HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/1981 f TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. SESSION/ SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 10, 1981
Mayor Harbck residing
1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2 ] Old Business (from 2/3/81 Council Agenda)
a ] Proposed Ordinance on Chemical Storage - Discussion (bring
2/3/81 agenda item 9c materials)
b] Change Order No . 1 , Holmes Street Improvement (80-3) (attached)
c ] Contracted Planning Services (bring 2/3/81 agenda item 9f memo)
d] Liaison Appointments (bring memo handed out 1/27/81)
e ] Vacation Policy (bring 2/3/81 agenda item 10d memo)
3] New Business :
a] Letter to Met Council from Tim Keane regarding Comp Plan
review (attached)
b] Tom Brownell would like two Council people to work with him
on the propane conversion specs - Eldon & John have been
contacted
c ] Resolution No . 1792 , Declaring Cost to be Assessed, Ordering
Preparation of Proposed Assessment & Setting Public Hearing
- 81-1 V. I . P . Sewer Interceptor
d ] Bill from Bang Transfer and Storage (City Admr . moving expense)
e ] Work Session memo from City Admr. regarding Council meetings ,
agendas , procedures , discussions , etc . and related items
4] Other Business :
a]
b]
c ]
5 ] Adjourn to Tuesday, February 17 , 1981 at 5 : 00 P. M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
MEMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE : Reconstruction of Holmes Street
DATE : February 5 , 1981
Introduction :
Attached is Change Order No. 1 for the Holmes Street
Reconstruction Project . Detailed herein are the specific
reasons for altering the quantities and the scope of the
above-referenced project .
Background :
Holmes Street Project was bid June 10 , 1980 . The low bid
was $ 935, 143 . 70 from Barbarossa & Sons , Inc .
The work consisted of approximately 2850 linear feet of
roadway construction, 3040 linear feet of trunk storm sewer,
1900 linear feet of sanitary sewer reconstruction and 2660
linear feet of watermain construction to serve the elderly
highrise at 200 Levee Drive.
The work was performed in one of the oldest parts of
Shakopee and, consequently, there were a number of unknowns buried
under the street . These unknowns were not discovered until
construction commenced.
The contract contains unit prices for each work activity
anticipated . There were several work activities not anticipated
and in order to pay for these work activities , it is necessary
to approve acceptable unit prices .
There were four types of construction : watermain, sanitary
sewer, storm sewer and roadway .
1) Watermain: There was more lowering than originally
anticipated . That lowering included 258 additional
linear feet of 6 inch pipe, 439 linear feet of 8
inch pipe and 128 linear feet of 12 inch pipe.
John Anderson -2- February 5 , 1981
O" �
Additional work consisted of additional fire
hydrant replacement and service line replacement .
Two fire hydrants were replaced at the request of
the Utility Manager. There were 25 service lines
reconnected; 15 of those services were reconnected
as a result of lowering the existing watermain so
much that there was insufficient slack to reconnect
the service . The balance were replaced because the
storm sewer cut the plane of the service line and
there was insufficient slack to depress the service
line under the storm sewer and still accommodate
clearance and insulation. The two sketches below
illustrate that specific problem.
vetArER1v( to, ATE2d4 AN
abh
ist;" OUS •
SHORT 5YoM SE\Eg,
LowER, IAC& CUTS PLANE OF
�1 I TE CZ e 11J �J�iz 1C L.��l�
The total increase in watermain cost amounted to
$22 , 073. 00 for a total $92 ,573 . 00.
2) Sanitary Sewer : These costs increased as a result
of discovering services . This amounted to $16 , 530 . 00 .
A grade conflict on 2nd Avenue required relaying of
the sanitary sewer added approximately $14 ,000 . 00.
The total increase in quantities for sanitary sewer
was $32,217 . 00 bringing the total sanitary sewer cost
to $142, 082. 00.
3) Storm Sewer : The storm sewer had an under-run of
$6332 . 00, as a result of quantity under-runs .
Railing must be added to the outlet facility and
that will cost approximately $3 , 000. 00 partially
balancing the under-run. The total storm sewer cost
is estimated to be $474, 656. 00 .
