Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/1989 TENTATIVE AGENDA WORKSESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 13, 1989 1) 4:00 P.M. Arrive at Shakopee House 2) 4:10 P.M. Brief review of 1988 Strategic Plan 3) 4:15 P.M. Discussion of 1989 goals - using strategic planning format 4) 6:15 P.M. Break 5) 6:30 P.M. Dinner 6) 7:30 P.M. Summary of activities 7) 8:15 P.M. Dismissal of Department Heads/Meeting between City Council and Acting Administrator 8) 9:45 P.M. Adjournment Dennis R. Kraft Acting City Administrator MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: City Council Goals Work Session DATE: February 10, 1989 Attached please find background information which will be used to facilitate the City Council Goals Work Session. 1988 STRATEGIC PLAN April 5, 1988 Council approved Items 1 through 18 in the City Administrator' s memo of March 15, 1988 representing the City Council ' s 1988 review of its 1987 Strategic Plan and reaffirming the elements of the 1987 Strategic Plan. MEMO TO: Mayor and Council All Department Heads FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Review of 1987 Strategic Plan DATE: March 15, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The City Council met with Department Heads in two work sessions, February 22 and March 7th, to review the 1987 Strategic Plan. My meeting notes indicate that the following items required additional attention. The purpose of this list is to insure that it corresponds to everyone's recollection of what resulted from the review. Please contact me if something is stated incorrectly or has been omitted. ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING 1988 REVIEW of STRATEGIC PLAN: 1. Action Items #B-4-C and #E-4-D related to a local quarterly newsletter to citizens. Council discussed the new CDC Newsletter, the "Business Update", included in the Chamber Newsletter and the schools newsletter as examples of what might be accomplished and how a newsletter might be distributed. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo for Council outlining the alternatives, costs and pros and cons. 2. Action Item #C-1-A review existing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) policies. Council agreed to review the existing policies and to work towards a method of: (1) Classifying types of development, (2) Developing a standard method to show the proportion or ratio of public benefit, (3) Developing a method of showing a per household or per assessed value cost, . and (4) Listing all existing TIF projects and their status. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will provide Council with a review of existing policies and develops responses to 1 - 4 above. 3. Item #C-2 Council agreed that we must continue to work with the Scott County Transportation Coalition for financing the County Road 18 Bridge. No specific action was added to action items a - c listed under this goal. FOLLOW-UP. No new action required. 4. Council discussed the need to review City Council - action on Planning Commission recommendations. Council requested that staff provide them with a statistical analysis of the percentage of Planning Commission recommendations supported by Council. Review of 1987 Strategic Plan Page -2- FOLLOW-UP. Staff will provide this information for Council by its April 19th meeting. 5. Council discussed appropriate guidelines for condemnation procedures for both public and private uses. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will develop a "draft" set of policy guidelines for both types of condemnations for Council review and discussion by Council's May 3rd meeting. 6. As a corollary to item #1 on this list Council discussed the usefulness of a monthly update for their personal use that would function as a "crib sheet" listing public improvement projects, capital equipment purchases, etc. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will review alternative ways to present this information and provide Council with suggestions by its May 3rd meeting. 7. Council requested an evaluation of the pros and cons of the City retrieving the accessing function from Scott County. FOLLOW-UP. This memo has been prepared and Council is meeting on this subject on April 12th. 8. Council requested that we review the City's use of the Assistant City Attorney's office to determine the overall cost. It was also suggested that we review our practice of referring things to the City Attorney and/or the Asst. Attorney which might reduce some of the costs to the City. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo reviewing the policies and costs for use in August when we prepare the 1989 budget. 