:;*::::::::::,, As...;•10 ,.... :f , . ' ''' .' -••45'':::.•::Mi:...',,,::::MSiti:i*iMK::MO.:,.....::::ili*i:i0::KC ...:Vg:;a:§: *•::iii:g::,i,:.• "'i*: •:::::,.:•ai, _ JT,--,.]:, ',--,' :•:•••::::::::::••••• '::::::::,::::::::,:::,::%::.:,.:.:.:.:...:.:•:.:•:.:.;:i:.::1::::0KM:*. *„.•,•,....- •••• ,---a--........ %, 5.h., . .... •••••........_ ,.,.:,..,.::::.„, 4 ::::1,1 ,.• ...., ._•,...--w.•::::::.:::::.*•:::i:::::::::•:::::::::::::: . . :-..,4 j--.. '2"':::::*::::E:,•:*:•::*::::::::::::' ::-::i:1:;-,:K:::K:K::%:::::::::::1;i::::&:::%.:.-IggagA 0, ' •• ‘N. `•:•:•::'''''''----..1.••"`•- •.--''' '''''-''"::::::"•-•:"417Akiii :: ..*ft::':i::*::•Mi::*:r':::•:•-.:.::•:•:"'7.•.*:.v............,.....4..;...X.:-,2.......... ... -:::'*: -'•'-'''''. •.... rfr..." ""' -." ::-;; .,- ---4.. ;iiiiMibe Eggigii.11 i]:MidiiitlaNi :*aganii --,.'j:::::iiiiiii;: NIN,. , :::acessioarr , ..... s*::::::*::::::i.$:.::4:.:0*.,:::: • .;*:::;*::::::,*;::::::::::::.:i,t,i,,,,• .• rfi.: . --. ,. .. ,,,.. 1- ... .. -v•--'-'•-..--:.-. ..'':'--,..:•.._ 1.;,_...'''':*::::iM.:....:.: •• " 4.:.:, ••••••,VGIehtw:S.:•:':••'.,' • :'," CA - ... — ' -'-"T" ':' .1- ::i*::ii::K:ii::L:: ,-:..i5, tiJliIf TE'.‘'i' '..:1:4K -:;-- L -. ..'''" '----::- : ... ::::*:•:":-...;.::iiiiiiii II fit„...4:1• .._..• .::... ......... -- .:,____,,„ .L_ ,,,,,_•_. .,...„..„ .::;:-...::?.....""___---•••;;„•:,.:,.::::i.:::§:-.......:. ,..:4,0•Ai.§: i...:,,,•:!.::•••••_•....,.:.•_„...:.,„,„:,_oh_: .... ..: :.:§:K:i:i:::i:§ Kt*:-:K:::::',..?..--.:-:-::,--!:::.eii:- .14---''.--'----77-:-Y-,'---- - i ...-- - . .._.....,...„.... „iit,i.,...,,.."., „, _: eiR: %WO •• 1:101414111411 I ” .::1K:Rik*K::41. •,ft.: ,.. _•,,,,,•,,____..t ..'T joznytzzig ','4[-2•7 '- -"2:,2-: .g.ft..*:Mii:::i,i:iN 1:2,,',••• ,;.r.-'r, elaggiU" 4-•.4. - -' ''•-...-"Aiiiiila.'-'-' ''', . a.L414.,;:k:3112ii Zwuvinara il -• - moutrasest: luxe= ledt LI= '',50:::7".,......,.:.....-7'.7•• . ill ::::::::::: •. :.......... ....., . ....too. .. F.,,t.,ifc,,,,,f.._•.„,:z.,,i;-:::t)•.,,,,t. ..,..., ill / ....... .... . _ :1,J1911111ICA: ..,, ,..., * VII Ili - ..... .... .L22:!--.T...,j1't,;77 S CO I I .... 1111V8 KAATIT 'Ark°. in.....,. N ..m„ p ::: as 'VW :::ssoizza•::.....0 *.. xsys 4*Atiiii ...i 111:11,331.11 =.117X/CIF .* VV MAINZ LANS XABEITOX Nrsirmas =ate 1 „FA . . ,, • •:ii:::L..i::.], NSW SIIN11e1C LOWNIA4X-- laiII1101..! I 0 I 10 I 20 30 I Miles Existing MUSA Rural Area MUSA Expansion General Rural Use Ul Erig-9 Urban Expansion and Urban Reserve 2020 Farm/Long-Term Ag. = Post 2020 Urban Reserve . Rural Center it ill 15 ow p CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT • This option assumes that increasing the density of jobs and Under this Option: housing in the core of the region best assures the health of the region. In addition, it assumes that holding the line on the urban MUSA line not expanded service area will build a market for redevelopment and until after 2020 in effort to reinvestment in the MUSA, and bring some economies to the provision of sewers and transportation (See Figure 4). • build a market for redevelopment and Further, the demand for housing and jobs will be met by reinvestment increasing the density in the MUSA area, and local planning and /11, zoning will be changed to allow more density. Density would be accomplished by construction of more townhouses or other forms • of attached single-family housing. Little growth would occur in the rural area. Agricultural areas would be preserved. (See Appendix Figures A, B, C and D) • The MUSA would not be expanded before the year 2020. That means no new infrastructure would be built in what is currently designated as rural area during the next 25 years. The emphasis is on full use of existing infrastructure. Maintenance and rehabilitation of facilities would be a priority. Housing and businesses would locate in undeveloped parts of the Over time, overall density MUSA at the fringe, in vacant sites in the already developed part of the urban part of the of the region skipped over in the initial wave of development, at region increases. locations made available through redevelopment, or by intensifying uses on already developed land. Over time the overall density of the urban part of the region would increase. Competition for available land would increase. Existing structures would become more valuable and