4 ) Roadway : In a special meeting, October 2, 1980, City
Council moved to replace the street from curb to curb
including approaches on Fuller Street from 1st to 2nd
with the cost to come out of the tax increment project ,
where available or from the General Fund/Contingency
Fund and that a "Stop Work" order be issued on street
work in progress on Fuller.
John Anderson -3- February 5 , 1981 J,
The understanding of the Engineering Department
October 3, 1980 , was that Fuller Street be replaced
curb to curb from Bluff Avenue to 2nd Avenue and that
is exactly what work was performed. It is estimated
that work costs a total $31,011 . 30 . Approximately
half of that cost allocated to Fuller north of 1st
Avenue and the other half to Fuller south of 1st
Avenue . There was approximately $9,632 . 00 of patching
that was not performed, therefore , the true cost
of paving Fuller between Bluff and 2nd Avenue was
$21, 379. 30 or 810,689 . 65 for Fuller Street each side
of 1st Avenue.
Change Order No. 1 has the effect of reducing paving
cost by $11,042 . 00 because the paving on Fuller Street
is paid as wear course and binder course rather than
as patching as originally proposed . In other words ,
that ' s saying that if Change Order No . 1 is not
accepted, the cost of paving Fuller Street would be
$11,042. 00 more , for a total of $32 ,421 . 30. The
balance of increases on roadway costs are the result
of approximately 3 . 6 percent change in estimated
quantities .
There is remaining work but the quantities are well
established at this time . Since the remaining work
is paving, the estimated total roadway cost will be
$313 . 922. 70 .
The revised total project cost will be $1,023 ,233. 70 . The
amount in Change Order No. 1 will appear to be less , simply
because some of the quantities need not be altered by Change Order
No. 1. The amount in Change Order No. 1 is $67 , 021. 00.
Fiscal Impact :
The table below details the fiscal impact of the Holmes
Street Project , including Change Order No. 1.
Project Costs
Estimated Actual
Roadway $ 323 , 165 . 00 $ 313 ,922 . 70
Watermain 86 ,955 . 00 92 ,573 . 00
Sanitary Sewer 78 , 240 . 00 142,082 . 00
Storm Sewer 415 ,540 . 00 474 ,656 . 00
Subtotal $ 903 , 900. 00 $1,023 ,233 . 70
Technical Services 186,200 . 00 111,335 . 01
TOTAL $1,090 , 100 . 00 $1, 134,568. 71
John Anderson -4- February 5 , 1981p4/
Revenue
Estimated3 Actual4
Highrise Tax Increment $ 100 ,000. 00 $ 99 ,639. 46
Municipal State Aid 300 ,000 . 00 466 ,546. 11
Sewer Fund 99, 340 . 00 128 ,738 . 25
Assessed 270 , 000. 005 298, 717 . 266
SPUC 12 ,000. 00 33 ,941. 60
City Levy 308 ,700 . 00 106 ,986 . 03
TOTAL $1,090 , 100. 00 $1, 134, 568 . 71
IEstimated cost of work contemplated in March 1980 .
2Actual cost of all work including the balance of 1981 paving and
restoration. This amount includes Change Order No. 1 and some
work not contemplated in March, 1980 , but included in the final
project and offset by additional MSA participation.
3Except for footnote 5 , the items here are detailed in the offering
statement for the bond sale.
4Revenues reflect actual project cost , contributions or assessments .
5This amount is the amount accepted by the Utilities Manager
as being the amount approved by SPUC .
6This amount is the amount recommended by City staff as the amount ,
allocated to SPUC . The Utilities Manager indicated that the
amount should be reduced by $20, 745. 60 to $13, 196 . 00 pursuant
to Alternate 3 of staff memo dated January 29, 1981, hereto
attached . That alternative increases the City-wide levy to
$44 ,081. 03 .
Recommendations :
Approve Change Order No . 1 for the Holmes Street Reconstruction
Project increasing the contract amount by $67 ,021. 00 .
1 he>r ;'w certify thet this n!�•.n, :ccif•sc nticn, or report
,G'. " ienar J by rn e or unciL,r rnu direct suprer<<isen
that 1 em duly N'_'aietered Prof<ss:o.1aI
int:ier t 1e avis of the ,idle of Minnesota.
