HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1992 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 28, 1992
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 4 : 30 P.M.
2] Res. No. 3535, Adopting A Reorganization Plan for City
Employees
3] Res. No. 3525, Adopting The 1992 Pay Plan for Non-Union
Employees
4] Other Business: Executive Session
5] Adjourn
6] Convene as Committee of the Whole
a] Approve Minutes of December 17, 1991
b] Meeting with Members of Minnesota Valley Restoration
Project (MVRP) Board of Trustees
c] Wetlands Regulation
7] Adjourn at 6: 00 P.M.
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Adoption of Resolution No. 3535, A Resolution of the City
of Shakopee, Reorganizing City Government.
DATE: January 24, 1992
BACKGROUND:
In 1991 the City Council directed that a management analyst be
hired for the purpose of studying the form of City government and
making recommendations to enhance the efficiency of the City's
organization. Among the recommendations made by this consultant
was to combine the operations of some departments into a fewer
number of departments, consider the elimination of certain
positions, and the assigning of duties to others within or outside
the City government organization.
As Council members are quite aware, the City is continuing to face
severe fiscal problems, as a result of the recession which is
currently affecting the State of Minnesota. The local governmental
aid from the state is typically reduced when state revenues fall
short of budgeted amounts, and in that it appears that there will
be another significant shortfall confronting the State of
Minnesota, it is likely that the City could be experiencing further
reductions in local governmental aid.
The City also is experiencing greater demands on its revenues as a
result of needing to comply with the Minnesota Pay Equity Law. In
an attempt to increase local governmental efficiency, enhance the
management capabilities of City government, and to effectuate long
term cost savings, as well as comply with the pay equity law,
certain organizational changes are recommended.
Attached is a chart (Exhibit A) depicting the changes recommended
for the City government organization. These changes will create a
Department of Community Services, which will include the City's
recreation function, the City's building inspection activities, and
the City' s Cable TV activities. It is proposed that this division
be headed by the Assistant City Administrator, Barry Stock.
Another change recommended is the elimination of the Personnel
Coordinator part of the Sr. Accounting Clerk/Personnel Coordinator
position. The functions of the Personnel Coordinator will be
carried out by other existing City personnel, the City's labor
consultant, and others under contract, such as the County of Scott.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached resolution, reorganizing the City
governmental structure in Shakopee.
2. Allow the City governmental structure to remain as it was in
1991.
3. Formulate some other reorganizational structure and act
affirmatively on it.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the organization plan
as recommended by this memo.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to adopt Resolution No. 3535, A Resolution of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Reorganizing City Government and move its
adoption.
-.. Cl)
C 0
(T) eD =s- 0.-. - eD
O 0
E c
~ << A
0.
CV n cil A v
e' < 7o i
C A
eD o
o C/)
A
A CJ 'moiC ..
et C
n
n
0.= tt � = eD CA Ems. 0.
C"
n 0 A -1 ... co)
... n
�
� � °fQ C �' te n `- n
1. 1
'1 0 ., ..,
r
AIL Allik --
C A p-;
-S A ...
I.
y D I.
yA
dQ CM
M. - - )...o F__
X *Zn *Z w
O = "i
CD
UQ
nn i___
eD
n
-S r
_.
'e' ac
... ,..
RESOLUTION NO. 3535
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, REORGANIZING
CITY GOVERNMENT.
WHEREAS, during the summer of 1991 the City hired a
management consultant who made certain recommendations for
increased efficiency in City government; and
WHEREAS, these recommendations included combining several
department and reducing the number of department heads, and
eliminating certain positions and assigning the duties to others
within or outside the City; and
WHEREAS, the City is facing severe fiscal problems due to
lessened revenues, increased costs, and the high cost of
complying with the Pay Equity law; and
WHEREAS, a reorganization of City government as proposed
will result in increased efficiency, better management, long-term
cost savings, and compliance with the Pay Equity law.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
That City government is hereby reorganized as described on
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Passed in session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
, 1992 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Attest: City Clerk
Approved as to form: City Attorney
[24MEMO] ��
oOD ct ^
e.
u 3
N
00 0 ^
N
o�� c c o o E o
a as
a) a, ti... 0
w 4) a) v, 0 oo e o
^ o v o 2
czE .o g
-t, ,..-
to o .a a �A . -.0
-
a to a
o N� 1.. 0 o 3Z a• oOQa 75
E
V o ,...,,v) 0 ti �
E .0 V) a o
s... 1 a v ??