experience rehabilitation and improved maintenance. Also, land values within the urban service area would probably increase because no service area expansion would be allowed until after 2020. The rural area would see very limited growth under stronger agricultural preservation and general rural policies and controls. Protection of natural resources would be a priority in making land-use decisions. With reduced land options and increasing value in the urban area, more development would probably locate outside the seven county area, unless statewide land-use planning is put in place. • 16 1 ILi Figure 4. Growth Option: Concentrated Development IT. ._01s > MITI IL =WOOD LA ST = 0w1: 211/P210. I =OK AlkT0)11EA /11 . ....... ■cw■s c0?. er., .,.: LAxi =IN t • .:::.....-.::: :...:.."Mi.:. H Qat [II hill ' ' Illigtail':: 4 Li' I 10011 41 NATSAXM.,... tiovw::iiiiii§:.::52::-:::::.::::::::;..',......,_.- , • .w- t.. . MAY ... ...............:: ..:.:. :.. �LII � �` I 1:31' \ \i:::•i:..:i \ 'A 7a (OA.414 aee TM ir66z itkM :::..:i5ireopti mig.:": 4 ,.. I .-"--::. 49.. ,,„:,:,...::..,,:mg -1.1. A onitiZ w641,al, iiisa ■oatxw ...0 YasEls.',`•;xi; - - �E - Ng h•: 0... f.:: Raw e4r '.' e :soar EIVII ..... ......... .. .. ... } .. w 1 L , m!.'1.1%, oC' : . :•}:'«•• r•.k: •••• +• ........:.: {'' •• -• ...: ill* a 81110211a,.x 4:} ,v} ; : .rn.v • j ::•::::,,x:•41- • : :. . ..:: .02001 MIAMI w y ; r.. i.... y;; --. ;.-. ::}:•:}:v::.}+:v.,▪F▪vn•..4: }}. ^. i:'i::;�: i:} r : r.MAW'.soarx•x, : ,. :00:::,.:::::k::v : -- K }tk!�3 :fir< : :; :; :: . . p ' - te• • : r •if AMR ;:::ywaarba■: :jj: ... ...:... ?••l�rw1 . � : ; ri : , :I 1111111 .: mum , • }:. .. ... - ...:......,... . tri•:{i;:;:::iii:?.'th:�:•w•:. '.SSG•}:.:.' aooac aua "070#1/6SilM44.4 ' '......''''& �:;xys ty; :: y II .... :lak.:.. H./. 111102201,: r r M.:••:1::::.:::.:.:*. IWO= MN sum coma :::i::::' ::::avis: • - x awcs max ' I ...... , xwasaa:: :.{.}.. :: N a saw ssw *WOEws..... sssr oa:: 141X=i1il all!ti tp sA C20ws xt r ::: felliug . rxlctas -=s Mitalilir aw■vras amarasa NSW sawsss ::4 rauxL=•'• I0 10 20 30 ..47,0024.2i I Miles I Existing MUSA General Rural Use I MUSA Expansion Farm/Long-Term Ag. Post 2020 Urban Reserve Rural Center I S17 p GROWTH CENTERS 1111 This option encourages the development of mixed-use centers. It Under this option: channels a major portion of the region's job growth into designated centers, adds medium-to-higher density housing, and II Mixed-use centers promotes a transit- and pedestrian-friendly development pattern developed. within the center. This option assumes land uses in growth centers can be U influenced by transit services and that the region and local Region & locals make decision makers can make a long-term commitment to focus on a long-term commitment to limited number of existing and potential mixed-use growth limited number of centers. centers (See Figure 5). The option builds on existing job concentrations with an emphasis on potential for mixed-use development (See Figure 6). U «+a Centers would become reinvestment and redevelopment sites. Half of the region's job In newly developing areas a growth center is a way to shape growth and 17 percent development and dampen pressure to expand the MUSA line. household growth locates About half of the region's job growth and 17 percent of its in centers. household growth would locate in growth centers. It assumes the two downtowns, the core area and existing job locations would see job growth. The centers, or nodes, could be connected to transportation corridors. The centers would be home to a variety of businesses, commercial establishments, services, entertainment and medium- to-higher-density housing, such as townhouses and garden apartments. They would have a diversity of housing types, costs and sizes to accommodate the changing age and household structure of the region's population, incluiing owner/rental, single-family/multifamily, and market rate/affordable/ subsidized. The region has about four dozen existing job concentrations with over 3,000 jobs and job density over 10 (jobs/acre). Over a dozen have potential for expansion as or change into mixed use centers (See Figure 6 and Appendix Tables C and D). Some parts of the MUSA would be expanded, particularly Demand at the urban around growth centers, but the assumption is that demand at the fringe