HRS j 1wDa.te (' j Regis ation No. IJ.i89
Attachments
cc : Lou VanHout , Utility Manager
•
CHANGE ORDER
Change Order No. : 1 Project Name: Holmes Street Reconstruction
improvement District 80-3
Date: January 12 , 1981 Contract No. : SP#166-102-01 Imp . #80-3
Original Contract Amount $ 935, 143 . 70
"Change Order(s) No. thru No. $
Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 935, 143 . 70
Description of Work to be (Added/D4tEXAX
See Attachment
The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above,
under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless
otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance
with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota.
The amount of the Contract shall be (increased/Kgc Ye i. gc ) by $ 67,021. 00 •
The number of calendar days for completion shall be ( A. /�€i K s4* by No Change
cCr
Original Contract Amount $ 935, 143 . 70
Change Order(ONo. 1 thru $ 67 ,021. 00
Total Funds Encumbered S1, 002, 164 . 70
Completion Date: No Change
The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform
the work specified in this Change Order in accordance
with the specifications, conditions and prices
specified herein.
REVIEWED BY :
Contractor:S✓1� � z�. s� `7
sT Shakopee Public Utilitites :
By:
Title: 5;
Date: c -• / "y / ? i>/ Manafger Date
APP'OVE ' RECOMMENDED:
t 111111W
City . g n-er \ at
APPROV ':: City of Shakopee
By:
Mayor Date
Approved as to form this day of
City Administrator Date 19
City Clerk Date
City Attorney
;L 'e
ATTACHMENT
Change Order No. 1
SANITARY SEWER
Item No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
2503.511 8" D.I.P. Pipe Sewer, L.F. $38.00 240 $ 9,120.00
10 - 12
2503.511 8" D.I.P. Pipe Sewer, L.F. 39.00 209 8,151.00
12 - 14
2503.511 8" D.I.P. Pipe Sewer, L.F. 40.00 77 3,080.00
14 - 16
2503.511 8" PVC Pipe Sewer, 0 - 8 L.F. 8.00 190 1,520.00
2503.511 6" Extra Heavy C.I. Pipe L.F. 19.00 870 16,530.00
Sewer
Sanitary Sewer Subtotal $38,401.00
STORM SEWER
Item No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
2503.511 36" R.C. Pipe Sewer L.F. $51.00 42 $ 2,142.00
2503.511 Install Pipe Sewer L.F. 10.00 112 1,120.00
Storm Sewer Subtotal $ 3,262.00
WATERMAIN
Item No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
504.601 1G" Copper L.F. $15.00 15 $ 225.00
504.601 1" Copper, Common Trench L.F. 11.00 204 2,244.00
504.601 1" Copper, Separate Trench L.F. 14.00 50 700.00
504.601 3/4" Copper, Common Trench L.F. 10.80 63 680.40
504.601 3/4" Copper, Separate L.F. 13.80 457 6,306.60 1
Trench
504.622 14" Corporation Ea. 40.00 2 80.00
504.622 1" Corporation Ea. 15.00 7 105.00
504.622 1" Curb Stop & Box Ea. 65.00 5 325.00
Attachment (continued) -2- Change Order No. 1 6
Item No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
504.622 3/4" Corporation Ea. $15.00 16 $ 240.00
504.622 3/4" Curb Stop & Box Ea. 65.00 5 325.00
504.650 Repair Flume L.S. 984.00 1 984.00
Watermain Subtotal $ 12,215.00
Sanitary Sewer Subtotal $ 38,401.00
Storm Sewer Subtotal 3,262.00
Watermain Subtotal 12,215.00
TOTAL $ 53,878.00
Pursuant to Article 8 of the General Specifications Estimate of Quantities,
the quantity of "lower watermain has exceeded" reasonable limits and shall be
increased to $2,000.00 for each and the number of units increased to 8 each.
ROADWAY
1) The quantity of 2341.508 Wearing Course shall be increased to
2,654 tons with no alteration in unit price.
2) The quantity of 2341.518 Bituminous Mix for Patching shall be
decreased to 376 tons with no alteration in unit price.
3) The quantity of 2331.514 Binder Course shall be increased to
2348 tons with no alteration in unit price.
L
' %MEMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier g.°
City Engineer / P-Argil
RE : Holmes Street Reconstruc ion Project
DATE: January 29, 1981
Introduction:
The Holmes Street Reconstruction Project included watermain
construction which was financed by three different methods ;
part was funded by a tax increment project ; part was funded by
assessment and part was funded by Shakopee Public Utility
Commission (SPUC) .
Background :
The total cost of watermain and restoration related to watermain,
installed as a part of the Holmes Street Reconstruction, is
$125 ,653. 99. The cost attributed to the tax increment project , and
the Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project No. 1, is $91,094 . 19 .
The cost of water services to be assessed is $618 . 20. The
remaining balance that is proposed to be assigned to Shakopee
Public Utility Commission is $33 , 941. 60 .
That amount is contained in three categories of installation:
- that work performed in connection with removing the watermain
from an existing manhole at 1st Avenue and Atwood - $3,873 . 00;
- that work required to construct watermain between 4th Avenue
and 5th Avenue in Holmes Street - $9, 323. 00;
- that work required in the vicinity of 8th Avenue and Holmes
Street to lower the watermain judged to be too shallow - $20 ,745. 60.
The most notable element of the breakdown is that it cost $13, 080 . 80
more to install 57 fewer feet of watermain. The principal reason
for that difference is the fact that there were more fire hydrants ,
there were more valves , there were more pipes that had to be
lowered as a result of this work and there were services that had
to be relaid as the result of this construction.
John Anderson -2- January 29, 1981 t,/
Two types of work are represented in this cost breakdown; that
work which was foreseen and that work which was not foreseen
when the planning was undertaken for this project . Installation
of watermain between 4th and 5th Avenue was a cost foreseen,
lowering the watermain in the vicinity of 8th Avenue, was not
foreseen and removing the watermain and services from a manhole
at 1st and Atwood was not foreseen. Consequently , after the
fact , it is necessary to fund this construction. At the time
these facilities were installed , there was no question as to
whether they were necessary or not . The question now is , how
should these be funded.
Alternatives :
There is only one element of this work for which there is some
question as to the appropriate funding method; that element is
the watermain which was lowered in the vicinity of 8th Avenue .
There are three alternative funding sources for this work:
1) Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project No. 1.
2) The City of Shakopee General Fund.
3 ) The Shakopee Public Utility Commission.
Recommendations :
It has been suggested that rather than consider this case in
particular, that it is more appropriate to consider the situation
in general. Specifically , this case where there existed watermain
which was too shallow. It was necessary that the watermain be
lowered regardless of whether the roadway was reconstructed or
not . That being the case, it would have been necessary for the
protection of those facilities that the watermain be lowered and
that cost would have been borne by SPUC .
The recommendation, therefore , is that SPUC be requested to pay
the cost of lowering the watermain in the vicinity of 8th Avenue,
in addition to the other work previously described .
The total cost to SPUC would be $33, 941. 60 .
Action Requested :
Refer the matter to SPUC for concurrence and payment .
HRS/j iw
Attachment
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
HOLMES STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
WATERMAIN COST
Holmes Street
4th Avenue to 5th Avenue
Item
No. Description Quantity Unit Price Total
1 8" D. I. P. 456 L.F. $ 13. 00 $5, 928 . 00
2 8" G .V. 3 Ea. 400. 00 1, 200. 00
3 Fittings 195 lbs . 1. 00 195 . 00
4 Lower Watermain 1 Ea. 2, 000. 00 2,000. 00
TOTAL $9,323. 00
Holmes Street
5th Avenue to 10th Avenue
Item
No. Description Quantity Unit Price Total
1 6" D . I . P. 80 L.F. $ 12. 00 $ 960. 00
2 8" D. I. P. 319 L.F. 13. 00 4 , 147 . 00
3 Hydrants 2 Ea. 800. 00 1,600 . 00
4 6" G.V. 2 Ea. 300. 00 600 . 00
5 8" G.V. 2 Ea. 400. 00 800. 00
6 Lower Watermain 4 Ea. 2,000. 00 8 , 000 . 00
7 Fittings 420 lbs . 1. 00 420 . 00
1
8 3/4" Copper (Separate
Trench) 297 L. F. 13 . 80 4 ,098. 60
9 3/4" Corporation 8 Ea. 15 . 00 120. 00
TOTAL $20 ,745 . 60 !