9. Council requested that we review our practice of printing full minutes in the Shakopee Valley News. FOLLOW-UP. The City Clerk reported our practice of printing only motions and Council has accepted that practice. 10. Council requested a review of the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee to determine if they had completed the initial Committee charge as set forth in the resolution creating the Committee. Review of 1987 Strategic Plan Page -3- FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo reviewing the initial Committee charge and any other goals established for (or by) the Committee. This will be presented to City Council for their review by August for discussion during the 1989 budget preparation or sooner. 11. Council discussed Action Item #C-3-(A-D) , Discussion revolved around temporary downtown bridge/road improvements and alternative long range bridge improvements. FOLLOW-UP. It was determined that the Mayor and City Administrator would meet with Mn/DOT to review temporary bridge/road improvements and that the Council as a whole would meet with Mn/DOT representatives on April 4th to review the long term bridge alternative currently being pursued and the one proposed by the Mayor. 12. Council discussed the City Hall project and its future status. Discussion revolved around where the new structure would be located as a result of the preferential vote in November and which Departments would be located in the new building. It was suggested that the City might rent space rather than make the commitment to build a new building. The cost of the new structure was discussed and Leroy Houser indicated that he might be willing to serve as the "Project Supervisor" coordinating local builders to save money on the project. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will need to discuss this item with Council again to more clearly focus on the next steps to be taken. This can be done at a Council meeting or work session in April. 13. Council requested that staff prepare a review of our park dedication fee structure (comparing it with other communities) and to review procedures to determine if we have missed requiring payments by any developers. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo reviewing this item for Council's April Sth meeting. 14 . Council had a general discussion about the City's use of consultants and wondered whether or not the City had - become to dependent on the use of consultants. The discussion focused on the possibility of saving money by accomplishing more with existing staff. Review of 1987 Strategic Plan Page -4- FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a master list of consultants for Council review at its April 5th meeting so that Council might determine what, if any, steps they would like to take to alter current consultant usage. 15. Council requested that staff look into earmarking the 10 cent admission tax receipts the City receives from Canterbury Downs exclusively for Police and Fire operations. The discussion focused on the fact that the impact of Canterbury Downs fell primarily on Police and Fire Operations and that earmarking the admissions tax revenue would appropriately reflect this. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo discussing this alternative and reviewing current usage of the 10 cent tax for Council by August for budget discussions or sooner. 16. Council discussed the creation of a Community Development Commission (CDC) "hit squad" that would aggressively seek out new business development for Shakopee. The discussion revolved around who might be on the hit squad, how it would function, and what it might do to attract new industry to Shakopee through a coordinated out reach program. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo for Council review by August for the 1989 budget or sooner that will outline how such an approach to development might work. 17. Council reviewed the problems the City had regarding enforcement of its new Planning and Zoning Performance Standards on existing industries. The new regulations which require screening etc. have been required when any existing building or facility approaches the City for a new building permit, etc. There was also discussion about the inappropriate application of screening to certain types of existing businesses such as auto sales lots. Council was interested in reviewing these regulations to determine if there was a more balanced approach that the City might take. There was concern that we needed a new mechanism for triggering Performance Standards on existing structures. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will include a review of the Planning and Zoning Performance Standards in the update of the comprehensive Plan that Council has recently ordered. This process will require specific action if it is to be resolved in less than 9-12 months. Review of 1987 Strategic Plan Page -5- 18. Council discussed approaches to Downtown Revitalization. Discussion was focused on the alternative of buying down the interest rate on improvement loans, fixing up the exterior of buildings VS. fixing up the interior of buildings (Code enforcement issues) . There was considerable concern about whether an incentive program would actually be sufficient to encourage absentee owners to fix up their dilapidated exteriors or bringing the interior of their buildings up to code. There was also some discussion about City wide Systematic Code Enforcement, with such as discussion about the St. Louis Park program which requires inspections upon the resale of any property. FOLLOW-UP. Council requested that staff prepare a memo outlining alternatives for the March 8th Council meeting. The memo was prepared and Council tabled it for detailed discussion at a Council work session on April 12th. JRA/tiv GOALS 3 Goals for 1989/Strategic Planning Process A meeting was held with the department heads in an attempt to facilitate discussion on the major goals for the City of Shakopee in 1989. It is very important that the City Council decides which major programs to pursue in 1989 so that the limited financial resources of the City can most effectively be utilized to meet Council and community expectations. Also the City Council should determine the general direction of the City for 1990 and beyond. And possibly helpful bit of advise in discussing these comes from Author Paul Applebee stating a rule of thumb that he has often used which is as follows, "Before taking action decide who is going to be mad? How mad? Who is going to be glad? How glad?" Virtually any action the City Council takes will make certain groups happy and certain groups unhappy. Council should evaluate the impact of it's actions. Clearly many things the Council does are unpopular but this essentially "comes with the territory". Federal and State laws will also provide significant constraints as the City Council goes about trying to provide for the smooth operation of the City and wisely planning for future development. The goals formulated by the department heads are as follows: 1. Highway 101 (Southerly) By-Pass 2. Upper Valley Drainage Project 3. New City Hall 4. Highway 169/Mini By-Pass 5. Comprehensive Plan Completion/Adoption/Implementation 6. Economic/Industrial Development 7. Park Development 8. Elimination of Downtown Blight 9. Senior Citizen Housing Attached please find a model of the strategic planning process. (Attachment A) Also attached is a copy of the results of the community questionnaire which was carried out as a part of the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan update (Attachment B) . Attachment A ! � - a | - - - - - - � I — — — — � . . . . !:i !!|° !| ` � ,! �| � ■ I�\ \ k g if . . . . . e r it ` I` !! 0 » } 7 is , f % j | ! Attachment H PLANN ORTATING SII} iRAN$PORTATION L'—L-7�� ENGINEERING 3QUBRE M TKRDSMEETSCu1- Ml NE LIS MMES TA 5W5 R NE 6201 7W G x 6Q 37613M TRANSMITTAL Date: January 24, 1989 r n_ To: Shakopee Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee F From: William Weber, Consulting Planner - - - - Re: Community Opinion Survey Item(s): No. Description 1 Description of results - - - 1 Survey with Responses Indicated Purpose: as you requested review and return , for your information reply to sender t for your approval other (see remarks) i Remarks: r W41/mr MINNEAPOLIS DOWER FFCENCL TUCSON ST.PETERSBURG COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY One man's view of Shakopee: "We have an excellent quality of life. Shakopee has just about everything in recreation, churches, medical facilities, and so on." That is the opinion of a male in early middle age, fifteen years in the community. In a survey of Shakopee residents that was mailed to a sampling of 400 residents in November 1988, the people showed a generally favorable outlook toward their city and the services it provides. They enjoy living in their neighborhoods. A total of 178 individuals filled out their questionnaires and mailed then back. That represents a 44 percent return, a high participation for mail surveys. Observations in this report are based on the 163 forms received in time for tabulation. The tabulated responses to each question are indicated bythe following reproduction of the actual survey form. There was stronger participation among men and older citi- zens. Seventy percent of the participants are men, compared with a 1980 U.S. Census figure of 47 percent. Fifty-five percent of the returns were from people 45 years and over; the 1980 population count showed that 47 percent of the adults (20 years and over) were in that age group. Taking part in the survey likely is related to household custom as to who fills out the forms and to how much interest a person has in civic matters. SHAKOPEE'S IMAGE The people look upon Shakopee as a congenial place to live. Four out of five persons believe the quality of life is okay, with seven times as many choosing the term "good" over "excellent." There is a hint of defensiveness about the city's standing in that a third of the residents imagine outsiders have an unfavorable impression of Shakopee. A woman resident of long standing judges outsiders as being strongly unfa- vorable along these lines: "You have to be crazy to pay - those taxes and put up with that traffic." As reviewed later, many regard the Correctional Institute for Women as a drawback. This feeling may take away from having a good self-image. Shakopee is a good place for kids to grow up, in the opin- ion of a strong majority. "MY" NEIGHBORHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE The questionnaire included a sketch showing Shakopee in six sections with Marschall Road as a north-south divider and 4th and 10th Avenues as east-west dividers. A third of those responding live in Section N3. Section 1 14% Section 2 3 - Section 3 32 Section 4 9 Section 5 24 Section 6 14 No Response 4 Total 100% In rating their neighborhoods as a place to live (not necessarily the map boundaries), seven out of everyeight persons feel they are well located. One person out of every four rates their neighborhood as excellent. People believe that housing is reasonably maintained in their neighborhood and that they have no serious problems with odors or noise. If everything but the best response indicates the possibility of a problem, then noise emerges as a more serious consideration than unpleasant odors, and almost half of the people feel the housing in their neigh- borhoods could be at least a little better maintained than it is now. THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AND OTHER COMMUNITY RESOURCES The St. Francis Regional Medical Center stands out as a sterling asset to the community. Three out of four persons consider that facility to be a strong asset and most of the rest say it is an asset. Valleyfair also is highly regarded by the local public, rated by seven out of eight Shakopee people as an asset. Others of the entertainment industry are rated as more of an asset than a drawback, but a strong minority has doubts about Canterbury Downs. For the other two entries, the Shakopee Valley News is rated favorably and the Correctional Institute for Women gets a divided vote. This table summarizes the vote: While the Correctional Institute gets the most mention as a drawback, the community might not want to give up the jobs the facility provides. THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF CITY GOVERNMENT Residents think highly of the services the city provides. Almost everyone regards the city' s fire protection with enthusiasm. People also feel good about trash collection, public library services, snow plowing, police protection, the city park system, streetlighting, sidewalks and trails, street maintenance, and the city recreation system. Of all the city services and facilities checked in the sur- vey, only the City Hall building fares poorly. As many people described it as only fair or poor as termed it excellent or good. Despite that, most participants believe a new city hall is not an urgent need. Opinions on having a new community recreation and meeting center are about the same: it' s not needed now. - Taxpayers feel they get their money's worth for city ser- vices but are critical of the general spending of public money by city government. Whether people can distinguish how much tax revenue is spent by the county and by the - school district was not established in the survey. - - DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT Residents feel an urgent need to keep trucks off First Avenue and to make that streetmore comfortable for shoppers and pedestrians. There is less of a sense of urgency for better parking downtown, more stores, improving the river park and trail system, and the riverfront. The weight of opinion is against having more housing downtown. LOOKING AT THE FUTURE When the Year 2000 