dampened somewhat urban fringe would be dampened somewhat by channeling a by channeling a portion of portion of the jobs and households into growth centers. Over time the job and household the growth centers, plus other infill development, could increase growthb into centers. the overall density of the built up part of the region, but more gradually than in the Concentrated Development option. (See Appendix Figures A, B, C and D) Rural area growth would be confined to rural centers and Freestanding Growth Centers, with some areas designated as "urban reserves" for after 2020. Limited estate development would be clustered so over the longer term it would be compatible with a MUSA expansion. Growth in adjacent counties could also be encouraged to locate in growth centers. 18 . I II . Figure 5. Growth Option: • II Growth Centers y..- .7. ....... I =WS OAZ OZAV‘ SAST •71131• ,, . effAV-7'4,„ .49, ii 1 MEW#0711,,,r III " i;_,...7::::-„i„lwvt,1,:„_„,4•,,„i,,::: couriarn T isr..1.. ...41._. 7.---- ,...1f,::, ::.:,,,,,,11::: 3•111 P giii...... ,,:'. f7-- T-4--- t.,4 a1 ii....;:r24...; :- .1 kTT,77,j al— F--= ,..,.. ..,,,.. 4 .:_,.,•,,,m , ., .,. „,,,,.i,,,. ,_,.....:.,;.„, . . •-::::::::::vil. R7,,.. ,.,... _. im, -, lioiii?.; CA r•-•,.3;FJr.Q,,k-4 's:' -':- . ....._ . ips*,A L.77:2 A 1130OZAIT• [,-%'-'- '-' . . Mg%, le \MN i taa.c-ml p1.01. Ws, • • - laara:ZAZTD 7:777 '7CiPttfr- -r':577 1411:4 4::, 1 • .• .... ... ,•••_._-__-,,t,---- __A 714 A i rti N4044.El".7---Alw. . TZZ ..:11 sj 1 04 . 2iiraria 411(74"''1:411- 'L4 ilk"• , _ -_ :1' 'all--. .'a Nkty..,= III'a.riemp miiiio.. —-„L—y,q ...-: - im::-: .. wc!.;.:-:,:tq. 111 iii 7!•. ._avec ''F:."": -.7- 2-71--Nr,,,t-ti:7,71::_lf"-,,,F+771$2Iilli'r"71,31.-, riiiii ill N '-tT iT44 ... ;:- iCi -Alt ..,,.., ... PL::.;«::«7.1:-: ;...T-lcia•« -V 0:1 .4*.m. 1S1 r4_,* .::::N::::*:::'6-4,-:W Ar.11.411/Z11 PRIM 111 ...-mo . n. .. i........ _.,,,„..-*!....-- ma m _A :,.4.,11 ..,iiiiiiii:''''::: gg ............ ., v:::•..:....:;.-'i "W' ;=0.%'6 Aaive-7-i---t,-._..i.,-,,-til. i: ::-t.::::;:;r;::;:;:;:;:aim 8 ,„_.„..,,.. .., in\ , _: 26 4.....•.7: ;4 .„..r..!.t,!:,. • .........k.;.;.7........7 ;.:,., - 7,4t':',A' ::E11,1 77,7:7' ,1 :::610120IXT '1111111 11111' III manor .. ..".'. .r'.7'''•.'3'm -'; 4111,4.::-...;!_t_.7..::-...F::.',,,,,:.- ,,,,,,,..v•---',' itt::!•°:!!.:' . V7.:...; ,_. . ,:2,,,,, C.'''•1! :.Ei. :-,11 .::"'-'- ------ -1 ..,:•:•:.......:t:•:•:•:•:, 4 0 - -s-,,om%::''' 4 ft.A.,... ., .:.1 - 'r MEt , • -, V.P:---7777.--177-t.,... ....7...7-:,:.-- rig, _;--.,-;,-. . y.--- . . :10=:A..... =sows'-'1:: • ;;; s a ,,...-.7.7.1 II MUMMY:: :EfEr,,,,417...4, ......,=== ,.?..1 .1 .... EIZMailL;2: ""''''' *...waaw, '''''''• . --- ..-' 'net :ZZAZOISCCV .411 bilifgkEE'.• 4 / A. . - 4Aur- . , __-:,--, ,,,-- sco 1 i - '''''LI ' ...or:: kil ...-, Nlif f!! 10. ItZte:•• L,_.. .0i. MINTAF:-• 01 JA iZLIAZ MAUI' ZZLZZA FR OZDA1 :::ft :.. LAX Z MOW ZOO* VAIlt :3•ZiSZ • *:. ••.• ... A441.5!*KVAi 3A I 0 10 20 30 woolost I I I I Miles .. 1111 NIN Existing MUSA 11 1 ,_.-,: 0 Metro Centers - , Urban Expansion 0 Intensified Mixed Use Centers , and Urban Reserve 2020 0 New Mixed Use Centers M Post 2020 UA A Corridors with Infill Nodes Urban Reserve Rural Area 11 Note: Growth Centers designation is illustrative; actual designatiFarm/Long-Term Ag. on will be made in consultation with local governments. • Rural Centers I 19 SCOTT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COURTHOUSE 109 . jeirni 428 HOLMES STREET SOUTH SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1382 (612)496-8100 RALPH T.MALZ, DISTRRcr 1 Fax: (612)496-8180 WILMA E. BERM, DISTRICT'2 ART BANNERMAN, DISTRICT 3 DICK UNDERFERTH,DISTRICT s ED MACKIE, DISTRICT s July 25, 1996 Curt Johnson, Chair Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 • Dear Mr. Johnson: Scott County and the undersigned cities in the County have prepared these comments on the Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. While we cannot endorse any specific growth option at this time, we hope the concerns/issues raised by our comments are considered in the Council's deliberations. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need additional information. Sincerely, Ralph Malz, Chair Gerry Meyer, Mayor Ron Jabs, Mayor Scott County City of Belle Plaine City of Jordan Board of Commissioners Lydia Andren, Mayor Rob Fendler, Mayor Jeff M. Henderson, Mayor City of Prior Lake City of Savage City of Shakopee BJUjkf word\misc\growth An Equal Opportunity/Safery Aware Employer • Comments on the Growth Options for the Twin City Metropolitan Area Page t of 2 GENERAL COMMENTS • The 7-County Metropolitan area has one of the highest standards of living in the country. The area is recognized as a desirable place to live. With those attributes comes the enormous complexityand difficulty in dealing with growth and its related issues. We recognize that unless something is done soon, these problems will only increase. Scott County, and the municipalities within the County, recognize this and applaud the undertaking of long range planning for growth. We support the attempt to develop a responsible regional growth plan incorporating the livable communities concept which all local governments can support and work within. We further believe that the legislature needs to take an active and aggressive role in the development in the surrounding counties, both in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and in providing appropriate funding to implement the growth plan. However, the Metropolitan Council, in collaboration with local governments, needs to clearly identify and define the issues and problems being found in this undertaking. • One of those is the overriding concern that no matter what growth scenario the Metropolitan Council selects, it may not and perhaps cannot, address the issue of existing and "leapfrog" development. Another is that all three options show the townships in Scott County as long term agricultural (40 acres), rural service areas (10 acres), and urban reserve (40 acres). This is of great concern to Scott County, especially in light of the past three year's effort in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council to develop a new comprehensive plan. The plan was approved by the Council less than one year ago in November of 1995. The options are inconsistent with the County plan and contradict the collaborative efforts of the Council, County, Townships and Cities in establishing land uses and densities, especially adjacent to the cities. • • The selected growth option must also take into consideration market forces. Consumers likely will go wherever they choose as long as they can afford the cost and can move about with relative ease. This will happen no matter what planning forces are implemented by any level of government. Therefore, the plan should strive for flexibility, both for the consumer and for local government. However, for the Metropolitan Council to provide this general guidance, local governments and property owners/developers must be aware of and take responsibility for the impact of their decisions. Finally, the selected option cannot be a "one-size fits all" policy but one that has flexibility to provide overall regional guidance, yet accommodate the uniqueness and past development practices associated with the various areas of the region. • word'vnisc\growth Comments on the Growth Options for the Twin City Metropolitan Area • Page 2 of 2 • The option selected should have the MUSA line expanded and guaranteed at least for a 20 year future horizon. Initiation of MUSA expansions and other specific land use decisions should be made at the County and City level. • The concept of urban preserves should be taken into account in future plans. This is already an issue in Scott County and its Townships, and will become a major issue to the cities in the future. • We support the redevelopment of the urban core. This must be a regional effort and responsibility. However, the redevelopment should not take place at the expense or detriment of any particular area of the region. • The real issue that needs to be addressed appears to be financial. Therefore, the solutions needs to be financial solutions. The concept of an impact fee should be explored. This would mean that those who choose to live in the developing area pay in advance appropriate costs that would ultimately be required to provide urban services. We support a fair distribution of the regional costs associated with new development. Again, it is imperative that the Legislature provide the tools to local governments to support local and regional infrastructure. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC GROWTH OPTIONS: • The "Concentrated Development" option is not an option in Scott County. The County is on the developing edge and any effort to artificially prevent logical* and planned growth will not be successful. • The "Growth Centers" option as currently presented fails to recognize the existing development in Scott County. Overall, the concept of this option has potential merit. However, until this option can be better defined, Scott County cannot adequately review or support it. One specific area that would need to be addressed is the definition of what is a "growth center" and the process in which a "growth center" is established. The present scenario has no "growth centers" in Scott County. • The "Current Trend" option should be, if truly representing the current development trend, acceptable to Scott County in light of its recently approved Comprehensive Plan. However, the details of this option certainly do not fully address the concerns faced by Scott County and is in apparent conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. word\misc\growth TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jeff Henderson presiding WORKSESSION: 1] Roll Call at 4:00 P.M. 2] Approve minutes of August 13 and 27, 1996 3] ADC Communications request for tax increment financing 4] 1997 Budget continued from August 27, 1996 (bring budget materials from previous meetings) 5] Discussion - Metropolitan Council - growth options 6] Adjourn ADJOURNED REGULAR SESSION: 1] Roll Call following the worksession 2] Res. No. 4507, Cancelling Debt Service Levies for 1996/1997 3] Res. No. 4508, Setting Proposed Maximum 1996 Tax Levy, Collectible in 1997 4] Other Business 5] Adjourn to Tuesday, September 17, 1996 at 7:00 P.M. •SCOTT COUNTY S BOARD OF COMtiIISSIONERS COURTHOUSE 109 428 HOLMES STREET SOUTH SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1382 (612) 496-8100 RALPH T. MALZ, DISTRICT I Fax: (612) 496-8180 WII.MA E. BERM, DISTRICT y ART BAuNNERMAN, DISTRICT 3 DICK UNDERFERTH, DISTRICr4 ED MACKIE, DISTRICT s July 25, 1996 Curt Johnson, Chair Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 Dear Mr. Johnson: Scott County and the undersigned cities in the County have prepared these comments on the Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. While we cannot endorse any specific growth option at this time, we hope the concerns/issues raised by our comments are considered in the Council's deliberations. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need additional information. Sincerely, Ralph Malz, Chair Gerry Meyer, Mayor Ron Jabs, Mayor Scott County City of Belle Plaine City of Jordan Board of Commissioners Lydia Andren, Mayor Rob Fendler, Mayor Jeff M. Henderson, Mayor City of Prior Lake City of Savage City of Shakopee BJL/jkf word\rnisc\f;rn,. th Art Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer • • • Comments on the Growth Options for the Twin City Metropolitan Area Page t of 2 GENERAL COMMENTS • The 7-County Metropolitan area has one of the highest standards of living in the country. The area is recognized as a desirable place to live. With those attributes comes the enormous complexity and difficulty in dealing with growth and its related issues. We recognize that unless something is done soon, these problems will only increase. Scott County, and the municipalities within the County, recognize this and applaud the undertaking of long range planning for growth. We support the attempt to develop a responsible regional growth plan incorporating the livable communities concept which all local governments can support and work within. We further believe that the legislature needs to take an active and aggressive role in the development in the surrounding counties, both in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and in providing appropriate funding to implement the growth plan. However, the Metropolitan Council, in collaboration with local governments, needs to clearly identify and define the issues and problems being found in this undertaking. • One of those is the overriding concern that no matter what growth scenario the Metropolitan Council selects, it may not and perhaps cannot, address the issue of existing and "leapfrog" development. Another is that all three options show the townships in Scott County as long term agricultural (40 acres), rural service areas (10 acres), and urban reserve (40 acres). This is of great concern to Scott County, especially in light of the past three year's effort in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council to develop a new comprehensive plan. The plan was approved by the Council less than one year ago in November of 1995. The options are inconsistent with the County plan and contradict the collaborative efforts of the Council, County, Townships and Cities in establishing land uses and densities, especially adjacent to the cities. • • The selected growth option must also take into consideration market forces. Consumers likely will go wherever they choose as long as they can afford the cost and can move about with relative ease. This will happen no matter what planning forces are implemented by any level of government. Therefore, the plan should strive for flexibility, both for the consumer and for local government. However, for the Metropolitan Council to provide this general guidance, local governments and property owners/developers must be aware of and take responsibility for the impact of their decisions. Finally, the selected option cannot be a "one-size fits all" policy but one that has flexibility to provide overall regional guidance, yet accommodate the uniqueness and past development practices associated with the various areas of the region. • word\rnisc\growth • • • Comments on the Growth Options for the Twin City Metropolitan Area • Page 2 of 2 • The option selected should have the MUSA line expanded and guaranteed at least for a 20 year future horizon. Initiation of MUSA expansions and other specific land use decisions should be made at the County and City level. • The concept of urban preserves should be taken into account in future plans. This is already an issue in Scott County and its Townships, and will become a major issue to the cities in the future. • We support the redevelopment of the urban core. This must be a regional effort and responsibility. However, the redevelopment should not take place at the expense or detriment of any particular area of the region. • The real issue that needs to be addressed appears to be financial. Therefore, the solutions needs to be financial solutions. The concept of an impact fee should be explored. This would mean that those who choose to live in the developing area pay in advance appropriate costs that would ultimately be required to provide urban services. We support a fair distribution of the regional costs associated with new development. Again, it is imperative that the Legislature provide the tools to local governments to support local and regional infrastructure. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC GROWTH OPTIONS: • The "Concentrated Development" option is not an option in Scott County. The County is on the developing edge and any effort to artificially prevent logical and planned growth will not be successful. + The "Growth Centers" option as currently presented fails to recognize the existing development in Scott County. Overall, the concept of this option has potential merit. However, until this option can be better defined, Scott County cannot adequately review or support it. One specific area that would need to be addressed is the definition of what is a "growth center" and the process in which a "growth center" is established. The present scenario has no "growth centers" in Scott County. • The "Current Trend" option should be, if truly representing the current development trend, acceptable to Scott County in light of its recently approved Comprehensive Plan. However, the details of this option certainly do not fully address the concerns faced by Scott County and is in apparent conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. word\miscgrowth C d- City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Canceling Debt Service Levies For 1996/97 DATE: September 5, 1996 Introduction Resolution No. 4507 cancels debt service levies and transfers funds from the General Fund in lieu of the levies. Background Attached is Resolution No. 4507 canceling debt service levies for taxes payable in 1997 and making an irrevocable transfer from the General Fund to various debt service funds in 1996 in lieu of the 1996/97 debt service levy. This is the same course of action Council took last year. The actual tax levy for the transferred amount would be made as a General Fund tax levy for pay 1997 to replace the funds transferred out of the general fund in 1996 . The General Fund budget would show a surplus in 1997 to the extent that the "debt service levy" would be greater that the actual General Fund 1997 Budget deficit . Alternatives 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 4507 . 