1st Avenue & Atwood Street Watermain Connection
Item
No. Description Quantity Unit Price Total
1 6" D. I . P . 38 L.F. S 12 . 00 S 456 . 00
2 8" D. I . P. 19 L. F . 13 . 00 247 . 00
3 6" G.V. 2 Ea. 300. 00 600. 00
4 Fittings 265 lbs . 1. 00 265 . 00
5 Lower Watermain 1 Ea. 2 , 000 . 00 2 ,000 . 00
6 1 - 1/4" Copper 15 L. F. 15 . 00 225 . 00
7 1 - 1/4" Corporation 2 Ea. 40. 00 80. 00
TOTAL S3 ,873 . 00
Summary
Holmes Street - 4th Avenue to 5th Avenue $ 9, 323. 00
Holmes Street - 5th Avenue to 10th Avenue 20 , 745 . 60
1st Avenue & Atwood Street Watermain Connection 3, 873 . 00
GRAND TOTAL $33 ,941. 60
SO..)
.1qt
H/y4
CITY F SEIAKOFEE X94%
INCORPORATED 1[170 �:: �•Te z,(� v 'r x"y. as ::S4t
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 JO+KOF�: .
February 4 , 1981
Mr . James Schoettler
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
St . Paul , MN 55101
Dear Jim ,
This is to confirm our conversation today concerning the
scheduling of the review of the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan
before the Physical Development Committee (PDC) .
Pursuant to Metropolitan Council staff review of the
City ' s position (January 15 , 1981 ) in response to the staff
draft of the Metropolitan Council ' s review of the Shakopee
Comprehensive Plan , the City will recommend plan amendment
to the City Council on February 10, 1981 . It is necessary
to request that the date of PDC review be revised to March 5 ,
1981 . The final Council review would be March 12 , 1981 .
It is understood that additional materials be submitted to
Met Council staff by February 16 , 1981 . City staff would
request that if there is no final City Council action until
February 17 that review commence February 16 pending final
word on City Council action forwarded February 18 .
Thank you for your time and consideration .
Sincerely ,
Tim Ke le
City Planner.
TK/jms
The Heart of Progress Volley
An Equal Opportunity Employer
MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council
FROM : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
RE : Moving Expense
DATE : February 5 , 1981
Introduction
As provided for in my employment contract , moving expenses are
reimbursable if I moved to Shakopee .
Claim
Bang Transfer and Storage moved our household goods from Montevideo
to 971 Swift Street , Shakopee on January 19 , 1981 . They have asked
that the moving and storage ( $310 . 65 for 16 days) claim for $2 ,012 . 24
be paid as soon as possible because their normal practice is not to
unload the vehicle until payment is made . Since our normal billing
cycle wouldn ' t be until February 17 , 1981 , I am asking that Council
consider it February 10, 1981 .
Recommendation
The claim conforms to my employment contract , therefore , I recommend
Council approve the claim.
JKA/jms
MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council
FROM : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
RE: Work Session Items
DATE : February 6 , 1981
Introduction
This memo covers three subject areas that I would like to discuss
with Council :
1 . Clarification of the City Administrator ' s (C .A . ) role to insure
that I am on the right track with respect to the City Code , job
description , and Council ' s expectations .
2 . Discussion of my early observations and questions regarding the
City ' s operation and current priorities .
3 . Discussion of the possible cause(s) behind our inability to adjourn
Council meetings before midnight .
I would like to discuss these items because I want to function in
the proper way, focus staff ' s attention on the right priorities and
shorten Council meetings so we are all more effective without guess-
ing about what you want . I am not good at simply "perceiving" the
direction Council wants to take . It is my preference (style if you
like) to simple ask you straight out what you want .
This memo , I 'm afraid , is long, so I ' ve broken it down into sections
so we can discuss each section separately . I suggest you make notes
and/or jot down ideas in the margin as you go through each section .
Clarification of City Administrator ' s Role
As you all know, the City Code and C .A. ' s job description state
that the C .A. shall be the Chief Administrative Officer , shall be
responsible to City Council , and shall supervise the administration
of all departments (includes volunteer fire department) . While
this seems straight forward enough, it is useful to clarify how I
presently interpret this so you can correct me if I am wrong :
1 . I work at the direction of the Council (includes the Mayor) as
a whole . Therefore , while I will happily respond to all indi-
vidual Council member requests , you may hear me say , "I really
need direction from the whole Council" , if I perceive the
request to require extensive work, etc . Normally I will suggest
we put the item in question on the agenda and if Council wants
staff to work on the project , idea , policy, etc . we will go to
it .