arrives, Shakopee residents would like to see a modest gain in population; very few would welcome explo- sive growth. Seven out of eight participants prefer slight to moderate growth. Given a choice of six specific cities types -- Apple Valley to Stillwater -- that they would like Shakopee to resemble in the future, people in effect tend to respond "let Shakopee be like Shakopee." The sampling has some reservations about the ability of city government to plan for the future; there' s slightly more disapproval than approval on this point. A PROPER RESPONSE TO THE SURVEY FINDINGS This survey provides a good insight of public thinking for those willing to respond. A community's leadership usually has to operate on chance exposure in gauging public opinion. o The very taking of this survey indicates that Shakopee leaders have a strong commitment to understand what people are thinking and to take those views into account in carrying out their responsibilities. o The 44 percent participation rate and the thoughtful participation given by the people is evidence of a supportive citizenry. Often a city official imagines more opposition than is actually the case. o The public has a right to expect that the findings will be studied and taken into account. People should also realize that, in the final analysis, leaders must make decisions according to their best judgment. o - While barbs are intermingled with praise, civic leaders would do well to take every advantage of the opportunity to learn what people are thinking. They should seek out the meaning of the comments and not _ permit negatives to deter their gaining additional insight on civic matters. This survey is a direct communication exchange between the people and the leadership. Good things will come to the city if that exchange is maintained. All Asset Drawback Other - Total St. Francis 97% 1% 2% 100% Valleyfair 88 7 5 100 Murphy's Landing 80 7 13 100 Shakopee Valley News 79 5 16 100 8-ENTRY AVERAGE 70 19 11 100 Renaissance Festival 67 28 5 100 - Raceway Park 56 25 19 100 Canterbury Downs _ 55 38 - 7 _ . 100 Correctional Institute for Women 40 40 20 100 Shakopee Community Opinion Survey City of Shakopee, Minnesota November 1988 All Percentages Based on 163 Returns 1. About how long have you 1 ( ) 2 years or less 4% 6. Which of these cities would you 1( ) Apple Valley 4' lived In Shakopee? 2( ) 3 to 7 years 19 like Shakopee to most resemble 2( ) Eden Praine/Burnsville 14 3( ) 8t 12 years 10 in the future? 3( ) Edina 5 4( ) 13 to 17 years 12 4( ) Mankato 7 5( ) 18 to 22 years 8 5( Saint Louis Park)Richfield 2 6( ) 23 years or more 46 6( ) Stillwater 13 1 7( ) None of the above 29 2. 'Quality of life'Is a term used 1 ( ) Excellent 10 8( ) I'm not sure 23 to describe the general living 2( ) Good 71 3 conditions of an area.How 3( ) Only,fair 10 do you rate the quality of Irfe 4( ) Poor 4 in the Shakopee area? 5( ) I'm not sure 1 7. Referring to the sketch below, 1 ( ) Section 1 14% 4 in which section of Shakopee 2( ) Section 2 3 Why do you feel that way? do you lIve? 3( ) Section 32 4( Section 4 9 5( ) Section 5 24 B( ) Section 6 14 River _ _. 4 3. What sort of impressions do 1O Strongly favorable 4thAv - - - m 2 - you imagine other people in 2( ) Somewhatfavorable 47 3 m ¢ 4 the metropolitan area have of 3( ) Somewhat unfavorable 29 0th Av Shakopee? 4( ) Strongly unfavorable 5 5 _ 6 5( J I'm not sure 10 4 Why do you feel that way? 8. How would you rate your l ( ) Excellent 27% neighborhood as a place to 2( ) Good 62 live? 3( ) only fair 8 4( Poor 3 5( J I'm not sure _ 9. How well is housing maintained I ( Very well maintained 53% 4. How do you rate the Shakopee I ( Excellent 10% In your neighborhood? 2( ) Fairy well maintained 44 area as a place for children and 2( ) Good 61 3( ) Poorly maintained 3 teens to grow up? 3( ) Only fair 23 4( ) I'm not sum 4( Poor 4 5( ) I'm not sure 2 10. How much of a problem would 1 ( ) A serious problem 9% you say noise is In your 2( ) A problem,not serious 31 5. What kind of population growth 1 ( J No growth 10% neighborhood? 3( ) Not a problem 60 doyou think would be ideal for 2( ) Slight growth 22 4( ) I'm not sure - Shakopee by 2000? 3( Moderate growth 61 4( o growth 3 11 Haw much of a problem would 1 ( J A serious problem 4 ) n 5( ) I'm I'm not sure 2 You say unpleasant odors are in 2( 1 A problem,not serous 20 2 your neighborhood? 