2 . Levy taxes as debt service levy for 1996/97 as opposed to general fund levy. Recommendation Alternative number 1. Action Offer Resolution No. 4507 A Resolution Canceling Debt Service Levies For 1996/97, and move its adoption. Gregg Voxland Finance Director n:\budget\budres97 RESOLUTION NO. 4507 A RESOLUTION CANCELING DEBT SERVICE LEVIES FOR 1996/97 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the following debt service levies are canceled: 1990A Improvement Bonds $134, 340 1991A Improvement Bonds 41, 018 1992A Improvement Bonds 26, 723 1993B Improvement Bonds 21,410 1995A Improvement Bonds 65, 943 1995B G.O. Revenue Bonds 156, 219 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following irrevocable transfers are made from the General Fund to the respective debt service funds in 1996 : 1991A Improvement Bonds 41, 018 1993B Improvement Bonds 21,410 1995A Improvement Bonds 65, 943 1996A Improvement Bonds 65, 000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy to this resolution to the County Auditor of Scott County, Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1996 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee o• ATTEST: City Clerk ,3 City of Shakopee .Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1997 Proposed Tax Levy and Budget Resolution DATE: September 5, 1996 Introduction Attached is Resolution Number 4508 which sets the maximum proposed 1996/97 tax levy. Time frames The existing law requires that Shakopee certify a proposed budget, budget hearing date and proposed maximum tax levy to the county by September 15 . The City has to publish notice and hold a public hearing, adopt the final tax levy and adopt the budget a later hearing, and then certify the final levy to the county by December 27, 1996 . Tax Levy The proposed maximum tax levy for 1996/97 is a General Fund levy of $2, 951, 742 (including a debt service levy of $193, 371) and a transit levy of $293, 308 . The levy last year was $2, 805, 925 including $242, 654 for debt service and no local levy for transit . The increase in the gross levy is $166,400 or 6 . 0%. The decision to reduce the levy can be made at a later date because it is the maximum proposed levy being adopted now. General Fund Budget The Council is required to certify a proposed budget to the County Auditor by September 15th. Council may change the amount up or down for the final budget. The resolution includes the General Fund Budget total proposed amount of $6, 348, 870 . The budget is not fixed. The Recreation Department budget is part an enterprise fund and can be changed at any time. Alternatives 1. Adopt resolution as drafted. 2 . Increase or decrease amounts for tax levy or budget in the resolution. 3 . Table to a date before 9/13/96 . Action Offer Resolution Number 4508, A Resolution Setting Proposed Maximum 1996 Tax Levy, Collectable In 1997, and move its adoption. I,, Gregg Voxland Finance Director , n:\budget\budres97 RESOLUTION NO. 4508 A RESOLUTION SETTING PROPOSED MAXIMUM 1996 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 1997 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the following amounts be levied as the proposed maximum tax levy in accordance with existing law for the current year upon the taxable property in the City of Shakopee; General Levy (net of HACA) $2, 951, 742 Debt Service - Fire Referendum $ 295, 115 Local Option Transit Levy (net of HACA) $ 293, 309 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proposed appropriations for the General Fund Budget for 1997 is $6, 348, 870 . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the public hearing for the tax levy is December 4, 1996 with the continuation date of December 16, 1996 . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy to this resolution to the County Auditor of Scott County, Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1996 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk