Loading...
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