3( ) Not a problem 75 4( I'm not sure 1 12. Pleau rps each envy helow as to whether you think r is an snot or a drawback N Shakopee. A A Astrong I'm strong As draw- draw- lot asset asset batt link aro a. SL Francis Regional Medical Center 1 ( )76 2( ) 21 3( )— 4( ) 1 5( 1 b. Murphy's Landing 1 ( ) 15 2( ) 65 3( ) 4 4( ) 3 5( )11 c. Canterbury Downs i ( ) 21 2( )34 3( ) 25 4( ) 13 5 O 5 d. Raceway Park 1 O 8 2( ) 48 3( ) 20 4l ) 5 5( )16 e. Valleyfair t O 51 2O 37 3O 6 4 O 1 5 O 3 f. Renaissance Festival 1 ( ) 31 2( ) 36 3( ) 17 4( ) 11 5( ) 4 g. Shakopee Valley News 1 ( ) 17 2( ) 62 3( ) 5 4( )— 5( ) 15 h. Correctional Institute for Women 1 O 4 2( ) 36 3( ) 29 4( ) 11 5( ) 18 13. Canterbury Downs,Murphy's Landing,Raceway Park Valleyfair and the Renaissance Festival often are ref shed to as the-entertainment industry.-What do you think should be done to make the presence of the entertainment industry the best possible situation far the people of Shakopee? 14. The City Council has been working on downtown redevelopment.For each proposed story listed below,please say how much you think it is needed - 11"der4 Mol I'm Urgently but at seeded not seeded argent at all - sore a. Keeping trucks off First Avenue 1 O 68 2( )-18 3(-)-6 -: 4 O 4 - to. Making First Avenue more comfortable for 1 O 56 2( ) 26 3O 15 4O 1 shoppers 8 pedestrians 2( ) 55 3O 16 4O 6 s. Improve river park and trail system .1 O 18 2( ) 41 3 O 20 4 O 4 d. More stores 1O 30 2 O 37 - 3 O 22 4 O 3 More f. et parking 1O 35 3 4 O 8 f. More housing 1 ( ) 8 2l ) 33 l ) 48 g. Improved dvedront 1O 24 2 O 42 3( ) 22 4 O 10 15. How do you rate the following city services and facilities? I'm Excel- only not lest Bad hilt Poor sore a. Police protection 1 O 24 2O 55 3O 12 4O 3 5O 5 b. Fire protection 1057 2036 3O 1 4O — 5O 6 c. City Park system 1020 2058 3015 4O 4 5O 3 d. Cry recreation system tO 18 2O 56 3O 14 4O 5 5O 6 a. Sidewalks and trails 1 O 12 2O 56 3O 19 4O 7 5( 3 f. Snowplowing 1O 31 2O 50 3O 12 4O 6 5O 1 g. Trash collection 1 ( ) 35 2( ) 56 3( ) 5 4( ) 1 5( ) 2 In. Public library services 1O 33 2O 50 3( 7 4O 3 5O 6 I. City Hall building 1 ( ) 8 2( ) 37 3( ) 19 4( ) 26 5( ) 9 i SVeeffighting 1O 15 2063 3O 17 4( ) 4 5( k. Street maintenance 1( ) 15 2( ) 52 3( ) 23 4( ) 8 5( ) 1 16, Ir,general,do you think the 1 ( ) Yes,generely worth a 6S% 25. How involved do you think 1 ( ) Very involved 23% services the city provides are 2( ) No,not worth R 17 the city should be in 2( ) Moderately involved 53 worm the tax money spent on 3( ) I'm not sure 17 housing redevelopment 3( ) Not involved 15 those services? 1 4( ) I'm not sure 9 17. How much do you think a new 1 ( ) Urgently needed 20 26. How involved do you think 1( ) Very involved 41 community recreation and 2( ) Needed,but not urgent 46 the city should be in new 2( ) Moderately involved 48 meeting center is needed in 3( ) Not needed at all 28 housing for seniors? 3( Not Involved - 7 Shakopee? 4( ) I'm not sure 6 4( ) I'm not sure 4 18. How much do you think 1 ( ) Urgently needed 4% 27. How involved do you mink 1 ( ) Very Involved % Shakopee needs a new city 2( ) Needed,but not urgent 45 the city should be in 2( ) Moderately involved 40 hall? 3( ) Not needed at all 23 business redevelopmem? 3( ) Not Involved 17 4( ) I'm not sure 8 4( ) I'm not sure 3 * 1 19. If the City does build a new 1 ( ) Near downtown area 3% 28. How much do you think new 1 ( ) Urgenty needed % city hall,in the nett 5 years 2( ) Near the Public Works 52 jobs are needed in the 2( ) Needed,not urgent 52 or so,where would you building 5 Shakopee area? 3( ) Not needed at all 5 like to have it located? 3( ) Anomer Location(PLEASE 4( I'm not sure 9 SPECIFY 4( ) I'm not sure 16 29. Are there any children under 1( ) Yes % 4 age 19 in your household? 2( ) No 53 20. How do you rate city 1 ( ) Strongly approve 2% 1 goverment when it comes to 2( ) Approve 38 30. What is your age? 1 (-) Under 25 years —% preparing Shakopee for is 3( ) Disapprove 31 1r. 2( }25 to 44 years 45 -- future? 4( ) Strongly disapprove 12 - 3( 45 to 64 yearn 37 S( ) I'm not sure 17 4( ) 65 years/over 18 21. How do you rate city 1 ( ) Strongly approve 1% 31. Yourgender?. 1 ( )Male : : -- 0% government when it comes to 2( ) Approve 36 _ - < 2( )'Female - 28 the spending of public money? 3 O Disapprove 30 2 :. 4( ) Strongly disapprove 14 ' 5( I'm not sure 18 22. Do you feel decision makers 1 ( ) Yes,readily available % THANKYOU FOR YOUR HELP.You may have additional comments you In city government are available 2( Yes,sometimes 4o - would like to make about any subject related to Shakopee.Please feel free to you when you have something 3( ) No,not available 13 to lot down your thoughts on the next page. to bring up? 4( 1 neier have that need 15 Please fold the surey,staple or tape R shut so the consultant's address 5( I'm not sure 14 shows,and drop it into the mail.A stamp is.already.applied. 