OD 0 P .. a.74
V 8o a [ w .. t).0 o o •5 o Cl O ce
u � o
0
• •
�nr ,� ; �, Q � o
' b �
" �E > 000 .- * 14 �
'
2 •tiv Ecs Qa. b
v, � Nom •
..., v ., i >, "
el
o o o o ate • ao oi o Nc,3 4)
o ca
v''
Lo C14 • . • . • • • • • • . • • . • • • • • • •
U
b �
= .2
el
as
cs
o
.E , o
.P.1 N
61 b A a) N V
y
id G cn E dA V c., 'L7 - N
a) G F. 04
tu U cJ cd � .D .v .+ " 3 E '4.4 cal-. G (1)
isa cn > '� czs
Q cd 3 a c CI 2
til) - (4-4 ca o 42. � cd Q � H o a. •o
o •... 0 E � -= NM 4)
0yma' � 0
� - o .? a.0 `" clo•vd �
No o 'aa3 a0N u o
o Na 5 :o ao > NQ. t. v) E0 .c
o o b
a' p �
Ea .c -o a.3 . oA 4.1 EEv) cd 2 ..Se o
'C cci00
Q • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
a)
T..1o o 0
t V
C •1 ..S
O a o
a U 000 A
g � 04 � CI 'ZIb U
V a a «,
a Z 0.1
8 o 3 � � z
INFORMATIONAL ONLY
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner
RE: Rahr Malting SAC Credits
DATE: January 22, 1992
INTRODUCTION:
City staff received new information from the MWCC staff regarding
the number of SAC credits the City would receive if Rahr Malting
were allowed to construct their own wastewater treatment plant.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 22, 1992 meeting, the City Council reviewed and
approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which added policies to
the Sanitary Sewer Element of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. These
policies would allow private industrial wastewater treatment plants
to be constructed under certain circumstances.
Included in the January 15, 1992 City Council memo was information
on the number of SAC credits the City would receive with Rahr
Malting' s construction of their own wastewater treatment facility.
On page 4 of attachment #4 (the November 27, 1991 MWCC memo) , it
was noted that the SAC credit to the City would be valued at
$3, 000, 000. The January 15 City Council memo reiterated this
information.
DISCUSSION:
On January 22, 1992, staff received a phone call from MWCC staff
informing the City that their current research identified a total
of 1, 514 SAC unit credits are on record with the MWCC for Rahr
Malting. Attachment #1 is a letter from Mr. Don Bluhm, of the MWCC
staff, identifying those credits on record for Rahr Malting.
The 1,514 SAC unit credits translates into a value of $1, 059,800
(1,514 x $700 per SAC) . If the City maintains the annual 230 SAC
unit demand, the City could retain collected SAC revenues for 6 1/2
years, rather than the previously predicted 20 years (1,515 4- 230
= 6.5) .
ACTION REOUESTED:
No action is requested at this time. If the Council wishes to take
action, staff can schedule this item for the February 4 Council
meeting.
JAN-23-92 THU 16:56 'WCC CO FAX NC. 6122292138r, 02
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Park Can:rc. 230 East P:fth Strct, St. Paul, ` ums:sota 55i0!
612222-3423
January 23 , 199Z
Mr. Lindberg 2kcle
City Planner
City of Shakopee
129 E. 1st Ave .
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Ekola:
This letter is a Follow-up to our telephone conversation of January
22 , 1992 regarding Rahr Malting and the availability of SAC credits
if Rahr Malting were allowed to construct its own wastewater
treatment plant.
The Commission has researched the flow information chat was
submitted by Rahr Malting as part of our industrial permitting
process. Based on this information, it has been determined that
1514 SAC credits would be available to the City of Shakopee if and
when Rahr Malting were to divert its flow from the Commission
sanitary sewer system. This determination was made as follows :
Since Rahr Malting was connected to the sewer system as of
January 1, 1973 , it was grandparented into the SAC procram
based on its discharge. • Our records show their discharge
averaged 414 , 300 gpd at that time. One SAC unit is equivalent
to a discharge of 274 gpd.
If you have any further questions, please call .
erely,
Donald S . Bluhm
Municipal Services Manager
DSB: jle
L40 .DSB
cc : Bill Mcore, MWCC
Sandy Selby, MWCC
Bob Pohlman, MWCC
Rebecca Flood, MWCC
is
ecu
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 17, 1991
Mayor Gary Laurent convened the meeting at 9: 02 P.M. with
Councilmembers Joe Zak, Jerry Wampach, Robert Sweeney, Steve Clay,
and Gloria Vierling present. Also present were Dennis R. Kraft,
City Administrator; Barry Stock, Ass't. City Administrator; Judith
S. Cox, City Clerk; Lindberg Ekola, City Planner; Dave Hutton,
Public Works Director; and Karen Marty, City Attorney.
Sweeney/Clay moved to approve the minutes of October 29, 1991 and
November 12 , 1991. Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney/Zak moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
adjourned at 9:03 P.M.
"14)CIA- a?6
J th S. Cox -
Clerk
Recording Secretary
t
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Meeting with Members of Minnesota Valley Restoration
Project (MVRP) Board of Trustees
DATE: January 24, 1992
INTRODUCTION:
Members of the MVRP Board of Trustees (the organization which
operates Murphy's Landing for the City of Shakopee) have requested
a meeting with the City Council to discuss the future of Murphy's
Landing.
BACKGROUND:
Two weeks ago Mayor Laurent and I met with two members of the
MVRP Board, Jake Manahan the Board Chair and Dr. Roland Pistulka.
During this meeting the Board members indicated they would like to
discuss the future operations of Murphy's Landing with the City
Council and that they would like to specifically discuss the
financial aspects of this facility. The Board is in the process of
hiring a new director. Also, the current operator of the Murphy's
Fine Foods Restaurant, Jeff Henderson, will be terminating his
relationship with Murphy's Landing in the very near future.
Attached are monthly/annual comparative attendance statistics
for Murphy's Landing during the past ten years. This information
should facilitate the discussion of the future operation of
Murphy's Landing.
In that this is a Committee of the Whole meeting, no official
action needs to be taken.
DRK/tiv
Tlt onthig/rinnual Comparative rittend
ance
1991 1990
month Total Gate Income month Total Gate Income
Apr/may 8,271 $ 25,911 .50 Apr/may 9,618 $33, 116.00
June 5,695 17,581 .00 June 4,969 16,416.00
July 6,682 25,079.50 July 6,928 26,599.00
Aug. 6,932 23,714.00 Aug. 7 ,775 26,692.00
Sept. 3 ,265 14,287.50 Sept . 2,908 9, 122.00
Oct . 3, 196 11 ,246.50 Oct. 4,451 16,267.00
Ilov/Dec . 7 ,408 21 ,359.50 Ilov/Dec. 7,780 25,488.50
TOTALS 41 ,449 139, 179.50 TOTALS 44,429 $ 153,700.50
TOTAL / YEAR GATE II coo
1982 15, 101 $ 42,620.00
1983 19,203 29,927.00
1984 30,293 71 ,033.00
1985 30,593 77,232.00
1986 36,596 98,820.90
1987 42,276 122,257.90
1988 42,627 128,297.75
1989 45,254 142,750.75
Includes Corporate Picnic Gate and Halloween
(revised 6/31 /91 to include Wedding attendance)
6C.
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director (�
SUBJECT: Wetlands Regulation —
DATE: January 26, 1992
INTRODUCTION:
Staff would like to summarize the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991
for the Committee of the Whole for purposes of discussion and
recommendation to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 consists of two phases.
The first phase is called the Interim Program and became effective
January 1, 1992 and expires on July 1, 1993 . During the Interim
Program, Local Governmental Units (LGU) must decide which LGU will
administer the program. In the Metro area, the LGU' s eligible to
administer this program are cities, townships, Water Management
Organizations (WMO) , counties, and Soil and Water Conservation
Districts. If no LGU assumes responsibility for the program, a
moratorium exists on any development that impacts a wetland by
draining, filling or burning of the wetland. In effect this
moratorium has existed in Shakopee since January 1, 1992 since no
LGU has notified the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) that
they are in charge of the program.
After July 1, 1993 the Permanent Program is in effect and this
program is more restrictive in who can administer it. Only cities,
townships and WHO's can administer the Permanent Program. It would
seem logical that the LGU that assumes the responsibility for the
Permanent Program should probably take the initiative during the
Interim Program as well .
During the Interim Program, BWSR will be developing guidelines and
provide training to the LGU' s for administering the program. After
July 1, 1993 the permanent rules go into effect which all LGU' s
will be required to follow. The rules will be available for public
review and comment prior to adoption.
What does the program consist of?
For all development proposals, the LGU must determine if a wetland
will be effected by the development. If no wetlands are affected,
the LGU must issue a Certificate of Exemption to the developer/land
owner. Certain wetlands are exempt from the act as listed in the
attachments.
If a wetland is being affected, the LGU should first attempt to re-
evaluate the development to see if the wetland can be avoided. If
the wetland can't be avoided, the impacts on it should be
minimized. And finally, if the impacts can't be minimized, the
wetland must be compensated for or replaced. If a wetland must be
replaced, a landowner can replace it at a one to one ratio for
agricultural land but for a non-agricultural land the replacement
is at a two to one ratio (2 acres replaced for every 1 acre of
wetland removed) .
The Interim Program requires that the LGU establish a technical
evaluation panel to make the wetlands determination as well as
providing guidance and recommendations to the developer on
mitigation or replacement. As a minimum, the panel must consist of
a Soil and Water Conservation District member, a Board of Water and
Soil Resources member and an engineer from the LGU.
Who should assume this responsibility?
As far as Shakopee is concerned, the only choices for assuming the
responsibility of wetlands is either the City or the WHO' s.
Currently, there are four watershed groups that are contained
within the corporate boundaries of Shakopee. Two of them are
Watershed Districts and the other two are Watershed Management
Organizations (WHO' s) as follows:
Lower Minnesota Watershed District
Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
Shakopee Basin WMO
Sand Creek WMO
The two WMO' s are in no position to assume the wetlands
responsibility since these organizations are still in their infant
stages and have just recently received State approval on their
Water Management Plans. In addition, the WMO's do not yet have any
full time staff and have not begun issuing any permits or
administering surface water issues.
The watershed districts probably have the capability to administer
this program since they have been established for a much longer
time and have full time staff capable of issuing permits. But the
watershed districts only have jurisdiction in portions of the City
and in the remainder of the City either the City or the WMO's would
have to assume this responsibility.
Based on the above discussion, it appears that the City would be
the most capable LGU to assume these responsibilities for the
entire corporate limits of Shakopee. The BWSR also considers
cities to be the preferred choice for the final Permanent Program
for this Wetlands Act. Because they are looking at the cities to
be administering the Permanent Program, they would of course prefer
to see the cities assume the responsibility for the Interim
Program. To date, 27 cities in the metro area, including the
cities of Savage and Prior Lake, have already assumed this
responsibility.
What would be the impacts and costs to the City for assuming this
program?
On the surface, the amount of staff time and subsequent costs
associated with this program do not appear to be excessive. The
City currently has all the various wetlands identified on maps and
the majority of the ones that are not identified would probably
fall in one of the exempt categories.
Permanent forms and Certificates of Exemptions may need to be
created, although the BWSR is hoping to provide some standardized
formats during their training sessions.
When plats or development proposals are submitted to the City, it
would be a matter of checking to see if any wetlands will be
impacted by the development and making the appropriate
recommendations for avoidance, minimization or replacement of any
wetlands. If a landowner/developer elects not to comply with the
recommended mitigation, the BWSR is the agency charged with the
enforcement and compliance of the regulations not the LGU.
While there will undoubtedly be increased staff time to administer
this program and a technical committee will need to be formed, it
does not appear to be an item that will consume excessive time. It
will be just be one more thing to look at during the development
review process of which staff is already spending a considerable
amount of time reviewing for City, County and State Standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends notifying the Board of Soil and Water Resources
that the City of Shakopee will assume the responsibility for
administering the Interim Wetlands Program. If the City does not
take this action and no other LGU assumes the responsibility, the
moratorium will continue to exist.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discuss the issue and make a formal recommendation to the City
Council.
DH/pmp
LGU
•
CD •a
O CD Q
o
Cr) 3- +r
_ c13
a
� c+� E a)
4E1 120
= oo
o o .� QO
., = Ec
. . 0 o
a) 2 U .4 a�
cm = w
..:4
co 0
•_
c v4-1
M (/)0) 0 0 •-- a)
Q) r .4-,' V ;-::
- so 7-6 4-5m
r0 . -
0as >, ., ,,...- 2 0 D
J
0 N �+ •
rn u) - w 0
ca. 0) i 4-J
0 .0 °
..
i • 0 ati; El.) tn. s Z/5
Nom c
CC 0 2 0 •a a)
a) '-') .1 * i 0
C • • •
U)
0
0 a)
p
4 J T L "0
a
E -3-50) ICCL)(1).
.ri E L
' 73 E
tC� " 0 .) m a) ca
a. a
• • •
0
"Z3 E U _
T-
>"
>' •- >,
..� CD -3, 2 -0
d) 0 csJ a a)
07
17;
IMEma
E ( )
TM R. E ›. a) .� to
L.,,„
--) T co ci)
• • •
U
0 a
C
a)
i 6 � 0
:�
O 6 c Q) e_
. Q-� C N
a)L c
L
D a) O cts o V
ca as 0. Ec
0
J ,V = 22 .L as
E a Bz Q 73 ::‘
x Q)
_.
A cz O O
i C .- .� V
0.. cz = U .—
ct3 0 V) +J (n Q) Q)
• •--
N a) '- u). �
C) (n Q) '- —C-5 CZ C
1."' = *4:: .— C W cz u) cn 8
IN E
a)
� 8 v wi 2 "-r 1' . 3 r -O s.zin
■ "6 cz9 .5 4-Ja -31 2 (1) a
C _ 7-1 = E ° - o a
Asa
(� a a ) 0 4- 0 > u) co .J
Q ••
o,
4 c +ca) (I) 1 E .
0 a) 73 c -a co cma
O -� r �' O • p 0) Q. c
.L > 0) ° r n al 1"" 8 -0 1_, T- >
(� O) cC 0
s.. pC O 'i-j. `� to Q 8 V
4J O '7 a.. Q) C U Ec
cia
a' `�- L VO .� O O c
co . 73 O C� cd L
II . (f) al- — iia 0 a -.5 °-
a) L OL 0 0 0 C V N ct
73 Z3 V a 'L .c 41 a
—a Ea) ' O o r c .�
v — > 4– LL ± No p
CO p O � � c � L
. - -C >C c� Q.
_ — — --
V) cr c� O a) a E to
C -c :s.S 43 2 8
o U) (n U) 46 �, cm S T-- 16 E
;, , Iz3 c3 m0 O
E .4-7: .4-,.: u) 7,- a) > cz
a) a) a) x 0
• • • • • • •
•
•
./411t4
•
PROPOSED INTERIM PROCESS
January 1, 1992 to July 1, 1993 _
Landowner: Any Wetland Activity
Local Government Units (LGU) Contacted
Exempt Activity Not Exempt
Replacement Options
f
Future Replacement Replace Now
Certification of Exemption Issued (2:1 or 1:1) Defer to a consistent
to Landowner for specific site 7/1/93 type for type local scheme
and activity. (Exemption cert is
tiled by LGU if questions arise)
Landowner agrees Landowner does not
to terms & LGU agree to terms
Certifies
. Landowner
Landowner prohibited from
proceeds with Commencing
activity
If Commenced,
Enforcement Action
•
U 0 w li
o M .L N r g
O• x a
` plai •
3 0 \ .. 144,, . ., .. _ ��„
...... smo 'ki 11 ligp, —
•.• r ` li t W • s t
t. U 3 > - , zf' W
Mat- • - 000c
' 't1 �°C / `1 •• :4.1,r t 0
j W ` 7n _. `e war i .
'F
lq....,r= , AI:- • ; ' -. - 11-= Ilk ,41 4' 6 . cc.
i 1 i_ b
• - , - _ 000►
'Ill
' {jAIIIMV
.. • 1 -i
Q Z , '�. •!`'. �. .. M 6 _ 0000
i i /T -- - j� .�- t1 . n 11. E
ail. . � �
0 5 i ,�, ccoz
• �' _4-w n cn 5v — 4 Y _ i : 6.0 .....o00
O "m I <¢ j 1 i
J�{ i "ItJ � .1ri..t1J • _r .r. i:(1v cg
.� `t L ,. ::., ..:
U A-1 y 1® t - LI___,.....
✓ i
\� j
it . . . 2t; 't.••'
i. ' Ilrifit 1
-I I, t i NC/ ; V. ' 't. I 4IV ,,
1 :
Q •� i . - W 1 41 g ooOC
CC
Z 0 .4. ‘LN-1, •=3 iz = I, A.,_. -..
W i3 N
aooc
1
Ir Z
Z I
_wVi
- ,
N — F li i was _Min E :
. _ 1 1 I J. ill . .
Z <
D
Q '
�. O < 1 1 _ a000 I
f.a o = .� ,pj )
4 1
W •0
_ I_ . - _ 1
CC Z q 00 Ace,'
W < eifk I
_..1. - Ps 1 0070
WO G�:- \\\ice/,�,
LU 0
CC 0 = w wl
Cl)LU Vi e .. _ ... `�~
t uo 'e i•' - o- I
Q 1 < e #�., o
) Z /� u s I - - ays,
• ` O O \• - _ 0004i I
N o
U. C. I
.. _ w ._