-2-
In addition, three Council members mentioned during the inter-
view that they wanted a C .A . who would be a leader, take the
initiative and make recommendations on policies and problems .
This is my approach to the job of C .A. ; and to that end, I
will bring things to Council ' s attention with a brief memo
indicating the need for research/evaluation of alternatives/
action . In this manner neither the staff or I will spend
valuable time analyzing policies/problems that you don ' t agree
need attention.
2 . Department heads work at the direction of the C .A. I understand
this to mean that department heads should feel comfortable in
responding to Council requests for information, but should also
be comfortable in "asking" that you go through me if what you're
asking for appears to be time consuming (ie . 20 minutes plus) .
Please let me know Tuesday if you feel this is how we should proceed .
There has been no indication that No . 1 and 2 above are not what
Council wants , but there have been minor examples of No . 2 in the
two months that I 've been here . While the specific examples caused
no problems , they did result in duplicated staff efforts that could
have been avoided .
Discussion -
Early Observations : Problems and Priorities
1 . Budget and Finance
a . The 1980 General Fund stands a good chance of having a one
year (1980) deficit ranging anywhere from $50,000 to $125 ,000
depending on how receivables and payables shake out . We
will have to examine the implication for the 1981 budget
when the numbers are finalized .
b . We don ' t have a complete 1981 budget document . Several
1981 budgets are late , unfinished or yet to be started -
Sewer , HRA, Capital Projects , Debt Service , PIR Fund .
I have made it one of my priorities to get a handle on
this by the end of the first quarter .
c . Does Council look closely at and understand the current
monthly financial report? The one you received February 3 ,
1981 pointed out the 1980 budget problem. I will always
try to keep you abreast of budget developments such as
this to avoid surprises .
d . Does Council wish to see some changes in the budget( s) so
they are more understandable? I 've had some feedback
requesting this .
-3-
3
e . The Audit and Annual Financial Report seem to be completed
very late each year . Why?
f . We need to compete the Fire Year Capital Improvement Budget .
g. How do you, Council , feel about department heads who exceed
their budget?
h. Gregg has suggested, and I concur , that our Purchase Order
process needs to be tighten up .
i . Contingency Fund usage . Gregg tells me the present process
requires Council to approve usage of these funds . I concur .
j . How does Council view over expenditures of budgeted line
items which are off-set by under expenditures which have
the effect of keeping the budget balanced .
Discussion -
2 . Departmental/Administrative
a . It appears that Tim Keane ' s leaving may set us back as
others , myself included , try to pick-up the slack until
Tim' s replacement is on board .
b . I have just completed the first round of quarterly Manage-
ment-By-Objective (MBO) meetings with department heads .
Out of the meetings have come : new proceedures , clarifi-
cation of duties/responsibilities , key problem areas needing
attention and items like those listed in "c" below.
c . I am requiring all department heads to outline their major
routine functions and to set "acceptable" levels of per-
formance . These outlines are just now evolving and some
will take the shape of monthly reports (eg . Bo ' s monthly
Engineer ' s report) . Others , such as the "acceptable" time
for processing a building permit , plat , etc . , will be
monitored differently . Both examples (types) will be used
for "management by exception" .
d . One thing I have observed frequently are "loose ends" and
lack of clear lines of authority/responsibility for tasks
that cross departmental lines . We are buttoning these up
wherever we find them. Hopefully we 're getting the holes
plugged , but please don ' t hesitate to let us know when you
see one .
In addition, problems have been created by developers and
citizens dealing with several staff members on a single
issue/project . Staff gets "whipsawed" . To avoid this
problem, I have asked one person (Tim Keane for plats ,
site plans reviews , etc . ) to be the staff contact .
Others , such as the City Engineer or City Clerk will
-4- _Q/
simply send them to Tim until Tim finally brings the
person (Engineer/Clerk) into it . If Council members
get contacted I feel you should accomodate the citizen
and staff by suggesting a meeting of all three parties .
e . The Organizational Chart has the City Attorney(s) report-
ing directly to Council . I have no problem with this ,
but I have used 3-part follow-up memos for many things
including Council follow-up . When an Attorney doesn ' t
deliver on time , forgets or whatever , can I call him on
it?