1 23. Do you feel you could have an iO Yes,strong influence 6% Influence on matters before the 2( ) Yes,mild influence 32 local government? 3( ) No,could not 34 4( ) I'm not sure 26 9 24. Would you describe the 1 Conservative 39% Shakopee city government as 2 Liberal 26 conservative or liberal 3 Other 7 4 I'm not sure 25 However you answered the above question,please explain what approach 3 you think would be ideal for Shakopee. * = Less than 1 percent = No mention Council Meeting Procedures After a summary of the goals and objectives I would like the department heads to be dismissed so that a discussion of Council meeting procedures can occur. Attachment A discusses the procedures that were adopted by the City Council for 1988. If the Council decides to make changes this is the time to do that. It is important that all City Council members participate in the discussion and "buy in" to the way the Council will operate. This will provide for optimal effectiveness of the City Council. Smooth and efficient operation of the City Council will be dependent upon members each assuming responsibility for facilitating the conduct of the Council meeting and helping one another when necessary. At this time the City Council will have the opportunity to bring up other items they deem of significance relating to either conduct of Council meetings, relationships between Council members, or Council staff relationships. The nature of the discussion or the level of interest in the topics discussed at the meeting may result in an insufficient amount of time to cover the subjects adequately, therefore it may be necessary to hold another meeting to complete the agenda. This will be decided as the evening progresses. Attachment A MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City administrator RE: Council Meeting Procedures DATE: January 13, 1989 Introduction: This memo reviews the adopted procedures for 1988 relating to City Council agendas, conduct of Council meetings and Council/staff relationships. Review of 1988 Procedures 1. How Counlcilmembers get items on the agenda. Call and ask staff to place a note about the item under Other Business on the upcoming agenda. After discussing the item with other mnmhers of Council, a motion can be made to take whatever action is appropriate. 2. Stopping time is 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. when there is a HRA agenda. 3. The Chairman will comment on issues last and try to facilitate discussion. 4. The Chairman will make an informal effort to "go around the table" for comments. 5. There should be a self imposed limit of two ccn eats per item. 6. Councilmenberc are urged to use "Hoar to Aid Discussion by Asking the Right Questions" (attached and in plastic cover also at council table) (Also attached is a list of motions in order of precedence to Trove the discussion along to comply with n2 above. Council has also asked the City Administrator to use the same tools to help move discussion along.) 7. Procedures for Public Hearing: a. Mayor announces and emphasizes public hearing rules: 1) Citizen give name and address before speaking. 2) Everyone speaks once before a second chance to speak is given. 3) Citizens speak to Chair or Council not other members of the audience (to avoid back and forth discussions) . b. Council discusses issue before opening up to the audience. c. Open discussion up to the audience. S. All items to be acted on should be on the agenda with completed staff work. 9. Staff's role and responsibilities for completing staff work for agenda items: a. What a good staff report should accomplish. 1) Introduction 2) State problem or issue 3) List alternatives with pros and cons 4) Make recamnedation 5) State "Action Requested" b. The staff report process. All information on an agenda item should be presented to all Councilmembers in the staff report. (Problems arise when information is not in the agenda packets and therefore not available to all Councilmanbers.) c. Calls to City staff - the 20 minute rule of thumb means any requests to staff requiring more than 20 minutes to handle should be handled under No. 1 above. d. When to ask questions about agenda items - Monday or Tuesday before the meeting whenever possible. e. When to ask staff to follow-up on miscellaneous items - for example: potholes, junk cars, etc., should be covered when first received by Councilmewbar, not "saved" for the Council meeting. This insures a quick response to the citizen's request. f. Responses to citizens' complaints about City staff handling of a problem, etc. Council's response should normally be, "I'll check into it and call you back". Avoid "taking sides" until all the facts are known. g. What to do when staff comes to Councilmanbers about a problem or item on the agenda. Request that the staff persons take their concerns through the staff report process (see 9b) . 10. Use of Council worksessions (i.e. committee meetings) . Sunman The ability of City Council to effectively make decisions at public Council meetirgs depends in large part on hod Council conducts its meeting.and how the information necessary to make those decisions is provided to all Council- members. The rieeting procedures and the staff memo system outlined above will play a key role in determining the effectiveness of the Council. If you have questions about the material in this memo or would like to suggest changes please plan to do so on Tuesday. ACTION REQUESTED: Endorse the concept outlined above accepting the Council meeting procedures for 1989 as outlined above, or as amended. HCW '_O AID DISaiSSICN BY ASMr, T= 2'GH`f QLE CNS* To Define Problems: 1. As I understand it, the problem is. .. . does anyone have additional information on the issue? 2. Would anyone care to suggest facts we need to better understand the issues involved? To Broaden Particiration: 1. We've heard from some of you. Would others who have not spoken like to add their ideas? 2. Hoa do the ideas presented so far sound to those of you who have been thanking about them? 3. What other issues related to this problem should we discuss? To Limit Particication: 1. (To a dominating participant) We appreciate your ideas but perhaps we should hear from others. Would some of you who have not spoken care to add your ideas to those already expressed? 2. You have made several goad comrents and I wonder if someone else might like to ask a question or make a statement? 3. Since all of the group has not yet had an cpporbanity to speak, I wonder if you would hold your comments until a little later. To Focus Discussion: 1. Where are we in relation to the decision we need to make? 2. Would you like to have me review my understanding of what's been said and where we are? 3. That's an interesting comment. However, I wonder if it relates exactly to the problem that's before us? 4. As I understand it, this is the problem.. . . Are there additional comments before we come to a decision? To Move The Meeting Along: 1. I wonder if we've spent enough time on this and are ready to rove along to. . . .? 2. Have we gone into this aspect of the problem far enough so that we could shift our attention to.. . .? 3. in view of the remaining agenda items (or time we've set to adjourn) would it be well to go on to the next question before us? To Help The Group Evaluate Where It Is: 1. Do any of you have the feeling we are at an impasse on this issue? 2. Should we look at our original objective for this discussion and see how close we are to it? 3. Now that we are nearing the end of the meeting would anyone like to suggest how we might improve air next meeting? To Help Reach A Decision: 1. Do I sense an agreement on these points.. ..? 2. We seem to be moving toward a decision that would... . (Chairperson describes decision) Should we consider what it will sewn in terms of.. .. if we decide this way? 3. What have we accomplished up to this point? 4. Would someone care to sow¢ up or discussion on this issue? To provide Continuitv: 1. At our last meeting we discussed this issue. Would someone care to review what we covered then? 2. Since we will not complete this discussion at this meeting, what are some of the issues we should take up at the next nneetuW 3. Would someone care to suggest additional information or issues we need to consider before our next meeting? * Adapted from "Working with Groups", Lizette Weiss, Director of Public Affairs, Association of Hay Area Governments, Berkeley, California. DIAGRAM OF PARIZP_M.LMARY MOTIONS IN ORDER OF PRE=a!CE (Except for Incidental Motions, which have no rank amorg themselves) Fix time to Pdjaurn Adjourn PRIVILEGED Take Recess MOTIONS Question of Privilege Call for orders of the Day Appeal Division of Assembly Division of a Question Filling Blanks abjection INCIDENTAL Parliamentary Inquiry M=0NS Point of Information Point of Order Read Papers Suspend the Riles Withdraw a Motion Lay on the Table The Previous Question (Close Debate) Limit or Extend Debate Postpone to a Definite Time SUBSIDIARY Refer to a Committee MOTIONS Arend the Amerbxmt Amerxtrent Postpone Indefinitely MAIN or PRINCIPAL MOTION Miscellaneous motions after acticn has been take on Main or Principal Motion: Take from the Table (undebatable) Rescind (debatable) Reconsider (debatable) Ratify (debatable)