How should the attorney ' s respond to requests from indi-
vidual Council members (includes Mayor) ? They too need
to know how far to go with a request from an individual
without it coming from the Councilas a whole .
f . We are starting an Administrative Policy Book, 3 ring
binder , which will include things like the purchasing
policy , personnel rules , City vehicle policy , assessment
polices., etc .
Discussion -
3 . Current Problems and/or Priorities
The following list is in no particular order , but represents
what I 've picked-up from my job interviews , Doug ' s memo , and
staff and Council comments over the last two months .
a . Long Council meetings - five have gone past 12 midnight .
b . Capital Improvement Project Administration - this has been
very time consuming since I 've been here .
c . Strained relations with SPUC - this was most frequently
mentioned during the interviews and has been very time
consuming since I ' ve been here .
d . Police Labor Negotiations .
e . Approval of the Comp Plan by Met Council .
f . Budget and finance - as discussed above .
g. CBD revitalization .
h. Completion of a Five Year Capital Improvement plan -
not really started yet
i . Lack of City goals and objectives .
-5-
j . By-pass and County Road 18 bridge .
k. Monitoring of IRB ' s and Tax Increment Proposals .
1 . County/Hospital parking problem.
m. Upper Valley Development - the need for public utilities ,
roads , drainage , etc .
n . Met Council's Sludge , Solid and Hazardous Waste Siting
Criteria/Plans and their potential impact on Shakopee
because of Scottland .
If I have missed something that is a Council priority or a
thorny or irrating problem for the public (e .g. building
permit processing time) please tell me Tuseday .
Discussion -
Council Meetings/Agendas
I have made serveral observations, some of which are covered in
Resolution No . 1622 (attached) and some of which are listed below.
In addition , I have attached a mimeographed packet (from the
National League of Cities handbook on streamlining Governing Body
meetings) . Please complete the "Status Check" (first mimeographed
page in the packet) , look over the two alternative agenda formats ,
and look over the last page entitled "How to Aid Discussion By
Asking the Right Questions" , if you don ' t have time to get to all
of it , I realize this is long .
Observations :
1 . Council and staff need to be conscious of the rules of pro-
cedure in Resolution No . 1622 at every meeting and possibly
expand on them. (There are some suggestions in the mimeo-
graphed packet . )
2 . We should investiage effective use of the consent agenda
concept .
3 . We all need to be more conscious of dead end discussions .
4 . We need to eliminate "surprises" .
5 . We need to greatly reduce the number of tabled items (respon-
sibility for failure here falls chiefly on staff) .
6 . Council should always "direct staff" in its actions . It is
the C .A . ' s responsibility to get action properly delegated
and completed .
-6-
7 . Council members should jot down ideas when reviewing a compli-
cated subject or try to formulate a motion after a discussion
that has generated several concerns .
8 . I 'd like to discuss with Council the Coon Rapids and Montevideo
agenda formats .
9 . I know it is the role of the Chairman to keep discussion on
track and that individual Council members can do this too ,
but how do you want the C .A . to participate in such situations?
10. I would appreciate it if Council members would make it a
practice of calling Monday with detailed or tough questions .
Staff can then have ready answers for the benefit of all
Council members Tuesday night (some of you do this well already) .
11 . On tough issues Council should be conscious of getting around
the table once with "I thinks" or "my suggestion is" , before
anyone takes a hard line and gets into a corner .
12 . I cannot recommend strongly enough that Council members preserve
their voting prerogative . Staff , citizens and fellow Council
members should not force a commitment before Council members
discuss the item the night its on the agenda . This does not
mean you can ' t say I think I like a certain alternative or
position" , but you should add "but I want to hear what other
Council members have to say before I make a final decision" .
Discussion -
Summary
In summary, I would like to repeat that my purpose is simply to
get "expectations" , "problems" , "priorities" , "proceedures" , etc .
on the table and discussed so they can be clarified and/or re-
solved for everyone and put behind us . Again , this is how I
normally approach an issue(s) . I hope it meets with your approval .
JKA/jms
attachment